US sending tanks to Afghanistan

[Waylander]

The USMC is going to deploy a company of Abrams tracks to Afghanistan in order to support their operations there.

U.S. deploying heavily armored battle tanks for first time in Afghan war

Interesting how long it can take to accept that tanks can also be usefull in this kind of conflict.

The Canadians and Danes have shown this since years.
Additional to that we have Marders, CV9030/40s and Warriors operating in theater while the US has not deployed anything bigger than a Stryker (heavy breaching tracks excluded).

Rather heavy tracked AFVs are a good addition to the capabilities of the forces in theater, especially while the insurgents lack proper AT capabilities apart from big IEDs.

I expect the M1s to be loved by the troops on the ground. The Danish Leopards which supported USMC operations before defenitely where loved.

BTW, how ironically that it's the USMC and not the Army which deployes Abrams first...

 

[Mikestro]

Will Bradleys be sent along with the Abrams? I thought the US had been using M113 already in Afghanistan?

 

[Waylander]

No. These tanks are going to be deployed by the USMC and the Marines don't field any Brads.

AFAIK the US has not deployed any AFVs to the Afghanistan as of now.
Other nations on the other hand have deployed M113s in numerous versions (Denmark, Canada, Netherlands.

ISAF tracked-IFVs currently in theater are Marder A5s, CV9030/35 MkIIIs, CV9040Cs, Warriors, BVP-2s (Czech BMP-2) and YPR-765s.

 

[sgtgunn]

It has always struck me odd that we have not deployed AFVs to Afghanistan, especially given the lessons learned in Iraq. It seems like every war we get involved in, the "conventional wisdom" is always that the current operating enviornment is unsuitable for armor, and we always find out the hard way that were wrong and AFVs (if used properly) work just fine in the jungle/city/mountains/etc.

I think it's the influence of the light-airborne-air-mobile-infantry-centric mafia in the US Army.

Adrian

 

[Waylander]

Exactly. I willingly agree with the fact that many areas the US forces operated in so far are more suited to light infantry and that tracked AFVs are more of a logistical burden.

But it always struck me as odd that the US Army seemed to have an all or nothing attitude when it comes to AFVs in A-stan.

Like "If we can't charge with a HBCT down the countryside then M1s and M2s are useless to us."

That the tank/IFV remains a support asset and would be valuable at this function seemed unthinkable for them.

 

[riksavage]

Exactly. I willingly agree with the fact that many areas the US forces operated in so far are more suited to light infantry and that tracked AFVs are more of a logistical burden.

But it always struck me as odd that the US Army seemed to have an all or nothing attitude when it comes to AFVs in A-stan.

Like "If we can't charge with a HBCT down the countryside then M1s and M2s are useless to us."

That the tank/IFV remains a support asset and would be valuable at this function seemed unthinkable for them.

Heavy Armour is extremely popular, particularly firing HESH rounds. Link to Canadian observations below.

Quote:

"HESH round is the bread-and-butter munition for the tank squadron in theatre: each round knocks five-by-five meter holes into grape-drying huts and we have found it highly effective against dismounts at ranges of 150 to 3800 meters…. yet there has been no suggestion of civilian deaths attributed to tank fire during this entire period"

Tanks for the Lesson: Leopards, too, for Canada

Pretty inexpensive way of delivering direct fire ordnance when compared to Javelin - missile vs shell cost.

The UK are supported by Danish Leopards (not sure what HESH equivalent they are firing), UK Trojans and CVRT (recce screen).

 

[Waylander]

The Danes are firing HEAT, canister and PELE.

There where reports about them being very satisfied with the performance of the new PELE rounds.
Basically it is a brittle KE penetrator which falls apart after entering the target (like a mud hut) and sends shrapnel flying all through the room.
The danger for civilians nearby is very low because there are no explosives involved.

