Werewolf Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 I built a small demo scenario to test out some mech infantry assault procedures (which worked! YAY 4.010 ). Kept adding this and that and ended up adding a smoke barrage (standard not multi-spectral) to cover the unit advance up to the dismount point. Long story short - I messed up on the timing and dropped it right on top of friendly, dismounted infantry. Oh CRAP, I thought, I just dropped white phosphorous on those guys and fully expected to end up wiping out most of the platoon with friendly fire. NOT! Not one single casualty. Something's not right here; that can't be right. Or maybe I just got lucky(?). In my day, artillery, tank shell, mortar shell and even infantry hand grenade smoke was white phosphorous. Very, VERY nasty stuff. So my question is, does modern non-multi-spectral smoke still use WP as the smoke generator or is it something else? If it is WP then why isn't it killing or wounding the virtual troops of SB? If it's something else than WP then just because I'm curious - what is it? Inquiring minds want to know. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12Alfa Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 (edited) This may help............... http://www.google.com/patents/US20100213641 and Recent developments include red phosphorus (RP) based anti-thermal anti-laser 81 mm smoke grenade for MBT (Fig. 1). Both ground bursting and air bursting below 10 m altitude versions have been demonstrated to Users. Another development is smoke generator for PTA-II for visual observation of target tow body from a distance of > 10 km. (Fig. 2). Many of these are produced in ordnance factories and issued to services against requirements. The effectiveness of smoke screen is observed better when grenade bursts instantaneously on landing/ground. The smoke characteristics of RP-based formulation have been improved using ammonium oxalate regardless of the oxidizer present in the air. An oleoresin based sensory irritating smoke composition which disseminates capsaicinoids as sensory irritant is developed Edited November 23, 2016 by 12Alfa 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDF Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 51 minutes ago, Werewolf said: I built a small demo scenario to test out some mech infantry assault procedures (which worked! YAY 4.010 ). Kept adding this and that and ended up adding a smoke barrage (standard not multi-spectral) to cover the unit advance up to the dismount point. Long story short - I messed up on the timing and dropped it right on top of friendly, dismounted infantry. Oh CRAP, I thought, I just dropped white phosphorous on those guys and fully expected to end up wiping out most of the platoon with friendly fire. NOT! Not one single casualty. Something's not right here; that can't be right. Or maybe I just got lucky(?). In my day, artillery, tank shell, mortar shell and even infantry hand grenade smoke was white phosphorous. Very, VERY nasty stuff. So my question is, does modern non-multi-spectral smoke still use WP as the smoke generator or is it something else? If it is WP then why isn't it killing or wounding the virtual troops of SB? If it's something else than WP then just because I'm curious - what is it? Inquiring minds want to know. Not all "smoke" munitions are WP. US Army's "regular" smoke rounds use other agents such as hexachloroethane. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werewolf Posted November 24, 2016 Author Share Posted November 24, 2016 20 minutes ago, MDF said: Not all "smoke" munitions are WP. US Army's "regular" smoke rounds use other agents such as hexachloroethane. Which answers my question. WP - unlike in the ealry 70's - is no longer the only type of smoke round available. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werewolf Posted November 24, 2016 Author Share Posted November 24, 2016 Aside: 12Alfa: Based on the link you supplied and the nature of contemporary warfare (lasers, thermal imaging etc) one has to wonder why any form of smoke but multi-spectral would ever be used on the battlefield. My experience is 43 years ago so I know almost nothing about multi-spectral smoke (no IR or lasers to block back then). Is it as good as the descriptions of it in the literature? Is it as opaque as the stuff we used (all we ever used was WP and besides starting fires and burning the crap out of anyone caught in it) it was about as opaque as opaque could be from a distance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12Alfa Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 I retied last year, however in the last 10 years I never seen WP used, I think there was a issues with safety for both sides. This was in our army, even being deployed with a US CAV Sqn I did not see it, so I'm lead to believe that it might be in stock, but seldom used for various reasons, one being MS SMK taken over in a large part. Others can give more info on their nations uses of said item. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 (edited) 9 hours ago, Werewolf said: I built a small demo scenario to test out some mech infantry assault procedures (which worked! YAY 4.010 ). Kept adding this and that and ended up adding a smoke barrage (standard not multi-spectral) to cover the unit advance up to the dismount point. Long story short - I messed up on the timing and dropped it right on top of friendly, dismounted infantry. Oh CRAP, I thought, I just dropped white phosphorous on those guys and fully expected to end up wiping out most of the platoon with friendly fire. NOT! Not one single casualty. Something's not right here; that can't be right. Or maybe I just got lucky(?). In my day, artillery, tank shell, mortar shell and even infantry hand grenade smoke was white phosphorous. Very, VERY nasty stuff. So my question is, does modern non-multi-spectral smoke still use WP as the smoke generator or is it something else? If it is WP then why isn't it killing or wounding the virtual troops of SB? If it's something else than WP then just because I'm curious - what is it? Inquiring minds want to know. Arty / Tank smoke delivered by shell comes in two main flavours: 1. Base Eject (BE) which uses a carrier shell (try not to stand underneath) and non WP smoke. This takes longer to develop but has a better duration and avoids the collatoral damage and "columns/pillars" issue with WP. 2. WP (usually Artillery and Mortars only). Which develops instantly but does have duration, coverage and collatoral damage issues. Note: This is different to the "smoke" provided by the Multi Barrelled Smoke Dischargers, usually located either side of the turret, that fire WP grenades. So if your troops were advancing through BE smoke they'd be fine apart from coughing, etc. WP smoke footage: BE Smoke footage: Edited November 24, 2016 by Gibsonm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werewolf Posted November 24, 2016 Author Share Posted November 24, 2016 Thanks, Gibsonm. Very good info - relating both to SB and the real life changes implemented in the last 40+ years. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackDeath Posted November 22, 2018 Share Posted November 22, 2018 Not willing to create a new topic so I just revive this one : are modern tank still using smoke shells for the main gun ? (Like they do in the Fury movie against the tiger tank) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotareneg Posted November 22, 2018 Share Posted November 22, 2018 Well, the Challenger 2 default loadout in SB includes a few smoke rounds. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted November 22, 2018 Share Posted November 22, 2018 19 minutes ago, BlackDeath said: are modern tank still using smoke shells for the main gun ? Yes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackDeath Posted November 23, 2018 Share Posted November 23, 2018 From crewable tanks of SB, only shot kal, M60A3, M1 (IP), M1, Leopard AS1, Leopard 1A5 / DK & Chally 2 can use them. I guess they were not implemented for the others tanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted November 23, 2018 Members Share Posted November 23, 2018 To the best of my knowledge, WP smoke rounds were only produced for calibers 105 and 120mm (rifled), so that's why only tanks in Steel Beasts with these guns have smoke rounds. Aside from the obscuration effect, the question is what "yet another round" adds to the overall combat capability of a tank. In this case, WP is mostly valuable as an incendiary/anti materiel round. But the question is if a dedicated HE-frag round isn't almost as good in the same role, and much better in many other cases. This may be not so much of an issue when you have a lot of rounds stowed on board. But with increasing calibers the cartridges take up more and more volume, so you can bring fewer and fewer rounds to the fight. As long as you still have HESH rounds and WP rounds at least have the same ballistics, well, it may still be okay-ish to bring it along. At some point the "additional capability" gets in the way of the capability that you need most. I think the final nail to the coffin is the increased focus on the reduction of collateral damages; "destroying villages in order to save them" never sounded like a particularly promising strategy. WP simply has the potential for things to go south quickly if an error is made; more so than HE frag incendiary rounds tend to create particularly horrifying photos in the press. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted November 23, 2018 Share Posted November 23, 2018 Apart from WP there is still BE smoke which doesn't have the same collateral damage effects (apart from the carrier shell). But its the same issue of limited storage space. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSe419E Posted November 23, 2018 Share Posted November 23, 2018 I thought I saw a television news article some years ago about a group complaining the US Army was using "chemical weapons" because they were using smoke rounds to shoot at fortified basements in Fallujah. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted November 23, 2018 Share Posted November 23, 2018 (edited) Yes, that's where you need the Lawyers. WP is a chemical munition in terms of how the smoke is generated (via a chemical reaction). Usually if you constrain its use to obscuring views (firing it between you and the enemy) you are OK, but firing it (or throwing a WP grenade into) a basement and then saying you were doing it to block the view of the people in the basement, might be a bit harder to defend at the ICC. Of course the US isn't a signatory - but that's another matter. This is in the same Pandora's Box as APERs minefields, firing 0.50" MGs at people, etc. Edited November 23, 2018 by Gibsonm 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.