Jump to content

Talk:Improvised explosive device/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Diff between IED and landmine?

Is the the difference between IEDs and landmines really only: (1) organized assembly line type manufacture versus made on a one at a time basis (2) landmine = set by an organized military force, IED = set by irregulars or unorganized forces. Thus the difference between mines and IEDs is politically based versus really different. I am no expert nor fluent about these things, so only raising for discussion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fremte (talk • contribs) 16:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The primary difference is construction. Landmines are made to a specific design, with military-grade hardware, while IEDs are often pieced together with whatever scrap is left over on the battlefield. Sometimes they're not even military equipment at all; VBIEDS can be loaded with plain old dynamite or other explosive materials. The device Tim McVeigh used to destroy the Alfred P. Murray building is a type of IED, consisting of ammonium nitrate fertilizer, diesel fuel, and nitromethane (none of which is even vaguely military-grade). Employment by regulars vs. irregulars isn't really relevant, despite the general correlation we observe. If guerrillas found a cache of landmines, I'm sure they wouldn't hesitate to use them, and they would still be landmines, not IEDs. Likewise, regular troops in a pinch might slap together an explosive device, and it would be an IED. Hope that helps. Parsecboy (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes I agree with Parsecboy completely. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
An IED is anything 'home-made' - that is what the 'Improvised' means, the device is often made from non-military materials, e.g., commercial dynamite, fertiliser, etc. - although military or commercial-grade plastic explosive may be used if it is available) and is often a 'one-off', that is to say, there has been little-or-no professional design input, and the device is made from whatever is obtainable by the bomb builder. This includes components like timers, which may be made from items such as wrist watches, or in earlier eras, alarm clocks. Good examples of IEDs are the bombs that were planted on the Air India Flight 182 and the Pan Am Flight 103 (the Lockerbie bombing) as both these bombs were 'home-made'. IED's have the considerable disadvantage in being inherently dangerous to the builder and planter, as many improvised devices have little in the way of safety arrangements, and bomb-builders have blown themselves up on numerous occasions. An IED is therefore, to a large extent, an 'amateur' device - not one that one could buy, say, from an ordnance catalogue, or it may be a normal military device modified for a purpose for which it was never designed, e.g., a bomb constructed from a number of artillery shells joined with wire and with an attached separate means for detonation. From the EOD POV, IEDs are unpredictable as they are seldom made to the exact same design, even devices built by the same builder, as variations in components available may force the builder to vary his/her design slightly, so IEDs may contain surprises for the unwary or overconfident EOD/AT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.253.120 (talk) 11:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Booby Trap

What is the difference between an IED and a booby trap. Booby trap seems like an older term. When did IED come into usage, was it in use before the iraq war? Should the IED and booby trap articles be merged. Booby trap may be a more general term as it may not require explosives as the method of producing injury. The booby trap page seems to imply that the US military used the term booby trap During the Vietnam period. Geo8rge (talk) 02:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a certain amount of overlap between the subjects, yes. I gather that a defining trait of booby traps is that they are triggered by some action of their victim, whereas IEDs can be triggered remotely, by a timer, by a suicide attacker, etc.; none of those are booby traps. Thus some IEDs are booby traps, and some booby traps are IEDs.--Father Goose (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Word IED

I am wondering, looking at this article, if there's any chance of having a section on the origins of the word "IED". Despite the length and historical background in this article, it is my belief that the term "IED" was not actually widely used until the 2003 Iraq war, no? That therefore calls into question the relevance of much of the historic stuff to the actual word "IED" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.220.172.118 (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If you look at some of the other sections on this page, you'll see that usage of the term goes back until at least the 1970s, where it was regularly used by the British Army in reference to homemade bombs used by the IRA. Parsecboy (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Types

The types of IED are not really specified on ingredients: eg ANFO, ... perhaps the anarchist's cookbook may be used to make a good division herein also add "plaster bomb"; something I saw in Burn Notice episode "Family Business" (see http://www.tv.com/Burn+Notice/Family+Business/episode/1088331/recap.html?tag=content_wrap;episode_recap ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.167.19 (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This article should be merged or removed

