Chainsaw Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 a photo from a swedish newspapper displaying a photo from the battles around Gaza strip yesterday. now what the hell is that airburst? my first thought was arty but compared to the buildings doesnt the "rounds" detonate a tad high for that and airburst doesnt leave that bright pattern? so anyone got a good guess? /Thomas:eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincere Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 That vid footage was on replay accross UK news yesterday and I had the same question. Eventually I wondered whether it was some kind of Carbon being dispensed to take out elictricity supply, but that's just a wild guess, which after looking at the photo looks like a poor guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Eddie- Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 That's White Phosphorous, banned under the Hague Convention for use against people, however it's not illegal to use as a smoke screen, and if it falls on someone below during the creation of the smoke screen, well accidents happen don't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Willy Pete! Fun For The Whole Family! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnO Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 yep, its what called "white phosphorus" sets anything on fire it touches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Secondbrooks Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Yup. WP and I'd believe it's illegal to use only at civilians. Smoke screens and fellow soldier from opposite sides are legal uses for it... Not that i've heard anything official about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/B409BC0DCFA0171CC12571DE005BC1DD/$file/PROTOCOL+III.pdf Israel is not a signatory to the third protocol, regarding incendiary weapons. Incidentally, neither is the USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Yup. WP and I'd believe it's illegal to use only at civilians. Smoke screens and fellow soldier from opposite sides are legal uses for it... Not that i've heard anything official about it. I'm pretty sure that the use of all weaponry against civilians is strictly frowned upon. But then again, you can just bomb the place to smithereens and claim that they were armed combatants. "Look! There are rocks all over the place! They were going to throw rocks at us!" Oh, and this should have been in the General forum, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chainsaw Posted January 5, 2009 Author Share Posted January 5, 2009 oho... WP nice... we had WP grenades as smokelauncher on my PBV302, we had our gas masks on when we used them and fragments of the grenades burnt away the paint from the APC :eek: But are those 155s ? Ive only seen HE air detonate with 120 and 155 rounds and they where never that high? the pics looks like its 150-200m upp in the air? hell of a dispersion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Secondbrooks Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Sergei: Flamingknives gave good link for that. It seems to be many faced subject, but basically might be said that it's illegal to use WP, napalm etc at any location which has "concentration of civilians", like villages or camps. then again village or part of city cleared from civilians (and only combatants remaining) seems to be legal case. If one has signed that part of deal. Or atleast what i get out from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 I saw that footage on the news too and wondered what is was. Well, if it really is some sort of high altitude 155mm WP air-burst, that is frankly disgraceful and Israelis should be ashamed of themselves. Every country has a right to defend itself but indiscriminate use of incendiary weapons in a densely populated civilian area is going too far by half. When the US was accused of using it in Fallujah they had at least tried to empty the area of civilians beforehand. Israel is only storing up trouble for itself in the long run with such actions. My natural inclination is to be against groups like HAMAS but Israel is really straining my patience this time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Neither the US or Israel are signatory to Protocol III of the CCW, and as such have no restraint on incendiary weapons in civilian area beyond what restraints govern the use of any other weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 What am I looking at? Unecessary and excessive terrorism against helpless civilians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 For obvious reasons, I'm going to close this one up. The original question was somewhat relevant and was answered, so time to move on. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts