# Sorry for Blowing Up Your Truck



## tomahawk6 (8 Dec 2007)

Thought you guys might like this story. ;D










A thank you note of a Canadian soldier was found in a DAF XF transported back to the Netherlands aboard an Antonov. The truck was lend to Canadian forces in Afghanistan.


----------



## Mike Baker (8 Dec 2007)

Haha nice. How many of those trucks do we have?


----------



## McG (8 Dec 2007)

Deployed fleet sizes (even borrowed fleets) do not belong on the internet.


----------



## Mike Baker (8 Dec 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> Deployed fleet sizes (even borrowed fleets) do not belong on the internet.


Roger that.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (9 Dec 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> Deployed fleet sizes (even borrowed fleets) do not belong on the internet.



I didnt think battle damage was either.

Oh well.


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Dec 2007)

There are pic's of blown up vehicles all over the internet I dont see an OPSEC issue, after all the bad guys know when they total a vehicle. Now there are pic's [very few] that depict IED countermeasures on vehicles now those I wont post.


----------



## Pil (9 Dec 2007)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> There are pic's of blown up vehicles all over the internet I dont see an OPSEC issue, after all the bad guys know when they total a vehicle. Now there are pic's [very few] that depict IED countermeasures on vehicles now those I wont post.



I think MCG was replying to the poster who asked how many vehicles we have. Not commenting on the picture.


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 Dec 2007)

Pil said:
			
		

> I think MCG was replying to the poster who asked how many vehicles we have. Not commenting on the picture.



And Tomahawk6 was replying to X-mo-1979.


----------



## Pil (9 Dec 2007)

Makes sense. Apologies


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Dec 2007)

;D oops


----------



## geo (9 Dec 2007)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> I didnt think battle damage was either.
> 
> Oh well.



A single picture that shows very little "battle damage".... nothing wrong with that.

Also, given that this vehicle is not an AFV, pert much any IED will bend parts..... not an opsec issue


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Dec 2007)

It was the note that made this story for me.


----------



## McG (9 Dec 2007)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> I didnt think battle damage was either.


Typically it is not okay (some photos vetted for the media or which slip out in the media are the exception).  There is much frustration at certain levels that such SECRET material is making it onto the internet.  I've heard trophy photos, of soldiers' blown up vehicles, are starting to catch peoples radar.  I've said it before, showing of battle damage is a foolish way to hand the enemy information on the strengths ans weaknesses of our armour.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (9 Dec 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> I've said it before, showing of battle damage is a foolish way to hand the enemy information on the strengths ans weaknesses of our armour.



+1.
If I was the "button pusher" on this IED I would be very grateful for those who posted it on the World wide web.Yes I may have seen that I disabled the vehicle from my position 2000m on a hill.
However I maybe didn't know the two inside survived,also I can now see the weaker parts of the vehicle (missing parts on the cab).Where shrapnel penetrated etc.

Army regulation 530-1 (US)
f. Technical Intelligence (TECHINT).
(1) TECHINT is derived from the collection and analysis of threat and foreign military equipment and associated
material for the purposes of preventing technological surprise, assessing foreign scientific and technical capabilities,
and developing countermeasures designed to neutralize an adversary’s technological advantages.
(2) Adversaries seek TECHINT on U.S. equipment and material in order to learn their vulnerabilities and counter
U.S. technological advantages. As an example, adversaries want to know the vulnerabilities of U.S. vehicles and armor
protection in order to conduct effective improvised explosive device (IED) attacks against U.S. forces.
g. Counterintelligence (CI). Counterintelligence counters or neutralizes the adversary’s intelligence collection efforts



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> I've heard trophy photos, of soldiers' blown up vehicles, are starting to catch peoples radar.


Good point actually.One only has to look at regimental websites to find it actually.Many sites I have visited in the past little while has the crews/occupants posing next to their vehicles.As I can understand wanting to have a pic for the old memory box,I believe we have to be more careful on where these photo's end up.

Or maybe were just paranoid.
Time to throw in black sabbath and enjoy my sunday with my tinfoil hat on.


----------



## geo (9 Dec 2007)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> +1.
> If I was the "button pusher" on this IED I would be very grateful for those who posted it on the World wide web.Yes I may have seen that I disabled the vehicle from my position 2000m on a hill.
> However I maybe didn't know the two inside survived,also I can now see the weaker parts of the vehicle (missing parts on the cab).Where shrapnel penetrated etc.


