Roadside bombs

[Topaz]

It looks like this form of weapons is doing in our Canadian forces as well as other nation's. I'm wondering why no one in the military or civilian population has come up with a invention to answer this problem. I know there are hovercrafts but I realize these may not be any use in this type of area, still I wish someone could come up with an idea and prevent more deaths from happening.

[bush_cheney2004]

You are mistaken...billions of dollars have been spent to develop countermeasures for "roadside bombs" (IEDs). This includes chemical detection, RF and EMF pulses (EMP), armor, tactics, etc. Faster moving Stryker (LAV) APCs have demonstrated a lower loss rate from IEDs in Iraq.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/57512.pdf

Some newly "invented" countermeasure systems are successful in defeating the bombs, but the enemy just adopts different designs and tactics. If it were strictly a battlefield de-mining challenge, straightforward methods already exist (e.g. flail machines)

[M.Dancer]

There are also various armoured vehicles whose design deflects and diffuse the energy of the blast. But no matter what is done, there will always be a bigger and better targetted weapon. The only sure way is to harry and attack the bomb makers before the plant their bombs.

[jdobbin]

There are also various armoured vehicles whose design deflects and diffuse the energy of the blast. But no matter what is done, there will always be a bigger and better targetted weapon. The only sure way is to harry and attack the bomb makers before the plant their bombs.

Sadly, some of the biggest bombs have said "made in Pakistan" on them according to NATO. We can't seem to touch those bomb makers.

And the vehicle that was hit today was about as heavily armoured as they come. The RG-31 can withstand two anti-tank mines simultaneously. Whatever hit them was larger than that.

[bush_cheney2004]

And the vehicle that was hit today was about as heavily armoured as they come. The RG-31 can withstand two anti-tank mines simultaneously. Whatever hit them was large than that.

Maybe...it doesn't need to be large...if it's a shaped charge warhead.

[weaponeer]

There are plenty of ways we can avoid roadside bombs, there are many different types of vehicles that can be used in these dangerous areas. The problem is that in war, the enemy sometimes gets lucky and scores a kill.

tactics wise, instead of driving on roads you can move cross counrty line abreast, however your wheeled vehicles really take a beating, that's why an army needs tracked vehicles. The Canadian Army was almost all but out of the tracked vehicle game until recenty, we are slowly getting back into it. even if you travel off road in line abreast you eventually will encouter terrain that will require you to get back on the road, forest, mountains, swamps etc... Historical side note: in the Battle of the Bulge in WW2 the US Army was able to slow down and blunt a major German offensive in the Ardennes forest by blocking the roads, as the German tanks could not move cross country.

Another tactic is to fly in troops and supplies with aircraft such as the C130 C17 or transport helos. Canada does not have transport helos yet, or C17 (we get our first in Trenton Aug 9), but we do have C130's there. They can great for ariel resupply, howver they can be hampered by the weather.

You can use very heavy armoured vehicles, however they can be destroyed by a bigger bomb.

They only real tactic that I have seen that works is the US Army method known as Clear, Hold and Build. It was first "invented" by Col McMaster USA, in Tal Afar Iraq. Using a large force (in his case an armoured infantry brigade) he cleared Tal Afar house to house, door to door. Then he had his troops dig in and stay, soldiers on the streets day & night. Nobody could move without US Army knowing about it. Then he brought in the PRTs and NGO groups to rebuild. It worked, and reduce insurgent activity to almost nothing in his sector.

The underlying problem in both Iraq and Afghanistan is the we are simply too politically correct, we are trying to fight a serious war without our fangs out. Generals are more concerned about the press release that killling the enemy off in an aggressive manner.

The answer is to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq like WW2, massed combined arms offensives, and don't stop at the Pakistan border.

[bush_cheney2004]

There are plenty of ways we can avoid roadside bombs, there are many different types of vehicles that can

The underlying problem in both Iraq and Afghanistan is the we are simply too politically correct, we are trying to fight a serious war without our fangs out. Generals are more concerned about the press release that killling the enemy off in an aggressive manner.

Agreed...engaging the enemy only after targets are approved by analysts and lawyers is a bit too polite.

