EScurlock Posted February 12, 2000 Share Posted February 12, 2000 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? ------------------ He who gets there the fastest with the mostest wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARCHANGEL Posted February 12, 2000 Share Posted February 12, 2000 <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> E, WP isn't plain old smoke...it burns MUCH hotter and is used to make fires or melt things... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EScurlock Posted February 12, 2000 Author Share Posted February 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ARCHANGEL: E, WP isn't plain old smoke...it burns MUCH hotter and is used to make fires or melt things... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 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 ------------------ He who gets there the fastest with the mostest wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARCHANGEL Posted February 12, 2000 Share Posted February 12, 2000 <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> E, I have called in WP fire...specifically for the purpose of lighting the ass of the occupying enemy on fire so they would no longer deny us the use of the terrain...it frequently started fires. You might be thinking of the THERMITE grenade that was used to melt breeches and engine blocks and so forth. Willie Pete was a fire starter and had a high intensity burn rate that would nearly melt humans. I can't say for sure about WW2, but I suspect tanks/FA had them for the same purpose...hard to remove enemies in cellars or bunkers etc. would be my guess. Cheers, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babra Posted February 12, 2000 Share Posted February 12, 2000 I think the question is: Do (WW2) Americans only use WP? ------------------ Floreat Jerboa ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted February 13, 2000 Share Posted February 13, 2000 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. Los Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EScurlock Posted February 13, 2000 Author Share Posted February 13, 2000 Thanks, that clears it up completely. ------------------ He who gets there the fastest with the mostest wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie63 Posted May 31, 2000 Share Posted May 31, 2000 <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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie63 Posted May 31, 2000 Share Posted May 31, 2000 <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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted May 31, 2000 Share Posted May 31, 2000 <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> ------------------ Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted May 31, 2000 Share Posted May 31, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott Clinton: 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?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have seen two references where smoke cannisters caused friendly casualties. Neither was because of WP, but because the actual container hit soldiers and killed or mutilated them. One was at Monte Cassino (related in Majdalany's book of the same title), where the Ghurkas and some other unluckies found themselves almost cut off on a hill top halfway between the town and the monastery, IIRC. The allied arty maintained a continuous smokescreen in the town. For some reason, parts of the shell continued to fly and ended up in their position, with said effect. The second one is in P.Delaforce "The fighting Wessex Wyverns" he relates how during the Seine crossing at Vernon a Wessex soldier gets killed from being hit by a smoke cannister from the rolling barrage dropping short on him (ouch!). None of the references says anything about WP causing additional or any damage in these situations. I know it is not certain evidence, but just my £0.02 ------------------ Andreas It is amazing what you can learn from a good book... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted May 31, 2000 Share Posted May 31, 2000 In "Closing With The Enemy" and other books that discuss the bocage fighting, you'll find many references to the frequent use of WP. In these cases, it was used primarily for its anti-personnel effects. The usual drill was to knock a hole in the next headrow so a tank could nose into the next field. When the tank got a clear shot, it would quickly lob a WP round into each far corner of the field, which is where the Germans often had something nasty emplaced. The WP round was used instead of HE or regular smoke for a number of reasons: 1) to kill the Germans at the point of impact, 2) scare off some more as the hot smoke spread, 3) block the LOS of those who stayed, and 4) the burning WP smoke could get down into and neutralize bunkers some distance away from the point of impact, which would have survived an HE round landing in the same spot. This latter effect was particularly important because of the tactical situation. The US guys had no LOS to the Germans until they entered the next field, and when they did, they were coming right into German kill zones at very close range. And the Germans were all dug in and camouflaged. Thus, the US guys most often didn't see the Germans at first. So if the Americans sat around looking for specific targets, the Germans would blow them away in a few seconds. Thus, the US guys would area fire into the likely hiding spots. And because the Germans were well dug-in, such blind suppression with HE or MG fire wasn't that effective, and while regular smoke would block the LOS, it did no damage. Hence WP became the round of choice in such situations. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon_S Posted May 31, 2000 Share Posted May 31, 2000 Hi guys, once again, my favourite, all-purpose website comes to the party: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/smoke.htm This site talks about smoke as both a screening tool, and an incidary device - but not t=in the same shell. The casualties Germanboy refers to are caused by the carrier shell of base-eject rounds. These rounds fly on their parabola over the intended target, and at the right moment the base falls off and the payload is ejected onto the right spot. The carrier round can continue for quite some distance, especially in the case of Illum rounds which have a burst height of around 1000m. IMHO, WP was introduced as a smoke round. It build thick, persistent smoke screens very quickly. However, soldiers being what they are, it didn't take long before it was being used for other tasks - as described by Bullethead, ARCHANGEL, et al. Regards Jon ------------------ Ubique Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guachi Posted May 31, 2000 Share Posted May 31, 2000 A link to an old discussion that has some good discussion on WP: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000420.html Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie63 Posted June 1, 2000 Share Posted June 1, 2000 <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).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon_S Posted June 1, 2000 Share Posted June 1, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charlie63: I recon some one may be tyrying to say I don't know what I am talking about? ... Their mission is NOT one of smoke generation ... If I call for smoke and you send WP and I survive I see a fragging in your future! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 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... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>M825 white phosphorus: The M825 WP projectile is an FA-delivered 155-mm base-ejection projectile designed to produce a smoke screen on the ground for a duration of 5 to 15 minutes. It consists of two major components--the projectile carrier and the payload. The projectile carrier delivers the payload to the target. The payload consists of 116 WP-saturated felt wedges. The smoke screen is produced when a predetermined fuze action causes ejection of the payload from the projectile. After ejection, the WP-saturated felt wedges in the payload fall to the ground in an elliptical pattern. Each wedge then becomes a point or source of smoke. The M825 is ballistically similar to the M483A1 (DPICM) family of projectiles.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Regards Jon ------------------ Ubique Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0311 Posted June 1, 2000 Share Posted June 1, 2000 Boys, All I can speak of is WP hand grenades of wich I have experience. They are causualty producing grenades. Effective causualty radius of 25 meters even though particles of WP can be thrown 30 meters. A Thermite genade produces molten iron that ignites or fuses to whatever its put on. You dont want to be holding this baby as a Roman Candle as it tends to heat up to 4,300 deg for about 40 sec. and will bore through about 1/4 inches of steel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie63 Posted June 1, 2000 Share Posted June 1, 2000 <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... M825 white phosphorus: The M825 WP projectile is an FA-delivered 155-mm base-ejection projectile designed to produce a smoke screen on the ground for a duration of 5 to 15 minutes. It consists of two major components--the projectile carrier and the payload. The projectile carrier delivers the payload to the target. The payload consists of 116 WP-saturated felt wedges. The smoke screen is produced when a predetermined fuze action causes ejection of the payload from the projectile. After ejection, the WP-saturated felt wedges in the payload fall to the ground in an elliptical pattern. Each wedge then becomes a point or source of smoke. The M825 is ballistically similar to the M483A1 (DPICM) family of projectiles.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Regards Jon 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted June 1, 2000 Share Posted June 1, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>All I can speak of is WP hand grenades of wich I have experience. They are causualty producing grenades. Effective causualty radius of 25 meters even though particles of WP can be thrown 30 meters.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yup, and it's also the best type of grenade for use on a pillbox or serious bunker. When the enemy goes to the trouble to make such things, he almost always puts doglegs and grenade traps in all the corridors and air vent shafts. Thus, a regular frag tossed in won't have much effect inside. But the WP fumes will go around the corners and out of the grenade sumps and spread dismay throughout the structure. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted June 1, 2000 Share Posted June 1, 2000 Thanks Charlie...or is it 63... Anyway that is what have always thought. I think you guys are barking up the wrong tree here. If you REALLY want WP in the game you need evidence that WP (non-smoke type) was used at least semi-commonly in WW2. Come up with some sound sources and I would think BTS might 'reconsider' in a patch or at least future CMs. ------------------ Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon_S Posted June 1, 2000 Share Posted June 1, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charlie63: ... 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...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That would be this one then ... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Burster-type white phosphorus. White phosphorus projectiles are available for 105-mm and 155-mm howitzers. They are bursting-tube type projectiles that can be fired with point-detonating (PD) or MTSQ fuzes. The projectile has an incendiary-producing effect and is ballistically similar to the HE projectile. Normally, shell WP is employed for its incendiary effect. The projectile also can be used for screening, spotting, and signaling purposes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Regards Jon ------------------ Ubique Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie63 Posted June 1, 2000 Share Posted June 1, 2000 <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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 1, 2000 Share Posted June 1, 2000 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kraut Posted June 1, 2000 Share Posted June 1, 2000 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie63 Posted June 1, 2000 Share Posted June 1, 2000 <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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts