The 'Current Bun' and an exploding C130J
Thread Starter
The 'Current Bun' and an exploding C130J
I've just spotted this thread over on E-Goat, which has a link to a video clip on 'The Forces Favourite' 
website. (can't get the link to it to work on here)
E-Goat thread
website. (can't get the link to it to work on here)E-Goat thread
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jesus H, that was one big bang - looked more like a MOAB or a low-yield nuclear weapon, even down to the mushroom cloud with the halo...
We're not carrying Davy Crocketts round Afghanistan these days, are we?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Cr...lear_device%29
We're not carrying Davy Crocketts round Afghanistan these days, are we?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Cr...lear_device%29
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: High Wycombe
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is definately NOT COOL. When this video hit U tube, measures were taken to have it removed. Oh don't be so sensitive you say. Well, this stuff in the public domain hands the insurgents top quality BDA, they have internet too. They know they badly damaged a coalition ac but would not have been able to get near it to assess the results fully. They know how, where and what size of device was used, they now know how to refine it to not only damage aircraft but to be more effective against the personnel too. The SUN say they support our troops, their actions say differently, this kind of careless release of video really could get people (ours) killed. Makes me FXXXXXG angry. I only hope if/when this happens again we are as lucky to get away without any casualties, or that the asshole that released this video is on board and is one of the first killed. 
I think it's possible to overreact to the security issue here.
I base this opinion on the fact that my explosives experience is limited to pyrotechnic effects for the film and TV industry, yet on the exalted basis of my fifteen year old technology GCSE and access to a modest quantity of military explosives, I'd be pretty disappointed to do merely this to a C-130.
OK, so the default approach here is caution, but this was done by people who have lots and lots of explosives experience and already know that what they did worked. I'm not sure we're really capable of hiding anything useful from them.
Phil
I base this opinion on the fact that my explosives experience is limited to pyrotechnic effects for the film and TV industry, yet on the exalted basis of my fifteen year old technology GCSE and access to a modest quantity of military explosives, I'd be pretty disappointed to do merely this to a C-130.
OK, so the default approach here is caution, but this was done by people who have lots and lots of explosives experience and already know that what they did worked. I'm not sure we're really capable of hiding anything useful from them.
Phil
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The front end and about 50ft up
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the Sun gets told to take down the video for security reasons and replaces it with the relevant still picture.
Nice one. The forces favourite newspaper (or some such b0llocks)!
Phil_R
They Cat5ed the aircraft. A kill's a kill, as they say. I imagine the bad guys were not disappointed.
Nice one. The forces favourite newspaper (or some such b0llocks)!
Phil_R
I'd be pretty disappointed to do merely this to a C-130.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: High Wycombe
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Mike I too suspect "they" are very disappointed that their device did not kill anybody. Still "they" now know the extent of the damage and where on the frame it occurred and can now adjust the siting, spacing, timing of the next attempt, based on the evidence we gave them! 
.
I do dispair sometimes at the stupidity of the grunts in the field with a mobile phone.
. I do dispair sometimes at the stupidity of the grunts in the field with a mobile phone.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: High Wycombe
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An old line but valid none the less:
"They only need to be lucky once, we need to be lucky all the time"
The device was very well concealed, the area was swept, it was not found. No more detail from me, suffice to say the concerns about the effects this video/photo info being in the public domain are based on facts not press guess work.
"They only need to be lucky once, we need to be lucky all the time"
The device was very well concealed, the area was swept, it was not found. No more detail from me, suffice to say the concerns about the effects this video/photo info being in the public domain are based on facts not press guess work.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 65
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<<< I do dispair sometimes at the stupidity of the grunts in the field with a mobile phone.>>>>
I assume by making that statement that you are convinced it was the soldiers on the ground that took the images then and not the aircrew, or the medics that were along for the jolly or the special forces demolition team ?
You should be a reporter for The Sun
I assume by making that statement that you are convinced it was the soldiers on the ground that took the images then and not the aircrew, or the medics that were along for the jolly or the special forces demolition team ?
You should be a reporter for The Sun
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 65
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is unclear whether your last post was aimed at me, but if so, I am not speculating and I am not assuming. I am 'fortunate' enough to have seen dozens of images and several videos covering the period of the incident.
I am not being mischievous, purely saying it as it is.
I am not being mischievous, purely saying it as it is.
