Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
white phosphorous
#16
Quote:Andy , Martin thanks for bringing up the "Greek Fire" subject
I am currently reseraching with a friend about the so called "Theion Lefcados". It is recorded by Filon Vyzantios. It is possible that Kallinikos resureccted the "Greek fire", not invented it. Ancient sources say that you can extinguish it only with vinegar. If I can prove my point that might explain Alexandrers "fire weapons" in Tyre and possibly the way that Romans reduced Celtic hillforts.
And thanks Godfredo for bringingit up.
Kind regards
Stefanos

I believe Greek fire was as you say defeated by vinegar,i have read that animal urine(well matured)also had a similar effect.Grek Fire did burn under water(obviously using some form of oxydising agent in the mixture).There are in Scotland some Hillforts made of Stone which have been "Petrified" by extreme heat.Were these the ones being reduced using fire weapons?
Timeo Danaos et Dona ferentes

Andy.(Titus Scapula Clavicularis)
Reply
#17
Very possible Andy.
"Theion-Lefkados" is a slow burner but it allmost blasts if you throw it in water or throw water on it according to Filon.
So I speculate:
"Theion-Lefkados" with burning coal thrown by catapult lands on the hillfort -smoke etc etc. The logical thing is for the Celts to try and throw water on it and of cource Hefestus-Vulcan (fire-god) does not favor them.
If they panic and consider it magic then their moral will suffer too.
As I said I am still working on it but it seems that this explains the intence heat you mentioned.
Possibly the naval battle of Aktio was fought for who would control the island of Lefkada.

Kind regards
Stefanos
Reply
#18
I heard on the news that the stink about WP in battle was raised because it's an "indiscriminate killer". It sounds like they're trying to put the onous of land mines on white phosphorous. To me it's a huge difference because it requires a human hand to use it. I mean, heck, if you sneeze when you're holding a rifle, it could go off and accidentally kill someone.

Maybe we should conduct war with Super Soakers filled with distilled water.
AVETE OMNES
MARIVS TARQVINIVS VRSVS
PATER FAMILIAS DOMVS VRSVM
-Tom
Reply
#19
I think the big stink over WP is to do with the opinion that it's against the law to deliberately target civilians with a chemical agent, which maybe effectively makes it a chemical weapon in that instance. This is in contrast to using it for creating a smokescreen which is entirely legal, and also, I believe, its use to "flush out" enemy soldiers from trenches, etc. The real debate is about whether it has been used against civilians causing them harm, either intentionally or unintentionally. Don't flame me either, I'm just trying to explain the indignation at the possibility of civilian casualties through possible misuse of WP.

One US journalist reported he witnessed...
Quote:...a Cpl Nicholas Bogert fire WP rounds into Fallujah. He wrote: "Bogert is a mortar team leader who directed his men to fire round after round of high explosives and white phosphorus charges into the city Friday and Saturday, never knowing what the targets were or what damage the resulting explosions caused."
[url:f29ew2lm]http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11008.htm[/url]
Quote:Article two, protocol III of the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons states: "It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects, the object of attack by incendiary weapons." Some have claimed the use of WP contravenes the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention which bans the use of any "toxic chemical" weapons which causes "death, harm or temporary incapacitation to humans or animals through their chemical action on life processes"...

..However, Peter Kaiser, a spokesman for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which enforces the convention, said the convention permitted the use of such weapons for "military purposes not connected with the use of chemical weapons and not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare". He said the burns caused by WP were thermic rather than chemical and as such not prohibited by the treaty.
There seems to be some confusion about WP and whether it could be called a chemical weapon under some circumstances, which is fuelling the fire for the debate and accusations. But, bear in mind that napalm, although banned under international treaty and law (except by the US who refused to sign the 1980 fourth amendment to the Geneva conventions, but remember, as far as the rest of the world is concerned, to them napalm is illegal), was used at the start of the invasion (Colonel Randolph Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11). That contrasts with:
Quote:The US took napalm out of service in the early 1970s. We completed destruction of our last batch of napalm on April 4, 2001, and no longer maintain any stocks of napalm. - Jeff A. Davis, Lieutenant Commander, US Navy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense.
So, maybe you can see why some people are not exactly "on board" with the official line of how WP is used, because the miltary seems to contradict itself anyway. :?
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Reply
#20
That term "chemical" is capable of great elasticity. Originally, the indignation against chemical weapons referred only to poison gas, as used in WWI. The fact is, gunpowder and tnt are chemicals. In fact, all explosives, propellants and flammables are chemicals, so by "definition creep" most munitions used in warfare today can be classed as "chemical weapons."
Pecunia non olet
Reply
#21
Taking this further,the use of Dead animals catapulted into Cities/Towns to spread disease would be classed as Biological Weapons! :lol:

