It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Insurgents Using U.S. Techniques

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2005 @ 11:08 AM
link   
FORT MONMOUTH, N.J., May 3, 2005 -- In 1965, the U.S. Army published a detailed manual on how to build and hide booby traps, complete with detailed diagrams illustrating various means of wiring detonators to explosives, and advising on the best locations for concealing the deadly bombs along roadways and elsewhere.



Two decades later, the Iraqi military issued its troops an Arabic version of the same manual, copying not only the wording but also many of the drawings. Dated March 1987 and stamped "confidential," the manual includes a message from Saddam Hussein, then Iraq's supreme ruler, underscoring the importance of perpetual learning.

Roadside bombs -- the military calls them "improvised explosive devices," or IEDs -- continue to rank as the number one killer of U.S. troops in Iraq, according to Pentagon figures. About half of all combat casualties in Iraq are attributed to them.

Countering them has become a top Pentagon priority. At the Army's Communications-Electronics Command here, more than 80 engineers and other specialists are engaged in the effort. Throughout the military, dozens more also are working on the problem, with hundreds of millions of dollars now devoted to the project, defense officials said.

"This is a long-term threat, not just to our armed forces but I think to our citizens," Gordon R. England told a Senate panel last week at a hearing on his nomination to become deputy secretary of defense. "If there's ever an attack, it will be this kind of attack -- or potentially this kind of an attack -- in America."

source:
uruknet.info

Roadside bombs, that are the number one killer of the US Troops in Iraq, are really an original plan of the US Army.

A case of "You Get What You Give"?

There is a good side about that fact, as said by a civilan official:

"The upside is, if you know what their training manual is, then you know what you're up against. Having them use our tactics, techniques and procedures isn't necessarily a bad thing."

He's Right. Soon tactics will be discovered to overcome these IED's - but...

"It's a game that goes on forever. When we defeat one method, a smart enemy will move on to something else."




posted on May, 4 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Thats why we need heavier humvees. Those IEDs are killing our boys. And I'm sure that we can find some way of stopping them. If you haven't noticed the attacks on U.S. Forces have been declining. But the down fall to this is that the civilians in Iraq are starting to get more of the attacks. Which is stupid because they're killing other Muslims. Isn't that a bad thing in their Gods eyes.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by demosthenes
Thats why we need heavier humvees. Those IEDs are killing our boys. And I'm sure that we can find some way of stopping them. If you haven't noticed the attacks on U.S. Forces have been declining. But the down fall to this is that the civilians in Iraq are starting to get more of the attacks. Which is stupid because they're killing other Muslims. Isn't that a bad thing in their Gods eyes.

Well, it says in the article that they found a way - its tricky but its working.

In recent months, the U.S. military has employed different ground-based and airborne jamming devices with some success at thwarting roadside bombs. One set of jammers, known as the Warlock series, emits radio frequencies to interfere with the signals used to detonate IEDs. These devices are modified versions of a system known as Shortstop that was devised to explode incoming artillery and mortar rounds before they struck.

The problem begins when these devices start to change.

The devices are becoming increasingly sophisticated as U.S. specialists find ways to jam them. Early models, which relied on such triggers as garage door openers, wireless doorbells and car alarm remotes, have given way to ones detonated by cell phones and other devices with more complicated frequencies.

And you are wrong about the number of attacks. They have gone up - but not all of them are successful.

According to Army figures, about 30 to 40 percent of IEDs are now found and rendered safe, and those that do go off are causing fewer casualties. But the number of IED incidents has steadily climbed and currently exceeds 30 a day, the Army says.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   
we trained the mujhadeen in the 80's in their fight against the Soviets. Many of the techniques they learned then are still being used today in the middle east.

yes, you get what you give is on display.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   
No crap I haven't heard that. Well its go to know that our boys are figuring out ways to stop these IEDs. I'm sure that they will find a way to stop the cell phone ones and others like it. I mean if you can steal someone else's cell number I'm sure there is away to stop them from sending out a call to an IED. Its only a matter of time.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   
You gotta love the irony here. And, it is true that the Hummers need better armor, but don't you tell that to the people in charge, though. I heard about an attack when our forces received most of their injuries to the upper body while riding in a Humvee.

I guess the insurgents aren't going away for a while, but that's exactly what the White House wants.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
You gotta love the irony here. And, it is true that the Hummers need better armor, but don't you tell that to the people in charge, though. I heard about an attack when our forces received most of their injuries to the upper body while riding in a Humvee.

I guess the insurgents aren't going away for a while, but that's exactly what the White House wants.

I dont think Hummmers really stand a change against IED's - they can get Abrams tank blown away.

And you right, that what the White House wants!

PS: I must add, you signature really made me Laugh! Especially this part!

"He [Bill Frist] married a Texas girl, I want you to know. Karyn is with us. A West Texas girl, just like me."

