How to counter jihadist's car bombs ?

To counter a SVBIED you need at first a good defense, trenches, anti tank mines, barbed wire etc. So if you don't destroy the SVBIED in the outer defense line you will slow the vehicle and this gives you the advantage to use ATGM, artillery or the weapon of your tanks. It's soo easy.

But compare a classical defense line in a modern war with the shit all parties in middle eastern are doin!

I think in all arabic countries the soldiers are more loyal to a typical patriacharlic tribal leader, than to the country and army itself. This is why at syrian side you have very strong units, like "Tiger Forces" and really really bad military units. If the leader runs no one of the unit will hold the ground. Have a look at Saudi Arabia and how worst the Jemen campaign was! At other side the jihadis are highly motivated, they have real joy to face the dead, because they know they will end in paradise. This means for Syria...if a part of the SAA front is collapsing, the danger exists that the whole front can collapse, like a domino effect, if one unit runs away the leaders of the other units will consider to hold the line.

It's sounds very negative, but SAA and Co. have to learn through pain!
All arabian armies together can't hold ground in classic warfare even against only the army of Switzerland! But in a assymetric situation, clearly a classic army will loose the war, the USA tasted enough of this kind of war (Iraq). Human rights and assymetric war can't be combined!

Facing a VBIED is one of the most mixed situations in COIN environments. Your first goal is to visually identify the threat. Secondly it is to engage the threat with what is at hand as immediately as possible. Let's give an example from SW Aleppo the artillery base, at night the militants threw forward atleast 2 VBIEDs. Lack of visibility led to the militants success in blowing up the defenses of the base.

If you're a infantry squad advancing over flat terrain, you'll be able to identify the VBIED rather quickly. You just tell your squad LMG to open fire on him and the dude is toast. If you're a squad advancing through a road with obstacles in your way, you will not be able to detect the enemy until it is too late so there isn't much you can do. In the defensive role, you should always have a scout team on the look out in areas with great visibility. RPGs, LMGs, ARs are more than enough to take on a VBIED at 200-300 meters.

Terrorists have success against the SAA with VBIEDs because the militants can afford to throw forth VBIEDs when ever they see fit. SAA is not bad at taking VBIEDs out though, sometimes your troops can get overwhelmed.

I am a soldier been one for years and I have loads of experience here. Here is the problem Assad's faces. United States btw.

1. Despite what the experts here think, Jihadists aren't stupid. they purposely scout extensively for a weakly defend area one with the best chance and they will rush the vehicles at this point of the line. Now I did do some training Iraqi Army when ISIS entered that area. they do not rush the vehicles in open areas they purposely choose tight areas that offer cover. They don't not use these tactics in open areas. Now I assume they have accurate data thanks to their backers on the positions of the SAA. so this makes rushing them with VBIED's easy. ATGM missles aren't deployed in tight nit areas the effectiveness of a tank is insanely hurt when entering urban areas.

2. I have wrecked tanks because they make the foolish error of getting caught in an area that made them vulnerable.

3. These tactics are very very very hard to counter, they are launched suddenly and with more then one vehicle given the fact the weakest line points are targeted this makes stopping them hard has hell. Almost most of the time a simple LMG won't do much. unless you get some lucky ass shot on the driver but the drivers tends to stay low. This is not a reliable means to stop them and frankly is more Hollywood then anything else.

4. The drivers mission isn't to get right on you just close enough, that's all they need

5. unless you have some distance between you and the vehicle not much you can do.

6. If you find yourself being charged you want to take out the engine, we always aimed for that. A tube launcher is good enough to wreck the vehicle before it gets close granted this requires some skill or you can spray and pray I guess.

7. Static defenses are worthless, they will always go for areas that do not have any that's the entire point of this tactic. Only a idiot would rush a mined area with anti-tank trenches.

8. I have seen many of their methods using babies with explosives below them to kill anyone who comes near the kid. Seen a few guys die to that.

9. Heat munitions are your best chance here, if you cannot fall back. There is no excuse to stand there shooting at an VBIED with a rifle unless it's do or die. Trying to defeat an enemy with a weapon not in anyway meant to and being expected to is merely the sign of those who have no real experience in said matters. "Just shoot at the truck" sounds easy when typed but its one million times harder in person thrust me here.

