"thermobaric/enhanced-blast" proliferation?

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Will thermobaric/enhanced-blast weapons have a visible blast wave in CM:SF?

Oh come on!! Someone had to ask.

[Goatsee]

Milkor is a South African company and claims sales of its 40mm systems to 30 countries. They are not under US Contract I beleive and are arms salesmen.

Tally (USA): In 2005, Talley (LAW, SMAW) and its Norwegian partner NAMMO Raufoss are developing the so-called "Next-Generation LAW" with three new types of rockets. The M72E8 is a derivative of the M72A7 with an FFE (Fire From Enclosure) propulsion system. This would allow to use the weapon in urban combat. The M72E9 is a high-penetration weapon against modern armour, and the M72E10 has a blast/fragmentation warhead for use as an anti-personnel rocket.

The Soviets, as already mentioned, have fielded such systems and used them and presumably sold them also.

The Marines are currently evaluating FCT (Foriegn Comparative Tests) of other country's 40mm designs but with the use of IM explosives. Fielding expected 1997.

The Marines, and presumably the US Army, are switching to IM explosives (Pax-2a, etc) in many munitions as stocks are aquired.

[akd]

Fielding expected 1997.

err...?

[Goatsee]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We need to be careful about what is theoretically available from contractors and what is actually in use (or projected use in 2007). There is an amazing amout of stuff out there that the makers claim is in use, or about to be used, when in fact it never makes it. The whopper of a FUBAR XM-8 program is one such example.

Steve

Its actually what the military contracts for. Sometimes they will buy off the shelves also. developing a whole new weapon system from scratch should not be compared with refilling ordanance with alternative explosives.

And can we assume that the Syria thing will be over in a few months? Why the restriction to 2007? Iraq has been dragging on for awhile.

If in fact something like Syria could happen, the military would procure weapons rapidly.

[Battlefront.com]

Goatsee

Its actually what the military contracts for. Sometimes they will buy off the shelves also.

Of course. For example, by the time CM:SF rolls around the M203 should have been replaced by the M320 (XM320 as it is called now). This is the HK AG36 40mm grenade launcher used on the G36 and several other rifles.

developing a whole new weapon system from scratch should not be compared with refilling ordanance with alternative explosives.

Obviously. However, if there is no indication that the US military is interested in procuring and fielding in time for CM:SF, then it won't be included. There is no reason to willy nilly include things that are "cool" just because they theoretically could be used. That gets us into a whole new realm of fantasy that we don't want to go anywhere near. So unless there is substantial evidence that a system or munition will be online with the US Army by early 2007, it isn't going to be found in CM:SF

And can we assume that the Syria thing will be over in a few months? Why the restriction to 2007? Iraq has been dragging on for awhile.

CM:SF is only about the initial conventional phase of the conflict. The game system and engine is not set up to simulate counter insurgency as its primary element.

Steve

[Goatsee]

Whats so special about 2007? Why not 2008? But I guess that one could also ask "Why Syria?"

Will the arms procured and used by Syria be that realm of fantasy that you are comfortable with? You must know that the soviet thermobaric weapons would make Stryker vehicles coffins?

Given the state of present world affairs, and the obvious use of the US army/marines throughout 2006 in Iraq (read burn-out), do you really think that Syria/2007 is a realistic battle setting?

[Goatsee]

Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:

Will thermobaric/enhanced-blast weapons have a visible blast wave in CM:SF?

Oh come on!! Someone had to ask.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/infantry/burk.pdf

It will look like the photo in that link

Also, the 25mm thermobaric ammo

http://www.rdecom.army.mil/rdemagazine/200312/itl_ardec_thermobaric.html

This overview shows that the US Military (obviously) is engaging in rapid implementation of technology for its fighting forces (which are fighting in a few places). This shows May 2005. Note that things like slat armor and 40mm thermobarics are specifically mentioned.

http://www.jhuapl.edu/aboutapl/events/industry2005/pdf/RDECOM%20Overview%20-%2023%20May%2005.pdf#search='US%20Army%20thermobaric%20weapon%20research'

And as far as the market..

