Mechanization hurts COIN forces

[Cavguy]

As indicated by my handle, I'm not impartial in this discussion.

I think most of the good points have been well said already, but will clarify some points:

1) 3ACR did not stable its horses. It did dismount a lot and patrol, but rarely out of sight from its vehicles for a number of security and C-IED reasons. It used them smarter. But absolutely the focus was population-centric. (source: 2 weeks in RIP/TOA with 3ACR with a company commander observing ops) It is partially true that the Dragoon concept largely won the Indian wars in the west from a tactical standpoint.

2) There are two issues here - the platform and the leader.

a) The ideal platform for COIN depends on the situation. Ramadi in mid-06 was ideal for tank/bradley ops due to its heavily kinetic nature, and you needed that armor and firepower to survive. Tal Afar in the same period was M1114/Stryker terrain where you wanted to avoid annoying the locals with a heavy footprint. In general, I'll agree that lighter vehicles able to protect a fair number of dismounts is ideal - as long as you have a few big guns to back you up.

Case study: April 2004 in Sadr City. A 1st CAV BN did not bring its tanks/bradleys because of the assumptions above - light was better. On April 4th a HMMWV patrol was attacked in central Sadr city, and cut off in a "Black Hawk Down" scenario. The 1st CAV unit was unable to get to the patrol due to a lack of Armor. In fact, a QRF launched in trucks suffered severe casualties. 2-37 AR (my BN) had to launch a tank company attack through Sadr city to rescue the patrol. The M1A1 was the only platform able to run the RPG gauntlet. They loaded the infantry on the backs of the tanks and shot their way out. I bet the Rangers/Delta in Mogadishu wished they had the same support inherent rather than begging from the Pakis and Bangledishis.

I'm certainly not saying Armor is the best platform for COIN, but you have to have it to get your nuts out of the fire.

Decision: Slight win for lighter forces. Every platform has its place and use though, the key is HOW you use it.

b) Leader mindset is a separate and highly subjective discussion in a "branchist" tone. Each branch has mentally agile and adaptive leaders.

That said, I can't resist plugging for Armor officers. A salient point was made by an SF LTC to me at the Carr Center conference. He pointed out that the majority of successes and best conventional COIN commanders from Iraq seemed to be Armor guys. He was asking me (an Armor guy in a COIN schoolhouse assignment) why that was. My best answer (I'm really not sure) was that most of the people he was citing (Chiarelli, MacMaster, Hickey, MacFarland, Mansoor, May, White, Tien) had Cavalry backgrounds. Cav is to Armor what Airborne is to Infantry (no flames from the airborne guys, thanks). Cav trains a decentralized, high initiative mindset that encourages innovative solutions with little higher guidance. Armor is more controlling and top down. That's my best explanation.

That said, I would say that all the branches have an equal number of leaders who get it and those who don't, and I've certainly seen more than one bonehead in Armor. I think generalizations about which branch and which profile (light/heavy) has a better mindset is nothing but speculation. You can make the argument that Tom has that the light guy is unencumbered by a maintenance tail and vehicle to attach himself to, but the Armor/Cav guy can argue that the light guy thinks in terms of short range objectives, and not an adaptable and rapid maneuverist approach. That's why the Army (until recently) sought to rotate infantry officers between light and mech and armor officers between armor and cav.... to balance the perspective.

Decision: Draw, based on individual leader personalities.

Now that I've stirred the pot ....