WP Rounds

[Charlie63]

<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.

[MadGrenadier]

If memory serves, the use of WP purely an antipersonel weapon (at least from an arty barrage) is not allowed according to the Geneva Accords. I once got in trouble during a planning excercise when I plotted a 100% WP initial barrage from my supporting mortar platoon in my battle plan. .

The task was for 1 platoon with 1 Engineer squad and 1x6 tube mortar pltn in support to delay an 'enemy' Brigade(!) for 3 hrs in a mountain pass. So I figure, heck, let's burn some stuff, that'll stop them. I plotted a 36 bomb HE barrage with a 3 min pause followed by 72 bomb WP to get stuff burning. Trg Officer said that was a big no-no.

Oddly enough, a 'mix' of WP and HE is tolerated by the Geneva accords, or so I remember.

[This message has been edited by MadGrenadier (edited 06-01-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Just a note to everybody participating in The Great WP Debate...

This is a very interesting topic, which is why it comes up so often. We have absolutely no problem with having this debate. There is definately something to be learned here, but so far that "something" (i.e. tactical use) is still a bit cloudy.

As for the Geneva Convention, IIRC there are clauses in there against weapons that are designed to inflict what can be defined as "cruel" injuries. I have no idea if WP is listed specifically, but this is the rationale behind toxic weapons. As far as violations of this convention, it is my understanding that most landmines can be seen as being against the Geneva Convention since they are specifically engineered to mame and cause maximum suffering instead of an outright death.

Steve

[Guest mch]

How about this...

would it be possible to include WP in the

"package" of 4.2in Chem Mtr Bn. support?

maybe for an add-on?

(Even if WP dosen't make it in,you can simulate the effect quite nicely by a

mix of HE and Smoke rounds..try it.)

I think that it's inclusion as an arty support package would avoid "gamey"

use.I highly agree with it not being included

as a tank round.It would be handy it have it in as Arty,though.Esp.for such situations as where,in the BoB,the 2ID and 99ID had direct support from the 86 Chem Mtr Bn...

[This message has been edited by mch (edited 06-01-2000).]

[ARCHANGEL]

There ya go... ...having a great deal of experience with FOUR-DUCE when it was out of the chem bns and into the Inf bn's, I would LOVE to see some FOUR-DUCE support...YEA TEAM!!!!

[FEBA]

I like the idea of limiting WP to 4.2 chem bn and such. But it would seem from the following quote that WP was definitely known and used for its anti-personnel capabilities. If an officer outside the arty arm noted its effective tactical use and that the Germans were "very allergic" (I think he means when they saw WP they moved away quick.), meaning they knew what WP could do, it should have some game effects other than just smoke. (BTW, the speaker is rather cold blooded by modern standards.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...Despite the weight and ammunition problem, it is a magnificent and extraordinarily effective weapon. The mortar is most effective with white phosphorus and HE. The Germans are very allergic to white phosphorus anyway and we would root them out of their holes with well-placed rounds of phosphorus and, when we had them above ground, we plastered them with HE. We killed large numbers of them that way, and they sure dreaded the mortars. They are the equivalent of real artillery. We also used them in the assault coming ashore. I have said we used them; I really mean the supporting chemical troops used them. They did such a good job with us, we got to regard them as our own people. The prize package was one day when a chemical officer actually dropped a round of HE from one of his mortars into the open turret of a German tank...

- Lt. Col. Wiegand, CO, 2nd Bn, 179th Inf<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

refer: http://www.4point2.org/hist-2w.htm

[This message has been edited by FEBA (edited 06-01-2000).]

[This message has been edited by FEBA (edited 06-01-2000).]

[Guest mch]

To add further phosphorous to the fire....

I count 13 Chm Mtr. Bn's active in ETO 44-45.

(S.S..USA OOB)

to compare with..17(total)ShwerePanzer Abeitlungs for the Germans.Half(or less than)

would see action in the west.

My point in the comparison is..Chemical Mortars throwing WP around was probably not

an everyday occurance.but,How many G.I's

probably ever saw a King Tiger,or JadgTiger?

Considering the above,I feel the Chem. support spotter would be a happy medium

to get WP in the game,but not have it too common(no tk loadouts)Thus,putting it in the

hands of all of us budding scenario designers ,and not having to worry about seeing it become another HE round.

[Speedy]

I am currently reading a book on market-garden. In it one British airborne vet recalls an incident where he was in a cellar with a group of wounded, several of whom were glowing from various parts of their bodies where they had been hit by WP.

If you include the ap affects of wp in CM will the bodies of units killed by it glow in the dark?

[Lee]

Limiting WP use to support fire from 4.2 inch mortars may be the best

solution to this whole WP problem. This would mean you only get

WP if the scenario designer specifically includes it in the battle.

And only a percentage of the average ammo supply of a 4.2 inch mortar

would be WP. And most scenarios won't have 4.2 inch mortars at all. This

eliminates any concerns about overuse of WP being a common problem

in CM (obviously a scenario designer can put in too many 4.2 inch

mortars, but they can also put in too many of anything else and make

a bad scenario, so this is not an issue).

I agree that WP, while it would be cool to have in, should not be made

available to tanks, simply because it would end up being used *way* too

much to be realistic. The only way I can think to work around that

problem would be to have a random factor when tanks are being picked

by the scenario designer (he would have no way to control this) that

would give a very small number of WP rounds to tanks from countries

that used the stuff. This would be random with only a tiny chance

that each tank used in the scenario would get any such ammo (like a 1%

chance). And even if they passed the 1% check, they would only get

2 or 3 rounds of the stuff. That would be a nice solution to the tank

problem if you wanted to give some tiny chance of having WP rounds

in the odd tank here and there.

What do you think, Steve?

[Bullethead]

Lee said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Limiting WP use to support fire from 4.2 inch mortars may be the best

solution to this whole WP problem. This would mean you only get

WP if the scenario designer specifically includes it in the battle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think WP should be available for tanks to properly model bocage tactics BUT should also only be available if allowed by the scenario designer.

What I propose is this: Do not put WP into the default ammo mix for any AFVs or even mortars and FOs. However, make WP available for scenario designers to add to specific units in specific amounts. And also make it available in DYO scenarios but in very limited quantity at very high price.

The results would be as follows: In designed scenarios, the only WP available would be what the designer put there as part of the overall design. If WP was an intended part of the scenario, then the scenario would be built expecting its use and thus wouldn't be unbalanced. OTOH, in DYO scenarios, if WP was very expensive, the player opting to use it would have to do without significant other forces. This would also tend to limit its use.

Personally, I don't see why BTS is so concerned over players "over-using" WP. In solitaire games, how can anybody really care what people do to the poor AI in the privacy of their own homes? If some folks get their jollies from throwing WP all over the place on AI troops, I say let them. BTS might sell a few more copies that way .

OTOH, in MP games, the use of WP would IMHO be self-regulating by the CM community. I'm sure most folks playing against their regular buds would establish house rules about WP and other powerful things. Same would happen in organized ladders and tourneys. This I believe would account for 90% of all MP games. In the other cases of 1-game-stands with random bozos, I'm very sure word would get around on this board and others about players who make unrealistic use of ANY game feature, including WP, thus preventing these people from getting anybody to play with them. End of problem.

------------------

-Bullethead

jtweller@delphi.com

WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

[Guest Scott Clinton]

I don't know...but it seems to me that this addition could be quite a bit of work for a ammo that was not commonly used.

Work that could possibly be better put toward continued improvment of the AI, the internet play patch or even CM2.

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[TargetDrone]

maybe WP wasn't commonly used simply because it was also dangerous for the side who carried the rounds?

As far as I know WP's self-igniting point is only some degrees higher than normal room temperature... now imagine a Tank who gets a storage hit... i guess that you can call brew up then... you can bet that the WP will ignit all other explosives as well, no matter how securely stored.. and the crew has NO chance to get out in time... would be a really cooking party...

I guess that may be one reason why WP wasnt used quite commonly... and i guess also, if used in the game brewing up a tank with complete crew loss should happen much easier that way...

Just my 2cent..

-- TargetDrone

who doesn't like to draw attention....

especially from guys with big guns....

[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?

[Charlie63]

<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.

[Moon]

Charlie63 - if that was indeed the case (one round per tank etc.), then the war would have been won quite quickly, no?

[Charlie63]

<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.

[Ben Galanti]

TargetDrone makes a very interesting point. I know that if I were a tank commander, the nasty antipersonnel affects of WP that have been described in this thread would dampen my enthusiasm to have a bunch of WP rounds in my ignitable Sherman.... Any other theaories why WP wasn't used more widely?

[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).

[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.