CASR

Canadian
American
Strategic
Review

Armoured Vehicles - NATO/ISAF - Southern Afghanistan  –  September 2006 Assessing the Threats  to CF Leopard Tanks  in Afghanistan IEDs are Bad Enough. Are Leopards Facing Guided Missiles? Stephen  Priestley ,  CASR   Researcher / Illustrator Armoured Vehicles Going in Harm’s Way  –  Anticipating Threats to CF Tanks Recent news reports have speculated on potential threats to CF Leopard C2 tanks when deployed to Afghanistan.[1] The US TOW anti-tank missile was specifically mentioned. TOW would most certainly be a threat to Leopards but it is improbable that the Taliban insurgents have access to these sophisticated guided missiles.[2] In the 1980s, any number of advanced  US weapons were smuggled into Afghanistan from  Pakistan  –  the  Stinger SAM  is but one example. New questions arise: What is the  current  threat  to  CF armour? Would Pakistan share  with the Taliban a modern, guided, anti-tank  missile?  Which missiles would  the  Taliban be allowed access to? The source of any modern guided missiles would be Pakistan or, indirectly, China. When the Taliban held power in Afghanistan, no anti-tank missiles were listed in their arsenal.  The Soviets had little use for such weapons in their battles with the Mujahadeen, so its unlikely that these missiles will appear in hidden arms caches. Threats to Canadian Leopard Tanks  –  the Available Anti-Tank Guided Missiles The most readily available  anti-tank guided  missile is the 1960s-vintage AT-3 Sagger and  a Chinese copy – Norinco’s HJ-73  (below).  More formidable is the later Chinese HJ-8, now in Pakistani production as the KLR Baktar Shikan (right). But these missile types are not equivalent to TOW [3] but a more important question is: would Pakistan be likely to part with a new missile ? Even if guided missiles were available to the Taliban, there are other factors: set- up time is longer, training required, and the systems complex. More importantly, insurgents have other, simpler anti-tank options available to them.  IEDs and the ubiquitous rocket-propelled grenade are obvious choices.  But,  there are others. “With impetuous recoil and jarring sound...”   Recoilless Rifles in Afghanistan There has been a steady flow of recoilless rifles into Afghanistan over  the years. [4] Soviet- and Taliban-era arms caches have revealed recoilless rounds of 73mm, 75mm, 82mm and 107mm calibres. Such weapons, even the smaller calibres, are hard to carry over difficult terrain and are more difficult to conceal than RPGs. But recoilless rifles are familiar to Afghan fighters and, in the past,  have been employed successfully. Other than availability, the recoilless rifle [5] has the advantages of both simplicity of operation and rugged durability. The same can be said for the rounds – missiles must be handled with care to protect their electronics, a recoilless round has none. The most modern recoilless rifle available is the Russian SPG-9. This 73mm weapon served with the Taliban-era Afghan army and is still being made in Iran. The calibre of an SPG-9 is misleading. Although even smaller than RPG warheads, an SPG-9 has much greater velocity, a longer range and greater armour penetration than the typical RPG. [6]  The trade-off is in portability. The SPG-9 breaks down into loads that its 3-man crew can carry. An RPG-7 can be slung over a shoulder, and its operator can carry the reloads too, if required. RPGs will continue to be the Taliban’s direct-fire anti-armour weapon of choice (backed by IEDs). Recoilless rifles offer the insurgents greater hitting power, but this must be balanced against large crew size, difficulty of emplacement, and inconvenience. [1] The first Leopard tank (and a Taurus recovery vehicle) left Edmonton onboard a leased Antonov An-124  on 29 Sept. 2006.  This commercial aircraft  flew the two vehicles the 9,925km to Manas International Airport (near Bishkek, Kyrgyztan). At Manas (FRU is also the site of a US airbase), the tank and ARV were transferred to two leased USAF Boeing C-17s for the final 1490km leg south to Kandahar airfield. [2] The Pakistani Army does have TOW missiles  –  some are helicopter-mounted, others on 24 tracked M113s (Improved TOW Vehicle, designated M901 in the US). Proof of the shortage of TOW is the Pakistan’s use of less-powerful HJ-8 (Baktar Shikan) missiles, or even twin 106mm M40A1 recoilless guns, on M113A2 Mk-1s. [3] Baktar Shikan characteristics are more akin to the smaller CF Eryx missile with one key difference – range. Slightly smaller than Eryx, the Baktar Shikan has five times the range. That sounds impressive but the Baktar Shikan travels at half the speed of Eryx, and cannot engage targets closer than 500m  (minimum Eryx range is only 50m). After all this effort, Baktar Shikan penetrates only 500mm of armour. [4] These include: 73mm SPG-9s, 75mm Chinese Type 56s (copied US M20s, called tup-é-bî paslagad locally), 82mm B-10s (Russian models or Chinese Type 65 copy as used by Pakistan), the American 106mm M40A1, and  the Russian  107mm B-11. [5] Technically, the term ‘recoilless rifle’ shouldn’t be applied to Russian smooth- bore designs (SPG-9, B-10, and B-11). Purists would call these all ‘recoilless guns’. [6] For comparison, an RPG-7 has a maximum anti-armour range of 330m, the SPG-9 1,300m. SPG-9 muzzle velocity is 700m/s, the RPG-7 grenade is launched at 330m/s. The old B-10 has a modest muzzle velocity of 320m/s (240m/s for Chinese Type 65 firing HEAT rounds), no more armour penetration than an RPG, but a 4470m range.