Heavy armour for Afghanistan?

[Grim901]

I was just wondering whether deploying Challenger 2's and AS90's to Afghanistan would be a good idea for the British? I know that at one or 2 nations have Leopard 2's deployed, are they effective and would differences between Helmand and the rest of Afghanistan make MBT's unsuitable there.

I can't see any reason why not to deploy AS90's either, they'd be a useful asset.

So to sum up, are there any reason outside of Mr Brown not wanting to commit more resources to Afghanistan that Challenger's and AS90's aren't in theatre? Are any other nations planning on deploying heavy armour and if not, why not?

[Firn]

I was just wondering whether deploying Challenger 2's and AS90's to Afghanistan would be a good idea for the British? I know that at one or 2 nations have Leopard 2's deployed, are they effective and would differences between Helmand and the rest of Afghanistan make MBT's unsuitable there.

I can't see any reason why not to deploy AS90's either, they'd be a useful asset.

So to sum up, are there any reason outside of Mr Brown not wanting to commit more resources to Afghanistan that Challenger's and AS90's aren't in theatre? Are any other nations planning on deploying heavy armour and if not, why not?

According to the first-hand users the Leo I and Leopard II have proven to be excellent assets in the field on many occasion. The PzH 2000 seems to have done also very well, as the 155mm howitzer M777. The IFV Marder had recently his first baptism of fire. So there seem to be some strong arguments for sending heavy armour and artillery into Afghanistan. Of course the CH2 and the AS90 come with some baggage,both logistical and political wise.

[riksavage]

According to the first-hand users the Leo I and Leopard II have proven to be excellent assets in the field on many occasion. The PzH 2000 seems to have done also very well, as the 155mm howitzer M777. The IFV Marder had recently his first baptism of fire. So there seem to be some strong arguments for sending heavy armour and artillery into Afghanistan. Of course the CH2 and the AS90 come with some baggage,both logistical and political wise.

The UK battle group is supported by Leopards crewed by Danes. Challenger crews will be allocated to crewing the MRAP's, leaving the infantry free to focus on dismounted action. 105mm LG & MLRS provides support to the UK FOB's. Cav will continue to crew CVRT until the replacement FRES recce arrives - now a priority. No need for Chally II or AS90. The Helmand Green zone is not suitable for heavy armour, other than providing ad-hoc direct fire support.

[Waylander]

I was just wondering whether deploying Challenger 2's and AS90's to Afghanistan would be a good idea for the British? I know that at one or 2 nations have Leopard 2's deployed, are they effective and would differences between Helmand and the rest of Afghanistan make MBT's unsuitable there.

I can't see any reason why not to deploy AS90's either, they'd be a useful asset.

So to sum up, are there any reason outside of Mr Brown not wanting to commit more resources to Afghanistan that Challenger's and AS90's aren't in theatre? Are any other nations planning on deploying heavy armour and if not, why not?

Denmark operates a platoon of Leopard 2A5DK and I wouldn't wonder if they are going to bring in some CV9035DK to replace some of the M113s as soon as they are in full service.
Canada operates an overstrength company of Leopard 2A6MCAN and IIRC they also retain some Leopard 1C2 in country because they like the mineplugs they have for them.
The dutch operate a battery of three PzH2000.
The British already have MLRS in country.
Norway operated CV9030NO when they formed the QRF in the north (Also using them in combat) and Germany operates four Marder also in the north (Which btw are engaged in combat for the first time as the ANA and northern ISAF forces conduct an offensive mission to drive the Taliban out of the Kunduz region).
IIRC Sweden also plans to bring in some of their CV9040.

The northern regions severely limit the use of heavy and big vehicles compared to the south.
But in the south heavy AFVs are defenitely usable. The Danish and Canadian forces operate in the same region and often together with the british forces. And the Leopards more than often proved their worth.
IMHO it is a question of philosophy and doctrine.
The Americans also never deployed MBTs to Afghanistan which also makes me wonder as the Abrams proved it's worth as a support platform in Iraq.
The Canadians and Danes (And everybody who got supported by them) are full of praise for the MBTs and also experienced that tracked vehicles more than often can go where wheeled vehicles like the LAVs can't.
There is just not much the guerillas can do against MBTs apart from some really big IEDs. They lack other sufficient AT-capabilities and often enough the tanks give the battle group the ability to spot and touch the Taliban at big distances, with a high accuracy and with a quick reaction time.
No other system can give you this.

Artillery on the other hand is different.
The Canadians, Brits and Americans operate towed artillery batteries in the south and I assume that the Dutch brought in their PzH2000 as they don't have anything else. The Dutch SPHs don't operate much different than the towed guns in the region as they also fire from fixed positions most of the time.
But they also used the mobility of the PzH2000 to support some operations further away which would be more difficult to do with towed guns.

I fully understand why they don't bring in SPHs like the AS90 but I do not understand why there are no heavy tracked AFVs in use with either the Brits or Americans.

[Grim901]

Do we not even have Warriors deployed?

Thanks for the answers though guys, very informative.

It also raises questions about FRES-U.

Why are they designing a wheeled vehicle with little in the way of IED protection when clearly the opposite is needed. At the very least they should split the buy into a wheeled and tracked variant. I don't see wh ywe are planning on buying any AFV's that don't have some MRAP style protection. It can't be that hard to integrate it into an AFV type vehicle. FRES seems like the perfect oppurtunity for that and it's being wasted.

Any reasoning behind the FRES-U decisions, apart from that no one has bothered to rethink it since the Cold War?

[Lopex]

The warrior is in Afghanistan. Is has proved very useful.


Do we not even have Warriors deployed?

Thanks for the answers though guys, very informative.

It also raises questions about FRES-U.

Why are they designing a wheeled vehicle with little in the way of IED protection when clearly the opposite is needed. At the very least they should split the buy into a wheeled and tracked variant. I don't see wh ywe are planning on buying any AFV's that don't have some MRAP style protection. It can't be that hard to integrate it into an AFV type vehicle. FRES seems like the perfect oppurtunity for that and it's being wasted.

Any reasoning behind the FRES-U decisions, apart from that no one has bothered to rethink it since the Cold War?

[Waylander]

A shame on me, I totally forgot the Warriors.
IIRC it also took some time till the British MoD was willing to send them in.

They also emphasize the point that heavy AFVs are able to operate with success in southern Afghanistan.

[Grim901]

A shame on me, I totally forgot the Warriors.
IIRC it also took some time till the British MoD was willing to send them in.

They also emphasize the point that heavy AFVs are able to operate with success in southern Afghanistan.

I was about to melt down when I thought we didn't even have Warriors there. It's good we have at least one decent tracked AFV in theatre, I can't get the picture of a Canadian LAV completely stuck in the mud with some annoyed looking soldiers stood around it out of my head.

[kato]

A shame on me, I totally forgot the Warriors.

And the overstrength Marder platoon in Mazar-i-Sharif?

First combat mission for that platoon last sunday, btw.

[Waylander]

...Norway operated CV9030NO when they formed the QRF in the north (Also using them in combat) and Germany operates four Marder also in the north (Which btw are engaged in combat for the first time as the ANA and northern ISAF forces conduct an offensive mission to drive the Taliban out of the Kunduz region). ...


Ahem... ;)

[kato]

Ah, hidden somewhere in the middle. Sorry.

[battlensign]

......at least you guys have heavy IFVs to send............ :(

Brett.

P.S don't mind me - I am still drooling over BAESs brochures of the CV90 and dreaming of what could be.....:rolleyes:

[riksavage]

......at least you guys have heavy IFVs to send............ :(

Brett.

P.S don't mind me - I am still drooling over BAESs brochures of the CV90 and dreaming of what could be.....:rolleyes:

If the UK decides to go with CV90 fitted with the new Warrior CTA 40mm turret for FRES-Recce - decision due in early 2010, would not the Aussies consider this as a suitable tracked vehicle to support their Abrams? I understand a CTA 40mm turret has also been fitted to Bradley and has, or is undergoing trials as a possible upgrade solution. The combination of CTA and the CV90 chassis would make for a great vehicle with one hell of a kick.

[Grim901]

If the UK decides to go with CV90 fitted with the new Warrior CTA 40mm turret for FRES-Recce - decision due in early 2010, would not the Aussies consider this as a suitable tracked vehicle to support their Abrams? I understand a CTA 40mm turret has also been fitted to Bradley and has, or is undergoing trials as a possible upgrade solution. The combination of CTA and the CV90 chassis would make for a great vehicle with one hell of a kick.

Weren't the 2 FRES-Recce options announced recently, I don't remember reading about CV90 then. Is it still in the running?

[eckherl]

If the UK decides to go with CV90 fitted with the new Warrior CTA 40mm turret for FRES-Recce - decision due in early 2010, would not the Aussies consider this as a suitable tracked vehicle to support their Abrams? I understand a CTA 40mm turret has also been fitted to Bradley and has, or is undergoing trials as a possible upgrade solution. The combination of CTA and the CV90 chassis would make for a great vehicle with one hell of a kick.

