US sending tanks to Afghanistan
- Thread starter Waylander
- Start date
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #22
Jup, they are. MGs or snipers are targeted by Javelins if they pose too much of a threat to friendly forces.
Apart from it being uneconomic the Javelin has some other problems, too.
Due to it being fully fire and forget it sometimes has problems with logging onto the target.
A man in the loop is missing here.
Right now the US could choose between the Swedish HE which is just a dumb 120mm mortar warhead married to a tank propellant charge, the French HE which has a variable fuze and the German and Israeli HEs which are fully programmable.
As you say Adrian such a round could be fielded within weeks after purchasing it. Putting the data for another round into the FCS is no rocket science...
As it is they are probably going to carry HEAT, M-PAT and canister.
Apart from it being uneconomic the Javelin has some other problems, too.
Due to it being fully fire and forget it sometimes has problems with logging onto the target.
A man in the loop is missing here.
Right now the US could choose between the Swedish HE which is just a dumb 120mm mortar warhead married to a tank propellant charge, the French HE which has a variable fuze and the German and Israeli HEs which are fully programmable.
As you say Adrian such a round could be fielded within weeks after purchasing it. Putting the data for another round into the FCS is no rocket science...
As it is they are probably going to carry HEAT, M-PAT and canister.
You use what you have. Rumor has it that there was at least one sniper engaged with sabot rounds during OIF when a tank troop ran out of HEAT rounds.
During the last incursion into Lebanon it was reported that the majority of Israeli soldiers killed were due to Hezbollah using wired guided anti-tank missiles as sniper weapons against infantry. Russia has fielded new thermobaric and fragmentation warheads for these missiles since then.
During the last incursion into Lebanon it was reported that the majority of Israeli soldiers killed were due to Hezbollah using wired guided anti-tank missiles as sniper weapons against infantry. Russia has fielded new thermobaric and fragmentation warheads for these missiles since then.
Your right.
I know they have it for sale, but after Chechnya it is probably a safe bet that the Russian Army has some.
Not at all a safe bet. In fact if I did have to make a bet (given that it's the Russian Army we're talking about, this is something I'd avoid at all costs) I'd bet that they didn't have them.
This seems far more likely a purely export development, then something for domestic consumption.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #27
There is no problem with using ATGMs against enemy troops in fortified positions or buildings. It's not like infantry has a lot other options for doing this.
IIRC at least the Brits also use thermobaric and/or HE-FRAG Hellfires in Afghanistan, too.
And "you use what you have" is a bit misleading. We are talking about the biggest armed forces on our planet with a budget that absolutely dwarves all other ones.
This Army/USMC is involved in COIN operations using tanks since 7 years. Something like a new tank round is peanuts to the US Army. It's not like tankers which served in Iraq haven't moaned about this.
And having to kill an insurgent with a big DU dart because you ran out of other ammo is hardly good thing...
IIRC at least the Brits also use thermobaric and/or HE-FRAG Hellfires in Afghanistan, too.
And "you use what you have" is a bit misleading. We are talking about the biggest armed forces on our planet with a budget that absolutely dwarves all other ones.
This Army/USMC is involved in COIN operations using tanks since 7 years. Something like a new tank round is peanuts to the US Army. It's not like tankers which served in Iraq haven't moaned about this.
And having to kill an insurgent with a big DU dart because you ran out of other ammo is hardly good thing...
And pretty much everyone is tossing around Milan 2 like crazy. Getting rid of old stocks...
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #29
Sure. Nothing is cheaper than firing rounds which are at the end of their service life.
My point was that the Hellfires used by the Brits have special warheads which are optimized for the targets in Afghanistan while a Milan 2 just has the usual shaped charge warhead.
My point was that the Hellfires used by the Brits have special warheads which are optimized for the targets in Afghanistan while a Milan 2 just has the usual shaped charge warhead.
Out of sync cost vs award? A Javelin missile worth $50,000-100,000 is well worth long range defeat of an enemy sniper of MG that would otherwise kill or wound one of our soldiers. Even without placing a cost on the life of our soldiers the cost of medical evacuation, care, insurance fielding a replacement, etc. is well above the price of a Javelin missile.
As to replacing Javelins with tank guns or recoilless guns none of these weapons can be carried by the infantry. Might as well add a 203mm howitzer to the list because it is just as impractical. Further the guided nature of Javelin makes it very accurate at range compared to a recoilless gun or similar and the thermal camera is a powerful ISR tool.
The way ahead is combining the warhead functionality of weapons like the 84mm Carl Gustav with guided missile capability. The Israelis have started work on a Mini Spike which is similar. Taking one of the most popular contemporary infantry weapons away from them because some armchair general doesn’t like the sticker price is not a good idea. No doubt such a bad idea it has been strongly resited by Army command against the no doubt many similar claims by the Treasury.
You need to factor in not only the cost of the round, but of the rest of the costs associated with it.
