# UK used white phosphorus in Iraq



## Pikache (16 Nov 2005)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4441822.stm

UK troops have used white phosphorus in Iraq - but only to create smokescreens, Defence Secretary John Reid has said.

MPs are worried by the admission by US forces that they used the controversial substance in the Iraqi city of Falluja - something they had previously denied.

White phosphorus can burn flesh and some MPs say its use will hand a propaganda victory to Iraqi insurgents.

Both the US and UK Governments deny using the weapon against civilians but there are calls for a UN inquiry.

Against civilians?

White phosphorus is highly flammable and ignites on contact with oxygen. If the substance hits someone's body, it will burn until deprived of oxygen.

The US State Department originally denied it had been used in last year's assault on Falluja, a stronghold for Sunni insurgents west of Baghdad.

But on Tuesday, Pentagon spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable said the substance had been used as an "incendiary weapon against enemy combatants".


WHITE PHOSPHORUS
Spontaneously flammable chemical used for battlefield illumination
Contact with particles causes burning of skin and flesh
Use of incendiary weapons prohibited for attacking civilians (Protocol III of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons)
Protocol III not signed by US

Col Venable also said white phosphorus was not a banned chemical weapon.

An Italian documentary team has claimed it was used against civilians - but this is strongly denied by the US.

Critics say Falluja was a "civil society" so civilians could have been affected even if not directly targeted.

Smokescreen

Downing Street also stressed that insurgents in Falluja had been offered talks before last year's attack on the city.

White phosphorus is part of the arsenal available to British troops - essentially for illumination and smoke.

The defence secretary said he could not answer for the US use of the substance.

But he said: "We do not use white phosphorus, or indeed any other form of munition or weaponry, against civilians...

"We do not use it for anything other than a smokescreen to protect our troops when in action."

But former Defence Minister Doug Henderson said the UK should try to find an alternative.

The substance could burn when it fell from the sky even when it was used to create smoke, he said.

Treaty change?

Fellow anti-war Labour MP Alan Simpson told BBC News there was hypocrisy over the issue as Tony Blair had sent troops to war over Iraq's alleged chemical weapons.

"What we are forced to address is that in a post-war occupation of Iraq, the coalition forces - British and American - have also used chemical weapons."

Mike Gapes, the Labour chairman of the Commons foreign affairs select committee, said white phosphorus was defined as an "incendiary", not a chemical weapon.

He suggested treaties on chemical weapons should be strengthened so they covered the substance.

Mr Gapes said the way the Americans had mishandled the issue by initially denying using white phosphorus was a "public relations disaster for them".

'Propaganda'

Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell said the denial would convince sceptics there was something to hide.

"A vital part of the effort in Iraq is to win the battle for hearts and minds," said Sir Menzies.

"The use of this weapon may technically have been legal, but its effects are such that it will hand a propaganda victory to the insurgency."

Lib Dem MEPs' leader Graham Watson is calling for a United Nations inquiry into the extent to which white phosphorus has been used.

Conservative shadow foreign secretary Liam Fox said there needed to be more openness from the Pentagon.

But he added: "Although white phosphorus is a brutal weapon, we need to remember that we were talking about some pretty brutal insurgents." 

*****
I put in in this forum as it has implications to CF, as we do use white phosphorus rounds.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (16 Nov 2005)

Used only for smokescreens? whats wrong with the smoke grenades we've been using?
and secondly, people were burned by it. White phosporous or napalm... I saw the pictures on the internet that went around after the attack by people claiming the americans were napalming people.

They were definately badly badly burned by something.......
you cant have an attack in a city like that without civilian casualties but still...


----------



## Pikache (16 Nov 2005)

Phosphorus rounds fired from artillery or mortars.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (16 Nov 2005)

RoyalHighlandFusilier said:
			
		

> Phosphorus rounds fired from artillery or mortars.



US Army: ".. oops?  :-X"


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (16 Nov 2005)

> I put in in this forum as it has implications to CF, as we do use white phosphorus rounds.



Yes, yes we do - unless things have changed dramatically over the last couple of years that I've been away from this sort of thing.   

UN inquiry?   Chemical weapons?   Give me a break...    :

Before we get too sanctimonious, I couldn't count the number of times I've seen "smoke and HE on the objective" in a fireplan (much like the US' "shake and bake" quoted elsewhere) and distinctly recall that there were/are WP rounds for the tank's smoke dischargers...

I will agree with one thing - the Americans have handled this (along with a wide variety of other things) very badly.   Instead of saying "yeah, so?" initially (as they're doing now), they waffled and issued conflicting messages, adding to the chaos.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Nov 2005)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Before we get too sanctimonious, I couldn't count the number of times I've seen "smoke and HE on the objective" in a fireplan (much like the US' "shake and bake" quoted elsewhere) and distinctly recall that there were/are WP rounds for the tank's smoke dischargers...



Also, don't forget that the Smk Grenade dischargers on the APCs took the L5 and L7 Grenades, one of which was WP Smk, the other was Chemical Smk.