Yes, you are correct in regards to the Bradley.

[linux07ster]

Armor too heavy, vehicles too slow for hilly terrain

DELARAM, Afghanistan -- On a sunset patrol in late December, U.S. Marines spotted a Taliban unit trying to steal Afghan police vehicles at a checkpoint.

In a flash, the Marines turned to pursue, driving off the main road and toward the gunfire coming from the mountain a half-mile away.

But their 6-ton vehicles were no match for the Taliban pickups.

The mine-resistant vehicles and heavily-armored Humvees bucked and swerved as drivers tried to maneuver them across fields that the Taliban vehicles raced across.

The Marines, weighted down with 60 pounds of body armor each, struggled to climb up Saradaka Mountain. Once at the top, it was clear to everyone that the Taliban would get away.

Second Lt. Phil Gilreath, 23, of Kingwood, La., called off the mission.
"It would be a ghost chase, and we would run the risk of the vehicles breaking down again," Gilreath said.

The Marines spent the next hour trying to find their way back to the paved road.
Troops learn Iraq tactics are not for Afghanistan - Military Photos (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=149871)

[Waylander]

And how is that article supporting the idea of heavy tracked IFVs not being suitable for such terrain?
One is for sure not able to outrun a modern MBT in heavy terrain with a pick up.

Apart from the fact that every vehicle with a decent armament would have been able to blow the Pick-ups to pieces.
Unimportant if it is some kind of Piranha chassis or a heavy tracked AFV.
Any stabilized 20mm+ gun would be sufficient.

But one has to remember that the article reads like the Marines were on a light patrol.
This for sure is not an ideal role for a heavy AFV.
It is more like the article emphasises the need to get reasonably armored vehicles into service which don't suffer from the fact that their chassis is not meant to carry so much add-on armor.

[Grim901]

Armor too heavy, vehicles too slow for hilly terrain

DELARAM, Afghanistan -- On a sunset patrol in late December, U.S. Marines spotted a Taliban unit trying to steal Afghan police vehicles at a checkpoint.

In a flash, the Marines turned to pursue, driving off the main road and toward the gunfire coming from the mountain a half-mile away.

But their 6-ton vehicles were no match for the Taliban pickups.

The mine-resistant vehicles and heavily-armored Humvees bucked and swerved as drivers tried to maneuver them across fields that the Taliban vehicles raced across.

The Marines, weighted down with 60 pounds of body armor each, struggled to climb up Saradaka Mountain. Once at the top, it was clear to everyone that the Taliban would get away.

Second Lt. Phil Gilreath, 23, of Kingwood, La., called off the mission.
"It would be a ghost chase, and we would run the risk of the vehicles breaking down again," Gilreath said.

The Marines spent the next hour trying to find their way back to the paved road.
Troops learn Iraq tactics are not for Afghanistan - Military Photos (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=149871)

Up armoured Humvees and MRAP's aren't what we are talking about here. We are talking about proper AFV's.

A tracked unit would easily have dealt with those pick ups. Plenty of wheeled vehicles could have too. Perhaps the British thinking in purchasing Vikings/Broncos and Jackals aren't an entirely stupid idea after all. They'd both have kept up and poured fire onto the enemy.

And Waylander is quite right, heavy armour (MBT's or IFV's) would have covered that terrain more easily than just about any other vehicle.

[riksavage]

Weren't the 2 FRES-Recce options announced recently, I don't remember reading about CV90 then. Is it still in the running?

BAE are offering CV90, the other contender is ASCOD. Lessons from Afghanistan have confirmed the need for tracked, not wheeled recce vehicles. My understanding is the Recce and Warrior upgrade is now a priority with 2bn being allocated out of the original 16bn FRES budget (total 3000 vehicles). The credit crunch now means any wheeled FRES utility vehicles other than MRAP's will be confined to the waste paper bin.

[Waylander]

I wonder which ASCOD version GD sends to the evaluation.
The Ulan has the better armor and the engine to support the additional weight but we talk about a scout vehicle and so a lighter weight might be preferred (aka the Pizarro layout).

The newest versions of the CV90 Mk.III, while offering a good protection, weight up to 35 tons making them considerably heavier than both ASCOD versions which are in service.

Interesting competition indeed.

To get the thread a little bit back on topic.
The most loved vehicle in the north is the Fennek due to it having the ability to spot and classify enemy units much better than anything else.
Sad to say it also makes it a primary target for the guerillas.

When using a scout like this in a scenario like Afghanistan you face a dilemma. A vehicle like the Fennek is much more vulnerable than a heavy scout vehicle but because of that it also has the ability to join on long range patrols which is a mission that cannot be fullfilled by heavy tracked scouts.

[Grim901]

BAE are offering CV90, the other contender is ASCOD. Lessons from Afghanistan have confirmed the need for tracked, not wheeled recce vehicles. My understanding is the Recce and Warrior upgrade is now a priority with 2bn being allocated out of the original 16bn FRES budget (total 3000 vehicles). The credit crunch now means any wheeled FRES utility vehicles other than MRAP's will be confined to the waste paper bin.

That's good news. The utility variant at least needs to be split between wheeled and tracked variants and have the protection levels rethought.

I wonder which ASCOD version GD sends to the evaluation.
The Ulan has the better armor and the engine to support the additional weight but we talk about a scout vehicle and so a lighter weight might be preferred (aka the Pizarro layout).

The newest versions of the CV90 Mk.III, while offering a good protection, weight up to 35 tons making them considerably heavier than both ASCOD versions which are in service.

Interesting competition indeed.

To get the thread a little bit back on topic.
The most loved vehicle in the north is the Fennek due to it having the ability to spot and classify enemy units much better than anything else.
Sad to say it also makes it a primary target for the guerillas.

When using a scout like this in a scenario like Afghanistan you face a dilemma. A vehicle like the Fennek is much more vulnerable than a heavy scout vehicle but because of that it also has the ability to join on long range patrols which is a mission that cannot be fullfilled by heavy tracked scouts.

35 tons?? Hell no. That is absurd. And are they offering the CV90 without the troop carrying capacity, i'd always thought of it as an IFV.

[Waylander]

The weight is for the latest Mk.III version (for example in use with the dutch and danes) not for the early ones. But one shoudl assume that they offer their most modern version.

And yes it is an IFV. Just like the ASCOD. That doesn't contradict the intended use as a scout.
The US use the M3 Bradley as their scout.
And there is nothing wrong with it. They have a small 3 men squad in the back for dismounted scout duties.

Such a heavy Scout has some advantages. It is able to screen the own forces from enemy scouts which is not possible with a light scout and is able to carry the mentioned dismount squad which comes handy in some situations.

I am just thinking if a wheeled IFV, maybe on the Piranha or Boxer chassis, wouldn't mix the best of both worlds and be a better scout vehicle than somethin on a heavy tracked AFV chassis.

[StevoJH]

Ouch, CV90 is like 4 times the weight of Scimitar. Arent the scouts in the UK Recon units mounted in CVR(T) APC's that move with the Scimitar's?

[riksavage]

Ouch, CV90 is like 4 times the weight of Scimitar. Arent the scouts in the UK Recon units mounted in CVR(T) APC's that move with the Scimitar's?

I don’t think weight is a critical factor; the recce role after all was traditionally to screen heavy armour and lookout for the apposing enemy forces. The vehicle in question needed to be quick, agile and have the firepower to take-on enemy recce units doing the same, the old scimitar was ideal and it could be air-dropped, its light weight resulted in it having less ground pressure than a man, so it wouldn't set off AT mines. Today the role has expanded, recce units now operate independently in support of infantry in the light tank role, they need to be able to resist RPG/IED strikes and be capable of sustaining not just the basic crew, but additional FAC/TAC/EOD personnel. By selecting an APC chassis over a light tank you add flexibility. As long as it’s C17 liftable I don’t see a problem.

[Waylander]

I don’t think weight is a critical factor; the recce role after all was traditionally to screen heavy armour and lookout for the apposing enemy forces. The vehicle in question needed to be quick, agile and have the firepower to take-on enemy recce units doing the same, the old scimitar was ideal and it could be air-dropped, its light weight resulted in it having less ground pressure than a man, so it wouldn't set off AT mines. Today the role has expanded, recce units now operate independently in support of infantry in the light tank role, they need to be able to resist RPG/IED strikes and be capable of sustaining not just the basic crew, but additional FAC/TAC/EOD personnel. By selecting an APC chassis over a light tank you add flexibility. As long as it’s C17 liftable I don’t see a problem.

Interestingly in some countries the recon units haven't reached the weight which they had during cold war.

In the Bundeswehr the armored recon units consisted of the Luchs (8 wheeled, amphibious, 20mm gun) and Leopard II tanks giving them the ability to effectively screen ones own units and to perform recon by fire missions.
These days the light Fennek, while being much more capable in spotting the enemy, cannot perform these tasks anymore and armored and mechanized infantry units have to dispatch some of their own vehicles for the task.

