What type of weapons are these

sink

These are going off all over Gaza and there are many varying opinions on what they are.



Many think they are cluster bombs but I'm almost certain they are not. For one cluster bombs don't burn white hot nor do they leave smoke trails like that and generally they explode when they hit the ground.

Based on a few photos and news footage I think they are some form of incendiary artillery shells which air burst over their target but another possibility is the are simply countermeasures which deploy at a certain altitude.

What are the opinions of you guys?

Nick_oliveri

Sorry to stalk you from politics, but is it just coincidental that there are explosions in an area of the far left?

Poccington

It seems to be the M825 Projectile that's launched from their 155's.

It's basically an airburst munition that causes a smokescreen using WP. The projectile detonates in the air, sending fragments of WP into the ground and once the fragments embed into the ground, each fragment starts to release smoke.


Just thought I'd bring it over from Politics

sink

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Sorry to stalk you from politics, but is it just coincidental that there are explosions in an area of the far left?

They don't look like explosions they look like burning incendiary.

Ciaran500

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Sorry to stalk you from politics, but is it just coincidental that there are explosions in an area of the far left?

That could make sense, would fit in with what IRISH_RAIL was saying about being counter measures.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58461884&postcount=972

arybvtcw0eolkf

Its been a few years since I've seen cluster bombs used, and I'm not an artillary man so my guess is wild at best.

But I'd say its White Phosphorus fired from M119 155mm SP guns. Horrible shuff altogether.

I'd be confident in saying its not any kind of cluster munitions.

IRISH RAIL

sink wrote: »

They don't look like explosions they look like burning incendiary.

that looks more like the thermite version
heres imi`s site
http://www.imi-israel.com/ProductsFamily.aspx?FolderID=52

but it should be noted that here and Israel-weapons.com links dont seem to be working for the specs of the weapons.

Nick_oliveri

Not surprised tbh. Thanks for the confirmation.

IRISH RAIL

Just another point on this a report from the GSS said they believe hamas have control of 7 strella aa missiles, personally I think its a bit of overkill on the cm side of things.

sink

Here I found a good video that looks identical to what I saw on the news. White Phosphorus Artillery Shells.

Several rounds of M825A1 burst over the city during the battle...

Operation Phantom Fury, Second Battle of Fallujah in November 2004.

Poccington

sink wrote: »

Here I found a good video that looks identical to what I saw on the news. White Phosphorus Artillery Shells.

Several rounds of M825A1 burst over the city during the battle...

Operation Phantom Fury, Second Battle of Fallujah in November 2004.

That's her.

They're used to develop smokescreens, which is why you can see the WP burning when it hits the ground.

sink

Here is Janes article on them for anyone interested.

http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jah/jah_0461.html

Hagar

Although nominally designed to provide a smoke-screen they do look like remarkably good incinidary devices. Particularly if fired into densely populated areas.

Poccington

Hagar wrote: »

Although nominally designed to provide a smoke-screen they do look like remarkably good incinidary devices. Particularly if fired into densely populated areas.

Which is where the complications of using WP comes into play.

It's legal to use WP against military targets but illegal to deliberately fire it into civilian areas. However, when military forces occupy and fight out of civilian areas... Then it's still considered legal because they're still trying to target military forces but it's also still a civilian area populated by civilians.

Although it should be noted that using WP as a smokescreen is considered completely legal by the CWC.

Local-womanizer

I thought Cluster munitions where banned?Could be wrong though?

concussion

The convention basically says you can use them if, where they fail to explode immediately, they have a sefl destruct/shut down capability. That's the gist of it anyway. And it doesn't apply to scatterable minefields which are delivered, via 'cluster' containers, by artillery or aircraft.

“Cluster munition” means a conventional munition that is designed to
disperse or release explosive submunitions each weighing less than 20 kilograms, and
includes those explosive submunitions.
It does not mean the following:
(a) A munition or submunition designed to dispense flares, smoke, pyrotechnics or chaff; or a munition designed exclusively for an air
defence role;
(b) A munition or submunition designed to produce electrical or electronic effects;
(c) a munition, that in order to avoid indiscriminate area effects and the risks posed by unexploded submunitions, has all of the following characteristics:
(i) Each munition contains fewer than 10 explosive submunitions;
(ii) Each explosive submunition weighs more than four kilograms;
(iii) Each explosive submunition is designed to detect and engage a single target object;
(iv) Each explosive submunition is equipped with an electronic self-destruction mechanism;
(v) Each explosive submunition is equipped with an electronic self-deactivating feature;

Hard Larry

Smokescreen my arse.

