Technical Intelligence Bulletins May

WASHINGTON -- About 2,000 more experts are being sent to Iraq to help look for banned weapons as well as regime leaders, terrorists and more. The team is more than triple the size of the force now searching for weapons and larger than was previously described. It will be headed by a two-star general in defense intelligence, the Pentagon said Wednesday. The Defense Department also confirmed it is investigating what officials said may be the most promising discovery so far -- a trailer truck they say could turn out to be the first mobile biological lab recovered since the start of the war to disarm the government of Saddam Hussein .The Bush administration alleged that Iraq had chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs and said the main reason for the war was to destroy them. Despite weeks of searches at more than 100 sites, officials have reported finding nothing conclusive so far. Although Pentagon officials suggested some Iraqi units were armed with chemical weapons just days before the war, none were found when those units were overrun. Officials said again Wednesday at a Pentagon news conference that finding the "smoking gun" will take time. Asked if prewar intelligence was flawed, Defense Intelligence Agency Director Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby said it was far too soon to tell. "This is piecing together a major jigsaw puzzle, and we are only just beginning ... to work the puzzle," Lowell said.

Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton of DIA will head the new group being sent to Iraq, called the Iraq Survey Group. Consisting of some 1,300 military and civilian experts in computers, intelligence, weapons, demolition and other matters, the group also will have former U.N. weapons inspectors and 800 support personnel. They are joining 600 military and civilian experts from the armed forces, FBI, CIA, Defense Threat Reduction Agency and elsewhere who are already hunting for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

An additional 400 sites have been identified through Iraqi tips, documents and other leads since the war started. Still, the searchers in Iraq have only explored 110 sites so far, Cambone said, 70 from the prewar list and 40 that emerged with new intelligence since the major fighting ended. Officials said the suspected biological lab was being tested by American forces in Iraq. The trailer matches the description of such laboratories given by various sources, including a defector who says he helped operate one.

Cambone said initial tests have been done on the trailer, which was taken into custody April 19 at a Kurdish checkpoint in northern Iraq. No biological agents have been found so far, but officials believe the trailer was washed with a caustic chemical to wipe away evidence. They said they may need to dismantle it to get to hard-to-reach surfaces. The trailer, painted in a military color scheme, was found on a transporter normally used for tanks. It contains a fermenter and a system to capture exhaust gases, which an Iraqi defector said were parts of Iraq's mobile labs, Cambone said. "While some of the equipment on the trailer could have been used for purposes other than biological weapons agent production, U.S. and U.K. technical experts have concluded that the unit does not appear to perform any function beyond what the defector said it was for, which is the production of biological agents," Cambone said.

WASHINGTON -- U.S. forces in Iraq continued Thursday to examine what they believe was a mobile weapons lab, hoping to find concrete evidence that proves Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. The Pentagon confirmed Wednesday that a trailer found in the Iraqi desert matches the description of a mobile biological weapons laboratory. American forces are now conducting tests to determine whether the trailer may be the "smoking gun" that proves Iraq had an ongoing program to develop weapons of mass destruction. "On the smoking gun, I don't know," Under Secretary of Defense Stephen Cambone (search) said, when asked whether this was a breakthrough in the continuing coalition search for Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons.

Cambone said that what the U.S. military has in its possession is the kind of mobile laboratory that Secretary of State Colin Powell described in a report to the U.N. Security Council as he sought to justify forcibly disarming Saddam. "They have not found another plausible use for it," Cambone said. The information Powell gave the U.N., Cambone said, "was based on information from a number of sources and it confirms what the source said." Fox News reported Tuesday that a vehicle found by Kurdish fighters last week in the northern Iraq city of Irbil may be a mobile weapons laboratory. Senior defense officials told Fox News then that they were "confident" the vehicle was used to manufacture biological or chemical weapons agents. The officials said the possible mobile biological weapons lab was moved to the Baghdad International Airport for further testing. Cambone said that experts had done initial tests on a trailer taken into custody April 19 at a Kurdish checkpoint in northern Iraq but said that more substantial testing is required.

Cambone noted that the vehicle's surface had been washed with a caustic material and it likely would have to be dismantled before testing could be done on hard-to-reach surfaces. The truck and its contents were still being swabbed for any trace at all of bioagents. "There are a number of tests going on right now in a number of different locations in regards to Iraqi weapons of mass destruction," officials told Fox News. Painted in a military color scheme, it was found on a transporter normally used for tanks and -- as an Iraqi defector has described Iraq's mobile labs -- contains a fermentor and a system to capture exhaust gases, Cambone said. "While some of the equipment on the trailer could have been used for purposes other than biological weapons agent production, U.S. and U.K.technical experts have concluded that the unit does not appear to perform any function beyond what the defector said it was for, which is the production of biological agents," Cambone said. Earlier Wednesday, Lt. Gen. William Wallace said that American forces have collected "plenty of documentary evidence" suggesting that Saddam had an active program for weapons of mass destruction.