The US Army went a similar way. Their Armored Cavalry Squadrons where very heavy and could take on a serious enemy forces without immediate need for support by the fighting echelons.
Up till OIF in 2003 they slowly changed the recce mission and started using light vehicles and even Humvees. This proved to be a rather bad idea as these recon teams where to vulnerable and they began to use heavier units again.
But one has to remember that in a big theater like Afghanistan the lighter forces also performed well with their ability to go on long range recon patrols and because of their smaller logistical footprint.

Because of that I would propose to use a wheeled IFV as a recon vehicle.
For example a Piranha or Boxer chassis.
Give it a decent 25-30mm gun and retain the ability to swim. Modifiy it to run smoother and quieter just like other modern recon vehicles (Some of the are extremely quiet). One can also replace up to three of the passenger seats with a modern retractable sensor mast as well as additional ammunition, spares and supplies.
If one really wants to one can also put a Spike launcher or something similar onto it but I don't think that is essential and should be optional with just some kits available. The same goes for an additional add-on armor kit which could be applied when the vehicles are used in a support role.

With such a vehicle one would IMHO have a recon unit which could perform anything from traditional recon missions to screening missions, long range patrols, fire support for light units and peacekeeping patrols.
And the logistical footprint is still smaller than that of a heavy tracked IFV.

[Grim901]

I can't agree on a wheeled vehicle. All our operational experience is telling us to stick with tracked. All you have to do is google "stuck LAV" and you'll see the problems the Canadiains have been having.

I don't know what it's like in Northern Afghanistan, but Helmand has shown that tracked vehicles are incredibly useful.

The MOD may still be trying for a wheeled AFV, but they haven't totally lost it and are getting a tracked recce vehicle. It would go against all British experience to do it differently. And no ffence to the Germans, but Britain has had much more experience with recce vehicles over the last 25 years. (Kosovo, Falklands, Sierra Leone, Iraq, Afghanistan etc.)

@rik: 1 vehicle per C17 is not exactly great. especially not whenthese things are supposed to support the mobile light forces and air brigade etc. I know we need a heavier vehicle now, but 35 tons is excessive. It is basically half that of an MBT. I don't think they could really justify going above 20 tons. With the airlift situation in Britain it'd make it incredibly hard to rapidly deploy them. I'd aim for 15 tons to get 2 onto a C17/A400M.

[Waylander]

I never said that one should try to go for only wheeled vehicles in Afghanistan. I think my prior posts made that clear.

But I just don't think that one should buy a heavy tracked recce vehicle just because wheeled vehicles have problems in one current operation.
The recce vehicle first of all has to be a good recce vehicle in a general sense and not a suitable fire support platform for one special conflict.
You propose to go the heavy way with all it's advantages and disadvantages because of Afghanistan. That is a very narrow way of looking at a possible future recce vehicle.
First why do you want to use a recce vehicle as the primary fire support and maneuver unit in Afghanistan? The UK has enough Warriors and Challis available to fullfill this role if it wants without needing to push a recce vehicle into a very narrow role which is not part of the original idea of a recce vehicle and which can easily covered by other vehicles, notably the combat vehicles. That's what they are for and using a recce vehicle instead is just pure waste.
And with the warrior in theater a recce vehicle based on a modern IFV would only bring minor improvements to the force mix in Afghanistan. In the end you use an IFV add capabilities to another IFV.

Many of the advantages a heavy tracked IFV has for supporting troops in Afghanistan are disadvantages when it comes to being a good recce vehicle. That is range, sound, logistical footprint, sensor layout, weight, no ability to swim, too much unnecessary room (The squad compartment) etc.

And your idea of going for a 15 ton vehicle should make you a natural supporter of a wheeled recce vehicle.
A tracked vehicle with 15 tons is roughly the same size like a BMP-1 or M113A3.
And I wouldn't want to go onto a recce or fire support mission in one of those. They include the worst of both worlds. Much too light for an effective modern tracked vehicle.
Getting a good recce vehicle which can also fullfill some other roles when needed in the 15-20 ton range is much easier than to get a tracked vehicle in the same weight class.

And my ideas have nothing to do with what the Bundeswehr uses. It is the other way around. I think that with the Fennek as our only recce vehicle for the next years we are too lightly equipped in our armored recce units. Some mission are just not doable with such a light vehicle.

[Grim901]

I never said that one should try to go for only wheeled vehicles in Afghanistan. I think my prior posts made that clear.

But I just don't think that one should buy a heavy tracked recce vehicle just because wheeled vehicles have problems in one current operation.
The recce vehicle first of all has to be a good recce vehicle in a general sense and not a suitable fire support platform for one special conflict.
You propose to go the heavy way with all it's advantages and disadvantages because of Afghanistan. That is a very narrow way of looking at a possible future recce vehicle.
First why do you want to use a recce vehicle as the primary fire support and maneuver unit in Afghanistan? The UK has enough Warriors and Challis available to fullfill this role if it wants without needing to push a recce vehicle into a very narrow role which is not part of the original idea of a recce vehicle and which can easily covered by other vehicles, notably the combat vehicles. That's what they are for and using a recce vehicle instead is just pure waste.
And with the warrior in theater a recce vehicle based on a modern IFV would only bring minor improvements to the force mix in Afghanistan. In the end you use an IFV add capabilities to another IFV.

Many of the advantages a heavy tracked IFV has for supporting troops in Afghanistan are disadvantages when it comes to being a good recce vehicle. That is range, sound, logistical footprint, sensor layout, weight, no ability to swim, too much unnecessary room (The squad compartment) etc.

And your idea of going for a 15 ton vehicle should make you a natural supporter of a wheeled recce vehicle.
A tracked vehicle with 15 tons is roughly the same size like a BMP-1 or M113A3.
And I wouldn't want to go onto a recce or fire support mission in one of those. They include the worst of both worlds. Much too light for an effective modern tracked vehicle.
Getting a good recce vehicle which can also fullfill some other roles when needed in the 15-20 ton range is much easier than to get a tracked vehicle in the same weight class.

And my ideas have nothing to do with what the Bundeswehr uses. It is the other way around. I think that with the Fennek as our only recce vehicle for the next years we are too lightly equipped in our armored recce units. Some mission are just not doable with such a light vehicle.

First off, a recce vehicle is much easier to get deployed than a Challenger, but as my first post in the thread would show, i'm a supported of putting them into Afghanistan if it'll help. I mean all that mainly in the political sense, as well as logistics problems.

Next, as my prior posts should make clear, I'm not advocating a heavy IFV, I still can't see benefits of using CV90 as a base with all that weight and a troop compartment to replace an 8 ton light tank and replicate the exact capability given by Warrior. When I set 15 tons as a goal it was because it would give designers almost twice the weight to play with to make the new light tank much more survivable, MRAP's manage extreme survivability at less weight than that.

My original thinking for tracked is not only based on Afghanistan, to me a tracked vehicle is much more versatile in just about any theatre. The negatives of a tracked vehicle usually relate to cost (of logistics etc) where as a wheeled vehicle has situations it simply can't do. I'd rather have a costly vehicle that will fight where I need it, than a cheap wheeled one that performs poorly in some situations.

I don't believe that outside of UOR's, that Britain should be buying items solely for Afghanistan, as you seem to think i'm advocating. Lots of cheap helo's are great for Afghanistan, but put them in a warzone with an enemy with S2A capabilities and you'll regret going cheap pretty quickly. I believe versatility is vital for our armed forces, anyone who believes that all we need is COIN gear for the next 25-30 years is beyond stupid/psychic. Having said that, we shouldn't be buying army vehicles that aren't well suited to Afghanistan either, with indications that Britain could be in theatre there for up to 15 years it would be crazy to buy vehicles that would have to sit in Britain until a war came along more suited to their abilities.

Basically, I don't believe there is an off the shelf vehicle that suits out needs yet, very few current vehicles were good enough for the conflicts we've found ourself in recently, hence the MRAP rush of the last 2-3 years. I think that Britain needs to take some lessons from the MRAP designers then go and build a recce vehicle/light tank accordingly. And when they do they need to take into account where we are now and where else we may need to fight. Writing t now, it seems obvious to say, but no one seems to be doing it, instead advocating vehicles that are unsuitable, such as wheeled LAV's that can be shredded or stuck in mud, or CV90's that are unnecessarily unwieldy and still may not hold up against the IED/mine threat.

[Waylander]

The problem with tracked vehicles is not just the higher logistical footprint and operating costs but the fact that doing long range patrols as well as convoy defense is not really possible with it.
The next problem is the acoustical footprint.
IMO a recce vehicle shouldn't anounce it's presence by the sheer sound of it's tracks. It is much easier to make wheeled vehicles whistle than tracked ones.

One cannot take an MRAP as an example for which kind of protection could be possible in a light recce vehicle.
These vehicle while having a good protection against mines as well as a reasonable protection against other weapons which might get employed by guerillas they are not what I would call extremely agile or good in rough terrain.
These vehicles also don't include anything bigger than a RWS with a 12.7mm. No turret with a decent gun as well as no optronics which are needed for a recce vehicle.
And a Ridgback already weights round about 15 tons with a Mastiff weighting even more.

I gave you the examples. A tracked vehicle with a weight of 15 tons is roughly a M113A3 or a BMP-1. And we all know about their ability to take damage and survive mines/IEDs.
A Piranha IV in an IFV configuration weights 25 tons. And you think a recce vehicle with 15-20 tons is going to be tougher?
You are saying a LAV vehicle gets shredded easily. Anything lighter isn't going to meet your criterais either.

And I am not arguing because of the costs. A modern recce vehicle on a Piranha IV chassis is not going to be cheap either.

And you always come back to the argument of fighting. While I also want to see recce vehicles having a basic armament with more power than a small RWS I don't know why you insist on making the recce vehicle a premium frontline vehicle. That's what real frontline vehicles are for.

You also mention versatility.
But versatility won't be given with a 15-20 ton recce vehicle on tracks just as it won't be given with a heavy tracked IFV version.
You are not going to get everything you want from a tracked scout into a vehicle of 15-20 tons.

[Grim901]

I was just using MRAP's as an example. The mine/IED protection levels probably won't need to be as high as that, but there are relatively easy design features to incorporate in a new build vehicle that will enhance protection without adding too much weight. I'm thinking of V-shaped hulls specifically here.

I agree that getting the required protection etc. might be impossible at the weight I set, it could well be necessary to go higher than that, but a goal does need to be there, but perhaps one that is ok to break to meet other goals. The problem with saying that we won't be able to do this for that much weight is that no one has tried to do much of this for quite a long time. The BMP-1 and M113 are very old vehicles I think you'd agree? The vehicles (light tanks) that are intended to be replaced are very old. It might be that advances in armour technology (of which Britain is at the forefront) could make it more feasible than we think. It may not.

It certainly wouldn't be a cheap option, but I think that a new build vehicle could be a much better idea here those currently suggested. Or at least see what companies can come up with as prototypes trying to meet strict weight and protection parameters. I'm certain we'd get a lot closer to the vehicle we need than the current offers.

Finally, I think that the vehicle will end up with the new Warrior turret/gun so it's going to pack a punch either way. It just seems silly to be putting it on an IFV to effectively make another warrior with a new hull. But to be honest, i'd rather see that than a wheeled vehicle.

They may be quieter, but it still comes back to mobility for me. Who needs a nice quiet wheeled vehicle when it can only approach the enemy on nice flat, solid ground. (overstatement but you get the idea). A tracked vehicle certainly can do long range patrols and convoy protection, why would you say they can't? The current British vehicles have quite long unrefueled range.

I'm actually trying to work out now what it is you're advocating Waylander, could you clarify. You argue against tracked vehicles, but you also argue against the light weight. Then you say that it won't need to pack much of a punch and be silent. Right now I have to picture a LAV, covered in as much armour as can be bolted on, with a 50 cal. on top.

[Firn]

Some interesting arguments in this topic

First I wanted to say that there is of course no ideal recce vehicle - the conditions set by the mission, the terrain, the weather the timetable, the enemy might favour temporarily one platform as part of the system over antother.

Said that for a medium force a recce vehicle on the base of the main wheeled carrier might make a lot of sense, especially in circumstances like in Afghanistan. It offers the ability of a highly protected payload both in men and equipment in a relative maneuverable package with potentially high enough combat power to support small operations.

But once again the specific platform must fit into the systems that the armed forces need to suit their specific needs.

[Waylander]

First of all I want to say that I don't want to sound rude or look like I am talking down on you. After rereading my last posts I think that it may look like that but this is uninented and me not being a native speaker is responsible for that.

I was just using MRAP's as an example. The mine/IED protection levels probably won't need to be as high as that, but there are relatively easy design features to incorporate in a new build vehicle that will enhance protection without adding too much weight. I'm thinking of V-shaped hulls specifically here.


A good mine protection is possible to integrate into a wheeled medium weight vehicle. Actually wheeled vehicles have the advantage of being able to limb on when they run over a mine/IED even when they lose some of their wheels whereas a thrown track immobilizes a tracked vehicle completely.

I agree that getting the required protection etc. might be impossible at the weight I set, it could well be necessary to go higher than that, but a goal does need to be there, but perhaps one that is ok to break to meet other goals. The problem with saying that we won't be able to do this for that much weight is that no one has tried to do much of this for quite a long time. The BMP-1 and M113 are very old vehicles I think you'd agree? The vehicles (light tanks) that are intended to be replaced are very old. It might be that advances in armour technology (of which Britain is at the forefront) could make it more feasible than we think. It may not.

Sure one improved protection on older vehicles, designed new versions or put completely new vehicles into service.
And the history of tracked vehicles shows that they don't get lighter even with modern technologies.
The BMP-3, while offering a considerable better protection than the BMP-1, now weights round about 20 tons. And it is still one of the worst all around protected vehicles out there with no special mine resistance or even the ability to withstand a .50cal on the sides.
The CV90 grew heavier with every new version or mine protection kit and is now at the mentioned weight you criticize.
A Puma is going to offer what you seem to want. A heavy all around protection, good mine/IED protection, good mobility and a decent weapons loadout.
And all that on just 43 tons.

It certainly wouldn't be a cheap option, but I think that a new build vehicle could be a much better idea here those currently suggested. Or at least see what companies can come up with as prototypes trying to meet strict weight and protection parameters. I'm certain we'd get a lot closer to the vehicle we need than the current offers.

Finally, I think that the vehicle will end up with the new Warrior turret/gun so it's going to pack a punch either way. It just seems silly to be putting it on an IFV to effectively make another warrior with a new hull. But to be honest, i'd rather see that than a wheeled vehicle.

They may be quieter, but it still comes back to mobility for me. Who needs a nice quiet wheeled vehicle when it can only approach the enemy on nice flat, solid ground. (overstatement but you get the idea). A tracked vehicle certainly can do long range patrols and convoy protection, why would you say they can't? The current British vehicles have quite long unrefueled range.

With long range patrols I don't mean the typical lonely scouting mission against conventional enemy forces but the kind of long range missions the ISAF forces in A-stan perform. These are made up of relatively light wheeled vehicles where a tracked vehicle is not a good companion due to it being not able to do the same road marches like the rest of the group.
The same applies to convoy protection where the usual speed is even higher.
Tracked vehicles just wear down faster during such marches. And even while some tracked vehicles are able to go at relatively high speed everything above 50km/h is close to being panefull to the crew and will reduce their combat effectiveness very fast. And even these 50km/h roadmarches are no fun in a tracked vehicle.
You also cannot go over the argument of noise so easily. As we are talking about a recce vehicles who's main mission it still is to sneak into range of the enemy and spy on them I think it is very much needed.
From own experience I can say that one hears even a small tracked vehicle (Like a Wiesel or Bv206) at a considerable distance as a dismount. But one can get utterly surprised by a whistling wheeled vehicle.

I'm actually trying to work out now what it is you're advocating Waylander, could you clarify. You argue against tracked vehicles, but you also argue against the light weight. Then you say that it won't need to pack much of a punch and be silent. Right now I have to picture a LAV, covered in as much armour as can be bolted on, with a 50 cal. on top.

I never actually said that it doesn't need some punch and I think I gave decent examples of what I am advocating for.
And that is defenitely not an old LAV with a .50 cal on board.
I am talking about a modern wheeled IFV chassis (Like Piranha IV/V, Boxer or VBCI). The Piranha and the VBCI weight round about 23-26 tons with a turret on them (25-30mm gun).
A Boxer without a turret even weights 33 tons but offers considerable better protection.
One can reduce some of the capacity to carry dismounts to implement a retractable mast with modern optronics. Use the available mine protection kits (In the case of the Boxer it is already included, the others would become heavier than the basic versions) and maybe include an active defense system in the future (Like AMAP-ADS).

As you can see we have a vehicle here which nearly has everything you want. It is well armored all around (In case of the Boxer even more than some proper tracked IFVs), packs enough punch, is able to carry a small scout squad, has a good mobility, can be made to whistle and has the necessary tracking devices.
Even when wheeled you see that such a vehicle will weight 25 tons upwards. Make it tracked and it is going to be even heavier.
And it is far away from just being an old LAV with some add-on armor and a .50cal.

You set the goal of getting a vehicle in the 15-20 ton range and I just wanted to show that you don't get a decent protected vehicle with this weight, especially not when you want to have a tracked one.

The vehicles I mention are all very new and show what is possible these days. A totally new design is not going to offer more capabilities

And costs are crucial. As with all armed forces in europe the UK has to look for a solution as cheap as possible or otherwise we may not see any new vehicle entering service.

And sure in the end it comes down to you not wanting a wheeled vehicle.
What I want to argue for is that one shouldn't forget that it is going to be a recce vehicle.
You should ask yourself in which situations does a scout vehicle really needs tracks and when are wheels more handy. Naturally such a vehicle needs to get employed properly.

[Firn]

I think that this was a very good post, Waylander.

