What's new
British Ordnance Collectors Network

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Vietnam era sensors - ADSID etc

US-Subs

US-Subs

ORDNANCE APPROVED/Premium Member
Ordnance approved
Premium Member
I've been working on this material for a while, I was recently asked by someone to explain a couple of details so I thought I'd do it as a new thread, plus offer up a couple of new acquisitions. As it turns out this is a major pain to research and find info on, and while progress is being made, it is in tiny increments.

The sensor program started out and had its peak during the Vietnam War under the "McNamera Line" an "electronic fence" created around S. Vietnam to track supplies and troop movement. The program was deeply shrounded in secrecy throughout the war and much of the documentation remains classified still today. This past summer I found a great document, or about a third of a great document, the remainder it turns out is still classified, and I am not getting anywhere yet with declassification or location of the rest of the document.

Research efforts are further complicated in that it is hard to identify what exactly I am searching for. The sensor program under the McN Line fell under a classified program called Igloo White. Igloo White divided into different sub-programs or replacement programs, such as Muscle Shoals, Duffle Bag, Commando Hunt, etc. If you don't know which program an item fell under or during then your search is done before you begin.

Research shows that the sensor program went through a continued massive expansion for many years. The sensors began as detectors of ground vibration, but soon expanded using Navy Sonabouy technology for sound detection, then into infrared detection and also magnetic detection. Sensors could be hand thrown from helicopter or aircraft, rack mounted on jets or released from dispensers. Versions were developed that were deployed from 155mm artillery and 81mm mortar, as well as a variety of hand emplaced sensors which later crossed over into a program which attempted to use them for perimeter defence at outposts and firebases.

To further complcate this, it seems that the program did not end with the war, but was very quietly redesignated and used for monitoring tunneling activity on the Korean DMZ.

Totally confused, I've reverted to gathering everything I find and slowly sorting it out by printing everything I can find into a document and slowly sorting it. At this point I have a dozen or so items in the collection, photographs of about 30 different items, and I have collected from documents and item dataplates nearly 40 different designations. ADSID, Microsid, Acoubouy, Arfbouy, PSID, Helosid, Commike, Spikebouy - makes my head hurt. So far I am sticking only to items that I have a hard reference on - a document or a photograph of an item.

I recently met someone who introduced himself by asking if I had ever heard of ADSIDs, because that was what he did during his time in the Marines - ! We have a meeting tonight and I am hoping for great enlightenment.

On a related subject, for a long time I've had a variation of the ADSID which has had me puzzled - the characteristic antenna is missing, and instead of the normal fins and drag plate it has a recycled set of fins for a WWII 90lb frag bomb - turned around backwards and welded in place. I was suspicious of this for a long time thinking that it might be a home-done experiment, but I recently picked up an item from Gunbroker which has the same fin assembly, but on a different sensor body and from a different part of the country. I have yet to see a description of either in any documents.

Here is a link to a previous thread where we discussed some of the ADSIDs type items, as well as a photo of my two using the 90lb bomb fins. Info anyone?

http://www.bocn.co.uk/vbforum/threads/85250-Unknown-rocket-missile?highlight=adsid

DSCN4088.jpgDSCN4089.jpg
 
I believe that these sensors you are showing were the same ones that were air dropped by "fast-movers" such as the F-4, F-105, F-111. In the early days when the Navy had the job to place these sensors along the trail and the McN Line they used modified P-2's. Most of these aircraft were lost because of the intense AAA. I would also imagine the same went with the use of the Jolly Greens and other helicopters or any other "slow movers." Thus the design of the fins made it allot safer to drop and still provide some decent accuracy with placement by the jets used to deliver them.