Wallace, commander of the Army's V Corps, told a press conference that Saddam may not have used them in Operation Iraqi Freedom because they were buried too well to retrieve before the coalition made it to Baghdad. The Bush administration said destroying Iraq's suspected chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs was the main reason for the war. Despite weeks of searches of suspected sites, nothing conclusive has been reported found so far. And although Pentagon officials suggested before the war that some Iraqi units were armed with chemical weapons, none was found when those units were overrun.

If proven to be a mobile lab, the trailer would be the first discovered in the military campaign that began March 19. On several occasions, troops have found substances they said tested positive as nerve agents or other chemical weapons materials, only to learn from more sophisticated testing that they were crop pesticides, explosives or similar substances.Coalition troops have also come upon at least one other vehicle they thought was a mobile weapons lab, yet tests proved those guesses as inconclusive. A defense official said before Cambone's press conference that he and others "feel good" about the prospect this time that they have found good evidence of an unconventional weapons program. But they are being careful to cover all bases. He noted that many questions will be asked if it is announced as evidence -- including "chain of custody" information on who has handled the truck and whether it might have been tampered with. The vehicle resembles an 18-wheeler Powell said in a Feb. 5 presentation before the U.N. Security Council was a mobile weapons lab that had been moved around to elude weapons inspectors. That was Washington's final large push to persuade the Security Council of the need to forcibly disarm Iraq. Powell presented recently declassified intelligence, including satellite photos and radio intercepts, to support the U.S. case that Iraq had defied all demands that it disarm and had links to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

According to media reports, Iraq launched around 18 missiles at the coalition forces between 20 March 20 and 4 April. The US Army states that 13 of these were short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs) or large surface-to-surface unguided rockets. The remaining five were probably cruise missiles. Of the 13 ballistic missiles and rockets launched, nine were successfully intercepted by a mix of older Patriot Advanced Capability 2 (PAC-2) missiles, including the PAC-2 Guidance Enhanced Missile (GEM) and Guidance Enhanced Missile Plus (GEM+) derivatives, and newer PAC-3 missiles. Of the remaining Iraqi missiles, three were not intercepted, since they were going towards empty desert or the sea, and one exploded at launch. It is believed that the majority of these Iraqi missiles were Ababil-100 (or Al Fatah) and Al Samoud 1/2 ballistic missiles fired at ranges of between 100 and 150km. Tragically, two allied aircraft were destroyed by Patriot missiles during the conflict: a UK Tornado GR Mk 4 and a US F/A-18 Hornet. In addition, a USAF F-16 aircraft was locked onto by a Patriot radar, but the aircraft (reportedly assuming it was being targeted by an Iraqi SAM battery) responded by firing an AGM-88 HARM anti-radar missile at the radar, destroying the antenna. The results of detailed investigations are not available, but some comparisons can be drawn. The ballistic missile and rocket targets were travelling much faster than any aircraft and had trajectories outside the atmosphere. The cruise missile targets were similar to small aircraft and were flying at a similar speed to manned aircraft. Allied aircraft were fitted with an Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system, which should have identified them as friendly aircraft, and the aircraft would presumably have been allocated safe lanes to return down from their missions. Patriot systems can operate in automatic (software-controlled) or manual (human operator-controlled) modes. The detailed investigations will have to examine all the tape recordings and establish what did or did not work, including the possibilities of human error, hardware or software faults and, of course, the general 'fog of war'.

PEENEMÜNDE, Germany, June 9 -- These days, the claw-shaped island in the Baltic Sea called Usedom is a family-oriented vacation resort, crowded especially on holiday weekends by members of the German middle class, playing in the sea or riding rented bicycles through the fragrant pine forests. But the island, the very eastern part of which crosses into Poland, has a freighted history. Some vacationers, interested in mixing their pleasure with edification, visit the museum in Peenemünde on the island's northern claw, where the most important bit of history was enacted.

The museum is in a huge industrial shed that once housed the power plant for the top-secret complex where the Nazis developed and tested the V-1 missile, or buzz bomb, and the V-2 missile. The two missiles were, along with the atom bomb, the most momentous weapons devised during the war. In the decades when the island was part of East Germany, this was a restricted military area. The rest of the island, once a preserve of fashionable people from Berlin, about four hours drive away, was converted into a vacation area for workers, and some nonworkers, even if, as one person here put it, the hotels then were "East German standard," meaning not very good.

