U.S. Troops In Iraq Face Rocket-Propelled Bombs

BAGHDAD — - Suspected Shiite militiamen have begun using powerful rocket-propelled bombs to attack U.S. military outposts in recent months, broadening the array of weapons used against American troops.

U.S. military officials call the devices Improvised Rocket Assisted Munitions, or IRAMs. They are propane tanks packed with hundreds of pounds of explosives and powered by 107mm rockets. They are often fired by remote control from the backs of trucks, sometimes in close succession. Rocket-propelled bombs have killed at least 21 people, including at least three U.S. soldiers, this year.

The latest reported rocket-propelled bomb attack occurred Tuesday at Joint Security Station Ur, a base in northeastern Baghdad shared by U.S. and Iraqi soldiers. One U.S. soldier and an interpreter were wounded in the attack.

U.S. military officials say IRAMs, unlike roadside bombs and conventional mortar or rocket attacks, could kill scores of soldiers at once. They are fired at close range, unlike most rockets, and create much larger explosions. Most such attacks have occurred in Baghdad.

The use of the rocket-propelled bombs reflects militiamen's ability to use commonly available materials and relatively low-tech weaponry to circumvent security measures that have cost the U.S. military billions of dollars.

To combat roadside bombs, known as improvised explosive devices or IEDs, U.S. and Iraqi troops have set up scores of checkpoints throughout the city, increased patrols and bought hundreds of armored vehicles that can resist such attacks.

A June report on the website Long War Journal called the explosives-filled propane tanks "flying IEDs."

Militia members and insurgents have at times increased the sophistication of their weapons, but the rocket-propelled bombs are makeshift devices that also have been used in recent years by insurgents in Colombia.

Propane tanks are ubiquitous in Iraq, where the fuel is widely used for cooking, making it hard for security forces to stop production of the bombs.

"IRAM attacks could be very tragic against us," said Col. William Hickman, the commander of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team of the 101st Airborne Division, which operates in northwestern Baghdad. "We take them very seriously."

As the number of U.S. soldiers in Baghdad has begun to drop with the end of the "surge" of additional forces, U.S. military officials are placing a higher percentage of their troops in small outposts in densely populated neighborhoods.

U.S. military officials say this is crucial in order to continue to train Iraq's security forces, win the trust of the capital's residents and improve local governance.

But deployments in small outposts — some are manned by just one platoon — also have made soldiers more vulnerable.

To counter the threat posed by rocket-propelled bombs, soldiers have stepped up patrols around outposts, fortified their buildings and offered tens of thousands of dollars for information about networks that use the weapon.

The weapon first emerged as a threat last fall and has become a top concern in recent months following a series of deadly rocket-propelled bomb attacks.

Most such attacks have been carried out during the day and some have been videotaped and aired on the satellite television station operated by Hezbollah, a Lebanese militia and political movement. U.S. military officials said they have found Iranian-made 107 mm rockets at some of the blast sites, which they said suggests the weapons — or parts — may have come from Iran.

The deadliest reported rocket-propelled bomb attack occurred June 4 in the Shaab neighborhood of eastern Baghdad. U.S. soldiers stationed at a small base called Forward Operating Base Callahan heard a series of blasts shortly after 2 p.m.

The explosions were caused when a rocket on the back of a small flatbed truck exploded, igniting the other four to five IRAMs on the truck, the U.S. military said. The attack killed 18 Iraqis, wounded 29 and damaged 15 buildings, the military said.

"It is believed that the intended targets were U.S. soldiers at FOB Callahan and while in the final stages for the attack, for an unknown reason one rocket prematurely detonated causing the remaining rockets to explode erratically," the military said in a statement.

U.S. military officials said two suspected assailants were killed in the attack, describing them as members of "special groups" or Iranian-backed Shiite militias.

The second-deadliest attack occurred on April 28 at Forward Operating Base Loyalty in eastern Baghdad. The attack, which occurred shortly after 1 p.m., killed three soldiers.

Militiamen fired 14 rocket-propelled bombs from the back of a cargo truck.

That same day, Joint Security Station Thawra, the U.S. military's only outpost in Sadr City, in eastern Baghdad, was also attacked with rocket-propelled bombs. At least 15 soldiers were wounded.

Those crazy shia militas, what will they think of next? Exploding urinals?

To me this suggests that either the Irans have stopped or is limiting its supply of artillery rockets, or that coalition blockade/interdiction is working. Even the most gung-ho, ready for his virgins jihadist would rather touch off a factory made rocket than a flying LPG cylinder.

The Iranians have probably stopped shipments of weapons. There is very little US presence in Southern Iraq, sneaking in weapons shouldn't be a problem for the Iranians, though till date there hasn't been any proof that the Iranians have actually shipped any to the Shia militias.

Not true. They have caught militias with recent Iranian production RPGs, mortar rounds, and 122mm rockets.

The entire US Army isn't big enough to seal the Iran/Iraq border. The border in S Iraq is patrolled but there's a heap of space.

However, gas cylinders as bombs aren't new, it's just fitting them with decent longer range propelling that is. The IRA invented gas cylinder mortar bombs, probably funded by US money. Remember the recently deceased Quartermaster General of the PIRA was an Arabic speaker. Reap what you sow.

Just to clarify: The "US money" that nigelfe refers to was private contributions, not USG support.

These were not donations / bank transfers that any US government wanted to particuly stop, in case of the American Irish voter backlash against restrictions being imposed on American Irish support for terror.

Of course Sept 11 helped bring this to a close when terror non-state terror, of whatever hue, was seen as terror. 3500 people were killed in 'the troubles' but as that was across the pond there was little incentive for the USA to take action against IRA supporters.

When gas grills are outlawed, only outlaw jihadis will have gas grills.

There seems to be some confusion. The gas cylinder (emptied and filled explosives) is the payload, not the means of propulsion. They are propelled by 107mm rockets,
On some occassion two apiece, from specially improvised launchers.

This website has a good deal of pictures:
http://www.longwarjournal.org/multimedia/IRAM/index.html

The device has many limitations, mainly short range, inaccuracy and the need to be carried in a vehichle. The main advantage it has over the traditional
truckbomb (other than allowing the perpetrator to escape ocassionally) is the ability to propell its payload over blast walls, which have become ubiquituous around
US bases in Iraq. with up to 14 IRAMs per launchers, each with a payload of about 100kg, it can cause agood deal of devastation. However, I suspect that the
device's complexity and unreliability, together with the limitations mentioned above, would prevent it from becoming a greater threat than truckboms are currently.

CAMP LIBERTY, Iraq - U.S. forces may be close to unlocking the mystery of who is behind a deadly innovation in Iraqi insurgents' weapons, a "lob bomb" now being used in Baghdad to target U.S. and Iraqi combat outposts, a senior American general said Friday in an Associated Press interview.
ADVERTISEMENT

Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond, commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, called the weapon "the greatest threat right now that we face," and he likened the shadowy group behind it to the American military's elite Delta Force.

The weapon is particularly worrying because it is designed to cause catastrophic damage and cannot be stopped once it has been launched, Hammond, commander of the 4th Infantry Division, said in an interview in his office at this U.S. military headquarters compound just west of the capital.

U.S. forces detained a man on Thursday who Hammond said could provide valuable insights into the group behind the bombmaking. "We think we have defined the network," he said. He would not elaborate, although other American officers said in interviews that the group is Shiite and may have links to Iran.

"We think we might have picked up a guy that could lead us — could be a big lead in this," Hammond said.

It's not clear whether this small group is related to efforts by anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to revitalize his Mahdi Army, which had held sway in the Sadr City section of Baghdad until U.S. and Iraqi forces wrested control after seven weeks of fighting that ended in May.

Arguing against a link to such an al-Sadr initiative is the fact that the group that Hammond described has been operating since at least late 2007, although it has become more active in recent months.

The 107 mm rockets that are used in the improvised bombs — which some call an airborne version of the roadside bombs that through the course of the war have been the leading killer of U.S. troops — are manufactured in Iran, officials said. But some officers cautioned against assuming Iran is directly involved.