Ohhh.... please....
1) the picture & the note were released by dutch - after the vehicle got back to Holland
2) analysis of the the picture will give you very little real information
one tire is missing,
Fuel tank is punctured - but no fire
Some body panels missing BUT, nothing critical showing.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Dec 2007)

I'm just curious as to why everyone seems to "ass u me" it was an IED?  It could have been an ambush and RPG attack.  It could have been a lot of things.  "Blown up" may not even be an accurate statement, but some "literary licence" that the author took after a firefight.


----------



## armyvern (9 Dec 2007)

> However I maybe didn't know the two inside survived,



What?? They don't listen to the news or watch TV over there? "Two pers survided an IED today, suffering only minor injuries." (Not that they'd be able to recognize the vehicle as the one from their specific IED anyway, after all they were 2000m away).

Now, I don't profess to state that pics should be posted on the internet, but fuck ... they can listen to the outcomes of their attacks on the news -- Canada does.


----------



## Roy Harding (9 Dec 2007)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> It was the note that made this story for me.



Me too.  I loved it.  Thank you for posting it.

I think Geo covered the opsec issue (pictures released by our Netherlands friends), BUT all the discussion does make one think.


----------



## JBoyd (9 Dec 2007)

At least the note shows that we as a Canadian people are polite and appologetic


----------



## McG (9 Dec 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> A single picture that shows very little "battle damage".... nothing wrong with that.


Just to keep this simple for those who don't want to gamble with jail time, all pictures of battle damaged vehicles are officially classified as SECRET unless formally vetted for release.

If the picture of the truck was released by the Dutch military/government, then that information is out there & free game.  Same with photos you may find in the media or on CF webpages.  That is it.

If you want to make the call that there is not too much damage so you're going to post your photo, well then you'd better be ready to make your argument in a court.  Remember, sometimes what's not damaged is just as important to keep secret as what is.  Also, by keeping close hold on such pictures, we are denying more than you might guess to the enemy.


----------



## geo (9 Dec 2007)

Not arguing with you MCG
I should point out that being stationed in Montreal - near tht 3 CSG, 25 CFSD & 202 workshops, I get to see most everything that returns from overseas & in need of some TLC.  Having seen what is parked in lots - in plain view of the general population VS what is kept under tarps / under wraps placed out of plain sight, I have a fairly good idea of what should not be disseminated.


----------



## TN2IC (9 Dec 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Not arguing with you MCG
> I should point out that being stationed in Montreal - near tht 3 CSG, 25 CFSD & 202 workshops, I get to see most everything that returns from overseas & in need of some TLC.  Having seen what is parked in lots - in plain view of the general population VS what is kept under tarps / under wraps placed out of plain sight, I have a fairly good idea of what should not be disseminated.




x2

I have work there. And I know what I see too.  ;D


----------



## X-mo-1979 (9 Dec 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> (Not that they'd be able to recognize the vehicle as the one from their specific IED anyway, after all they were 2000m away).
> 
> Now, I don't profess to state that pics should be posted on the internet, but frig ... they can listen to the outcomes of their attacks on the news -- Canada does.



Pretty distinct vehicle I would think.However your right on the media,and that's a whole other topic.



			
				geo said:
			
		

> I get to see most everything that returns from overseas & in need of some TLC.  Having seen what is parked in lots - in plain view of the general population VS what is kept under tarps / under wraps placed out of plain sight, I have a fairly good idea of what should not be disseminated.



I was there last month as well.However I wouldn't dare take photo's of what was in our building we were working in.I didn't see the damaged vehicles outside however,but they did drag a LAV from somewhere into our building.(I was the guy with the dorky yellow visitor pass,looked to be the only one ;D)

We all love looking at battle damage.It's a sick fascination most of us have.Suddenly we become CSI crews debating what would have caused that damage etc with our peers.
I know my butt wont be in one of these ever,but when I see A vehicles posted it does make me a little angry.Sure they may find out as Vern said that 2 pers were injured.But denying them pictures Deny's intelligence.Period.The media rarely says the rear left tire was blown off and the fuel tank was punctured but did not explode.(most of the time if it has a gun it becomes a tank was hit)

I have to agree wholehearted with MCG.There is way too much techint out there,a lot of it not approved.


----------



## jollyjacktar (10 Dec 2007)

I remember when this happened.  The vehicle came into the area next to where I was working.  Lucky kid, he saw it coming and was amazed at the amount of packages in the back of the vehicle before the flash.


----------



## fraserdw (12 Dec 2007)

No OPSEC here just good clean fun.  I enjoyed it; a good morale booster!


----------



## Kiwi99 (12 Dec 2007)

Tis is all too far over hyped.  Look in any defense mag or Janes book, all the tech info about a veh that you can get your hands on.  If a guy wants to take a pic of his blown up car, then try and stop him.  he has earnt that right.  If a section/platoon/coy wants apic with an army car then good for them.  The enemy probably knows more about these veh that half the posters here, and so what.  If his bomb doen't destroy it, then he will make a bigger bomb.


----------



## McG (13 Dec 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> If a guy wants to take a pic of his blown up car, then try and stop him.  he has earnt that right.


Your personal opinion aside, every sub-unit of TF ORION was told that battle damage photos were SECRET (I recall it was either the Ops O or Trg O that did this).  Given that, there is relevant legislation here: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/O-5/bo-ga:s_3-gb:s_4//en#anchorbo-ga:s_3-gb:s_4

.... but lets assume that all the all the sub-units failed to pass this information to thier members, that nobody who was present at the time remembers, and that you do not accept that battle damage photographs are SECRET.  There is still a published order which requires you to have your photograph formally vetted before it starts floating about the internet.  Read para 4 here:  http://vcds.dwan.dnd.ca/vcds-exec/pubs/canforgen/2006/136-06_e.asp 

So again, to keep it simple, if you have a picture and you want it "out there" then submit it to the CoC to have it formally vetted for release.


----------



## Thompson_JM (18 Dec 2007)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Thought you guys might like this story. ;D
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I remember seeing that roll into the TN compound that day.. quite the site to see... 

worst part of it for the one guy in the truck, his wallet was in one of the cargo bins.... he figured his Credit cards would be for sale at the next saturday market!


----------



## Greymatters (20 Dec 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> Your personal opinion aside, every sub-unit of TF ORION was told that battle damage photos were SECRET (I recall it was either the Ops O or Trg O that did this).  Given that, there is relevant legislation here: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/O-5/bo-ga:s_3-gb:s_4//en#anchorbo-ga:s_3-gb:s_4



Labelling battle damage photos as secret is a long-standing tradition and normally was applied to aerial imagery.  It has historically been applied to hand-held imagery and ground targets such as vehicles in the past.  It is becoming more common policy nowadays because of a) most of the targeting methods are against ground-based against vehicles, and b) too many people would take their trophy photos and spread them via the internet despite the fact that they should know better.  Not everyone knows or is trained to know what is and is not of use to the enemy, so the current system keeps you from getting into trouble inadvertantly. (This also prevents soldiers from selling their photos for personal profit to private companies that like to publish said type of pictures, as has happened occasionally in the past).


----------



## Thompson_JM (27 Dec 2007)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Labelling battle damage photos as secret is a long-standing tradition and normally was applied to aerial imagery.  It has historically been applied to hand-held imagery and ground targets such as vehicles in the past.  It is becoming more common policy nowadays because of a) most of the targeting methods are against ground-based against vehicles, and b) too many people would take their trophy photos and spread them via the internet despite the fact that they should know better.  Not everyone knows or is trained to know what is and is not of use to the enemy, so the current system keeps you from getting into trouble inadvertantly. (This also prevents soldiers from selling their photos for personal profit to private companies that like to publish said type of pictures, as has happened occasionally in the past).



I will say this much about the Armour on the HET... That thing is one tough Mofo... I always felt Pretty safe in it. and comfy... Nice Truck to ride Shotgun in. Never got to drive the thing though....


----------



## Sig_Des (27 Dec 2007)

I'm fine with this going out as long as the dutch government are the guys who released it, but that's it.

I was there the night they brought that one in, and a few of us have pictures of the vehicle, and the interior of the vehicle. Cool pics, but not something I'd put up. That, or the details of the incident.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (7 Jan 2008)

Nice note.

Now if only I had faith in my own truck that it would stand up to such a beating.


----------



## Eggy (7 Jan 2008)

The Dutch MOD only released a very small picture and the note in it's weekly magazine. You could not see the detail that you see in these pics. No details were released regarding the circumstances of this attack.


----------