Where would a Tar Daubed Flaming Pig fit in?Chemical or a Biological Weapon? :lol:
Timeo Danaos et Dona ferentes

Andy.(Titus Scapula Clavicularis)
Reply
#22
You are right Andy.
Ancient Peoples were not so squeamish about some things.
Reply
#23
You are right Andy.
Ancient Peoples were not so squeamish about some things.
Reply
#24
I really wonder about the usefulness of the Geneva convention. Can anyone think of a war where it was followed by both sides in the conflict? Ever? I'm quite sure the U.S. has never had an enemy that followed the convention. In fact, the Nazis were the only ones who even tried to appear to follow it. Is there any country besides the United States that has ever followed the Geneva convention in war? Even in the U.S. I'm sure there are violations and cover ups that are not generally known.

I get the feeling that ultimately, the Geneva convention is just not practicible. An untested political theory that serves to make war longer and more devestating, offering protections only to those who *don't* follow it.
Rich Marinaccio
Reply
#25
Goffredo\\n[quote]


I wonder if anyone on this forum has direct experience; i.e. is in the army and actually knows because he has actually seen the real effects of this stuff in a realistic situation.

Is is really possible that an intense cloud of this stuff could really kill everything within a radius of 100 meters and disolve (burn) down to the bones?

OK... based on what I actually saw:

I was a combat medic with the 9th Infantry in Viet-Nam, 1970,and did see it used. It was used in artillery marking rounds. One time one went off directly over my fire base. I was on stand down drinking in the NCO "bar" bunker and thought it was an incoming round and dove under the bar. The REMFS thought this was funny. (REMF means Rear Eschelon Mother F--ker. These are the pretty boys with clean uniforms and fruity-tooty shined paratrooper boots). The cloud dispersed and burned out by the time it drifted away. This would not be of any danger to anyone.

We also had WP hand grenades. The were plastic and slightly larger than a regular grenade. Most of the time the detonators were removed, unlike most munitions, because they made us nervous. We used them to clean out bunkers. The burns were not immediately lethal. I never saw any live NVA with extensive burns. If you were dead and down in the bunker you stayed there. We didn't go down in those things. The grenades were not effective as larger WP munitions, of course. If one went off in your face, maybe. The advantage of WP grenades in this situiation is that the cloud would drift through a complex, and the bad guys would come out, so we didn't have to go in. Once we started to clear out a complex, most NVA would give up anyway, WP or not. hanoi's best were not particularly enthusiastic to fight in the Mekong delta. A flame thrower would probably work as well but were more complicated to use. We did have some flamethrowers around in the Cambodian push but I never saw one actually used. We used CS gas as well but you can stand it for a while. The bad guys had some crude gas masks made of plastic bags with cloth bags filled with charcoal as filters. WP was the more effective.

As a medic I carried packets of copper sulphate powder which puts out WP. Sprinkle the powder on the burn. Then you picked individual pieces out of the skin. The burning would quit when immersed in water, as a temporary measure. Yes it will burn through to the bone, but it takes quite a while. You will have already quit your current job by then.

I do sympathise with anyone who was been burned by this stuff, like Caius. The few NVA I did treat were in agony. Fortunatly, none of our own people.

Gaius Decius Aquilius
(Ralph Izard)
who is making a non-political statement
Reply
#26
For some reason the above posted twice. So I edited it out.
GDA

nice weather were having ain"t it?
Reply
#27
I just wish this thread would die now.
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Reply


Forum Jump: