Willy Pete alleged to have been used in Falluja

[aka_tom_w]

Is this a credible news source?

I am looking for other news about this

since there was so much major discussion about WP use in WWII I thought I would mention here as it (if true) might be relevant to the new game... (maybe)

-tom w

web page

MK77 is a 750-lb bomb consisting of an aluminum container filled with 75 gallons of kerosene-based jet fuel, polystyrene and benzene. When detonated it creates a sticky combustible gel that cannot be exstinguished. As if this type of weapon was not dangerous enough, there is no stabilizing tail or fin on the MK77, thus making the bomb very imprecise. In military parlance it is what's called a "dumb bomb." Used against any densely-populated area it is an indiscriminate killer.

On the rare occasion where the US media has touched on the story, it has obscured it by burying it. Consider the following excerpt from a San Francisco Chronicle report on the attack on Fallajuah from 2004, beginning with graph 26:

web page

"Usually we keep the gloves on," said Army Capt. Erik Krivda, of Gaithersburg, Md., the senior officer in charge of the 1st Infantry Division's Task Force 2-2 tactical operations command center. "For this operation, we took the gloves off."

Some artillery guns fired white phosphorous rounds that create a screen of fire that cannot be extinguished with water. Insurgents reported being attacked with a substance that melted their skin, a reaction consistent with white phosphorous burns.

Kamal Hadeethi, a physician at a regional hospital, said, "The corpses of the mujahedeen which we received were burned, and some corpses were melted."

from

arab news web page

US 'used' chemical weapon in Falluja

Tuesday 08 November 2005, 21:57 Makka Time, 18:57 GMT

There have been allegations the US used outlawed weapons

Related:

US toll mounts as Falluja battle rages

Fighting in Falluja rages amid confusion

Falluja facing humanitarian crisis

'Scores of civilians' killed in Falluja

Italian state television has aired a documentary alleging that the US used white phosphorous shells in a massive and indiscriminate way against civilians during the November 2004 offensive in Falluja.

The report on Tuesday said the shells were not used to illuminate enemy fighters at night, as the US government has said, but against civilians, and that it burned their flesh "to the bone".

The documentary by RaiNews24, the all-news channel of RAI state television, quoted ex-marine Jeff Englehart as saying he saw the bodies of burnt children and women after the bombardments.

"Burned bodies. Burned children and burned women. White phosphorous kills indiscriminately. It is a cloud that, within ... 150m of impact, will disperse and will burn every human being or animal."

There have been several allegations that the US used outlawed weapons, such as napalm, in the Falluja offensive. On 9 November 2004, the Pentagon denied that any chemical weapons, including napalm, were used in the offensive.

Reporter

[ November 09, 2005, 08:26 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[hellfish]

I'm under the impression that there were almost no civillians in Fallujah for Gothic Serpent. Still... I don't know if I'd call WP a chemical weapon, as that brings to mind gas. I thought WP's fragments were what burned, not the cloud itself? Symantics, I suppose.

[V]

The US never signed the international agreement to not use White Phosphorus weapons.

As I understand, we use it a lot to iluminate the battlefield, but the DoD has denied using them against the enemy in Iraq.

[Battlefront.com]

WP is not considered a "chemical weapon" in any meaningful way, as far as I know. I don't think Napalm is considered in this class of weapons, though it might be prohibited under other conventions I'm not up on. So the first thing we should ask is, are WP and Napalm weapons specifically outlawed?

We aren't including Naplam in CM:SF. WP shells... sure. However, unlike WWII these things aren't part of direct fire weapon loads.

Steve

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Is this a credible news source?

I am looking for other news about this

The BBC has a report on this subject, which refers to reporting by the Italian TV station RAI:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4417024.stm

I have sent a note to the BBC commenting on the story.

Personally, I am amazed at such a song-and-dance about such a commonplace weapon filling as WP. It was used by both sides in the Falklands War in 1982, and I don't recall any great fuss about it then. I don't know how widely the stuff is currently issued, but I'd be quite surprised if it's not fielded by every army in NATO. Hell, I've known teenage Navy cadets use the stuff on exercise.

