# Fighting the IED/RPG ambush threat



## Cdn Blackshirt (3 Dec 2005)

First, my official disclaimer - you guys have forgotten more than I know....

That being said, although I like the premise of the authors argument, I think he stops one step short.  Specifically, that planning and procuring for an insurgent/guerilla type defence using the RPG-7 is at-best is dangerous and possibly fatal underestimation.  China and Iran are now producing anti-armour weapons at a very high rate (Iranian weapons which apparently are being shared with their various proxy terrorist groups around the Middle East as we speak).  In addition, the insurgents ability to daisy-chain IED's as per the last attack in Fallujah that killed 10 marines and injured many more shows an increasingly dangerous defensive ability to attack "patrolling" ground assets.

My uneducated take therefore is as follows:
1)  The biggest change you can make is to utilize high endurance UAV's to identify the placement of IED's and setting up of ambushes prior to your first man setting a foot anywhere near the area.  
2)  Once you have that information, you then need to determine what you're going to do with it.  My proposal would be you need several alternatives.  
a) Preferably you would develop a new class of UAV's where stealth and high endurance take priority over speed.  In essence a vehicle with a 24-hour operating time and the ability to carry (6) Small Diameter Bombs.  Call it "The Hand of God" factor.  If our commanders on the ground via TV link can see people up to no good, they die.  That also will send a powerful psychological message which will deter others from doing the same.
b) Where additional saturated fire is required in addition to the 1,500lb payload this UAV could carry, 155mm arty and 120mm mortar PGM support would follow.
c)  In areas where you were unable to set-up surveillance in such a fashion and now must enter after the defences have been set-up, I think you must equip your soldiers to be able to withstand a first hit and then respond (a theme I've been repeating for a couple of years now).  The only way I think you can do this is with something that can take an ATGM hit and respond.  That in my book is something equivalent to Merkava 4, preferably with a Russian Shtora-equivalent anti-ATGM self-defence suite.  Anything less and your basically killing off your recce guys as your trip wire.  And since the enemy as an ambusher now gets to choose which targets they are going to engage often picking the softest-skinned vehicles available to maximize casualties, you need a similar level of defence for your remaining vehicles, including your logistics and support (visual a Bisons converted to fuel tankers and cargo carriers).
d)  Remote sensing vehicles leading all patrols and convoys (also mentioned before) providing real time imagery with a sort of spider's eyes layout.  Severval different types of sensors looking in different directions for different things.  Wi-Fi sensors to penetrate curbs and pavement to  identify IED's.   Forward and upward (urban environment) looking IR sensors looking for camoflaged snipers or ATGM nests.  And chemical sniffers.  All information is fed back to a control vehicle that is mid convoy where a group of 5 or 6 guys review the data and complete threat identification (equivalent to a warship's stations and crew). 
e)  Next generation body armour.  Where your soldiers are dismounted, they need that next generation of protection.

Bottom Line:  It is inevitable that defenders will continue to refine their tactics and improve their weapons over the next decade as they take the lesson learned in Iraq and apply them.  Since there is an inevitable arms race between tanks and anti-tank weapons, that means we have to turn it into a war of economics and build a force they cannot AFFORD to engage and since they are quickly cancelling procurements of BTR's and T-72-equivalents, we have to be aware they can afford a lot more ATGM's....

Comments invited....


Matthew.


----------



## KevinB (3 Dec 2005)

Or we could just sent out Sniper Observer teams for overwatch of tgt areas and SOF forces to liase with the local population for hearts and minds...

   KISS


----------



## Infanteer (3 Dec 2005)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> That being said, although I like the premise of the authors argument, I think he stops one step short.   Specifically, that planning and procuring for an insurgent/guerilla type defence using the RPG-7 is at-best is dangerous and possibly fatal underestimation.



That's not what he said - he was focusing specifically on combat operations against conventional Iraqi Forces.   His premise refers specifically to the high-tempo of sustained combat operations.   COIN and SASO are a different story.



> 1)   The biggest change you can make is to utilize high endurance UAV's to identify the placement of IED's and setting up of ambushes prior to your first man setting a foot anywhere near the area.



This is the exact opposite of what the article proposes; this is sensor technology and although it adds another ancillery capability to the toolbelt, it shouldn't drive strategy.   It is erroneous to presuppose that with the proper technology, we can achieve information dominance and strike the enemy from afar.   The bottom line is you need to give the soldiers themselves the right balance of mobility, protection and firepower to succeed - this will most likely mean fighting for information.   Little airplanes don't win wars; as Kevin says, KISS.

Look up Col H. McMaster - there was a thread on him and his monograph which dealt with this in detail.



> Since there is an inevitable arms race between tanks and anti-tank weapons, that means we have to turn it into a war of economics and build a force they cannot AFFORD to engage and since they are quickly cancelling procurements of BTR's and T-72-equivalents, we have to be aware they can afford a lot more ATGM's....



We will never build a force that the enemy can't afford to fight.   Right now, the US spends 400 billion dollars on the most powerful military machine ever fielded and they are having trouble with an Iraqi Insurgency that is using low-grade technology to chip away at American strength.   The threat isn't the ATGM, it is the factor of who is running it; this threat cannot be templated (as the article argues).


