Charlie63

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: We had 6 WP rounds as standard load-out in the M60A1, in special silver-colored receptacles in a separate part of the turret (the color was just to ID the WP stash). There was nothing special about the type of storage and we received no special handling instructions. I never heard of one spontaneously combusting, though these weren't the same rounds issued in WWII. They were the only "smoke" rounds we carried. We were told that it was "against the Geneva convention" to use them on enemy troops, though we could use them on structures that might CONTAIN enemy troops. This was not necessarily an official doctrine, but when your drill sergeant tells you that's the rule, that's the rule. He went on to say that if you were being targeted and that was all you had, of COURSE you would use WP against troops or whatever, adding that they had used it in Korea. I never saw one fired. My thought is that if they are as devastating (under the right circumstances, like pillboxes or bocage) as indicated above, I would use them, and I would be surprised if any WWII tanker with the same alternatives would not. If you don't want me to use them, then don't load them in my tank. So either they did, and we don't have enough evidence yet, or they were either not as effective or as available as some apparently believe. If they were a small part of the ammo load, as they were in our tanks in the 70s, you would use them sparingly. It would generally have been very stupid to shoot one at a Soviet tank (like teaching a pig to sing). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Guess my post was not quite clear enough. Once produced they are handled much the same as any other round without any special considerations. They are sealed (that is the WP is sealed to prevent air from getting to it. The special handling is required in the Manufacture and assembly of the rounds initially not once they are produced. However, that handling would likely mean that for every one WP round that could be produced 5 or so HE rounds of the same weight and calibre could be produced. It must also be remembered that going into WW II the US did not have the weapons stock piles that we have today. many a soldier trained with wooden mock-ups of machineguns and rifles etc and never saw the real thing until they were deployed to Europe.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moon: Charlie63 - if that was indeed the case (one round per tank etc.), then the war would have been won quite quickly, no?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not necessarily. If you are talking about delivery by artillery then that method is not a 'point and shoot' affair and many rounds would have to be expended to hit the target. In tank battles you have to HIT the opposing tank, again not a 'point and shoot' affair in those days. There were also several other 'limiting' factors such as availability of rounds. WP can not be produced in the quantity that other rounds can because it requires special handling to prevent premature ignition and to keep from killing the folks working with it. WP is not a naturally occuring substance and must be manufactured. Further once produced it has a flash point that is just above normal room temperature. having it in direct sunlight or near a warm light bulb or adjacent to warm machinery, etc would produce ignition until it was placed in an airtight canister. The rounds themselves had to be airtight since one cannot reasonably expect to control the other factors of ignition. The substance it's self is combustible so that cannot be controlled, a heat source can not be expected to be controlled under all circumstance, therefore, oxygen deprivation is the ONLY safe method for preventing combustion.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moon: Bullethead - one counter-argument (more like a "counter-thought" really): how much more effective is WP when compared to regular HE? If the answer is "not much", then maybe leaving out WP (for now) is the best option?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That depends on how it is employed. Against a hardened target it is VERY effective requiring probably only two or three rounds to render a pillbos inoperative. One round will render a tank inop. Against large concentrations the morale factor is MUCH higher than HE rounds. If you have a company sized unti and are being advanced upon by a battalion sized unit you can whittle them down pretty quickly both manpower wise and willingness to press the battle wise with judicious use of WP rounds.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kraut: Ummm ... i thought WP was against the geneva convention or some other silly agreement to make war a more "family-like" (pun). Seriously, i thought it was outlawed by some organization somewhere somehow? Does anyone know specifics or *anything* about this? MK<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's USE may have been limited by some sort of agreement. It is not against the Geneva Convention. I'll do a little research and see what I can dig up.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Just to restate where WP stands in our eyes... It was certainly used in WWII. AFVs and artillery used it, and there were indeed WP grenades (US only? I forget). We have production figures somewhere and while the numbers are large, they made up a small percentage of the total rounds for the weapon in question. The main purpose of artillery WP rounds appears to be to mask movement more than causing casualties. AFV rounds also appear to be for obstruction, but one exception was Shermans using of WP in the boccage. There are also interesting "one off" examples of use here and there. WP grenades were limited to fortification busting so far as we can tell, and weren't necessarily common even for that. Our problem is that from what we can tell use was, on the whole, quite limited. The question is WHY. For example, an occasional story of a tanker whacking a heavy German tank with WP and causing the crew to hop out, taken on its own, would indicate this was a fantastic way to overcome the inferiority of Allied tanks. BUT, it is plainly clear that this was NOT an established tactic and examples of its use are rare, being noted specifically because they were unusual (and spectacular). So... if WP rounds were made in decent quantities, and could be used to fantastic effect, why weren't the Allies whacking German tanks left right and center with WP? The fact that this did not happen is critical. Unless we can figure out WHY then WP stays out of the game because to introduce it would open the door to unrealisticly high use of WP, therefore reducing the historical accuracy of the game. So the irony here is that NOT including WP might make CM more realistic than if we included it. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Your rationale for it's non inclusion makes perfect sense to me. Wasn;t advocating it's inclusion just trying to clear up some misconceptions about the difference between SMOKE rounds and true WP rounds. Thanks for all your fine work