LOL!

Just cant get 'nuff of these statements by Bush!




posted on May, 4 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Sure, everyone wants to copy the best, but they are using outdated war booklets for fighting a modern war. It's not going to work very well for them. I wouldn't be too frightened of an enemy that was using techniques from 20 years ago. Even if they have some limited success, they don't have the resources that the US does. Just as an example watch as the US uses modern weaponry to remove insurgents hiding behind a car. Which method was more effect? The one from 20 years ago, or the new modern approach?



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Yes the Humvees do need better armor, I now the airforce and army are getting more heavily armored Humvees but the Marines aren't getting nothing. Its all about the money and since the Marines get a much smaller budget than either one of two mentioned above they're equipment isn't up to par. I read a story about a Marine who was on a patrol with his platoon in Humvees and his ran over a mine. The Marine lost from his knee down. A little more armor may have saved that Marines leg.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 12:23 PM
link   


I dont think Hummmers really stand a change against IED's - they can get Abrams tank blown away.


What are you baseing this on???? Hey did you make this up???
Are you basing this on experience or what???

Yeah SOME, a very few IED can blow away tanks. But "hummmers" as you like to call em are made to withstand a certain degree of explosion. Even the "non-armored" regular ones can take a grenade exploding beneath it....sure the engine block and the back is gone, but the troops are still alive and that's all that matters, that what it is designed to protect.
But you don't care about the troops do you?
But as in some unfortunate cases the whole thing goes and people die, both US and Iraqi, truly sad.

But you can never have too much armor, MORE ARMOR, MORE ARMOR!!



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
Sure, everyone wants to copy the best, but they are using outdated war booklets for fighting a modern war. It's not going to work very well for them. I wouldn't be too frightened of an enemy that was using techniques from 20 years ago. Even if they have some limited success, they don't have the resources that the US does. Just as an example watch as the US uses modern weaponry to remove insurgents hiding behind a car. Which method was more effect? The one from 20 years ago, or the new modern approach?

Well, the "new modern approach" you have shown us is surely very effective - send an airplane to kill a sniper. Ofcourse its effective; not just the sniper, but the entire surroundings are blasted to oblivion.

Same thing with this 20 year old techniques - they seem to work very well in this Urban Combat. And its not a 20 year old technology - its 20 year old idea with the technology of today. Bombs are getting more and more complicated, which the people who invented them in the 70's didnt think of; like the mobile phone for example.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by SportyMB



I dont think Hummmers really stand a change against IED's - they can get Abrams tank blown away.


What are you baseing this on???? Hey did you make this up???
Are you basing this on experience or what???

Yeah SOME, a very few IED can blow away tanks. But "hummmers" as you like to call em are made to withstand a certain degree of explosion. Even the "non-armored" regular ones can take a grenade exploding beneath it....sure the engine block and the back is gone, but the troops are still alive and that's all that matters, that what it is designed to protect.
But you don't care about the troops do you?
But as in some unfortunate cases the whole thing goes and people die, both US and Iraqi, truly sad.

But you can never have too much armor, MORE ARMOR, MORE ARMOR!!


The more armor the better it saves lives. Yes sir it sure does.
I agree with you on this sportymb.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by SportyMB
What are you baseing this on???? Hey did you make this up???
Are you basing this on experience or what???

Yeah SOME, a very few IED can blow away tanks. But "hummmers" as you like to call em are made to withstand a certain degree of explosion. Even the "non-armored" regular ones can take a grenade exploding beneath it....sure the engine block and the back is gone, but the troops are still alive and that's all that matters, that what it is designed to protect.
But you don't care about the troops do you?
But as in some unfortunate cases the whole thing goes and people die, both US and Iraqi, truly sad.

But you can never have too much armor, MORE ARMOR, MORE ARMOR!!

More Armor will not help the situation. More Armor will only result in More Strong IED's.

And to answer your quesiton, where did I get the information about the Abrams tank being blow away, here it is:



WASHINGTON — The U.S. military's Abrams tank, designed during the Cold War to withstand the fiercest blows from the best Soviet tanks, is getting knocked out at surprising rates by the low-tech bombs and rocket-propelled grenades of Iraqi insurgents.

n the all-out battles of the 1991 Gulf War, only 18 Abrams tanks were lost and no soldiers in them killed. But since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, with tanks in daily combat against the unexpectedly fierce insurgency, the Army says 80 of the 69-ton behemoths have been damaged so badly they had to be shipped back to the United States.

A favorite tactic: detonating a roadside bomb in hopes of blowing the tread off the tank. The insurgents follow with rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and gunfire aimed at the less-armored areas, especially the vulnerable rear engine compartment.

source:
usa.today.com



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 01:14 PM
link   


And to answer your quesiton, where did I get the information about the Abrams tank being blow away, here it is:


Yeah no crap, I know IED's can blow a tank, I acknowledged that in my last post...


Yeah SOME, a very few IED can blow away tanks


Ok this is about the stupidest comment Ive heard in awhile, just plain stupid



More Armor will not help the situation. More Armor will only result in More Strong IED's.


Hey I have a great idea.....Let's not issue bullet proof vest to our cops, cause the bullets will only get better!!!!

Wow your logic is all jacked up! Anyways, Yeah the IED's will get better but they are going to make them better regardless. Why?
Kill more people-
greater blast radius-
Psychological damage to viewers-
More bang for the buck-

We should still prepare and equip ourselves as best as we can, more armor for "hummers"
, better rifles for killing and better training.

We still stand a better chance in an armored "Hummer" than we do in a non armored one.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SportyMB


And to answer your quesiton, where did I get the information about the Abrams tank being blow away, here it is:


Yeah no crap, I know IED's can blow a tank, I acknowledged that in my last post...

I am glad we got this straightened out.



quote: Originally posted by SportyMB
Yeah SOME, a very few IED can blow away tanks

Ok this is about the stupidest comment Ive heard in awhile, just plain stupid


Yea and dont forget who Said it! I Quotes You! So I guess you are right - its the stupidest Comment I have heard in a while also!



[edit on 4/5/05 by Souljah]



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Ok Ok you got me!!! caught me red handed


I was talking about this comment below:


More Armor will not help the situation. More Armor will only result in More Strong IED's.


and my reply was:



Hey I have a great idea.....Let's not issue bullet proof vest to our cops, cause the bullets will only get better!!!!

Wow your logic is all jacked up! Anyways, Yeah the IED's will get better but they are going to make them better regardless. Why?
Kill more people-
greater blast radius-
Psychological damage to viewers-
More bang for the buck-

We should still prepare and equip ourselves as best as we can, more armor for "hummers"
, better rifles for killing and better training.

We still stand a better chance in an armored "Hummer" than we do in a non armored one.


But yes, we both agree that more armor will reslult in better improvised explosive devices (IED's). However, they will get better regardless as i stated above.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   
SportyMB

You seem to forget what you say.

First you said: Yeah SOME, a very few IED can blow away tanks.

But its a fact, that these IED's blew up more tanks then the entire Iraqi Army! 18 against 80 - and that is just confirmed numbers, who really knows how many were really lost.

Secondly - the point of this thread was, that the US Forces seem to have problems with these explosive devices, which they invented in the First Place! Thats what puzzles me. If they invented them, they should know the best way to disarm them, isnt that so?

The IED's are still a mystery to US Forces, and 80% of all Engineers are working on a way to solve this problem - they made progress in Electronic Warfare. But unfortunately the designers of these devices are always one step ahead, always improving them, always making them beter and more deadly.

Its like a Game of Chess - You must Think First, Before you Move.

"Electronic warfare is often referred to as a chess game, and EW players are called knights of the chessboard because they have the ability to jump over others," the official here said. "It's a game that goes on forever. When we defeat one method, a smart enemy will move on to something else."

Its just a Question who is Smarter and predicts more Moves Ahead.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Did these insurgents inherit the teachings from us when we aided out former ally, against the war on communism (al queda)?

It's not like it has happened before, oh wait, im' wrong, it has. Vietnam, where we were forced to deal with our own guerilla tactics abroad.

I remeber seeing a video someahere of Nixon denying that we trained troops in cambodia, when asked. Meanwhile a video plays, documenting american officers orgainzing and training troops. Despite this he did not back down. Wow, no one denied that ignorance? freaky.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eyeofhorus
Did these insurgents inherit the teachings from us when we aided out former ally, against the war on communism (al queda)?



Originally posted by Souljah
FORT MONMOUTH, N.J., May 3, 2005 -- In 1965, the U.S. Army published a detailed manual on how to build and hide booby traps, complete with detailed diagrams illustrating various means of wiring detonators to explosives, and advising on the best locations for concealing the deadly bombs along roadways and elsewhere.


I believe that pretty much answers your question. The army published the manual.. they picked it up and read it.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   


that the US Forces seem to have problems with these explosive devices, which they invented in the First Place! Thats what puzzles me. If they invented them, they should know the best way to disarm them, isnt that so?


Ok, the US did not invent IED's. You sources have are 100% false.
IED, improvsed explosive device.
An IED is any device not professionaly manufactured that is designed to explode and cause bodily harm or death.
There are a few characteristics such as timing devices, sensors wich could me motion, audible or vibration or many more variations

IED's have been around for a long time, the war in Iraq made them very popular amongst civilians. The US simply dubbed it the name "IED".

And how should they know the best way to disarm IED's????
IED are unique to the person who makes it!!!

Google link here

They can be cellphones, boxes, bags, shoes, PEOPLE, canisters, ect...




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join