Heavy armour for Afghanistan?

[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]

Gen. Dannet wants Challies for Afghanistan

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

 

[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 are able to use tanks in Afghanistan (and there is quite a large amount of information released 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]

Why not use Wiesel 1

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...

 

[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 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 (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 (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