Russia continued to be a major supplier of conventional arms. Following Moscow's abrogation of the Gore-Chernomyrdin agreement in November 2000, Russian officials stated that they saw Iran as a significant source of potential revenue from arms sales and believed that Tehran could become Russia's third-largest conventional arms customer after China and India. In 2001, Russia was the primary source of ACW for China, Iran, Libya, and Sudan, and one of the largest sources for India. As an example, Russia actively marketed its thermobaric weapons at international arms shows, which likely increases the availability of this type of weapon in the open market.Russia continued to be the main supplier of technology and equipment to India's and China's naval nuclear propulsion programs. In addition, Russia discussed leasing nuclear-powered attack submarines to India.

There is also a second hand market and underground market as well. Also, the fact is that thermobarics are not that difficult to R&D and develop. Reducing Aluminum to micron sized particles and mixing with plastic explosive seems to be a poor man's path.

[ January 06, 2006, 08:01 AM: Message edited by: Goatsee ]

[Peter Cairns]

Anyone know if this poor mans root of using aluminium would work with 122mm artillery rockets.

If so then there is the possibility of making a standard 40 roumd BM-21 in to a very different weapon.

Another candidate of interest more to the US than Syrian would be a thermobaric warhead for a 70mm rocket that could give helicopters a more effective weapon when attacking opponents in buildings.

Peter.

[Battlefront.com]

Goatsee,

Whats so special about 2007? Why not 2008? But I guess that one could also ask "Why Syria?"

Because we had to choose something 2007 is near enough that we can fairly accurately predict what the battlefield will be like. 2008 is a lot less clear. Anything after that is extremely hazy. CMx2 will never again be a broad based simulator, but instead a narrowly focused one. That means we pick one time frame and location for each major release. There are tons of threads you can check into to see a lot more about it.

Will the arms procured and used by Syria be that realm of fantasy that you are comfortable with?

Same stanards apply to the Syrians as they do the US (and others). We are not going to give the Syrians anything they wouldn't likely have, or have in significant numbers.

You must know that the soviet thermobaric weapons would make Stryker vehicles coffins?

It's no worse than an RPG hit. Thermobaric weapons only work effectively when they detonate inside a confined space. If an insurgent got a round into a Stryker (or Bradley), then it would be near certain death for the occupants. But the same is true for an HE RPG round.

Given the state of present world affairs, and the obvious use of the US army/marines throughout 2006 in Iraq (read burn-out), do you really think that Syria/2007 is a realistic battle setting?

This is not the thread for this. There are probably a dozen threads that have discussed this in great detail. Check the locked thread at the top of the Forum list to find at least one or two of them.

Steve

[Goatsee]

Thermobarics do work on vehicles. Especially since the heat/blast works its way into any opening on vehicles.

[Goatsee]

The TOW Bunker Buster should also be mentioned as an enhanced warhead. Its chock full of PBXN-109. The stryker TOW vehicle uses this.

I met someone that claimed to have been to some covert sniper school. He claimed they were trained on TOW missiles that were modified by filling the hollow cone in the front of the missile with a plastic explosive. This produced a forward moving explosion (in addition to a shaped charge) that ws supposedly useful in taking out high value human targets or groups of people.

[Battlefront.com]

From a US military study:

The RPO-A is best used as a bunker buster. It's two-kilogram warhead readily knocks out bunkers and strongpoints. However, when used against dispersed troops in the open, it will normally kill no more than one or two per burst. When the RPO-A is used against armored vehicles, it usually damages the vehicle, but the crew survives and is able to return fire. The Russians learned to assign an RPG-7 gunner with an RPO flamethrower gunner when operating as a "hunter-killer" team. The RPG-7 gunner stops the enemy vehicle and then the RPO gunner uses the RPO-Z incendiary round to set the vehicle on fire.17

Surviving a thermobaric strike

Units are far more concentrated in a city fight than when deployed in the countryside. Therefore, a thermobaric strike on a unit in an urban fight is likely to be very bloody. Those personnel caught directly under the aerosol cloud will die from the flame or overpressure. For those on the periphery of the strike, the injuries can be severe. Burns, broken bones, contusions from flying debris and blindness may result. Further, the crushing injuries from the overpressure can create air embolism within blood vessels, concussions, multiple internal hemorrhages in the liver and spleen, collapsed lungs, rupture of the eardrums and displacement of the eyes from their sockets.18 Displacement and tearing of internal organs can lead to peritonitus. Most military medics are well trained in stopping the bleeding, protecting the wound and treating for shock. Many of the injuries caused by thermobaric weapons are internal and may not be initially noticed by the medic or doctor.

