Quote Originally Posted by Fisherking
Traditional wisdom is that an armored unit is severely vulnerable without infantry support in a built up area. This does not mean that tanks are of no use in city combat. Quite the contrary actually. In WWII the limited availability of tanks in Aachen lead to the employment of SP artillery in the role of direct support weapons, much less able than tanks.
I agree, Iraq War II has shown that modern heavy armour is very useful in cities, at least against a 3rd rate army (like Somali militia). But I recall it being said that the armour is so heavy, it takes much longer to deploy - it has to be shipped, not flown in. I don't know if the time factor was significant in Somalia.

An Armored Cavalry or Armor-Infantry team was exactly what was needed to secure the country, not just the city. It was strictly a civilian Political decision which kept it from being deployed in the first instance.
Maybe it was a political decision rather than a logistics matter. But I fear experience in Iraq and Afghanistan suggests that thinking "a team" can secure a large untamed country is a little optimistic. Secure the cities and major towns, maybe.

That being said, it seems like the Ethiopians/Provisional Somali government are getting close to securing the Somali cities now even without M1 Abrams. Part of the problem with the US intervention in Somalia is that - unlike the Ethiopians today - they did not seem to have any significant local proxies they could work with. Nationalism is such that an outsider like Ethiopia (or US) intervening to back a local faction is one thing; but an outsider vs all local factions is a recipe for disaster, heavy armour or no.