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus: Anybody planning on doing any Kelly's Hereos-based scenarios. This film is being played on TNT today, Memorial Day, and actually, it ain't that bad of a film. All you'd have to do is to just up-scale the OOB from individual men to squads.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> An anti war movie as a battle scenario? I must have missed something.. Only in Hollywood are the Germans, Japanese, Koreans, and Vietnamese lousy shots. Take a look at the records in the REAL world. Even if something like that got started they would have been anhilated before they got very far at all.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Red Dog: Not sure if this has been brought up before, but I would love to see a Vietnam War game using the Combat Mission engine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That would be easy enough. You put in TONS of trees, make everything "sight blocked" and you proceed to move slowly through the trees until you run into the NME. Or you start out and find out you are already surrounded by em or have just walked into an ambush etc... I'll pass thanks

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jon_S: Regards Jon <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yepper that would be the one. Since the detonating charge ignites the WP and it takes an act of GOD to put that stuff out when it gets started (flash point is a bit above 'normal' room temperature) An air burst over a concentration of troops can produce devastating results. As I mentioned before it can also geneate TREMENDOUS heat and can be used to 'urge' folks to abandon hardened targets as well. As an additional 'benefit' the fumes are toxic as all heck and can 'flush' em out or eradicate them inside as well. It is REALLY nasty stuff. We went through combat first aid training (everybody did) around 1972 or so and our unit saw films of the wounds produced by WP (didn;t say which war ((probably Korea)) ) really nasty stuff. You either A.) dig it out immediately with your bayonette, B.) Pack wet mud on it to occlude the oxygen or c.) immerse the wound in water. If the air gets to it again odds are 90-10 that it will start burning again. Needless to say it renders those wounded by it out of action (which is the whole idea in the first place). I have no clue if it was used in WW II although I suspect it was but to what extent I dunno. I'll see what I can dig up makin a few phone calls out to Fort Sill and up to Fort Knox and see what the unit historians can tell me. In any event the effects would be pretty darn hard to simulate, IMO anyhow. It is not only a casualty producer but a heck of a morale lowering weapon as well. Charlie hated the stuff.

Arghhhhh anybody seen my bottle of Geritol????? Thanks for agin me another couple years there Arcangel *G*

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jon_S: From RNZA Fire Discipline: "... strictly in accordance with the intentions of the originator." But if you send a fire mission without specifying exactly what you want, well ... From the FAS site listed above... That is M825A1 Smoke WP The correct classiffication of the round. I never said that Smoke rounds don't CONTAIN White Phosphorous they are NOT pure WP rounds and the WP contained in them is merely to burn the other contents, in this case cotton wedges. A true WP round contains the following components, outer hull, (steel casing) inner shell (75% of the interior area of the projectile) which is White Phosphorous and the central core (25%) of the contents which is High Exlposive HE to disperse the WP. There is no cotton or anything else just the casing the WP and the explosive charge to disperse the WP. Apples and oranges.. I only spent 20 years in the army here folks 63 out