Why use WP to generate smoke when a 155mm Smoke shell generates enough to cover a city block?

Theres only 1 thing WP is used for and its burning the enemy out of whatever nook or cranny he may be hiding in that a conventional HE round can't reach.

Hagar

Hard Larry wrote: »

Smokescreen my arse.

Why use WP to generate smoke when a 155mm Smoke shell generates enough to cover a city block?

Theres only 1 thing WP is used for and its burning the enemy out of whatever nook or cranny he may be hiding in that a conventional HE round can't reach.

See, there's the smokescreen right there.

Manic Moran

Why use WP to generate smoke when a 155mm Smoke shell generates enough to cover a city block?

HC smoke takes a while to build up. Immediate Smoke missions are almost invariably fired with WP as the smokescreen is created far more quickly. That's before you count the problem that a HC smoke shell bleeds from a single point of impact, so if the round is a bit off, you have to fire another one. The scattering effect of WP also helps with the speed of effective buildup.

Planned smoke missions are usually initially created with a mix of HC and WP being fired at the same time. The WP gets the screen off to a good start, while the HC builds. After the screen is built up, the main seeding round becomes HC just to keep the concentration of smoke going, with (depending on the HC round in use, and the intended effect) sometimes the odd WP round still being lobbed for thermal blocking effects.

NTM

Hard Larry

I'll take those tactics on board. But I have seen Israelis use Airburst Smoke before, and I'd like to think that they aren't using the WP/Smoke tactics too much in built up civilian areas.

My comments were largely in relation to the photo in OP as it seems to me that WP is bursting right on those buildings giving someone (preferably combatants and not civilians) one hell of a sun-tan.

Manic Moran

Airburst for immediate smoke seems to be way of doing it these days. Compare the typical smoke launcher as found on Chieftain, Challenger, M1 etc which fires an arced smoke round out which then burns on the ground to modern systems like the Gallix on Leclerc which shoots the grenade out and up which then explodes in the air before having the particles fall burning to the ground. (should be on youtube somewhere)

All things said, though, I don't think there actually is a provision against the artillery-delivered use of WP against personnel in urban areas. You're not allowed drop it from aircraft as there's a prohibition on all air-delivered incendiaries over towns (Mainly a response to the Dresden and Tokyo fire-bombings), but I think artillery and grenades are still OK.

NTM

dresden8

Manic

As our technical expert here what's the effect of these munitions in civilian areas? Or less politically, on exposed human skin?

Dresden (ironically)

Manic Moran

As our technical expert here what's the effect of these munitions in civilian areas? Or less politically, on exposed human skin?

If it lands on something flammable, such as a curtain or sofa or some such, it'll probably start a fire. It would not be unexpected for a splash to go through a window or something of that nature and start a fire inside a building. This is the principle behind 'Bake N' Shake': start the fire in the structures to force the enemy into the open where you then kill them with HE.

If the splash does not land on anything which burns, it'll basically sit there and make smoke 'till all the WP is used up. Generally the unitary rounds will make a bigger 'splash' than the composite rounds such as those pictured (Think Vietnam movie WP explosion)

If it lands on skin, you get the following effect (From the manual)
"Fragments of melted particles of the burning substance may become embedded in the skin of persons close to a bursting projectile, producing burns which are multiple, deep and variable in size. The fragments continue to burn unless oxygen is excluded by flooding or smothering."

Continuing:
"(2) If burning WP strikes the skin, smother the flame with water, a wet cloth, or mud. Keep the WP covered with the wet material to exclude air until
the particles can be removed.
(3) Try to remove the WP particles with a knife, bayonet, stick, or other available object. It may be possible to remove some particles by rubbing
with a wet cloth."

Bear in mind I try not to get too close to WP, myself (though I have seen a tank crew lose their gear when they judged the wind wrong when they popped smoke), but it seems that the main definer of the injury is proximity. WP is a solid, not a liquid or gel, and is not 'sticky' so most effects are going to be minor burns as the material bounces off skin. If the person is unfortunate enough to be close to the explosion, however, these bits of solid will embed themselves into the skin and continue to burn until (a) It is extinguished, (b) It is pried out with something (Bayonets are common) or (c) all the WP has burned. Case (c) will result in burns through to the bone if the WP chunk is big enough.

Now, the real concern comes when you have 'fragments of melted particles', as they will burn, melt, and then be bloody hard to dig out.