Now.....just saying that, I realized that some numpty may have interpreted "Chemical" markings as being a "Chemical Wpn" instead of Smk produced by chemical means instead of WP.  Sometimes it doesn't pay to let "literate Illiterates" near military kit.


----------



## muskrat89 (16 Nov 2005)

> whats wrong with the smoke grenades we've been using



Geez, I guess all those smoke missions I fired over the years were silly. I suppose, if you had _enough_ smoke grenades, it would come close to a Battery of guns firing a linear smoke mission..  mckenzie - stick with what you know...

TR - hit it on the head. WP and HE were standard back then, and I assume - still so


----------



## 48Highlander (16 Nov 2005)

jmackenzie_15 said:
			
		

> Used only for smokescreens? whats wrong with the smoke grenades we've been using?
> and secondly, people were burned by it. White phosporous or napalm... I saw the pictures on the internet that went around after the attack by people claiming the americans were napalming people.



 :



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Sometimes it doesn't pay to let "literate Illiterates" near military kit.



You weren't talking about jmackenzie were ya?  ;D


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (16 Nov 2005)

so clever.

I was talking about the hand thrown smoke grenades, ***hole.
Seeing as how im fairly certain, that stuff doesnt burn your flesh, it didnt burn my face off, so why it would to anyone else would be fairly mystifying.

What are you rolling your eyes for? I assume all the pictures of the burn victims were fakes then and those US Marine corpsmen attending to their wounds were all fakes as well.  :

They were burned by something, and when this first happened I remember the accusations that they were using napalm... and well, when you look at the evidence, its reason for concern, but now that *this* new information has come around, the US has admitted the smoke theyre using for screens will burn you, and has probobly burned people accidentally, it makes alot more sense doesnt it.

But don't give anyone the benefit of the doubt, that would be childish.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (16 Nov 2005)

RoyalHighlandFusilier said:
			
		

> Phosphorus rounds fired from artillery or mortars.



let's not act like this guy and point out what probobly happened, so I have the opportunity to go "Ohhh, okay, that makes sense."


----------



## 48Highlander (16 Nov 2005)

jmackenzie_15 said:
			
		

> I was talking about the hand thrown smoke grenades, ***hole.
> Seeing as how im fairly certain, that stuff doesnt burn your flesh, it didnt burn my face off, so why it would to anyone else would be fairly mystifying.



You know, even with only 2 years in you really should know better.

a)  we don't know what sort of WP rounds they're talking about since the article is EXTREMELY vague.
b)  the Pains Wessex smoke grenade is used only for training.  WP is used in theater because it provides a much denser (much more effective) smoke screen.
c)  a WP smoke grenade won't "burn your face off" either.  Worst I've seen it do is go off prematurely and burn a guys hand, but that was from the heat of the grenade body, and not from the WP.



			
				jmackenzie_15 said:
			
		

> What are you rolling your eyes for? I assume all the pictures of the burn victims were fakes then and those US Marine corpsmen attending to their wounds were all fakes as well.  :



White phosphorous, or red phosphorous, create wounds which are entirely different from the effects of a normal fire, or napalm.  I'm rolling my eyes at the fact that you're so quick to jump on a conspiracy theory to help explain something you don't understand.



			
				jmackenzie_15 said:
			
		

> They were burned by something, and when this first happened I remember the accusations that they were using napalm... and well, when you look at the evidence, its reason for concern, but now that *this* new information has come around, the US has admitted the smoke theyre using for screens will burn you, and has probobly burned people accidentally, it makes alot more sense doesnt it.



Only to the literate illiterate.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Nov 2005)

> Just then the corporal spotted a trench system on the left of the track and warned his platoon commander, Lieutenant Chapman, who took over, leading the section in a swift attack through the line of trenches, using grenades and WHITE PHOSPHORUS, machine guns and M79 grenade-launchers as they went.    The radio operator provided a running commentary to Company Headquarters.
> 
> About nine enemy were killed.   It was not possible to tell the exact number, owing to the effect of the burning WHITE PHOSPHORUS in the dug-out.........



2 Para Falklands:   The Battalion At War.   Maj Gen John Frost 1983.

Can't find the exact reference on short notice but it seems that I recall reading in that same book that the drill for clearing trenches, once they were over run, was to double tap any bodies in there then throw in a WP grenade.   If they were dead it didn't matter.   If they were still alive they announced their presence and tried to leave,   others were discouraged from reentering the trench to reuse it after it was cleared.   Either way the trench was no longer a functioning part of the defence system.

By the way: do we no longer issue the Grenade HCC1A1/WP (White Phosphorus) that back in my day (1980-1984) was required as part of the "standard" operational load-out for the platoon.   2/Platoon Leader, Section Commanders and Section 2ics.   Paines Wessex were only for marking ground.   It developed too slowly to make an effective screen.   WP was the preferred method of generating a smoke screen quickly.

WP is NOT a chemical weapon.   If it is then so is C4 and the propellants that drive bullets and missiles.

