Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Cuddles the Warmonger

White Phosphorus Artillery

Recommended Posts

I am pretty sure he means white phosphorus deployed offensively with the intent to kill not conceal...I would hope not honestly, I am pretty sure there is some kind of international law now barring its use in that way.

 

This is what that looks like and it is not pretty...not for the squeamish...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kET05jtaFjA

 

*Video is from Spec Ops: The Line not an actual white phosphorus attack, however it is no less disturbing.

Edited by Raptorx7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Russian do and would use Thermobaric weapons; which are far more napalm than napalm.

 

Last time I checked it's one of the areas where they lead, or have an edge. Deployed for arty, air and miniaturised for squad use too.

 

USMC have some in their inventory. Not really up to date on the rest of the West.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Russian do and would use Thermobaric weapons; which are far more napalm than napalm.

 

Last time I checked it's one of the areas where they lead, or have an edge. Deployed for arty, air and miniaturised for squad use too.

 

USMC have some in their inventory. Not really up to date on the rest of the West.

 

"The West" use and have used thermobaric weapons in Afghanistan and Iraq.  The RPO-M is in the game (refer to the manual page 62) however the question was about the use of WP and chemical agent grenades. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My concerns precisely, white phosphorus tends to make me partially squeamish to face and use. I know both sides have it, and I know that on occasion both sides use it, I was primarily concerned with whether or not I would have to make my men run away from smoke screens ....

Edited by jamo552

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The smoke rounds in artillery are listed as WP - Its in the manual under the support equipment rosters.

 

Whether or not they do damage like WP does in reality is another thing I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WP is already in the WW2 titles and is standard smoke round for many systems in Black Sea. They do have a chance of causing casualties.

Edited by akd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know in CMSF infantry would be wounded or killed by smoke shells exploding near them, however this may be to simulate shrapnel or concussion from the shell breaking apart.

Edited by -Eddie-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WP makes a very effective hasty smoke screen, compared to smoke rounds that take a bit to build up. Not supposed to be used as an anti-personnel weapons (which of course, hasn't actually prevented that, even lately).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no civilians in the game, so you can use WP anywhere you want without having to worry.

 

Technically, you are not allowed to use it in civilian areas (with a few exceptions), but technically you are also not allowed to blindly bomb civilian areas using any kind of artillery or airstrike, and technically there are a few other things you aren't really allowed to do. But you can still do all of that in CM, the game doesn't punish you for performing war crimes of any kind. So, I don't see why WP wouldn't be allowed in game, at the very least it can be used to create smoke screens or weaken enemy concentrations as is its use in real life.

Edited by BlackAlpha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 But you can still do all of that in CM, the game doesn't punish you for performing war crimes of any kind.

 

You must've missed out on CMSF. The mosque you were under no circumstances to destroy would inevitably be festooned with machine gun and RPG positions. Should you surrender to frustration and level it, you'd lose big-time points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You must've missed out on CMSF. The mosque you were under no circumstances to destroy would inevitably be festooned with machine gun and RPG positions. Should you surrender to frustration and level it, you'd lose big-time points.

 

And the Hospital on the last level of the US Army campaign... all Syrian SF and RPG-29's :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the Hospital on the last level of the US Army campaign... all Syrian SF and RPG-29's :(

 

I forgot how I solved that particular tactical problem. I do remember at one point dropping airburst HE and WP rounds in front of a protected building to suppress the defenders long enough that my Strykers' machine guns (no MK19s) could take over and allow a squad of infantry to get in the side door and finish the job up close. But I'm not sure that was the last mission, it has been years since I played it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You must've missed out on CMSF. The mosque you were under no circumstances to destroy would inevitably be festooned with machine gun and RPG positions. Should you surrender to frustration and level it, you'd lose big-time points.

 

I wasn't aware engaging enemy forces in a house of worship, hospital, cemetery, etc.whom are engaging you was a war crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Preserve objectives in those cases were not intended to reflect punishment for war crimes, but rather that engaging enemy forces in these locations with a large amount of force (i.e. lots of HE) would award the enemy a propaganda victory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I wasn't aware engaging enemy forces in a house of worship, hospital, cemetery, etc.whom are engaging you was a war crime.

 

It is not.  However, it might violate US / Coalition ROE under certain circumstances or at certain time periods.  ROE are frequently more restrictive than international law of war.  Technically, it is a capital crime under the law of land warfare to resist (through armed resistance or providing intelligence, etc...) uniformed service members of an occupying force, if you yourself are not a uniformed service member.  Punishable by death, which can be enforced by an occupying force using acceptable expedient tribunal procedures, as long as the rule of law is still applied universally.  Would theoretically justify non-summary, but expedient with fair hearing, execution of every insurgent captured since 1967 or so.  Not strategically desirable if you buy into COIN doctrine, but perfectly legal.  Point is just that law of land warfare is not unilaterally applied, enforced or interpreted, and current public/social opinion about what is acceptable level  of violence is the actual 'law' in use - CNN factor wins every time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...