4 ms·
You're right to point to the long history of improvised weapons, but I'm unsure what point you're trying to make. Can you elaborate?
by nickpinkston 10y ago
You're right to point to the long history of improvised weapons, but I'm unsure what point you're trying to make. Can you elaborate?
- Aelinsaar 10y agoThere have been more practical, reliable, and proven (and savage for that matter) improvised weapons, traps, etc than anything in this article. Would you rather rely on the flame fougasse, and proven methods to draw someone into an ambush, or a jerry-rigged "weapon"? If you're fighting on the poorly-armed end of an asymmetrical fight, you do your best by embracing that, not trying to make field artillery from pipes. IMO of course.
- joe_the_user 10y agoEven if shooting an explosive-packed water heater from a distance doesn't get you an inch of advantage against the opposing army, even if the civilians survive, this tactic is good in itself for a given ethnic militia because it evicts the population of your targeted ethnicity from their homes and generally terrorized them. The Syrian conflict has involved targeting civilians on a massive scale. The various sides aren't necessarily destroying apartment blocks to flush out the military that might hide there, they are destroying apartments to destroy them and the civilians that hide there - those civilians aren't fighting and aren't going to be drawn into any ambush. Edit: I'm not an expert on how new the various improvised explosive techniques are but it seem that question is being conflated with the question of what use improvised artillery would be (terrible against other mobile opponents, good against civilians, Syria isn't "asymetric" warfare in the usual sense, both sides have "their" civilians and civilians they want dead or fleeing).
- greesil 10y agoWhat point did you think he was trying to make?