# Hillier flown from Afghan village after bomb blast



## Armymedic (10 Mar 2006)

Yeah, whatever... More importantly the blast hit a Bison Ambulance.

If you look weaker then the rest, they will attack you. The target was a logistic convoy a short distance away.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/03/10/canadians-mission060310.html

Hillier flown from Afghan village after bomb blast
Last Updated Fri, 10 Mar 2006 06:05:31 EST 
CBC News
Canada's top soldier was whisked away from an Afghan village Friday after a nearby Canadian convoy triggered a roadside bomb, which blew a wheel off the armoured vehicle. 

Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier had been in southern Afghanistan to take part in a large Canadian mission in the area. Troops are fanning out in the area north of the city, visiting villages and tribal elders to establish a Canadian presence in the region, a former Taliban stronghold. 

Hillier had been meeting with a village elder when the Canadian supply convoy, travelling about 800 metres away, triggered a roadside bomb. 

No one was injured in the blast, but the wheel of the armoured Bison was damaged. 

Hillier was first taken by armoured convoy to a Canadian operating base in Gumbad, about 70 km north of Kandahar, and then flown by U.S. Blackhawk helicopter. It's not clear where he was taken. 

The Canadian mission, which involves several hundred soldiers, armoured vehicles, artillery and helicopters, is expected to last through March. it comes after a deadly week in the war-ravaged country that saw two Canadian soldiers killed and eleven injured in a road accident and two attacks. 

Troops are pushing out from Kandahar in southern Afghanistan into areas where the Taliban has returned after being defeated by U.S.-led coalition forces in 2001, the CBC's Kas Roussy said from the Kandahar base. 

They intend to pacify the area, a necessary first step to improve local governance and people's lives. 

Part of the forces' work involves opening a road from Kandahar City to the north. 

"It is a dangerous mission," Roussy said. She added that the area the Canadians are moving into "is still very insecure." 

U.S. officers who know the area said there are dozens of militants operating in several bands. Six U.S. soldiers and 18 Afghans, including civilians, were killed on duty in the area in 2005. 

Few details are available for security reasons, but Roussy described seeing vehicles and soldiers preparing to leave the base over the previous 24 hours. 

There are 2,200 Canadians in southern Afghanistan, part of a multinational force led by Canadian Brig.-Gen. David Fraser. 

A battle group from Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry took over frontline duties in Kandahar from a U.S. task force in late February. 

Since then, two Canadians have been killed in an accident, and five have been hurt. Five more were wounded in a suicide attack, and a sixth received a severe axe wound to the head from a Taliban militant, who was shot dead by other Canadians. 

That was believed to be the first engagement between Canadians and the Taliban. 


Copyright ©2006 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - All Rights Reserved


----------



## Blakey (10 Mar 2006)

How do you know it was a Bison Amb that was hit?


----------



## Sig_Des (10 Mar 2006)

from the article



> No one was injured in the blast, but the wheel of the armoured Bison was damaged.


----------



## Caleix (10 Mar 2006)

Or if you watched the news you would have seen a big VR picture of a bison for Fld Amb purposes.

Caleix


----------



## George Wallace (10 Mar 2006)

Not all the Bison Fleet are Ambs.  They are used for a wide variety of purposes.  Ambs are just one.


----------



## Franko (10 Mar 2006)

Blakey said:
			
		

> How do you know it was a Bison Amb that was hit?



We know guys in theater.....

Regards


----------



## DFW2T (10 Mar 2006)

Blakey said:
			
		

> How do you know it was a Bison Amb that was hit?
> [/quoGood question........???????WTFte]


----------



## 3rd Horseman (10 Mar 2006)

Oh shame the media again blowing things out of context.


It is not an engagement nor is it under fire (as reported by the media) if you hit a mine its a normal day in a war zone.

Nice to hear the troops are ok and just another tire blown off for the umpteenth time.


----------



## Patrolman (10 Mar 2006)

From what I heard it was not a mine but a remote detonated IED . In which case it would be an attack. Generally Ambs are in a location where  other vehicles would have passed through before the blast was detonated. Am I right?