The weapons are launched from small trucks and are fired in multiples of four to nine rockets at a time. The detonation is sometimes triggered by a signal from a cell phone, other times by a washing machine timer.

Brig. Gen. Will Grimsley, deputy commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, said in a separate AP interview on Thursday that for lack of a better term he refers to the group as "the evil militia." He said it is small and exhibits a high degree of technical skill in assembling the weapons and executing attacks.

The military calls the weapon an "improvised rocket-assisted mortar," or IRAM.

Grimsley on Thursday went to the Sadr City section of eastern Baghdad to visit a joint U.S.-Iraqi military outpost that suffered an IRAM attack on April 28. The building was heavily damaged, and 15 U.S. soldiers were wounded, none seriously enough to prevent their return to duty, said Lt. Col. Steven Stover, a military spokesman.

The weapon innovation has gained relatively little public attention because it has yet to kill in large numbers.

So far, in 11 attacks, three U.S. soldiers have been killed, Stover said. The three were killed April 28 — the same day as the Sadr City assault — in an attack on a larger U.S. base in eastern Baghdad.

At the Sadr City base, Grimsley consulted with Lt. Col. Brian Eifler, commander of 1st Battalion, 6th Armor, 2nd Brigade, 1st Armored Division, inside a newly constructed combat outpost a stone's throw from the damaged one. Eifler said he is focused heavily on the IRAM threat and how to minimize it.

Eifler estimated that a U.S. soldier who might be in position to witness the approach of a potential IRAM-bearing vehicle would have less then two seconds to decide whether the person emerging from it has just set it for firing or is simply an innocent driver getting out to change a tire.

"That's a call our young soldiers have to make when potentially 200 lives are at stake," Eifler said.

Hammond said the perpetrators are so skilled that he has likened their organization to the U.S. military's secretive and elite Delta Force. He said they have demonstrated an unusual degree of military skill and cunning.

"They don't leave a forensic trail, and that just means we're going to have to work a little bit longer" to eliminate them, he said. "Of everything we've had to deal with here, this is a tough one. They're sort of the Delta Force of this enemy we face out there. They are very good" at covering their tracks, picking out targets and preserving secrecy about their membership and movements.

This is all sounding like the way that VC used single Katyushas fired from simple trough launchers against US firebases and airfields, but using the cover of an urban environment, hence the use of trucks, rather than jungle.

Even the design sounds very 1940s, the 28cm and 32cm Wurfkorper being a bulbous head, resembling a gas cylinder, with a smaller tube containing propellant, fired from simple racks out to a range of around 2,000 yards. These were often used en masse in urban combat to demolish buildings and strongpoints.

There is very little new in warfare...

Well, the insurgents have used Katushya rockets before by putting them into the ceiling of a car and launching them at US bases. Problem was that the warheads were too small to do significant damage. With this, they are able to launch multiple projectiles that each carry over 100 kg of high explosives in rapid succession. All the insurgents need is a single direct hit and they can kill dozen of dozens of soldiers in a single attack. Yeah it isn't new, but its simply a very hard tactic to counter.

I just find it more interesting how the US military officials are referring to this group as the Delta Force of the insurgency. Al Sadr announced a few weeks back that only specialized units of his will attack US forces. Maybe this is just a taste of what's more to come?

How are they getting any sort of accuracy with these things? Its gotta be all blind (un)-luck

In the interests of pedantry and accuracy 'katushay' (however spelt) refers to a particular pattern of Soviet MRL. The 107mm (etc) CHICOM rockets fired off 'field expedient' launchers by VC and others were/are different.

PIRA filled gas cylinders with explosive (ANFO?), the best know use was their attack on Downing Street.

You don't need much accuracy, depending on how many are being fired and at what range.