Claptrap.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Nov 2005)

The best take on Willy Pete I've seen to date, courtesy of the Lightfighter forums:



> _I'm a combat veteran of Iraq. Mostly Ramadi. I'm an infantry officer.
> 
> I have got to tell you guys that the knuckleheads who are tearing their hair out about WP being an illegal chemical weapon are some of the stupidest, most ill-informed, hysterical people on the planet right now. You guys are making idiots of yourselves.
> 
> ...



http://lightfighter.net/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/5131022531/m/7381077081


----------



## George Wallace (16 Nov 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> WP is NOT a chemical weapon.   If it is then so is C4 and the propellants that drive bullets and missiles.


I think this is the problem.   Some reporter somehow interpreted "Chemical" stencilled on some ammo crate as being a Chemical Agent as opposed to a Chemical reaction to produce smoke.   Thus my 'literate Illiterate" comment.   If that is the case, he had better call 911 and have the Fire Dept come and clean out the HAZMAT problem under his kitchen sink.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (16 Nov 2005)

What conspiracy theory is that?

That the americans used WP rounds from arty and mortars to lay smoke screens, and civilians were unintentionally injured?
Because im pretty sure thats what I agreed probobly happened.

I should know better what a napalm burn would like in comparison to a WP burn ? I guess I missed the boat to vietnam and didnt get the opportunity to experience first hand what these weapons do to people, and it was totally unreasonable for me to make any sort of connection between burn victims and napalm.

Again, youre the one jumping the gun and putting words in my mouth. I was talking about back "when this first happened" after the battle of fallujah was over, these photographs surfaced, and iraqis and insurgents were screaming napalm, and the US just plainly denied everything, even though the evidence of burn victims was right there in plain sight.

*Since then* the US admitted the people were probobly burned by them, and the most likely cause was the WP screens.

So then I post "oops" , referring to how the US admitted it, but what can you do."Oops people got burned, but we cant control everything that happens. Sorry"

Excuse me while I extensively research the effects of napalm and WP burns, so I never make such an absurd mistake again.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (16 Nov 2005)

Just to correct a couple of points-



> Also, don't forget that the Smk Grenade dischargers on the APCs took the L5 and L7 Grenades, one of which was WP Smk, the other was Chemical Smk.



The L5 smoke grenade is a emission smoke grenade that does not burst, similar to an in service smoke grenade.  The L8 is a Red Phosphorous bursting smoke grenade.



> b)  the Pains Wessex smoke grenade is used only for training.  WP is used in theater because it provides a much denser (much more effective) smoke screen.
> c)  a WP smoke grenade won't "burn your face off" either.  Worst I've seen it do is go off prematurely and burn a guys hand, but that was from the heat of the grenade body, and not from the WP.



We don't have a Pains Wessex grenade in service any more.  The No. 4s came back for a bit in the mid-late 90s when we ran low on C8s but C8s are the norm now.  PW may manufacture some of the other pyro including smoke pots but not our smoke grenades.  The C1 white smoke grenade is made by Hands.  Canada does not have a WP hand grenade in its inventory, the closest we have is the L8 discharger grenade.
If a WP smoke grenade functioned in someones hand you would see a whole lot more than a burnt hand.  WP munitions function by bursting.  In the case of metal encased hand smoke grenades this is a high explosive charge.  If one functioned in your hand you can kiss your hand good bye, full stop.

Oh and WP can be extinguished by water and will eventually burn out on its own.  The problem is, when it dries out it will reignite.  It will also burrow into the ground, extinguish itself that way and when the ground is disturbed spark back up.

No 80 Smoke Grenade...the original Pursuit Denial Munition


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (16 Nov 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I think this is the problem.   Some reporter somehow interpreted "Chemical" stencilled on some ammo crate as being a Chemical Agent as opposed to a Chemical reaction to produce smoke.   Thus my 'literate Illiterate" comment.   If that is the case, he had better call 911 and have the Fire Dept come and clean out the HAZMAT problem under his kitchen sink.



Ill give the guy the benefit of the doubt but most likely he saw an opportunity for a news story and jumped all over it. I hate that.
Couldnt he have just asked a nearby soldier what the markings mean and why it says chemical on it etc? Im sure someone would be more than happy to explain it to him so he doesnt think theyre using chemical weapons on people.

Or maybe he just stumbled upon some WP ammunition somehow on his own in the middle of nowhere with no one around? lol.

If there is any kind of investigation into this, it would be another testament to the power of the media. The americans didnt do anything they havnt been doing legally and within the confines of UN doctrine for years.

All this media coverage just makes it harder for troops to do their jobs safely... to some extent.
On a side note, do you think that extensive reporting in the field is a good thing or bad?


----------



## 3rd Horseman (16 Nov 2005)

A few points,

    WP is different than HC. HC is considered a chemical weapon by some countries. It was used in WW1 as a choking agent we use it as a smoke screen. Under the convention WP can be used on targets but not human targets it is normally used as a incendiary weapon or quick smoke screen. (not illum)   It comes in many forms from grenades to artillery. WP burns on contact till fully expended or deprived of Oxygen. If a hand grenade went off by accident you would not just get a hot hand you would have shrapnel wounds and be screaming from the burning flesh I think you confused the grenade with an HC grenade.

   It would be normally expected to us a WP grenade in a bunker or hardend building to set fire to it in order to deny it to the enemy. It would also be expected to us a WP grenade in your own Ops Office if you were captured to again deny it and its contents to the enemy. Artillery WP would be used to do the same but on a greater scale, just not against people be they combatants or civvies.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Nov 2005)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> Just to correct a couple of points-


Thanks for the clarification.

Question:   What is the difference between White and Red Phosphorous?


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (16 Nov 2005)

Hmmm interesting points.

48th, You know, even with only 8 years in you really should know better.


----------



## 48Highlander (16 Nov 2005)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> We don't have a Pains Wessex grenade in service any more.  The No. 4s came back for a bit in the mid-late 90s when we ran low on C8s but C8s are the norm now.



I know you're an ammo tech and all, but I have NEVER heard of a C8 smoke granade, and the ones used for training have always been referred to as the Pains Wessex.  I guess maybe everyone I know is out to lunch on that one.  So who makes the current ones?



			
				AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> PW may manufacture some of the other pyro including smoke pots but not our smoke grenades.  The C1 white smoke grenade is made by Hands.  Canada does not have a WP hand grenade in its inventory, the closest we have is the L8 discharger grenade.



Is the No. 80 no longer in use?  



			
				AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> If a WP smoke grenade functioned in someones hand you would see a whole lot more than a burnt hand.  WP munitions function by bursting.  In the case of metal encased hand smoke grenades this is a high explosive charge.  If one functioned in your hand you can kiss your hand good bye, full stop.



Er, didn't you just say a minute ago that "The L5 smoke grenade is a emission smoke grenade that does not burst, similar to an in service smoke grenade"?  As far as I know neither the C1 nor the C3 are bursting munitions, and the one I saw go off in buddies hand certainly didn't burst.


----------



## 48Highlander (16 Nov 2005)

jmackenzie_15 said:
			
		

> Again, youre the one jumping the gun and putting words in my mouth. I was talking about back "when this first happened" after the battle of fallujah was over, these photographs surfaced, and iraqis and insurgents were screaming napalm, and the US just plainly denied everything, even though the evidence of burn victims was right there in plain sight.



Yep, that's right, I'm sure the US said "nope, not a single person in Fallujah was burned at all by any means whatsoever while we were there".



			
				jmackenzie_15 said:
			
		

> *Since then* the US admitted the people were probobly burned by them, and the most likely cause was the WP screens.



REALLY.  Wow, see, not THAT is news.  Perhaps you'd like to point me to just exactly where the US has made an official statement claiming that WP screens caused burns on civilians.



			
				jmackenzie_15 said:
			
		

> So then I post "oops" , referring to how the US admitted it, but what can you do."Oops people got burned, but we cant control everything that happens. Sorry"
> 
> Excuse me while I extensively research the effects of napalm and WP burns, so I never make such an absurd mistake again.



Or, you know, you could use some common sense.  People get burned in Canada all the time, does that mean we've got evil US soldiers dropping WP rounds on our country?  Give me a break.  Burns can be cause by regular fires, by proximity to HE explosions, by any number of chemical agents, and yes even by white phosphorous.  Each type of burn has a distinctive signature - I don't expect you to be able to tell them all apart, but I do expect that, when you hear about people getting burned in an active combat area, your first thought isn't going to be "napalm" or "WP".


----------



## 48Highlander (16 Nov 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Thanks for the clarification.
> 
> Question:  What is the difference between White and Red Phosphorous?



Red phosphorous is more stable and more environmentaly friendly.  There's also probably a difference in burn temperature and duration but I'm not sure about that.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (16 Nov 2005)

> Yep, that's right, I'm sure the US said "nope, not a single person in Fallujah was burned at all by any means whatsoever while we were there".



They denied that the burn victims in said photographs, were the cause of any of their doing, and they did not use any chemical weapons.
Since then they admitted they probobly were burned by their action, most likely the WP rounds.



> REALLY.   Wow, see, not THAT is news.   Perhaps you'd like to point me to just exactly where the US has made an official statement claiming that WP screens caused burns on civilians



What? Isn't that what this thread is about? The US admitting that the iraqis were burned by their WP rounds?



> Or, you know, you could use some common sense.   People get burned in Canada all the time, does that mean we've got evil US soldiers dropping WP rounds on our country?   Give me a break.


   

Now you're just being ridiculous.



> Burns can be cause by regular fires, by proximity to HE explosions, by any number of chemical agents, and yes even by white phosphorous.   Each type of burn has a distinctive signature - I don't expect you to be able to tell them all apart, but I do expect that, when you hear about people getting burned in an active combat area, your first thought isn't going to be "napalm" or "WP".



It wasnt my first thought untill I saw the pictures. They certainly did not look to like any burn victims I had seen before, so naturally I wondered, especially when the US decided to deny everything that made it look even worse, when they should have just said , like another posted already stated "Yeah, so what?". They didnt do anything illegal.


