namgrunt 0 #51 January 13, 2009 air burst WP 155mm have silver dollar size discs soaked in phorphrus that ignight on contact with air generate a lot of smoke and burn off anythinf that can burn such as brush also will chase you out of a trench in Viet Nam we called in mix of HE point det. and air burst WP got them up and running and the HE did the killing59 YEARS,OVERWEIGHT,BALDIND,X-GRUNT LAST MIL. JUMP VIET-NAM(QUAN-TRI) www.dzmemories.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #52 January 14, 2009 Quote and im sorry but the israelies are not using these for smoke cover, they are using it to fuck people up, you can use smoke grenades and whatnot for smoke cover I'm going to concur in spirit w/Mike [Mnealtx] and [happythoughs], if not in specific verbiage or strategic reasoning. I'm curious on what basis you make your assertion? Unique technical capability of WP? Tactical utility? Strategic intent? For what purpose does the US maintain capability to employ WP? I doubt you would argue that it is for the use you described above, correct? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LaRusic 0 #53 January 14, 2009 QuoteQuoteand im sorry but the israelies are not using these for smoke cover, they are using it to fuck people up, you can use smoke grenades and whatnot for smoke cover Bullshit - if you're wanting to 'fuck people up' there's much better choices than WP. you kidding? white phosphorus burns and the only way to put it out is to dig it out of your skin if it hits. These do crazy ammounts of damage to anyone hit with them. I have no problems with using the air burst rounds agaisnt a specific enemy but they are using them in a heavly civilian populated area. There are much better tactics that can be used like moving under the cover of darkness, or smoke screen. a smoke screen is a smoke screen, you arent going to get sniper fire through a wp smoke anymore then regular smoke, WP burns very bright and is likely more blinding to a sniper anyway. Im not saying im against what isreal is doing, i think they have the right to defend themselves, i just think that a better choice in weapons can be used to minimize civilian casualties.The Altitude above you, the runway behind you, and the fuel not in the plane are totally worthless Dudeist Skydiver # 10 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #54 January 14, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote See this type of picture alot. Look like a particularly nasty indiscriminate type of ordinance. Makes a mockery of Israel's claims to be trying to avoid civillian casualties. Artillery is much more accurate than the unguided missiles that Hamas has been lobbing over by the thousands into Israel, while using innocents as human shields. Where's the mockery? Although I have no time for the "Israel has no right to defend itself because the Palestinian children are in the way" argument, I do think this is an error on Israel's part both morally and from a PR standpoint. As you said earlier WP is indicated for strictly military targets (what munitions aren't). They have the power, and the the obligation, to achieve their goals with less collateral damage. They should pursue those options. The civilian victims of WP will be on display to the world for years to come. Remember the little Vietnamese girl running down the road with the napalm burns? I was ten years old when that TIME was published but the image was indelibly burned into my consciousness (mine and about a billion other people's). There is a picture of a little Palestinian girl out there waiting to be taken. When it is the effect upon world opinion will matter. The Israelis like to say world opinion doesn't matter, but it does. If Israel had any real "friends" to worry about, I'd agree. However, they have no publicity to win in this. Every surrounding nation hates Israel. Hamas has been playing a very good PR game. It's not new for Western Europe to criticize Israel's tactics, and there isn't a significant cry coming from the US, so it doesn't really matter. You played right into it. Those shells are targeted. The rockets that Hamas fires are not. Israel could hire all of Madison Avenue for a new PR campaign and it wouldn't matter. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LaRusic 0 #55 January 14, 2009 QuoteQuote and im sorry but the israelies are not using these for smoke cover, they are using it to fuck people up, you can use smoke grenades and whatnot for smoke cover I'm going to concur in spirit w/Mike [Mnealtx] and [happythoughs], if not in specific verbiage or strategic reasoning. I'm curious on what basis you make your assertion? Unique technical capability of WP? Tactical utility? Strategic intent? For what purpose does the US maintain capability to employ WP? I doubt you would argue that it is for the use you described above, correct? VR/Marg I have no idea why the US maintains to use it. They, along with isreal and several other countrys are not part of protocol III that bans the use of it, Canada, which is the army im part of, has a ban on it. edit to include: Its the same idea as landmines, they cant tell the difference between civilian and military target but people, including the US, have not signed into that part of the geneva convention and can still use them. The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, not the Chemical Weapons Convention, goes on, in its Protocol III, to prohibit the use of all air-delivered incendiary weapons against civilian populations, or for indiscriminate incendiary attacks against military forces co-located with civilians.[32] However, that protocol also specifically excludes weapons whose incendiary effects are secondary, such as smoke grenades. This has often been read as excluding white phosphorus munitions from this protocol, as well. edit to include: With respect to Protocol III, it is the understanding of the Government of Canada that the expression "clearly separated" in paragraph 3 of article 2 includes both spatial separation or separation by means of an effective physical barrier between the military objective and the concentration of civilians."The Altitude above you, the runway behind you, and the fuel not in the plane are totally worthless Dudeist Skydiver # 10 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #56 January 14, 2009 QuoteQuoteFor what purpose does the US maintain capability to employ WP? I doubt you would argue that it is for the use you described above, correct? I have no idea why the US maintains to use it. The US and other states maintain WP within arsenals due to capabilities that WP affords - in terms of ability to act as an illuminant and at the same time, ability to generate smoke, better than almost anything else, especially for the cost, utility, and delivery mechanism. As Mike noted there are much more effective mechanisms for what you describe as the speculated purpose. Quote This has often been read as excluding white phosphorus munitions from this protocol, as well. Yes, it is one of the interpretations. One held by many nations. US policy is different. Agree with it or disagree, that is the policy. The US has also not signed the Ottawa Treaty (aka the Land Mine Ban). Again one can agree or disagree, it's still US policy. Whether and why, I personally agree or disagree with either is another discussion. When WP has been used recently, there have been (incorrect) criticisms that it is a CW and therefore should be banned (i.e., the question of why some assert it should be banned back on page 1 of this thread) ... probably more along those lines than the international law disagreements regarding discriminate v indiscriminate usage and incendiary use, e.g., Gaza (2009) "White Phosphorous: Israel Uses Chemical Weapons" "Fallujah by the Sea: Aping America, Israel Unleashes Chemical Weapons in Gaza" "White Phosphorus is considered a chemical weapon by most governments around the world" "Iran denounces Israeli use of chemical weapons in Gaza Lebanon & Gaza (2006) "Israel used chemical weapons in Lebanon and Gaza" (that one's from Canada) "As a CW, phosphorus would become a clearly illegal weapon" Fallujah/Iraq "Did the US military use chemical weapons in Iraq?" "US intelligence classified white phosphorus as 'chemical weapon'" "The US used chemical weapons in Iraq - and then lied about it" ... Once we disabuse that notional idea (which is what you seem to be missing as one of the calls for WP to be banned), then one can start addressing does use violate other international laws, e.g., the CCCW. (Btw: earlier discussions on indiscriminate weapons here and Hague Conventions here. They come up every now & then in a variety of contexts.) If I'm understanding your argument correctly (which may be a poor assumption), in order for it to be violation of CCCW, it has to be used as an intentional incendiary disproportionately impacting civilians. (Just for clarification: I can construct a robust argument either way; with which argument I concur is less relevent at the moment.) How does that connect to your earlier assertion, or is it coincidental: Quote and im sorry but the israelies are not using these for smoke cover, they are using it to fuck people up, you can use smoke grenades and whatnot for smoke cover I'm (still) curious on what basis you make that assertion? Specific reports? Unique technical capability of WP? Tactical utility? Strategic intent? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LaRusic 0 #57 January 14, 2009 "I'm (still) curious on what basis you make that assertion?" Personal opinion, im allowed to have it I dont have any proof that Israel was using it just to fuck with hamas I agree WP is not a chemical weapon, chemical weapons do something to effect the nervous system IE burning it from the inside out. WP burns from the outside in. I know the US amongst other countrys have not signed on to ban these weapons, they want to still use them for a tactical advantage. I personally dont agree with them in situations that would put civlians at unnessisary risk. I believe that WP is has its place to be used, i just think, again personal opinion, that this was a poor place to use it due to the risk of civilian casualty. Its the way i have been trained to think and from what i see and read i believe that this was used indiscriminatly. BTW Nerdgirl, im very impressed by ur knowledge of the geneva, hague, and UN charters etc....not a lot of people care to know this stuff, forcing me to think about those military law classes i sat through a few years ago haha The Altitude above you, the runway behind you, and the fuel not in the plane are totally worthless Dudeist Skydiver # 10 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #58 January 14, 2009 Quote "I'm (still) curious on what basis you make that assertion?" Personal opinion, im allowed to have it I dont have any proof that Israel was using it just to fuck with hamas Yep, that was all I was asking. Quote I agree WP is not a chemical weapon, chemical weapons do something to effect the nervous system IE burning it from the inside out. WP burns from the outside in. Sort of ... & we were doing so good Quote BTW Nerdgirl, im very impressed by ur knowledge of the geneva, hague, and UN charters etc....not a lot of people care to know this stuff, forcing me to think about those military law classes i sat through a few years ago haha One of the most effective tactical skills that the military teaches *from a policy perspective* is that one has to know the authoritative basis on which one speaks and acts: departmentally, domestically, and internationally. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LaRusic 0 #59 January 14, 2009 Quote I agree WP is not a chemical weapon, chemical weapons do something to effect the nervous system IE burning it from the inside out. WP burns from the outside in. Sort of ... & we were doing so good Was just trying to put it in a simplified form, nuclear, biological and chemical weapons target the nervous system and have a specific function where as WP just kinda burns through everything...WP as a chemical weapons has been argued lots, i tend to side on the one that says it is not. Quote BTW Nerdgirl, im very impressed by ur knowledge of the geneva, hague, and UN charters etc....not a lot of people care to know this stuff, forcing me to think about those military law classes i sat through a few years ago haha One of the most effective tactical skills that the military teaches *from a policy perspective* is that one has to know the authoritative basis on which one speaks and acts: departmentally, domestically, and internationally. VR/Marg How true, knowing the policies that govern you is very important. I keep telling people that i work with that the military law course is a great course to have, you learn a lot that is very useful in day to day operations and could save your ass some day. and here i though i could just blast my opinions and not back em up, damn people making me thing The Altitude above you, the runway behind you, and the fuel not in the plane are totally worthless Dudeist Skydiver # 10 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #60 January 14, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteand im sorry but the israelies are not using these for smoke cover, they are using it to fuck people up, you can use smoke grenades and whatnot for smoke cover Bullshit - if you're wanting to 'fuck people up' there's much better choices than WP. you kidding? white phosphorus burns and the only way to put it out is to dig it out of your skin if it hits. These do crazy ammounts of damage to anyone hit with them. I have no problems with using the air burst rounds agaisnt a specific enemy but they are using them in a heavly civilian populated area. There are much better tactics that can be used like moving under the cover of darkness, or smoke screen. a smoke screen is a smoke screen, you arent going to get sniper fire through a wp smoke anymore then regular smoke, WP burns very bright and is likely more blinding to a sniper anyway. Im not saying im against what isreal is doing, i think they have the right to defend themselves, i just think that a better choice in weapons can be used to minimize civilian casualties. Unlikely many Americans will agree with you as they used WP in Falluja against similar targets.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #61 January 14, 2009 QuoteHamas has been playing a very good PR game. It's not new for Western Europe to criticize Israel's tactics, and there isn't a significant cry coming from the US, so it doesn't really matter. Unfortunatly the western european countries just pay lip service to their concerns. QuoteYou played right into it. Those shells are targeted. The rockets that Hamas fires are not. Israel could hire all of Madison Avenue for a new PR campaign and it wouldn't matter. Come off it Max, I don't agree with shelling civillians in Israel or in Gaza. Targeted is a very very loose term with these kind of munitions in built up areas as well you know.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #62 January 14, 2009 QuoteQuoteHamas has been playing a very good PR game. It's not new for Western Europe to criticize Israel's tactics, and there isn't a significant cry coming from the US, so it doesn't really matter. Unfortunatly the western european countries just pay lip service to their concerns. That doesn't mean that it doesn't matter. QuoteQuoteYou played right into it. Those shells are targeted. The rockets that Hamas fires are not. Israel could hire all of Madison Avenue for a new PR campaign and it wouldn't matter. Come off it Max, I don't agree with shelling civillians in Israel or in Gaza. Targeted is a very very loose term with these kind of munitions in built up areas as well you know. It wasn't me that said: QuoteMakes a mockery of Israel's claims to be trying to avoid civillian casualties. Do not underestimate how accurate artillery can be. With the right forward observers, rounds can hit within 50m, well within effective range to affect its intended targets. Even "The Economist" said this week, "Hizbullah and Hamas, armed by Iran with some modern weapons, can burrow inside the towns and villages of their own people while lobbing rockets at Israel's." The mere fact that these clowns use human shields to advance an empty agenda is reason enough to take them out in my view.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #63 January 14, 2009 Although I am pro Palestinian I am not pro Hamas. I have no problem with Israel going after them after all if you prod the dog in the bollocks ofetn enough don't be suprised when it turns around and bites you. Getting rid of Hamas (who are spreading hatred of Jews) isn't something I have a problem with. However, airburst WP ordinance that covers a area of a city block in a civillian area is indiscriminate no matter how well placed.