Dog bombs

[snopes]

Comment: I have heard a story from many different sources (mostly
non-American born people across the globe) regarding a supposedly
unreported event early in the Iraq war involving dogs with bombs strapped
to them. Accounts vary, but generally the story goes that the Iraqi
military/insurgents starved a number of dogs prior to a US assault in some
area and strapped bombs to them; when the US soldiers arrived they shot
the dogs, causing them to explode and produce many unreported US
casualties.

There are a number of reasons that I believe that this story is false on
its face- it's never clear why the US soldiers would want to shoot the
dogs, in general it seems like a very difficult thing to cover up, and I
think that it clearly plays to a sort of perverse wish-fulfillment. I'd
like to be able to respond to the rumor more intelligently when I hear it
again. Do you have any information about this story?

[CannonFodder]

I've never heard of a live dog carrying an IED. In general Iraqis didn't seem very fond of dogs. Enough so that they generally avoided them.

We had threats of donkey borne IEDs, but I never saw one of those either, and couldn't find any references online.

I did find this reference on CNN to rocket carts pulled by donkeys.

[Mycroft]

Historically in WW2 the Russians trained dogs to stand under tanks, the plan being that they could be used to carry bombs under German tanks. Unfortunately in practice the dogs had been trained to stand under Russian tanks, and that is what they did.

[Skeptic]

Originally Posted by snopes

when the US soldiers arrived they shot
the dogs, causing them to explode and produce many unreported US
casualties.

Shooting at explosives does not cause them to explode. They need a detonator.

[erwins]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Historically in WW2 the Russians trained dogs to stand under tanks, the plan being that they could be used to carry bombs under German tanks. Unfortunately in practice the dogs had been trained to stand under Russian tanks, and that is what they did.

That sounds very much like a UL, or simply a joke. Do you have any evidence of this? (Or, if you were joking in the first place, then I withdraw the request for a cite).

erwins

[erwins]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Shooting at explosives does not cause them to explode. They need a detonator.

In addition, what purpose is served by shooting the dogs that wouldn't be served by simply hiding explosives and detonating them from a distance? I don't get why dogs are involved in the story at all, except to make the Iraqis appear extra cruel for starving and then shooting dogs (which then blow up).

erwins

[snopes]

Originally Posted by erwins

In addition, what purpose is served by shooting the dogs that wouldn't be served by simply hiding explosives and detonating them from a distance?

Presumably the dogs carry the explosives to the troops the insurgents want to kill; the insurgents don't have to hide explosives and hope the troops wander over to wherever they're hidden.

- snopes

[snopes]

Originally Posted by erwins

That sounds very much like a UL, or simply a joke. Do you have any evidence of this?

http://tewton.narod.ru/mines-3/sobaka.html

[Tarquin Farquart]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Historically in WW2 the Russians trained dogs to stand under tanks, the plan being that they could be used to carry bombs under German tanks. Unfortunately in practice the dogs had been trained to stand under Russian tanks, and that is what they did.

I've heard of that too.

[Hero_Mike]

Originally Posted by CannonFodder

I've never heard of a live dog carrying an IED. In general Iraqis didn't seem very fond of dogs. Enough so that they generally avoided them.

We had threats of donkey borne IEDs, but I never saw one of those either, and couldn't find any references online.

I did find this reference on CNN to rocket carts pulled by donkeys.

An IED that can be carried by a dog won't be very big - and won't cause as much damage as one made from a donkey. Besides, people are accustomed to seeing donkeys carrying things (i.e. being covered in "stuff"), but not dogs. A dog with something on it would look suspicious.

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Shooting at explosives does not cause them to explode. They need a detonator.

Some explosives can be detonated by severe impact, or from the heat and friction of a bullet penetrating the enclosure.

[ASL]

The part that really stinks that makes me absolutely certain it's a UL is the "unreported casualties" claim. There's no reason not to report the casualties. I seem to recall on the war forum there was a discussion some time ago about a political cartoon that implied that there were actually thousands more American deaths than reported because the military would intentionally fly out near dead or even dead soldiers before pronouncing them dead so that they wouldn't be counted as Iraq war dead.

This claim really pisses me off because not only is it a total lie, but it demonstrates a complete lack of genuine concern over US casualties in Iraq. Even a cursory reading of the fatality lists would provide you with several examples of military personnel who died of wounds outside Iraq and some who died of disease or in accidents but were never even in Iraq. This includes deaths in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and aboard Navy ships several hundred miles removed from Iraq.

[shivaskeeper]

I think the UL is saying the US Soldiers shot the IED laden dogs causing them to explode. That was fairly standard practice for my guys when we move in to set up in any area. Clear the area, then kill the dogs and all the rats we can as a vector control. It sucks but I would rather kill every stray in any area I am staying in than have them crapping everywhere and being exposed to whatever diseases and parasites they might be carrying.

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Shooting at explosives does not cause them to explode. They need a detonator.

I don't know. Bet your life on that? Some of the home made stuff you can find there is pretty crude. I wouldn't bet my life, or any of my guys lives, on it not exploding if it was shot.

CF, I heard about the donkey borne IEDs too, but also never saw one on a live donkey. But when I was up north we ran into a few IEDs in donkey and horse carcasses on the side of the road. It got to a point where we would call the engineers in to dispose of any new carcasses on our routes.

shivaskeeper

[Troberg]

Are you sure it's a dog bomb? It might be a hound grenade...

Shooting at explosives does not cause them to explode. They need a detonator.

At least modern commersial explosives. Home made concoctions may not be so stable.

Unfortunately in practice the dogs had been trained to stand under Russian tanks, and that is what they did.

I don't think dogs recognize different tanks, I think they just hid under the closest tank, which, of course, usually is your own.

The part that really stinks that makes me absolutely certain it's a UL is the "unreported casualties" claim. There's no reason not to report the casualties. I seem to recall on the war forum there was a discussion some time ago about a political cartoon that implied that there were actually thousands more American deaths than reported because the military would intentionally fly out near dead or even dead soldiers before pronouncing them dead so that they wouldn't be counted as Iraq war dead.

Well, it certainly has happened in other conflicts, so I can understand how such a rumour starts.

[ASL]

Originally Posted by Troberg

Well, it certainly has happened in other conflicts, so I can understand how such a rumour starts.

I can understand how a great many incredibly dumb NFBSK rumors get started. The sad thing is, I can also understand how news media, even if only via political cartoon, could perpetuate something so completely bogus.

[Sebbenth]

Originally Posted by snopes

http://tewton.narod.ru/mines-3/sobaka.html

Basically, the article calls it an experimental device, a couple of which were captured by Germans. The dogs failed to train to get to the German tanks, and, basically, the whole program was bogus (largely, they trained a dog in a strictly controlled environment in a way that would never work on the battlefield). It also says that Germans were actively using the dog mines to discredit the Russians in a propaganda.

The article never says anything about Soviet tanks, though. I also doubt that the Red Army failed to get a German tank for that program.

[Azzizi]

I don't believe the story of a dog-borne IED. Iraqis are generally disgusted by dogs, plus all the reasons mentioned above, plus the fact that a dog is uncontrollable. You might try to run him off and he'd come right back to you.

Also, those insurgents are pretty crafty. They've been known to use their own recruits to unwittingly drive a car full of explosives into a checkpoint. Why use an uncontrollable dog when a willing human will do so much better?