Medical units will have to practice triage in treating thermobaric casualties. Thermobaric detonations will create three "zones" of injury. The first is the central zone where most will die immediately from blast overpressure and thermal injuries. Casualties in the second zone will survive the initial blast and burns, but will have extensive burns and those internal injuries listed above. From a medical stand point, some second zone casualties might be able to be saved with extensive care and sufficient resources, but, in reality, between the resources required and the low salvage rate, little can be done beyond providing morphine and other pain relief. In the third zone, patients will have had some protection from flying debris, but may have experienced some blast effect. Kevlar armor may protect soldiers from lethal missile injuries, but not from the blast effect. Surprisingly, many of the patients with internal injuries will survive and do reasonably well providing that acute hemorrhaging is stopped, perforated bowels are sealed off and long-term care provided. Although eardrum examination is not part of a typical field medic/corpsmen exam, looking at the eardrums can tell a lot. If there is fluid or blood behind the eardrums, it is a very good clinical predictor of late pulmonary complications from blast injuries. Most of the injuries are caused from the pressure wave passing a tissue/fluid-air interface. That's why the bulk of the thermobaric injuries are pulmonary or gut (air filled viscous organs).

Injuries to the extremities and eyes will be common in the third zone. Simply using goggles, safety glasses or protective face shields can prevent many of these eye injuries. Burns will also be usual in the third zone. Burn care training and treatment will need special emphasis when preparing for combat where thermobaric weapons may be employed.

Conclusion

The Russian use of tactical, ground-launched thermobaric weapons has taken the wraps off of an effective weapons type that is currently being purchased or developed by a variety of countries. Thermobaric weapons will be present on future battlefields. They will present particular problems for defending units or units bunched up on complex terrain such as forest, jungle or cities. Medical units will face problems treating mass burn and crushing injuries. Technology offers no quick counters, so unit survival may depend on tactics and drills, improved counter-battery procedures and use of camouflage and deception measures.

Steve

[akd]

When the RPO-A is used against armored vehicles, it usually damages the vehicle, but the crew survives and is able to return fire.

I assume this means when used against a buttoned armored vehicle.

[Goatsee]

Sinfulcurves_AK 02-14-2005 11:42 PM

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

RShG-1 (russian thermobaric)

http://www.findarticles.com/p/artic...009/ai_n8911890

The latest Russian thermobaric grenade-brought out on 23 July 2001 by the Bazalt Research and Production Center-is an improved variant of the RShG-1. Described as a "Multi- Purpose Rocket Propelled Grenade," the weapon has been listed as having an effective range of 500 meters and a maximum range of 800-1,000 meters. With this revelation, Bazalt may be trying to wring RPG-29 performance levels out of the original RShG-1.

The RShG- 1 is based on the RPG-27 LAW (a more powerful evolution of the RPG-26), which fires a 105mm rocket based on the PG-7VR tandem warhead grenade (used in the RPG-7). The PG-- 7VR warhead, which has a punch equivalent to that of a 120mm high-- explosive (HE) mortar or artillery shell, was actually developed in 1988. The Russians now believe it will be a useful antitank weapon out to 2005. (See also "The RPG-7 on the Battlefields of Today and Tomorrow," by Lester W. Grau, Infantry, May-August 1998.)

The PG-7VR is also used in the RPG-29, which looks more like a conventional "bazooka" or recoilless rifle than the LAW-series RPGs. The RPG29 can be broken down into two subassemblies carried by the gunner in a special bag. The assistant gunner carries additional grenades and protects the gunner. While fitted with iron sights, the launcher also has both optical day and night sights.

In late 1998, the Russians sold the Syrians a shipment of RPG-29 grenade launchers with night sights (as part of a larger arms package).

On 20 October 1999 the Russians conducted extensive survivability trials on T-80U and T-90 main battle tanks (MBTs). These tests involved firing large amounts of ordnance (including several versions of RPG ATGL, light and heavy ATGMs, and APFSDS rounds) at the frontal arc of T-80Us and T-90s, with and without Kontakt-V reactive armor (ERA). Three of each type tank were used (one with Kontakt-V ERA, one without the explosive packages, and one reserve vehicle). For the ERA part of the trials, knocked-out ERA packages were replaced after each shot. Each weapon was fired five times at each target, for a total of 20 shots per weapon.

