Replies

Excellent interview, Zac. You asked really intelligent and informed questions.

I hope you're able to get the other info out of PAO purgatory.

As far as the guy who had questions about the IED is concerned: without giving too much away, each IED site and damage is examined by engineers and other experts. They have learned a great deal about these weapons and have helped reduce the toll they take (you will understand why I cannot be more specific than that). The description of the weapon effects on this armored vehicle is similar to others I have seen in the same range. It sounds like they were a little past when the bomber triggered the device.

We had an uparmored HMMWV hit by a large IED that threw some components 300 metres (yes, metres) and pretty much sheared off most of the firewall-forward. All men aboard the vehicle were treated and released for lacerations and busted eardrums.

After I came back, a friend on a second tour was hit by a mine/IED so powerful that the ankle high rubbish left over took careful study to ID as a HMMWV. (He was ejected from the turret and survived into the burn center, but died of overlooked internal injuries about two weeks after the hit. Two Americans were killed. An Afghan interpreter was ejected and survived with serious but not life-threatening injuries, rather like the guys in this story).

I'm aware of IEDs that destroyed main battle tanks and killed their crews (in Iraq, that is; nobody has deployed tanks to Afghanistan).

The point is that weapons effects of this new and improvised weapon are highly variable. Much more than sheer explosive weight influences these effects. Also, a 1,000 kilo car bomb is more likely to be improvised explosive, TATP or ANFO, than it is to be Comp B or the stuff we put in an 2,000 lb aerial bomb. Our stuff is not only more predictable and safer to handle, it's also more powerful.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F