After the reunification of Germany, local people in Peenemünde organized a first version of the museum, using the vastness of the power station to assemble exhibits on the work that took place there. Six thousand people came in the first month, and, in the mid-1990's, the museum was expanded by the state government and opened in its new condition a year ago. "Before, there was no overall concept; now there is," Peter Profe, the museum's deputy director, told a recent visitor. "The concept is to represent the two ends of the rocket's parabola, the takeoff at the beginning and what happened where it landed at the end. We try not to glorify the technical aspect." In other words, the museum does what one would want it to do. It presents a largely technological story while making it clear that the technology was pursued on behalf of an evil regime that "craved world domination," as an explanatory sign in one of the first exhibition rooms puts it. There is a room dedicated to showing how the two halves of the Peenemünde population lived, the soldiers and engineers very well, the thousands of forced laborers who did the manual work badly.

Perhaps the moral heart of the Peenemünde Museum is a dark room with a simple circular installation of urban rubble, starkly illuminated by a spotlight on the ceiling. "We couldn't really show the suffering the rockets caused," Mr. Profe said, "so we made this room a place of contemplation." But there is much else in the museum, including a reminder that the scientists who first dreamed of creating rockets in Germany wanted to devise a faster means of travel and to open up space for exploration, which, paradoxically, they did. The museum displays a group portrait of 118 German scientists who once worked at Peenemünde, including Wernher von Braun, its technical director. But in a sign of the quick strategic shifts that occurred once the war was over, the picture was taken at the United States Army's rocket research center in Huntsville, Ala., where all 118 were recruited to work after the war. The V-2's that struck London from bases in the Netherlands reached an altitude of 50 miles, which put them at the very edge of space, and reached their target, more than 100 miles away, in just under five minutes.

Numerous technological innovations were required, from new heat-resistant metals to guidance systems. After British aerial surveillance disclosed that rockets were being produced in Peenemünde, the biggest single air raid in the entire war took place there, involving 596 aircraft. Sadly, the heaviest cost of the raid was paid by some 500 slave laborers killed in their barracks. The visitor to the museum learns all of this and more, but different people can draw different lessons from a historical display. Among the visitors to Peenemünde last weekend was a group of 10 or so young men who bore all the appearance of neo-Nazi skinheads.

Near the museum's exit, a plaque is inscribed with a celebrated passage from the philosopher Immanual Kant. It is his sublime crystallization of the two aspects of his experience that fill him with awe and admiration: "The starry skies above me and the moral law within me." Most of the visitors, it can be hoped at any rate, get the museum's intended message: if the quest to reach the stars takes place in the absence of moral law, it will lead to atrocity.

WASHINGTON, May 14, 2003 -- One passenger riding the shuttle bus to the main entrance said the line of people waiting to get in stretched for what seemed like a mile. Another said he had waited at least an hour the day before to get through the gate. However, neither seemed to mind the inconvenience. They, along with thousands of others, had come to Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va., to see the latest in force protection equipment and technology And for them, the delays were worth the wait.

Under rows of tents and inside large aircraft hangars, more than 2,600 force protection products were demonstrated and exhibited for Defense Department, federal and local agencies at Force Protection Equipment Demonstration IV May 6-8. The event attracted more than 500 companies from around the world and showcased high-tech gadgets and equipment -- everything from individual protective gear to robotic devices and biometric recognition technology.

Eugene Hudson, chairman of DoD's physical security equipment action group, said because of continuing concern of terrorism, the focus of the demonstration was to give government and civilian officials a firsthand look at readily available technology to meet their force protection needs. "The most valuable aspect is that leaders see what is available and what is possible," Hudson said. "The purpose is not necessarily to buy equipment. What we do is raise awareness of all involved on what is available, what is possible, and further the process." This equipment demonstration started in 1997, the year after the bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. That attack killed 19 servicemen and revealed the need for better force protection measures. It also prompted then- Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. John Shalikashvili to direct the military to find ways of improving its force protection by looking into commercial-off-the-shelf solutions, Hudson said.

Each of the four equipment demonstrations held since then has grown larger in both attendance and in the types of equipment displayed, officials said.For this year's gathering, most demonstrations hinged on innovative ways to protect against and detect explosive threats, an area of heightened interest in DoD's war on terrorism. Other exhibited items addressed a variety of security concerns – among them, chemical/biological detection and protection equipment, cargo-inspection devices, delay and denial barriers, and fence sensor systems.