----------



## 3rd Horseman (10 Mar 2006)

A remote detonated IED is just a mine by other name, IED is a new fancy highspeed word for "MINE" I don't consider it to be an attack in the formal sense of what attack means, but I guess for the sake of argument within the CF we could say it was a form of attack. The issue for me and the media is that the Canadian public does not define between the impersonal one off isolated attack of a mine be it remote , homemade or pressure detonated. Attack to them means fighting.

As for the Amb there is a tactical position for Ambs to be in a convoy I don't think we should comment on its place in the battle field as it may give info to the EN of how to attack one next time.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Mar 2006)

The nature of warfare and the various metrics used for success and failure are changing. While a "professional" army would use a mine or IED as the trigger for a larger action or series of actions (i.e. spring an ambush, or at least have the position covered by fire), fighters like the Taliban, AQ, Farah Adid's Militia in Somalia and so on operate by a different rule set.

A constant stream of attacks like the suicide bombs, IEDs and so on are designed primarily to sap the morale of our side; not just the soldiers (who would probably be the hardest nut to crack, being well trained, well equipped and well motivated), but the general public back here in Canada. Their "victory condition" is simply to grind down our forces with constant low level attacks, knowing this is highly publicised at home by the MSM. Eventually (they hope), the public will weary of the constant expenditure of blood and treasure (Bison's, G-wagons and LAVs are not cheap) with seemingly no visible change in conditions over there, and demand the politicians bring the troops home and disengage from the theater. (A particular danger is a manipulative MSM with its own agenda; notice the American press almost never, EVER reports on reconstruction efforts in Iraq or Afghanistan, reinforcing the preception there is no change happening despite the heroic efforts of the troops.) Unless the politicians are made of stern stuff like George W Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard, the siren song will become irresistible.

Linking to several other threads and the Ruxsted Group editorial, we need to go on a full press sales job so people know and understand what we are doing, why we are doing this and what we hope to achieve. Prime Minister Harper has a tough job ahead of him, this is one area we can help.


----------



## Patrolman (10 Mar 2006)

3rd Horseman you are right I would not want to give away parts of our tactics to the enemy so I changed my last post. I am sure Al-Quieda and the Taliban will figure out Canadian tactics on there own soon enough. In fact they probably already have.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Mar 2006)

> Linking to several other threads and the Ruxsted Group editorial, we need to go on a full press sales job so people know and understand what we are doing, why we are doing this and what we hope to achieve. Prime Minister Harper has a tough job ahead of him, this is one area we can help.



Agreed, but I think that we must be careful of appearing to be shills for the current governing party. There are already journalists who are beginning to say that CDS is straying into "political" territory with his defence of the Afghan mission.  Luckily, there are all kinds of good and moral reasons for us to be in Afghanistan without the average soldier having to risk looking like the media spokesperson for the PMO.


----------



## ErorZ (10 Mar 2006)

This article has spin written all over it, the news has this down to an art, by using key words.

No whisking of Gen Hiller from the explosion site was made.  This is not first hand accounts by myself, but it isnt from the rumour mill either.

Gen Hiller just did an interview 5 minutes ago, I didn't listen in so I don't know if he makes things clearer or anything but it should start airing in the next few hours.  Let me know what he said, I don't really have easy access to a TV


----------



## Drawoh (10 Mar 2006)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> A remote detonated IED is just a mine by other name, IED is a new fancy highspeed word for "MINE" I don't consider it to be an attack in the formal sense of what attack means, but I guess for the sake of argument within the CF we could say it was a form of attack. The issue for me and the media is that the Canadian public does not define between the impersonal one off isolated attack of a mine be it remote , homemade or pressure detonated. Attack to them means fighting.
> 
> As for the Amb there is a tactical position for Ambs to be in a convoy I don't think we should comment on its place in the battle field as it may give info to the EN of how to attack one next time.



Land mines generally refer to devices specifically manufactured for purpose, as distinguished from improvised explosive devices.
An IED typically consists of an explosive charge, possibly a booster charge, a detonator and a mechanism either mechanical or electronic, known as the initiation system. IEDs are extremely diverse in design, and may contain any type of firing device or initiator, plus various commercial, military, or contrived chemical or explosive fillers.An improvised explosive device (IED) is a formal name for explosive devices as often used in unconventional warfare by terrorists, guerrillas or commando forces in a theater of operations. Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the press has often referred to these devices as roadside bombs.