Here is a "declassified" portion of a CIA document that I have in my own archives:


IGLOO WHITE AND THE “ELECTRONIC BATTLEFIELD”​
The critical but elusive nature of targets along the Ho Chi Minh Trail prompted U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) officials to explore the application of new technology to the interdiction problem. The IGLOO WHITE program, a network of sensors and remote surveillance systems, emerged from an earlier DoD effort to create an electronic anti-infiltration system across the width of the demilitarized zone in South Vietnam and into Laos.​

During the lifetime of the program, which ran from 1966 to 1971, the United States spent approximately $1.7 billion to create a network of 20,000 battery powered sensors along the trail in Laos. The IGLOO WHITE system was vast. In the words of one Air Force officer, “[w]e wire[d] the HoChi Minh trail like a drugstore pinball machine and we plug[ged] it in every night.”

The most commonly employed sensors included• Acoubuoy, a sonar-like acoustic sensor dropped by parachute into the jungle canopy, had a transmission range of up to 30 miles and could detect vehicles at distances of more than 1000 yards and personnel as far away as 438 yards. Its camouflage was intended to give it the appearance of vegetation.• Air-Delivered Seismic Intrusion Detector (ADSID) resembled a lawn dart. It was reportedly the most durable and reliable of the IGLOO WHITE sensors. It was equipped with a self-destruct mechanism to prevent tampering or spoofing by the enemy.______________​

While the ADSID had a much shorter range than the Acoubuoy (109 yards for vehicles, 33 yards for personnel), improvements in its lithium battery gave it a longer useful life. Although usually delivered by air, the 25-lb sensor could also be hand emplaced.​

As with the other sensors placed along the trail, great care was given to the device’s camouflage. For example, its antenna, the only part of the device that was visible after it drilled into the ground, was made to resemble the stalks of weeds.•​
Mini-Seismic Intrusion Detector (MINISID), unlike other sensorsemployed along the trail, was specifically designed to be delivered and implanted by hand. The MINISID, as well as its smaller version, the MICROSID, was a personnel detection device that was often used in combination with the magnetic intrusion detector (MAGID). Combining sensors in this way improved the ability of individual sensors to detect different types of targets in a variety of ways, and reduced the number of false alarms.

Tactical aircraft and Navy OP-2E antisubmarine aircraft dropped strings of sensors along roads and trails. As vehicles or soldiers moved past the sensors, the devices would record “hits.” The data would then be transmitted to EC-121R aircraft, and, later in the life of the program, to unmanned QU-22B Pave Eagle planes continuously circling overhead. These aircraft, in turn, relayed the data to theInfiltration Surveillance Center (ISC) at the U.S. Air Force Base at Nakhon Phanom, Thailand. Inside the 200,000-sq-ft ISC building, IBM 360-65 computers—at the time, the world’s most powerful—recorded, stored and processed the information received from the______________​


The batteries initially lasted two weeks. Since it was impossible to replace the batteries by hand, new sensors had to be delivered when the batteries wore down. Given that the sensors initially cost $2145 each, it became critical to develop a longerlasting battery. Three years later, in 1970, the ADSID had a better battery, its unit cost had dropped to $975, and the U.S. military had become more efficient in placing them. As a result, the cost-per-sensor-per-day had dropped from $100 to less than $15.​
Another device, nicknamed TURDSID, was made to resemble dog excrement. However, after it was discovered that there were no dogs along the Ho Chi Minh Trail, the sensor was refashioned to resemble a piece of wood. A variety of other sensors detected such characteristics as body heat and the scent of human urine.​

sensors.​
Intelligence analysts searched for patterns in the processed data, and sought to determine the speed, location, and direction in which the trucks or enemy personnel were moving. Once this was achieved, FACs in Laos conveyed the target information they received to attack aircraft pilots. According to one estimate, the time between target acquisition and the delivery of ordnance was on average a mere five minutes, and in some cases, as short as two minutes.
This targeting information, however, was not precise. As General William G. Evans, an Air Force officer with responsibility for the so-called “electronic battlefield” in Southeast Asia, explained in1971.​

"We are not bombing a precise point on the ground with a point target bomb—we can’t determine each truck’s location that accurately with ground sensors, which are listening—not viewing—devices. Since we never actually “see” the trucks as point targets, we use area-type ordnance to cover the zone we know the trucks tobe in."​

The Air Force claimed that IGLOO WHITE had achieved great success in helping to interdict North Vietnamese truck convoys, the primary focus of the program. According to the Air Force, U.S. aircraft during the 1966–1967 period—before IGLOO WHITE becamefully operational—found 49,371 trucks along the Ho Chi Minh Trail and damaged or destroyed 10,472 of them. As the IGLOO WHITE system matured, the rate of destruction increased dramatically, according to the USAF. For the October 1970–May 1971 period, the service was claiming to have destroyed 25,000 trucks and damaged many more.​

These estimates, however, were highly controversial,______________​

At the time, the ISC was reportedly the largest building in Southeast Asia. The massive size was a function of the relatively bulky nature of the computers and the need to house vast amounts of data collected on the trail.​

The Vietnam Experience: Tools of War, Boston Publishing Company, Boston, MA, 1985. Editors of Boston Publishing Company, The Vietnam Experience: War in the Shadows, Boston Publishing Company, Boston, MA, 1988,

even within the Air Force. For example, according to a 1971 congressional study, service personnel in Laos believed that the truck kill figures should have been discounted by a factor of 30 percent. Regardless of the sophistication and speed of the IGLOO WHITE system, poor weather and rugged terrain made it difficult for pilots to hit the targets the sensors and computers had identified. Finally,despite DoD’s attempts to create tamper- and spoof-resistant sensors, it appears that the North Vietnamese were frequently able to destroy the devices (e.g., by shooting them out of trees), deactivate them by removing their batteries, or deceive them with tape recorded truck noises and bags of urine.
​
 
Last edited:
Jeff I belive what you have pictured on the left side was an early GSQ 141. That on and the GSQ 142 both had fins, but as the program progressed they fins were dropped. The finsal 4 main sensors used were the GSQ 126, 127, 141 and 142, though the 142 also had PISID sensors that troops on the ground could connect.

In everything I have discovered on these the arty models never made it very far and only the sensor as you sow made it. A couple opf them were used in combination with the electronic gravel mines, but for the most part they worked on vibration and noise. One of the problems I found was the same sensor could be called several different names, plus Igloo White and the other programs (if you read the doc's real close) was full of trying to adopt navy sonsbony and a lot of "we need somehting that will do this" which later some thought actually happened.

I know the current EODP is unclassified if you have access, I don't have it. But I do have a very very good write up on the 4 sensors I mentioned above.

You're right though chasing this subject is like chasing the gravel mine subject. There are so many rumors, so so many war stories - so many of which got into print and all of which are not true. But it was a project that developed several experimental models. If you want I'll start emailing what I have, but a lot of my docs are larger then 25 meg so it is hard to send those.

Mike
 
Guys, you are just scratching the surface. I've got a copy of the "Igloo White and the Electronic Battlefield", it was actually done by an academy student for his dissertation. He did a very good job, but at a very basic level. There are a so many misconceptions that muddy the water and slow research to a crawl, as you have to prove/disprove every non-formal document before you can accept any of the information. I've got photos of items from the US Air Force Museum that have data cards which are complete crap. internet source that are way off - very frustrating.

Mike you may be right about the bomb fins being used on early models, but the 60 series documents are pretty flimsy also. I'm currently sorting through around 50 test reports of different sensors and programs that mention sensors, they do not match well with the 60 series docs so far.

Part of the problem is that the sensor programs had two designations, the descriptive name and the sensor designation. Then unfortunately there were often numerous variations within that designation. In example, I may have an item photographed which is identified as an DSID (disposable hand-emplaced seismic intrusion detector). On paper I may have a report on the same device, but it is reported by its designation, which is the AN/GSQ-159(V). It can be weeks before I can make the connection that they are the same device. It gets worse in that there are the DSID I, II and III. Not sure about designations for each yet.

Likewise, as another example, I have so far identified designations for ADSID I, ADSID II, and ADSID III. Still a little confusing on which one is which. Just when I thought I understood, I've now found documents that explain that the ADSID I(S), ADSID I(N), and ADSID I(L) are for the short version, normal length version and long version - of the ADSID I. The ADSID III only has a short and normal, don't know on the ADSID II.

Not counting shorts longs etc, but just focusing on ADSID, SOSID, HELOSID, EDET etc I now have a list of 46 different designations. These are not variations, but major model differences. Of these the majority are air delivered, but three are artillery and 20 are hand emplaced. I still have others that I have anecdotal info or photos of and no reports. I'll break from this post and start a new one on my current search based on what I learned during my meeting last night.
 
I had a meeting with an individual last night that had identified that he was involved with ADSIDS as a Marine during the Vietnam War. As it turns out he was on the user end of the scale and had little to contibute from the technical side, but still some great info and he brought a present for the Bombatorium which is a really neat piece.

His contact with the program was pretty much limited to pitching things out of helicopters. By his description, ADSIDS and the dog-turds. By Dog-turds he is describing the "Transmitter, Peat Moss, T-1151 (V) US Q", better known as the dog-doo transmitter. This is another piece of the puzzle that is very confusing and buried in misunderstanding.

I have had one of these for many years, and do not completely understand its purpose or functioning. After a short check on the internet it would appear that no one else does either. This guy's description of tossing them out of a helicopter is the first time I have heard of any method of deploying them. I have no reports and while I know that they are a transmitter I do not know what makes them react and transmit. More puzzling is that there seems to be much more than one model. The same search on the internet will show versions that do actually look like peat moss. Then there are variations which have a dark gray appearance, as mine does. More surprising is that they change shape. Mins is sort of a dog-leg affair, with an angular bend part way down. Others are straight, and a third version is smaller and more square. It also appears that all the variations contain the exact same transmitter, because all keep the same designation (T-1151). The national stock number shown however, changes.

I'm attaching pictures of several examples. First is the peat moss version from a museum display, then one which was for sale showing an Xray above it. The third is from the AF Museum collection, they state on their website that "This transmitter is a homing beacon that sends out a signal to those monitoring an indicator of someone in need of rescue. It is camouflaged to resemble the excrement of a medium size dog or other animal. (U.S. Air Force photo). doesn't seem likely, but better than the description that I found stating that it is used to send and receive, usually in Morse code. Fourth is my piece in the dark gray dog-leg shape, followed by the "chip" version, located at the Air Force Armament Museum. Finally the new addition, a full sheet of the blister-packed straight gray version, which gives me a formal designation and stock number.


dog-poop-radio.jpgpost-214-1297039594.jpg120126-F-DW547-006.jpgDSCN4104.jpgRadio Transmitter T-1151.jpgDSCN4099.jpgDSCN4101.jpg
 
Jeff I totally understand what yuo are saying and I am aggreing, infact you bring out several points that I did. You make a good point too that the sensor devices go far from just the ASIDS, etc, and that there were aircraft delivered and hand emplaced. One of the documents I have says the dog truds were all hand emplaced by specops, mainly becasue too many truds on the trail would cause questions to be asked. You pics also pretty much confirm what I read. As for the rescue becon, even with all the secret squirrel stuff it doesn't pass the common sense question, but I thnk you agree there.

I just went over the paper I had on the aur dropped sensors and see I never completed it, I'll try to do that in the morning and send you a copy - but it only address the actual airdropped senosrs and not tthe supporting signal devices (truds, gravel etc)

And right I also agree the 60's can be questionable, but then they only address items that have explosive components, the air delivered had SD (or some did) so that is why we ahve an EODP on them. R|The rest of the items in question will only be found. I have the elecronic battle field book in my library, the author did a good job on it.

take care, this is another Holy Grail type search. One error I mae early on, I read the reports out of time sequence, when I realized how con fused the reading was is when I realized I had been reading Igloo and Commando reports out that were in one case years ealier and in 2 cases years further hten what I hand previous read.
 