For example, one company, Med-Eng Systems, Inc., showed off its "RoBoCop"-like suit made of thick layers of Kevlar for protection against heat, flames, blast fragmentation and impact. It weighs about 40 pounds and comes with a special undergarment, boots and gloves to protect wearers against chemical, biological and radiological exposure. "It's an all-in-one," said Danny Crossman, product line manager for blast systems, explained. And another company representative, technical adviser Ray James, added, "It's the only bomb suit in the world that integrates adequate protection against a explosive device with biological and chemical protection."

Robots were another popular item. Those on display included MATILDA, built by Mesa Associates, which uses a robotic arm to investigate and detonate suspected bombs and packages. The robot's interchangeable platform can also mount a dual-missile launcher. The two bazooka-like tubes that sit atop one MATILDA model function like "a "bunker buster, to blow holes in walls to gain access to buildings," said program manager Mike Cole. "It's been tested a couple of times, but still under development with the Army and the Joint Projects Office," he said. This office, officially known as the Joint Projects Office for Unmanned Ground Vehicles, has the Army and Marine Corps working together. The robot can pull payloads up to 500 pounds, but is light enough to be carried on a backpack. Cole said that U.S. Army elements in Afghanistan and Iraq currently use the robot. About 70 have been sold to the military and government agencies, he added. "Robotics are the thing of today," said Jeffery David, deputy director of DoD's Combating Terrorism Technology Support Office, which helps military and civilian explosive ordnance units find ways to deal with bomb threats.

"Whenever you know you are going into a hazardous area and there are explosive devices in front of you, it is preferred to send a robot if you can," David said. "What we're trying to do is to get better robots fielded so that they are much more mission-capable than what we have today." Of several armored vehicles on display, the Cadillac Gage Peacekeeper II was one designed to provide ballistic protection. Pointing to vehicle's half-inch thick armor plating, Gary Nelson, of Textron Marine and Land, said the vehicle can stop armor-piercing rounds at a 25-yard distance. The four- wheel-drive vehicle has a top speed of 70 mph and run-flat tires. It carries eight people, including the driver, and has another selling point -- air-conditioning, he said. "There's a lot of protection on this thing; it's pretty safe," he added. "After 9-11 and with homeland defense, there is a lot of interest in this type of vehicle for SWAT teams and first responders," he said.

Biometrics was another force protection measure item showcased during the event. The technology uses facial recognition, fingerprint, iris scan and voice recognition to mark a person's identity. Greg Johnson, a technical expert with the DoD's Biometrics Management Office, said such technology is useful for physical security, accountability and information access purposes. He said the military is already using biometrics for physical and security access, such as entering buildings and logging on to computers. He noted, for example, that instead of using an ID card or password, people can be identified by using their fingerprints. "Anytime in DoD when someone is showing their ID card or signing their name, we can do that more accurately with biometrics," Gregory explained. "We can tell exactly who that person is and that becomes very valuable when doing things like accountability operations. It's nonrefutable."

But while some equipment hinged on cutting-edge technology, other applications were as simple and conventional as building a sand fortress using a plastic shovel and bucket. Al Arellanes, president of Geocell Systems, demonstrated how to build sand barriers using a foldable plastic device. He said the rapid deployment flood wall could one day replace the sandbag. "It's 100 times faster," he said, than filling sandbags. The modular and collapsible plastic grids require no special tools and can be assembled in seconds to hold sand horizontally to any desired length. The grids are also stackable to hold sand vertically, he said. "They can be used for flood-fighting, terrorist activities or any type of security situation." Barney Greinke, director of marketing for the company, said the sand-filled wall can act as a barrier against vehicles, and can help stop small-arms fire and blast fragments from small bombs. "You have to understand that a wall of sand 4 feet wide by 8 feet tall weighs around 12,000 pounds," Greinke said, "So it can be quite effective. It's basically replaces the sandbag."

200305145a.jpg The MATILDA is of over several robots being developed by Mesa Associates for the Army under the Joint Projects Office for Unmanned Ground Vehicles. The MATILDA robot has interchangeable platforms, including the one shown, which is used as a bunker buster. Thousands of government personnel from the federal, state and local levels came to see exhibits at Force Protection Equipment Demonstration IV at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va., in early May. 200305145b.jpg Kristen Schaad, a communication specialist with the Department of Defense Biometrics Management Office outreach team, shows off one of several devices on the market that uses a person's physical traits to identify him or her. The device pictured is a hand/geometric recording system, which traces a person's fingertip and hand patterns for identification. About 500 companies displayed equipment and other items at Force Protection Equipment Demonstration IV at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va., in early May.