To fire a 120mm round you need an M1 Abrams tank (or equivalent, no disparity intended to the UK, Germany, etc.), which needs fuel and maintenance facilities and personnel. Ignore the cost of the tank and transporting it and the support into the theatre (it will be minor if you divide it over a couple years), just the daily cost for the logistics to keeping that tank operating exceeds the cost of a Javelin missile by at least an order of magnitude.
He wasn't suggesting a 120mm tank round, but rather the use of a 120mm recoilless rifle. But your point stands, as the 120mm RR still needs to be vehicle mounted and thus supported via all the things you mention (though granted with a smaller footprint than a tank).
From what I understand the Javelin system has proven to have quite a lot of utility outside of missile launch capabilities - as Abe mentioned, its use as an ISR tool is apparently highly valued, at least amongst British troops (this is going by a documentary I saw quite a while ago, can try to chase up the name if anyone's interested).
I think we have to sort things this way:
1) Soldiers try to use a problem at hand (sniper, MG) with the tools at hand or readily available. If a high-tech, highly exensive state of the art ATGM does offer a effective solution compared to their other assets they will use it. The question remains if not a overall more efficient mean can replace it effectively. Other forces in Afghanistan use, as Kato mentioned, older ATGM which will get replaced in the arc of the next decade. Arguably a pretty sensible approach.
2) Tanks are a whole different beast than a ATGM, so it is pretty difficult to compare them. They have been used with great effect (at great logistical cost) by a number of ISAF forces in Afghanistan. To bring their firepower to bear they have used a wide array of ammunition. As mentioned by Waylander and others it seems incredible that the US military has been unable to give their tankers the pretty cheap and easily available ammunition suited for a good part of their Afghan job.
3) The GLU of the Javelin has been one of the first relative widely available thermals for the infantry, and was thus of course greatly appreciated. But for good deal of jobs (STA, etc) other, much lighter thermals offer a better package.
Firn
The Wombat only weighs 300 kg. You can drag that around by hand with a couple guys
Still, the basic tools haven't changed much. The 42-ton Marders now fill the exact same role in close combat support as the FK20 used to do in the Cold War. They've just slapped tons of armour onto everything.
On a smooth floor with a dolly. It can only be broken down into 2 components, so you would need a dozen soldiers with lift bars and slings over rough ground.The Wombat only weighs 300 kg. You can drag that around by hand with a couple guys
And the ammo weighs 12.8kg/round. So it takes 1 squad to haul gun, one hauling the ammunition, and 1 for security. That's a whole platoon to get one gun into action.
I believe that was a joke.On a smooth floor with a dolly. It can only be broken down into 2 components, so you would need a dozen soldiers with lift bars and slings over rough ground.
And the ammo weighs 12.8kg/round. So it takes 1 squad to haul gun, one hauling the ammunition, and 1 for security. That's a whole platoon to get one gun into action.
Which of course when you have Javelin ATGMs you don't need it.
Humming Drone
New Member
Hey, if we could drag full 250-gallon trailers with 15 men, a little Wombat shouldn't be a problem
Nah, seriously: It works. If you put the necessary effort into it. And really need it.
I would not volunteer in my right mind to haul around even 50lb of broken-into-many-parts Wombat....over rough terrain...at altitude....in addition to standard gear.
Maybe sometime when the troops get robotic carriers (MULE, etc.) to haul stuff around or even combat-ready exoskeletons things will be fun. Slap 120mm on top of the exoskeleton, hip fire and smoke the victory cigar (cigar and camera should come standard with the suit).
Well there has to be a market for a cheaper thermobaric Javelin round. The current round is optimized for top-attack against armour or direct attack against bunkers/soft-skinned vehicles. A single mode thermobaric guided round must offer a cheaper alternative. The launcher firing post is invaluable (round or no round) because the thermal provides v-useful all-weather, day/night surveillance in support of a myriad of assets (sniper pairs for example).I would not volunteer in my right mind to haul around even 50lb of broken-into-many-parts Wombat....over rough terrain...at altitude....in addition to standard gear.
Maybe sometime when the troops get robotic carriers (MULE, etc.) to haul stuff around or even combat-ready exoskeletons things will be fun. Slap 120mm on top of the exoskeleton, hip fire and smoke the victory cigar (cigar and camera should come standard with the suit).
The UK operates Javelin from the FOB's , or moved into overwatch positions then ground mounted . Troops don't go on long patrols man-handling them, they carry the Light Anti-Structures Missile (LASM), a one shot wonder like the old 66mm.
Mount an 84 or 120mm recoilless rifle on the back of Jackal or future Ocelot and you have a very cheap line-of site weapon able to provide direct fire support, which is capable of being lifted by a Chinook. Low tech enemy, low tech solution. A far cheaper alternative than having a fleet of leopard II's in support of the battle group. The old Wombat had a mean canister round, turned it in to a giant shotgun. Nice way to clear the green zone in summer, come under fire from the corn fields and bang - problem solved