The RPG-29 scored a total of three penetrations, while none of the other RPG rounds could penetrate even the stripped target. The RPG-29 also penetrated the T-80U three times with the ERA and all five times without. Of all other grenades, only one PG-7VR penetrated the stripped T-80U target.

The RPG-7 using the advanced 4.5kg, 105mm PG-7VR grenade had a penetration of 650mm of rolled homogenous armor (RHA), the RPG-26 disposable LAW had more than 500mm, while the RPG-29 105mm launcher was able to punch through 750mm.

The Russians concluded that the RPG-29 was by far the most potent weapon among those tested. It was as powerful as the heavy "Kornet" ATGM and, considering the proliferation of this fairly light infantry weapon, they figured that it had become the most dangerous adversary of modern Russian main battle tanks and a very disturbing development.

The RShG- 1 has a small HEAT (high-explosive antitank) precursor to penetrate targets before the 2.3kg thermobaric main charge warhead explodes, making it more useful than the RPO-A against lightly armored vehicles and field fortifications. With tandem warheads, the first charge blows a hole in the target's outer skin (or ERA blocks) for a thermobaric primary warhead to pass through. This provides an armor/concrete penetration capability, allowing the thermobaric charge to be detonated inside the target.

Thermobaric weapons contain slow-- burning explosive slurries that keep their explosive impulses on a target longer. Their burning plasma clouds can penetrate even the smallest cracks, and when the slurry is completely consumed, the resulting vacuum causes a massive backblast that crushes everything in the area. These weapons can be extremely dangerous to armored vehicles, as they penetrate engine compartments or vents.

Bazalt believes that the RShG-1 has no competitors on the global arms market and, with its excellent sales prospects, may be a weapon U.S. forces must face in the future.

[Other Means]

Hi Lewis.

[Goatsee]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Anyone know if this poor mans root of using aluminium would work with 122mm artillery rockets.

If so then there is the possibility of making a standard 40 roumd BM-21 in to a very different weapon.

Another candidate of interest more to the US than Syrian would be a thermobaric warhead for a 70mm rocket that could give helicopters a more effective weapon when attacking opponents in buildings.

Peter.

From what I read, the metal particles has to be micron sized. Tests with Nano sized particles yielded no benefit. Making micron sized Aluminum particles would not need a Manhatten Project.

Combining this with plastic explosive and refilling rockets could be done. Having many of these going off in rapid succession would be shattering in an area.

Simply taking a conventional artillery shell and surrounding it a sleeve filled with aluminum powder might make a frightening booby trap/IED. Having one of these go off in a narrow street or other confined space would be even more devastating.

[John Kettler]

Peter Cairns,

Your nasty idea seems readily doable to me. If memory serves, the powdered aluminum trick was but one of several Russian advances in explosives detailed in the DoD's RUSSIAN MILITARY POWER circa 1989.

Goatsee,

That is truly fascinating information you posted. I never expected to see firing trial results against T-90s with Kontakt V ERA. Too bad they didn't shoot some of our weapons at those tanks!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Goatsee]

I wonder if rockets, given the low firing stresses, could have bodies made sintered Aluminum held in an epoxy. In other words, the casing could also be aerobic explosive.

My understanding of modern HIT (High Impulse Thermobarics) is that they can be used in traditional HEAT type warheads allowing not only a Hollow charge effect, side fragmentation but also an increased blast effect.

They are not just useful within buildings.

[Goatsee]

http://www.onr.navy.mil/about/conferences/rd_partner/2005/docs/past/2003/2003_harp_quick_reaction_special_projects.pdf

Quick Reaction Special Projects

(Thermobaric hellfire, improved hydra rockets, etc)

In December, 2005, the government of Israel accused the government of Syria supplying the Hezbollah terrorist organization with RPG-29 rockets, which were used in an assault on Israeli territory.

I think its safe to willy-nilly that Syria has aquired these weapons.