----------



## couchcommander (3 Dec 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Or we could just sent out Sniper Observer teams for overwatch of tgt areas and SOF forces to liase with the local population for hearts and minds...
> 
> KISS



I'm a big fan of this myself, but Cdn Blackshirt also has some good points (me agreeing with you may not be a good thing, blindman + even more blindman = still just two blindmen, plus I may provoke the wrath of Infanteer ) I think that has been echoed in different language on other threads and by members with a lot of experience dealing with this type of thing.

I think sniper overwatch and actually talking and interacting with the local population are definately two of the best forms of intelligence (I've posted to this effect before),but this capability can be enhanced by remote survallance and other advanced intelligence gathering tools to create an overlapping and all encompassing sytem (without too much reliance on any one part). 

As well, it does seem to me (and I may be very wrong in this, someone with actual experience please respond on this note) that sniper observer teams aren't used to as great an extent as they could be and represent an asset would could use to exploited more fully (as Kevin pointed out, for eyes on target areas and dangerous routes). 

Saying that, Hellfire armed Predators have shown their worth in Afghanistan and Iraq, both independantly and in fire support roles. There is definately an argument for armed UAV's, and I think the CF is addressing this. 

Re: the tank... I think we'd all like tanks. Not gonna happen though (unless MGS completely falls through... it looks like it's having problems, we can hope). Uparmoured LAVs and Coyotes provide reasonable protection though (from what i have been exposed too, feel free to correct this view if it's incorrect). 

CASR actually did a modest proposal online the lines of turning bisons into armoured logistics vehicles. I think the idea has merit. A significant portion of the casualites in Iraq (at least initially) were had in unarmoured transport vehicles. With no front lines, there is no safe place. 

Re: remote sensing vehicles - do you mean something like a coyote with sensory equipment or an actual remote vehicle? And what do you mean by Wi-Fi sensors? 

The army is planning to field next generation armour, I think a contract has already been awarded. 

EDIT: 

Oh no he's here already! Cover man, cover! (just kidding )


----------



## Infanteer (3 Dec 2005)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> I think sniper overwatch and actually talking and interacting with the local population are definately two of the best forms of intelligence (I've posted to this effect before),but this capability can be enhanced by remote survallance and other advanced intelligence gathering tools to create an overlapping and all encompassing sytem (without too much reliance on any one part).



Explain.



> As well, it does seem to me (and I may be very wrong in this, someone with actual experience please respond on this note) that sniper observer teams aren't used to as great an extent as they could be and represent an asset would could use to exploited more fully (as Kevin pointed out, for eyes on target areas and dangerous routes).



And your substantiation on the proper/inproper employment of sniper teams is???



> Saying that, Hellfire armed Predators have shown their worth in Afghanistan and Iraq, both independantly and in fire support roles. There is definately an argument for armed UAV's, and I think the CF is addressing this.



Proof?   Aside from a a few dead terrorists, I haven't heard of a substantial case that UCAV's are becoming the third leg to fire support.



> The army is planning to field next generation armour, I think a contract has already been awarded.



Which Army?   What contract is that?   Funny that it hasn't been discussed here.

Like I said before, signal:noise.   If you are going to post a bunch of stuff up in the effort to get into the thread and at the end of every sentence include the disclaimer "I may be wrong as I've never been exposed to this so please correct me!", perhaps you are better off reading and asking the occasional question.   If you feel you have something to add, by all means build a case, back it up and add it to the discussion.   Don't assume because you include the disclaimer that you know nothing means you can tie up discussions.


----------



## couchcommander (3 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> And your substantiation on the proper/inproper employment of sniper teams is???



"As well, it does seem to me (and I may be very wrong in this, someone with actual experience please respond on this note)"

I believe I was quite clear that this was an "impression" that, due to my inability to go to Kandahar and look around (without putting on a uniform that is), I had garnered from mainstream media and this forum. Further, I was in effect asking for someone who has experience to provide some guidance in this respect.



> Proof?   Aside from a a few dead terrorists, I haven't heard of a substantial case that UCAV's are becoming the third leg to fire support.


Firstly, I didn't think I implied third leg. Secondly, I was simply saying "had proven their worth" in both roles, and that there is a good argument for the CF to look into aquiring armed UAV's. Do you disagree with this? 

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/national/s_131100.html - AP article detailing some of the sucesses (and failures) of tacitcal UAV's in the intial war in Iraq

http://www.defense.gov/news/May2003/n05192003_200305191.html - better sourced article, but no specific examples

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2005/ss_military_11_15.html - interesitng article on some of the uses the US has found for UAV's in Iraq


> Which Army?   What contract is that?   Funny that it hasn't been discussed here.


http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/Chief_Land_Staff/Clothe_the_soldier/hab/2/222_e.asp

"Status â â€œ Contracted. A contract has been let to MSA Gallet to supply DND with Bullet Resistant Plates. "



> Like I said before, signal:noise.   If you are going to post a bunch of stuff up in the effort to get into the thread and at the end of every sentence include the disclaimer "I may be wrong as I've never even been in a uniform so please correct me!", perhaps you are better off reading and asking the occasional question.   If you feel you have something to add, by all means build a case, back it up and add it to the discussion.   Don't assume because you include the disclaimer that you know nothing means you can tie up discussions.



I think someone missed his happy flakes this morning. 

"plus I may provoke the wrath of Infanteer ".... heh


----------



## Infanteer (3 Dec 2005)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> I believe I was quite clear that this was an "impression" that, due to my inability to go to Kandahar and look around (without putting on a uniform that is), I had garnered from mainstream media and this forum.



Again, proof - I don't know where you got the information to form this impression.   Did a Master Sniper tell you about Sniper operations in Afghanistan; was there a story or a thread on it?   You're just adding to the noise by putting this "impression" up without bothering to back it up with any sort of source.   It doesn't appear that you are asking for guidance if you are saying that your impression is that they are ill-employed.



> Firstly, I didn't think I implied third leg. Secondly, I was simply saying "had proven their worth" in both roles, and that there is a good argument for the CF to look into aquiring armed UAV's. Do you disagree with this?



How does that prove their worth with regards to reconnaissance tasks in high-tempo, sustained operations?   It's nice that you can google up some articles on how the UAV is used for strategic strikes or escorting convoys, but those have nothing to do with the topic at hand.   Major Taylor specifically addresses UAV's and their deficiencies in the "Saber for Stealth" conundrum, so instead of just posting to show us that you've read about UAVs and you know what they are, why don't you deal with the topic at hand instead of derailing it.



> "Status â â€œ Contracted. A contract has been let to MSA Gallet to supply DND with Bullet Resistant Plates. "



You're talking about body armour which is already issued - rather irrelevant to the discussion.   This is a thread about "armoured vehicles" in the "Armour" forum, so make sure you clarify what you're posting up here.



> I think someone missed his happy flakes this morning.



Have you anything else to add to the thread?


----------



## couchcommander (3 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Again, proof - I don't know where you got the information to form this impression.   Did a Master Sniper tell you about Sniper operations in Afghanistan; was there a story or a thread on it?   You're just adding to the noise by putting this "impression" up without bothering to back it up with any sort of source.   It doesn't appear that you are asking for guidance if you are saying that your impression is that they are ill-employed.



"I may be very wrong in this, someone with actual experience please respond on this note"

EDIT: I am attempting to find the news article that gave me this impression, though it is rather old



> How does that prove their worth with regards to reconnaissance tasks in high-tempo, sustained operations?   It's nice that you can google up some articles on how the UAV is used for strategic strikes or escorting convoys, but those have nothing to do with the topic at hand.   Major Taylor specifically addresses UAV's and their deficiencies in the "Saber for Stealth" conundrum, so instead of just posting to show us that you've read about UAVs and you know what they are, why don't you deal with the topic at hand instead of derailing it.



Sorry, I miss quoted myself, I said "shown their worth". 

Secondly, I was responding to Cnd Blackshirt, who I believe was putting forth UAV use for strikes and escorting convoys. 

"The biggest change you can make is to utilize high endurance UAV's to identify the placement of IED's and setting up of ambushes prior to your first man setting a foot anywhere near the area"

"Call it "The Hand of God" factor.   If our commanders on the ground via TV link can see people up to no good, they die"

And yes, Google was used to pull up articles I remember reading years ago. I didn't think that this was a bad thing. 



> You're talking about body armour which is already issued - rather irrelevant to the discussion.   This is a thread about "armoured vehicles" in the "Armour" forum, so make sure you clarify what you're posting up here.



Well I'm sorry the official DND website said Status was "contract awared", which according to the Clothe the Soldier Generic Timeline on same said site, indicates that this is before First Delivery. If this information is incorrect, I apologize. 

Further, once again, I was responding to a suggestion put forth on said thread.   



> Have you anything else to add to the thread?



Snark begets snark, and quite frankly it's beginning to piss me off. If you have a problem with something I say, post a rebuttal disproving it (given how inexperienced I am it shouldn't be that hard to find evidence to the contrary). I have clearly demonstrated I have no problem admitting when I have made a mistake.


----------



## KevinB (3 Dec 2005)

My comments on using the sniper/observer team was based on AAR's, and personal view based on my experiences.

   I don'ttrust a lot of the techy items - as it has the problem of giving the chain of command a great sense of situational awareness when they are not there   -- so while it is a great tool, it has to be taken with the understanding of its limitations.  They must not second guess the man on the ground.

 The Mk1 eyeball with eyes on can place a bullet where it needs to go -- a Armed UAV is still relating an electronic image subject to misunderstanding etc - who is responsible for the the ordnance release? and Based on WHAT (I think they are a good tool - but once again their limitations must be understood), and Omar laying a daisychain out is not a tgt for a Maverick or Hellfire especially when you consider the potential for collateral damage.   Simply whistle in a 77gr or 168/175gr BTHP into his pumpkin - no fuss no muss.

   It is easier for the US to adopt this strategy, since they have a "Sniper" at Platoon level - and greater numbers other them that the CF, add in SOF SOTI cadres and you have the potential to own the ground from 0-1200 from your OP.   Then the ODA's with their language skills can filter in and play hearts and minds while the CAG TF's deal with identified threats.

It won't start happening in the CF until we get an effective DM course running - and some of the unit Master Snipers stop being so pig headed about letting "sniper" weapons into the hands of the "unclean" in the rifle colonies.   Snipers are Bn asset and the CO has bigger fish to fry with relatively few assets.     I could start another lament about marksmanship declining and the reasons that unit MS's are loathe to turn to the colonies...


----------



## couchcommander (3 Dec 2005)

Thanks Kevin,

I can understand the desire to not use a very expensive missle on one potential terrorist (and the limitations of the TV). 

Would you agree though that when this type of overwatch is not availible that an armed UAV is a good alternative? Or would you suggest something else? 

Re: the snipers being a Bn asset... that's probably what gave me my impression of their underuse. It seemed to me that they were deployed rather sparingly.


----------



## KevinB (3 Dec 2005)

I've gone "off mission" as it where in responce to some of the comments.

 When the comments about IED planting etc I zero'd in on that aspect that they are doign that on MSR's as such is is not an advance issue I have focused on but of a COIN mission.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Dec 2005)

So much so that this jaunt gets its own thread in an effort to keep the original one on target.


----------



## KevinB (4 Dec 2005)

Thanks Infanteer  ;D


 Couch -- I will see if I can dig up some photo's but Afghan and Iraq are both a mess of cellular coverage and they also use a funky battery powered radio (the battery is funky not the radio) in areas wehre they don't want or can't use cells.   UAV's take up airspace and despite them being all stealthy and all -- I've seen some operating with my Mk1 eyeball in Afghan - now I have good eyes, but I would not kid myself about thinking your fooling anyone with the network of schoolage informants they have -- as a buddy relayed to me - "just think of that scene from BlackHawk Down, modernized"...

  UAV's to me are a good way to take out things where you dont want to send a plane or chopper - but they are not what I would call a descriminating weapon specifically using a missle.


A det can setup along a MSR and cover a good 2k bubble provided they have a good spot - with good terrain and the .338LM TWolf you can push a 3k bubble (1.5 each way).   That det can GUARANTEE you they can pretty much negate any attempt to plan IED's or possition a VBIED inside their bubble.  A 4 man det can provide observation from a secure position for an almost unlimited time, if they have to provide local security there dwell time drops significantly.

Unlike parking a M1A2 on the roadway however MullahBob won't see or know about the det until he's bleeding out on the roadway.


So you have overt and covert OP's funnel the enemy into your killing zones in the covert OP's and pop.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Dec 2005)

Just getting back to Cdn Blackshirt's origional post, while UAVs or other high tech means can certainly help, they will not lift the fog of war sufficiently to help with the IED threat. Matt Fisher has posted on the situation on the ground in Iraq, where IEDs are hidden in the piles of garbage encountered on the roadsides everywhere. Do you drop shells or bombs on anyone littering since they "might" be planting an IED? (Although I would be tempted to borrow this solution for the litterbugs who make my own home town look like a trash heap....)

This actually blends in with the "Trading the Sabre for Stealth" thread. Armoured Recce is important in getting observation forward and across a braod frontage as fast as possible, while Infantry recce can be used like KevinB suggests to piquet areas of interest, and take appropriate action to deal with threats. (see also threads about the 173 Surveillance Det).  Boots on the ground can certainly develop HUMINT, and we certainly need a more robust way of deriving int from other government agencies and NGOs operating on the ground. In all cases, high tech surveillance systems can augment the soldiers on the ground, but will not replace them. Even if an effective means of detecting IEDs was to be fielded, it seems certain that the enemy will shift tactics to negate any advantage we might derive from this.


----------



## Gunnerlove (4 Dec 2005)

I have been told that explosives are now being cast in the shape of cinder blocks , complete with remote detonator.

Stop car in traffic open door and drop it off on the side of a road used by occupying forces. Then just maintain overwatch and wait for a target to get near enough to warrant a detonation. If you think anyone can maintain a total overwatch, thourough enough to catch the placement of all bombs and mines in a whole country you are right out to lunch.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Dec 2005)

Don't forget "Yell Allahu Akbar 27 times" in that process....


----------



## scm77 (4 Dec 2005)

Some good IED info here.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/ied.htm

Check out the link there to "Package Type IED".  It's got a bunch of pictures of various IED's that have been found in Iraq.  Artillery shells hidden in bags, anti-tank mines with remote detonators hidden in concrete.  Even some sort of explosive hidden in a Pepsi can.


----------



## KevinB (4 Dec 2005)

I'm not concerned with observing small IED's (sorry) they are a threat more to children and noncombatants -- I am more concerned with someone emplacing a few 152mm shells alongside the MSR.  You can fill your tags quickly enough and get rid of some the competant bombers that way - plus learn more about their construction methods to get clues onto who to whack for building them.  

If you've seen some of the US forces ODA's roll you can see them taking their time slowly and methodically moving down the routes in their open Hummers OBSERVING for threats 

  A buddy of mine has a good video on the effects of handgrenades and small EID's on his convoy (nill effects other than the suburban veered abit upon detonation of the IED)  Different mission form the ODA's in that they are guarding a client and not intent on solving the issues at hand.

RPG and other small arms ambush threats can be dealt with by good IA drills and accurate return fire -- most insurgents will not last long on a force on force shootout against contractors or western military forces.

DISMOUNT AND KILL.


----------



## McG (5 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> So much so that this jaunt gets its own thread in an effort to keep the original one on target.


Which thread did this start in?



			
				Gunnerlove said:
			
		

> Stop car in traffic open door and drop it off on the side of a road used by occupying forces. Then just maintain overwatch and wait for a target to get near enough to warrant a detonation.


There's the key.   With the large part of IEDs being command detonated, it is important to remain vigilant, treat every strike as an ambush, look for the guy that "pressed the button" and kill/capture him (even better if you identify & get him before he "presses the button").


----------



## Infanteer (5 Dec 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> Which thread did this start in?



Saber for Stealth


----------



## Lav968 (13 Dec 2005)

Another option instead of new UCAVs is currently being researched by the AF.  The Aurora's new upgrades include optics (not sure how sensitive this info is...any AVN Techs/Pilots have more detailed info?) that the puzzle palace has shown interest in using for Land Observation.  I know it is not totally relevent to this thread but thought it was worth a mention instead of new UCAVs this can save us $$$ and I believe is much more likely.  When you factor in $$$ and the Auroras high loiter time it seems ideal in theory.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Dec 2005)

Loitering aircraft, UAVs or even baloons can only be part of the solution. The platform might catch an action, but it certainly can't signal intent. When you see a person littering the side of the road, is he just a slob, or is there a bomb concealed in the garbage. There is also the temporal aspect to consider. It is quite possible for the jihadis to emplace a device days or even weeks in advance (you just saw someone taking out the trash, or a road crew laying some new curbs), triggered by a person on the day of the attack using a cell phone or a garage door opener.

In the opposite direction, homicide bombers and vehicle borne IEDs are usually only detectable when they detonate. Even conventional attacks are hit and run, Jihadis pull to the side of the road, jump out and fire some rounds from a 60mm mortar then dive back into the car to do their escape (which includes going under bridges or inside parking garages to change vehicles where "we" can't see them.)

The short answer is extra layers of technology and surveillance might provide _some_ help (although if the feed from the Aurora goes to the ASCC and not to me, it is of very little use), it isn't the magic bullet solution.


----------



## 043 (15 Dec 2005)

A really good thread I must admit! Lots of interesting good and bad comments that no one can prove worthy until tested. UAV's are a possiblity however, there are not enough UAV's in the world to maintain eyes on all the time. There are simply too many routes and VP's (vulnerable points) out there. As for the 3km bubble that Kevin B relates to, again, there are way too many VP's and routes and not enough Sniper Dets.

As some one who was deployed on Roto 0 and had a hand in a few covert insertions, there are extremely difficult to pull off over there because the place is so damn populated. If we id'd a possible OP location, 99% of the time, it had already been used by the locals in the past. Not saying it was impossible, but it was very very difficult. Goats and sheppards everywhere!!!!!

I think the best thing we can do right now is to educate the troops on the ground, before, during and after the tour so that they know why and when to do the 5m and 20m check, what to look for, likely locations, etc. It is difficult to teach something that needs to be instinctive however we need to get agressive with our training. As we get better at recognizing the threat, we also have to remember that all the scumbags (terrorists) have there own intelligence network as well. They pass on int just like we do.

My two cents.


----------



## Spr.Earl (16 Dec 2005)

"I think the best thing we can do right now is to educate the troops on the ground, before, during and after the tour so that they know why and when to do the 5m and 20m check, what to look for, likely locations, etc. It is difficult to teach something that needs to be instinctive however we need to get agressive with our training. As we get better at recognizing the threat, we also have to remember that all the scumbags (terrorists) have there own intelligence network as well. They pass on int just like we do."

Excellent comment 2023.

They disguise IED's in many forms.
One they do in Iraq is form and paint a block or block's of Styrofoam to look like breeze block or block's and then fill it with what ever explosive they have or a arty round and just leave it on the side of the road and wait,they are initiated by cell phone,a garage door opener,a cheap walkie talkie we buy our kids to play with,timer etc. The breeze block is a common building material in Iraq.To us we would think of it as a piece of waste.

Don't get into a habit of taking the easy way in or out,keep your spacing while in a packet.Remember your old convoy drill's,they are more important to day than they ever were when taught for a Conventional War.They are watching us to find our weak link.

I just got back from some refresher training and we had a bit of a slide show of the tour that ended last Feb. and in the presentation was a excellent EOD report but turned out to be an IED,It came from one of the patrols,passed on,EOD team went out sure enough it was a Arty round between 105,155.The EOD team broke through the hard packed earth,now how much does it rain around KabuL?They cleared the earth away and found wires,the called the IED team in and they followed the wires out and sumised it had been in place for quite awhile but why had it not been used ?Was Bud's killed,captured?
This device was buried right along side of the road and could have inflicted quite a few casulties if it had been initiated.


----------



## KevinB (17 Dec 2005)

2023 -- My comment specifically wrt sniper det was in refrence to route Irish in Iraq the MSR from BIAP to the IZ.

 However as for cover insertion - if your hadji'd up in goat robe, massoud hat and sandals providing you got a beard and are dark haired you can blend pretty well.  Driving as long as you dont drive like a DynCorp or ISAF twit your good to go - be an ass (thay all are) but dont be bumping and blocking thru intersections.


Spacing -- Dont - keep it varied.  Its going to have to be a Monster VBIED to get more than 1 vehicle, but it is easy for them to sticky bomb or whatever a spaced convoy -- plus the way they drive here - you will get broken all up -- space it out outside the cities but not too to much.

WRT RPG's -- the lot we've seen are in horrid shape (worse than the AK's...)  We where going to fire a few off tomorrow but decided to condem the lot as they are really really dodgey.  In the Afghan theatre I woudl rate the RPG threat as low.


As I mentioend elsewhere -it seems like suicide bombing is back in vogue...


----------



## 043 (17 Dec 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> 2023 -- My comment specifically wrt sniper det was in refrence to route Irish in Iraq the MSR from BIAP to the IZ.



Seen !!!!!


----------



## Armymatters (15 Jan 2006)

A way to deal with RPG ambushes on important convoys is to place a pair of attack helo's on the convoy, and use their sensors to locate the ambush. Once you have located the ambush, and you need to get through, plaster the ambush with anti-personnel fire, and get the convoy through at top speed. The RPG gunners will have to keep their heads down as they are being plastered with cheap anti-personnel fire from both the convoy as it passes through and the helos, and that gets the convoy to safety as it is nearly impossible to fire under those conditions. I believe in the mid 1980's the US wanted to sell us some AH-1 Cobra's that were about to head to the desert to be parked as they were getting in the Apache. Wonder what came of that deal, especially since we never got attack helos.

It's a constant war of tactics when dealing with RPG teams. With the South Africans, everytime their APC's stopped to unload troops, they get shot at by RPG teams. The South Africans countered with driving around in widening circles and firing from one side with automatic fire to destroy the teams and then let off the troops. In Afghanistan, Soviet helicopters countered by clearing landing zones with anti-personnel saturation fire. They also began arriving with unpredictable numbers of wingmen (two or three), to upset Afghan force estimations and preparation. The Afghans countered by digging prepared firing positions with top cover. The Soviets countered this by using air-dropped fuel-air bombs to clear landing zones. The Afghans counter this by using U.S.-supplied Stinger missiles and prevailed.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Jan 2006)

Dealing with an RPG or weapons ambush is a fairly straightforward exercise in kinetic effects....*or is it*?

If the Jihadis are in a crowded market place and begin firing RPGs and AK's at your convoy, do you light them up with an attack helo? What if they are dig into a school, hospital or Mosque? Can you level the firing position with artillery?

The Russians used these sorts of tactics in Chechnya, and disproportionate return firepower was also the response by French Union and American troops in Indo China. These tactics, while effective in the short term (i.e. the ambush is broken), also had long term negative effects, since the survivors were not inclined to look at these forces favorably. The fact this was precipitated by the Chechnyan rebels or "Popular forces" made little difference in the minds of the survivors. 

The tools of low intesity conflict are needed to deal with ambushes and the insidious IED threat, getting good relations with the locals through CIMIC and the like, and developing actionable HUMINT are keys to detecting and avoiding/springing traps before you get too far in, and good SELECTIVE use of firepower when you run out of options limits the long term damage to your cause.


----------



## Armymatters (17 Jan 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Dealing with an RPG or weapons ambush is a fairly straightforward exercise in kinetic effects....*or is it*?
> 
> If the Jihadis are in a crowded market place and begin firing RPGs and AK's at your convoy, do you light them up with an attack helo? What if they are dig into a school, hospital or Mosque? Can you level the firing position with artillery?
> 
> ...



I am making the natural assumption that the convoy is travelling down a road near the middle of nowhere. The other way to deal with RPG or IED ambushes is to send infantry foward to secure the area. Clearing the area immediately around where the convoy is travelling through so that nobody goes near the path of the convoy as it passes is a way to prevent attacks on the convoy.

If the convoy is already under attack, well, the best thing to do is to put the pedal to the metal, and stick together. A moving target is harder to hit target, as RPG's aren't that accurate against a moving target at range. If your trapped, best thing is to fight back carefully, and hope that reinforcements arrive as soon as you can.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Jan 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> I am making the natural assumption that the convoy is travelling down a road near the middle of nowhere. The other way to deal with RPG or IED ambushes is to send infantry foward to secure the area. Clearing the area immediately around where the convoy is travelling through so that nobody goes near the path of the convoy as it passes is a way to prevent attacks on the convoy.
> 
> If the convoy is already under attack, well, the best thing to do is to put the pedal to the metal, and stick together. A moving target is harder to hit target, as RPG's aren't that accurate against a moving target at range. If your trapped, best thing is to fight back carefully, and hope that reinforcements arrive as soon as you can.


The only thing that is a negative in this idea, is that Canada doesn't have enough Infantry in the whole CF to totally secure any Route that a Convoy would travel along, nor any of its' alternate Routes.  The Americans are unable to do this with a Route only 15 or so Km long between the Airport and the City of Bagdad.  All we can rely on is the 'Convoy Escort's' training and experience and the diligence of all involved with the Convoy and Escort.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Jan 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> I am making the natural assumption that the convoy is travelling down a road near the middle of nowhere. The other way to deal with RPG or IED ambushes is to send infantry foward to secure the area. Clearing the area immediately around where the convoy is travelling through so that nobody goes near the path of the convoy as it passes is a way to prevent attacks on the convoy.
> 
> If the convoy is already under attack, well, the best thing to do is to put the pedal to the metal, and stick together. A moving target is harder to hit target, as RPG's aren't that accurate against a moving target at range. If your trapped, best thing is to fight back carefully, and hope that reinforcements arrive as soon as you can.



