Skip to content

Contact IED

May 30, 2011

‘About half an hour in an IED was triggered by the Fire Support Team (FST) vehicle. The force of the blast knocked the 40-tonne Warrior onto its right hand side. When the blast went off soldiers from the second Warrior confirmed people were OK and talking inside the vehicle. At the same time the dismounted troops made best speed over, using the metal detectors in order to avoid any secondary devices.’

In his latest blog, Lance Corporal Ryder, of 3rd Battalion The Mercian Regiment (3 MERCIAN) and currently deployed on Operation HERRICK 14 in Afghanistan, recounts an eventful week which included an armoured patrol vehicle triggering an improvised explosive device. Thankfully there were no serious injuries, although the insurgents said otherwise…

Lance Corporal Ryder's platoon conducting a vehicle check point on Highway 1.

‘This week has been one of the more eventful of the tour.

We started the week with a focus on vehicle check points (VCPs) along Highway 1 and route 601. VCPs serve as an effective deterrent to any insurgents wishing to use the main highways and routes for things such as drug running, weapon and improvised explosive device (IED) transportation. It also gives us a perfect opportunity to collect biometric information from the population of Afghanistan. Due to Highway 1 being one of the main supply routes (MSRs) all the way around Afghanistan, it isn’t just the locals who use it. People from all over the country travel along it, around the clock. As with everything we do, the VCPs have been conducted with maximum input, command and control from the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), although at some points we have had to take over and assist them more. The VCPs we conducted turned out successful, and ended with us gaining a large amount of intelligence about illegal insurgent check points on the MSRs.’

To read the rest of Lance Corporal Ryder’s blog and others similar on the British Army website, click HERE or on the image above.

5 Comments leave one →
  1. hector cavallaro permalink
    May 30, 2011 23:31

    soy argentino pero me gustaria estar en afganistan ,como un buen occidental combatiendo a los talibanes por eso apoyo a ños muchachos britanicos que tengan mucha suerte y denles duro a los malditos…

    Basically translates as..’I am Argentinean but I would like to be in Afghanistan, like a good western fighting the Taliban for supporting dren that British boys having hard luck and give them the damn ..’ – Editor

  2. Shadowman permalink
    May 31, 2011 14:00

    Good that all escaped from this IED incident.
    Now, getting onto the topic of civilian deaths (usually caused by airstrikes)…. there is **one thing that has always puzzled me** (and maybe the editor can enlighten me on this).
    Ok, you have a number of Taliban shooting at you from a compound, and so an airstrike is called in. BUT – there are civilians in the compound and they are all killed.
    *** Why on earth is the airstrike called in when the Nato-ISAF soldiers on the ground could not have been SURE that the compound held no civilians??? ***
    SURELY that is basic common-sense! Do NOT call in an airstrike on a compound unless you are CERTAIN that no civilians are in there!
    If you follow this rule, then you can darned near **guarantee** that no civilians will be killed.
    WHY is this ***basic*** bit of common-sense being ignored?
    Why are the same mistakes being made over and over again?
    Do Nato/ISAF *enjoy* being hauled over the coals by Karzai?
    Am I missing something here?

  3. Shadowman permalink
    May 31, 2011 14:04

    ( Oops…. I should clarify…… )
    I’m well aware that the vast majority of civilian deaths are caused by the Taliban.
    What I’m meaning is that the majority of the **other** civilian deaths which are caused by Nato/ISAF seem to be due to airstrikes.

  4. June 2, 2011 20:16

    Shadowman and I have a different opinion with regards to the ‘civillian’ casualties – I believe when ‘air support’ is required, it is obviously because our troops are in serious danger of being wounded or worse, killed – lets face it, there have been times when ‘air support’ has killed/wounded our troops* – therefore, it is not called for ‘lightly’.

    With regards to Karzais comments regarding the Afghans killed due to ‘airstrikes’ – I believe he is ‘outraged’ as it is part of his ‘political agenda’ – and yes, unfortunately his people are dying but it is also true to say that ISAF/NATO have lost a number of troops/wounded, in a bid to help Afghanistan….The long and the short of it is…the troops are trying their best to help the people – giving them freedom of movement – a chance to earn a living…and they are doing these tasks in a distant land away from their families in unsavoury conditions..Whilst it would be nice not to have airstrikes or deaths on eitherside, I really don’t think that will happen….so my point of view….Keep The Troops Safe…Whatever the Cost.
    PS: Does Karzai go out on ‘walk abouts’ – into the villages to find out what his countrymen need…I don’t think so….He is quick to ‘gob off’ when things aren’t great; and just as quick to put out his hand to accept Money from Us – this man has tooooooo many cheeks and really cannot be trusted

    *Our troops – ISAF/NATO

  5. Matt Ryder permalink
    June 13, 2011 20:16

    shadow man, i mite be able to help you there. im the lance jack who wrote the blog above. i think you make the mistake of believing everythong in the media, because what you are suggesting about us causing unnessesary civilian deaths is incorrect. we had a situation about 2 months back where an insurgent group ambushed our patrol. we identified the firing point and poitively identified the insurgents within said compound. air support and also 105 light guns were lined up and ready to neutralise the threat. HOWEVER, we knew the compound in question belonged to a local farmer with 2 young children. we were not sure weather the civilians were in the compound as well as the insugents, so our platoon commander made the decision to not fire indirect fire assets, and instead conduct a systematic clearance through in order to reduce any possibility of civilian casualties. it turned out the farmer and his children were at home that day and they were evacuated to a safe area whilst we cleared the threat.
    so you are wrong in assuming we drop bombs and level compounds with complete disregard to civilian life. on some occasions however civilians accidentally get caught up in fights between ISAF forces and the insugency, and on these few rare occasions they are treated with the same level of medical care as we apply to our own wounded troops, and they are duely compensated.
    i hope this has answered any questions in regards to your initial misconception of how british troops conduct our buisness out in afghanistan. if not may i suggest you spend 6 months out here fighting with us to maybe give you a clearer idea of what its like when you arent sat at home watching on the tv?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: