>Bill Guy, a former professor at the University of Washington who has also published on the microwave auditory effect, agrees. ”There couldn’t possibly be a hazard from the sound, because the heat would get you first,” Guy says.

>Guy says that experiments have demonstrated that radiation at 40 microjoules per pulse per square centimeter produces sound at zero decibels, which is just barely in hearing range. To produce sound at 60 decibels, or the sound of normal conversation, requires 40 watts per square centimeter of radiation. ”That would kill you pretty fast,” Guy says. Producing an unpleasant sound, at about 120 decibels, would take 40 million W/cm2 of energy. One milliwatt per square centimeter is considered to be the safety threshold.

Source: https://spectrum.ieee.org/why-microwave-auditory-effect-crow...

It's true that this was almost 20 years ago and, who knows, maybe it was just a cover-up, but if the math is right and those soldiers weren't subjected to a lot of heat, this explanation could be ruled out.

Then again, if you have truly built a portable high-powered microwave weapon (assuming it is truly portable and not just something you stick on a helicopter), you can easily add a couple of directional speakers using standard LRAD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-range_acoustic_device) technology. It's just a question of packaging and maybe some extra cable shielding.

Additionally, we cannot discount the possibility that there were two different weapons. One with a longer range and dealing with radars and missile systems (HPM?) and another, possibly more "conventional", with a shorter range to incapacitate soldiers. After all, AFAIK, US military disabled radars before descending on the ground (which makes sense), so you can disable radars from hundres of meters/ some kilometers away, while close-quarter combat can happen at shorter ranges.

The "known" technique of eliminating radar sites is our HARM missles.

Without radar, the missles don't have data to know where to go