Article

2005-11-28 Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2005-11-28 12:13|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Oh dear, a brutal weapon! I think I'm getting a case of the vapors. The FAE vapors. BWAHAHAHAHA!

Posted by SteveS 2005-11-28 12:52|| 2005-11-28 12:52|| Front Page Top

#2 Yeah, let's get back to those soft and friendly weapons, the Ma Deuce and the M16...

Posted by mojo">mojo 2005-11-28 12:54|| 2005-11-28 12:54|| Front Page Top

#3 "One unit disintegrated a large one-storey masonry type building with one round from 100 meters. They were extremely impressed."

What can one say but: COOL!

Posted by Xbalanke 2005-11-28 13:00|| 2005-11-28 13:00|| Front Page Top

#4 Brutal weapons just seem so...unfair. And unilateral. Whatever will the UN say?

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2005-11-28 13:17|| 2005-11-28 13:17|| Front Page Top

#5 Thermobaric death=what the fucking insurgents deserve with their half ass IED's and human shield tendencies. Burning pre-hell is something I do wish upon them.

EP

Posted by ElvisHasLeftTheBuilding 2005-11-28 13:18|| 2005-11-28 13:18|| Front Page Top

#6 It would only be fair if we gave these to our enemies. Maybe we can send the hardware to them one shell at a time?

Posted by Cyber Sarge">Cyber Sarge 2005-11-28 13:48|| 2005-11-28 13:48|| Front Page Top

#7 Looks like we'll be makin' lotsa molten organic molecules out of the Talibans, just like they did to our fellow citizens at the WTC. So, what's the big deal?...

Posted by BigEd 2005-11-28 14:44|| 2005-11-28 14:44|| Front Page Top

#8 I sure hope we're not hurting anyone with these things. They seem so, I don't know, dangerous. Plus...are they environmentally friendly?

The Marines CLEARLY need more sensitivity training! :)

Posted by Justrand 2005-11-28 15:04|| 2005-11-28 15:04|| Front Page Top

#9 The Marines need a BDD(1) to go along with the weapon, so as to minimize WOO(2).

1. Baby Duck Detector

2. World Opinion Outrageâ¢

Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul 2005-11-28 16:12|| 2005-11-28 16:12|| Front Page Top

#10 This weapon can't be as inhumane as being downwind of a Code Pink rally.

Posted by Dar">Dar 2005-11-28 16:45|| 2005-11-28 16:45|| Front Page Top

#11 I've just updated my Dear Santa list.

Posted by Captain America 2005-11-28 17:18|| 2005-11-28 17:18|| Front Page Top

#12 Chinese version of "BRUTAL NEW WEAPON"
photos too.

Posted by 3dc 2005-11-28 17:39|| 2005-11-28 17:39|| Front Page Top

#13 Article: One unit disintegrated a large one-storey masonry type building with one round from 100 meters. They were extremely impressed.

Color me unimpressed. Taking out bunkers with portable rocket rounds is a capability that infantrymen have had since the invention of the bazooka. This weapon doesn't seem to have given either the Russians or the Chechens an edge, despite the fact that the Russians had it first, after which the Chechens stole it, upon which the edge is supposed to have passed on to them, since this weapon is supposed to favor defenders if both sides have it.

Posted by Elmenter Snineque1852 2005-11-28 19:15|| 2005-11-28 19:15|| Front Page Top

#14 a Bluto new weapon?

Posted by John Belushi">John Belushi 2005-11-28 20:42|| 2005-11-28 20:42|| Front Page Top

#15 Anon/ES1852: I looked through all my Crayolas, but couldn't find "unimpressed". :-)

I read your comments here and on DefenseTech, and I think you're missing some of the advantages of thermobaric munitions, as they're described:

Thermobaric munitions use overpressure, not direct blast effects, to kill. Additionally, it's not just that the thermobaric munitions can knock down a building--it's that they can kill defenders in adjoining rooms even if they don't breach the actual structure. A near-miss on a bunker can kill the occupants when using thermobaric munitions; with a bazooka or other HE/HEAT round, you need a direct hit or an incredibly large warhead to take out the bunker.

I completely disagree with your blanket statement on DefenseTech claiming artillery is the urban combat cure-all as well. Even if the attacker doesn't give a damn about the civilian population and the structures, like the Soviets did when taking Berlin in '45, it would take a prohibitive amount of time and ammunition to flatten every structure. The Soviets had overwhelming numbers of guns and men, and estimates of their casualties start in the hundreds of thousands.

And flattening a city is definitely no guarantee the defenders are all dead. The Germans and Soviets discovered in Stalingrad that random bombing and shelling only created MORE cover for the defender--not less. Furthermore it facilitated the defender's job by cratering roads and/or blocking them with rubble, creating roadblocks and obstacles for the attacker.

Posted by Dar">Dar 2005-11-28 20:54|| 2005-11-28 20:54|| Front Page Top

23:56 Aris Katsaris
23:13 Bomb-a-rama
23:06 Frank G
22:50 Grunter
22:37 Red Dog
22:32 DMFD
22:13 JosephMendiola
22:05 JosephMendiola
22:05 2b
22:05 Frank G
22:03 JosephMendiola
21:59 2b
21:57 2b
21:56 JosephMendiola
21:51 2b
21:46 Zenster
21:45 Dragonscale
21:42 Frank G
21:33 Whuse Angoluns5118
21:24 Phinelet Glager1865
21:21 anymouse
21:18 Robert Crawford
21:17 Glenmore
21:12 Red Dog