The LAV 25 proved to be a very good platform in Afghanistan, due to a number of reasons. The excellent gun, relative small footprint and the large number of dismounts were some of them. However the Leo II was considered to be superior in the overwatch, and part of the reason was the far better optronic suite, especially the indipendent periscope for the commander proved once again it's worth.

The Fennek is a specialized recce vehicle with excellent sensors but seems to a bit too light for some of the task in Afghanistan. The relative low IED protection resulting from understandable design choices (low ground clearance, flat bottom) conflicting with it seems to be a main issue. And for that weight class you can go only so far even with the best design.

All in all the points seem to validate the idea that a sensible recce vehicle can be based on the platform of an wheeled APC/IFV (LAV, Boxer). Indeed it already (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coyote_Reconnaissance_Vehicle) has proven it's worth. That doesn't mean that a lighter scout vehicle based on a vehicle like the Bushmaster doesn't make sense. And it doesn't mean that a heavy tracked vehicle is a bad recce vehicle - as Waylander pointed out the Leo II was expected to partly assume that role. But for the current situation and for a lot of others a LAV or Boxer recce version seems to be a sensible solution.

[Grim901]

Excellent posts Waylander and Firn. First off, I'll say i'm generally not a fan of the LAV and i've read of quite a few incidents in Afghanistan where the Canadians have been having issues that a tracked vehicle wouldn't have. That forms the basis for my thinking on wheeled/tracked vehicles. In several recent conflicts where Britain has deployed Scimitars it has often done it in a way that a wheeled vehicle couldn't. Finally the LAV basically won FRES-U, but then the company messed the MoD around by bidding and ignoring a crucial part of the contract with no intention of adhering to it, so I think they should be discounted from FRES until they start actually working with the customer. But let's move on.

As for tracked vehicles being unable to perform patrol and escort duties, I must disagree. I read several accounts of convoy operations in Iraq where Scimitars were present and kept up well with Land Rovers etc. Also tak into account that what you'd call a road does not exist in most of Afghanistan, especially in Helmand. Roads are in terrible conditions that have severly limted speed and movement for wheeled vehicles. Heavy vehicles are also limited by the useless bridges.

Sorry haven't finished, will do so later.

[dpgu800]

As far as mountain warfare goes, I guess tanks wouldn't do much good except for establishing safe passage for the units actually being deployed into the mountains. But, not in the mountains, when your raiding a village or securing highways and etc., I'm sure they prove to be effective in some way, as long as the operational space is occupied by human presence. For example, if the forces are surrounding a village and attempt to trap and destroy the enemies inside of the village, even if they could get indirect fire support from artillery and mortar, tank's direct support can be much more useful and effective.

And, as far as IFVs go, I think they must be more useful in and adaptive to the combat situations in Afghanistan, than the tanks. IFVs are not only excellent means of combat transportation but also useful presence in place where the tanks cannot operate or where they prove to be ineffective. I'm not sure about hauling the tanks inside of the villages being raided, but I think operating alongside with IFVs in urban situation might be more viable, since they act almost like a moving machine gun fortification and such.

[Waylander]

Excellent posts Waylander and Firn. First off, I'll say i'm generally not a fan of the LAV and i've read of quite a few incidents in Afghanistan where the Canadians have been having issues that a tracked vehicle wouldn't have. That forms the basis for my thinking on wheeled/tracked vehicles. In several recent conflicts where Britain has deployed Scimitars it has often done it in a way that a wheeled vehicle couldn't. Finally the LAV basically won FRES-U, but then the company messed the MoD around by bidding and ignoring a crucial part of the contract with no intention of adhering to it, so I think they should be discounted from FRES until they start actually working with the customer. But let's move on.

As for tracked vehicles being unable to perform patrol and escort duties, I must disagree. I read several accounts of convoy operations in Iraq where Scimitars were present and kept up well with Land Rovers etc. Also tak into account that what you'd call a road does not exist in most of Afghanistan, especially in Helmand. Roads are in terrible conditions that have severly limted speed and movement for wheeled vehicles. Heavy vehicles are also limited by the useless bridges.

Sorry haven't finished, will do so later.

For sure wheeled vehicles have had some problems in A-stan. But, and I am repeating myself, the Canadians experienced these problems when they employed the LAVs in a direct support role. That's not how, most of the time, a recce vehicle should be employed. For this role one has IFVs or light AFVs for support of light troops.
I am the first who says that whoever wants to effectively support the forces in souther A-stan should employ limited numbers of tracked MBTs and IFVs in a support role.
Bt not the recce vehicles.

And a Scimitar with it's 8 tons is not usable as an example. A much heavier vehicle (and that's what you get when you want the needed equipment + good protection) is not going to come even close to the usability on long range patrols compared to a Scimitar.
There is a reason why nobody os using many tracked vehicles for this kind of role unimportant if they are in theater or not.

I think you still miss the point that we are talking about a general recce vehicle which should be excellent at performing scout missions in most circumstances. It should also be able to perform some secondary tasks (we mentioned them before and I don't think direct fire support of combat troops should be high on that list).
You can't use the Canadian experience with their LAVs as an example.
The LAV is their primary and only IFV. They only have these vehicles. For sure they are afacing problems when the only thing they can employ is such a wheeled vehicle. But this only has a limited connection to how a good recce vehicle should look like.
The same applies for you saying that wheeled vehicles faced problems in current conflicts.

I think you are thinking of what kind of vehicle should generally support the British troops in the current conflicts and what could be an ideal general platform for many future FRES vehicles.

[Grim901]

For sure wheeled vehicles have had some problems in A-stan. But, and I am repeating myself, the Canadians experienced these problems when they employed the LAVs in a direct support role. That's not how, most of the time, a recce vehicle should be employed. For this role one has IFVs or light AFVs for support of light troops.
I am the first who says that whoever wants to effectively support the forces in souther A-stan should employ limited numbers of tracked MBTs and IFVs in a support role.
Bt not the recce vehicles.

And a Scimitar with it's 8 tons is not usable as an example. A much heavier vehicle (and that's what you get when you want the needed equipment + good protection) is not going to come even close to the usability on long range patrols compared to a Scimitar.
There is a reason why nobody os using many tracked vehicles for this kind of role unimportant if they are in theater or not.

I think you still miss the point that we are talking about a general recce vehicle which should be excellent at performing scout missions in most circumstances. It should also be able to perform some secondary tasks (we mentioned them before and I don't think direct fire support of combat troops should be high on that list).
You can't use the Canadian experience with their LAVs as an example.
The LAV is their primary and only IFV. They only have these vehicles. For sure they are afacing problems when the only thing they can employ is such a wheeled vehicle. But this only has a limited connection to how a good recce vehicle should look like.
The same applies for you saying that wheeled vehicles faced problems in current conflicts.

I think you are thinking of what kind of vehicle should generally support the British troops in the current conflicts and what could be an ideal general platform for many future FREMM vehicles.

FREMM? The Franco-Italian Frigates? You mean FRES?

Anyway, I don't know why but I looked at the problem differently today and i'll concede the point.

[Waylander]

Ah, brainfart, sorry.

That's the problem with acronyms... :D

[Grim901]

Ah, brainfart, sorry.

That's the problem with acronyms... :D

No problem, we all do it.

Apparently the Panther was supposed to form part of the new Reconnaissance element in a similar role to the Fennek. I suppose since the recce element has been split into a v.light and heavy subcategory the extra weight on a CV90 won't be as much of an issue anymore.

[Abraham Gubler]

Gross Vehicle Weight is one of the most abused traits of combat vehicles. The requirements for different types of vehicles is to do with the different ways one can conduct reconnaissance.

Light vehicles (Landrovers, Hummers, Fenneks, Panthers etc) are good for more surveillance orientated reconnaissance where the recce element takes advantage of terrain to set up a static overwatch position and maintain eyes on an AO. The light vehicle is good for this because of its low profile and high mobility to exploit terrain while staying hidden. They are also good enough for the mission and since they are much cheaper than a heavier, armed vehicle save a lot of money and logistics overhead.

Armoured cars, IFV type ‘cavalry fighting vehicles’ are good for a more aggressive style of reconnaissance where the recce element pushes into the areas occupied by the enemy and ‘fights for information’. By probing enemy positions you can expose their location by drawing fire and getting close enough to find them. This requires a good gun and some armour and a lot of mobility. Such a vehicle is also good for other traditional cavalry roles like flank screening, counter-reconnaissance and raiding.

The changing nature of technology is really making the manned surveillance role obsolete. FCS Brigades will replace these units with UAVs, UGVs and UGSes. Rather than risk a Hummer with four soldiers to set up an observation point (OP) the unmanned systems can do it. On the flip side the current operational environment of counter insurgency in western and central Asia requires good use of lightweight surveillance vehicles for patrolling the ‘human’ terrain (ie talking to people) that unmanned systems can’t do (to qualify a UGV can talk to someone if fitted with a microphone and speaker unit but isn’t going to do very well at establishing contacts with an Afghani villiager...).

[Palnatoke]

As I understand it, the danish army is very pleased with the performance of their LEOIIs in Afghanistan.

