From: fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: <None>
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:25:29 GMT


From fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu

In article <Bz20nI.8t7@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, grant@psych.toronto.edu (Stuart Grant) writes:
> 
> From grant@psych.toronto.edu (Stuart Grant)
> 
> This thread has quickly revealed that currently, helicopters cannot
> entirely replace tanks.
> 
> Here is a more refined question. What sort of situation must a nation
> be in, to responsibly forgoe main battle tanks, and depend on other
> systems?
> 
> 
a guess for you:
 
Predominant terrain that restricts armor movement.  Very mountainous areas,
or jungle/forest that prohibit armored vehicles from operating off road,
swamps (including river deltas, etc.).  If a country is mainly composed of such
terrain, MBTs may be a waste of money.

Consider defending Alaska with armor.  The north slope and western coast are
tundra, where any MBT not specially designed for operations here would bog down
in seconds.  During the winter, the (relatively) smooth plains would be
exellent armor country as the tundra freezes up, but this limits your armor to
seasonal useage, and there are few places to hide from aerial reconnaissance in
any event.  Armor in summer storage would be vulnerable to attack and
restricted to a local road network, and in winter vulnerable to air attack
(especially with thermal vision gear- you do NOT turn off engines in winter).
 
Between the Brooks Range to the north, and the Alaska range to the south is a
massive taiga plain, cut with numerous streams, sloughs, and rivers.  The
foliage is dense, and the road network is limited.  Perhaps 15% of the area
cound be considered suitable for limited armor operations, mainly around urban
areas such as Fairbanks, or along the Alaska highway.  Armor operating off of
the road network would find very difficult going, and impossible conditions for
the vast majority of the area.  Consider the difficulties the Russian armor
force had in northern Finland in 1939 against lightly armed infantry on skis.
 
The south-central coastal area, between the Alaska Range and the North Pacific,
the ground is firm enough, and the foliage is open enough for limited armor
operations.  However, the mountains would restrict redeployment to other areas. 
Armor deployed to protect the Anchorage area for example, would have a
difficult time redeploying to Kenai, and an enemy could conceivably prevent
redeployment to Wasilla/Palmer (only 30 miles away) by closing the highway. 
Deployment in any other coastal areas would be similarly limited, as the
communications between areas relies on either sea movement or else narrow
mountain passes that can easily be closed.  This terrain type includes Kodiak
Island.
 
The Aleutians combine small islands with tundra and soft grass plains- that
would never freeze in any case.  Armor would only be used for an assault of an
island, and may not work well in any case (see the U.S./Canadian assault of
Attu in 1943- the Shermans made it to the beach, but not much farther, and any
progress was very difficult.)

Southeast Alaska is also mainly insular, and also heavily mountainous.  Armor
would be more restricted movement wise than in southeast, and useful only for
tactical use in urban/semi-urban use.  An enemy could easily prevent
redeployment from one neighborhood of Juneau to another, much less to another
city.

So the case for an independent Alaska buying and maintaining more than just a
few MBTs is very shaky.  Rather, it would be more cost effective to use an
airmobile infantry force with limited APCs for those areas that can use them
Any MBTs maintained would be limited to the area they were based in for
combat operations, and reinforcements would be difficult at best.  For defense
against an armored opponent, attack helicopters would have the advantage in
most situations with precision guided AT weapons handling the rest (some
infantry supplied with TOWs could hold the Parks highway between Anchorage and
Fairbanks against armor indefinately.)

The fact that Alaska is currently defended by the 6th Infantry Division (Light)
speaks for itself- an airmobile, helicopter heavy force with few armored
vehicles.  The only thing i would add would be an emphasis on amphibious
capability for south central and south eastern areas of the state (Alaska does
maintain a state `Naval Militia', but no doubt purchasing and maintaining
suitable amphibious shipping would be too costly.  As it is, the Naval Militia
is composed mainly of individuals serving concurrently in the Guard or
reserves, and is a military organization only in name.)  The federal government
would probably use Marines in such areas if needed.

James Zuelow
FSJFZ@acad3.alaska.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military