Roadside Bombs & IEDs (catch all)

[Tracker275]

If you try to avoid getting IED'd in your vehicles and switch to moving on foot, the bad guy will simply target dismounts.

No form of technology is going to eliminate the IED threat - good TTPs and alert soldiers will mitigate it as best as possible....

Very accurate statement. What most folks seem to forget is that what may be the most technologically advanced military in the world is being bogged down by folks that operate more fluid and in an asymetrical descentralized operations strategy. The more we rely on technology, the more they will identify the weaknesses with far less money than it took for us to develop and defeat what they have thrown at us.

Every week, I arrive on a scene where a simple device was built to defeat either the Iraqi Army, Iraqi Police, or United States Forces (USF). I am never ceased to be amazed at how simple, yet complex the devices are, and most of the components could have been purchased at Walmart, Ace Hardware, and Radio Shack to produce what we are seeing.

The common theme I see in most of the posts found in this thread is that the concept, collectively, is that of a reactive measure vs. a proactive measure. Instead of focusing a majority of our efforts on how we defeat devices through defense, let us focus on finding out where they are being made and stopping that prior to them being placed somewhere. Obviously, defensive measures are essential, however in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the appearance is that of not going after the "bad guy", but getting hit and trying to find out how to survive a strike...Then limp away.

Rarely do I see efforts here in Iraq where the focus is on identifying where the devices are made, but more where they have been emplaced. I look at briefing after briefing that reflects hot spots of detonations, however I have yet to look at one that identifies where exactly the optimum location for them to be made is.

What it comes down to in a nutshell is that no matter how you cut it, the faster lighter, and more adaptable force has proven to never win the battle, but win the war. This has been proven against the United States since the 1960's. The concept of "Light Infantry" has been destroyed by the modern day rucksack and the technological gadgets that we are forced to take with us onto the battlefield. Why is it that the RTO has to carry a 40lbs radio with spare battery and kit only to maintain commo sometimes spotty at best, and the insurgent uses a satphone that fits in his pocket and gets common 100% of the time?

You can't fight an unconventional war with conventional tactics. That is a proven fact. As I have previously stated, you will win the battle, but you will never win the war. If our ultimate focus is on staying on the roads most of the time, then you have set yourself up for failure in that you now channeling your forces into a choke point that is miles long. The balance between armor and mobility are a very tricky balance, and if the focus is entirely on defensive postures, then we have lost the best defense, which is a good offense. TTP's change constantly, however the US military does not move as fast as the battlefield. What always remains a constant about an IED, is that someone has to place it somewhere and it has to wait for someone to go by it. Personally, I have yet to hear of a foot patrol in who knows how long get attacked by an IED (I'm not talking about a foot patrol being dismounts either) here in Iraq, but I regularly go to scenes where vehicles have been hit. The one thing that we all laugh about here is that the Iraqi insurgents can't shoot.

So, if that is the case, why do we place ourselves in situations that they really do know how to do, and that is setup an IED?

Granted, this is my first post here, but this is my $0.02 on this subject for what it is worth.

[zealot66]

Thanks for that last post. It seems that light and mobile and good soldiering is the way to go. Any military that garrisons itself either thru heavy equipment or literal garrison without going outside the wire is outmanuevered by enemy. When contact occurs, the pursuit should ensue. I realize with IED's this isnt going to happen all the time but an idea of lightinfantry tactics to seek out and meet the enemy is better in the long run than riding around waiting.

[Xenophon]

There are other ways to mitigate the IED threat. Probably the best one is the one Schmedlap posted. Another is to decrease the size of A.O.s so that mounted patrols are not so necessary, but this is not always feasible and requires a larger amount of troops. The other is to stay off the roads by conducting dismounted patrols or, conducting old school mounted patrols via horse/donkey/camel (the original All Terrain Vehicle). But the other problem is re-supply. Small-scale re-supply in the future should be conducted with some kind of supply drop-ship UAV (one of the few times you'll hear me advocate a technological solution) but for large scale logistics I think the loggies are still going to be provisional route clearance for a long time.

[Rifleman]

But the other problem is re-supply. Small-scale re-supply in the future should be conducted with some kind of supply drop-ship UAV

In Vietnam, I believe the Mobile Guerilla Forces (Blackjack Projects) sometimes resupplied with fast movers dropping canisters. Basically like a bombing run. So I think your UAV idea for resupply has merit.

[Xenophon]

Yeah, I'm thinking just a flying pallet. Troops at a rear base strap on some boxes of ammo, some MRE's, some medical supplies, a "pilot" flies it out to the COP, then the troops there unload it, maybe throw on some empty ammo cans, an EPW or two, then the "pilot" flies it back.

[William F. Owen]

Yeah, I'm thinking just a flying pallet. Troops at a rear base strap on some boxes of ammo, some MRE's, some medical supplies, a "pilot" flies it out to the COP, then the troops there unload it, maybe throw on some empty ammo cans, an EPW or two, then the "pilot" flies it back.

You're 100% right! - not surprisingly. Plus Medevac!
... and this is why Helicopters are extremely useful in both regular and irregular warfare. - so you need lots of them!

[slapout9]

You're 100% right! - not surprisingly. Plus Medevac!
... and this is why Helicopters are extremely useful in both regular and irregular warfare. - so you need lots of them!

It was developed years ago for Vietnam. Actually for the original Air Cavalry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOVh-vlUius

[motorfirebox]

Every week, I arrive on a scene where a simple device was built to defeat either the Iraqi Army, Iraqi Police, or United States Forces (USF). I am never ceased to be amazed at how simple, yet complex the devices are, and most of the components could have been purchased at Walmart, Ace Hardware, and Radio Shack to produce what we are seeing.

The common theme I see in most of the posts found in this thread is that the concept, collectively, is that of a reactive measure vs. a proactive measure. Instead of focusing a majority of our efforts on how we defeat devices through defense, let us focus on finding out where they are being made and stopping that prior to them being placed somewhere. Obviously, defensive measures are essential, however in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the appearance is that of not going after the "bad guy", but getting hit and trying to find out how to survive a strike...Then limp away.

Rarely do I see efforts here in Iraq where the focus is on identifying where the devices are made, but more where they have been emplaced. I look at briefing after briefing that reflects hot spots of detonations, however I have yet to look at one that identifies where exactly the optimum location for them to be made is.

How much does location matter? What sorts of tools/equipment are necessary for creating these devices? The reason I ask is, if the requirements for building these devices are low, then hunting for locations may not be the best way to go about it. If all you have to do is assembly and some spot welding, for instance, then trying to find the location will be almost as difficult as searching for the devices themselves.