I am baffled by the US references to WP as an illuminant, whereas every use I have ever heard of it has been as an obscurant or a target-marker, or as a casualty-causing agent.

PRO document WO 291/150, "WP as an anti-personnel weapon", 1943, states that WP injuries, while extremely painful, are unlikely to prove lethal.

WP is neither a "chemical weapon" nor banned by any international convention. The convention restricting certain weapons mentioned in the BBC report -- which, as it points out, the USA has in any case not signed -- specifically excludes from its categorization of "incendiary weapons" obscurants, illuminants and target indicators (see for example http://fletcher.tufts.edu/multi/texts/BH790.txt )

On the one hand, this story may arise from someone's genuine but muddle-headed belief that warfare can be made nicer by banning certain weapons which sound as if they might be somehow nastier than plain old HE.

On the other, it might very well be a deliberate propaganda effort to blacken the USA's name by any means possible.

Either way, the allegation that WP violates any international convention is false.

All the best,

John.

[akd]

They'd be just as dead if it was a JDAM dropped on them. There is no appropiate weapon to use on civilians.

[SgtMuhammed]

I have noticed that anything with a specific name seems to get undue attention. I'm pretty sure that if you named the explosive in a standard 500lb bomb (Simtex or somesuch) the press would be all over it.

[MikeyD]

There's a laundry list of weapons that the international community has tried to get outlawed over the objections of the U.S. First there's flechette dart canister or rifle round, then there's the combat shotgun, and napalm, and nerve gas, and anti-personnel mines, WP, fuel-air explosives, and a couple others (including DU munitions?). The only thing the U.S. has budged on is the flechette dart and nerve gas. Everything else they bring up the spector of North Korean hordes crossing the 38th parallel when the topic's brought up.

About no civilians in Fallugha and WP for illumination only... yeh, right.

[gunnergoz]

The Italian left and media have been having a field day with this war, what with the death of their secret agent hero during the (leftist media) reporter's rescue op...see the connnection here? Italians are fairly non-militaristic and their youth can be as idealistic as anybody else's. Their government is fairly unresponsive to the left and the media, which just inflames the latter even more.

Italian media also have a score to settle with the US about other military issues over the years; e.g. the A-6 that cut an alpine gondola cable got them real touchy. For a people who conveniently overlook the attempted genocide they perpetrated in Eithiopia last century, they can be as hypocritical as the next guy.

Soooo...I'm not surprised about their take on the WP use. They don't seem to mind suicide bombers much, though, even when they kill scores of innocent civilians...

BTW, I'm a Italian by birth, so I feel entitled to my 2 bits on the point.

[GSX]

What are we having this conversation about?

CMSF is not Iraq.

Remember this please....................

[Gpig]

I watched parts of that BBC/Italian thingy last night. They were interviewing a former U.S. serviceman (Recon/Scout?) who said he was there in falluja. But the documentary/news piece specifically mentioned WP's "cloud" like method of delivery. They mentioned how flesh would be melted or "burned off down to the bone." And that clothing was not touched. In other words, they found corpses where the flesh was melted but the clothing was not burned.

It all sounded a little "cooked-up" to me. Pardon the pun.

Someone is trying to obscure the facts. Probably BOTH sides on the issue.

Gpig

[offtaskagain]

Originally posted by Gpig:

I watched parts of that BBC/Italian thingy last night. They were interviewing a former U.S. serviceman (Recon/Scout?) who said he was there in falluja. But the documentary/news piece specifically mentioned WP's "cloud" like method of delivery. They mentioned how flesh would be melted or "burned off down to the bone." And that clothing was not touched. In other words, they found corpses where the flesh was melted but the clothing was not burned.

It all sounded a little "cooked-up" to me. Pardon the pun.

Someone is trying to obscure the facts. Probably BOTH sides on the issue.