[margrace]

You are mistaken...billions of dollars have been spent to develop countermeasures for "roadside bombs" (IEDs). This includes chemical detection, RF and EMF pulses (EMP), armor, tactics, etc. Faster moving Stryker (LAV) APCs have demonstrated a lower loss rate from IEDs in Iraq.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/57512.pdf

Some newly "invented" countermeasure systems are successful in defeating the bombs, but the enemy just adopts different designs and tactics. If it were strictly a battlefield de-mining challenge, straightforward methods already exist (e.g. flail machines)

Yes and they have done it ever since Alexander the Great. What fools we are to think that we can change thinking that has been going on for probably 6,000 years. Oh yes the great white hunter.

[Argus]

You are mistaken...billions of dollars have been spent to develop countermeasures for "roadside bombs" (IEDs). This includes chemical detection, RF and EMF pulses (EMP), armor, tactics, etc. Faster moving Stryker (LAV) APCs have demonstrated a lower loss rate from IEDs in Iraq.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/57512.pdf

Some newly "invented" countermeasure systems are successful in defeating the bombs, but the enemy just adopts different designs and tactics. If it were strictly a battlefield de-mining challenge, straightforward methods already exist (e.g. flail machines)

Yes and they have done it ever since Alexander the Great. What fools we are to think that we can change thinking that has been going on for probably 6,000 years. Oh yes the great white hunter.

The great white hunter rules the world, and has for some time. The tigers are in zoos or dying.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes and they have done it ever since Alexander the Great. What fools we are to think that we can change thinking that has been going on for probably 6,000 years. Oh yes the great white hunter.

Yet...you still choose to live with the "great white hunter"...changing nothing.

[jdobbin]

They only real tactic that I have seen that works is the US Army method known as Clear, Hold and Build. It was first "invented" by Col McMaster USA, in Tal Afar Iraq. Using a large force (in his case an armoured infantry brigade) he cleared Tal Afar house to house, door to door. Then he had his troops dig in and stay, soldiers on the streets day & night. Nobody could move without US Army knowing about it. Then he brought in the PRTs and NGO groups to rebuild. It worked, and reduce insurgent activity to almost nothing in his sector.

The underlying problem in both Iraq and Afghanistan is the we are simply too politically correct, we are trying to fight a serious war without our fangs out. Generals are more concerned about the press release that killling the enemy off in an aggressive manner.

The answer is to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq like WW2, massed combined arms offensives, and don't stop at the Pakistan border.

Colonel McMaster was asked about this strategy the past month on a PBS special.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/ci_6176181

The problem that quickly surfaced with this strategy is that we simply didn't have enough troops to do this throughout the country. When an effort was made to implement this program in Baghdad, to have U.S. troops clear out the arena and then allow Iraqi forces to secure the area and begin rebuilding, it failed. It failed because the Iraqi brigades were not being committed.

"Once we made up our minds that we were going to clear, we didn't have enough resources on hold," McMaster says. "I knew the operation would fail."

The current plan calls for more American troops to come into Baghdad and, instead of trying to secure and hold the entire city, to just do it a few neighborhoods at a time. The surge is expected to be at full force by, coincidentally, the Fourth of July.

I think the rest of your proposal about not stopping at the Pakistan border essentially means declaring war on Pakistan. I don't know that the NATO has the military to be able to fight a war in three places. I can imagine how big a force that would be. A few hundred thousand? Five hundred thousand?

[weaponeer]

You are mistaken...billions of dollars have been spent to develop countermeasures for "roadside bombs" (IEDs). This includes chemical detection, RF and EMF pulses (EMP), armor, tactics, etc. Faster moving Stryker (LAV) APCs have demonstrated a lower loss rate from IEDs in Iraq.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/57512.pdf

Some newly "invented" countermeasure systems are successful in defeating the bombs, but the enemy just adopts different designs and tactics. If it were strictly a battlefield de-mining challenge, straightforward methods already exist (e.g. flail machines)

Yes and they have done it ever since Alexander the Great. What fools we are to think that we can change thinking that has been going on for probably 6,000 years. Oh yes the great white hunter.

Alexander the Great used roadside bombs??????

