Roadside Bombs & IEDs (catch all)

[Cole]

It's not related to aviation and IEDs but the Israelis used to drag fences behind their patrolling jeeps to leave a unique pattern in the ground so anyone crossing it would leave footprints. Same principle applies to detecting anyone digging IEDs. I also recall sitting on the beach at Tel Aviv and watching all different kinds of helicopters constantly fly by along the coast right after the Palestinian intifada attempted a rubber raft beach landing back in 1990. Use air routes paralleling key ground routes and have a constant stream of aircraft watching for trouble.

Liked the idea of using helicopters to drop off 2-man to fire team sized OPs with good optics at multiple high terrain OP locations each night along troubled routes to include false insertions. Then have the helicopter return to base and pick-up a second squad and go park somewhere nearby on secure terrain to prepare to respond to any problems detected. Or monitor the OPs using loitering UAS with an Apache/UH-60 QRF ready to respond.

[reed11b]

Liked the idea of using helicopters to drop off 2-man to fire team sized OPs with good optics at multiple high terrain OP locations each night along troubled routes to include false insertions. Then have the helicopter return to base and pick-up a second squad and go park somewhere nearby on secure terrain to prepare to respond to any problems detected. Or monitor the OPs using loitering UAS with an Apache/UH-60 QRF ready to respond.

That is called a LRS team, and the Army has tried to neuter and eliminate us since our creation. Now we are in BfSBs were we do what? Who knows, not I, and I am in one.
Reed

[Firn]

That is called a LRS team, and the Army has tried to neuter and eliminate us since our creation. Now we are in BfSBs were we do what? Who knows, not I, and I am in one.
Reed

Two generations ago pretty much every countryboy here was able to construct traps to poach rabbits and other small animals. Even deers were caught rather easily (and cruelly) by using a certain type of wire tied to a noose and a bit of knowledge about their tracks. Trapping is certainly one of the oldest and yet most efficient ways to capture animals that mankind has created. Given all that creative booby trapping in the last centruy I'm not surprised at all that it is used in ever shifting shapes in the current conflicts.

Large parts of Afghanistan should be almost ideal country for LRS. A good location and good spotting scopes should enable you to detect a human from as far as 20+ km. This is just to show the capability of a good glas. Some Israeli units use excellent Swarovski.

@Rex Brynen: An interesting article. Nothing new under the sun, but it reinforces the need to reach or observe the objective without raising the alarm. This topic has been already adressed both at the strategic and the tactical level.

@Cole: Without knowing the specific instances of the use of such dragging devices I highly suspect that they use it to create an additonal layer of defense along their patrol routes. IIRC similar ideas were used along the German-German border. I doubt that they are as useful on the roads in Afghanistan which are used by quite some people.


Firn

[tankersteve]

"It's not related to aviation and IEDs but the Israelis used to drag fences behind their patrolling jeeps to leave a unique pattern in the ground so anyone crossing it would leave footprints. "

the Russians found that the Afghan fighters would bury mines in the road and then 're-print' the tracks of the vehicles that had previously passed, completely disguising the location of the mine.

Following in the tracks of the previous vehicle, if not immediately afterward, is not a sound technique. There are even mines that wait for the second vehicle to pass before exploding, IOT defeat overpressure mine clearing.

Unless we had a troop and sensor density that would preclude people from emplacing IEDs in anything other than a very hasty manner, we can always expect to find more of these weapons. And it still does nothing to defeat the individual from wanting to employ them.

Tankersteve

[Ken White]

That is called a LRS team, and the Army has tried to neuter and eliminate us since our creation. Now we are in BfSBs were we do what?

You're absolutely right and so is Firn:

Large parts of Afghanistan should be almost ideal country for LRS. A good location and good spotting scopes should enable you to detect a human from as far as 20+ km...

Unfortunately, both your points are moot due to a combination of turf battles (Branch vs branch for the BfSB + USSF vs Big Army for the LRS mission), mediocre to poor training and extreme risk aversion.

Use of LRS has been severely constrained in the current operating environment by all three. There have been some notable successes but few Cdrs seem willing to take the nominal risk...

[zealot66]

Suprised this novice started such a long thread. Im an armchair historian and I cant help but think that in 10-20 years, people are going to be studying the question of losses due to the IED and mistakes overzealous, hardcharging glory hounds ran their men into bombs instead of methodical painstaking recon and more ways to lower the body count.

