# Taliban searching for heavier AT weapons: Coalition sources



## Armymatters (7 May 2006)

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/060507/w050714.html

Excerpts:



> Frustrated by their inability to punch through the reinforced plating on Canadian fighting vehicles, the Taliban are scouring the black market for bigger and better weapons to take on Canadian armour, coalition and Afghan security sources say.
> 
> Being able to destroy even one light armoured vehicle - a Bison armoured troop carrier or Coyote reconnaissance vehicle - would be a significant moral victory in the eyes of insurgents, a senior coalition source told The Canadian Press.
> 
> "They want to take out one really bad," said the source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "To them it would be a huge victory because they haven't be able to do that to this point."





> Insurgents are apparently looking for shoulder-launched weapons similar to the German Armbrust and possibly armed with some kind of supercalibre warhead, said an Afghan security source.
> 
> Ideally, the Taliban would like to lay their hands on a jeep-mounted AT-1 Snapper, a Soviet-built system that was part of the Taliban's arsenal prior to the 2001 U.S.-led invasion that drove them from power. It's unclear how many of those systems, exported to the Middle East during the Cold War, are still available.
> 
> In addition, the hunt is on for additional anti-tank mines, which have the dual benefit for the insurgents of being easily rewired into lethal improvised explosive devices.



Sounds like we have some severely frustrated Taliban, no? Even the AT-1 Snapper mentioned here is fairly primative, as it is a first generation guided AT missile (meaning it is controlled by a joystick)... and once you understand the threat posed by such missiles, they aren't a major threat... I've read the reports on the accuracy of such first generation AT missiles, and they are highly dependant on the skill of the operator, and at most, the hit probability is less than 25%, with a very well trained crew. Still not a good idea to let these systems fall into the hands of the Taliban anyways.


----------



## CBH99 (7 May 2006)

My question is this:  Where the hell do they get all of these weapons?

I know that sounds a bit lame, but I am curious - where the hell do they keep getting the material to make explosives, etc, etc.

The Stringers are obviously a concern, given the support the Taliban received from the US during the Soviet invasion.  Buying battery packs to get the weapons up and running is a relatively easy, and unfortunately extremely effective.  How do they keep getting more sophisticated weaponry though?  (Minus the stingers, since they already had them kicking around from beforehand.)

Between the amount of intelligence work going on there, and the number of coalition assets - I am curious, is there perhaps a more aggressive or different approach coalition forces could be taking to prevent them from acquiring weapons in the first place?


----------



## George Wallace (7 May 2006)

The country has been in a state of war for over twenty years.  There are lots of explosives laying around.  The construction of IEDs, Booby Traps, etc. are only limited by ones imagination. 

As for more sophisticated weapons.  Well, OBL, Al-Qaida, the Taliban and the various other little factions have lots of money or the support of outsiders.  Chinese, Korean, Pakistani, Iranian, Iraqi, Saudi and other nations will sell weapons or are used to smuggle weapons to the highest bidder.  Perhaps some, like China and Korea may use this as an opportunity to trial new weapons.  

Does this help some?


----------



## Centurian1985 (7 May 2006)

Army matters - you got to think outside the box!

Get rid of the command system, just put the damn thing on a rail, straight line target acquisition with mark I eyeball, wait until target is within range (not too close or it wont arm) and lined up on rail direction, then hit the fire button.  Voila - improvised direct fire ATM.

Either way, it was a crappy missle so not very much likelihood of damage anyway, but still bad for softcovers...


----------



## Haggis (7 May 2006)

I'd rather see a headline that reads:

"COALITION HEAVY WEAPONS SEARCHING FOR MORE TALIBAN".

C'mon, press.  Tell both sides of the story!  ;D


----------



## aesop081 (7 May 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> Army matters - you got to think outside the box!


In his case it would be "thinking outside the books"    :

Armymatters, from the relative safety of your couch its easy to dismiss the AT-1 as a minor threat but if you were driving around in a LAV-III in Afghanistan, you would understand that it only takes a "primitive" lucky shot to ruin your day.  

Case and point.  1982 in the Falklands, RN submarine used a WW2 vintage unguided torpedo to sink the Argentinian Cruiser Belgrano.  Got tell those sailors who survived that their freinds were killed by a primitive weapon that was a minor threat.

One day you are going to find a new hobby


----------



## Britney Spears (8 May 2006)

ATGM are terrible weapons or insurgents anyway. They're heavy, take some time and practice setting up properly, and more importantly require TRAINING. What do you think your chances of hitting a tank are if you've never fired the silly thing in your life? Or do you also have a training simulator system set up in a cave somewhere to run an operator's course? Maybe give each guy a few practice missiles to shoot in their back yard?If I were an insurgent I would just take the explosives out and(if I haven't blown my self up doing that) set up an IED with it. 