Wow are you misinformed.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Mar 2006)

Drawoh said:
			
		

> Land mines generally refer to devices specifically manufactured for purpose, as distinguished from improvised explosive devices.
> An IED typically consists of an explosive charge, possibly a booster charge, a detonator and a mechanism either mechanical or electronic, known as the initiation system. IEDs are extremely diverse in design, and may contain any type of firing device or initiator, plus various commercial, military, or contrived chemical or explosive fillers. An improvised explosive device (IED) is a formal name for explosive devices as often used in unconventional warfare by terrorists, guerrillas or commando forces in a theater of operations. Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the press has often referred to these devices as roadside bombs.
> 
> Wow are you misinformed.



A Land Mine typically consists of an explosive charge, possibly a booster charge, a detonator and a mechanism either mechanical or electronic, known as the initiation system.

Land Mines are extremely diverse in design, and may contain any type of firing device or initiator, plus various commercial, military, or contrived chemical or explosive fillers.

Land mines generally refer to devices specifically manufactured for purpose, as distinguished from improvised explosive devices.  Both are 'manufactured' to kill or maim through the use of an explosive device.  

WOW!  Who is misinformed?

For anyone interested, SEARCH Mines, Landmines, IEDs, VBIEDs and Booby Traps to have a look at what we have discussed in other Topics on these devices.  In many cases it will boil down to pure semantics.


----------



## Kat Stevens (10 Mar 2006)

Drawoh said:
			
		

> Land mines generally refer to devices specifically manufactured for purpose, as distinguished from improvised explosive devices.
> An IED typically consists of an explosive charge, possibly a booster charge, a detonator and a mechanism either mechanical or electronic, known as the initiation system. IEDs are extremely diverse in design, and may contain any type of firing device or initiator, plus various commercial, military, or contrived chemical or explosive fillers.An improvised explosive device (IED) is a formal name for explosive devices as often used in unconventional warfare by terrorists, guerrillas or commando forces in a theater of operations. Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the press has often referred to these devices as roadside bombs.
> 
> Wow are you misinformed.



Yours is a text book definition of a mine.  As i understand it, the term IED came into vogue during that nasty business in Ulster, when the en used absolutely anything lying about and made a booby trap out of it.  A remote detonated "IED" in Iraq differs from an M-18 how, exactly?  Both are constructed to spew death at the push of a button. Only difference, M-18 is directional doom, "RDIED" is a 360 degree killer.  O'course, I was wrong once before.... 8)


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Mar 2006)

> O'course, I was wrong once before....



O'Course that was only when you thought you were wrong and turned out to be right all along. ;D

IIRC at the time of the Warrenpoint bombing in 1979 (a patrol of Paras in Landrovers blown up as they passed a culvert full or Semtex or ANFO - 18 fatalities) the IED in question was also known as a "command detonated mine".   Similarly in World War 1 tunnels dug under trenches, filled with Amatol (TNT and AN), and detonated were also known as mines, as in Coal mines.  

Or even earlier, digging tunnels under castle walls and having them fall down when you "pull the props out from under them" was undermining.

Trivia of the day....

Cheers.


----------



## Kat Stevens (10 Mar 2006)

yes, I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.  If I'm ever wrong, I'll be the first one to admit it. I think this whole IED thing was a ball that the media picked up and ran with.  It sounds like a much cooler army acronym than "command or remote detonated mine".  Whatever the nomenclature, people die


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Mar 2006)

I am not sure it was wise for Hillier to depart the AO so quickly after the IED went off. The blast was 800 meters away after all.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (10 Mar 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I am not sure it was wise for Hillier to depart the AO so quickly after the IED went off. The blast was 800 meters away after all.



He was on a programmed visit - and continued with the program.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (10 Mar 2006)

Drawoh said:
			
		

> Land mines generally refer to devices specifically manufactured for purpose, as distinguished from improvised explosive devices.
> An IED typically consists of an explosive charge, possibly a booster charge, a detonator and a mechanism either mechanical or electronic, known as the initiation system. IEDs are extremely diverse in design, and may contain any type of firing device or initiator, plus various commercial, military, or contrived chemical or explosive fillers.An improvised explosive device (IED) is a formal name for explosive devices as often used in unconventional warfare by terrorists, guerrillas or commando forces in a theater of operations. Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the press has often referred to these devices as roadside bombs.
> Wow are you misinformed.



No he isn't. You have not defined any one item in your paragraph.  In fact what you have described pretty much matches the mines found along the Western Front dating from WWI.

Think about what just wrote about the explosive train.  How many mines lack that?
You say IED's are diverse in design.  Mines aren't diverse?
As regards an IED being an unconventional weapon, your definition also applies to booby traps manufactured with mass produced firing devices.  Are they booby traps, IEDs, or mines?
You can't say a land mine is an explosive device designed to be operated by the direct physical actions of the victim either.  A MRUD is still considered a landmine and that can be functioned by the person who laid the mine.
Just how mass produced does an item have to be before it moves from IED to mine?  If someone makes two identical explosive devices are they then mines? 20? 200?

It would be more accurate to say the vehicle struck a mine consisting of an IED/booby trap/TM46.

And finally a couple of definitions provided by NATO:

Mine  - An explosive or other material, normally encased, designed to destroy or damage vehicles, boats, or aircraft, or designed to wound, kill, or otherwise incapacitate personnel. It may be detonated by the action of its target, the passage of time or by controlled means.

Improvised Explosive Device (IED)  - A device placed or fabricated in an improvised manner incorporating destructive, lethal, noxious, pyrotechnic, or incendiary chemcial agenst and designed to destroy, incapacitate, harass, or distract.  It may incorporate military stores, but is normally devised from nonmilitary components.

So looking at those, can an IED be called a mine?

D

Edit- Seems like Kat and George beat me to it.  Oh well, save everyone looking up the NATO definitions.


----------



## Armymedic (10 Mar 2006)

Blakey said:
			
		

> How do you know it was a Bison Amb that was hit?



At 0613 hrs, it was because Patrick Brown reported it live on CBC. He was with the CDS at the time of the blast, and was reporting from the FOB where they and the convoy that was attacked moved to afterward.

Later, at work, HSS troops said that it was a amb that was hit, and none of the crew were injured. The blast ripped off one of the wheels.

As for what it was....it went boom....it hurts...It makes me need to go to work....its all bad.


----------



## Blakey (10 Mar 2006)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> At 0613 hrs, it was because Patrick Brown reported it live on CBC. He was with the CDS at the time of the blast, and was reporting from the FOB where they and the convoy that was attacked moved to afterward.
> 
> Later, at work, HSS troops said that it was a amb that was hit, and none of the crew were injured. The blast ripped off one of the wheels.
> 
> As for what it was....it went boom....it hurts...It makes me need to go to work....its all bad.


Rgr, when I had made my initial post, all I had to go on was the www media account of the attack. (I have no T.V. in my room). It wasn't until later on that I actually saw the same report via CBC website, thank you.


----------



## ErorZ (11 Mar 2006)

Funny how the media is trying to avoid reporting it made a mistake it its initial reports about Gen. Hillier being whisked away after the blast. The only mention I could find of it was in the Globe and Mail article, which starts off saying 

"Soldiers scrambled to whisk General Rick Hillier, the chief of the defence staff, into another armoured vehicle and back to the army's forward-operating base near Gumbad”

but then goes on to quote Gen. Hillier 

"Gen. Hillier told CBC Newsworld later that the explosion happened close enough for him to feel it. But he took the planned route back to the forward-operating base “and I left on schedule. So I guess it was a day in the life of this mission."

Funnier is how CBC, the people that actually did the interview last night don't even rectify their story, they even half quote Gen. Hillier to make it sound like hes down playing the whole thing.

Source:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060311.wxhillier0311/BNStory/Afghanistan/home
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/03/10/canadians-mission060310.html


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (11 Mar 2006)

ErorZ said:
			
		

> Funny how the media is trying to avoid reporting it made a mistake it its initial reports about Gen. Hillier being whisked away after the blast. The only mention I could find of it was in the Globe and Mail article, which starts off saying
> 
> "Soldiers scrambled to whisk General Rick Hillier, the chief of the defence staff, into another armoured vehicle and back to the army's forward-operating base near Gumbad”
> 
> ...



At risk of sidetracking the thread....the CBC is starting to sicken me a little. The two nights of live newscasts from Kandahar were OK but the reports from Carol whats her face were heavy slanted. She used the words "peacekeeping" and asked senior officers and soldiers "is this peacekeeping" at least ten times. Where has she been? and why is she asking this?
My answer (cause those were rhetorical questions..ha ha) is that she thinks we shouldn't be there doing counter insurgency work and she is trying to shape Canadian opinions. 
thoughts from the forum??


----------



## McG (11 Mar 2006)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> If you look weaker then the rest, they will attack you. The target was a logistic convoy a short distance away.


I would not take this to the lesson's learned centre.  There are a few errors in this story.  



			
				3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> A remote detonated IED is just a mine by other name,


You've just failed IED awareness.  That line of thinking can get troops killed.  Any command detonated IED (be it RC, command wire, or suicide) is an ambush.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Mar 2006)

Crap!

We have enough threads and Topics on what is a Mine and what is a Bobby trap and what is an IED and ........frig the semantics.....It is off topic.


----------



## bilton090 (11 Mar 2006)

Drawoh said:
			
		

> Land mines generally refer to devices specifically manufactured for purpose, as distinguished from improvised explosive devices.
> An IED typically consists of an explosive charge, possibly a booster charge, a detonator and a mechanism either mechanical or electronic, known as the initiation system. IEDs are extremely diverse in design, and may contain any type of firing device or initiator, plus various commercial, military, or contrived chemical or explosive fillers.An improvised explosive device (IED) is a formal name for explosive devices as often used in unconventional warfare by terrorists, guerrillas or commando forces in a theater of operations. Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the press has often referred to these devices as roadside bombs.
> 
> Wow are you misinformed.   From A Eng. your right on the money  !!!!!!!


----------



## George Wallace (11 Mar 2006)

Bilton

Too bad you didn't include the replies to that post also.   :

Now back on Topic!


----------



## RangerRay (11 Mar 2006)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> At risk of sidetracking the thread....the CBC is starting to sicken me a little. The two nights of live newscasts from Kandahar were OK but the reports from Carol whats her face were heavy slanted. She used the words "peacekeeping" and asked senior officers and soldiers "is this peacekeeping" at least ten times. Where has she been? and why is she asking this?
> My answer (cause those were rhetorical questions..ha ha) is that she thinks we shouldn't be there doing counter insurgency work and she is trying to shape Canadian opinions.
> thoughts from the forum??



CBC is only starting to sicken you now?  I've been sickened by it since high school!  

But I have to agree with you, their coverage from Kandahar was fair and even supportive, _until_ they got to Carol Off's and Terrence "The Horror and the Valour" Mckenna's reports.  They definitly gave the impression that we should be "peacekeeping", we're there supporting narco-warlords and how much safer things were under the Taliban.  :


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (11 Mar 2006)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> CBC is only starting to sicken you now?  I've been sickened by it since high school!
> 
> But I have to agree with you, their coverage from Kandahar was fair and even supportive, _until_ they got to Carol Off's and Terrence "The Horror and the Valour" Mckenna's reports.  They definitly gave the impression that we should be "peacekeeping", we're there supporting narco-warlords and how much safer things were under the Taliban.  :



Terrance McKenna....i know a few vets....RCAF especially... who'd like to leave him out in Gumbad for a few nights alone!! ha ha.  :threat:


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Mar 2006)

> Terrance McKenna....i know a few vets....RCAF especially... who'd like to leave him out in Gumbad for a few nights alone!! ha ha.



Padre - the church militant?


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (11 Mar 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Padre - the church militant?



Darn tooting!! he he.....I'm a military chaplain for a reason...I support our troops and vets...Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition I say.... ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Mar 2006)

Cheers Sir. ;D


----------



## Acorn (15 Mar 2006)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> So looking at those, can an IED be called a mine?



It can, if you want to make a big mistake. Sure, the definition of an IED may fit with some other definitions of explosive devices, but it is VERY important to distinguish them. Ask any EOD guys why they have special teams for dealing with IEDs, with special equipment and training.


