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
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
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 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