Under the Project Checo - there are more then a dozen different reports, I have located 10 of them the other 2 or 3 are not in digital format yet. Checo actually covered a number of projects like commandao, Trucott white, etc it's a large read and can be real confusing as it contradicts itself several times when you read all of them in order
 
US-Subs said:
I'm attaching pictures of several examples. First is the peat moss version from a museum display, then one which was for sale showing an Xray above it. The third is from the AF Museum collection, they state on their website that "This transmitter is a homing beacon that sends out a signal to those monitoring an indicator of someone in need of rescue. It is camouflaged to resemble the excrement of a medium size dog or other animal. (U.S. Air Force photo). doesn't seem likely, but better than the description that I found stating that it is used to send and receive, usually in Morse code. Fourth is my piece in the dark gray dog-leg shape, followed by the "chip" version, located at the Air Force Armament Museum. Finally the new addition, a full sheet of the blister-packed straight gray version, which gives me a formal designation and stock number.


View attachment 74435View attachment 74436View attachment 74437View attachment 74438View attachment 74439View attachment 74440View attachment 74441
Click to expand...


I've come up with an identification finally, after digging through nearly 60 Vietnam era test documents on sensors, sensor deployment etc. It is not the full, clean technical document I would wish for, but it will do for now.

To understand it you first need to recognize that much of our early sensor development was taken from previously existing Navy Sonobuoys. Sonobuoys are used by the Navy to pick up sounds from underwater targets, primarily submarines. Sensor developers during the war modified existing sonobuoys with a standard microphone, attached a parachute and renamed it Acoubuoy. This grew into Commike, Acousid, etc. The intent was that the parachute would hang up in the jungle canopy and these systems could be used to support seismic signals from Adsid etc. Later versions were developed that could drive into the ground in areas where there was no jungle to snag parachutes (Spikesid, etc). All of these went through various stages of development, referred to as Phase I, II, or III.

Phase I and some phase II variants were not commandable, meaning that a method was needed to activate the microphone. For this they turned to the gravel mines. Two specific designs of gravel mines were developed, generally referred to as button bombs. One design used a pyrotechnic mixture to give a firecracker-like report when stepped on. The second was electronic in nature and emitted a loud squeal when stepped on. Either was specifically intended to activate the microphones. Later versions (phase III) were commandable and could be turned off or on remotely when Adsids signaled ground vibration.

Eventually the technology was adapted into a system for use by ground forces, which was hand emplaced. One aspect of this was given the designation of Arfbuoy (automatic radio frequency buoy). The Arfbuoy could be hung in a tree with its antenna extended. Once it received a signal it would retransmit to a receiving station. As a component of the Arfbuoy system a series of small transmitters were developed with the same purpose as the earlier button bombs. When stepped on or disturbed, a switch in the transmitter would close, sending out a signal to the Arfbuoy. These were the T-1151 transmitters, identified as NBBs, or "noiseless button bombs".

So far I have been able to identify six different models of the NBBs; straight stick clay, straight stick peat, bent stick clay and peat and chip clay and peat. All have the same transmitter designation but different stock numbers.

As the T-1151 was a component of a larger system, we may never find a good descriptive document covering the tranmitters themselves, but I think we are now much further ahead then previously. I've attached the only diagrams I've found for the systems.

Thanks to webereod for his contributions which helped to lead the way.


1a.jpg1b.jpg1c.jpg
 
Don't know about the McNamara Line, 1 ATF used them tactically, not much use of airdropped, hand emplaced was the norm, usually in complimentary strings of sensor (seismic, acousting, magnetic) types to minimise false interpretations from fals alarms (although eletric storms and heli tende to cause bother). Including disguised acoustic devices left in VC bunker systems by SF (the famous conversation of a couple of VC discussing the future mother in law of one of them). Or carefully placed alongside tracks (not usually done by SF), again secrecy agaisnt 'normal troops' bit back, operators listening to a couple of RAE cbt engr mini team guys discussing this strange metal box the infantry had found and destroying it as a suspected mine.