 

[My2Cents]

Quote:

"HESH round is the bread-and-butter munition for the tank squadron in theatre: each round knocks five-by-five meter holes into grape-drying huts and we have found it highly effective against dismounts at ranges of 150 to 3800 meters…. yet there has been no suggestion of civilian deaths attributed to tank fire during this entire period"

Tanks for the Lesson: Leopards, too, for Canada

The smooth bore 120mm does not have a HESH round, so they will have to depend on HEAT, PELE, and Obstacle Reduction rounds.

It might be useful to produce a ‘Peace Keeping’ variant of the M1 and Leopard 2 that uses the old 105mm rifled gun (which the Canadians had on their Leopard 1 tanks) with its wider variety of available ammunition types, and ability to carry more rounds. The gun is still capable of taking on most tanks it is likely to encounter.

 

[Waylander]

There are several 120mm HE rounds available on the market. Traditional ones as well as modern programmable ones.

105mm guns offer no advantages over modern 120mm rounds. HESH is hyped because during the cold war the then new 120mm L/44 fired only HEAT and Sabot.

Right now western nations can choose from a variety of ammunition types.

A programmable HE like the 120mm APAM offers several advantages over a dumb HESH, especially over 105mm ones.

Why the US has so far not been able to field even a dumb HE is not understandable and IMHO a shame for the procurement system.

 

[Firn]

There are several 120mm HE rounds available on the market. Traditional ones as well as modern programmable ones.

105mm guns offer no advantages over modern 120mm rounds. HESH is hyped because during the cold war the then new 120mm L/44 fired only HEAT and Sabot.

Right now western nations can choose from a variety of ammunition types.

A programmable HE like the 120mm APAM offers several advantages over a dumb HESH, especially over 105mm ones.

Why the US has so far not been able to field even a dumb HE is not understandable and IMHO a shame for the procurement system.

105mm guns have their places, for example on AFVs like the Centauro or Stryker, but I simply can not understand why one would even think about downgrading the MBT gun with huge expenses and complications when one could just procure decent HE ammo. I don't know if HESH grenades just don't work out of smoothbores (far less spin), but the potential loss of HESH does certainly not make up for all the other huge disadvantages.

'Close-by, direct fire support with an accurate powerful gun by well trained and well protected people with a great FCS and sensor package always seemed to be an intelligent solution.


Firn

P.S: I already posted the article riksavage mentioned some time ago. From an Italian POV it would be rather neat to see Centauri in action in Afghanistan, but sadly political reasons have always stood against it. They would also have needed a decent protection package against IEDs far more than a shiney 120mm gun.

 

[Waylander]

Sure 105mm systems stay relevant for the variety of mobile gun systems out there.

IIRC the lack of spin is the problem with HESH fired from a smoothbore Gun.

The ability of modern HEs to airburst is a lovely function. The Israelis love their APAM for this.

 

[Firn]

Sure 105mm systems stay relevant for the variety of mobile gun systems out there.

IIRC the lack of spin is the problem with HESH fired from a smoothbore Gun.

The ability of modern HEs to airburst is a lovely function. The Israelis love their APAM for this.

As I said, I'm not sure why there is no HESH available for the 120 smoothbore. The lack of a fast spin might be a reason.

Anyway the relative recent deployment of the VBM "Freccia", a wheeled IFV with an heavily updated and modified Centauro chassis and a new 25mm Hitfist plus turret could help to pave the way for a sensible, heavy update of the Centauro. This might also include a 120mm gun. Note that the Freccia is 2t heavier then the Centauro with it's big gun turret!

I and quite some people in the army would prefer to have a Centauro in Afghanistan rather sooner then later. The Ariete MBT would find almost perfect tank country in quite some areas of the Italian zone but I just can not imagine that the Italian government sends some there. So the Centauro is the far more likely choice and the logistics and maintenace would be facilitated by the pretty similar chassis.

Firn

 

[Waylander]

It is interesting to see that the Italian government is not willing to send tanks or even Centauros to Afghanistan while the Ariete got deployed (And used there) to Iraq.