I've been doing some research into the question of when and how naval authorities discovered the inadequacies of their shipboard AA armament in the 1930s. It is clear that the USN underwent an agonizing reappraisal as a result of live firings against drones in 1938-39 and that this had a major and lasting effect on its AA efforts. The RN had commenced drone firings as early as 1934 but it is not so clear from what I know how much of an effect this had on the service's AA efforts. I have seen no information on whether the IJN had a drone program or whether it made any effective efforts to test AA effectiveness prior to 1942.

UK -- The RAF had a longstanding interest in cruise missiles and pursued a variety of efforts along these lines from WW I through the mid 1930s. [1] This spawned the target drone program which resulted in development of the Queen Bee. As was natural given its origins, the Queen Bee employed pre-set maneuvers. The operator used radio to select which maneuver it should fly from its repertoire. For instance, he could command a dive, with the aircraft assuming a pre-set dive angle. The system worked well and the drones were generally pretty reliable as early as 1934. [2] Beginning in that year, the RN (and army) conducted live firing tests of AA systems against Queen Bees. These involved simulated medium-altitude level bombing and low-level torpedo bombing runs. Hits were certainly very few, at least initially. In Jun 1934 the Med Fleet shot against a number of presentations of a Queen Bee floatplane, expending several thousand rounds for zero hits. A series of presentations against ships of the West Indies station early in 1935 produced some hits but the overall results were scarcely such as to inspire much confidence in fleet AA gunnery. These trials had been accomplished with experimental equipment but their results confirmed the value and Britain moved to put the provision of target drone services on a regular footing. In all, some 420 Queen Bee targets were produced, of which 350 had been delivered by Mar 1939. [3]

According to Stephen Roskill, "the fairly regular successes achieved in shooting down the wireless-controlled 'Queen Bee' target aircraft produced confidence that the threat of the high-level bomber would be countered" -- a somewhat curious assertion inasmuch as it seems that in fact successes were anything but regular, as we have seen. [4] In any event, by 1936 he describes the complacency as having given way to alarm, particularly in regard to dive bombers. He ascribes the deficiencies in RN AA performance to the failure to pursue tachymetric fire control. [5] However the USN, whose Mk. 33 and 37 GFCS were tachymetric, also experienced serious deficiencies. Notwithstanding any efforts toward improvement, RN AA performance was seriously deficient in the early days of WW II, and indeed for much of its course.

US -- The US also had pursued cruise missile concepts from World War I, and similarly had ventured into radio control. These experiments, however, were brought to an inconclusive end in the 1920s. In 1935 the CNO, ADM W. H. Standley, USN, journeyed to England in connection with preparations for the Second London Conference. While there, he was invited by the RN to view AA firing trials against a Queen Bee presentation. Upon return to the US he urged the navy's matériel establishment (over which the CNO had no directive control at that time) to pursue a similar capability. BUORD was not interested but BUAER took up the challenge, supported by BUENG and its NRL. Rather than procure the proven British system or license rights to it, BUAER and NRL elected to follow their own course. The USN control system differed in principle from that used in the Queen Bee in that it allowed the controller to remotely manipulate the drone's controls much as if he were in its cockpit, using airplane-like controls. The inputs were multiplexed onto a single HF (later VHF) radio channel by a vibrating-reed filter. Control was aided by a selective wings-leveling stabilization system based on a gyro horizon. This system allowed more freedom and flexibility in maneuver than was possible with the British system. [6]

A prototype drone converted from a trainer was used for the initial USN firing trials in Oct 1938, against the 5"/25 battery of the USS _Ranger_, no hits being obtained. The next trials in Feb 1939 against the new 1.1"/70 quad-mount heavy machine gun aboard the USS _Utah_ resulted in a kill on the second simulated dive-bombing pass. The initial response to the first trial was to complain about the unfairness of using a target that did not fly in a stable and straight course as standard sleeve targets did, while the second test was cited as proof of the efficacy of USN AA. Others were not so sure of this, however, and as trials were continued it became more and more evident that AA fire was not nearly so effective as had been supposed. This helped stimulate a variety of urgent measures for improvement, ranging from new procedures to added armament to new systems. Many gaps remained during the USN's initial engagements in 1942 but AA performance improved dramatically with time. [7]

The biggest Iraqi threat to U.S. armored vehicles was not Saddam Hussein's fleet of Soviet-made T-72 tanks, which failed to damage a single U.S. Abrams tank or Bradley fighting vehicle during Operation Iraqi Freedom, but rather the ubiquitous rocket- propelled grenade. As a result, officials at the Army's Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command in Warren, Mich., are considering modifications to the Abrams to give it greater protection from RPGs in an urban fight. "The preponderance of damage to our tanks and Bradleys was done by RPGs," said Maj. Jeff Voigt, assistant project manager for the M-1A1 tank. Voigt visited Iraq to research and write TACOM's official battle damage assessment report on all the Army tanks and Bradleys that suffered combat damage.