Gpig

I saw some of that garbage on TV last night. The idiot they interviewed didnt even see combat in the city by the sound of it. It said he was on a personal security detail or something of that nature, which means escorting around a higher ranking officer on convoys. The reason I believe he never even saw combat there is because he said he heard everything he alledged over the radio, which means he never saw ****. The report also alledged helicopters sprayed WP over the city like its some chemical gas and they showed some NVG video of some type of airburst munition claiming that was evidence. The whole report struck me as a bunch of half-truths assembled into one great disinformation campaign. The impression I got was theyre trying to portray American soldiers as barbarbarians, even going back to the wounded guy in the mosque incident and calling him a wounded warrior. There was also an allegation the U.S. actively targets journalists too. I dont doubt WP was used in Fallujah, but since its not banned by any convention the US is a signatory to it's really a non-issue. Smear campaign at it's finest.

[YankeeDog]

Granted, I'm no incendiary chemist, but I've read a fair amount about WP, and even messed around a bit with the stuff in Inorganic Chemistry class.

WP does not have the capability to burn flesh "to the bone" without damaging clothing, unless the clothing in question is an Aramid Firefighting suit. It burns by simple heat. If enough WP lands on you to cause 3rd degree burns, it's going to burn your clothing, too. No way around this.

Here a website with some decent info on the toxcicity of WP, and the treatment of WP wounds. Note there's no mention of any "flesh melting" effect. . .

emedicine WP page

Long and short if it is, WP is not napalm. The effects described above could not be attributed to WP. It's either another weapon being confused for WP, or just a case of drastic hyperbole.

Regards,

YD

[MikeyD]

To paraphrase what a Vietnam war vet recalls being told by his commander after an ...ahem ..unfortunate incident: "Don't worry about it. Nothing happened, you got that? Nothing happened.Everything's going to be alright. Go back to base and get drunk. You did a great job."

That veteran was still suffering PTSD over the incident-that-didn't-happen 25 years later.

Just because the media get some technical details of a story wrong and can't produce an on-camera interview with the 'ideal' source, that doesn't mean there's no story to be told. Remember being repeatedly told by the Penatagon it was all just frat house hijinks on the night shift? Nobody should be surprised by stories filtering out from the field, when the war started the soldiers were told up front that they were going into Iraq to get some 'pay-back' for 9-11.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Just because the media get some technical details of a story wrong and can't produce an on-camera interview with the 'ideal' source, that doesn't mean there's no story to be told.

Nor does the fact that something is reported in the press necessarily mean that it is anything other than a tall tale made up from whole cloth.

That WP does not melt flesh while leaving clothes intact remains an objective fact in the external world.

That WP is not banned by any international convention remains an objective fact in the external world.

I'm not quite sure what newsworthy story remains if one is not seeking to deny these facts. WP burns? No ****, Sherlock. People got hurt in the unpleasantness in Fallujah? Who'd have thought it. American soldiers are in Iraq? I seem to have heard about that before.

In other news, bullets can sting a bit, says reliable source, and studies suggest that standing too close to exploding bombs can be injurious to health.

All the best,

John.

[Guest Mike]

IIRC weapons using fire are banned under a recent GC amendment?? That includes flame throwers and napalm.

Fire is a weapon that, IMO, justifiably inspires fear in those targeted by it - the thought of being burned to death is one that usually scares the bejezuz out of sane people! :eek:

[Sergei]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

That WP is not banned by any international convention remains an objective fact in the external world.

By any international convention signed by USA, you mean.

[Peter Cairns]

The issue for me isn't what exactly the weapon used might have been, but whether a decision was made that the city would be treated as a kind of "Free Fire Zone" and that having be told, and warned to leave, any civilians who hadn't left were effectively beyond protection or consideration.

I've seen estimates of anything from 10 to 30 thousand of the quarter million population having decided to stick it out.

I've know idea how many of these might have ended up as casualties.

One of the Things that got me about the whole WMD debate was they way in which Chemical and Biological weapons were raised to being on a par with nukes.

From what I've read about the use of chemical weapons from WW1, and Biological by the likes of the Japanese, they may be pretty nasty weapons, but in terms of magnatude, not much worse than Napalm, or Cluster Bombs or Carpet bombing.

