Talk:Improvised explosive device

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Disaster management  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 

Earlier Uses[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Not a forum~!

I know that during the American Civil War on at least one occasion the Confederates buried an artillery shell in a road connected to a telegraph switch; In the one case I sort-of remember they waited until a Union Calvary patrol was passing over, then detonated. If anyone can elaborate on this incident, it should be included in the history section. 174.25.49.114 (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)A REDDSON

  • Muzzle loaded cannon balls (with early fuses) are hardly comparable to modern breech loaded artillery shells (with modern fuzes) and courier pigeons are not mobile phones either. Therefore, I don't see the connection between an IED and the American civil war unless someone (such as the IP editor) is out to insult our intelligence, I stand to be corrected. Closing this thread as nonsensical/forumic discussion per WP:What Wikipedia is not#FORUM. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 18:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Earlier Uses New Section[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Closing and ignoring Anon IP's refusal to get the point because this is not a forum~! Also, please always bear in mind that WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

Ok, <redacted>, here you go, a whole new section: The use of modified artillery shells, “cannon balls,” or whatever you want to call them is so far from new that it pre-dates even Cordite. It’s not a “discussion” it’s a statement of fact. The only reason I didn’t edit the article itself is because I have forgotten some of the facts surrounding the event and don’t want to add more dis-information (as the article is already filled with ENOUGH bullshit). (Yes, I know I violated the “assume good faith” rule- It was already broken. <redacted> 174.25.49.114 (talk) 05:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)A REDDSON

  • Whatever, if you want to be taken seriously then you ought to register an account for yourself, which I doubt you'll do but I could be proven otherwise. As for the assumption of good faith and whatever you want to say about the opinions from colleges or educational institutions alike, please get yourself familiarize with WP:Don't assume. If I may, I'm going to quote a passage from there:

If I may offer a bit of unsanctioned advice: Assume nothing. Don't assume good faith, even though that's something of a rule here on Wikipedia. Don't assume that another editor has a particular intent, whether "good" or "bad". Don't even assume that another editor is a human rather than a dog. Why? Because when you make any assumption, even one of good faith, you are creating for yourself an illusion from which the truth may disappoint you. More pertinently, you expect a series of interactions from your fellow editors that may or may not be fulfilled. Ultimately, you reduce your fellow editors to your own prejudices and preconceptions. If instead you assume nothing, nobody will ever correctly accuse you of assuming bad faith, and you will never fall short of the ideal of assuming good faith. Indeed, it's the best way out of that thought trap.

Best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 07:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
"If I may..." No you may NOT. You broke the "good faith" rule, then hide behind the same rules you break. Kiss my "redaction." And BTW- I am NOT talking about "muzzle loaded artillery" I am talking about a modification to a I(then) standard artillery shell- Sinse the picture used in the "article" (and I use the term rather loosely) is nothing more tthan an artillery shell rigged to a landmine, I fail to see you point (other than the one on top of your head). As to the ad homomimen attack that I get an account- I did have one. I canceled it when Wikipedia mambers like yourself proved the Weekly World News was producing a better product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.4.28 (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


From Weaponology "Booby Traps"; At the Battle Of Yorktown artillery shells were buried in the ground by retreating Confederates with the percussion caps set pointed up; If a Union soldier stepped on it, it exploded. So ya, you're STILL wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.5.196.169 (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

2003-2010 Iraq War?[edit]

I would like a page or an article that is dedicated to the Iraq IED's. They evolved in their uses, materials and operations due to the logistical armor battle and our unit TTP's. For "Iraq" to get only such a small portion on this page when I guarantee 95% of the IED's set off in the past decade could be attributed to OIF's theatre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.245.96.21 (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


The term 2003-2010 Iraq War bothers me. I understand that there are no "combat troops" in Iraq any more but "2003-2010 Iraq War" implies that the war is over, which it's not. Normally I wouldn't care about something like this but American troops are getting killed and harmed by IEDs just as they were last year. "2003-2010 Iraq War" just seems wrong to me. I think something like the "Second Iraq War" would be a lot more clear. -Zac March 9th 2011, 3:50AM (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.129.3 (talk)

United States In January 2011[edit]

I removed "Fortunately there where no casualties" since I consider that to be putting value into something that should be neutral. Some people might be disappointed that no one was hurt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.78.226.69 (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

India - IEDs were used but the suspect is still unknown[edit]

The statement wrongly states that IEDs were used by a terrorist group named Indian Mujahideen. It is not yet confirmed about the source of attack. The statement should be replaced by "On 13th of July 2011, three IEDs were used by terrorists to carry out a coordinated attack on the city of Mumbai, killing 20 people and injuring 113 more." Amrithraj (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

  • IF you'd read the news report cited in that section, Mumbai police is already suspecting the Indian Mujahideen, who else can be reponsible now since none has came forward and be a man about it. Or do you have a new revelation you want to share with us, I'm all ears. Thoughts? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 20:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
News reporters often LIE. Until verifiable evidence is presented, it can not be assumed who is resposible.

Terrorism Table[edit]

¿Is it really necessary to include the section on terrorism in this article? It give the article a skew in terms of neutrality, as IED’s can be developed by anyone, whether they are terrorists or not, and a few (not terribly noteworthy) IED’s have even been used by standing armies after the advent of the Industrial Revolution; The trenches of WWI and jungles of Viet Nam are the examples that come to mind (including use by Americans in VN). Perhaps a section in history specifically addressing their use by terrorist would be more appropriate.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There, you're welcome[edit]

cwreplicas.com/page28dnew.html has pictures. One. Looks like the piece was made a month ago.
helium.com/items/994496-technology-and-inventions-of-the-civil-war/print has text:
Land Mines
Confederates used shells buried shallowly in the ground that discharged when their position was changed, thus the first land mines. The idea is credited to Brigadier General Gabriel Rains (Virginia War Museum, 2003).Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

bikes as delivery mechanism[edit]

the 'by delivery mechanism' section should probably have a link to (or merge in the content from) Bicycle bomb EdwardLane (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Syria[edit]

From the current news reports, the use of IED's is becoming very active part of the current conflict in Syria.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"Shipyard confetti" or "shrapnel" don't belong here[edit]

The terms "Belfast confetti" and "shipyard confetti" have been around since at least the early 1900s, well before the use of scrap metal or metal fasteners as the payload in IEDs. The terms refer to the use of metal debris such as rivets (large ship-building rivets similar to those used in bridges if one wants a mental image) during sectarian riots in Belfast. The term arose from the use of such missiles by Protestant workers at the Harland and Wolff shipyards to ethnically cleanse the H&W labor force and workers' neighborhoods of Catholics.

Neither term is commonly (if ever) used to refer to fragmentation materials incorporated into anti-personnel IEDs.

Nor is "shrapnel" correct. Shrapnel has a specific meaning in military ordnance: it's a load of large lead balls used as the payload in the Shrapnel shell, named for its inventor, Henry Shrapnel. The shrapnel shell basically functioned as a large flying shotgun: the balls were ejected from the front of the shell by a propelling charge inside, producing a tight unidirectional pattern completely unlike the nultidirectional dispersion of an IED using high explosives and a wrapping of fragmentation material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.209.147 (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

In January 2010, it was reported by military experts....[edit]

Which millitary experts? Furthermore, I am sceptical of this line "...The expertise for this new generation came likely from foreign fighters and the devices were being mass produced in India on an industrial level and supplied in Afghanistan through the Indian Consulates in Afghanistan..." The Indian Consulate? Are you joking? Where is the reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.82.142 (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Ball Mason jars[edit]

The section about IEDs made from glass jars appears to have used the term 'Mason jar', which evidently has been changed, probably by the trademark owner, to "Ball Mason jars" ... somehow I am not sure that authentic brand-name Ball Mason jars with thick Ball Mason glass were actually used by insurgents in the Vietnam War, so I suppose this should be changed to 'glass canning jars' or some generic term like that.

Roches (talk) 09:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I HAVE made bombs like these (didn't detonate it in a way that anyone could be hurt, just made it for demonstration purpose) using a drinking glass (reasobaly thick glass, but not "bomb worthy"). A generic term is more appropriate (and less biased).

Move Detection and disarmament section to Main Article[edit]

I'd like to remove the Detection and disarmament subsection and integrate it into the Defeating the Device section of the Counter-IED efforts page. Is that a good idea? What should I leave behind? dbabbitt (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)