Overall, though, considering that the 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized) - to which almost all the Army's armored vehicles that fought in Iraq belonged - was in combat for 21 consecutive days, the number of its damaged combat vehicles was very low. The numbers seem to bear out the claim made by 3rd Infantry Division commander Maj. Gen. Buford Blount III to the Pentagon press corps May 15. "We're very, very pleased with the performance of our equipment," he said. "It clearly showed that the heavy force has a place in an urban fight."

Only 23 Army M-1A1 Abrams tanks and M-2/M-3 Bradley fighting vehicles were "penetrated or perforated" by fire during the war, Voigt said. "The numbers were actually quite small." No Abrams tank crewman was killed or wounded by enemy (or friendly) fire in the war, Voigt said. In the more thinly armored Bradleys, only four soldiers were wounded and none killed. In one of the few instances in which Iraqi armored vehicles scored any hits on U.S. vehicles, three of four tanks in a platoon of 4th Battalion, 64th Armor Regiment, were hit by 30 mm fire from one or more BMP-2 infantry fighting vehicles. "Those really didn't bother the tanks," Voigt said. "They created a few dimples on the front of the tanks." Most of the damaged vehicles were not knocked out, Voigt added. "The vast majority of those are still out there with the 3rd ID fighting," he said. "They've got a hole of some sort in them, but otherwise they're still fighting. There were just a couple of them that were mobility-kills by enemy fire."

Fifteen of the 23 damaged tanks and Bradleys were hit by RPGs, he said. Nine of the 15 were tanks, and six were Bradleys. Two of the Bradleys were hit by three RPG rounds each, and one tank was hit by two RPG rounds. In only one case did RPG-wielding Iraqi fighters score a mobility kill against an Abrams, meaning that they managed to immobilize the tank but not destroy it, Voigt said. He was keen to dispel one rumor. Contrary to reports, he found no evidence that the Iraqis fired any Russian Kornet missiles at U.S. armored vehicles. Weapons that did damage Abrams and Bradleys included 57 mm anti-aircraft cannons mounted on tank hulls and, in at least one case, a medium-caliber automatic weapons system such as a 12.7 mm DShK heavy machine gun.

In the former instance, a 2nd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment Bradley "was penetrated in the troop compartment by what the troops were saying was a T-72, but based on the ballistics and what we think actually hit it was probably an anti-aircraft round," Voigt said. In the latter case, the machine-gun rounds ignited some oil or petroleum products packed in the bustle rack, or storage area outside a tank's turret, of an Abrams on the western edge of Baghdad, Voigt said. The fire spread to the external auxiliary power unit, then to the engine. Asked if a lesson learned from that incident was not to store petroleum products in the bustle rack, Voigt answered, "Probably." "That's something to take away," he said. "Now the question is where else do you put it? That's something the Army has to wrestle with." The RPG shots that damaged the Abrams tanks were aimed at their sides, Voigt said. No Iraqi rounds penetrated the Abrams' engine or rear grill, he added.

The pattern of penetration is causing some at TACOM to consider improving the Abrams' armor side-skirts. The Abrams was designed in the 1970s to confront Soviet tanks on the plains of Germany. Designers at the time thought the greatest threat to the tank would come from enemy tank rounds and missiles aimed at the Abrams' front. That's where the designers concentrated the thickest layers of the Abrams' secret armor package, which since has been upgraded. "We have the heavy armor up front, we don't have the heavy armor panels in the sides, and that's where the RPGs were penetrating," Voigt said.

But he said it was too early to conclude what changes, if any, need to be made. "We're going to re-evaluate the side armor, because in a city environment a lot of the RPGs are hitting us on the flanks, as opposed to on the front," he said. However, he said, any addition to the armor would also increase the weight of the tank, which already tips the scales at 70 tons. "Do we build a special package that we apply when we go into a city, or do we put this on permanently? Or did the tank do well enough - the fact that we only had two mobility hits - that we want to just keep fighting it the way it is?”

During Vietnam, we in CMEC did the in country testing of the RPG 2 and 7s. The officially published penetration of the RPG 7 is considerably less than reality. We determined that chain link fence would defeat the firing system of the RPG 7 rounds. In 1968 General Westmoreland recommended that we adopt the RPG 7 as well as the AK 47. I saw the letter on the RPG 7. I was later told that Gen. Besson of AMC damn near hit the ceiling when he read Westy's report.

In the late 1970s, while at Battelle Columbus Labs, we did a report for the Missile Intel Agency on Shaped Charge development, world wide. We turned it in and moved on. I do not know all the details of AT weapons development but next but the US was working on developing an up graded version of the LAW called the Viper. It was canceled and about the same time the USMC adopted the AT 4, which was developed in Europe. I think the Army also ended up adopting it and by late 1990s, there was a newer AT weapon. A throw-away round that fits into a keepable launcher. The Marines have the SMAW, an adaptation of an Israeli design. It's a throwaway round in a reusable launcher. The AT4 was adopted by the Army first, IIRC. Picatinny had developed a recoilless disposable weapon (like the AT4) as a replacement for the M72 Law, but as Viper was a contractor product (and contractors can lobby while government labs cannot), it won, only to be dropped later. Some of the newer tandem-warhead PG-7s as well as some of the newer RPGs (above the RPG-22 numerically) will do a lot more than a mobility kill. Ed R

The Russians go for simple things that always work and we go for high tech items that may or may not work some or all of the time. What is the RPG ??? Most of the sources translate RPG as reaktivnyi protivotankovyi granatomyot (or close to it!) - rocket (propelled) antitank grenade launcher. But in response to a thread on H-War somebody found a Russian manufacturer's site stating that the "R" is actually ruchnoi - hand (held).Makes perfect sense, and it explains the nomenclature of the rocket-less RPG-2.

The RPG is an anti tank weapon that had it's origin in WW II German Panzerfaust. That was a propelled shaped charge designed to be used against tanks, etc. There were three sizes of them and they were all one shot throw away. The last Panzerfaust, which was not widespread, was copied by the Russians whose first major deployed weapon was the RPG 2, which saw a lot of service in Vietnam. The rocket consists of the warhead, fuse, tail boom and black powder propelling charge. It was phased out and eventually replaced by the RPG 7. In this system, there is the warhead which is PIBD (point igniting, base detonating) the tail boom which houses a rocket motor and the propelling charge, which is single base nitrocellulose strips around the tail section which consists of four pop out fins. It is referred to as fin and spin stabilized.

There are later versions, such as a paratrooper version which is a two part weapon, assembled once on the ground. The propelling charge kicks the round out of the tube and about 11 meters down range, the rocket motor kicks in. The PIBD fusing system has a piezo crystal which, when crushed produces an electrical current that travels down the out side of the case and also through the inner shell to the base fuze. The fuse also has a delay element where if it hasn't hit anything after a certain amount of time, it goes off. This is how they can get an air burst and knock down helicopters.

Did you ever see a ChiCom anti-armor grenade? We found some stashed by a trail up around the Fish Hook (apparently a little NVA private type got tired to lugging them around.) All metal like a good sized can with metal handle. Inside the handle was a little 'chute like on a hand flare. We were told that these things were to be lobbed in the air over a piece of armor or a vehicle .... small charge pops the little 'chute which stops the grenade in flight and makes it rotate hanging straight down over the vehicle ... than a shape charge goes off. The thing weighed 2-3 pounds. Nobody actually had the guts to see if the thing would really work. The were brand new and had ChiCom markings all over. -- R Hatmaker.

You are describing the RKG 3 M anti armor hand grenade, a latter day version of a Soviet WW II Grenade. The chute pops out automatically and in the process cocks or arms the striker mechanism. When it lands on a target, it can be devastating. We set one off remotely on top of a conex container. made a nice mess of the conex. Bill Howard The AT grenade was a Chinese copy of the Soviet RKG-3. Can't remember what the ChiComs called it. There's no explosive charge to deploy the drogue chute, its only spring-loaded. Works well. I threw a couple (I'll try anything). They do come straight down. Made a 1-inch hole in the ground. I stuck a bamboo pole down it and it was 8 feet deep in very hard soil. I was impressed. The 75mm RR rounds, based on your description, sounds like the Soviet 73mm SPG-9 recoilless gun's OG-9BG1 HE-frag round. The HEAT round looks more like the warhead for an RPG-7. -- Gordo

Have you ever heard of an 82mm mortar wound being attached to an RPG round replacing the HEAT warhead? It was done in both El Salvador and Iraq. A real simple adaptation and a deadly antipersonnel weapon. In Yugoslavia they came up with the Krema rockets, using one, two, three, or four 122mm rocket motors in a cluster to launch various payloads. The launcher is a simple rail, like WW2 Russian. Warheads included various artillery projectiles and aircraft bombs.