New Russian weapons are showing up in Iraq, apparently smuggled across the Syrian border. One of the more dangerous has been the RPG-29. This is a larger version of the widely used RPG-7. With a ten pound launcher firing a 14.7 pound 105mm rocket, the RPG-29 warhead is designed to get past some forms of reactive armor (ERA). The larger weapon (3.3 feet long when carried out, six feet long when ready to fire and 65 percent heavier than the 85mm RPG-7) is more difficult to carry around and fire, but some have been captured, and the damage on some American armored vehicles indicate they were hit by an RPG-29 rocket. The RPG-29 has an effective range of 500 meters. The warhead can also penetrate five feet of reinforced concrete.

Both RPG-29s and 27s were developed and entered production just before the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. They are available through legitimate, or black market, arms dealers and are more expensive than the RPG-7 (which is manufactured by many countries.) RPG-29 launchers cost over $500 each, and the rockets for about $300 each. The RPG-27s cost over $500 each. It’s known that many of Saddam’s higher ranking supporters escaped to Syria with a lot of cash. Apparently some of it is being spent on RPG-27s and 29s.

Also..

Syria continues to acquire ACW—mainly from Russia and other FSU suppliers—although at a reduced level from the early 1990s. During the past few years, Syria has received Kornet-E (AT-14), Metis-M (AT-13), Konkurs (AT-5), and Bastion-M (AT-10B) antitank guided missiles, RPG-29 rocket launchers, and small arms. Damascus has expressed interest in acquiring Russian Su-27 and MiG-29 fighters and air defense systems, but its outstanding debt to Moscow and inability to fund large purchases have hampered negotiations.

[ January 06, 2006, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: Goatsee ]

[Battlefront.com]

Hey, I see Other Means figured it out too! I just banned Lewis (Goatsee) in another thread. I figured it out a little while ago, but figured I needed a bit more confirmation before pulling the plug. And he gave it to us

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

akd,

I assume this means when used against a buttoned armored vehicle.

I assume at least no exposed crew, but I'm not sure about the buttoned (likely though). Here's a thought as to why they might not be as effective against vehicles in real life as they are in theory.

Thermobaric warheads work by ejecting a sphere of combustible material of some sort or another. This is ignited a and the result is the overpressure/heat being spread out over the area of the dispersal of the material. The combustion rushes air to feed the chemical reaction, which creates a temporary vacuum around the sphere. So if you aren't incinerated in the actual where the material combusts, you are deprived of air and exposed to the overpressure in the adjacent area. The more constricted the environment, the more accentuated the vacuum within range of the reaction.

Now, almost by definition vehicles are out in the open. This automatically reduces their effectiveness. Still nasty as Hell, but not as nasty as they can be. Score one for the vehicle. When the round hits the vehicle the spray of material is not dispersed optimally because there is armor blocking its path (i.e. it doesn't punch through a wall). The material goes backwards away from the vehicle, into the ground, and in the air. Some of it will go under and over the vehicle, but it depends on the angle of the hit and the shape of the vehicle. Hitting the slab side of an Abrams will likely produce a different effect than hitting the front bumper area of a Stryker dead on, for example. In any case the material detonates mostly away from the vehicle. When drawing in air the laws of physics dictate that it will grab the easiest air first and the harder to reach air only to the degree it is not satisfied with the easy air. In the open there is plenty of easy to get air, so it probably expends much of its deadly vacuum effect away from the vehicle. Other things such as baffles and air filters would further hamper the sucking of air to feed the explosion.

The upshot of this is that the vehicle's exterior will suffer significant damage from the detonation of the dispersed material, but the internal crew space (and its access ways to air) won't be the first place the explosion looks for its supply of air. Therefore, reduced effect against the crew. The more buttoned, the more reduced.

Again, this is just my layman's interpretation of how this weapon works. It is clear that it is nasty, but like all weapons there are real world factors that make it less nasty sometimes vs. others. We need to make sure we don't over model by basing its effects purely on its theoretical capabilities. Combat results show us that this weapon is not always the perfect killer it is said to be.

Steve

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

An idea or speculation on the impact of a thermobaric hit on external gear like optics, designators comm aerials etc.

If the overpressure had an effect on these a functioning vehicle could well have it's effectiveness substantially reduced, especially in hight time operations.

Peter.