Armoured vehicles aren't impregnable, especially not OUR "armoured" vehicles. Take out a Bison? You can probably penetrate the armour on a Bison with a Lee Enfield or an FN C1 if you were lucky. Hamas has taken out Merkavas with nothing more fancy than a few old AT mines tacked together, and the Merkava is the most heavily armoured tank in the world.


----------



## a_majoor (8 May 2006)

I would suspect the main value would be "propaganda". Pictures of Taliban fighters posing next to their shiny ATGM would certainly give us pause, and a few fired at our convoys or fixed installations (a more likely outcome) would look pretty spectacular on the evening news.

We could never assume they do not know how to use them, and in the case of live fire, the targets are not the troops, but the people back home "seeing" Canadian troops taking incoming rocket fire (however ineffective it really is). The round sailing past the Bison is really aimed at CBC headquarters, Jack Layton and the Globe and Mail, and any soldiers who happen to be hit would be collateral damage in this kind of war.


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 May 2006)

CBC Newsworld was carrying this story early this afternoon with the following headline on the screen:
"Frustration for Taliban".

On odd way to summarize the situation from a Canadian source.  Perhaps we should be offering the Taliban counselling before they do something nasty.  Or lighten up on our armour protection so they won't feel so bad.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cloud Cover (8 May 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> The round sailing past the Bison is really aimed at CBC headquarters, Jack Layton and the Globe and Mail, and any soldiers who happen to be hit would be collateral damage in this kind of war.



As much as Jack loves the enemy, unfortunately I don't think he would willingly make himself a martyr for them. Has he been cordially invited for a road trip over there? [   hint]


----------



## Enzo (8 May 2006)

Concurrence w/ a_majoor's thinking on this one. They're playing the long game, if they are able to use such a weapons system effectively in the field then they can get a lot of mileage out of the incident for recruitment and morale. A blow against the occupiers for PR and a message that they are trying to gain the systems that will allow the field to be levelled, etc... Good luck with that :

It's also a step towards internal recognition of their organization as a legitimate fighting force in the region by being able to grow from a guerilla force into an army capable of defeating the occupiers, etc... Basic thinking in the "we can regain what we once were as we did it before" camp.

Just my opinion, but I'd rather they focused their energies toward acquiring expensive, obsolete weapons systems that will tie up their resources and manpower, versus this IED nonsense that really pisses me off at times. Overall, I wish they'd just get with the program and work toward building their country into something positive and productive. Then again, I'm still waiting for Charlize Theron to knock on my door, so much for wishes eh. If it comes down to it, I'd prefer to have to deal with an AT-1 on a jeep rather than have a mine go off. It has to do with that whole "having a chance to retaliate against someone I can see" mentality.

As I said though, just my opinion, not wanting to begin an argument on which is the preferred way to get "blowed" up.


----------



## couchcommander (8 May 2006)

I, myself, find the idea of Talibum who can't even reliably detonate an IED at the right time (or so it seems) trying to guide an AT-1 onto target, funny for some reason.....

"Dirka Dirka! Dirka Dirka Mohammed Jihad! Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar!"

*explosion a few hundred meters from convoy*

*LAV turret traverses*

"DIRKA DIRKA DIRK...*boom boom boom*"

But then again +1 to it still would make life needlessly more difficult for those on the ground and does pose a threat, in more ways than just the explosion, but also +1 to it's almost better for them to spend their money on this rather than just making bigger IED's. 

IMHO anywho...

*edit* there is a specific reason I chose the word "reliably" - there have indeed been some well placed hits, but also some spectacular misses


----------



## a_majoor (8 May 2006)

Although Smiling Jack would be *MY* first choice for butts NCO on the ATGM range (the Liberal defence critic is #2), I was actually referring to the idea that the Taliban would fire these weapons (any weapons) in order to "paint a picture" in the minds of the uniformed and weaken the will of Canadians to continue the mission.

No matter how ineffective the attack, the fact that someone fired a shot with a relatively sophisticated weapon would certainly be played up by the usual suspects to "show" how "dangerous" Afghanistan has become. Of course the "fact" that the Taliban or AQ fighters have access to such weapons would also be "proof" that we can't win etc.

Oddly enough, these same people and organizations who would play up the supposed danger of ATGM attacks are not so willing to report or comment on the reconstruction effort, successful elections, gains in the local economy, developing competency in the local government and its arms....also just what the Taliban and their fellow travellers want. If Canadians never see success, we will have a harder time to justify our presence in Afghanistan.


----------



## Cloud Cover (8 May 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Although Smiling Jack would be *MY* first choice for butts NCO on the ATGM range (the Liberal defence critic is #2), I was actually referring to the idea that the Taliban would fire these weapons (any weapons) in order to "paint a picture" in the minds of the uniformed and weaken the will of Canadians to continue the mission.



