David Lock

Those awful things that are killing so many of our lads.

Could someone who knows tell me how they are actually exploded. I have a reason for asking.

a) Pressure or vibration from vehicle or person passing over

b) Remote control - phone/radio for example

c) A long hidden wire which is operated from a safe distance

d) Some kind of timing device

e) A mix of above or something else


Thanks, dl

Simon C

Any of the above.

Hysteria1983

No idea, I am just sooooo happy that my brother has done his bit, and is now doing a job that is considerably less life threatening.

what would scooby do

Improvised explosive device - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Luminous

iTrader: (3)

I think the key to that answer is the I in the name. Whatever they do now, if you come up with something that defeats one method, they just switch to another, ie they improvise.

I think the real key to beating them is to get the local population on side. Lets not forget that to bury an IED so that it cannot be seen by our troops takes some effort. They have to dig a hole, bury the explosives, cover it up and conceal their positions. People in the local area must know what is going on, or if they cared could certainly find out. Fact is, even if they do know they don't warn the troops.

We need a way to get the people on side with what we are doing, and then use them to help us. If we cannot get the people on side, then we are never going to win no matter how long we are in there. To be honest, I think the latter option is how it will be.

We don't speak the language, we don't understand their culture. All we can do is ride around in armoured vehicles returning fire if someone decides to engage. We cannot even determine who is the enemy unless they jump up and let us know

JonMc

iTrader: (51)

As said, any of the above and sometimes a combination depending on how experienced the bomb-maker is, and how many fail-safes he wants to put on his device.

There is a lot of technology and training out there to try and defeat these, but as the training and technology develops so do the IEDs, making them more difficult to combat.

The troops are getting much more armour on the vehicles they use to travel around, but the bombs are getting bigger to try and defeat this. No sooner did the troops get metal detectors and the bomb-makers started using very low metal content etc.

JonMc

iTrader: (51)

Getting the locals on side is exactly what a counter-insurgency is about, and the Taliban realise that we are doing quite well at this. Because of this they are less worried about local casualties in order to maximise the effect of their weapons on coalition soldiers. This trend became apparent late summer when more locals were setting off devices because they were no longer told about areas to avoid.

Luminous

iTrader: (3)

Well that is good news. It is the first that I have heard that locals really are trying to help out. I still think this is going to be a massively harder job than anyone who was planning this ever thought it would be. It is a massively difficult problem to overcome.

Just think about the IRA and how long it took to get the bombing to stop. We had the locals on side, spoke the language and had massively more intelligence that we ever can in a foreign country. Not to mention that all the weapons used by the IRA were illegal and against the normal culture of our society.

There are just so many weapons lying around in Iraq/Afghanistan, and the borders are so vast that actually removing the weapons from the equation is going to be basically impossible. Couple that with the fact that there are always going to be a few nut cases who are prepared to use them, and that they have religious beliefs that they are going to die as a martyr and be rewarded for that and you have huge issue.

I don't see how we are ever going to sort this one out. We may be able to pull our troops out, but the amount of violence present after we leave will probably be the same, if not worse than when we arrived

I hope governments learn a lesson from this and stop trying to go for short term solutions. If you are going to go into a country to help the population then you need a firm coalition, large budget, and a very long term commitment to supporting the population.

JonMc

iTrader: (51)

Afghanistan is no different to any other country in the world, just quite a bit poorer. The local just want to get on and live their life - in fact driving along in Kabul around 2:30 in the afternoon you will see school kids in their uniforms (not much different ot my kids) walking home, chatting, homework bags in hands; it is almost surreal.

They will side with whoever is giving them the better deal, at the moment the coalition are offering medical care, education and a degree of stability. The Taliban have realised that they have been compromised and are no longer offering the same to the local so currently it seems like we have the upper hand. Unformtunately this is a precarious balance and all it will take is a major mistake by the coalition (in indvertant bombing or a school/hospital/wedding) and this balance could swing back in the favour of the Taliban.

Luminous

iTrader: (3)

Well fingers crossed that we manage to keep things going well. I hope we manage to leave the country a better place than when we arrived. Its going to be one heck of a struggle though.

Leslie

They are evil devices and the bomb disposal blokes are very heroic in the way they have been dealing with them. The man who was just killed had dealt with some 65 devices before his luck ran out.

They are always devising new ways to detonate and to booby trap them.

Les

john_s

iTrader: (1)

Eight Lives Down by Chris Hunter is well worth a read if you want a insight into what the bomb disposal guys do.

kingofturds

iTrader: (1)

A lot of weapons and components for these ied's are coming from China, unfortunately apart from express our concerns to China there is little we can do to stop them supplying to the taliban.

CHRIS_D

A lot of those components are also coming from UK believe it or not.

All of the above to the original question. The most common is pressure plate though.

my06 ppp silver

iTrader: (2)

very true, the only sure tactic i used in Northern Ireland was to take out on patrol a big bag of sweets!! keep a couple of local kids befriended for as long as possible ad you will be surprised at how this stops them. not an ideal situation and obviously not going to be available everywhere all the time, but you would be surprised at how you would have an "audience" when something was nearby , so this in itself would be a giveaway. recommend you watch an EXCELLENT up to date film called "the hurt locker", will answer a lot of Q as well as open your eyes to the grim reality of conflict.

scoobeenut

Just out of curiosity why do you need to know how they are operated?

IWatkins

David,

Any of the list you gave but pressure plate is the current favourite. And the pressure plate systems used are always changing. Detection is difficult in many situations but progress is being made.

Real shame we cannot just get around this problem by making all movements by air rather then road, but even then, a ground presence is what is needed anyway for the hearts and minds campaign.

Cheers

Ian

David Lock

I have no hidden agenda but I suppose having a 22-year old son makes you think. There is my boy sitting in a pub with his mates when another youngster is scrabbling in the dirt in Afghanistan trying to defuse an IED that could easily blind, maim or kill him.

Then there was the report this week of that lad who was blown to bits and I kept asking myself what was he doing there in the first place? Why did it need to be dismantled? Couldn't it have been blown up from a distance? If it was one operated by a pressure plate why can't they attach a heavy roller to the front of a heavy duty armoured vehicle where they would explode it 30 ft away from the driver?

As for hearts and minds I guess if the Russians had faced similar problems they would have just rounded up some locals, given them some Russian uniforms to put on, and made them walk in front of a convoy. I think that would have made the locals keep a good look out for Taliban with spades and torches in the middle of the night.

Thanks a lot btw for lot of interesting information that has come my way.

I maintain my view that we should get out ASAP.

All Brown will say is that he has congratulated Karzai on his victory and told him to get his act together, corruption etc. Who is he f,ucking kidding?

David

============

Luminous

iTrader: (3)

I too wonder why we need people to go up close and personal to diffuse bombs. I watched the film "The Hurt Locker". All seems so dangerous what they are doing.

Many years ago (about 17), I did receive some training when it came to bomb disposal when I was thinking about a career in the forces. I hasten to add that I was not actually thinking about becoming a bomb disposal officer, I just had the opportunity to train with them for a day.

Back then they told me that modern mines, IEDs etc were just too dangerous to approach. They said that there were just too many ways that they could be set off, and too many different methods of booby trapping to come up with a reliable way to diffuse them. Hence, on that day they were showing me how to deal with the problem.

I forget the name of the vehicle, but it was basically something like a warrior APC, with a remotely controlled high velocity cannon mounted on the top. You would identify the suspicious package, area of ground, whatever, and then fire a round into it from a reasonable range.

The idea was the puncture the outer casing of the explosive device, setting it off, but allowing it to depressurise through the hole you had just made in the casing. The net effect was still an explosion, but one that was about 10% of what the bomb would have managed to achieve otherwise. Think firecracker in your hand v firecracker in open air.

There must be a good reason why we are not dealing with IEDs like this, but I don't know what it is. Must be better to make a few more craters than needed than have dead people. Its not that hard to fill in a hole, or rebuild a wall compared to other options.

JonMc

iTrader: (51)

The main reason that they try and difuse them is to exploit them. By understanding their make-up it is possible to identify ways to defeat them. Blowing them up from a distance assumes that they can be found. In order to find them they have to know what to look for.

Yes this weekend it was a Bomb Disposal operator that was killed, but all too often soldiers who have just missed the tell tale signs have been killed and that is why there is an attempt to understand these devices.

Luminous

iTrader: (3)

Yeah, that is a fair point. We have to be doing it the correct way, as there are many smarter people than me coming up with the rules on how to do this. Its just me sitting here in my armchair wondering why they cannot achieve the same thing remotely.

Use a robot to photograph the device to show soldiers what to look out for, and then blow it up But yes, the hardest thing is finding them. I fully understand how they kill soldiers, but when they get a bomb disposal expert I guess it must just have been bad luck

Leslie

I agree wholeheartedly.

Les

john_s

iTrader: (1)

I think another reason they try to defuse them rather than just blowing them up is that they get more forensic evidence that can be used to put a case together against those planting the bombs.

David Lock

John, with respect, but that's pushing it a bit isn't it? Get the Afghan police to do it then.

I can see they will want to keep some intact to learn about how they are made but it all seems far too risky to me. Sadly.

David

JonMc

iTrader: (51)

It's not to far from the truth - they may have underhand tactics, but if a bomb-maker is captured alive then he will be treated as a war criminal which means he is entitled to a trial so the evidence is required.

Without evidence they are free to continue making more IEDs.

Not a nice job, and one I nearly took on about 5 years ago but I opted to go to Iraq rather than the Falklands, so didn't go down that route.

David Lock

OK - well you guys know so much more than me so I'll need to accept your comments.

But it seems crazy to me. If they get close enough to a suspect just shoot him dead, that'll slow him down.

dl

JonMc

iTrader: (51)

Shooting them dead would appear to be a simple answer, but that would make them no better than us.

There are laws to armed conflict, and it is only acceptable to kill someone if certain criteria are met, ie life would be immediately endangered if the enemy wasn't killed.

Depending upon your nationality depends upon exactly how this is interpreted, but it is basically self-defence.

my06 ppp silver

iTrader: (2)

it was a "trained" rogue Afghan policeman that shot dead the 5 most recent soldiers. a sad state of affairs really.

David Lock

You're right of course. d