----------



## 48Highlander (16 Nov 2005)

jmackenzie_15 said:
			
		

> What? Isn't that what this thread is about? The US admitting that the iraqis were burned by their WP rounds?



No, it most deffinitely is not.  And that sentence alone makes the rest of your diatribe irrelevant.  We're done here.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Nov 2005)

Now.

Let's look at some of the characteristics of WP vs Napalm.   WP is dispersed in an explosion, so any wounds would be similar to any other shrapnel or bullet wound, with the exception of the burning.   Napalm is dispersed by an explosion spreading out a gellied flamable substance that clings to things. (Remember that old saying "Naplam sticks to Kids")   Napalm would burn off your clothing before burning you, whereas WP would penetrate through your clothing and burn its way through your skin as shrapnel.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (16 Nov 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> No, it most deffinitely is not.   And that sentence alone makes the rest of your diatribe irrelevant.   We're done here.



From the article:



> The US State Department originally denied it had been used in last year's assault on Falluja, a stronghold for Sunni insurgents west of Baghdad.
> 
> But on Tuesday, Pentagon spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable said the substance had been used as an "incendiary weapon against enemy combatants".



ooooooooookaaayyyyyyyyyyyyy....?


----------



## 48Highlander (16 Nov 2005)

From the *topic*:

"UK used white phosphorus in Iraq"

'nuff said.

bye mack.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (16 Nov 2005)

Way to totally disregard the part about the US state department, and have selective hearing, so to speak.
Your infinite wisdom is astounding.

"nuff said".


----------



## Pikache (16 Nov 2005)

Let's keep personal attacks off the thread. Any further comments like that and you will be warned.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (16 Nov 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> I know you're an ammo tech and all, but I have NEVER heard of a C8 smoke granade, and the ones used for training have always been referred to as the Pains Wessex.  I guess maybe everyone I know is out to lunch on that one.  So who makes the current ones?


Hands Fireworks.  The C8s are similiar to the No 4 Pains Wessex ones with the following differences-
C8 is larger both in length and diameter
The screw cap of the C8 covers the entire top of the grenade, the No 4 does not.
The C8 says C8 on a sticker used to indicate model, nomenclature, lot.  The No. 4 says No 4/xxx and the markings are stenciled directly on the body.



> Is the No. 80 no longer in use?


Not since the 70's, maybe the early 80s but I believe it was the 70s.  Even the Brits don't use them anymore.



> Er, didn't you just say a minute ago that "The L5 smoke grenade is a emission smoke grenade that does not burst, similar to an in service smoke grenade"?  As far as I know neither the C1 nor the C3 are bursting munitions, and the one I saw go off in buddies hand certainly didn't burst.



My bad grammer, should read "The L5 smoke is an emission smoke grenade, similar to an in service hand smoke grenade, that does not burst."  But you did say that the "Worst I've seen it do is go off prematurely and burn a guys hand, but that was from the heat of the grenade body, and not from the WP."  Where was this and which countries WP grenades?

George-  Other than the chemical differences the two main points regarding RP/WP are-
RP does not spontaniously ignite on contact with air, and
RP produces less pillaring in smoke generation, but some people fell the quantity and quality are not as good as WP.
So over all, safer to handle and a more horizontal smoke screen but some question the quality.

D


----------



## 48Highlander (16 Nov 2005)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> Hands Fireworks.  The C8s are similiar to the No 4 Pains Wessex ones with the following differences-
> C8 is larger both in length and diameter
> The screw cap of the C8 covers the entire top of the grenade, the No 4 does not.
> The C8 says C8 on a sticker used to indicate model, nomenclature, lot.  The No. 4 says No 4/xxx and the markings are stenciled directly on the body.
> ...



Thanks for the corrections.

The incident in question was during a training exercise where, for whatever reason, they issued out WP smoke granades instead of the ones we normally use.  I didn't see the incident with my own eyes - I heard someone yelling for a medic, and we all initialy assumed it was part of the exercise.  Shortly afterwards they took away our smoke granades and re-issued us with C8's.  I DID see the guy's hand afterwards, it was burned but he was able to continue training - it certainly wasn't a case of "you can kiss your hand goodbye".

It's been a while so I can't tell you the exact granades we were using or even exactly what they look like.  From what I remember it was a tubular body with a rounded base, and it was light green in colour.  I assumed it was the C1 (HCC1A1?), but if you're right about the C1 being a bursting granade then it must have been something else.


----------



## KevinB (16 Nov 2005)

48th - a WP will take the hand off.

 Using on on ex would similar to issuing a M67/C13...



We have used RP L8 in Canada on Ex with dismounted troops.  They replaced all the L5's in Afghan with L8's while we where on Roto II


----------



## 48Highlander (16 Nov 2005)

More sillyness:



> MoD urged to rethink chemical use
> 
> The Ministry of Defence is facing calls to review the use of white phosphorus by British forces following the disclosure that it was deployed by the Americans as a weapon against Iraqi insurgents.
> 
> ...



