Willy Pete alleged to have been used in Falluja

[Battlefront.com]

Let's also keep in mind there are plenty of gray areas in these treaties when you consider when they were written. From what I remember the US M2 is illegal becuase its caliber is larger than what is allowed to be used against Humans. Or something stupid like that. Also, IIRC shotguns are not allowed for some reason. And yet landmines were not explicitely banned.

The fact of the matter is the rules of war are sometimes well written and logical, sometimes poorly written and illogical. They might have made sense at the time, though perhaps even then it was wishful thinking. Like others have said, I don't understand what the difference is between blowing someone's leg off with a .50 cal round, a landmine, a solid slug shotgun round, or a 155 HE round. All of these weapons are designed to kill or seriously maim. If you have a problem with one, then you should have a problem with all.

Steve

[flamingknives]

Actually, I don't believe that the M2 is prohibited under any convention. The only article that could be used against it is the one that prohibits [the employment of] "arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;"

Being as the .50 cal is calculated to go further and be more effective aginst light armour (originally an AT weapon?)

Not quite fitting the bill, although I'm sure people would argue it.

[SgtMuhammed]

The prohibition is against modifying rounds. Other than chemical weapons there is no issued ammo that is illegal for use against human targets. If you take a normal 7.62 round and turn it into a hollow point then you are in violation. Caliber has nothing to do with it.

I have never been able to understand why the myth got started that it was illegal to shoot a man with a 12.7 mm round but ok to shoot him with a 155mm round.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

[snips]

From what I remember the US M2 is illegal becuase its caliber is larger than what is allowed to be used against Humans.

It has already been pointed out that this isn't right. I suspect the myth may gave got started by something I vaguely remember (Hague IV?) about exploding bullets being prohibited for use against personnel in calibres below 20mm.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Or something stupid like that. Also, IIRC shotguns are not allowed for some reason.

There's no convention banning shotguns; some while ago I posted a whole bunch of stuff on the rather robust response the US JAG gave to the Germans through diplomatic channels during WW1 when they were foolish enough to threaten to initiate reprisals for the AEF's use of combat shotguns.

Again, I can see how such a myth would arise, given that soft lead slugs would be prohibited (Hague IV again I think, prohibition of expanding bullets).

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

And yet landmines were not explicitely banned.

Well, they are now, at least anti-personnel ones, for signatories of the Ottawa Treaty. As so soften happens, the reasons were more to do with emotion than logic. Princess Di making doe eyes at the world's TV cameras brought the matter to the attention of a poorly-informed public, who tended rather to neglect the fact that the humanitarian disaster of minefields arose from a use of mines that clearly violated existing conventions. Still, if people won't follow the existing law, what else would politicians think of doing but to pass more laws?

All the best,

John.

[Bigduke6]

My understanding is the Hague convention forbids the use of weapons designed to destroy vehicles and objects, against individuals. Hence a .50 caliber is "illegal" against an individual, but "acceptable" as long as the individual stays in his vehicle.

The only law that works is international opinion, which can vary from country to country, case to case, and weapon to weapon - and it's all backed up by an ignorant public poorly informed by its leaders and media.

[SgtMuhammed]

Again, there is no convention against targeting anything on the battlefield with anything else as long as it is an unmodified, issued round. If you want to fire a TOW at a lone infantryman go right ahead. Stupid, but not against the "Laws of Land Warfare."

[Nidan1]

I suppose that the Islamic cavalry that invaded southern Europe from Spain would have complained that the Frankish heavy infantry was "fighting with unfair weapons and tactics" as the flanks and legs of their horses were cut and slashed by heavy swords and pikes as they attacked.

Its all propaganda...if you are killed by a 5.56mm bullet, or by a 1lb. piece of fragment from a 500;b bomb, it makes little difference to the dead.

