12/17: Busted-up Afghan van

It would be a cartoon event: this guy's van was hit by a mortar, which tore it up quite a bit. But it didn't hit any of the drivetrain. So he keeps on driving it, and hey! Why not! He's happy, he's stylin', thumbs up.

The original caption said it was a mini-van, but I can't figure out what make it is, and it's gotta have a rear engine...

I saw this - was it from MSNBC? I forget. Anyway, I thought it was pretty funny too - said he was off taking a bathroom break or something. Lucky guy and he looks happy enough

Quote:

Originally posted by dhamsaic I saw this - was it from MSNBC? I forget. Anyway, I thought it was pretty funny too - said he was off taking a bathroom break or something. Lucky guy and he looks happy enough

Yep. That's why I was thinking of posting it on Friday. Then the shaved Kangaroo just got to me, and I desisted.

Maybe I'm too cynical, but I'm having trouble beliving that van was hit by a mortar. The headliner isn't burned...in fact *none* of it shows any signs I see of scorching. It just doesn't *look* like there's been an explosion, it looks more like it was run into the archetypical immovable object at an oblique angle and at about the height of the windowsill....or had an similarly situated but moving object run into it. Like maybe part of a big truck, or a tank or BTU perhaps? Look how the roof is crumpled; that was pushed back, not blown away.

I suppose it's *possible* that they just cleaned it up really nice and replaced the carpet and driver's side door. But somthing is telling me this guy knew he'd get more money for thepicture if he had a good war story to go with the van... "I was taking a leak and a mortar shell hit it, yeah, that sounds good".

I suppose tho that if it rained, it would wash away all the muck and dust and ash that the seats and whatnot would be covered in from an explosion.


hmmm... unless ... it doesn't rain.... in that desert... never mind.

     I've got to agree with MaggieL here. I mean look at the body damage behind the driver door. How would an explosion damage that if it didn't destroy the axle? If I was to guess without any other info I'd say something hit highfront driver side. I realise the angle is limited but how could a mortar possibly do such limited damge across such a wide area? There's even glass farther back above the area the body is buckled. I suppose it's possible but I'm not buying it without a source I trust.

Maybe it was hit by something hit by a mortar...
Oh well, lets just give him "war torn van". wait...hold it...is that OBL in the back?

Quote:

Originally posted by warch Excellent! I give you rim shot!

Or it could just be my bad memory. The AP caption says he was hit by "an airstrike" which tells us... nothing.

I'm for the collision theory

It appears as if the major structures of the van have been pushed back and then down, which would follow from a windshield-level hit.

Civilian passenger vehicle hulls are made out of some very thin-gage metal, good for both fuel economy and crash safety as it crumples well. A hit by a military shell would probably have blown this van back into it's component parts.

There are no flash burns visible (could have been cleaned off, but should have left some permanent marks).

There isn't a single shrapnel puncture visible anywhere on the van. The thin metal skin should at least show some holes from the high-explosive disintegration of the bomb housing.

The floor of the van, and the drivetrain beneath, all seem very much intact, which would follow a collision high on the vehicle, and not a bomb.

I think this guy ran into something and that was all. Some western journalists come by and he makes up this story to see if we'll buy it.


That's my amateur view anyway.

and one last thing...

The floor of the van is actually pushed UP in the supposed blast area. How does a bomb do that?

Looks like a...

VW Van.

I love Volkswagens!

peace,

mh

I think among other things the van rolled onto the passenger side and was righted. Might have been a near miss, might have been a hit with a solid (nonexploding) object, might have been an ordinary collision.

So, does anyone still believe the mortar story? Just curious.

The press says magic mortar, I believe magic mortar. Say has that guy got a mustard stain...

Given the cause of the wars over there, perhaps greasy knoll is more apt. But thing I'm most curious about is -- is that even his van? For some reason, I get the impression that someone else had the accident; then these guys found the van and drove it away.

Why else would they be lying about the damage? I mean, other than the fact that ramming into a concrete abutment and squishing your passenger can be rather embarrasing.

-B

I found a picture of the same van from the front.