Roads go from and to places, and it is difficult to imagine that you won't be passing through BUAs of various sizes along the way. This makes various techniques like "tunneling" difficult (but not impossible). Proper convoy techniques also help prevent/limit the damage. The main point I was trying to make is the best way to deal with the threat is to be proactive, get the people on board and they will be the eyes and ears of the convoy. After all, there may be @100 soldiers in a really big convoy, but there will be hundreds to thousands of pairs of eyes along the way. Best get them looking out for us.


----------



## 043 (18 Jan 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> I am making the natural assumption that the convoy is travelling down a road near the middle of nowhere. The other way to deal with RPG or IED ambushes is to send infantry foward to secure the area. Clearing the area immediately around where the convoy is travelling through so that nobody goes near the path of the convoy as it passes is a way to prevent attacks on the convoy.
> 
> If the convoy is already under attack, well, the best thing to do is to put the pedal to the metal, and stick together. A moving target is harder to hit target, as RPG's aren't that accurate against a moving target at range. If your trapped, best thing is to fight back carefully, and hope that reinforcements arrive as soon as you can.



Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh but then the infantry becomes the target as they are coalition forces also!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## KevinB (19 Jan 2006)

I'm placing Armymatters on ignore, he has no idea about current operations.

1) Natural Assumption  :

Sigh, go back to the Playstation.


----------



## 043 (19 Jan 2006)

KevinB said:
			
		

> I'm placing Armymatters on ignore, he has no idea about current operations.
> 
> 1) Natural Assumption  :
> 
> Sigh, go back to the Playstation.



Good Call Kevin!


----------



## KevinB (19 Jan 2006)

Over a beer tonight Duey, Mortar Guy, Westie47, Mike23A and I all came to that end state  ;D

Given Westie, Mike and I live down IED alley here - we are getting an unfortunate experience with them...



The Mk1 Eyeball and the C1A1 BrainHousing are about the only manner -- adding in the Lucky Rabbits foot -- of effective IED/VBIED,DBIED BBIED etc detection and sheer dumb luck has saved more than 6 people I KNOW on this board...


Poor work by ISAF is IMHO one of the reason for the sucessful attacks in Kabul - because unlike Qandahar there is no large active insurgent populace.  However ISAF prefers to remain bundled up in large AFV's and discoutn the HUMINT and relatiosn value of foot patrolling the routes.

Qandahar/Kandahar area is different due to the larger number of agrresive anti coalition forces.
Areas of Iraw vary as well from calmer than Kabul to worse than the wild west of Qandahar.

The same issue remains that you cannot indescriminately suppress an area in the beleive it may neutralise a potential bomber.


----------



## 043 (20 Jan 2006)

Kevin

I agree with what are you saying.....if you go to www.Orgrish.com and look at the videos of IED attacks you will find that they all have numourous things in common. There are significant clues to the location visible in all of the videos. The untrained won't have a clue but the people who have had dealings with or know about them will see what I am talking about.

Be safe!


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Jan 2006)

2023 if its not an OPSEC things perhaps you could list them (signs) as a help to those going over there.


----------



## 043 (20 Jan 2006)

CFL,

I would say that there is some OPSEC involved however like I mentioned earlier, the scumbags have there own INTEL Network so I wouldn't be surprised if this site is checked everynow and then. Use your grey matter, watch some of the video's and if you are still stumped send me a PM and I will let you know some of the indicators. Think like a scumbag, how do you want to take someone down with an IED?????


----------



## KevinB (20 Jan 2006)

CFL -- your units Int cell should be forwarding the INTSUM's on this topic down the food chain.
 The info is out there.

Unfortunately the poor cousins dont have 1CER to help closeby...


----------



## Lav968 (26 Jan 2006)

Armymatters, do some research...read as much as you can on this site and others about IEDs.  You would be amazed how much literature is out there on the subject.  It will help you from looking like a bit of a fool in a forum such as this.  Just a tip for ya.

As far as another site, I am sure most of you are aware of it but www.globalsecurity.org is an excellent site.  It is a thinktank for the Pentagon and is incredibly up to date.  Also, just "goggle it" about IEDs.  This is a less reliable way but if you sift through a lot of crap you can find good info this way as well.

CFL:  For anyone going overseas you will get a wack of IED briefs and more when you get to your destination (I'm assuming KAF, right?) from our guys and we got an excellent American brief that was bang on and very informative.  Your int guys will have a ton as well that they would be happy to share with ya.  Or just ask your local friendly Sapper any questions you might have and they should atleast be able to point you in the right direction.  Good luck over there and stay safe.

Hope this helps guys.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (26 Jan 2006)

rgr.  Unfortunately our closest Sappers are in Edmonton.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (31 May 2006)

Follow-up - Looks like we have a formal change in policy....


Matthew.   

- - - - - 

Compliments of the Toronto Star:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1149027011878&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467

*Military parks G-wagons as Afghan danger grows*
Light jeeps no longer going on patrols

Ottawa favours new armoured vehicles
May 31, 2006. 01:00 AM
BRUCE CAMPION-SMITH
OTTAWA BUREAU


OTTAWA—In a nod to Afghanistan's growing dangers, Canadian troops are pulling their light G-wagon jeeps off patrol and will now only venture outside their Kandahar base riding in heavily armoured vehicles, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor says. 

And he says the federal government is buying 25 more South African-made Nyala RG-31 jeeps, specially designed to resist bomb attacks, on top of the 50 it has already purchased for the Afghan mission.