An example, from WW2: the Brits, rather than dragging a 5.5in gun or similar through the jungle to take out Japanese bunkers would bring up a trough type launcher and some LILO rockets with either 21lb or 60lb warheads (most of which was steel with only a few pounds of explosive filling, to get good penetration - about 10 feet of soil and a layer of logs). The estimate was to ensure a 95% chance of a hit on a particular bunker 5 rockets had to be fired at a range of 50 yards. The US used the M12 Rocket Launcher in a similar way.

This sounds like a lot of work, but it is easier than bringing up artillery.

If they are targeting moving vehicles, accuracy would definitely be an issue. But if they are targeting large FOBs and combat posts (especially if they park the launch vehicles not too far away), then accuracy shouldn't be a huge issue.

I think there is a big difference between using what is a purpose build rocket system with a relatively known ballistic behavior and some Frankenstein amateur weld-job.

Granted the way it looks like these things are being employed its a much much simpler technical problem than the DIY Hez' rockets.

Another thing I'm curious about is how they are handling the fusing.

I'm not saying these things aren't a threat, or that the bad guys aren't a smart crafth lot at times - but it just seems every time they get a few lucky hits with a really crude tactic the journos roll it out as being some "Oh noes! Serious badass weapon that is going to do a whole lot of damage." with wording and subtext that way overblows the reality for dramatic effect.

Reap what we sow? Hmmm. In that case please allow me to have grim satisfaction that America contributed in some small way for Catholics to obtain civil rights that were denied to them in a struggle that lasted for centuries.

1.
Even if true, it would not prove Iranian involvement.
The VC used M16's in Vietnam and "German" G3 rifles were used in many African conflicts.

2.
You seem to have missed that especially the mortar bomb story was completely proved to be wrong, as so far apparently all bold claims about Iranian weapon deliveries to Shia militias. You remember the Steyr .50" rifle story?

3.
The U.S.Army has made so many wrong claims about Iranian weapons in Iraq that it has zero credibility in this regard. People may choose to still believe its next fairy tales just like the old ones, but that applies to people who "want to believe".
It's bad if you lie once, but if you lie twice you won't be trusted anymore. The U.S.Army has lied much more often about Iranian involvement in Iraq.
Yes, doing bold claims with certainty that are eventually proved to be wrong and easily recognizable as wrong and agenda-driven is a lie.

-------

About the topic itself; there's a war going on and of course are both/all sides trying to improve the hardware and tactics they use. Such short-range artillery is a bit reminiscent of WW1, and seems to be tailored for the specific conditions in Iraq. Bases are well-known, static and too numerous to be protected by forward security.
The Achilles heel seems to be the dependence on trucks/trailers in combination with short range; the checkpoint problem should limit the operation of such artillery to the vicinity of the militia/insurgent hideout.

They don't need much. They're firing them from about 50-100m outside the base, lobbing them over the wall. They can't miss the base. Whether they hit anything inside is another matter, but they've had some equipment successes.

NTM

Well that explains it then. They had might as well use a catapult.

Oooh. Nice, do please remember posting this the next time you start frothing about Hezb/Iraqi/Whoever "Terrorists".

They would appear to be modelled on the IRA ones. Detonation on IRA ones was problematic, as most would not go bang on landing. They had a simple arming fuse using a homemade wind powered screw in the nose that may or may not have time to arm in flight. All buildings in NI had mortar screen on the roof to catch the bomb but not detonate it. As CT said range was very limited but slightly more than that, up to 500m depending on Mk. Accuracy was a problem but mainly due to range not direction. It was very common for them to over shoot or drop short. The one aimed at No 10 fell in the garden if I recall correctly. They were normally delay launch times so that the firer could get clean away. The other real benefit is that they are short time of flight, low altitude and may not trigger warning alarms so not giving time to take cover. They have a number of advantages over purpose built mortars.

The vehicle the IRA used could be anything. At first mainly truck were used as they wanted numbers not so much as quality. But as they improved the design they were used in one, two and threes. Often using a van, Hiac was very popular, with a hole cut in the roof so that it was not easily seen for ground level. But trailers with straw bales on and pulled by a tractor was also popular particularly in rural areas. Concealment on the approach was important and these vehicles could travel without much notice being taken. It is difficult to stop every vehicle, every day, all day.