With the drawdown of the Iraq commitment there should be Arietes available which are already modified for use in a hot and dry zone in support of lighter troops.

The Ariete mods for Iraq looked sensible and usefull.

 

[Feanor]

Maybe not the best place to ask, but how does the Ariete compare to other 3rd gen MBTs? In rough terms...

 

[Waylander]

Well, one could describe it with: "too late and not enough".

Like the French with the Leclerc they were late with developing a new tank at the end of the cold war. But where the french were able to produce a top notch tank in the end the Italians never went beyond mediocre. So for describing it a comparison with the Leclerc is IMHO fair and shows the strengths and weaknesses of the tank.

The fire control system is good just like the one in the Centauro and the 120mm L/44 smoothbore is also a good gun (designed with help from Rheinmetall IIRC) but offers less penetration than todays L/47 and L/55 guns.
Contrary to the Leclerc only the gunner has a TI while the TC has normal night vision. Nevertheless it features hunter-killer capabilities.

Mobility is mediocre because of the rather small 1200hp diesel. I am not sure if they managed to reduce the maintenance problems of the engine. The French also had such problems but they put a 1500hp turbobar into their charriot.

A result of the weaker engine is that they needed to keep the weight down. With the Leclerc they were able to achieve a relatively low weight of ca.54t by shortening the hull. The Italians had to achieve this by reducing armor protection making it more vulnerable than other western MBTs of today. And the armor of the Leclerc is more optimised for upgrades with it's modular design.

All in all the Ariete is roughly comparable to a Leopard IIA4 with none of them having a distinctive advantage over the other one.
And in the end this is not enough for a tank of the mid 90's.

The French were late, too, but at least the Leclerc is now one of the most impressive MBTs out there (albeit often underrated).

 

[Firn]

I think this - sadly - is a pretty fair overview over the Ariete. Some of the drawbacks of the design have been noted quite early, sadly some were accepted as a price for making an all-Italian MBT. There is no shortage of ideas and designs to greatly increase the performance of the Ariete, which is a pretty solid base. Some of them have been already included (TI for the TC, AFAIK), but the really big upgrade blocks are tied to the engine issue.

A result of the weaker engine is that they needed to keep the weight down. With the Leclerc they were able to achieve a relatively low weight of ca.54t by shortening the hull. The Italians had to achieve this by reducing armor protection making it more vulnerable than other western MBTs of today. And the armor of the Leclerc is more optimised for upgrades with it's modular design.

If there would have one thing which Italy should have purchased abroad (Germany) it must have been the engine. Other nations (Israel) have done that too. As Waylander described, this is the root cause of most of the performance issues of the Ariete. If there is a big Ariete update, it will come with a new (INVECO) engine.

Still the Ariete is more then tank enough to support the Italian effort in Afghanistan. INVECO has also a lot of experience with protection packs against IEDs, albeit with lighter vehicles. The slightly reduced mobility caused by the additional weight of a decent "Afghan" protection kit coupled with the "Iraq" mods should not pose a big problem given the current Afghan combat operations.


Firn

 

[Waylander]

I fully agree with you. The Ariete is a little bit weak compared to other contemporary designs but that is mostly an issue when we talk about duell situations in full mech battles.

The TI for the TC is news for me and very interesting. Such an independent TI is worth alot in symetric and assymetric operations. Was this upgrade part of the Iraq deployment package?

I think the Ariete which went to Iraq should be good to go for Afghanistan.

The AT thread in Afghanistan is less than the one in Iraq. The additional armor from the Iraq package should be able to handle this. Do you know if they added a mine protection kit?

Such stuff is worth the money. The Danes had to learn this the hard way while the Canadians loved their m-upgrade.

BTW, do you know which rounds are in service with the Ariete?

 

[Firn]

I fully agree with you. The Ariete is a little bit weak compared to other contemporary designs but that is mostly an issue when we talk about duell situations in full mech battles.

