Superbomb Mystery: The Herrhausen

Assassination

What's the connection between the murder of a

German banker 20 years ago and the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan?
It's all to do with terrorist technology and explosively formed penetrators (aka, "superbombs"), the insurgent's
deadliest weapon against armored vehicles.
Many have pointed out the similarity of attacks in Iraq to the method used to assassinate Alfred Herrhausen in
Germany on November 30, 1989. Herrhausen was the head of Germany's biggest bank, Deutsche Bank – and
an obvious target for the Red Army Faction (RAF) terrorist group.
Herrhausen was in a bullet-proof Mercedes limousine, the middle car of a three-vehicle convoy, with
bodyguards ahead and behind. The RAF planned their attack well, planting their bomb in a satchel on a bicycle
parked beside the route. The bomb was linked to an infrared beam, which terrorists posing as workmen had set
up across the road.
The terrorists allowed the lead car through, and then activated the beam. When Herrhausen's car broke the
beam, the bomb went off. It consisted of ten kilos of explosive and a two-kilo copper plate, aimed so that it
would strike the passenger seat.
The metal pierced the armored limo and Herrhausen was wounded in the legs; he bled to death shortly
afterwards, before medical assistance arrived.
The RAF device which killed Herrhausen is generally described as a platter charge, rather than an Iraq-style
EFP. That's because the RAF are not thought to have had the skill to produce an EFP. By contrast, a platter
charge is a much cruder form of improvised explosive device. An Army field manual describes:
The platter charge consists of a suitable container that is filled with uniformly packed
explosive and placed behind a platter. The platter is metal (preferably round, but square is
satisfactory) and weighs 1 to 3 kilograms. The explosive required is equal to the weight of
the platter. The container may not be necessary if the explosive can be held firmly against
the platter (tape can be used). The charge should be primed from the exact rear center,
and the blasting cap should be completely covered with a small amount of C4 to ensure
detonation.
The charge should be aimed at the direct center of the target. The effective range (primarily a matter of aim) is
approximately 35 meters for a small target. With practice, experienced personnel can hit a 55-gallon drum (a relatively small
target) at 25 meters with about 90 percent accuracy.

As the manual indicates, anyone can assemble a platter charge – and it requires no special materials.
An EFP is a little different. It's a form of shaped charge which employs a shallow metal dish called a liner. This
usually made of copper, which is engineered to a very specific shape. The blast deforms this into an
aerodynamic slug, with longer range but less penetrating power than a standard shaped charge. (Normal shaped
charges fire a very narrow but high velocity jet of metal over a very short range with superior armor-piercing
properties.)
However, there are a couple of question marks over the platter charge theory. One is that a platter charge would
usually have more equal weights of explosive and metal, whereas the RAF weapon was about four to one.
Another is that the flying platter is not supposed to deform, so it is usually a thick plate of steel or other hard
metal. A soft metal like copper is much more consistent with an EFP.
The RAF also released a communiquéstating:
" mit einer selbstgebauten Hohlladungsmine haben wir seinen gepanzerten Mercedes
gesprengt"

("We blew up his armoured Mercedes with a hollow charge mine of our own making.")
The term used, *Hohlladungsmine *or *"hollow charge mine" *is a specific technical expression for a shaped
charge. It would be an odd way of describing a platter charge. But it would make perfect sense for an EFP.
The idea that the RAF had access to relatively sophisticated weapons has led to theories that they had
assistance – possibly from the East German Stasi who had their own reasons for wanting Herrhausen dead.
I checked with Professor Manfred Held, perhaps best known as the inventor of reactive armor, and an expert in
the field of shaped charges.

Prof. Held explained that there is no straight distinction between platter charges, EFPs and shaped charges: it is
simply a matter of the angle of the liner. A liner angle of 40 degrees – a narrow cone – will produce a shaped
charge jet. An. angle of 140 degrees (a very wide cone) will produce a slug. A platter charge is simply the
effect of a liner angle of 180 degrees (that is, a flat plate). The shape of slug produced by differernt angles a
few microseconds after detonation is illustrated at left.

Markiplier Answers the Web's Most Searched Questions

Given the size of the RAF device, Prof. Held says that it would have required no great skill. With that amount
of metal and explosive it would easily have penetrated the relatively thin armor of the limo even if the design
was not a well-designed, optimized EFP.
Fast forward to the present day. Insurgents in Iraq and now Afghanistan are using EFPs on a regular basis.
Some claim that the liners come from Iran, but no hard evidence of this has appeared, and EFP facilities
making them have been discovered in Iraq. One of the interesting features is that they do not appear to be
uniform; judging from the pictures they range from the size of coffee-cans to the size of buckets. Much bigger
EFPs the size of garbage cans have been found, but not yet used.
This indicates that the threat is an evolving one and that there is not one standard model of EFP. These really
are improvised explosive devices rather than off-the-shelf ones. Armor which provides adequate protection this
year will not necessarily stop next years EFP Version 3.0.
Terrorists can be resourceful, and learn fast. They do not necessarily need the help of outside agencies, even
when assembling EFP-type devices. And they can develop techniques to overcome countermeasures, whether
it's bullet-proof car and a squad of bodyguards or the latest in mine-resistant vehicles. They can only be
defeated by shifting tactics and developing equipment faster than they can.

(Top photo: U.S. Army; Shaped charge diagram: EADS)