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zoom1 0 #64 January 14, 2009 these are not illumination rounds ,lum. rounds are a flame that is rigged to a small chute so it drops slowly. this is w.p. (willy peter) it comes in all kinds of rounds .while at ait to become a 19e(tank crewman) you are taught what ord you can use on personal, w.p. is not to be used on personal, only for smoke or marking for an air strike. w.p. is the worst like someone said you have to dig it out of you or pack it with mud it will keep burning under water as it can use the oxygen in it to keep burning. a thermite grenade is what you use to melt barrels and stuff, it burns hot enough to melt steel, on a tank you put the thermite on the turret over the ammo rack, after a few minites it will melt through the turret and drop on the ammo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #65 January 14, 2009 Quotelum. rounds are a flame that is rigged to a small chute so it drops slowly. Not always. Ever heard of a star cluster?If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LaRusic 0 #66 January 14, 2009 QuoteDo not underestimate how accurate artillery can be. With the right forward observers, rounds can hit within 50m, well within effective range to affect its intended targets. with the M777 artillery is even more accurate. with a conventional round can hit a target within 5m from 20km away and can hit a target within 5m from 40km with an excaliber round.....very sweet piece of kitThe Altitude above you, the runway behind you, and the fuel not in the plane are totally worthless Dudeist Skydiver # 10 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #67 January 14, 2009 Quote and here i though i could just blast my opinions and not back em up, damn people making me thing Yes, you will find that here. It's a good thing, imo. I'm almost always curious regarding the epistemology -- how one thinks one knows what one thinks one knows -- and the process folks use to come to the conclusions they assert. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LaRusic 0 #68 January 14, 2009 Quote Yes, you will find that here. It's a good thing, imo. Sometimesyou will always get the "im right because your wrong arugments" they are entertaining The Altitude above you, the runway behind you, and the fuel not in the plane are totally worthless Dudeist Skydiver # 10 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 34 #69 January 14, 2009 Quote Quote Yes, you will find that here. It's a good thing, imo. Sometimesyou will always get the "im right because your wrong arugments" they are entertaining Kinda like these? "Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #70 January 14, 2009 I actually agree with your opinion on Israel's usage of the WP rounds. There is probably a number of reason they are using those specific rounds and I'm sure smoke is one of them. However there is also the result of the damaged caused which has a terrorizing affect on it's intended target as well as potential for taking out any equipment. We are kidding ourselves if we think the WP rounds are only intended to blind the target with smoke IMO. That being said...there are far more destructive civilian casualty causing methods in Israel's repertoire and perhaps they think WP is the method that will cause the least.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Para_Frog 1 #71 January 14, 2009 Sent a detailed operational explanation (current) to the OP vis-a-vis WP. Edit: No Mike - It's not ICM. PM me and I'll send you a video of what ICM looks like when it goes off. Different animal. I forwarded it to Marg. Anyone feel free to PM me.- Harvey, BASE 1232 TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA BLiNC Magazine Team Member Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #72 January 14, 2009 QuoteSent a detailed operational explanation (current) to the OP vis-a-vis WP. Edit: No Mike - It's not ICM. PM me and I'll send you a video of what ICM looks like when it goes off. Different animal. I forwarded it to Marg. Anyone feel free to PM me. Hey Frog - that was the 'best fit' I could think of with the multiple trail seen in the burst.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve1 5 #73 January 14, 2009 Quotea thermite grenade is what you use to melt barrels and stuff, it burns hot enough to melt steel, on a tank you put the thermite on the turret over the ammo rack, after a few minites it will melt through the turret and drop on the ammo I watched a thermite grenade burn through an engine block once. It took seconds for it to burn through that much steel. Very impressive! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LaRusic 0 #74 January 14, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Yes, you will find that here. It's a good thing, imo. Sometimesyou will always get the "im right because your wrong arugments" they are entertaining Kinda like these? exactally hahaThe Altitude above you, the runway behind you, and the fuel not in the plane are totally worthless Dudeist Skydiver # 10 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #75 January 15, 2009 QuoteI'm almost always curious regarding the epistemology VR/Marg It's done to avoid tearing during childbirth. I'm surprised you don't know that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