10. This questions is hard to answers in the end it all depends on so many factors, I have seen tons of different ways VBIED's have been used that have adapted to fit methods to counter them. The enemy also learns.

Car bombs are greats at opening pockets with the sheer force of the explosion and the shock and awe effect most run if one of those goes off near them for good reason you don't need to be that close to be killed. It's cheap and if it works well you just made a game changing play.

Example of an attack I faced, I was with a unit of the Iraq army. Long story short we start getting blasted by what we call "indiscriminate fire" from portable mortars. This fire was meant to keep us pinned and a few trucks loaded with explosives soon appeared they had cover from infantry who used very selectively placed fields of fire. Mores means to make us stay down, Still we had no choice but to oppose it. Despite them tossing encouragement at us to keep us pinned. While we stopped the attack it was not without cost. They timed the attack and phases of it very well frankly. They had a three layer rational volley of mortars with good small arms support. It was a tactic meant to subdue the defenders and allow the vehicle access range. While we have heavy weapons emplacements, they where utterly suppressed if not taken out.

The vehicles are heavy you see loaded with all that explosives, so this made targeting them easy. We waited until they entered out effective firing range and then destroyed them while taking huge risk to do so. We had to stick our heads out and anytime we did the enemy went for them.

Kornet has thermal sight and auto tracker. Kornet works very well in Iraq against car bombs.

Resistance wrote:Kornet has thermal sight and auto tracker. Kornet works very well in Iraq against car bombs.

India is the largest operator of Kornets at around 3k.

The next is 1k.

This isn't enough to create a good enough laid defense period in all defensive fire locations., these weapons would be placed to counter armor only given their extremely low numbers. This is not a tactic one could use all the time only in rare occasions.

Rarely do I see VBIED's engage with anti tank guided missiles.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Resistance wrote:Kornet has thermal sight and auto tracker. Kornet works very well in Iraq against car bombs.

India is the largest operator of Kornets at around 3k.

The next is 1k.

This isn't enough to create a good enough laid defense period in all defensive fire locations., these weapons would be placed to counter armor only given their extremely low numbers. This is not a tactic one could use all the time only in rare occasions.

Rarely do I see VBIED's engage with anti tank guided missiles.

Jihadists only have about 10 SVBIEDs for their biggest offensives. 100 Kornets is enough to stop that. Jihadists may be good against SAA, but against Israel or Russia or Iraq they are NOBODIES.

If you are going to use ATGMs against trucks you might as well use very cheap simple ones like AT-3 or Metis-M

Video of a classic 'how not to defend'

GarryB wrote:If you are going to use ATGMs against trucks you might as well use very cheap simple ones like AT-3 or Metis-M

Anti tank missiles against a truck ? Are U serious ? In french expression we say it is like U use a howitzer to kill a fly. As it was said above, some basic security precautions like tranches, bloc of stones, and PKM in front of obstacles are largely enough. AT-3 is intended against armoured vehicles, if not against helicopters.

JohninMK wrote:Video of a classic 'how not to defend'

This video shows clearly a huge gaps of securities. Normally a such vehicles must be stopped before 500 meters around the compound. This is clearly huge mistakes made by those who are responsible of securty. It is more gaps regarding the protection of area, than the success of the attack.

If an SVBIED comes at you, you don't want to miss and you better take it out with 1 shot when it's more than 1 km from you. Konkurs or Kornet is absolutely needed.

SeigSoloyvov posted great content in this thread.

I've been doing some studies lately on Al Nusra. The SVBIED is their strategic weapon. Their target of choice are usually very hardened military targets. The tactic they used is deploying multiple SVBIED on different fronts under the cover of artillery fire. This prevents AT teams from destroying the approaching threat while giving the SVBIED's time to carefully maneuver. When the SVBIED's detonate it allows for the assault to take place where fighters advance and overwhelm defenses. Al Nusra usually supplies the suicide driver and the SVBIED's . Not everyone is psychologically fit to be a suicide bomber due to the extreme focus and feeling worthlessness required. Additionally Nusra also has its Engineering Crops that assist in the production of these vehicles.

nemrod wrote:

GarryB wrote:If you are going to use ATGMs against trucks you might as well use very cheap simple ones like AT-3 or Metis-M

Anti tank missiles against a truck ? Are U serious ? In french expression we say it is like U use a howitzer to kill a fly. As it was said above, some basic security precautions like tranches, bloc of stones, and PKM in front of obstacles are largely enough.  AT-3 is intended against armoured vehicles, if not against helicopters.