I remember reading about the attack by Saddam on Hallabja(?), and in seems to have up to 48hrs of bombing and artillery with a mix of chemicals.

The air attack was repeated strikes lasting about 45 minutes or so with 15 minute intervals in groups of six to eight aircraft for up to eight hours a day.

Now if we take that as accurate and say an SU-22 could carry about 3ton or 3,000ltrs, then a flight would deploy about about 20,000ltrs, and each day they would deliver say 150,00ltrs.

Now that means that a quarter of a million litres over two days killed 5,000 people ( another 20,000 injured and still suffering).

Now thats a terrible crime and I am not trying to minimise the horror of it, but it works out at 500 ltrs per death...

Now that for me raises two questions,

We were told the Stuff Saddam had, could kill hundreds with a single spoonfull so either someone was vastly over stating it's lethality in real world situations, or the stuff dropped wasn't that potent.

Secondly, if the same number of aircraft had been used for the same length of time, using conventional iron bombs, Napalm or cluster bombs, wouldn't the death toll have been if anything higher.

Peter.

[tarball]

Read this, the answer is plainly stated by the Marines: YES!

http://www.military.com/forums/0,15240,79595,00.html

EXERPT:

*************************************************

Demolitions

The majority of explosives used during the fight for Fallujah will not be mentioned here. The few that will be explained have the common theme of being obscure and may be forgotten if they are not written down. Each explosive device was developed in response to the enemy's tactics and has been proven to work.

The following is a list of explosives, a description, and their uses:

* "Eight ball." A one-eighth stick of Composition 4 (C4) explosives used for breaching both interior and exterior doors-effective and doesn't use a lot of C4.

* "House guest" (named by 2d Squad, 1st Platoon, Company I, 3/5 (1/3/5). Propane tanks placed in the central hallway with C4 used to ignite them. Creates a fuel air explosive. Used for bringing down a house when contact is made inside. Propane tanks must be full.

* A 60mm or 81mm white phosphorous mortar round, wrapped three times with detonation cord, and a one-quarter or one-half stick of C4. Used when contact is made in a house, and the enemy must be burned out.

* Molotov cocktails. One part liquid laundry detergent and two parts gas. Used when contact is made in a house, and the enemy must be burned out.

All Marines should be familiar with explosives and proper placement of the charge for breaching. Any Marine should be able to cut a time fuse, crimp a blasting cap, and put the blasting cap in C4.

*************************************************

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

We were told the Stuff Saddam had, could kill hundreds with a single spoonfull so either someone was vastly over stating it's lethality in real world situations, or the stuff dropped wasn't that potent.

Yeah, well we were told lots of things....too bad too few of them were true!

Secondly, if the same number of aircraft had been used for the same length of time, using conventional iron bombs, Napalm or cluster bombs, wouldn't the death toll have been if anything higher.

.

No.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

We were told the Stuff Saddam had, could kill hundreds with a single spoonfull so either someone was vastly over stating it's lethality in real world situations, or the stuff dropped wasn't that potent.

Or then you are confused. A spoonful of some chemical agents could theoretically, if distributed evenly (like with drinking water), kill lots of people. But in practise it is different, and lots of spoons are needed.

[Sergei]

Hey SO, did you write to me what kind of message you got from my e-mail server? I would like to have it at hand before contacting 'em...

[Liebchen]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MikeyD:

Just because the media get some technical details of a story wrong and can't produce an on-camera interview with the 'ideal' source, that doesn't mean there's no story to be told.

Nor does the fact that something is reported in the press necessarily mean that it is anything other than a tall tale made up from whole cloth.

</font>

[Abbott]

Allegedly using WP? I don't get the fuss. I would hope WP is available in CM:SF it is a useful and effective weapon. Personally I would like to see WP rounds to be made available for the Stryker MGS. 105mm WP would be an effective bunker (house) buster.

Hopefully WP will be available to the infantry for spider holes and entries as well. The Marines have been improvising devices to burn out bunkers that they say work pretty good.

