Jump to content
Werewolf

Smoke?

Recommended Posts

I built a small demo scenario to test out some mech infantry assault procedures (which worked! YAY 4.010 :D).

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by 12Alfa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Werewolf said:

I built a small demo scenario to test out some mech infantry assault procedures (which worked! YAY 4.010 :D).

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Werewolf said:

I built a small demo scenario to test out some mech infantry assault procedures (which worked! YAY 4.010 :D).

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 by Gibsonm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, BlackDeath said:

are modern tank still using smoke shells for the main gun ?

 

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Gibsonm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×