Newshoggers Comments
Jeez, I'm glad they pointed out the 2006 part, otherwise I never would have known. Incredible.
Doesn't it look a bit...well...clean?
Regards, C
Interesting...I google "81mm mortar" and come up with this near the top of the results.
Darn Brits...
Good catch, Earl!
So, for this to be legit, it'd have to be bought from the Brits soon after it was allegedly made in March of 2006. Except that the Brits don't sell weapons to Iran, last I looked. This fails the Occam's Razor test big-time.
More likely, it was simply taken out of the UK troops' weapons stockpile and given to the Iraqi Army to "find".
It's funny, in a sick way, that bloggers are asking the exact questions and doing the foot work that professional journalists should be doing as part of their job.
I was the one who originally thought I had a match with the Pakistani mortar. I was wrong, as is clear when one looks at the pictures more carefully.
On the other hand, it does look like the UK one, but without close up pictures, we can't be sure.
Also, I have found pictures that demonstrate that Iran uses ordnance with latin characters on them (in the case of those pictures, it was a 122mm round).
I have learnt my lesson; I shouldn't jump the gun.
But I hope someone manages to find the exact match to the ordnance in the picture.
So how would in the world they know these are Iranian serial numbers?
Perhaps the US taxpayer supplied this round
The NYT reported a few months ago (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/
election/2006/1030arms.htm), and I believe there were reports even earlier, that we have not been recording serial numbers of weaponry and ammo we hand out to Iraqis. For small arms alone, the figures are a little over a half million weapons released, only 12,000 serial numbers recorded. Obviously, our govt would not have omitted this very obvious precaution of recording serial numbers, unless it knew perfectly well that much of the weaponry we handed out would be diverted to the insurgency, and they did not want the embarrassment of having any of these weapons recaptured and their origin traced right back to us, as in the US.
I haven't been able to find anything on mortar ammo in particular in this whole "no recorded serial number" story, but I have to wonder if this round may not have been originally distributed by us, as in the US. What would make such a "no serial number recorded" round especially useful to this administration, if they had actually recorded the serial numbers unofficially, and therefore really were able to ID the rounds we had handed out with no officially recorded number, is that the administration would know that such ordinance could not be positively accounted for by anyone else. If they just foisted any old captured round on the press as Iranian, it might come to light that, no, that round was made in Pakistan and sold to the Peshmerga in 1999. But a round whose provenance they know, because we distributed it, cannot blow up in their faces, so to speak.
Its not a British, Australian or American round because the codes are stencilled on in a very different script. so it could well be of middle eastern Origin, anywhere from India to perhaps Turkey. Russia and former satellites uses the 82mm tube, who uses the good ol 81?
As for the liners to the EFP they can either be stamped on a very simple tool and die setup or spun against a mandrel, in neither case is "sophisticated machining necessary, unless the thickness is tapered or chemically milled, although I'd have to have a detailed look at one to be totally sure.
The real question for me is where did they get the copper for the liners and what thickness is it? It should be traceable and would definitely be the "smoking gun'
Here is a photo of the Iranian 81 mm mortar, right from the web site of Iran's Defense Industries organization:
http://www.diomil.ir/images/prod...mig/
mor6081.jpg
Access the site at
http://www.diomil.ir/en/amig.aspx
nice paint job...
Why would Iran knowingly sell arms to Iraq if their origins can obviously be traced ? I'm not an expert in identifying mortars, but I do know US propaganda machine is in full spin trying to shift the focus on Iran. What kills americans in Iraq are the political and strategic blunders of the US government.
In a world where arms deals are commonplace this could easily have been bought from anywhere in the world, by anyone with the money ..
The fact that the writing is in English means nothing - it could be a stolen shipment, a dud that has been refused, or a legitimate arms shipment through another country and then into Iran.
Only the manufacturers serial number can tell us - once it is properly identified
What your point?
1. Anybody can paint numbers on a device in any language. Think about why the Iranians might want to do that; Think about why the Iraqis might want to do that. Think about why maybe Russia might want to do that.
2. The enemy can pick rounds from vehicles they destroy with roadside bombs.
3. In all fairness, it could be legit
alsa,
The pic you linked is of the 81mm long range (too long in the body) and 60mm (wrong calibre).
Here's the actual 81mm HE round from DIO. The stencelling on the body is of a very different form but that doesn't mean much.
No, it's the tailfin that's supposed to make identification possible according to the US, and the pic the US provided doesn't show the tailfin.
Regards, C
The drumbeats are on. Another war around the corner. Buy oil options as you'll be rich post-strike when it goes to $120 per barrel. Nice.
In sum: there is no proof of much of anything thus far and a good deal of speculation that the US govt is faking things but no solid information to suggest as a fact.
I imagine that the Israelis, having recently dealt with Hezbollah, might have some insights into this sort of thing.
If you look at the second picture posted by the LA Times, it's supposedly of an Iranian anti-tank RPG. An interesting observation is the marking "5-31-2006" suggesting a manufacture date of May 31, 2006. IIRC, the US is one of the very few countries to use that specific date format; most would put the date before the month as in "31-5-2006." Now I'm not sure how the Iranians write their dates but I suspect that it's the day before month format meaning the markings have probably been put there by an American hand.
The point here should be not that we can prove that the round is definiitely not Iranian, but that the US is a very far way from proving that it is. Furthermore, if one supposes that it would be fairly simple to doctor an evidence, and one mistrusts the Bush administration (which seems like a reasonable presumption), then it's hard to dismiss the possibility that these alelgations are all simply lies.
Or, to put it differently, I'm going to assume the Bush administration is lying as my default position. The idea that Iran is providing weaponry to the Iraqi insurgents, when the insurgency is Sunni and the Iranians are more philosophically aligned with the Shia, makes little sense to me. Furthermore, the Iranians have every incentive to try to wait out the last two years of Bush's term. And they know that Bush is itching for a fight so, like Saddam before him, they have every incentive to not give him any excuse.
The point here should be not that we can prove that the round is definiitely not Iranian, but that the US is a very far way from proving that it is.
Exactly.
Nor are we being told who else might be smuggling weaponry into Iraq. the Isrealis would gain much from the current state of affairs, Saudi Arabia might be aiding the Sunnis as might other Arab states. Then there's just private black-market entrepreneurs.
The evidence does not support the narrative.
Regards, C
Of course the other thing to note about the depicted round is that it was siezed January 13. I am not sure exactly when the blame-Iran drumbeat began, but it was certainly before that. In other words, here's another example of the our government asserting stuff and looking for the evidence, any evidence, to support it later. You will recall, too, that this conference was repeatedly delayed waiting for this supposed smoking gun. Personally, I would not believe these MFs about the time of day.
You can find the full slideshow here.
And correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that page 11 shows off the 81mm tailfins. Perhaps not in the greatest detail, but they are there.
Of all the strange things about these mortars - Why does the Pentagon's power point slides say: 'New Baghdad'?
Did the US rename the city or something?!
God speaks in English, with a Boston accent.
Is it common practice in Muslim countries to use the christian calendar year? It's the year 1428 of the Muslim calendar. But that mortar has 2006 stamped on it.
Just a little puzzled.
You're an idiot. Have you considered the simple possibility that if the Iranians are smuggling weapons into Iraq, they'd erase any obvious Iranian markings and replace them with something generic ?
Well, I think someone is indeed being an idiot. But I don't think it's me.
If you review again the picture of the mortar, and the evidence the briefers provided, it's quite clear that they certainly do not believe the markings are, as you say, "generic" or forged, for they have specifically highlighted the mortar's year of manufacture -- 2006. So, indeed, someone is being an idiot.
I imagine that the Israelis, having recently dealt with Hezbollah, might have some insights into this sort of thing.
I imagine that the Israelis, having recently dealt with Hezbollah, might have gotten their hands on some "fragments" and whole units of Iranian military hardware.
If you get my drift.
Deja vue....
so the chimp and his fellow monkeys have found "solid" evidence.....
quick some get colin powell
dont forget to to tell him to dust off his old slides you know the ones he used at the UN.....
Yes sir... we have solid evidence......
this is even more solid than the niger docs, spy sat images of mobile bio chemical labs .....
evennnnn more solid than the ay-rays WMD's locations........
yes sir where are so sure ay-ran is in deep mess that we've gonna kick ass and so them only we can bomb people/countries.
Hey cheny dont forget to pay that italian guy for this "intel"... the one we bought the niger "intel" from....
Geeee my haliburton and Boeing shares will shoot up with all the
war parties we're having yeee haaaa
i lot it when a plan comes together....
[cue the a-team them]
Jim,
I get your drift, and I think you've said something which a fair few others have been thinking.
Regards, C
The BBC has 10 of the picture on it's website http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pi...res/
6353025.stm
Note in picture 6 there are some 81 mm round containers which are supposedly showing a manufacturing date of september 2006, but on the presentation it states that they were "seized in central Iraq September 9 2006". So we are supposed to believe that these rounds were manufactured in September and shipped to Iraq, and captured just 9 days into the month of manufacture?
Also the serial number for the "ignitor charge/fuse" AZ111-A2 shown on those same casings returns just 3 matches in a google search, the first two are us military PDF documents of various rounds of multiple origins with that serial number only being found on the "Iranian" 81 mm mortar shell, the third is the Iranian arms industry website. The PDF documents are showing a creation date of 06/01/2004. https://naveodtechdiv.jeodnet.mil...le_p140-
211.pdf
I noticed in browsing through the document that there are a lot of various rounds some of which have no known origin, The PDF is the Iraq ordnance Identification guide, which it says is to help "other personnel who are trying.. to identify ordnance..." Also in the PDF is a lot of mortar rounds that show similar tailfin assemblies to those shown in the photos on the bbc website.
Still not proof at all really. There is a very strong fishy smell around the whole thing.
Thanks for those links billybeag.
A lot of people obviously feel that the evidence produced is very short of proving what it is meant to.
For Instance. The guy at the US military briefing gave his expert opinion that Iranian mortar rounds are so distinctive because of their tailfin assemblies (and therefore I would guess totally nondescript otherwise) ...but we aren't allowed to know who he is so how can anyone assess his expertise?
A lot of rightwingers and pro-Israel hawkish Dems feel differently, though. Between them, they have a lot of oomph politically. So...I'm going to keep on keeping on, pointing out the holes when I can.
Regards, C
Good point about the date reading like US writes/reads.
Would they also use the word "LOT" and Iragis have been stealing copper since the invasion from electrical lines, which is one of the many problems with the electricity.
I too couldn't believe it when I read New Bagdad in that one picture from LA Times.
These guys are a piece of work alright. After 6 years of lies & hiding information they cannot be trusted one bit.
So the US is releasing roadside bombs? Hm...
Whoever wrote the caption text you quote really needs some help with learning about misplaced modifiers. Their slip is showing.
This is an obvious fraud.
The actual Iranian 81MM High Explosive Mortar Ammunition uses different lettering and fonts from the Mortar Ammunition that the Bush Administration claims the Iranians are supplying.
The Iranian ammunition uses a sans-serif font and lettering "81 MM", "TNT", "CTG M43A1" [note there is NO DATE on the ammunition] while the ammunition the Bush Administration showed uses a serif font with the lettering "81 MM", "HE", "3-2006".
Actual Iranian 81MM Mortar Round:
http://www.diomil.ir/images/prod...g/
mor81high.jpg
Bush Administration Mortar Round:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nati...e-world&
index=1
Well, we've seen three different types of mortar here.
TNT = Obviously explosive
Smoke
HE = High Explosive
For all we know, they may very well have been produced in Iran. Perhaps they paint the font differently or produce the HE rounds in a different factory.
We don't know, there is no 100% solid evidence regardless.
The way I see it, this is where your hard earned dollars are going, and it's your own stupid American faults.
That's what you get for outsourcing all your jobs to Iran! haha!
Just playing the devil's advocate here...but many roadside bombs are made from unexploded or captured US Military ordinance. Just because this is a US mortar does not mean that the military is lying. This artillery round could have been left behind by our guys, found by the enemy and then wired as an IED. Not likely, but definitely possible.
I have the feeling that the military knew this was US ordinance and the report was accurate, but the Pentagon knew that average Joe Sixpack doesn't know what US or Iranian mortars look like. So they made this a big deal and decided to pin it on Iran. The military is probably blameless, its the Bush administration that is twisting accurate intelligence to blame Iran.
Because the enemy can and has easily driven up to scout and car bomb us OBVIOUSLY it's impossible for the enemy to steal weapons from us and use them against us. Nope, thats English WRITING right there, they refuse to touch anything with English writing on it. Yes sir.
These are NATO rounds. The Russians and Chinese use 82mm mortars. Ooops cat is out of the bag.
Commenting by HaloScan