Now AT-3 is perfect for trucks too as You want to have as much bang as possible, I don't think soldiers would mind using it against targets and leave it for chance.

Some of the trucks used have armour on their fronts which means small arms are useless.

Obsolete ATGMs and even good old recoilless rifles could be used to blunt an attack.

Actually having just read on another thread about land based drones... a ground vehicle with a 2A42 30mm cannon would be useful... it could target a vehicle out to 2km or more with its cannon using AP or HE rounds with dual feed the choice can simply be made with the flick of a switch. Alternatively an ATGM could also be used if needed... with an auto tracking system like the one used for Kornet you could fire off old model AT-2 or AT-3 or AT-6 missiles... fitted with HE warheads for more punch, and a few still using HEAT warheads where needed.

Most of the time 30mm cannon shells can be used as they are relatively cheap.

The real problem is that you likely wont have one unmanned vehicle per position needing defending.


The turret of the BMP-3 would actually be ideal too with the option of a heavy 100mm HE shell or high velocity 30mm cannon shells offering options to take out a range of targets from a family car through an armoured truck right up to a tank.(with missiles).

The issue is numbers and cost. Metis-M1 is cheap and offers a 2km range with a guided round with a 950mm armour penetration performance which would penetrate most modern tanks from the side.

storm333 wrote:SeigSoloyvov posted great content in this thread.

I've been doing some studies lately on Al Nusra. The SVBIED  is their strategic weapon. Their target of choice are usually very hardened military targets. The tactic they used is deploying multiple SVBIED on different fronts under the cover of artillery fire. This prevents AT teams from destroying the approaching threat while giving the SVBIED's time to carefully maneuver. When the SVBIED's detonate it allows for the assault to take place where fighters advance and overwhelm defenses. Al Nusra usually supplies the suicide driver and the SVBIED's . Not everyone is psychologically fit to be a suicide bomber due to the extreme focus and feeling worthlessness required. Additionally Nusra also has its Engineering Crops that assist in the production of these vehicles.

Ah thank you, I have extensive history counter and seeing these tactics spent most of my 20's in the middle east. So I know very well how it works.

The problem is people here think "oh they drove the car right towards them how couldn't they blow it up!"

It's not that easy for many reasons I laid out. I find only people who have never had to deal with SVBIED's or kill yourself for goat virgin bombers are the one who make the easy remarks.

Heck I had to deal with 4 freaking SVBIED's when helping the Kurds seize the Dam.

ΙSIS car bombs images




http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2757451.html

One thing people have forgot to mention is the use of anti aircraft guns, especially zsu 23-4 and zpu -4 (mounted) both having four barrels high rate of fire and would have no problem getting through armour and having four barrels would make it easier to hit target. Another couple of systems that could be useful is the
82mm automatic mortar 2B9 vaselik in direct fire mode using its anti armour rounds four rounds fired off I seconds and with a good range, and a single or (better) double pack of 140mm rocket system BM-14 good range and rapid fire.

Of course if you wanted you could use the following mounted on a vehicle:
zpu-1/2,
zu-23-2,
37mm 61-K,
S-60 57mm,
85mm 52-K,
100mm K-19,
130mm K-30,
Most likely these will be sitting in storage somewhere. Also another useful system the zsu -57-2. A more costly option could be the use of gatling type machine guns mounted on a vehicle the Iranians see to mount quite a few on various light buggy's etc (I posted some picsa while ago in Iranian thread) but Syrian Army had to make do with what they have hence no gatling type weapons also you wouldn't want ISIS to capture any of this type of weapon.

Then you could also mount various anti tank guns on trucks or MT-LB they could also be just as good. Although I think a mounted
Zpu -4, zsu 23-4 and zsu 57-2 would be the best solutions out of the above.

This conflict has not only taught the Syrians but also the Russians and Iranians some vital tactics of this type of conflict and most of the solutions are not high tech.

The idea behind using anti aircraft guns makes some sense... the Soviets in Afghanistan liked to use ZU-23 towed anti aircraft guns for defence of outposts because of their extreme fire power.

There are a few important things to keep in mind however...

First in their primary role of anti aircraft defence most AA guns have a high rate of fire and often lots of barrels to enhance its rate even further.

Ground targets rarely require such a high rate of fire.

The high velocity of AA guns usually makes them effective against most ground targets.

Guns are multi purpose weapons that are effective against a wide range of targets.

The problem with AA gun rounds is that penetration is not cumulative... most well known guns mounted on aircraft (ie A-10) are only effective because they are fired down from above at the thin upper armour of armoured vehicles. Used against the front armour of a tank and all they will do is damage ERA blocks and smash optics... fairly superficial...

Also I would add that direct fire mortars like the 82mm and 120mm gun/mortars the Soviets use would be devastating, but also 30mm automatic grenade launchers would also be useful too in a much lighter more portable and cheaper package that you could use even at the smallest base.

HMGs would also be effective as would anti material rifles.

Having said all that even an ancient AT-3 would be effective and they likely have plenty in old stocks, not to mention the Metis-M1 which is very cheap to buy and use in large numbers and would be accurate enough for one shot kills out to 2km.

Some sort of artillery rocket would not be accurate enough, but some sort of shoulder fired system like Bur would also be an interesting option, but as I said before even a 30mm cannon on a remote control armoured vehicle would be useful.

The problem is that there will be hundreds of outposts and positions that will need defending and certain options wont be available to all of them.

Tank traps on open terrain to stop vehicles being driven off road restricts approaches to roads only... making defence much easier.

GarryB wrote:The idea behind using anti aircraft guns makes some sense... the Soviets in Afghanistan liked to use ZU-23 towed anti aircraft guns for defence of outposts because of their extreme fire power.

There are a few important things to keep in mind however...

First in their primary role of anti aircraft defence most AA guns have a high rate of fire and often lots of barrels to enhance its rate even further.

Ground targets rarely require such a high rate of fire.

The high velocity of AA guns usually makes them effective against most ground targets.

Guns are multi purpose weapons that are effective against a wide range of targets.

The problem with AA gun rounds is that penetration is not cumulative... most well known guns mounted on aircraft (ie A-10) are only effective because they are fired down from above at the thin upper armour of armoured vehicles. Used against the front armour of a tank and all they will do is damage ERA blocks and smash optics... fairly superficial...

Also I would add that direct fire mortars like the 82mm and 120mm gun/mortars the Soviets use would be devastating, but also 30mm automatic grenade launchers would also be useful too in a much lighter more portable and cheaper package that you could use even at the smallest base.

HMGs would also be effective as would anti material rifles.

Having said all that even an ancient AT-3 would be effective and they likely have plenty in old stocks, not to mention the Metis-M1 which is very cheap to buy and use in large numbers and would be accurate enough for one shot kills out to 2km.

Some sort of artillery rocket would not be accurate enough, but some sort of shoulder fired system like Bur would also be an interesting option, but as I said before even a 30mm cannon on a remote control armoured vehicle would be useful.

The problem is that there will be hundreds of outposts and positions that will need defending and certain options wont be available to all of them.

Tank traps on open terrain to stop vehicles being driven off road restricts approaches to roads only... making defence much easier.

I agree with AT-3 I'd very cheap and carries enough explosives to get the job done only real issue is accuracy at a moving target.

On the anti aircraft guns I believe that they have enough penetrative power for the threat at hand most VBIED don't have armour in the sense of manufactured in a defence company nature but rather pieces of sheet metal roughly welded together and would likely be only effective up to 7.62mm maximum.

When you mentioned " Ground targets rarely require such a high rate of fire" I think someone driving at you at high speed with a shit load of explosives pack into a vehicle and hell bent on blowing it up in your vicinity qualifies for such a use of high rate of fire lol.

And we both agree that at the end of the day the Syrian Army have to make do with what they have and I am sure they have learnt the hard way of how best to tackle this threat