Many of these were bought by Sinclair Oil Company and were used as bribes for Arabs in Saudi Arabia and other areas.. You were not a man with out a horse and a gun. The better the horse/gun, the better a man you were. VP of Sinclair Oil gave me one of these rifles. Was taken off the production line before they put on the front sight and before they stamped the serial number. Some things never change, now the Russians supply them with AK 47s! Bill Howard

NVIS is near vertical incident skywave which means you shoot your signal almost straight up then it bounces back almost straight down - so you have short skip 30-200 miles - coverage which has much better coverage than ground wave, useful on hf from 2-10mhz there is a yahoo group callded "nvis". the germans in ww2 used this - ever notice the rail antennas on the armored cars? NVIS is done using dipoles low to the ground, horizontal loops or even whip antennas pulled down to a vertical condition

General Dynamics Corp. won an Army contract yesterday, potentially worth $3 billion, to outfit the soldier of the future with wired uniforms that monitor heart rates and respiration and with helmets that receive real-time video from overhead drones. General Dynamics beat Exponent Inc. of Menlo Park, Calif., for the contract, which initially is worth about $100 million but will mushroom significantly once the Army starts outfitting the troops. The Army expects a prototype of the new uniform to be completed by 2006, with the first unit outfitted by 2010. Each uniform is expected to cost between $10,000 and $30,000.

The contract is a strategic victory for General Dynamics as it strives to redefine itself as a "systems integrator" rather than simply the maker of tanks and submarines. The creation of a new uniform is part of a larger effort to modernize the Army for combat on a digital battlefield where soldiers, tanks and drones are connected to a common network. The soldier would become a node in the network wearing an undershirt fitted with body sensors and receiving video from drones tracking enemy movements. "Army transformation is founded on the principle of networking soldiers with weapon systems, vehicles, and aircraft to create a cohesive, integrated fighting team with overwhelming and devastating force of action," Lt. Gen. John M. Riggs, who is leading the Army's modernization efforts, said in a statement. In the Army's futurist vision of warfare, the helmet takes on new importance. It will no longer be just protective gear but will hold a camera, Global Positioning System antenna, and microphones and receivers, according to the Army. A retractable eyepiece could be used to read text messages or view images sent from command centers or drones.

The program "will provide an unprecedented level of survivability and lethality to the individual soldier," said Scott D. Myers, vice president of General Dynamics' Eagle Enterprise unit. The program also aims to cut the weight of the equipment carried by a soldier by 50 percent, to 50 pounds. Body armor would be lighter, and unmanned vehicles, known as mules, would carry supplies, said Dutch DeGay, a program engineer. "Can you imagine traversing the mountains of Afghanistan with 100 pounds on your back?" he said.

But the program's sophisticated technology has raised questions about operability on the real-world battlefield. The Army has never deployed such complicated software, and some industry officials worry that glitches could endanger troops. The program conforms with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's plan for a more lethal, agile force "but the question is, can we deliver?" said Michael G. Vickers, director strategic studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. "How much will you really be able to do that is revolutionary?"

USF President Judy Genshaft, speaking to a group of business executives in Sarasota, Florida late last month, announced plans for a 100,000 square-foot biotechnology and life sciences research center that will anchor an 87-acre research park on the USF Tampa campus. The University's vision for the park is a place that would attract small businesses and entrepreneurs in the biotech industry. The location on the campus offers companies low-cost business incubator space, plus access to USF equipment and labs, as well as access to student labor and faculty expertise. Genshaft described funding for the proposed center as a "public-private-university" partnership. The University plans to break ground for the facility by Fall 2003.

Yes, the Stryker is NBC proof and so are all other US combat vehicles. Gordo Back in 1979-1980, when I was at Battelle Labs, we did a study for the Chemical Systems Lab that was titled "Exit-Entry" which I think is now declassified on this topic. We also did a study for the Tank-Auto Command on recommendations for funding research and we recommended that the available funds be spent on making vehicles NBC proof, rather than spending money duplicating research being done in the civilian sector. It would appear that they followed our recommendations! The Russian vehicles captured in the Mid east wars served as the basic models as they used an overpressure system to keep nasty stuff out. Bill Howard