[Battlefront.com]

Well, if it could burn it would burn. That would probably be enough to break or at least scorch the glass of optics, vision blocks, and what not that happen to be right in the blast area. I would uess aerials and other light metal objects would also be toasted. I'd also be curious to know what would happen to the tires of a wheeled vehicle. I presume if the hit was low enough that they would be ignited. Not sure if it would be enough to ruin them completely, but I'd bet it would.

If anybody has a pointer to a detailed report of hits on AFVs, especially wheeled ones, that would be great. I know of the Russian tests noted above. The reports, sadly, concerned themselves with penetrations and not equipment damage. At least the versions of it I saw didn't detail that sort of thing.

Steve

[akd]

The wiki entry suggests that the effects within the detonation cloud would be pretty severe.

The overpressure within the detonation can reach 3 MPa (430 lbf/in²) and the temperature can be 2500 to 3000 °C. Outside the cloud the blast wave travels at over 3 km/s. Following the initial blast is a phase in which the pressure drops below atmospheric pressure creating an airflow back to the center of the explosion strong enough to have a human bodi lifted and thrown. It draws in the unexploded burning fuel to create almost complete penetration of all non-airtight objects within the blast radius, which are then incinerated. Asphyxiation and internal damage can also occur to personnel outside the highest blast effect zone, e.g. in deeper tunnels, as a result of the blast wave, the heat, or the following air draw.

Even outside of confined spaces, the blast effect of a thermobaric is much more significant than military HE.

http://www.defence.gov.au/dpe/dhs/infocentre/publications/journals/NoIDs/adfhealth_apr03/ADFHealth_4_1_03-06.pdf

At a minimum, you could probably assume blast effects on unprotected vehicle components within the actual explosion several magnitudes greater than an equivalent amount of HE. I would assume that this lengthened period of overpressure within the blast radius would also have significant effects on the passengers of an unbuttoned armored vehicle. I'm not entirely certain that detonation against the exterior of the vehicle would result in the same blast deflection that occurs with HE. For example, this report cites effectiveness versus field fortifications:

Since a fuel-air mixture flows easily into any cavities, neither natural terrain features nor non-hermetically sealed field fortifications (emplacements, covered slit trenches, bunkers) protect against the effects of fuel-air explosives. If a fuel-air charge is fired inside a building or bunker, the cloud is contained and this amplifies the destruction of the load-bearing components of the structure. Fuel-air can be an effective weapon against exposed enemy personnel, combat equipment, fortified areas and individual fighting positions. It can be used to clear minefields and to clear and prepare landing zones for assault forces and helicopters. It can be used to destroy communication centers and urban strong points. It can be used to defend against anti-ship missile attacks and against surface and submarine naval attacks. Fuel-air explosions can also be used as a herbicide, destroying crops and vegetation. 3

But the report also cites Russian experience using the RPO system against vehicles:

The RPO-A is best used as a bunker buster. It's two-kilogram warhead readily knocks out bunkers and strongpoints. However, when used against dispersed troops in the open, it will normally kill no more than one or two per burst. When the RPO-A is used against armored vehicles, it usually damages the vehicle, but the crew survives and is able to return fire. The Russians learned to assign an RPG-7 gunner with an RPO flamethrower gunner when operating as a "hunter-killer" team. The RPG-7 gunner stops the enemy vehicle and then the RPO gunner uses the RPO-Z incendiary round to set the vehicle on fire.17

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/fuelair/fuelair.htm

This article from Infantry Magazine notes thermobarics as a threat to armored vehicles:

Thermobaric weapons contain slow-burning explosive slurries that keep their explosive impulses on a target longer. Their burning plasma clouds can penetrate even the smallest cracks, and when the slurry is completely consumed, the resulting vacuum causes a massive backblast that crushes everything in the area. These weapons can be extremely dangerous to armored vehicles, as they penetrate engine compartments or vents.

(And also says that Russian sold RPG-29s to Syria in 1998. News to me. )

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IAV/is_3_90/ai_82009549

Also, I was not aware that Bulgaria was exporting a thermobaric warhead for the RPG-7 launcher:

http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jidr/jidr010104_2_n.shtml

[ January 07, 2006, 09:35 PM: Message edited by: akd ]

[Peter Cairns]

Much as all of the above is usefull I always put a question mark over any report on the effectiveness of a system put out by the people trying to sell it.

Peter.