[Bigduke6]

I think the discussion on this thread is a good example of how different societies have different realities.

As I understand it Corriere della Sera broke the story. For those of you who don't know, that's Italy's biggest circulation newspaper, roughly the Italian New York Times. Its political position is generally conservative as befits a major newspaper servicing a country's wealthiest, and best-read public. They have a reputation for independent, solid reporting, especially internationally. They are one of the few Italian media groups who can afford to maintain reporters in tough locations like Iraq. As I understand it their editorial position is roughly the Italian version of Wall Street Journal: conservative, pro-business, and against big goverment.

It is pretty indicitative of the quality of reporting, whichever newspaper the news did originate with, that the story gets a U.S. soldier identified by name and unit. That's good reporting, the only thing better is the reporter saw it with his own eyes. Sloppy reporting is "a senior government official" or "a military spokesman" or "an officer left unamed for security reasons." Extremely bad reporting is the previous sentence, with no reality check - i.e., a second source.

(Parenthetically RIA is a Berlusconi operation, and it is indicative of something that RIA picked up the story, which is pretty negative for Berlusconi. That's a sign of media indpendence.)

The WP story obviously is interesting to Italian readers because the reason Berlusconi said Iraq needed Italian trooops, is that Italy should be a good ally to the U.S., and the U.S. requested Italian troops for the occupation, so as to build a better Iraq. Use by U.S. forces of a really nasty weapon like WP undermines the Italian government arguement the Italian troop presence is a morally good thing.

Italian voters make their decision on supporting or not supporting their government's foreign policy just like pretty much any one else in any major democracy: first by personal interest, and then if the policy seems to be "the right thing to do."

Italians, almost without exception, are not CM grogs. They don't really care what the legal definition of WP is, nor are they willing to consider tactical need as a reasonable justification for use of a nasty weapon. Like most people in most places, they are concerned with their own perception of right and wrong, when it comes to a war. And most of the time, they are not even thinking about war.

I would say that, in the minds of the average Italian willing to even think about the issue, the US use of WP in Iraq is hypocrytical and overkill. The perception probably is here's this giant superpower is hunting down some Arab nuts in a dirty desert town, and the superpower is so afraid to "fight fair" that it resorts to horrid chemical type weapons.

The irony is of course obvious to the Italian reader: After having invaded Iraq to destroy chemical weapons that turned out not to exist, U.S. forces are using chemical weapons to prosecute a war in the country, rather than admit their mistake and just leave.

This is of course a great news story, just about every one loves to read about hypocrytical bullies.

Every one please pay attention. I am not saying the Italian perceptions are my perceptions. I am talking about why the WP news story "works" in Italian, and indeed in most media markets worldwide.

And no, this is not a political rant on Iraq, this is directly applicable to CMSF. Think victory conditions.

What about a victory condition, where the sides LOSE points for use of certain weapons in certain situations? The U.S. player hits a built-up area with WP, any sizable bomb, or heck, anything bigger than a low-velocity bullet, and he risks losing VPs. That's because he's going to do some "unwanted damage" and some reporter may find out.

Or make available to the Syrian player cheap teenage female units, and then let the Syrian play risk VPs by using them in combat. An Arab country's leadership would get major egg on its face, if it actually used women in combat.

On the other hand maybe it's worth the risk to give the Christian invaders a target which, if the Christians killed it in any numbers, would stir up the Mother of Muslim world media firestorms. Hmm...

An even better option is to to force the Syrian player to pay in VPs every time he smashes a building - after all that's some one's property he just destroyed, and insurance doesn't cover stuff like that. Just like the U.S. player, although I would assume a Syrian shop owner would be angrier if the infidel Americans trashed his shop, than if his own government did it. Devil that you know and all that.

The Syrian player's roadside bomb may take out that M1A1, but is it worth knocking down a bunch of shops nearby, when one of the regional clans operate the shops? Again, the Syrian commander strokes his moustache, rubs his chin, and says "Hmm...."

It all comes down to how you define victory, after all.