"As our soldiers leave the base, they will be in armoured vehicles," O'Connor said yesterday.

While a step up from the maligned Iltis jeeps they replaced, the G-wagons have proven vulnerable to attack in Afghanistan. Four soldiers and one diplomat riding in G-wagons have been killed by bombs this year.


Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh said it was never thought the violence would get this bad when his party first sent the military to Afghanistan.

"When this mission was dispatched, one didn't believe ... that the resistance or the violence would be escalating to the level that it has. I think that's a concern," Dosanjh said. "We are in the middle of a tense patch."

O'Connor told the Commons defence committee that military commanders in Kandahar have decided to restrict "most" of the G-wagons to camp.

Instead, patrols will be conducted using LAV IIIs, large eight-wheel armoured vehicles, and the Nyalas, which resemble a beefed-up jeep, both of which have proven resistant to the kind of bomb attacks favoured by insurgents.

The defence department website boasts that the Nyala, able to carry six, is "specifically designed to resist under-wheel and under-belly mine strikes to enhance crew survivability."

The vehicle, fitted with bullet-resistant windows, also protects against small arms, hand grenades and anti-tank mines. Indeed, a Nyala jeep was credited with saving the lives of two soldiers earlier this month when it was hit by a roadside blast.

O'Connor later denied the decision was an indictment of the safety of the G-wagons in the dangerous territory.

"We adjust to whatever is going on on the ground. If we have incidents, we try to learn from these incidents and what we try to do is improve," O'Connor told reporters. 

"We found out now from actual experience that these Nyalas work. I'll spend more to give protection. If I have to buy more Nyalas or more LAVs, I will."

One of the selling points of the G-wagon was that it was able to get into neighbourhoods not accessible to the bigger armoured vehicles and provided a better opportunity for troops to interact with Afghan residents.

But O'Connor said Canada's "hearts and minds" mission would not be deterred by the swap in vehicles. "When you get to the town, you get out of your vehicle and you talk to the people. But between the villages, they're in their vehicles."

O'Connor appeared before the committee for an hour yesterday afternoon to discuss Canada's mission in Afghanistan.

In a surprising comment, O'Connor said he welcomes the big firefights of the kind that Canadian troops have faced in recent weeks, including one that killed Capt. Nichola Goddard.

"I don't mind those tactics because they're playing into our hands. If (insurgents) concentrate, you can defeat them," said O'Connor, a retired army veteran. "Lately they've been concentrating against our militaries in our area, they've been taking very large casualties and I don't know how long they can keep up this intensity."

Meanwhile, it was revealed yesterday that Governor General Michaëlle Jean, the commander-in-chief of Canada's armed forces, has twice been rebuffed in her attempts to visit troops in Afghanistan. Security concerns were cited as a reason for Jean not to make the trip, even as O'Connor, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay have all visited the country.

with files from Canadian Press

- - - - -


----------



## MJP (31 May 2006)

I call BS right now...there aren't enough armoured vehicles here to have every soldier in one.  Not to mention that some areas are not conducive to getting the LAV or the RG-31 through on the primitive roadways.  There are a few other reasons but those are the two that will severely limit this new policy.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (31 May 2006)

So you take the LAV to the town dismount and walk.


----------



## GAP (31 May 2006)

> Right now, with the opposition hammering them, optics are everything. To get around that, they ordered more Nyalas, and reduced the visual exposure of the GWagon. Makes good political sense. Because of the recent deaths in a Gwagon...they (MDN and CF)don't need more bad publicity.



I wrote this in the other thread ( No more patrols for G-Wagons in Afghanistan? )...I think from a "Canada aspect" that is the way it is playing. Nowhere does he say the Gwagon will not go outside the wire entirely, but right now looking from Canada, they want to tone down the issues they are being criticized on in the media. We're talking comparing fantasy world to reality world here.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 May 2006)

My main concern for the sniper teams is that there would only be so many decent spots to set them up along the normal routes, this may give the Tally’s a chance to predict the location of a team and overwhelm them before support could arrive.

Fully agree on the value of having the locals onside. What about efforts to remove junk and hiding places along normal routes?


----------



## MJP (31 May 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> So you take the LAV to the town dismount and walk.



You have to be able to get to the town first dude.  Some of the areas in the AO's are impossible to get to by armoured vehicle without some drastic road improvements (read not going to happen anytime soon).  Plus turreted gwagons are usually the only mobile firepower we are able to bring into some of the areas due to road constraints.  Now your going to take that firepower away from a PL/Coy?  Not many Commanders will stand for it.


----------



## KevinB (31 May 2006)

Its combat - the commander has to be able to make a risk analysis to determine whether or not there is a large enough risk to the GWagon (crew) to offset the advantages to it.

I've noticed all the high tech freddy go faster UAV's etc have not been too good at early warning...  Boots on the ground will eventually find the enemy and kill him -- unfortunately this all comes at a price


Keep fighting the good fight MJP


----------



## GAP (31 May 2006)

> Keep fighting the good fight MJP



+1 ditto


----------



## 3rd Horseman (7 Jun 2006)

What about the old style, picket, bypass, observe, snipe? No need to run around in wheels to get boots on the ground you don't control anyway. Just a thought any ideas from the guys who've been as to the picket system and wait till nightfall and then do the nasty?


----------