----------



## Kat Stevens (15 Mar 2006)

How isn't an IED a mine?  It is a deliberately placed explosive device designed to kill or maim, demoralize, and deny the use of ground.  I'd buy 60 lbs of semtex strapped to jihadis headgear as an IED, but on the ground waiting to be remotely, pressure, proximity, or trip wire detonated makes it no different from an M-16 or an M-18.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Mar 2006)

One is store-bought and predictable (it meets various manufacturing standards) and the other is a Do-it-Yourself device made by individuals of varying competence and unpredictable?


----------



## Kat Stevens (15 Mar 2006)

Explain, then, the cottage industry throughout the Soviet Block of wooden box mines?  I don't think the Wehrmacht in '43 gave a flying rodents rectum if it was built in Baba Smirnoff's kitchen, or The Great Peoples Revolutionary Wooden Box Mine And Tractor Factory, it was still a mine. The initiation chain is identical, the intent is identical, the components are identical, and the result is identical.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Mar 2006)

Oxymoron: Russian Quality Control?


----------



## Koenigsegg (15 Mar 2006)

They are both explosive devices, and their definitions are very similar.  However, think of them in terms of economy cars and sports cars.  They are both cars, but not exactly the same, both have the same basic intentions as well.
 Mortars and Howitzers...Both are artillery, both are work by firing an explosive down a barrel, and both have the same intentions.
These artillery weapons are very similar on paper, and like before have the same intentions, but they are however different.

Differentiating between an IED and a mine is more difficult.
One thing about IEDs, not so much a difference, but they are very crude.  Nowadays manufactured mines are designed a certain way and have the same result.  IEDs are put together by any one and all are pretty much different.  They may use the same design, but there are  deviations.  Like the British bar mines, all were identical all worked the same.  Over in Afghanistan and Iraq there are IEDs that use artillery shells, TNT, chemicals that ignite... the list goes on.  Although they may use the same basic design, no two tend to be exactly the same.

The main difference would probably be "Improvised" (To invent, compose, or perform with little or no preparation.   To make or provide from available materials)
Maybe it would be best to place IED under the category of mine, as there are minor differences, but overall they are basically the same.  Say under the heading of "Mine" there to th left "IED" and to the right "manufactured", or "Planned".


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Mar 2006)

All explosive devices are planned.  Nobody ever just pitches a bunch of boomsplosive into a garbage can and hopes to hell it works come go time.  They are deliberately designed to carry out a specific function, whether it be spraying nuts and bolts around a shopping mall, or blowing the guts out of an AFV.  i think "IED" became vogue, because "improvised" implies a sort of low cunning, whereas a "mine" indicates design, R&D, and manufacture, a process that Joe Sixpack doesn't like to think the baddies are capable of.... ^-^


----------



## AmmoTech90 (16 Mar 2006)

Think of it this way-
You have a C7, thats a rifle.  You have a homemade zip gun with some rifling in the barrel.  They are both rifles however the C7 is not a zip gun.

You have a TM46, thats a mine.  You have an IED designed to function when pressure is applied.  They are both mines but the TM46 is not an IED.

Yes, if there is an IED threat then everything has to be treated differently and as MCG pointed out you have to have *IED awareness* rather than mine awareness, that isn't really the point.  The point is someone earlier in the thread incorrectly slammed someone else using in-accurate information.

This thread is fairly off topic, maybe the semantics could be stripped out.

D


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Mar 2006)

I will give in on this point.  If a device employs Arty Projo, ADB, or other ordnance not specifically designed for a booby trap/mine role, then it should be classed IED.  An initiator, fuse, booster/burster charge, and main charge, no matter how shabbily constructed, serves the purpose of a mine.  Out from me on this.... 8)


----------



## SprCForr (16 Mar 2006)

I agree, it's just splitting hairs really.

Kat, Mike H told me it was just based on design, function and alteration if any and to not get hung up on it. The clean version goes something like : "Call it Bill or quatlube or whatever for all I care, just know how to deal with it."


----------



## c_canuk (16 Mar 2006)

maybe my thoughts are worth what you are paying for them (ziltch) but aren't command detonated mines used mainly for defensive purposes, while IEDs are used mainly for Ambushing purposes... 

though I suppose a Claymore could be used in the same manner, but as I understand it IEDs are not quite as refined, and thus you might not want to use it in a defensive role as you might not be 100% on the danger zone size and shape?


Edited for spelling


----------