Booby traps in vietnam caused a ton of casualties but I see that in a different light of the jungle vs more open terrain. Instead of trying more soldiering skills and intelligence, it seems that America just tries to build bigger more expensive vehicles. Like I said, it just aches to hear of another casualty due to IED. Didnt even get a chance to fire at the enemy. I know its a painful reality of controlling the AO to be mobile and presence on the ground but There has to be an answer.

[Cole]

the Russians found that the Afghan fighters would bury mines in the road and then 're-print' the tracks of the vehicles that had previously passed, completely disguising the location of the mine.

Following in the tracks of the previous vehicle, if not immediately afterward, is not a sound technique. There are even mines that wait for the second vehicle to pass before exploding, IOT defeat overpressure mine clearing.

Unless we had a troop and sensor density that would preclude people from emplacing IEDs in anything other than a very hasty manner, we can always expect to find more of these weapons. And it still does nothing to defeat the individual from wanting to employ them.

TankerSteve, hear you on your last sentence, but while foreign fighters planting bombs in Iraq are no longer welcome, that isn’t true in Afghanistan. COIN techniques might persuade homegrown Taliban not to plant IEDs, but do little to deter non-local Taliban from Pakistan madrassas or the Chechnyan with a big bag of fertilizer.

As you point out, unpaved roads in Afghanistan simplify IED emplacement. But recalling the paved road leading from Barstow to Fort Irwin, just can’t imagine the need for many high ground OPs or COPs to watch the main road and prevent someone from setting up IEDs in the daytime. Night of course, is a different matter. And roads next to towns/compounds/trees/crops along the Helmand River valley and other flat areas make it hard to maintain constant surveillance of existing dirt roads, day or night.

Does that create opportunities for off-roading it away from civilians and chokepoints to safeguard both the populous and ourselves? It may not be the shortest route, but remote dirt roads observed from a few high terrain COPs/OPs, and easily targeted without collateral damage could reduce IEDs. Because primarily coalition supply vehicles would use these routes, anyone else on/near them on foot or in a vehicle is suspect and subject to search.

Engineers and the new Marine line-charge vehicle could clear or blow holes through suspected minefield areas, then cover it in clay or gravel and drag some sort of pattern producer (Firn it was near the border) behind the trail vehicle on the last patrol of the night. Shouldn’t be too many vehicles (or block off entries) on the new remote roads at night to make tracks and any IED planter still must cover footprints while replicating the unique ground pattern in the dark, not to mention get to and away from the remote road over miles of open terrain with no place to hide and a heavy load to bear.

Freshly dug dirt at night may well have a different IR signature, as well.
So augment that with higher flying UAS (TF ODIN down to Shadow) or aerostats/towers in each COP, and lower flying T-Hawks, and Ravens to maintain nightly surveillance. One COP could cover 10 kms on either side alternating between noisy, culvert-checking T-Hawks, and quieter Ravens to make the enemy believe the coast is clear. Use unmanned ground sensors near wadis.

Zealous66, you must admit the US flies in Afghanistan more than other allies and casualties are far less than Vietnam or the 14,000 the Soviets lost...and you should see some vehicles are coalition partners and the poor ANP use.

[Ken White]

...I cant help but think that in 10-20 years, people are going to be studying the question of losses due to the IED and mistakes overzealous, hardcharging glory hounds ran their men into bombs instead of methodical painstaking recon and more ways to lower the body count.

In fact, I'm quite sure it is incorrect. The painstaking recon you suggest is possible and might lower the casualty count a bit -- it equally as well might not lower it. However, that 'painstaking' equals 'time' -- and time is sometimes in short supply. Mission demands quite often require efforts that are inimical to security. The History books rarely address that factor well because most of the historians don't understand it . Not to mention that soldiers are more likely to be lost by hesitant over caution than they are by aggressive maneuver.

Booby traps in vietnam caused a ton of casualties...

Booby traps? Weren't that many, particularly after 1965. There were some but there were also a far larger number of what we today call IEDs.

but I see that in a different light of the jungle vs more open terrain.

Jungle versus open is more than countered by short distances versus significant distance. Afghanistan is four times the size of South Viet Nam with twice the population -- and there were over 1.5M allied troops in that country at the peak. Afghanistan has less than a fourth as many Coaliton troops to cover that four times larger nation. My math skills were never good and are now quite rusty but I believe that's an exponential difference. Exponential or not, it is quite significant.