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott Clinton: <HTML> <DIR> <DIR> <FONT SIZE=2> In case anyone is unsure, White Phosphorus, despite it's added offensive benefits, was and remains the primary smoke generating round for many types of artillery and mortar pieces. (We also have some HC smoke arty rounds in the US) For instance since the beginning WP has been the smoke rounds for all US mortars. There is no "smoke" per se, it's only WP (there was a smoke rounds for the 81 for a while but it was discontinued in favor of WP). Larger peices, (i.e artillery in the US inventory ha dboth WP and regular HC smoke.) But WP is first and foremost a smoke generating coumpund. </P></DIR> </DIR> </FONT> If this is the case, then calling in 'smoke' from off-map artillary ON TOP of freindly units would not be a wise thing to do...right? Same goes for the occasional 'short' round. Or are the 'smoke' WP rounds designed to minimize damage and simply generate the maximum smoke per shell?</P> Thanks.</P></BODY> </HTML> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I recon some one may be tyrying to say I don't know what I am talking about? GO HERE http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/artillery/naschem2/ You will see a reference under ammunition types to "SCREENING SMOKE" Note that it is NOT listed as WP. You can click on the equipment catalouge at the bottom of the page to do some homework on military ammunition.. WP rounds are WHITE PHOSPHOROUS, also know as Willy peter, Wilson Picket, Whisky Papas etc. Their mission is NOT one of smoke generation they are anti personnel rounds used to disp[ers and disable large concentrations of troops. Further they are used against hardened positions, bunkers, pill boxes, tanks etc to generate extreeme heat and make the occupants want to come outside or to cook them where they are. If I call for smoke and you send WP and I survive I see a fragging in your future! 63 out [This message has been edited by Charlie63 (edited 05-31-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EScurlock: Ah yes good point!; That's why the rest of us from Illinois treat Chicago like it's own little State, quite separate from the rest of us. I'm originally from a small town called Normal Illinois, home of Illinois State University. We can generally tell who the students are, that are from Chicago. Having said that, for the most part, Chicagoans are freindlier than the average person I deal with from the metropolitain D.C. area. Not that there aren't many great people from both areas, there are, but you can really feel an overall air of animosity out here, especially in contrast to my home area. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yep thought I had seen something about Illinois

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EScurlock: That much I know, and that nature of the weapon will not be modeled, but was it commonly used as a smoke generator and was it the standard smoke generating round for the U.S. or were there other chemical types used for battlefield smoke? The reason I ask this is because tanks and artillary have WP. The WP I was introduced to as an artillary troop was especialy packaged to be placed in the breach of the gun in order to make it unusable by the enemy, but that doesn't explain why it was used by tanks and such. Just trying to clear some in my own head on this one. Thanks Eric <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nope WP is an antipersonnel round.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EScurlock: Ther's been quite a bit of discusion about white phosphorous rounds. I understand that the distict effects WP had on enemy units will not be modeled. That's cool. My question is: was the WP grenade, tank, and howitzer rounds a special type of smoke round, or were they the standard smoke round for the Americans? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> SMOKE?!?!?!?!?!?! White phosphorous rounds are the grunts worst nightmare. White phosphorous burns on contact with AIR and continues to burn as long as it is in contact with AIR. When the round explodes it scatters WP all over the place and if it gets ON you it burns until you cut the air supply off with either MUD, water or some other form of occlusive dressing to keep the air out. Since it cauterizes as it goes merely burning into your skin will NOT extinquish it it can burmn all the way through that part of your body. No personal military experience I gather since this is COMMON knowledge among soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines regardless of their job description.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Greg Scurlock: As I fly above the terrain of VT I couldn't help but notice how much it resembles land north of Atlanta or even in the Shenandoah Valley or Gettysburg. Noone has ever really gotten the Civil War right in gaming. I wonder what the tallent at Big Time Software could do with that genre. I can see Gen. Thomas Jackson now, with his troops "standing on that ridge like a stone wall." Wow.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Didn't I read in another post somewhere that you were from Illinois?