I think the Ariete which went to Iraq should be good to go for Afghanistan.

Indeed

The TI for the TC is news for me and very interesting. Such an independent TI is worth alot in symetric and assymetric operations. Was this upgrade part of the Iraq deployment package?

I'm no armor guy, as far as I know it was already done during the manufacturing of the whole lot. The last batch (50+) seems to have got better thermals and better network abilities.

The AT thread in Afghanistan is less than the one in Iraq. The additional armor from the Iraq package should be able to handle this. Do you know if they added a mine protection kit?

Such stuff is worth the money. The Danes had to learn this the hard way while the Canadians loved their m-upgrade.

As far as I know there is no public confirmation of a mine protection kit. The current plan seems to be to have two protection kits available, termed "War" and "PSO". The lighter "War" package should be installed on all tanks, while the heavier PSO ("Peace supporting operations - kinda ironic to have the heavier armor there) should get used when the need for mobility isn't that great.

The "Iraq" kit seems to have been a relative quick ad-hoc solution, some sort of PSO kit prototype, as there was little time between the decision to send tanks into the theater and the shipping of them.

BTW, do you know which rounds are in service with the Ariete?[/QUOTE]

From Ferraemole:

Nel 2001 si è appresa la decisione della Forza Armata di procedere alle seguenti variazioni del munizionamento:
- acquisizione di 2.500 colpi APFSDS-T CL3143 nonché di 3.000 colpi da 120 mm HEAT-T-MP CL3105, entrambi prodotti della Israeli Military Industries,
- acquisizione di 2000 colpi APFSDS-T DM38 prodotti dalla tedesca Rehinmetall Gmbh,
- conversione di 5.000 colpi da 120 mm di tipo DM33 in colpi da addestramento.
Sono seguiti nel 2002 analoghi contratti per la sostituzione progressiva di tutto il munizionamento disponibile con quello più moderno.

Firn

 

[sgtgunn]

Why the US has so far not been able to field even a dumb HE is not understandable and IMHO a shame for the procurement system.

Maybe I'm an irredeemable cynic, but I suspect it has a lot to do with our obsession with technology as a solution to every problem, and the way money and corporate interests influence procurement.

A 120mm HE round (dumb, programmable, whatever) would be a simple, low cost, off the shelf, rapidly field-able solution to an existing tactical problem in the current operating environment and therefor is of absolutely no-interest to anyone involved in US Army procurement. They would prefer a high cost, high tech, designed from scratch, proprietary system, designed to meet either some hypothetical future threat or one from the "good ole' days" (i.e. cold war), that will take 10 years to develop, be 500% over budget, and built by 7 different defense companies in 10 different states (gotta keep congress happy!), and ultimately turned down by the military as being to heavy/expensive/complicated/or not meeting the latest defense fad.

Adrian

 

[riksavage]

Maybe I'm an irredeemable cynic, but I suspect it has a lot to do with our obsession with technology as a solution to every problem, and the way money and corporate interests influence procurement.

A 120mm HE round (dumb, programmable, whatever) would be a simple, low cost, off the shelf, rapidly field-able solution to an existing tactical problem in the current operating environment and therefor is of absolutely no-interest to anyone involved in US Army procurement. They would prefer a high cost, high tech, designed from scratch, proprietary system, designed to meet either some hypothetical future threat or one from the "good ole' days" (i.e. cold war), that will take 10 years to develop, be 500% over budget, and built by 7 different defense companies in 10 different states (gotta keep congress happy!), and ultimately turned down by the military as being to heavy/expensive/complicated/or not meeting the latest defense fad.

Adrian

Couldn't agree more, I wince every time I see a Javelin missile fired to kill a couple of insurgents - cost vs reward way out of sync. A dumb or smart 105/120mm round would do the job at a fraction of the cost. Bring back the good old recoilless 120mm Wombat.