UK used white phosphorus in Iraq

[48Highlander]

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?

  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? 

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]

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".

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

From the topic:

"UK used white phosphorus in Iraq"

'nuff said.

bye mack.

 

[jmackenzie_15]

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]

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

 

[AmmoTech90]

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]

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

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

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]

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]

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.

Defence Secretary John Reid said British troops only used the substance - which can burn skin through to the bone - to lay smokescreens, in accordance with the UK's international treaty commitments.

However, former armed forces minister Doug Henderson said the admission by the Pentagon that it was used to flush out insurgents in the assault on Fallujah raised serious questions for the coalition allies.

"It exposes the fact that double standards have applied," he told BBC Radio 4's The World at One.

"You cannot say you are going to invade a country to find chemical weapons and prevent them being used and then admit that you have used chemical weapons yourself in carrying out your endeavours.

"I think there needs to be a judgment made by the British Armed Forces as to whether there are any alternatives which could be used which wouldn't be so dangerous because, regardless of all the assurances that are given, people will now think that this form of illuminating the sky has a side effect which means that if the chemical falls it can burn people as it falls."

In Iraq, acting human rights minister Narmin Uthman told the BBC that she was sending a team to Fallujah to investigate the use of white phosphorus in last year's siege.

A recent documentary by the Italian state broadcaster, RAI, claimed Iraqi civilians in the city, including women and children, had died of burns caused by the substance - - a report strenuously denied by the US.

But the chairman of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, Labour MP Mike Gapes, said the international conventions on chemical weapons may now have to be strengthened to cover white phosphorus.

The US has argued that the use of white phosphorus was lawful because it had been used as an incendiary weapon, not a chemical weapon. Unlike Britain, the US is not a signatory to protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons, which prohibits its use as an incendiary weapon against civilians or in civilian areas.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

take a look at this link.

Hmm.

 

[3rd Horseman]

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]

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