Re: [GZG] Armoured utility vehicles and IEDs in SG/DS

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 8:14 PM, Robert Mayberry
<robert.mayberry@gmail.com> wrote:

> John, what's your view of an IED-like device designed for use by a
> professional army? Would it be any better/different from a
> conventional anti-vehicle mine? By "army" I don't necessarily mean
> technologically advanced, but definitely organized and equipped for a
> conventional war. From your description, it doesn't sound like it has
> any value unless you're a guerilla with lots of imported explosives,
> and even then is pretty counterable.

Armies generally don't use IEDs.

IED is a technical term.

"A device placed or fabricated in an improvised manner incorporating
destructive, lethal, noxious, pyrotechnic, or incendiary chemicals and
designed to destroy, incapacitate, harass, or distract. It may
incorporate military stores, but is normally devised from nonmilitary
components."

Most armies take artillery shells and shoot them out of artillery
pieces, while using antitank mines to disable enemy vehicles and
channel maneuver.

An off-route anti-tank mine is not an IED, though it operates on the
same basic principles as an EFP IED.

An anti-tank land mine is not an IED, although it works in the same
way as (though a hell of a lot BETTER than) burying a pair of
artillery shells and making a pressure switch from hacksaw blades.

Armies don't use IEDs, because they get issued factory-made equipment
which works better and serves an actual tactical function.  An army
which had to resort to cheap-shit terrorist tricks is rapidly going to
not be an army anymore--it will be indistinguishable from a band of
brigands.

John
-- 
"Thousands of Sarmatians, Thousands of Franks, we've slain them again
and again. We're looking for thousands of Persians."
--Vita Aureliani

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l