Either this page should be removed or merged with Bomb, because every device covered in this article could be considered a "bomb". I feel calling a brief article on blowing people up "bomb, and an in-depth article on blowing people up "IED" is a little counter-productive. I also take offense to the inclusion of "Improvised Radioactive Device". Descriptions such as the one included in this article only serve to bolster a myth, as the article Dirty_bomb states "Up until now, no dirty bomb has ever been found or used", "the radiation health risks are small and comparable to the health risk from smoking five packages of cigarettes or eating ice cream on a daily basis", and "Policy, science and media may inform the public about the real danger and thus reduce the possible psychological and economic effects". The term "IED" should only be included in List of government and military acronyms, as wikipedia is not a military publication. 208.68.116.246 (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's arguable that the current article should be divided out amongst articles like asymmetric warfare and bomb and terrorism and the like, but I don't think it's black-and-white. This is a quite well-written article which discusses a specific concept (explosives as used outwith usual military channels), and I don't believe that it must necessarily be sacrificed because our bomb article is a bit anaemic. As for the use of the term "IED", if it's used in reliable sources then Wikipedia should cover it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your comments - KEEP. --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
All said it would seem IED is a bomb without a nation sanctioned, corporate logo. Moving all this info under bomb with a link of the Acronym IED would seem sufficient to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riversol3 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
If a so-called "I.E.D." is a bomb without a nation-sanctioned, corporate log, then it's a BOMB. Your definition of "I.E.D." as a bomb which is not the work of a national military DOES make a distinction, but WHY do you want to MAKE that disctinction? Why does that distinction MATTER? What is the loss of utility in the English language if all explosive devices, whether made by a national military or not, whether made by a bunch of rag-tag volunteers or not, is a "bomb", irrespective of who made it, whether it was made with a bunch of clones of itself, in a factory, or in some lone individual's bathroom, etc.? Why should the WORD used to identify the object depend on who made it and how they made it? Until good reasoning is presented in answer to that question, a bomb is a bomb is a bomb, and "I.E.D." is Orwellian double-speak. Why not say that it's a "bomb" unless the wires are coated with blue plastic-rubber, in which case it' not a "bomb" but is a "frizzledybubbinch"? Why is it RELEVANT what color the wires in a bomb are? Why is it RELEVANT who made, and how they made, a bomb? There is something sinister and insidious going on here.69.86.239.244 (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

I would assert that an "IED" is a distinct sub-class of Bomb. As an Ammunition Technician with a number of years technical experience of both Military Explosive Ordnance of all types, and IED, I would recommend leaving the IED article as is. The Bomb article, however, is in need of a great deal of expansion and revision as it is a very shallow and inexact attempt to cover a much wider subject. (Smallroach (talk) 09:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC))

Your long term of experience as an Ammunition Technician simply means that you know a lot ABOUT these devices. It does NOT mean that you have a good and logically compelling reason that a bomb that isn't military ordinance is, somehow, because it is not military-make, something that we shouldn't use the word "bomb" for referring to, but, rather, is something different which we should call an "I.E.D.". Why? Why doest it MATTER who MANUFACTURED the bomb? A bomb is a bomb is a bomb. If I have a paper-clip and it is not standard military issue, does it stop being a paper-clip and become a "Civilian Temporary Paper-Conjoining Device?" WHY does a bomb stop being a "bomb" and start being an "I.E.D." if it wasn't made by the military?69.86.239.244 (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
I think the article, if not merged (which may be a good idea), should explain the history of the term IED. It is clearly a neologism, at least relative to bomb. When did it arise, and why? Superm401 - Talk

Qassam rocket merge?

This merge is completely nonsensical. Surely, something about the Qassam rockets can be included in the IED article but this is a unique phenomena unto itself that has had seriously implications on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I suggest that this merge proposition be dropped immediately. ShamWow (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Earlier Uses

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

United States In January 2011

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

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

¿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

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

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

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

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)

2003-2010 Iraq War?

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)

In January 2010, it was reported by military experts....

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

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).

Earlier Uses New Section

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 discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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)

Move Detection and disarmament section to Main Article

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)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Improvised explosive device. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Improvised explosive device. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

IED as a term, prevalence of the phrase, "IED" vs "homemade bomb"

I see that "homemade bomb" redirects to "Improvised explosive device", and that the article typically uses the phrase "Improvised explosive device" while mentionning "homemade bomb". I am wondering about this: I had never heard the term "Improvised explosive device" before the US invasion of Iraq, when is suddenly became proeminent in US media (for context, that what the era of "homicide bombing" and such attempts at actively and openly shaping the vocabulary of the media for public relations/propaganda purposes).

The article, at present, mentions that the term originates in the British military circles of the 70s: the phrase is thus administrative jargon and politically loaded from its inception.

I would like to initiate a little bit of reflexion on an alternative term that would be more neutral and natural than "Improvised explosive device". The phrase "homemade bomb" is the first that springs to my mind, though it does feel a little bit tengential to things like artillery shells repurposed to explode on command without being fired. Bottom line is, I feel like anything that replaces something as awkard as "explosive device" for "bomb" is euphemistical adminstrative jargon gone badle wrong, and should not be accepted uncritically on Wikipedia. Rama (talk) 06:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Improvised explosive device. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Improvised explosive device. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Joke in Background section?

"Once apon a time there was a chicken who didn't like people so he made a IED and that is how IED's were made. To be continued."

Its safe to say thats irrelevant to the topic... ThatOneDoge (talk) 00:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Improvised explosive device. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Improvised explosive device. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Improvised explosive device. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

What is weight range and explosive type of IEDs

It would be good to tell the weight of explosive and other materials, and the explosive chemicals used. This is essential for comparing IEDs to manufactured EDs and evaluating the damage they do. Ttulinsky 21:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttulinsky (talk • contribs)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Improvised_explosive_device/Archive_2&oldid=1170445972"