Then there were the wire connected devices sometimes used to provided early warning of approaching VC to the waiting ambush. THe UK Classic (IIRC) system was also issued for local defence purposes (seismic snsors only), I remember having a couple of sets.

Of course rumour has it that devices used in the SE Asia UGS system were also used by UK in NI in the 1970s.
 
Gunnerwho? said:
Then there were the wire connected devices sometimes used to provided early warning of approaching VC to the waiting ambush. THe UK Classic (IIRC) system was also issued for local defence purposes (seismic snsors only), I remember having a couple of sets.

Of course rumour has it that devices used in the SE Asia UGS system were also used by UK in NI in the 1970s.
Click to expand...


A great many of the sensors were adapted or developed for use by small ground units, from firebase size to individual patrols. I have so far found reference to 94 different models (air and ground), and some references go further to state that as many as 17 different sub-"types" exist for one model alone. The ground emplaced sensors were much more than just seismic, with seismic, acoustic, magnetic, infrared, optical and even one popular design called "balanced pressure" (think 1970s gas station in the US, you drive over the air line on aproach and get the "ding-ding" that summoned the attendent).

The sensor program never stopped with the war, but became even more specialized. While documents become more scarce (still classified) there are references to several of the seismic units being adapted for tunnel interdiction in Korea. In addition, while the Vietnam era sensors went through the 3 common phases of advancement, I was able to locate on document on a suspension rack for a Phase V Adsid. That document was dated 1992. Use in NI in the 70s-80s would seem right in line and appropriate for the time.
 
Then there are the sensors used today along our borders also.
So to be clear, Button Bombs, these were actually sensors?
 
Components of a sensor system. In effect, the on-off switch.
 
Last edited:
To be clear the button bomblets Jeff referred to were sensor transmitters, however the term button bomblet was also adopted and used with the gravel mines (the AP versions). This is an example where terms get mixed up and then the confusion sets in.

In the 308 Special Purpose Devices, the SpecOps manufactured boobytraps, there was also a long (measure tape like in apperance) pressure switch. It was close to 6' long. Don't know if it was ever used with sensors but was the same idea place across trails and wait for someone to step on or truck to roll over.
 
weberoed said:
To be clear the button bomblets Jeff referred to were sensor transmitters,
Click to expand...

Close, but I would say technically incorrect Mike. They were transmitters true, but only for activation of the sensor itself, to activate it and start it "listening". Once activated it is the sensor tranmitter, sending the audio signal back for collection. The T-1151s only turn it on, nothing more.
 
Actually I don't think there were a lot of different systems introduced as platoon, etc warning devices. And I was wrong, it wasn't RACAL Classic (which became available in the early 1970s), but an earlier device whose name escapes me.

The IR fence seemed to good in theory but not terribly effective in practice, fiddly to set up, battery life limitations and the need for a clear line of sight without vegetation interfering was easier said than done in jungle with concealment without leaving signs of vegetation clearance.
 
Gunnerwho? said:
Actually I don't think there were a lot of different systems introduced as platoon, etc warning devices.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on what you consider a lot. Digging through the documents I am frequently not able to get a match between a full description/diagram of an item and its designation, so I have been logging every designation that I can find, later matching them with their model number and diagram or photo as it comes available (HANDSID is the AN/GSQ-132 etc). At this point, staying with Vietnam era sensors, I now have designations for 51 different models. These are designated as "hand emplaced", which includes squad, platoon and larger (firebase etc). Without full descriptions I am not able to say in each case which are for small units and which are for larger elements, but it would clearly seem to be a larger number than previously thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top