Just goes to show how much damage can be done by a little bit of knowledge coupled with a whole lot of ignorance.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (16 Nov 2005)

> Just goes to show how much damage can be done by a little bit of knowledge coupled with a whole lot of ignorance.



And a political axe to grind.  The lefty anti-Americans think they have a real "issue" now...


----------



## Infanteer (16 Nov 2005)

How about this one from the same Lightfighter thread I posted earlier; it puts the anti-war crowd in a dilemma, no?  



> Originally posted by welbly:
> IF WP is considered an illegal chemical agent then I can tell you US forces have proven that Saddam had WMD. I can not tell you how many WP arty shells I came across in Southern Baghdad. So by their reasoning the war has now been justified to their standards.


----------



## Dissident (16 Nov 2005)

I have to track down what kind of smoke grenades sent 5 or so troops of to the medics on the BTE this year.


----------



## alexpb (16 Nov 2005)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4440664.stm

take a look at this link.

Hmm.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (16 Nov 2005)

That clears it up I thought that is what I heard on the news, cant figure out why all the issue Willy Pete is a normal weapon n battle, I'm glad they used it. One thing though it cant be used against humans so why are the US admitting this? Its was obviously used for its correct purpose why keep saying it was used against insurgents? They need better PR people, they would say we used it against insurgent bunkers and hardened positions.


----------



## 48Highlander (16 Nov 2005)

alexpb said:
			
		

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4440664.stm
> 
> take a look at this link.
> 
> Hmm.



"But *Professor Paul Rogers*, of the *University of Bradford's department of peace studies*, said white phosphorus could be considered a chemical weapon if deliberately aimed at civilians."

 ;D

How anyone can keep a straight face while calling that guy a "professor" is mind-blowing


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Nov 2005)

so could bullets, being made from health harming lead and all


----------



## enfield (16 Nov 2005)

The US seems to be doing a poor job of dicussing this.
From today's news:



U.S. official admits phosphorus used as weapon in Iraq
Last Updated Wed, 16 Nov 2005 09:57:51 EST 
CBC News
A spokesman for the U.S. military has admitted that soldiers used white phosphorus as an "incendiary weapon" while trying to flush out insurgents in the northern Iraqi city of Fallujah last year. 
  
Smoke from the Fallujah railroad station after U.S. bombing, early Nov. 9, 2004. (AP file Photo / Anja Niedringhaus)  
"White phosphorus is a conventional munition," Lt.-Col. Barry Venable told the British Broadcasting Corporation. "It is not a chemical weapon. They are not outlawed or illegal." 

He added that though used mostly to provide smokescreens and flashes of light, in the Fallujah battle, "it was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants." 

High-ranking U.S. officials had earlier insisted that the substance, which can burn skin to the bone, was used only to help illuminate battle scenes. 

"U.S. forces do not use napalm or white phosphorus as weapons," the American ambassador to London, Robert Tuttle, wrote in a letter to the Independent newspaper. 

An unknown number of Iraqi women and children died of phosphorus burns during the hostilities, Italian documentary makers covering the battle for Fallujah have claimed. 

  

Other reporters on the scene have said U.S. forces used a combination of white phosphorus and explosives known as "shake 'n' bake." 

Venable's comments could expose the United States to allegations that it has been using chemical weapons in Iraq. 

The suspicion that former president Saddam Hussein was developing chemical weapons, as well as biological and nuclear ones, was one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the 2003 invasion of the Persian Gulf country.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (16 Nov 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> It's been a while so I can't tell you the exact granades we were using or even exactly what they look like.  From what I remember it was a tubular body with a rounded base, and it was light green in colour.  I assumed it was the C1 (HCC1A1?), but if you're right about the C1 being a bursting granade then it must have been something else.


I never said the C1 was a bursting grenade.  In fact I said "The L5 smoke is an emission smoke grenade, similar to an in service *hand smoke grenade, that does not burst.*"
The C1 is not a bursting grenade unless something goes wrong (emission hole is blocked and gas building up ruptures it).  It can produce a lot a flame out of the emission holes and someone holds onto a triggered smoke grenade they will get burnt, as well if you roll on to by accident, or try to pick it up with your bare hands to stop it starting a fire.  There are plenty of ways to seriously burn yourself with a C1.
And unless it was someones private stash, they did not just "issue out WP grenades instead of the ones we normally use".  That is a very good way to get someone killed, not just burnt hand.  Some serious failure in range/ex safety staff if the troops were not aware of the pyro they were issued.

Any way, back on topic-
WP is not a chemical weapon anymore than C4 is.
WP can be used combat but you can't target civilian with it.  I thought that was an integral part of LOAC, no targeting of civilians with any sort of weapon.
It sucks to get hit by WP (I have friends that have been) it hurts like the devil
It sucks to fight a WP or RP fire (personal experience) but is quite simple
Smoke in general does a crap job of illuminating anything, seems like the media is smoking something (hopefully not WP).


----------



## Infanteer (16 Nov 2005)

Enfield said:
			
		

> U.S. official admits phosphorus used as weapon in Iraq
> Last Updated Wed, 16 Nov 2005 09:57:51 EST
> CBC News
> A spokesman for the U.S. military has admitted that soldiers used white phosphorus as an "incendiary weapon" while trying to flush out insurgents in the northern Iraqi city of Fallujah last year.



Well duhh - it's right in many of the Fallujah AAR's that are common knowledge....


----------



## 48Highlander (16 Nov 2005)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> I never said the C1 was a bursting grenade.  In fact I said "The L5 smoke is an emission smoke grenade, similar to an in service *hand smoke grenade, that does not burst.*"
> The C1 is not a bursting grenade unless something goes wrong (emission hole is blocked and gas building up ruptures it).  It can produce a lot a flame out of the emission holes and someone holds onto a triggered smoke grenade they will get burnt, as well if you roll on to by accident, or try to pick it up with your bare hands to stop it starting a fire.  There are plenty of ways to seriously burn yourself with a C1.
> And unless it was someones private stash, they did not just "issue out WP grenades instead of the ones we normally use".  That is a very good way to get someone killed, not just burnt hand.  Some serious failure in range/ex safety staff if the troops were not aware of the pyro they were issued.



Ok now I'm really confused.  The C1 DOES contain WP does it not?  If it does, then it is a WP smoke grenade, right?  And if they don't burst, then why is it a major safety issue for them to be issued out to the troops on an ex?

Ofcourse, you're probably gonna come back and say there's no WP inside a C1 and make me feel dumb   But that was the impression we were under at the time.  If there's no WP inside it then that explains a lot.


----------



## Dissident (16 Nov 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> And if they don't burst, then why is it a major safety issue for them to be issued out to the troops on an ex?



the smoke is toxic. And some people are not quick enough with the gas mask. Like it happened on the BTE.


----------



## Pikache (16 Nov 2005)

Just saw on CTV newsnet that US admitted to using WP to engage insurgents.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (16 Nov 2005)

"Admitted" suggests they were doing something wrong.  I would suggest that, in light of the current CW laws, they were not and that they have little - if anything - to explain or apologize for.

Now if only they'd said that in the first place instead of tapdancing!  :-\


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Nov 2005)

I think if you check the releases "State Department"  was saying "Oh no, not us" while the Pentagon was saying "Yeah. So what?".


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (16 Nov 2005)

Very true.  It seems as though the State Department flinched a tad.


----------



## TCBF (16 Nov 2005)

I last threw a No.80 WP Smoke Grenade in the summer of 1974.   They were from a 1954 batch, and a bunch   did not go off.

Most of the hand held smoke I have thrown since was signalling smoke from Pains Wessex, or the HC smoke (HCC1A1 and derivatives).   I have also used the large 30 minute HC smoke pots, and once fell on top of one and got a mouthfull.   This was long before they told us that HC smoke may not be all that healthy.

In Kandahar in 2002, we turned in our normal MBGD grenades for the new "double pulse" ones for the Coyotes.   I got to fire a bank of four grenades hatches down.   They arced out, burst WP in mid air, hit the ground, and began dispensing a thick screening smoke.   Nice, but a thousand bucks a pop.

I suppose, if one of our guys ever sticks the venturi of a Carl G into the port of a bunker and pulls the trigger, some ComSymp cumbubble while whine about Canada using "Blast Over-Pressure Weapons".

Tom


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Nov 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Ok now I'm really confused.   The C1 DOES contain WP does it not?   If it does, then it is a WP smoke grenade, right?   And if they don't burst, then why is it a major safety issue for them to be issued out to the troops on an ex?
> 
> Ofcourse, you're probably gonna come back and say there's no WP inside a C1 and make me feel dumb    But that was the impression we were under at the time.   If there's no WP inside it then that explains a lot.




The Grenade, Smoke, HCC1A1 is loaded with Hexachloroethane (the HC), which has proven carcinogenic in mice,http://books.nap.edu/html/toxi/. This is why they now require the use of the respirator when exposed to it and why you don't see it as often. You'll mostly get the Pains Wessex stuff now.

I have not seen the NO. 80 MK1 Grenade (WP) since Hohne Gun Camp in the early 70's when we fired them from the Centurion MBSGDs.


----------



## TCBF (16 Nov 2005)

The Number 80 was hand thrown.

Tom


----------



## a_majoor (16 Nov 2005)

If we really want to burn them out of bunkers and hard points, I would suggest flame throwers or those Russian "flame rockets" (think RPG with an incediary warhead). Thermobaric weapons can also be used for those FedEx moments (when you positively have to kill them...).

This is much more precise than that messy WP stuff (which is hard as hell to put out, I once lost a boot after exposing a bit which had been buried in the earth for god knows how long...), and also offers "cool" hollywood optics for those film at 10 newsclips. Might as well give the ignorent something exciting to watch for a change.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Nov 2005)

> If we really want to burn them out of bunkers and hard points, I would suggest flame throwers



You volunteering to carry one?


