Silvio Manuel Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231950855726&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull What type of weapon is seen exploding in the pic at the above URL? It seems to be in nearly every picture they show of the battle in Gaza... the downward streaking trails look very unusual to me... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Submunitions round ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitchen frizzy Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 I'll take a chance on looking stupid, since this is the GDF: Airburst incindiary? Unconfirmed reports of Israel using WP shells. More likely, what Tero said. Historically, Israel liberally showers neighboring territories with cluster munitions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 I don't know precisely what picture you're talking about, because the Jerusalem Post link opens very slowly for me (I've read that there's DoS campaigns going on against both sides so could be just that), but I'd venture to guess that it's the same one that I've noticed asked twice before in these forums. When I saw the photo, I thought it'd be white phosphorus. Israel has denied the use of WP as a weapon, but it could have been used for smoke. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 airburst WP. Sub munitions (i.e. from an ICM) don't leave those trails. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 There's been heaps about Israel using airburst white phosphorus in the news for a week or more - ostensibly it's smoke and target marking - cant' see how airburst obscures much tho. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 They're using 155mm M825A1 smoke projectiles. you can learn up on them here. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m825.htm The shell explodes in the air and you get a wider dispersion of smoke that way. Artillery 101... Los 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Yup, airburst WP http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m825.htm SO, Because in this fashion the WP falls to earth scattered all over the place, where it will continue to burn for a good five minutes spreading smoke. This method distributes the smoke more evenly and spreads incendiary fragments over a larger area. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Ah...so airburst ground burn!! So it is a submunition - the submunition in question being WP soaked felt wedges - no wonder people are upset about it (and WP in general of course) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 No, this is actually WP Smoke, not WP incendiary submunitions. It is deployed as the first part of an artillery-delivered smokescreen, to build up the base on the ground. It's incendiary effect is not the primary intent - the munition delivers several dozen WP impregnated sponge-like wads and they build up smoke. They do not land with sufficient energy to penetrate buildings but they could cause secondary fires if they land on flammables in rubble, say. Because it is WP smoke being fired as part of a ground campaign, it is not a violation of the international treaties regarding WP use in wartime. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 No, this is actually WP Smoke, not WP incendiary submunitions. .... It's incendiary effect is not the primary intent ... To be fair, that depends on the intent of the mission, more than it oes on the characteristics of the round. You could use WP to build a smoke screen as the primary intent, but you could just as easily use it to burn thingsas your primary intent. You can't really tell from the photo what the intent of this - or any other - mission was. You could infer it, based on this and other missions (based on number of rounds, concurrent Israeli ground maneauvre, type of targets, past behaviour, etc), but it'd just be inference. Smoke rounds are almost invariably airburst for the reasons stated. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I get what you are saying and that's true - design and use are different things. Well, for sure, the M825 is primarily a smoke round. It is not really optimized to start fires and would be pretty much wasted that way. From what I was seeing on TV, it looked like the Israelis were trying to shield their ground troops from observation with these rounds in the footage I watched a few days ago. On the other hand, if they intended to confound, confuse and terrify civilians with them, Palestinian or otherwise, such ammo would accomplish that feat admirably as well. If they wanted to get Palestinians to abandon an area, this might be one way to do it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I gather the smoke itself, like almost any smoke, is not pleasant to inhale. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Oh yeah, I almost forgot. When I was in high school chemistry, I accidentally dropped a beaker of red phosphorous and clouds of dark red smoke completely blanketed the lab and the adjacent corridors; they evacuated the entire building. I simply evacuated my bowels...well, almost. Good thing the chemistry teacher was a young, cute blonde lady who used to brush up close to you to show you how do do things, or I would have dropped the class early on, and thus would have missed that sublime moment when the fire trucks pulled up in front of the school. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 gunnergoz, The footage I've seen of whatever it is sure seems to show something like impact detonations when the submunitions (if that's the right characterization) hit the ground. This confused me since no U.S. submunition I was aware of first trailed smoke after ejection, then exploded on impact. And I've watched loads of such test footage covering all kinds of carriers and submunitions. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 They are using the Smoke to isolate targets and mask approaches, just like smoke is supposed to be used, You can see vids and other pics around with a little searching to see for yourself the effect the smoke has once it gets fully developed. If they wanted to start fires on purpose there's better ordnance for that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 If they wanted to start fires on purpose there's better ordnance for that. Unless half the worlds press is filming what you are doing. Then the M825 round, in combination with an army spokesman who can keep a straight face, is pretty much perfect. Not saying that the Israelis are firing WP to set fires, but I reckon they don't mind it at all. JK, Haven't seen the "explosions" you saw in footage but I would expect incandescent pieces of WP deployed from an artillery shell and falling from a considerable height to look pretty spectacular on impact. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 This is a good shot of why airburst smoke spreads over a greater area. In a city environment a ground burst would be more likely to contain the smoke in a smaller area, the airburst spreads it over a larger area hence greater smoke dispersion. Just dont be unlucky enough to be under these things when they go off. Any one of these WP impregnated sponges, if it hits you, is likely to burn a hole right through you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 John Kettler - The M825 and similar WP obscurant munitions dispense a bunch of WP impregnated pads from a canister after being air burst, and the pads are what are seen making smoke trails down to the ground. The photo above is the best I've seen of effects at area of impact. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Elmar Bijlsma, Thanks for the horrifying pic! Gulp! It appears to explain the apparent secondaries seen on TV. gunnergoz, A veritable vision of hell! Those poor people! Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Note the UN vehicles among all the WP fragments!! Nice P.R. right there! Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Ross Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Is the guy on the right a paramedic? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 It appears the pyrotechnics in this year's Israeli Eurovision performance will knock everybody's socks off. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 They do seem to bounce and ricochet quite well. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.