| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Iraq-Jordan | |
| Iraq insurgents using more powerful bombs | |
| 2005-08-04 | |
| WASHINGTON - Insurgents are using more powerful, armor penetrating bombs in attacks like those this week that killed 21 US marines in western Iraq, a top general said on Wednesday. âWe are seeing larger amounts of explosives,â said Brigadier General Carter Ham of the US Joint Staff. âWe are seeing different techniques that are being used in an effort to counter the efforts of coalition and Iraqi security forces to protect folks while they are moving -- different types of penetrators, different techniques of triggering the events.â âI mean, again, this is a very brutal, lethal and adaptive enemy,â he said.
| |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #24 Anyone know if AAV7s have floor escape hatches? I suspect not due to watertightness concerns. If so, the Marines a better chance to get out if they were in LAV-25s or M113s. Berms are perfect places to bury IEDs and would direct the blast directly into the sides of vehicles. |
| Posted by: ed 2005-08-04 20:18 |
| #23 Build berms on the sides of the frequently travelled roads, add concrete barriers. Maybe this might help. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2005-08-04 19:35 |
| #22 Read Belmont Club's fisking of the General's press conference on the Marines deaths. At this link. Here's the first hint that this operation is qualitatively different from anything previous. The implication of Gen. Ham's statements is that in the past the coalition only had the ability to drive out insurgents locally, like chasing a soap bar around a tub. He strongly suggests that this time, there is no place to hide and the loss of the 21 Marines was in line with this new and offensive goal. ... It turns out from the answer that the ongoing operation, which has no public name, is quite large. This operation runs all along the Euphrates River line "all the way out to the border". ... |
| Posted by: 3dc 2005-08-04 19:22 |
| #21 An M-113 or a Stryker wouldn't have made any difference, excepting maybe the Strykers's speed may have made the explosion tricker to set off if it was remote. Even unlikely a Bradley comes through this sort of explosion... |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-08-04 19:19 |
| #20 A is C, OMG the wmv file is almost trance like. I have to say this is the first video of this type that I've viewed. I've seen alot of our guys stuff but not this. Just enforces how nuts these guys really are. |
| Posted by: Jan 2005-08-04 18:48 |
| #19 The marines have some variant of the vehicle the Stryker was derived from. I am under the impression that there's still a large stockpile of things like M-113's in Kuwait from the first gulf war. I wonder if it could be useful? (Not to mention... aren't there Bradleys from the force drawdowns in the 90's stockpiled somewhere?) |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2005-08-04 18:37 |
| #18 Armoured segways with Blue Force Tracking. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-08-04 16:33 |
| #17 Sounds to me like they may need fewer guys per vehicle. Just as repeating rifles made the infantry square obsolete, large bombs like this may make APC's packed with a dozen guys obsolete, if the terrorists can keep it up. More vehicles, unfortunately, means higher fuel and maintenance costs. Politically, I see it happening if we keep taking hits like this one - no congressman is going to deny funding on this. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-08-04 16:24 |
| #16 The picture I was trying to post showed the aftermath (Thanks for the fix BTW, Steve). The AAV was totally flipped over. They weigh in at 26 tons, so this was no routine IED. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2005-08-04 15:44 |
| #15 And not all of them are stupid. There's nothing quite so dangerous as a resourceful idiot. |
| Posted by: Crasing Jererong6917 2005-08-04 14:18 |
| #14 If so, why ride around in an amphibious assault vehicle? Because that's what the Marines have for APCs. Besides Afghanistan, this is the farthest they have operated from a beach. I've heard they may get something Stryker-like in the future for in-shore operations., if that doesn't get the Army's panties in a bunch. Marines got tanks, but they ain't designed to carry troops inside. |
| Posted by: Steve 2005-08-04 13:58 |
| #13 Dumped the problem comment, the url blew formatting all to hell. |
| Posted by: Steve 2005-08-04 13:52 |
| #12 4,000 Hail Marys. lol. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-08-04 13:43 |
| #11 Oooooooops. Sorry. Can somebody fix that? |
| Posted by: tu3031 2005-08-04 13:38 |
| #10 He said the marines were in an amphibious assault vehicle,.. I'm kind of curious: Western Iraq, is it not all desert? If so, why ride around in an amphibious assault vehicle? And why cram so many of them into ONE vehicle? It's not good to place too many potential targets in one spot. Spread 'em out, guys. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-08-04 13:20 |
| #9 Not only are they using more powerful bombs, but they continue the stupid practice of filming attacks, thus providing our guys with mucho info on terror tactics and such. See below: http://crusader.rulez.jp/files/0804200501.wmv After viewing video, note how the mortar team operated completely out in the open -- no foliage, brush, or trees to take cover from UAVs or aircraft. |
| Posted by: Attucks is Crisp 2005-08-04 10:47 |
| #8 OK, enough with smn. He doesn't rate TROLL. He's just not good enough. I propose a DIMWIT designation, or in keeping with RB's alliterative tradition, a DDD - Dangerously Deluded Dimwit. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-08-04 09:54 |
| #7 smn: "...dusty MOAB's I helped pay for, just sitting in their warehouses...holding the floor down!!" There are NO warehouses filled with MOAB's, dusty or otherwise. It was an experimental weapon, and is NOT in general production, besides, delivering such a weapon is problematic at best. Pinhead! AR |
| Posted by: Analog Roam 2005-08-04 08:59 |
| #6 Admirable restraint, .com. If you feed them, they not only keep coming - they leave troll droppings all over the nice clean floor. |
| Posted by: anon 2005-08-04 07:51 |
| #5 Hey, I say go for it .com. I've already started. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-08-04 07:46 |
| #4 Moderators and finger-waggers, note that I did not respond to Today's Winner. This restraint is, um, unsatisfying, to say the least. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-08-04 07:32 |
| #3 I use to care'bigjim-ky', but I'm not going to give myself a stroke worrying about the US's response anymore to our valiant guys being picked off like that. No one in my family is over there, and I could give a rat's a** if we win or lose now!! I'm still 'smarting' over the dusty MOAB's I helped pay for, just sitting in their warehouses...holding the floor down!! |
| Posted by: smn 2005-08-04 05:34 |
| #2 âI mean, again, this is a very brutal, lethal and adaptive enemy,â he said. Ok general, then it's time to get brutal, lethal and adaptive in return. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2005-08-04 01:17 |
| #1 Well then maybe we should have an attack that kills 14,000. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2005-08-04 00:11 |