Adding additional comments after reading more of this thread:

In my military experience WP artillery shells were used mostly for spotting, drop a few WP rounds, get the range, and then fire HE for effect.

at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired “shake and bake” missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out

Now, reading that quote about so called "shake and bake" missions...now while that sounds like how a typical American soldier would describe something. The mechanics of it dont make sense to me, perhaps I'm mistaken, but hear me out. Its been a long time since I've seen WP shells explode, but from my recollection they burst on the ground and send burning fragments of phosphorus into the air that have white smoke trails. Could someone explain to me how that effect would force individuals in fortified urban structures to run out in the open to be pulverized by HE? I dont believe there is any suffocating effects as would be found in a napalm strike. What I think is being described is the WP marking the general area for a follow on HE fire mission. Maybe the bodies with the burn marks were already dead and out in the open when the WP hit them. I dont believe that WP can burn through brick and mortar structures. However it can fix individuals in their positions and obscure their vision of an escape route, while making the open areas nearby generally dangerous to be in. My experience is that Media from all countries is generally ignorant about things military, and like most of us, death and destruction makes them squeamish and prone to get things incorrect. Of course that does not include Bigduke6

[ November 12, 2005, 07:54 AM: Message edited by: Nidan1 ]

[c3k]

Bigduke6,

You've brought back memories... At one point in training, I was told it was against international convention to use a specific weapon against a soldier. It could only be used against vehicles or material. The Sergeant then looked me in the eye and said, "Of course, I consider enemy uniforms to be material targets. If there is collateral damage to the soldier..." followed by a shrug. So, with that in mind, we would always be aiming at weapons, uniforms, rucksacks, etc...

Ken

[Andrew H.]

Yeah, the idea that the .50 cal is banned by some convention is a myth. One that seems, for whatever reason, to be largely propagated by drill sergeants as described by c3k, Bigduke, and several friends of mine; 20 years ago they told me the exact same thing, down to the use of targeting enemy units' clothing and web belts.

I've always found it odd that this persists, but I suppose it's a pretty memorable way of impressing someone with the power of the weapon.

[YankeeDog]

Nidan -- the smoke WP generates is caustic -- it burns the eyes and lungs. The burning WP also generates a lot of heat.

IIRC, WP smoke also doesn't rise, but rather sticks around the ground, so it's more likely to hang in foxholes, etc. than some other kinds of smoke.

So if you cover an area with WP, it becomes pretty much ininhabitable for a short period of time.

So my SWAG is that what the marines are doing in the above-described action is setting off a WP round inside the close confines of a structure, and so filling the structure with caustic smoke. Everyone in the building then has the choice of (a) running out into the open and getting shot, or ( Trying to stick out in the cautic smoke smoke, which, while it might not kill you, will probably make you cough, and your eyes burn to the point that you're pretty much combat ineffective.

Sounds pretty effective to me. . .

Cheers,

YD

[offtaskagain]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

IIRC, WP smoke also doesn't rise, but rather sticks around the ground, so it's more likely to hang in foxholes, etc. than some other kinds of smoke.

You've got that backwards. WP is not considered the most effective screening agent because the burning of the phosphorous makes the smoke rather hot causing it to billow up and dissapate. HC shells are preffered for the most effective screening because the smoke is much cooler and hangs lower to the ground. However WP is basically an instant screen due to the explosive nature of the shell. HC screens take a little bit of time to reach an effective thickness. This is a basic overview of the types.

[rai kitsune]

Ya'll have got to keep in mind the fact that any explosives are a type of chemical really and thus if you blow open a door you're actually performing a chemical attack. white phosporus is banned under a UN treaty which the US did not sign thus the US are free to use it. (i support the use of it seeing as its just so damned effective.)

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by rai kitsune:

Ya'll have got to keep in mind the fact that any explosives are a type of chemical really and thus if you blow open a door you're actually performing a chemical attack.

That's why treaties tend to include text defining what is and is not a "chemical weapon", to avoid this kind of silliness.

One might equally well observe that all weapons are made of atoms, and are therefore atomic weapons, or that wood is a biological substance, and rifles with wooden stocks are therefore biological weapons (and if equipped with Trilux sights, radiological weapons to boot).

Originally posted by rai kitsune:

white phosporus is banned under a UN treaty which the US did not sign thus the US are free to use it. (i support the use of it seeing as its just so damned effective.)

Please read the thread. There is no treaty, drawn up by the UN, the ICRC or the Ampthill & Flitwick Stoat Fanciers' Guild, that bans white phosphorus.

All the best,

John.

[Battlefront.com]

Ah, so it would seem the M2 and shotgun issues are nitpicks like the one the Italian media is trying to make. How utterly un-shocking

Here's another one that seems to have been called "illegal" but is not -> thermobaric weapons. From what I can tell the legality was in question within the US gov't for a while, but apparently it has been cleared up because the US is now fully engaged in these programs and has even used them in combat.