The principal use as far as I can gather from the often scetchy info we get, the tanks are used to provide accurate surport fire as well as recon to the infantery.

A typical scenario would be that the tanks deploy outside the green zone, on "high ground" flanking the presumed battlefield in a position from which they can overview the part of the green zone that the infantery operates in. They then do recon, artillery surport or attacks the enemy independently.

For the danish army the MBTs deliver highly mobile heavy gun surport that, of some stroke of divine forsight, the army doesn't have other suitable weapon systems for.

[Waylander]

The Danes are also the first ones who use PELE ammunition in a combat environment.
Looks like they are satisfied with the capabilities of this very interesting round.

The only thing I miss with the Leopard IIA5DK is the mine protection package.
Sadly they already encountered an IED which overmatched the original bottom armor of the Danish MBTs.

BTW, the French are sending some CAESAR artillery systems to Afghanistan.
After the Tiger helicopters this additionally bolsters their support capabilities in theater.

[citizen578]

Monday, August 03, 2009

Rows over equipment and troop concerns in Afghanistan continued over the weekend, raising more questions about the MoD's war strategy.

It has emerged that a request by the head of the Army for the deployment of Challenger Two tanks in Afghanistan was rejected on the grounds of unsuitable terrain.

General Sir Richard Dannatt, chief of the general staff, asked the MoD for the deployment of one of Britain's best weapons on the ground. After a review of the request, it is alleged that MoD officials rejected the plea on the grounds that the terrain in Afghanistan was unsuitable for the tanks according to the Independent on Sunday.

It is not clear how Sir Richard envisaged using the tanks in operations. Much of the fighting has occurred on Afghanistan's rugged terrain or in built up areas. Situations like the flat wide open desert British tank commanders found in Iraq would be a rarity in Afghanistan.

It appears that Sir Richard wanted another weapon/vehicle at the disposal of commanders should they need it for a specific operation.


From
Afghan equipment row continues - Defence Management (http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=10296)

[OPSSG]

...It is not clear how Sir Richard envisaged using the tanks in operations. Much of the fighting has occurred on Afghanistan's rugged terrain or in built up areas. Situations like the flat wide open desert British tank commanders found in Iraq would be a rarity in Afghanistan...

Tanks are great for direct fire support to infantry troops (as opposed to indirect fire support from artillery). The more honest issue would be that of the amount of British logistics support in theater and that tanks need to be supported by recovery vehicles and such.

IMO, there is nothing unclear about the utility of tanks in Afghanistan. The Danes and Canadians (http://www.3-4cav.asn.au/tanks-for-the-lesson-leopards-too-for-canada.pdf) are able to use tanks in Afghanistan (and there is quite a large amount of information released (http://www.casr.ca/ft-leopard-2a5-denmark-2.htm) on how they are employed). No reason why the British cannot employ tanks in a similar manner (in the appropriate area of operations), if they so desired. If a British general asks for it, I can bet you he can effectively employ them.

[Palnatoke]

Waylander:

Yeah, one tank driver was killed in a LEOII after running on a mine some while ago.
I think that the incidents in which the lEOs or other heavier vehicles has taken fatilities or have been badly damaged are mostly due to elaborate ambushes, or traps, layed out. If I am not much mistaking, the above incident happened after the tanks+mech inf had comed to the rescue of an APC which had ran on a mine and then was ambushed. In the battle, besides the hapless tank, an additional armoured vehicle (can't remember whether it was an APC or MBT) also ran on a mine/IED.
There are other incidents where units have ran on multiple mines/IEDs.

Assuming that the drivers don't actively search for IED/mines to run on, the concentration of mines/IEDs have probably been quite high in those situations, indicating that the enemy has had good time and luck to prepare the attack/ambush. In such a situation one can always argue that more protection would have saved *this* soldier, but you are fighting a loosing battle of protection vs. kilo of explosives - since the IED/mine layers don't have a weight limit...

[Waylander]

For sure there will always be a mine/IED big enouhg to crush even the best protected vehicle.

I am also not saying that the Danish driver would defenitely be alive if they would use the M package but I assume that his chances would have been much higher.

The Canadians encountered some nasty IEDs and the mine protection of their Leopard IIA6MCAN prooved their worth.
The mine protection package for the Leoapard II has been designed with nearly exactly the kind of mission in mind the Danish and Canadian Leos are facing in Afghanistan.
IMO the Danes put alot of money and effort into bringin their Leos up to the A5DK standard and even more money and effort into adding some stuff for the Afghanistan deployment.
Adding a mine protection kit which literally screams for being used on a deployment in Afghanistan is out of question for me.

I agree that one cannot protect against everything but the original mine/IED protection of the Leoapard is not exceptional, as with nearly every other modern MBT, and the M package helps alot.
And while it is possible to build bigger IEDs, these IEDs are not as easy to plant as smaller ones and force the Taliban to use much more resources for a successfull strike against a Leopard II.

[stoker]

I appreciate that the Wiesel 1's do not offer any great protection against RPV's and IED's.
But their speed and manoeverability is definately a plus in any fight with insurgents in light weight pick-ups.
The Wiesel's Rh202 20mm cannon would certainly get their attention very quickly, and the speed of the Wiesel over any ground a pick-up can manage to drive over would certainly be an advantage.
Has the Wiesel been used in Afghanistan, and if so how did it fare in comparision to Stryker size IVF's.

Waba

[riksavage]

I appreciate that the Wiesel 1's do not offer any great protection against RPV's and IED's.
But their speed and manoeverability is definately a plus in any fight with insurgents in light weight pick-ups.
The Wiesel's Rh202 20mm cannon would certainly get their attention very quickly, and the speed of the Wiesel over any ground a pick-up can manage to drive over would certainly be an advantage.
Has the Wiesel been used in Afghanistan, and if so how did it fare in comparision to Stryker size IVF's.

Waba

I would be very surprised if the Weasel is allowed into Afghanistan by the German high-command - it offers zero protection against the current range of threats and does not have the power to weight ratio to accept additional armoured protection (might get away with bar armour, but that's about it). I would be very nervous if told to serve in such a vehicle unless stationed way out in open country away from any routes commonly taken by patrolling NATO forces. I think it even has less armour than an upgraded CVRT?

[kato]

There was iirc a full heavy weapons company (8 Wiesel BMK / 8 Wiesel TOW) in Afghanistan from 2002 to 2008.
There are 16 Wiesel TOW in the Bundeswehr modified as recon vehicles for Afghanistan (added MG3 pintle-mount, night vision, new generators). The Wiesel BMK, following a suicide attack on a Bw bus in 2003, were used primarily as escort vehicles. From 2004 on, half of those 16 Wiesels were moved to RC(N), before that only RC(C).

Apparently, the Wiesels sent to Afghanistan suffered from the terrain there - they had to be routinely switched out, and then zero-set at Rheinmetall factories. Primary problem was the many kilometers they drove as escort vehicles - the running gear and tracks are optimized for driving off a helo and then 10 km or so into combat, then back to the helo.
In the North, there were problems with the rugged area*, and also security considerations due to the miniscule armour (which is rated to stop small arms). The Wiesel due to that also did not fit the QRF duties, and hence wasn't included into that (even though it was under consideration).

In the recon and escort roles, the Wiesel has been replaced by the better-armoured Fennek.

*- Rugged area in RC(N) means rocks and hard surfaces. The Wiesel was built for the soft ground commonly found in Europe.

[Waylander]

Before they withdraw the Wiesel they also used them as OPFOR and show unit for the ANA tank bn the Bundeswehr trained.
Looks interesting when a couple of small Wiesel performs tank like amneuvers and formations in order to show how it should be done... :D

[riksavage]

The Wiesel looks like an APC which has shrunk in the wash! It must be bloody uncomfortable being stuck inside for extended periods. Does the basic armour package stop 7.62mm short AP or 14.5mm rounds?

On a separate note the attached link refers to the sad demise of yet another soldier - RIP. My question however relates to the photo, which shows a couple of parked CVRT's fitted with raised frames at the rear of the vehicle, the same units are also fitted to Panthers now arriving in theatre, does anyone know if this is part of the bowman comms package, or does it form part of the ECM kit?

LargeImageTemplate (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Templates/LargeImageTemplate.aspx?img=/NR/rdonlyres/1BB87E90-B0D0-46A6-AC5B-F8D7E44ABC5C/0/Lombardi.jpg&alt=Craftsman) Anthony Lombardi

[Firn]

I agree that one cannot protect against everything but the original mine/IED protection of the Leoapard is not exceptional, as with nearly every other modern MBT, and the M package helps alot.

And while it is possible to build bigger IEDs, these IEDs are not as easy to plant as smaller ones and force the Taliban to use much more resources for a successfull strike against a Leopard II.

I think that describes it well. Once again a MBT like the Leopard II can bear a quite large M package. The efforts of the last 15 years have pushed technology a great deal in this area. And the an MBT has intrinsic qualities which protect the crew against secundary and tertiary effects caused by the explosives. So all in all it makes a great deal of sense to fit every precious MBT in the field with extensive M packages to protect the crew and the vehicle.

