http://tbi69.wordpress.com/2011/01/2...roadside-bomb/

Colin Bignell

On 02/05/2014 19:31, Nightjar wrote:

http://tbi69.wordpress.com/2011/01/2...roadside-bomb/

Colin Bignell

So that was the propellant, presumably? I assume the detonator is fairly
robust, to survive the acceleration during firing?

Made a pretty big hole!

On 02/05/2014 22:00, newshound wrote:
On 02/05/2014 19:31, Nightjar wrote:

http://tbi69.wordpress.com/2011/01/2...roadside-bomb/

Colin Bignell

So that was the propellant, presumably? I assume the detonator is fairly
robust, to survive the acceleration during firing?

Made a pretty big hole!

Or perhaps they had an anti-personnel mine on top, as a trigger?

On 02/05/14 22:00, newshound wrote:
On 02/05/2014 19:31, Nightjar wrote:

http://tbi69.wordpress.com/2011/01/2...roadside-bomb/

Colin Bignell

So that was the propellant, presumably? I assume the detonator is fairly
robust, to survive the acceleration during firing?


I THINK shells have some sort of delayed action thing so that the
detonators is wired when the shell is fired.

I think many shells do not have propellant built in. That's still done
as separate cartridges to allow for range adjustments.



Made a pretty big hole!


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 02/05/2014 22:00, newshound wrote:
On 02/05/2014 19:31, Nightjar wrote:

http://tbi69.wordpress.com/2011/01/2...roadside-bomb/

Colin Bignell

So that was the propellant, presumably? I assume the detonator is fairly
robust, to survive the acceleration during firing?

As must have they planned to detonate it remotely, they would have
replaced the original fuse with their own detonator. It amply
demonstrates all the cautions about taking extreme care when handling
detonators in my copy of the Home Guard Manual.

Made a pretty big hole!

From the commentary, it was a 155mm shell. There is a picture of one
here, to give you an idea of the size :

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/PICT0235.jpg

Colin Bignell

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...

http://tbi69.wordpress.com/2011/01/2...roadside-bomb/


Listening to the commentary I wonder if it was deliberately set off.

--
Adam

On 03/05/2014 11:01, Nightjar wrote:
On 02/05/2014 22:00, newshound wrote:
On 02/05/2014 19:31, Nightjar wrote:

http://tbi69.wordpress.com/2011/01/2...roadside-bomb/

Colin Bignell

So that was the propellant, presumably? I assume the detonator is fairly
robust, to survive the acceleration during firing?

As must have they planned to detonate it remotely, they would have
replaced the original fuse with their own detonator. It amply
demonstrates all the cautions about taking extreme care when handling
detonators in my copy of the Home Guard Manual.

Made a pretty big hole!

From the commentary, it was a 155mm shell. There is a picture of one
here, to give you an idea of the size :

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/PICT0235.jpg

Colin Bignell

My father used to blow things up (although he never talked about that)
and later in WW2 used to teach people how to do it. He had a number of
stories about mischief from the second period, fishing with gun-cotton,
etc. A lot of that expertise is now gone in civilised countries, which
is perhaps just as well.

Worth noting too that the current bunch of villains didn't actually
invent IEDs

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Winston-Chur...rchill+toyshop

On 03/05/2014 11:12, ARW wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...

http://tbi69.wordpress.com/2011/01/2...roadside-bomb/


Listening to the commentary I wonder if it was deliberately set off.


AIUI, it would have been, by canon fire from the gunship, but the blokes
burying it beat the Americans to it.

Colin Bignell

In article , Nightjar
writes
On 02/05/2014 22:00, newshound wrote:
On 02/05/2014 19:31, Nightjar wrote:

http://tbi69.wordpress.com/2011/01/2...roadside-bomb/

Colin Bignell

So that was the propellant, presumably? I assume the detonator is fairly
robust, to survive the acceleration during firing?

As must have they planned to detonate it remotely, they would have
replaced the original fuse with their own detonator. It amply
demonstrates all the cautions about taking extreme care when handling
detonators in my copy of the Home Guard Manual.

Made a pretty big hole!

From the commentary, it was a 155mm shell. There is a picture of one
here, to give you an idea of the size :

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/PICT0235.jpg

I was tempted to make a flippant remark along the lines of, "about 155mm
dia I imagine" but that simple number belies the impressive scale of the
object.

The only flaw in the report I could see was that I don't think that was
thermal footage (as stated).
--
fred
it's a ba-na-na . . . .