Steve

[akd]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Ah, so it would seem the M2 and shotgun issues are nitpicks like the one the Italian media is trying to make. How utterly un-shocking

Here's another one that seems to have been called "illegal" but is not -> thermobaric weapons. From what I can tell the legality was in question within the US gov't for a while, but apparently it has been cleared up because the US is now fully engaged in these programs and has even used them in combat.

Steve

Oh yes, and I hope we seem them in CMx2.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

The prohibition is against modifying rounds. Other than chemical weapons there is no issued ammo that is illegal for use against human targets. If you take a normal 7.62 round and turn it into a hollow point then you are in violation. Caliber has nothing to do with it.

A factory-issued hollowpoint would be no more acceptable than a field-modified one, AIUI.

[juan_gigante]

Yes, but many laws are silly.

[jrcar]

Well when I did my officer training in the Australian Army in the late 1980's we were told that the use of WP to deliberately cause casualties would be considered a war crime and would be punishable under Australian law.

Incidental casualties caused by the use of WP as an obscurant is acceptable as long as you could show the intent was to obscure, not cause casualties.

I'll try and check up the current accepted logic to this.

Cheers

Rob

[ November 14, 2005, 01:56 AM: Message edited by: jrcar ]

[BARMAN1950]

I'm not sure whether this is on topic or not, but here goes.

In Korea we used "Willy Peter" as an anti-personel weapon. It's primary function was of course as smoke. It was used by FO's to "mark center sector" as a preliminary to targeting for artillery. It was found to be an excellent anti-personel weapon against fortified "gook" positions both for its smoke effect and also for its ability to drive the enemy out of thier positions. As a side note it was difficult to get anyone to throw a WP granade because some of the burning pieces would invaribly come back towards the thrower.

Other weapons that were used against personel were the Quad 50, and 40 mm AA. Both not designed to be anti-personel weapons, but very very effective in that role. Boy those Quad 50's really were in great demand as oversight during an attack! sadly we did not get them in that role as often as we would have wished. It was also a great way to breakup the gook mass attacks!

[Abbott]

Originally posted by BARMAN1950:

(snipped)

In Korea we used "Willy Peter" as an anti-personal weapon.

Yeah, agreed. WP works just fine underground to clear out personal as well.

I second the .50cal as an anti-personal weapon. I never saw a quad .50 but know of an incident where .50cal's were setup in the back of flatbed trucks ringed with sandbags. These trucks where then parked to form a perimeter. They worked.

[hellfish]

Originally posted by Andrew H.:

Yeah, the idea that the .50 cal is banned by some convention is a myth. One that seems, for whatever reason, to be largely propagated by drill sergeants as described by c3k, Bigduke, and several friends of mine; 20 years ago they told me the exact same thing, down to the use of targeting enemy units' clothing and web belts.

I've always found it odd that this persists, but I suppose it's a pretty memorable way of impressing someone with the power of the weapon.

That's what I was always taught too - it was illegal to shoot people with it, but you could target their clothing.

[SgtMuhammed]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

The prohibition is against modifying rounds. Other than chemical weapons there is no issued ammo that is illegal for use against human targets. If you take a normal 7.62 round and turn it into a hollow point then you are in violation. Caliber has nothing to do with it.

A factory-issued hollowpoint would be no more acceptable than a field-modified one, AIUI. </font>

[flamingknives]

sgtgoody (esq), there's too many negatives going on; I don't understand what you've said there.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

sgtgoody (esq), there's too many negatives going on; I don't understand what you've said there.

It's really quite easy.

The first negative was an affirmative negative, insofar as it afffirmed your negation of the acceptability of hollow-points not improvised.

The second negative was a denial of the contingency of the issuance of the hollow-points the denial of whose legality by you had been affirmed by Stgoody with his initial negative.

The third negative was merely an observation that even if the bullets that weren't legal and weren't issued as affirmed by your common negation of their legality and Stgoody's negation of their issuance were, hypothetically, to have been issued, then positively no good would come of it because they have no ability to penetrate body armour.

I really can't see any reason anyone should deny the lack of difficulty in not failing to comprehend the foregoing.

But then I do have a bottle of Chateuneuf-du-Pape inside me, and, as surely nobody will deny knowing, in vino veritas.

Not so?

All the best,

John.

[flamingknives]

Well the thing is, sgtgoody's negative that affirmed my negative also negates his initial assertation that no issued ammunition was prohibited.

The second sentence containing the third negative is incidental and plays no part in the ensuing confusion.

So the issue I am not having a lack of incomprehension with is the apparent reversal of position brought about by there being a not inconsiderable number of negative modifiers used.