[Falstaff]

A friend of mine once told me (he was a "Wiesel-man") that the hull can withstand a thrown pencil- unless it's sharpened :D (it's 7,62 NATO max)

Seriously, I was always wondering what the Wiesels were doing there in the first place, as they weren't exactly used for the kind of stuff they were designed to do.
I think the Wiesel has its right to exist as an air-transportable lightly armoured weapons carrier, but in Afghanistan? I don't know (well actually I do- no way). No protection against IEDs, mines, RPGs...

[Firn]

A friend of mine once told me (he was a "Wiesel-man") that the hull can withstand a thrown pencil- unless it's sharpened :D (it's 7,62 NATO max)

Seriously, I was always wondering what the Wiesels were doing there in the first place, as they weren't exactly used for the kind of stuff they were designed to do.
I think the Wiesel has its right to exist as an air-transportable lightly armoured weapons carrier, but in Afghanistan? I don't know (well actually I do- no way). No protection against IEDs, mines, RPGs...

It reminds me truly a bit of the Vector affair. Once again it is a wonderful little light AFV which is perfectly suited for some task in alpine or difficult environment but is very very vulnerable under the current circumstances.

[Waylander]

The Wiesel TOWs where first used in theater because of their thermal imager which provided some good tracking capabilities to the troops. IIRC the Wiesel MK (20mm) where later added because they just had nothing else which could be brought in fast, had at least a 20mm on it and wouldn't raise any voices about and increased level of violence in theater (keeping the homefront calm...).

In the end I don't get why they didn't brought in the Luchs. At this time there where still plenty of them available and while armor and IED/mine protection is not that great it at least offers good mobility for convoy protection, can perform recon missions and carries a 20mm.
They used them in Kosovo so why not in Afghanistan (Ok, we brought alot more heavy equipment into Kosovo than we are using in Afghanistan).

I would also have thought that the 20mm Wiesel would fit into the mission of our QRF. Not when they perform road marches to their target area but for fast airmobile insertions with the CH-53s. A 20mm might come in handy in these situations as the heaviest things they have now are AGLs, GPMGs and the Bunkerfaust (That's when they leave behind the Marders for a fast vertical insertion).

[Falstaff]

I would also have thought that the 20mm Wiesel would fit into the mission of our QRF. Not when they perform road marches to their target area but for fast airmobile insertions with the CH-53s

Are we performing any fast airmobile insertions with the CH-53s?

[Waylander]

If it is not a well planned and prepared operation (Like the one which is currently in progress) at least parts of the QRF are to be airlifted to the hotspot.

The problem as always is available lift capabilities. The CH-53s are operating at their limits.
But there is no alternative to vertical insertions in certain situations and the QRF reflects this.
The terrain just doesn't allows for a fast roadmarch to the hotspot if the majority of the QRF is in the wrong place.

And even then one has a hard time to operate the Marders in any other area than the one they are currently stationed in.
So even with a longer road march to the target the QRF only has AGLs, GPMGs and 120mm mortars available.
Lifting in 2 Wiesel MK with one sortie for me looks like a good and easy solution if the QRF needs some more direct fire punch.
The 20mm of the Marder seems to have worked well (Within it's natural limitations) against enemy positions.

[Falstaff]

If it is not a well planned and prepared operation (Like the one which is currently in progress) at least parts of the QRF are to be airlifted to the hotspot.

The problem as always is available lift capabilities. The CH-53s are operating at their limits.
But there is no alternative to vertical insertions in certain situations and the QRF reflects this.
The terrain just doesn't allows for a fast roadmarch to the hotspot if the majority of the QRF is in the wrong place.

And even then one has a hard time to operate the Marders in any other area than the one they are currently stationed in.
So even with a longer road march to the target the QRF only has AGLs, GPMGs and 120mm mortars available.
Lifting in 2 Wiesel MK with one sortie for me looks like a good and easy solution if the QRF needs some more direct fire punch.
The 20mm of the Marder seems to have worked well (Within it's natural limitations) against enemy positions.

Please excuse my hypocritical question from the last post- but that's what I wanted to point out. If the Wiesels were used to do what they were designed to do they would possibly be a valuable asset for the QRF, although they possibly would need some upgrading.

[Waylander]

For sure that's what I want to use them for, too.
If the QRF is performing an operation around Kunduz I also wouldn't take Wiesels but the Marders right away.

I am not sure how much room there is for an upgrade.
The Wiesel 1A2 already has good optics and a TI and the battlefield management system is also going to be integrated into the upgraded Wiesels.

I doubt that the drivetrain and engine can cope with any additional armor.
If they operate the Weasel like it is intended to get operated I also don't see a problem with the limited armor.
The small silouhette allows it to stay in cover and give fire support over considerable distances with a good hitting capability at day and night.

[Falstaff]

I am not sure how much room there is for an upgrade.
The Wiesel 1A2 already has good optics and a TI and the battlefield management system is also going to be integrated into the upgraded Wiesels.

I doubt that the drivetrain and engine can cope with any additional armor.
If they operate the Weasel like it is intended to get operated I also don't see a problem with the limited armor.


Isn't there a certain probability that a unit flown in to provide support could face RPG and or heavy machine gun fire?
From a general engineering POV I'd say that the drivetrain and engine would be fairly easily and cheaply upgradable as they are derived from mass productio items anyway. A new engine and drivetrain along with some minor modificatios should total few 1000€s for each vehicle. Add air conditioning and there you are.
As far as the torsion bars are concerned, that's always a quite easy task.
I think the problem would be that in case you applied additional armor the CH-53G(S) would probably not be able to carry 2 at a time due to increased weight.


The small silouhette allows it to stay in cover and give fire support over considerable distances with a good hitting capability at day and night.

Without being nearly familiar enough with the Afghan theater of operations I still see the advantages that the Wiesel/CH-53G(S) combination would provide to the QRF if used correctly.
A highly mobile, well armed and fairly armoured vehicle with enhanced situational awareness that can be flown in on short notice would probably pose a serious problem for them talibs.
But that would mean we would have to provide more airlift capability and require some flexible thinking from you-know-who.
I guess that's as probable as the use of Bw-Tigers, PHz's and Leo's. Remember, this is not a war :rolleyes:

[Firn]

So the Wiesel could be the true "QRF" for a large area if the lifting capability would be there. In the end this was mostly it's intended role, if I'm not mistaken. Roll in, fly, land, roll out - in Afghanistan with some element of surprise.

P.S: The Ceasar 155mm howitzers should be an excellent addition.

[Palnatoke]

WayL, Firn

I am not saying that it wouldn' t be better if the LEOIIA5 had a better mine protection package, but they don't. And in that case I think there are better ways to defeat the threath than making the best defended vehicles in the force even better protected and for that matter other areas that are more valnuable to the threath than A5s that still got a decent protection, eventhough it is not the best.

As I gather, the mine threath concerning the LEOs are not the standard roadside bombing scenario, the mine threath exists in combat situations in which the enemy have made an effort to produce a real mine field.

f.ex. In critical situations involving wounded, it appears that LEOs have taken point and f.ex. leads the armoured ambulance through - hoping that it's the LEO that detonates the mine and not the softer ambulance.
That is probably not part of the standard manual for tank warefare, and apparently goes a long way explaining why the tanks have a high frequvency of mine incidents. So the addition of dedicated armoured "mine ploughs" would probably do a lot to help that situation.

Of the nearly 30 KIA and many wounded, the far greater part is due to IEDs/Mines. One has been killed in a LEO, most cassulties resulting from soldiers simply stepping on mines or in softer vehicles. To me it doesn't seem that, while mines are the general chief danger, that MBTs plus mines are a big problem, compared to the other mine problems.

I quess that the biggest problem with the few danish tanks are the 18 large containers at camp bastion needed just for the spare parts... The good part is 120 mm of destruction and what appears to be "panzerschreck" amoung the talliban.

[Palnatoke]

This is perhaps of limited interest for people who don't speak danish, though the images are somewhat self explaining;

The video, which is from the danish defense's own media service, shows an assult on a village in the opening phaze of operation "Panther's claws" (I think it's called - the latest big operation).

The story line:
First LEOIIs conduct artillery preparation of enemy positions. then armoured mine ploughs and mine sweepers clears paths for the infantery, The village is assulted and taken (Talliban had mostly left) and british forces passes through the "beach head" to continue the attack and operation.

Vent et øjeblik... (http://www.forsvarskanalen.dk/fmc.aspx?bhcp=1)

Then navigate to the video clip:: 06/07/2009: "Slaget om Spin Masjed"

[Firn]

I just googled to get some information about HESH in Afghanistan and found some excellent material. To paraphrase Clausewitz, it helps too keep the flowers of theory close to experience, their porper soil.