----------



## Britney Spears (17 Nov 2005)

Well, we were hoping one of you old fogeys might have the course, you know, back when flamethrower was a  QL4.......


As I understand flamethrowers have been superceded by man portable thermobaric weapons. The Chinese army still uses them for the benefit of the press, but then most of the Chinese army is only there for theatrical effect anyway.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Nov 2005)

Old fogey  suitably chastised Young Lady.  Besides not old enough to remember Life Buoys and Wasps - have to watch old movies for those.


----------



## TCBF (17 Nov 2005)

"...but then most of the Chinese army is only there for theatrical effect anyway." - Britney Spears 

Confuscious say "Watch out most for hidden hand you do not see!"

 ;D

Tom


----------



## AmmoTech90 (17 Nov 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Ok now I'm really confused.  The C1 DOES contain WP does it not?  If it does, then it is a WP smoke grenade, right?  And if they don't burst, then why is it a major safety issue for them to be issued out to the troops on an ex?
> 
> Ofcourse, you're probably gonna come back and say there's no WP inside a C1 and make me feel dumb   But that was the impression we were under at the time.  If there's no WP inside it then that explains a lot.



There is no WP in a C1 so your second para is correct but don't feel dumb.  Just make sure that if you ever teach young troops, your facts are correct.  Dont worry about saying "I'll get back to you."  It's better than BSing and sending 30 troops off to continue their career with bad info.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Nov 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> The Number 80 was hand thrown.
> 
> Tom



It is also what we used in the Centurion MBSGD. First we did a circuit test with a light, then we loaded a squib in that propelled the grenade. Finally the grenade was slid in, including the spoon and the pin was pulled. When the button was pushed, the squib fired, launching the grenade (far enough you hoped, as the squibs were old also), releasing the spoon and firing the charge.


----------



## TCBF (17 Nov 2005)

Golly, I learn something new every day!  Thanks for the info.

Tom


----------



## 48Highlander (21 Nov 2005)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> There is no WP in a C1 so your second para is correct but don't feel dumb.   Just make sure that if you ever teach young troops, your facts are correct.   Dont worry about saying "I'll get back to you."   It's better than BSing and sending 30 troops off to continue their career with bad info.



Deffinitely, it's what I try to do whenever I'm usure of something.  And if some clown had't gone around telling everyone that we're getting issued WP granades, we wouldn't be having this discussion now  ;D  damn rumours.  Thanks for taking the time to explain it.


----------



## Britney Spears (22 Nov 2005)

<a href=http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_22431050_91r.html>So......</a>


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (22 Nov 2005)

And?   ;D

Single source intrep...  The source likely described the WP as a "chemical" round himself...doesn't mean a whole helluva lot.


----------



## Britney Spears (22 Nov 2005)

OK, fine....... :crybaby:


----------



## armyintheafterlife (24 Nov 2005)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> Darn.....I knew there were chemical weapons in Iraq!



You might be surprised to know what was there.  For example, why would ya have an explosives workshop with torpedoes in it (source of Octogen a.K.a. HMX and specifically designed to start nuke reactions) located next to a primary school in a Baghdad suburb across the 4 lane city street from the nuclear research facility?  Would be kinda like building a similar workshop on Young Street up around Yorkdale someplace beside a school - it goes up and the whole block goes up.  For you westerners that would be MacLeod Trail at about Southland Dr.  Or let me think for a sec, oh yeh, somebody tries to take it out from the air and gets the school so the cameras have something to give the international media.  You know, I am not a war monger by any stretch of the imagination but here's the thing...  I wish the media would sort their %^&* out.  The only bone they were able to chew on about the nuke capability there was how the first sweep of US EOD might have missed some X lying around in the new nuke complex that was found outside the city, one of about 3 I think it was.

As for the other tech stuff here, go with what the AT is saying.  The only thing I'd add to that is I think the last time I saw No 80 in the inventory was in basic load in Germany about 79 or 80.  I think RP was flavour of the day over WP because it got along better with civilian dangerous goods transport rules though once it starts burning ignition temperatures reach WP levels and it begins to behave like WP. The reason WP will always have a burster charge in whatever its loaded into is it needs to be dispersed cause it combusts spontaneously with air when its dry which is why you leave your boots outside overnight after you've been trying to kill a WP fire. HC is indeed Hex though there's a zinc additive.  The degenerative state of my brain doesn't allow me to remember what the zinc was for though it was important for some reason.  HC was favoured because it burns cooler and sticks to the ground better, doesn't billow and is even friendlier for transport.  That's why it started to show up in shells, grenades, et al.  If yer looking for ammo or explosives that isn't toxic or chemical your stupid, er, I mean I wish the media would smarten up.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Dec 2005)

This release from the JCS.



> Top Military Official Calls White Phosphorous "Legitimate Tool"
> 
> 
> (Source: US State Department; issued Dec. 1, 2005)
> ...



http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16851726.1133540294.Q5BzxsOa9dUAAHeSPdQ&modele=jdc_34


----------