[weaponeer]

They only real tactic that I have seen that works is the US Army method known as Clear, Hold and Build. It was first "invented" by Col McMaster USA, in Tal Afar Iraq. Using a large force (in his case an armoured infantry brigade) he cleared Tal Afar house to house, door to door. Then he had his troops dig in and stay, soldiers on the streets day & night. Nobody could move without US Army knowing about it. Then he brought in the PRTs and NGO groups to rebuild. It worked, and reduce insurgent activity to almost nothing in his sector.

The underlying problem in both Iraq and Afghanistan is the we are simply too politically correct, we are trying to fight a serious war without our fangs out. Generals are more concerned about the press release that killling the enemy off in an aggressive manner.

The answer is to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq like WW2, massed combined arms offensives, and don't stop at the Pakistan border.

Colonel McMaster was asked about this strategy the past month on a PBS special.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/ci_6176181

The problem that quickly surfaced with this strategy is that we simply didn't have enough troops to do this throughout the country. When an effort was made to implement this program in Baghdad, to have U.S. troops clear out the arena and then allow Iraqi forces to secure the area and begin rebuilding, it failed. It failed because the Iraqi brigades were not being committed.

"Once we made up our minds that we were going to clear, we didn't have enough resources on hold," McMaster says. "I knew the operation would fail."

The current plan calls for more American troops to come into Baghdad and, instead of trying to secure and hold the entire city, to just do it a few neighborhoods at a time. The surge is expected to be at full force by, coincidentally, the Fourth of July.

I think the rest of your proposal about not stopping at the Pakistan border essentially means declaring war on Pakistan. I don't know that the NATO has the military to be able to fight a war in three places. I can imagine how big a force that would be. A few hundred thousand? Five hundred thousand?

My point is that Pakistan and now Iran are where the threat is and most likely always has been. AQ has been defeated in Afghanistan and has abandoned the talibs to fight NATO. Yes, AQ helps the talibs, training, ammo, tech advice, some small AQ units, but the talibs are for the most part on their own.

There's now some evidence that Hezbuhla (not sure how you spell it) is operating in Iraq. They are an psuedo army of Iran, the Iranian Foreign Legion.

Another point, Iraq and Afghanistan are roughly the same size, however there are 140K troops fighting in Iraq and 30K in Afghanistan, with only about 10K doing any fighting...

I think a light fast lethal force is needed. Wherever we detect AQ in the world, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Sudan or Somalia, or at home in Canada, insert a fast light force to engage and destroy them with heavy air and sea support then extract. AQ will know we are not affraid to get them not matter where they are...

[jdobbin]

My point is that Pakistan and now Iran are where the threat is and most likely always has been. AQ has been defeated in Afghanistan and has abandoned the talibs to fight NATO. Yes, AQ helps the talibs, training, ammo, tech advice, some small AQ units, but the talibs are for the most part on their own.

There's now some evidence that Hezbuhla (not sure how you spell it) is operating in Iraq. They are an psuedo army of Iran, the Iranian Foreign Legion.

Another point, Iraq and Afghanistan are roughly the same size, however there are 140K troops fighting in Iraq and 30K in Afghanistan, with only about 10K doing any fighting...

I think a light fast lethal force is needed. Wherever we detect AQ in the world, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Sudan or Somalia, or at home in Canada, insert a fast light force to engage and destroy them with heavy air and sea support then extract. AQ will know we are not affraid to get them not matter where they are...

I don't disagree that Pakistan and Iran pose a threat to world security. Afghanistan will always remain vulnerable as long as these two countries continue to supply, train and give sanctuary to insurgents.

I think Canada has to be firm on 2009 mostly because our allies and Afghanistan seem to take us for granted that we'll be there till 2012.

I totally agree on a rapid force for deployment anywhere, anytime.

Afghanistan is going to have to step it up in terms of their own security. Their forces have to be more reliable than they have been to date.

[ScottSA]

Alexander the Great used roadside bombs??????

Those were actually just nightsoil pots they buried after each decampment, but over the years, ever more thunderous urban legends grew up around them.

[ScottSA]

[i totally agree on a rapid force for deployment anywhere, anytime.

Do you have any idea what that means in terms of logistics and morale? It's a bit more involved than John Wayne leaping into a Huey and singlehandedly wiping out division after division of ork-like bad guys. Just sizing the force for a specific mission is exhaustive. Seems to me it took Canada upwards of a year to limp a water purification unit over to Indonesia after the Tsunami by its "rapid deployment force," if I recall correctly.

[jdobbin]

Do you have any idea what that means in terms of logistics and morale? It's a bit more involved than John Wayne leaping into a Huey and singlehandedly wiping out division after division of ork-like bad guys. Just sizing the force for a specific mission is exhaustive. Seems to me it took Canada upwards of a year to limp a water purification unit over to Indonesia after the Tsunami by its "rapid deployment force," if I recall correctly.

It certainly would be an investment and not something that could be done overnight. It would also have to be something that was coordinated with our allies.

I'm not sure if you are arguing it is unnecessary or impossible.

[ScottSA]

Do you have any idea what that means in terms of logistics and morale? It's a bit more involved than John Wayne leaping into a Huey and singlehandedly wiping out division after division of ork-like bad guys. Just sizing the force for a specific mission is exhaustive. Seems to me it took Canada upwards of a year to limp a water purification unit over to Indonesia after the Tsunami by its "rapid deployment force," if I recall correctly.

It certainly would be an investment and not something that could be done overnight. It would also have to be something that was coordinated with our allies.

I'm not sure if you are arguing it is unnecessary or impossible.

I think weaponeer has something in mind similar to JTF2, and that is truly a rapid response force, but it has severe limitations in capability. I suspect what you have a mind is a larger force, flexible enough to counter any threat. Am I right?

[jdobbin]

I think weaponeer has something in mind similar to JTF2, and that is truly a rapid response force, but it has severe limitations in capability. I suspect what you have a mind is a larger force, flexible enough to counter any threat. Am I right?

I've talked to weaponeer before about this. My opinion is that it wouldn't be similar to JTF2, it *would* be JTF2 except expanded to a force of about 5000 with heavy lift aircraft, helicopters and other resources at its disposal. I think a similar force should be created for strike aircraft along with air refueling aircraft and the ability to mobilize them quickly around the world if necessary.

I don't think we can build up to 1960s size forces and have them parked around the world like a lot of U.S. forces are. They have to be mobile in a way that they aren't right now.

[Army Guy]

Actually a force much smaller of course is being constructed today, it will have a JTF componet, a CSOR or light inf (us ranger) type componet...DND is shopping for Big honking ships, and is considering a small amphip marine type componet.

[White Doors]

Alexander the Great used roadside bombs??????

Those were actually just nightsoil pots they buried after each decampment, but over the years, ever more thunderous urban legends grew up around them.

Coincidentally enough, Genghis Khan's horses left alot of road apples and a very similar myth resulted.

[M.Dancer]

I've talked to weaponeer before about this. My opinion is that it wouldn't be similar to JTF2, it *would* be JTF2 except expanded to a force of about 5000 with heavy lift aircraft, helicopters and other resources at its disposal.

In other words, turn the entire land combat element of the CF into a commando brigade.

[jdobbin]

Actually a force much smaller of course is being constructed today, it will have a JTF componet, a CSOR or light inf (us ranger) type componet...DND is shopping for Big honking ships, and is considering a small amphip marine type componet.

It is the smart way to go and considering how widespread potential threats are, mobile enough to do some good.

[jdobbin]

In other words, turn the entire land combat element of the CF into a commando brigade.

In several threads, I have mentioned that our ground forces are too small. I don't think they should rob Peter to pay Paul. It has to be an expansion of the present force but tasked specifically for getting to a place fast and to do a lot of good or a lot of damage all at once.

You disagree with this idea?

[M.Dancer]

In other words, turn the entire land combat element of the CF into a commando brigade.

In several threads, I have mentioned that our ground forces are too small. I don't think they should rob Peter to pay Paul. It has to be an expansion of the present force but tasked specifically for getting to a place fast and to do a lot of good or a lot of damage all at once.

You disagree with this idea?

I don't see the political will in either the Gov't or the Public for expanding the size of the land forces to the amount needed to create and nourish a commando brigade of 5000 souls. That size would neccitate around 25,000 further bodies in support roles. Given that we would still want conventional troops to do conventional soldiering, add another 30,000 (5k troops + support)

60,000 soldiers is close to the total for all branches of the armed forced....you would be looking at a 100% increase in strength. Not impossible, but impossible under the present circumstances.