NTM

Tenger

Hagar wrote: »

Although nominally designed to provide a smoke-screen they do look like remarkably good incinidary devices. Particularly if fired into densely populated areas.

I saw these on the news and thought 'cluster bombs' myself. Then i thought 'Zionist bastards doing that to a civilian target'. Now that I find out its WP shells I feel even stronger. From what I've read WP injuries are horrific. This is a terror tactic,not urban combat.

I can see the Israeli need to curb the Hamas attacks and thus think they have a right to defend their civilians, but their sledghammer tactics disgust me. I personally think they are being heavy handed to provide an example to any who would consider hitting Israelis in the future...a bit like the Dresden Firebombing.

Th Indo several days ago compared the Israeli attack on Gaza to the 1944 German suppression of the Warsaw Ghetto.

concussion

Hagar wrote: »

Although nominally designed to provide a smoke-screen they do look like remarkably good incinidary devices. Particularly if fired into densely populated areas.

They do set things on fire, no doubt about that. However, in an urban area, with buildings made from brick and concrete and with tiled roofs it's not very effective as an incindiery weapon. Fires will be started but the're going to be scattered isolated fires burning in bins, rubbish, dry wood for the most part. If WP was to be used effectively as an incindiery you would need HE to blow holes in roofs and then use a contact fuse to trigger the WP inside in the timber structure. An airburst would just send small fragments of WP bouncing off the tiles.

Bramble wrote: »

I saw these on the news and thought 'cluster bombs' myself. Then i thought 'Zionist bastards doing that to a civilian target'. Now that I find out its WP shells I feel even stronger. From what I've read WP injuries are horrific. This is a terror tactic,not urban combat

Maybe there were militants inside the building?

Fratton Fred

concussion wrote: »

Maybe there were militants inside the building?

maybe, but surely that is the point of a ground assault. it seems to me that Palestinian childrens lives are far less important than the life of one Israeli soldier.

I fully support the Israeli's right to defend themselves, but i find their tactics reprehensible to say the least.

concussion

Fratton Fred wrote: »

maybe, but surely that is the point of a ground assault.

If there were militants inside, those WP rounds would probably have been used to provide screeing smoke for Israeli troops.

That's if there were militants inside. It was a moment of time now caught forever and we'll probably never know.

Hagar

concussion wrote: »

Maybe there were militants inside the building?

I don't think that a whole barrage of multi-headed artillery munitions can accurately target a single urban building. I'm open to correction but that barrage looks like it's covering several city blocks.

concussion

Hagar wrote: »

I don't think that a whole barrage of multi-headed artillery munitions can accurately target a single urban building. I'm open to correction but that barrage looks like it's covering several city blocks.

My impression is, that because using WP on its own will do little against buildings, the shells overshot and the particles ended up landing amongst the buildings. There appears to be an open area immediatly below the arty shells which may have been the intended location for the smokesreen. But I don't know, it's impossible to tell from the photo.

If there were enemy forces inside the buildings HE would be much more effective. Unless they were out of cover and in the streets. In which case most civilians would be indoors where the buildings would protect them from most of the effects of WP.

I think my point is there are better weapons than WP to use against buildings.

Manic Moran

maybe, but surely that is the point of a ground assault. it seems to me that Palestinian childrens lives are far less important than the life of one Israeli soldier.

In fairness, it's the Israeli's job to look after Israelis first, and then look to other people. If they can avoid killing people that don't need killing, be they children or adult, I'm sure they'll do it, but ultimately if it comes down to 'our guys or their guys,' the decision is simple. No mililtary is going to take a different point of view.

Th Indo several days ago compared the Israeli attack on Gaza to the 1944 German suppression of the Warsaw Ghetto.

Bad comparison. The intents and tactics were vastly different.

NTM

Fratton Fred

Manic Moran wrote: »

In fairness, it's the Israeli's job to look after Israelis first, and then look to other people. If they can avoid killing people that don't need killing, be they children or adult, I'm sure they'll do it, but ultimately if it comes down to 'our guys or their guys,' the decision is simple. No mililtary is going to take a different point of view.

maybe. perhaps I have an overly romantic view of how the military works, but seeing pictures on the BBC last night of a man who was crying over his dead son's body made me sick to my stomach.

As i said earlier, i fully support Israel's right to defend itself, i will even support Israel in as much as Hamas started this and gets what it deserves, but what hope is there for the future when children are being killed like this?