Yes I know, but I think it is already well settled that merely talking  about such weapons to the Canadian press corps will accomplish the same thing, thus saving the Taliban the necessary funds for more palm oil and quality Western porn. What we need to do is get them hooked on Timmies double doubles and then they'll be begging us to stay. [the concoction at the Byron Tim Hortons is particularly addictive, BTW]


----------



## Enzo (8 May 2006)

Opposite side of the same coin isn't it? Didn't mean to speak for you though, sorry about that.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (9 May 2006)

I was actually somewhat surprised I didn't see birdcages on the LAV-III's in recent footage.  Any chance this new threat may change whatever the equation was last time that resulted in them holding off on such an installation?


Matthew.   ???


----------



## a_majoor (9 May 2006)

The "birdcage" is actually provided to detonate RPG warheads (which are a bigger threat than ATGMs since they are readily avaiable), but would probably work on an ATGM as well. In its present form, the armour adds a fair bit of weight and extra stress on the suspension, and also makes the Stryker much wider than many of the roads and alley ways. 

In the case of a LAV III, the weight issue might be more pronounced because our vehicles have the Delco turret. Something will be done sooner or later, even if it is just welding jerrycan racks on the side and using 20l water jerrycans for improvised protection and fireproofing.


----------



## pbi (9 May 2006)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> My question is this:  Where the hell do they get all of these weapons?
> 
> I know that sounds a bit lame, but I am curious - where the hell do they keep getting the material to make explosives, etc, etc.
> 
> ...



IMHO most of the stuff "laying round" probably isn't much good anymore if it includes electronic components. When I was there (04-05) a number of Chinese HN missiles were found in caches, but normally the firing systems were no longer serviceable. As far as sourcing the stuff, I would look first at the Pak border. It is absolutely no secret that opinions in Pakistan (includng in the Pak security forces) are somewhat "mixed" when it comes to the idea of a successful Afghan state with a Western connection. That is one posible source. Another is the fact that the Taliban et al may still have access to funds via supporters whose assets may not have been identified and frozen, thus allowing them to purchase through second and third parties. There's tons of stuff out there in the world: it's just a quesion of connecting buyer and seller.


I was always amazed (and very thankful...) that the baddies never made any significant use of MANPADS when I was there: it would have been very easy, and the result would have have had exactly the"home front" effect that a_majoor identified. No doubt they are realizing that it is a hell of a lot easier to defeat Western public opnion than it is to defeat Western militaries.

Cheers


----------



## SeaKingTacco (9 May 2006)

> The Stringers are obviously a concern, given the support the Taliban received from the US during the Soviet invasion.  Buying battery packs to get the weapons up and running is a relatively easy, and unfortunately extremely effective.



No.  Take it from a former Air Defence Instructor in Gunnery (that's me).  I've seen staggering missile failure rates during Canadian missile camps using old, but properly stored and gently handled Blowpipe missiles. I cannot imagine that missiles that have been dragged around the mountains or buried in caves for the last 18-20 years are any good for anything other than being mantle pieces.  Missiles that old will likely suffer from propellant problems, which can lead to misfires or explosions.  Or cracks in the rocket bodies, which lead to spectacular explosions.  Or gyros that are seized.  The list goes on and on...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 May 2006)

Iraq is also more Urban compared to Afghanistan, a lot hard to run away from a ambush against a heavily armed opponent.


----------



## Enzo (10 May 2006)

Who's doing the running?


----------



## pbi (10 May 2006)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Iraq is also more Urban compared to Afghanistan, a lot hard to run away from a ambush against a heavily armed opponent.



Well-it depends where you site your ambush, or if you are firing at a ground target (chance of immediate pursuit) or firing MANPADS at a an aircraft on final approach at KIA (less chance of initial detection, even less of immediate pursuit). Parts of Kabul are literal rabbit-warrens of narrow alleys and crazy, makeshift construction. Easy to escape in, hard to pursue.

Cheers


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 May 2006)

Sorry I got partly into my post yesterday and had to run.

I agree that the “urban” parts of Afghanistan rival anywhere as one of the toughest urban environments, more suited for a mixture of wheeled and foot infantry.

However large stretches of Afghanistan do not appear to be urbanized and from what little I have seen reported it seems that a fair number of the attacks have taken place outside of the heavier urbanized areas. This means a lot of the terrain does not help mask the Taliban and will limit the number of sites that they can pull off a successful ambush and live to tell about it. It also seems that much of the populated areas seems to follow the watercourses leaving barren areas in-between. Just finished reading a book by the ex-leader of the communist guerrillas in Malaysia. He said that one of the key initiatives that hurt them the most was food rationing, coupled with the villages being centralized. I suspect that food and access to it is one of the major Achilles heals of the Taliban, the land does not appear to give much in the way of support outside of the populated areas.


----------



## pbi (11 May 2006)

Which is why, to a great extent, they seem to rely upon IEDs and rockets on timers, as opposed to direct physical assaults. Of course, they do conduct direct assaults, but they have to be very careful about not concentrating too early or dispersng too late, or going head-to-head against Coalition firepower. I think that you are generally right about the lack of cover afforded by the terrain, but the point is that in order to gain a significant political or military effect, they have to strike where people will quickly become aware of the results (and the collateral damage risk to the Coalition is higher), so they need to operate near areas of significant human presence: cities, towns and villages.

Cheers


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 May 2006)

pbi said:
			
		

> but the point is that in order to gain a significant political or military effect, they have to strike where people will quickly become aware of the results (and the collateral damage risk to the Coalition is higher), so they need to operate near areas of significant human presence: cities, towns and villages.
> 
> Cheers



Actually a very good point about making sure events happen in media easy areas. I wonder how much they are able to take the pulse of the various nations serving there and alter their efforts for maximum effect?


----------



## a_majoor (15 May 2006)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Actually a very good point about making sure events happen in media easy areas. I wonder how much they are able to take the pulse of the various nations serving there and alter their efforts for maximum effect?



How much would you be willing to bet they have on-line subscriptions to leading MSM outlets and listen religiously to BBC World News Service? It would not take long for them to find the Toronto Star http://www.thestar.com/ ; the Globe and Mail http://www.theglobeandmail.com/ and the CBC http://www.cbc.ca/ and realize they play right to the defeatist mind set they need to cultivate in order to win. (Of course, they probably have lots of friends in Canada to point them in the right direction).

"Terrorism is information warfare disguised as military action"


----------



## MarkOttawa (15 May 2006)

a_majoor: I was thinking what you commented just before I read it.  Earlier today CTV NewsNet was leading with the story of the two soldiers injured.  If every military action with any casualties becomes the lead story in our media, esp. television...

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## couchcommander (16 May 2006)

When it comes to "terrorists" we should always operate under the assumption they know a hell of a lot more about us than we know about them, IMO.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (17 May 2006)

no matter how good the weapons system is made and designed and how many mods it goes thru for improvements. No matter the money spent on the weapon system. Some one will come up with a  cheap way of defeating it. Tanks were the costly item on the battle field of the  roughly  cost $250 000 in the 40s and 50s,  found out a $75 000 helicopter and a cheap rocket launcher was away  to defeat it. they built better helicopters and rockets to defeat the tank. built better tanks.  now the helicopter costs almost as much if not more then the tank it is made to kill. now the little guy creates away  to get rid of helicopter cheaply.  lots of helicopters have been lost due to ememy action in various combat zones. 

now Canadian troops are in a combat zone with the new hi tech toys and the bad guys are looking for away  to defeat the new toy in use. it does not have to be anything hi tech, look at the IEDs being used in other conflicts to get rid of M1a2s and the helicopters, not all the weapons used were designed to be used to destroy the weapons systems they are doing battle with.

I am sure the bad guy  will come up with a new way  to defeat the equipment in current use. I do not think it will be anything hi tech or very costly. just has to go BOOM.

Besides there are enough places on the earth to buy and sell weapons to defeat anything out there if you know the right person and i am sure some one on the other side knows who to reach out to and has the right connection to the money to purchase it. 

if a guy in toronto can buy a gun that was purchased in the States and smuggled into Canada on the street of Toronto in less then a week after it is purchased in the States. I am sure one of the bad guys can purchase a weapon to defeat a LAV III or Gwagon without much trouble. The only solution is to stop the suppliers of weapons,and  bring out another mod to the system the Canadians have in place to defeat the new bad guy system.

if nothing else a $2.00 bullet and a good rifle can slow down a LAV III,  shoot and run, good sniper can slow down the crew,  might not kill the LAV III just mess with the crew. 

just my thoughts. I do feel that Canadians in the zone should be looking at new ways of protecting themselves and I hope no news people report on the new ideas


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 May 2006)

Well hi-tech does give advantages also, Night vision gives soldiers a distinct edge and takes away a lot of the cover of night that these guys relied upon for years, they to have to adapt to what the Canadians bring to the fight. We also bring excellent communications, leadership, motivation and training. That’s a tough combo to beat. If the Canadian can keep the Taliban off balance they can win, because the Taliban has to also ensure their food supply and ammunition is maintained. They also aren’t getting the same support that the insurgents get in Iraq, the only group that is interested in supporting the Taliban are the tribes of the NW Frontier and elements of the Pakistani intelligence services and they are having their own problems. Defeating them will take military, humanitarian and political action combined.


----------