These mortars are disposable, use once and blow up either at time of launch or as a secondary device with the aim of catching ATO. The bomb casings are readily available and can be made at home without a lot of difficulty. Concealment in the back garden is also simple unless the searcher know what they are looking for most of it can be hidden in junk openly.

Such devices were considered in WW1 for launching explosive projectiles. None worked very well. Maximum viable load was about a grenade, out to about 50 metres. Even a small mortar was more effective.

Funny, I've always read that the Livens Projector (which this is a modern variation on) was very effective in WWI. Real Livens Projectors were even more simple, consisting of an oil drum open at one end with a small drum inside as a projectile and a small gun powder charge underneath the projectile which was ignited, propelling the projectile the few hundred metres towards the enemy. Large numbers of these projectors filled with gas shells allowed the British Army to gain chemical weapon dominance over the Germans on the Western Front.

The Livens projector was not a 'catapult' [strictly speaking what we call 'catapults' are not catapults anyway - a 'catapult' being a 'shield piercer', (aka Gastraphetes, Oxybeles, Scorpio, or Cheiroballistra)], neither was it a Ballista (a stone thrower of similar design to a catapult, ie like a large cross bow, or a cross bow with torsion springs) nor anything like an onager or a medieval trebuchet, all of which are called in our modern imprecise language 'catapults', and which were use mechanically stored energy to impart velocity to a projectile. The energy delivered to the target being directly proportional to the energy stored in 'winding the things up at this end'. There were some WW1 devices that stored energy in a spring before releasing it to chuck a bomb at the enemy, but these were rare.

The Livens projector was a simple chemically powered mortar, used en mass to throw cylinders of toxic gas at the enemy. It was not a catapult, by any stretch of the imagination.

Were those freshly made G3s and M16s from crates not a few months old off the production line?

My unofficial sources from Iraq in the form of friends on the ground say otherwise about what they're finding.

The Propane cylinder bombs are improvised weapons of entirely local manufacture. In the case of the IRanian weapons, it's EFPs out of Iranian production lines.



Then explain why QUDS force has been there. Why one of their senior officers was captured and why several others have been captured? Are they there on Holiday to visit their relatives?



From my friend in theatre, these Propane Cylinder bombs are not a big threat. They're limited in range, hard to set off and easy to spot. Their bark (in the media) is far worse than their bite so far. Iranian EFPs integrated into IEDs is a much larger threat.

I used to have some simple support the underdogs empathy for the Irish when I was younger (think Teenager). But when I saw the mob drag the two police from their car and murder them in cold blood, I lost and sympathy for the IRA. There's always going to be some support for our 'cousins' but then the British are also our cousins so its an odd sort of family squabble in my mind. One that's gone on too damn long though.

They were RSig not RUC and tortured before being murdered.

Ahh who sowed what exactly? AFAIK the US never suported the PIRA, overtly or covertly.

Do you have a source for your acusation?

The improvised weapons the PIRA was forced to manufacture was a direct result of the joint US/UK efforts to shut down the arms and money pipeline to the PIRA.

I think he's implying the US citizens did support the IRA, outside the actions of the US government. And I think that much is actually true...to what extent the US could stop or control this funding and what extent they turned a blind eye and condoned such behavior I don't know.

He's not implying that. "Reap what you sow" would imply that US casulties from these improvised weapons in Iraq are deserved due to past individuals' financial support for terrorists.

This is most likley a direct counter to our TTPs making insurgent mortar/rocket attacks relatively ineffective. Just as EFP’s were a response to our up-armoring every vehicle in theatre.

It could also mean the readily available supply of mortar tubes and ammunition in theatre is dwindling.

Doubt the number of mortars and mortar tubes is dwindling. This seems to be a much more effective way of lobbing hundreds of kilograms of explosives into US bases than anything else the insurgents have at their disposal.

I would say that using a mortar is much more effective than any such improvised short-range MRS. If for nothing else, you can fire off few rounds, then hide and survive to fire off few rounds some other day.