"fred" wrote in message ...
In article , Nightjar
writes
On 02/05/2014 22:00, newshound wrote:
On 02/05/2014 19:31, Nightjar wrote:

http://tbi69.wordpress.com/2011/01/2...roadside-bomb/

Colin Bignell

So that was the propellant, presumably? I assume the detonator is fairly
robust, to survive the acceleration during firing?

As must have they planned to detonate it remotely, they would have
replaced the original fuse with their own detonator. It amply
demonstrates all the cautions about taking extreme care when handling
detonators in my copy of the Home Guard Manual.

Made a pretty big hole!

From the commentary, it was a 155mm shell. There is a picture of one
here, to give you an idea of the size :

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/PICT0235.jpg

I was tempted to make a flippant remark along the lines of, "about 155mm
dia I imagine" but that simple number belies the impressive scale of the
object.

The only flaw in the report I could see was that I don't think that was
thermal footage (as stated).

I don't see how they never heard/saw the helicopter either.
They could have expected to be shot up at the very least.

In message ,
newshound writes

My father used to blow things up (although he never talked about that)
and later in WW2 used to teach people how to do it. He had a number of
stories about mischief from the second period, fishing with gun-cotton,
etc. A lot of that expertise is now gone in civilised countries, which
is perhaps just as well.

Worth noting too that the current bunch of villains didn't actually
invent IEDs


So did mine, classified as an ammunition examiner.

One great story was of a Belgium farmer who was found to have used some
det' cord he had salvaged to string his raspberries up with. Allegedly
quite spectacular when fired off to remove it, also one very unhappy
farmer.

As you say IEDs are nothing new, there were plenty of UK military
devices produced that were along very similar lines.

My favourite quote, a very accurate and sobering one, from the front of
many of my fathers manuals is "Remember, the purpose of an explosive is
to explode" treat them with respect.
--
Bill

In message , harryagain
writes

I don't see how they never heard/saw the helicopter either.
They could have expected to be shot up at the very least.

There was probably enough aircraft actively in the area that if they
stopped every time they heard something they would never have planted
anything, "from a mile or more away." so not exactly overhead.




--
Bill

harryagain wrote:

Nightjar wrote:

http://tbi69.wordpress.com/2011/01/2...roadside-bomb/

I don't see how they never heard/saw the helicopter either.
They could have expected to be shot up at the very least.

The video says an AC-130 which is a gunship version of a Hercules, so
it'll be miles away circling in a pylon turn, with the camera (and
weaponry) pointed out along a wing.

On 04/05/2014 07:42, harryagain wrote:
....
I don't see how they never heard/saw the helicopter either.
They could have expected to be shot up at the very least.

It was an AC-130 gunship, not a helicopter. They were developed during
the Vietnam War to replace the Douglas AC-47 gunship (aka Puff the Magic
Dragon) and the whole purpose of the aircraft is to attack ground
targets from long range without being noticed.

Colin Bignell

On Sun, 4 May 2014 08:22:42 +0100
Bill wrote:

In message ,
newshound writes

My father used to blow things up (although he never talked about
that) and later in WW2 used to teach people how to do it. He had a
number of stories about mischief from the second period, fishing
with gun-cotton, etc. A lot of that expertise is now gone in
civilised countries, which is perhaps just as well.

Worth noting too that the current bunch of villains didn't actually
invent IEDs


So did mine, classified as an ammunition examiner.

One great story was of a Belgium farmer who was found to have used
some det' cord he had salvaged to string his raspberries up with.
Allegedly quite spectacular when fired off to remove it, also one
very unhappy farmer.

As you say IEDs are nothing new, there were plenty of UK military
devices produced that were along very similar lines.

My favourite quote, a very accurate and sobering one, from the front
of many of my fathers manuals is "Remember, the purpose of an
explosive is to explode" treat them with respect.

In South Africa, I worked with a company that did blasting cleaning of
industrial equipment, and was also an explosives license holder. One
evening, in the built-in pub at the business' offices, the boss once
talked about explosives as very simply "wanting to be instantly 200,000
times the volume they were a moment ago". I can't comment on the
accuracy, but the concept makes you think. One of the company's
businesses was creating instant ponds for new householders.

FWIW, the blasting process often used peanut shells as a medium for
removing paint from equipment. They had railcars full of them coming
in to and leaving the project I was at. Once the edges are rounded,
they are no use any more.

--
Davey.