Canadian Armor in Afghanistan (http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_10/iss_4/CAJ_vol10.4_03_e.pdf)

Originally Posted by Canadian Armor

Since May 2007, the tank squadron has fought almost constantly alongside Canadian and Afghan infantry in close combat with the Taliban. Supported by the artillery, combat engineers, attack aviation and fast air, mechanized combat teams from the 2 RCR BG have achieved decisive victories against insurgents in the Howz-e- Madad, Nalgham and Sangsar areas of Zhari District, where vineyards and imposing compounds render wheeled vehicle movement particularly difficult. Leopard tank crews have used extensively the 105 mm High Explosive Squash Head (HESH) round to eliminate insurgents attempting to attack dismounted soldiers. More importantly, tank rollers and ploughs have continued to mitigate risk to coalition soldiers by clearing routes of pressure-plate detonated IEDs, while providing intimate support and a breaching capability to dismounted infantry companies. A testament to the tremendous contribution tanks are making to counter-insurgency operations and their high demand throughout the Canadian AO, A Squadron has routinely been split into troop-sized elements or less and attached to each of the infantry companies. This decentralized employment of armour and extremely high temperatures has strained the sustainment concept and serviceability of the tanks, while dispersing the breaching assets integral to the sub-unit. The impact of this squadron has been felt as far west as the Helmand border, and north towards Ghorak and Shah Wali Kot.



More on the utility of a big gun with the proper arguments sticking out of a highly mobile and armored AFV aka MBT right where it needs to be.

Originally Posted by Canadian Army

Rather, our enemy finds sanctuary in grape-drying huts and compounds with concrete-like walls measuring over a meter in thickness. Prior to the deployment of the Leopard tank, massive volumes of 25 mm fire from the LAVs achieved limited results against these structures, often requiring the BG to resort to the use of aerial bombardment or risk the deployment of dismounted soldiers forward to affect a breach with anti-tank weapons or demolitions. One 105 mm HESH round from the Leopard C2 can punch a hole in excess of five by five meters through a grape-drying hut or compound wall, penetrating structures with reduced collateral damage to surrounding infrastructure and less risk to our dismounted soldiers.



The whole paper is IMHO excellent and especially of interest for old and young tankers alike. Another great take on the many issues of combined arms in Afghanistan is the following one. It also deserves a close look.



Lessons learned form the use of Tanks in ROTO 2 (http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_11/iss_2/CAJ_Vol11.2_05_e.pdf)



Originally Posted by Lessons Learned

When channelled in defiles and surrounded by walls or marijuana fields three metres high, the tanks lose their ability to fire at a distance and to move the turret. Just sweeping arcs of fire without destroying all the walls is the greatest challenge for the crews. We simply used the Stab Elevation Override to allow the gunner to observe, but generally speaking, the Stab stays off and the tank commander aims the gun between the walls and the dwellings. We have noted that sweeping the arcs, even if the gunner can see nothing, frightens the insurgents and discourages them from firing on us. With the Leopard 2, we used the tank commander’s periscope to observe when necessary. Since the barrel is approximately two metres longer than that of the Leopard C2, it was practically impossible to have the gunner constantly sweep the arcs. In some areas, the tanks are used more like bunkers for the dismounted troops than for their firepower. Nevertheless, in the event of contact, we did not hesitate to make room and expand our arcs of fire. In order to address the risks caused by lack of space, the crews had mounted their C8s on the turret (one pointing forward and one pointing backwards), with the tank commander’s 9-mm on the hatch and they had two hand grenades ready for throwing. In spite of everything, the best defence for the tanks in closed terrain remains the presence of infantry on the ground and a LAV III behind them.


Just some of many interesting points.

Originally Posted by Lesssons Learned

For the troop, all our engagements have been at distances of between 75 and 600 m. We have had some engagements at over 1000 m, but they occurred while the tanks were in firing position at the forward observation base (FOB) or when we were conducting observation in support of the infantry coys....

However, when we advance in complex terrain, the Taliban hide at between 75 and 300 m and most of the time they fired at us before we were able to observe them. We could see them because of the smoke or flash from their weapons. They observed our guns and waited until we aim them in another direction to fire. The advent of the Leopard 2 and its independent periscope greatly enhanced our detection capability and reduced the number of hits on the tank. We also received the canister shell at the end of our tour. Although we did not have a chance to try it in combat, we already know that it will discourage any attempt to hit us on the flanks at close range. Sometimes the insurgents launched a rocket from between two marijuana plants and disappeared. With a canister shell, we will be able to respond by firing in the direction from which the round came and kill or wound the hidden RPG crew. Following range trials, we have established that the lethal distance is approximately 400 m. The 120 mm HEAT rounds have produced excellent results in comparison to the 105 mm HESH round.



I only took out part of the things relevant to the topic and our discussion. The two papers indicate just how effective a well an Armored Mortar Fighting Vehicle (AMFV) with the right tools and equipment would be.



New rounds for the AMFV:


a) HEAT-MP

While enemy AFV are of no concern in Afghanistan and never should be the engaged without dire need directly by the MFV such a round would be overall a fine addition. It should endanger head-on any AFV short of an MBT and be a great and affordable allrounder. If the smaller, far lighter and slower warhead of the RPG-29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-29) can cause concern, the 120mm mortar HEAT-MP should too...


b) HESH

A great wallbuster with little fragmentation flying sideways and back towards the AFV and friendlies. The slower spin of a 120mm mortar round fired out of a smoothbore barrel might influence (among other variables as speed) the "squashing" but it should at the very least be in the vicinity of the 105mm HESH, and "5x5m holes" sound right to. A perfect match with the AMFV, IMHO


c) Canister

Seems that the Canadians and Danes are eager on them and thing them perfectly suited for the environment. A Tank gun can launch them with far greater speed (> 800 m/s, my poor guess) and it seems to be that the lethal distance is (at least) around 400m. "Beehive rounds" accelerated by the106mm M40s of the Ontos reached roughly 500 m/s making them even with the thin armor very effective as support weapons.

Originally Posted by Diggerhistory

The 20" wide tracks of the 9-ton Ontos would allow it to go on the soft soils surrounding the rice paddies of Vietnam. They both served as bunker busters. Both vehicles lessened the infantry's causalities by being close to the fight; and could be quickly deployed to overcome an enemy's fixed positions.

The Ontos carried the beehive round that sent out a hundred darts per firing to clean out a jungle of its enemy. There was no other weapon that could clear a jungle for a depth of a ¼ mile (400m) like the 106mm recoilless rifle using the beehive round.

The small darts or pellets loose speed very fast. With a muzzle velocitiy of roughly 350 m/s the AMFV should thus be with the type of canister tested by the Canadian at least be lethal to 250m. This round should give the AFV a lethal area suppression weapon with a focused cone of lethality unable to endanger enemies or civilians behind "Afghan concrete"




Thoughts


Overall the more I learn the more I like the concept of the AMFV, especially in a combined arms team. Beside the invaluable ability to deliver quickly devastating plunging fire with so many round-fuzes (bomblets AB, HE PD or delayed one....) combinations and the ability to use all the neat guided precision rounds (Strix, FireBall..) it can be deadly precise and effective up close with the right rounds.

This "Assault mortar" with great SA (see my posts above) it can (and will) also be in a close firefight and will thus be able to play through the whole spectrum of firepower. At usual distances 75-600 every round in their arsenal can be very very accurate (high charge, "direct" fire) or very accurate (low charge, plunging fire). When not in a close firefight it can lend with staple rounds a helping hand of devastating power easily to seven klicks.

MBTs are still better to lead the rest on dangerous paths but such AMFV should be just like IFV close at hand.




P.S: A very good observation



This fits actually perfectly my interpretation of many an conflict. It is a great fallacy bring up the decreased willigness of insurgents or others in a great direct confrontations and conclude that "conventional force" and "firepower" is something somewhat somehow futile in such a war. It is a bit like asking a guy with a assault rifle to bring his knife to a gunfight and to ditch his rifle, because he has the advantage :rolleyes:

I posted some relevant links in an older topic - I think it does add somthing worthy to the discussion.

@ Palnatoke: You will find there that it seems to be almost an standard tactic to have the MBT leading the other AFV - one reason more to equip it with the M protection kit. Other than that I pretty much agree.

[Palnatoke]

Tanks are an asset that has it's uses. They can't replace the infantery in these kinds of wars and they won't win the war for us, but they can surport the infantery.

Eventhough this is about heavy armour, I need to state that:
The real war winning unit we need in Afgh. is neither tanks, helicopters nor infantery. What we need is units trained in the art of criminal investigation, Units that can identify the "poster boy", "The fund raiser", the guy that gives shelter, the guy that gives information to the enemy, in short units that can identify the hidden body of the insurgency, the hinter land of the enemy - and destroy it in depth.
We should realise that whenever we fight and destroy some talliban warriors, we are only attacking the leaves of the tree - and each year there will be plenty of young men willing to die for "the higher cause".

[khatar]

Hello everyone.
Down with the us.:)

[StevoJH]

Hello everyone.
Down with the us.:)

I'm curious, what did the US ever do to you? :)

[khatar]

I'm curious, what did the US ever do to you? :)
Hello dear.If you want to know this.please send me an email.I will reply you in the best way.My email: dr.hakimbashi@gmail.com
Thank you