<http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/07/the-assassinati.html> Superbomb Mystery: The Herrhausen Assassination
Today, July 29, 2008, 41 minutes ago | David Hambling http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/07/the-assassinati.html <http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/07/the-assassinati.html> Go to full article <http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/07/28/efp_holes.jpg> Herrhausen1 What's the connection between the murder of a German banker 20 years ago and the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan? It's all to do with terrorist technology and explosively formed penetrators (aka, "superbombs <http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/03/efp_101_the_sup.html#previouspost> "), the insurgent's deadliest weapon against armored vehicles. Many have pointed out the similarity of attacks in Iraq to the method used to assassinate Alfred Herrhausen in Germany on November 30, 1989. Herrhausen was the head of Germany's biggest bank, Deutsche Bank -- and an obvious target for the Red Army Faction (RAF) terrorist group. Herrhausen was in a bullet-proof Mercedes limousine, the middle car of a three-vehicle convoy, with bodyguards ahead and behind. The RAF planned their attack well, planting their bomb in a satchel on a bicycle parked beside the route. The bomb was linked to an <http://www.securitydriver.com/aic/stories/article-46.html> infrared beam, which terrorists posing as workmen had set up across the road. The terrorists allowed the lead car through, and then activated the beam. When Herrhausen's car broke the beam, the bomb went off. It consisted of ten kilos of explosive and a two-kilo copper plate, aimed so that it would strike the passenger seat. The metal pierced the armored limo and Herrhausen was wounded <http://www.williambowles.info/articles/app_e.pdf> in the legs; he bled to death shortly afterwards, before medical assistance arrived. The RAF device which killed Herrhausen is generally described as a platter charge, rather than an Iraq-style EFP. That's because the RAF are not thought to have had <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Herrhausen> the skill to produce an EFP. By contrast, a platter <http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/20-32/chap13b .html> charge is a much cruder form of improvised explosive device. An Army field manual describes: The platter charge consists of a suitable container that is filled with uniformly packed explosive and placed behind a platter. The platter is metal (preferably round, but square is satisfactory) and weighs 1 to 3 kilograms. The explosive required is equal to the weight of the platter. The container may not be necessary if the explosive can be held firmly against the platter (tape can be used). The charge should be primed from the exact rear center, and the blasting cap should be completely covered with a small amount of C4 to ensure detonation. The charge should be aimed at the direct center of the target. The effective range (primarily a matter of aim) is approximately 35 meters for a small target. With practice, experienced personnel can hit a 55-gallon drum (a relatively small target) at 25 meters with about 90 percent accuracy. As the manual indicates, anyone can assemble a platter charge -- and it requires no special materials. An EFP is a little different. It's a form of shaped charge which employs a shallow metal dish called a liner. This usually made of copper, which is engineered to a very specific shape. The blast deforms this into an aerodynamic slug, with longer range but less penetrating power than a standard shaped charge. (Normal shaped charges fire a very narrow but high velocity jet of metal over a very short range with superior armor-piercing properties.) However, there are a couple of question marks over the platter charge theory. One is that a platter charge would usually have more equal weights of explosive and metal, whereas the RAF weapon was about four to one. Another is that the flying platter is not supposed to deform, so it is usually a thick plate of steel or other hard metal. A soft metal like copper is much more consistent with an EFP. The RAF also released a communiqué <http://www.extremismus.com/terror/rafdox21.html> stating: " mit einer selbstgebauten Hohlladungsmine haben wir seinen gepanzerten Mercedes gesprengt" ("We blew up his armoured Mercedes with a hollow charge mine of our own making.") The term used, Hohlladungsmine or "hollow charge mine" is a specific technical expression for a shaped charge. It would be an odd way of describing a platter charge. But it would make perfect sense for an EFP. The idea that the RAF had access to relatively sophisticated weapons has led to theories that they had assistance possibly <http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB118981435771628219.html> from the East German Stasi who had their own reasons for wanting Herrhausen dead. I checked with Professor Manfred Held, perhaps best known as the inventor of reactive <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_armour> armor, and an expert in the field of shaped charges. <http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/07/25/held_efp.jpg> Held_efp Prof. Held explained that there is no straight distinction between platter charges, EFPs and shaped charges: it is simply a matter of the angle of the liner. A liner angle of 40 degrees a narrow cone will produce a shaped charge jet. An. angle of 140 degrees (a very wide cone) will produce a slug. A platter charge is simply the effect of a liner angle of 180 degrees (that is, a flat plate). The shape of slug produced by differernt angles a few microseconds after detonation is illustrated at left. Given the size of the RAF device, Prof. Held says that it would have required no great skill. With that amount of metal and explosive it would easily have penetrated the relatively thin armor of the limo even if the design was not a well-designed, optimized EFP. Fast forward to the present day. Insurgents in Iraq and now Afghanistan are using EFPs on a regular basis. Some claim <http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/06/iranian-super-1.html> that the liners come from Iran, but no <http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/superbombs---mo.html#previouspost> hard evidence of this has appeared, and EFP facilities making them have been discovered in Iraq. One of the interesting features is that they do not appear to be uniform; judging from the pictures they range from the size of coffee-cans to the size of buckets. Much bigger EFPs the size of garbage cans have been found, but not yet used. This indicates that the threat is an evolving one and that there is not one standard model of EFP. These really are improvised explosive devices rather than off-the-shelf ones. Armor which provides adequate protection this year will not necessarily stop next years EFP Version 3.0. Terrorists can be resourceful, and learn fast. They do not necessarily need the help of outside agencies, even when assembling EFP-type devices. And they can develop techniques to overcome countermeasures, whether it's bullet-proof car and a squad of bodyguards or the latest in mine-resistant vehicles. They can only be defeated by shifting tactics and developing equipment faster than they can. (Top photo: U.S. Army; Shaped charge diagram: EADS) (F)AIR USE NOTICE: All original content and/or articles and graphics in this message are copyrighted, unless specifically noted otherwise. All rights to these copyrighted items are reserved. Articles and graphics have been placed within for educational and discussion purposes only, in compliance with "Fair Use" criteria established in Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976. The principle of "Fair Use" was established as law by Section 107 of The Copyright Act of 1976. "Fair Use" legally eliminates the need to obtain permission or pay royalties for the use of previously copyrighted materials if the purposes of display include "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research." Section 107 establishes four criteria for determining whether the use of a work in any particular case qualifies as a "fair use". A work used does not necessarily have to satisfy all four criteria to qualify as an instance of "fair use". Rather, "fair use" is determined by the overall extent to which the cited work does or does not substantially satisfy the criteria in their totality. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml THIS DOCUMENT MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. COPYING AND DISSEMINATION IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNERS. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: [email protected] Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
