Remote outposts afghanistan lack of heavy weapons

[Tomte47]

There are loads of videos on youtube etc of mostly american soldiers being attacked at there remote outposts in afghanistan by talibans. The attackers have the highground up in the mountains and can just sit there and hit the bases with smallarms, rpgs and mortars. The americans only defence is to shoot in the general direction of the enemy often 700-800+ meters away and some times several hundred meters above them, this with standard 5.56 assault rifles with little or no optics. or at best a .50 cal machine gun with no optics. This seems very inefective since the chance of hitting an enemy you cant see at that distance is very slim resulting in them having to call in airsupport to deal with the situation.

I cant post links yet it seems but i think you get the picture, they are trying to defend against an enemy that have the highground is very hard to spot and often at great distances while the enemy know they are in the base and can lay down supresive fire on the base while others hit it with rpgs and mortars

My question is why they dont have any heavier direct fire weapons at the bases ?
To me it seems a remote-controlled 30mm autocannon with proper optics mounted ontop of a building or a tower would do wonders in a situation like that ? Or perhaps even heavier weapons, since they would be stationary the only requirement i can think of is that a helicopter have to be able to transport them to the base.
Are there no such systems or are the other reasons why they dont have them ?
Calling in airsupport does the job ofcourse but it still takes some time and aint exactly cheap.

 

[riksavage]

Most of the very remote outposts are manned by a mix of SF and Afghan forces, since a number have been overrun or hit so hard as to reduce there usefulness they have either been reinforced or closed. The issue of heavy weapons is one of logistics, they need to be carried in and supplied with ammunition. Most remote units have relied on fast air for top cover, this may have changed with the introduction however of mortars and/or .50 Cal/GMG's. The issue of bringing in any semi-automated weapon systems is one of power generation, not an option in remote locations high in the mountains.

 

[Aussie Digger]

There are loads of videos on youtube etc of mostly american soldiers being attacked at there remote outposts in afghanistan by talibans. The attackers have the highground up in the mountains and can just sit there and hit the bases with smallarms, rpgs and mortars. The americans only defence is to shoot in the general direction of the enemy often 700-800+ meters away and some times several hundred meters above them, this with standard 5.56 assault rifles with little or no optics. or at best a .50 cal machine gun with no optics. This seems very inefective since the chance of hitting an enemy you cant see at that distance is very slim resulting in them having to call in airsupport to deal with the situation.

I cant post links yet it seems but i think you get the picture, they are trying to defend against an enemy that have the highground is very hard to spot and often at great distances while the enemy know they are in the base and can lay down supresive fire on the base while others hit it with rpgs and mortars

My question is why they dont have any heavier direct fire weapons at the bases ?
To me it seems a remote-controlled 30mm autocannon with proper optics mounted ontop of a building or a tower would do wonders in a situation like that ? Or perhaps even heavier weapons, since they would be stationary the only requirement i can think of is that a helicopter have to be able to transport them to the base.
Are there no such systems or are the other reasons why they dont have them ?
Calling in airsupport does the job ofcourse but it still takes some time and aint exactly cheap.

All NATO and Allied forces have a range of direct and in-direct fire systems available to them in Afghanistan. They have small arms, medium and heavy machine gun capabilities, auto-grenade launchers, anti-armour weapons, mortars and of course air support, most or all of which is effective beyond 700m's.

30mm cannons are like using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. Even a 7.62mm machine gun like the American M240 or the MAG-58 as the rest of the world knows them, has a range in excess of 1200m's, more than sufficient for the ranges being encountered in Afghanistan. A 12.7mm machine gun (a 0.50cal if you wish) has a range over 2000m's....

If you think the American weapons aren't effective, perhaps consider the anecdotes of the battles they are fighting over there and see who, exactly is winning those battles....

Lack of optics is not a problem for the heavier calibre weapons. Using a scope on a tripod mounted heavy weapon is not quite as good an idea as it sounds. You can use it to direct the fire to start with, adjust range etc, but you cannot fire "aimed shots" with a 12.7mm machine gun, through an optical scope, in a tripod mount as shown here:

[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ftq0IadDsQw[/nomedia]

You need a vehicle or aircraft for that. The guns are simply too big and powerful...

 

[kato]

Besides, these forward bases are generally not intended to be fixed operations. No buildings, no fixed guns, nothing you can't easily take with you or destroy if you're evaced.

 

[ricwine]

Taliban are tieing down not assaulting

Besides, these forward bases are generally not intended to be fixed operations. No buildings, no fixed guns, nothing you can't easily take with you or destroy if you're evaced.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats a good answer kato. The answer also comes from surveilance.
The blimps and surveilance towers are now a story in the public domain.
However on a valley side somewhere " in Afghan. The impractacality is obvious. A few points below

Most isolated bases are uesally mutally supported by other outposts.
A main operating base nearby will have a stronger garrison and vehicles/medium fire support such as mortars.

But you are missing the main point
The Taliban are not attacking the base to over run. They are attacking to probe for weak points. If the base is weakly defended they will call in more reinforcments themselves. And mount a cordinated attack at there leisure.
This is classic Muji tactics from the Russian occupation.

This tactic has being seen against British troops in Helmand. Isolated outposts are tested to there limit. If the local Taliban can bring heavier fire power to the fight. Then they will.

So back to the remote weapons stations. 5.56mm upto 40mm are adequate at most ranges. A 20mm thru to 105mm weapon system takes logistics and maintenace to a new level. I remember a news documentry from the early days of Afghan, say 2002/2003.

A platoon of Green Berets were on the only US base in a hostile valley. They had small 106mm? ( not sure ) rockets flown in nearly every day. Which they launched from simple rails. All over the large steep sided valley
This was explained to keep the Talibans head down..

So the point is. Direct firepower like THE ALAMO is last ditch defence. Layered defences that are manageable by the troops on the ground are required. Thats why the troops on the ground fight using the MK1 eyeball.

In Vietnam people thought that B52 carpet bombing would beat off the Viet Cong insurgency. B52 strikes worked at Khe Sanh. Mainly because the NVA came into the open in known areas, hence easy to bomb. You can all the mountains you like in Eastern Afghanistan. Just hope it is cost effective against 3 AK47 armed part time Taliban.

Summary:. More firepower on base makes the Taliban fight elsewhere. They simply go down the valley and attack a weaker base.
Classic Taliban tactics are too tie down the superior forces. As old a military tactic as the Afghan hills nearly.
Javelin and 40mm grenades are dammed effective.
Heavy armour is a logistical nightmare in hills.
Cost = 10 grunts can cost less than a fancy auto cannon. + they can fill sandbags as well ) grunts
You can stick all the auto cannons you want into a base. They have to be supplied and maintained. And hopefully even shot in anger !

 

[DavidDCM]

With thoughts similar to yours (enemy on high ground behind massive cover, relatively long fighting distances etc.) the XM25 air burst grenade launcher was developed and as far as I am aware, will soon be fielded to army units in Afghanistan. I wouldn't go as far as the army marketing guys, who call it a "game changer", but it sure comes in handy when you're under attack in a situation like you described in your first post.