Powerful explosion rocks Baghdad, near Red Cross Building

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-10-27 06:10am

BoredShirtless wrote:Why is that? Don't they have some sort of heat seeking guidance?

It's a reloadable anti-tank weapon- the only guidance it has is Eyeball Mk 1 (through a nice set of optics that are supposed to come standard, but often don't in shitty third world copies of the proper Soviet piece of kit). Heat-seeking anti-aircraft missiles are things like Stinger and Strela-2M.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-10-27 06:16am

Vympel wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:Why is that? Don't they have some sort of heat seeking guidance?
It's a reloadable anti-tank weapon- the only guidance it has is Eyeball Mk 1 (through a nice set of optics that are supposed to come standard, but often don't in shitty third world copies of the proper Soviet piece of kit). Heat-seeking anti-aircraft missiles are things like Stinger and Strela-2M.

Oh ok. So these Stinger's and Strela's, is it a guarenteed kill if they hit? Do helicopters have counter-measures? And if they do, how successful are they? What's a good site for reading up on Russian and US weapons?

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-10-27 08:06am

BoredShirtless wrote:Oh ok. So these Stinger's and Strela's, is it a guarenteed kill if they hit? Do helicopters have counter-measures? And if they do, how successful are they? What's a good site for reading up on Russian and US weapons?

A kill is never guaranteed- however the chances of critical damage are quite high- I'd say off the top of my head that you have a 80% chance or above that you'll either crash or have to perform a controlled autorotation to prevent an uncontrolled crash that will likely kill all on board. At best, you'd be well advised to high tail it home.

Countermeasures include IR jammers (aka 'Hot Brick') that are standard on most combat/utility helicopters and flare launchers mounted at various places. The effectiveness of countermeasures depends on how old the missile is- old systems like the Russian Strela-2M and American Redeye are extremely vulnerable to them and miss far moer often than not, though in their time they were a bit more lethal- even in their time however they were more a 'threat in being' rather than a real threat- their presence made low-flying ill-advised, but you weren't likely to get hit by one. New systems like the latest Stinger and the Russian Igla-S have more far more sophisticated seeker heads with ... errr ... multiple ways of 'seeing' and are (1960s vs 2000 technology here) capable of ignoring flares and other such countermeasures and going straight for what they aimed for, but there's always the chance you'll shake them.

www.globalsecurity.org is a good start for both- it'll ease you in, and then you can use google to look for more detailed information on specific systems. It's "lazy" in terms of Russian weapons though, you have to look further afield fo the latest developments in that regard (Russian sites are good for that if you can get a transaltion)- however US weapons are very well up to date.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-10-27 08:17am

Vympel wrote: A kill is never guaranteed- however the chances of critical damage are quite high- I'd say off the top of my head that you have a 80% chance or above that you'll either crash or have to perform a controlled autorotation to prevent an uncontrolled crash that will likely kill all on board. At best, you'd be well advised to high tail it home.

Countermeasures include IR jammers (aka 'Hot Brick') that are standard on most combat/utility helicopters and flare launchers mounted at various places. The effectiveness of countermeasures depends on how old the missile is- old systems like the Russian Strela-2M and American Redeye are extremely vulnerable to them and miss far moer often than not, though in their time they were a bit more lethal- even in their time however they were more a 'threat in being' rather than a real threat- their presence made low-flying ill-advised, but you weren't likely to get hit by one. New systems like the latest Stinger and the Russian Igla-S have more far more sophisticated seeker heads with ... errr ... multiple ways of 'seeing' and are (1960s vs 2000 technology here) capable of ignoring flares and other such countermeasures and going straight for what they aimed for, but there's always the chance you'll shake them.

www.globalsecurity.org is a good start for both- it'll ease you in, and then you can use google to look for more detailed information on specific systems. It's "lazy" in terms of Russian weapons though, you have to look further afield fo the latest developments in that regard (Russian sites are good for that if you can get a transaltion)- however US weapons are very well up to date.

Thanks champ

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-10-27 08:38am

Update: 37 killed in these four seperate car bombings, 10 at the Red Cross and a further 27 killed in bombings against 3 police stations. One US soldier among the dead. 3 US soldiers killed in seperate attacks overnight (before the bombings).

Clearly, October is the worst month yet in terms of carnage.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-27 08:43am

What a tragedy.

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-10-27 10:48am

Durran Korr wrote:I don't get it, what was their point? Why the Red Crescent? Do they think this is going to gain them sympathy?

Organizations like the ICRC work to make Iraq more stable, since this is presisely what the guerillas don't want, attacking ICRC and other organizations like it makes perfect sense from their point of view.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-10-27 01:41pm

Darth Wong wrote:They're doing that too. No one said it was admirable, but that's war. They have an objective in mind, and they're trying to use any means necessary to accomplish it. Moralistic war is a pleasant fiction.

It happens yes but that makes it no less heinous. They deliberately attacked not just civilians but aid workers!!! That ought to be condemned not just shrugged off as the fortunes of war.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-10-27 01:51pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:They're doing that too. No one said it was admirable, but that's war. They have an objective in mind, and they're trying to use any means necessary to accomplish it. Moralistic war is a pleasant fiction.
It happens yes but that makes it no less heinous. They deliberately attacked not just civilians but aid workers!!! That ought to be condemned not just shrugged off as the fortunes of war.

Who's shrugging?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-10-27 01:53pm

BoredShirtless wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:They're doing that too. No one said it was admirable, but that's war. They have an objective in mind, and they're trying to use any means necessary to accomplish it. Moralistic war is a pleasant fiction.
It happens yes but that makes it no less heinous. They deliberately attacked not just civilians but aid workers!!! That ought to be condemned not just shrugged off as the fortunes of war.
Who's shrugging?

It would seem that Mike is.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2003-10-27 01:58pm

And that's surprising...how?

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-10-27 02:03pm

Stormbringer wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:
Stormbringer wrote: It happens yes but that makes it no less heinous. They deliberately attacked not just civilians but aid workers!!! That ought to be condemned not just shrugged off as the fortunes of war.
Who's shrugging?
It would seem that Mike is.

Nah, he's just pitching in with a POV no one else was saying in a way totally removed from either condemning/condoning/shrugging-the- shoulders/giving-the-thumbs-up, etc etc the attack.