Instead of trying more soldiering skills and intelligence, it seems that America just tries to build bigger more expensive vehicles.

Thank an ignorant news media and a venal Congress for that. The terrible thing that is an MRAP was reluctantly purchased by the Armed Forces at Congress' insistence. You can also thank that Congress for underfunding training (big hardware projects mean more jobs and more votes than does training).

Like I said, it just aches to hear of another casualty due to IED. Didnt even get a chance to fire at the enemy.

Cannot understand why that aches. Nor am I sure that those casualties would feel a bit better if they did have a chance to fire, I don't think that makes much difference. Look at the bright side, the good news is that far fewer are dying in these wars than was true in the past (LINK)...

I know its a painful reality of controlling the AO to be mobile and presence on the ground but There has to be an answer.

There is an answer and lacking that technique, you're doomed to have mines and IEDs planted -- kill everything that moves near your routes. I doubt you or most Americans will go for that. Even I think that's a bit far...

[Ken White]

. I think we are trying to fight a gentlemans war with barbarians. They do not honor the geneva convention or care about collateral damage. I think the only time this country truly won a war was in ww 2 when we literally took care of the problem. You can never win a PC war. The enemy laughs and shrugs and sees weakness in what we call moral strength.

You are of course correct in all aspects. Unfortunately, World War II was the last war we fought without adoptingng those kinds of 'civilized' constraints -- as if war could ever be civilized...

While you and I may agree on that and many others also agree, there are a number of people in this country who do not agree that Thomas Jonathan Jackson was correct as quoted by G.F.R. Henderson "War means fighting. The business of the soldier is to fight. Armies are not called out to dig trenches, to live in camps, but to find the enemy and strike him; to invade his country, and do him all possible damage in the shortest possible time. This will involve great destruction of life and property while it lasts; but such a war will of necessity be of brief continuance, and so would be an economy of life and property in the end (emphasis added / kw)."

... Well, the Seal got enraged one night and lit the village up. There was no more problem.

Things like that happened very frequently in WW II, frequently in Korea and occasionally in Viet Nam. They are and will be exceedingly rare today.

That declining occurrence rate is a function of the type of war, increasing gentrification (word of choice for a Family Board...), sadly increasing lawyerly involvement and vastly improved communication and reportage, the so-called 'information warfare' factor. It will only continue to decrease in acceptance as an acceptable response -- until the next existential war; then the gloves will again come off. Moral of that is to avoid thses little wars, they cost more than they're worth.

...I think one of the chief errors of the bush administration was prostrating ourselves to an imaginary border in pakistan. Who the hell is pakistan ? Who the hell were the Cambodes or Pathet Lao? track your prey, follow its spoor and kill it.

The Bush mistake was in staying to 'fix' Afghanistan and Iraq. We should've slammed in hard and rapidly, removed the problem children and left, throwing money at the UN ion the way out and yelling "Cleanup on Aisle three..."

As for borders, not that easy to ignore IF you're trying to wage 'legitimate' war -- and the Politicians who try to wage war on the cheap, ignoring Stonewall, have to use the legitimate ploy...

Hopefully the Taliban holds up in Helmand and wants to get their martyrdom in the spring. And we should disregard a two faced Pakistan and track down every insurgent in the valley and get rid of them. There should be no safe place. It sucked the blood from us in Vietnam and its doing it now too.

In both cases, the tactical and operational environments suffer from achingly poor strategic choices. Sadly, we cannot now disregard Pakistan. Nor can we change the rules at this point. We just have to suck it up and hopefully, resolve not to try this foolishness -- stupidity, really -- again.

[davidbfpo]

JMA,

I was referring to private discussions I had in Zimbabwe in 1985, with some ex-Rhodesian Army officers (notes not to hand, will update by PM). IIRC the Cilliers book, yes written by a South African, was critical and a Rhodesian academic who wrote about COIN.

[JMA]

JMA,

I was referring to private discussions I had in Zimbabwe in 1985, with some ex-Rhodesian Army officers (notes not to hand, will update by PM). IIRC the Cilliers book, yes written by a South African, was critical and a Rhodesian academic who wrote about COIN.

Thanks David, but I am more interested in the argument than the names of individuals. After 1980 everyone developed a story based on 20/20 hindsight. The SAS opinion was that had more strategic actions been taken earlier it would have had a marked positive effect. From a military perspective it is nearly always better to take them on in their external bases before they even enter the country but then who knows what the political pressures at the top are.