Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon

Status
Not open for further replies.

Drizzt

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,647
Location
Moscow on the Colorado, TX
Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon

War is hell. But it’s worse when the Marines bring out their new urban combat weapon, the SMAW-NE. Which may be why they’re not talking about it, much.

This is a version of the standard USMC Shoulder Mounted Assault Weapon but with a new warhead. Described as NE - "Novel Explosive"- it is a thermobaric mixture which ignites the air, producing a shockwave of unparalleled destructive power, especially against buildings.

smaw-ne sequence.JPGA post-action report from Iraq describes the effect of the new weapon: "One unit disintegrated a large one-storey masonry type building with one round from 100 meters. They were extremely impressed." Elsewhere it is described by one Marine as "an awesome piece of ordnance."

It proved highly effective in the battle for Fallujah. This from the Marine Corps Gazette, July edition: "SMAW gunners became expert at determining which wall to shoot to cause the roof to collapse and crush the insurgents fortified inside interior rooms."

The NE round is supposed to be capable of going through a brick wall, but in practice gunners had to fire through a window or make a hole with an anti-tank rocket. Again, from the Marine Corps Gazette:

"Due to the lack of penetrating power of the NE round, we found that our assaultmen had to first fire a dual-purpose rocket in order to create a hole in the wall or building. This blast was immediately followed by an NE round that would incinerate the target or literally level the structure."

The rational for this approach was straightforward:

"Marines could employ blast weapons prior to entering houses that had become pillboxes, not homes. The economic cost of house replacement is not comparable to American lives...all battalions adopted blast techniques appropriate to entering a bunker, assuming you did not know if the bunker was manned."

The manufacturers, Talley, make bold use of its track record, with a brochure headlined Thermobaric Urban Destruction."

The SMAW-NE has only been procured by the USMC, though there are reports that some were 'borrowed' by other units. However, there are also proposals on the table that thousands of obsolete M-72 LAWs could be retrofitted with thermobaric warheads, making then into effective urban combat tools.

But in an era of precision bombs, where collateral damage is expected to be kept to a minimum, such massively brutal weapons have become highly controversial. These days, every civilian casualty means a few more “hearts and minds” are lost. Thermobaric weapons almost invariable lead to civilian deaths. The Soviet Union was heavily criticized for using thermobaric weapons in Afghanistan because they were held to constitute "disproportionate force," and similar criticisms were made when thermobarics were used in the Chechen conflict. According to Human Rights Watch, thermobaric weapons "kill and injure in a particularly brutal manner over a wide area. In urban settings it is very difficult to limit the effect of this weapon to combatants, and the nature of FAE explosions makes it virtually impossible for civilians to take shelter from their destructive effect."

So it’s understandable that the Marines have made so little noise about the use of the SMAW-NE in Fallujah. But keeping quiet about controversial weapons is a lousy strategy, no matter how effective those arms are. In the short term, it may save some bad press. In the long term, it’s a recipe for a scandal. Military leaders should debate human right advocates and the like first, and then publicly decide "we do/do not to use X". Otherwise when the media find do find out – as they always do -- not only do you get a level of hysteria but there is also the charge of “covering up.”

I'm undecided about thermobarics myself, but I think they should let the legal people sort out all these issues and clear things up. Otherwise you get claims of “chemical weapons” and “violating the Geneva Protocol.” Which doesn't really help anyone. The warfighter is left in doubt, and it hands propaganda to the bad guys. Just look at what happened it last week’s screaming over white phosphorous rounds.

-- David Hambling

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001944.html

so, it's a man-portable FAE bomb? sounds like a party.
 
That story is full of exaggerations, misleading statements, redundant descriptions, and lies. Especially the part where he says he's 'undecided'. Lol.

And, for the record,
 
Huh. Are fuel-air weapons explosive? They deflagrate (burn) instead of detonate. Technically that would mean they're not Class III weapons...
 
Well that's just great. Now we get to hear Sheehan et al screeching about this for the next month. Let's just hope some Russian general doesn't decide to send Zarquawi some of those thermobaric RPG-7 rockets.
 
the marines are using a shoulder-fired rocket that creates a fireball on impact. specifically, a fireball based around a very powerfull pressure wave of air, and accompanying heat and flames.

this is VERY usefull for knocking down homes or torching the inside of a bunker.

problem is, it doesn't penetrate well, and it does its best work when it gets INSIDE the target.

so, the marines sometimes have to aim for a window that can be easily penetrated, or use a more traditional rocket to knock a hole in a wall first.
 
problem is, it doesn't penetrate well, and it does its best work when it gets INSIDE the target.

I thought this could describe some of us old guys too. :D
 
I thought this could describe some of us old guys too.
This is why I quit eating and drinking at the keyboard. :p


and on a more serious note...

Let's just hope some Russian general doesn't decide to send Zarquawi some of those thermobaric RPG-7 rockets.

+1
 
There are some excellent comments posted below the article on the source page. I suggest reading them for comments from guys who ostensibly have been there, done that. Sounds like an excellent weapon. As someone commented, it's probably more precise than a tank round, which would be one of the alternatives.

As for this line:
I'm undecided about thermobarics myself
You've gotta be kidding me. Both the headline (maybe not written by the author) and the text of the article (presumably written by the author) refer to this weapon as "brutal", a word loaded with negative connotations. He also implies there's some kind of conspiracy to "keep quiet" about this weapon, as if all the other weapons are being used for show-and-tell on Good Morning America.

_________________
-twency
 
There are also 40mm thermobaric rounds that can be launched from a 40mm launcher (don't know if they will work in the M203 though, I think they are 46mm long).

Man portable FAE pretty well describes it.
 
"start issueing Davy Crockets."

Only problem with Davy Crockets is that the launcher is within the effective blast range of the warhead when it detonates! I don't think even an up armored Humvee is gonna take that kind of pounding................:what:
 
Hmmm, big blast without penetration, heat, fireball, pressure wavesblows up things. Hmmmm, sounds like we have learned to use IEDs ourselves. How can anyone say "we bad, they good" when they are using similar devices. Let them howl. War is hell, and you can expect the enemy to use anything that works, and they are. Why shouldn't we. How many shots have we seen taken by al jazerra that shows huge fireballs and blasts engulfing a Humvee with Americans inside?
 
I think it's a great weapon, and the opinions of those that don't like it, can come clear structures in Iraq the old fasion way... Cause I've been there, done that and it ain't fun, well, it's fun to talk about latter, but looking for bad guys in thier home isn't the safest place to be.

That's like saying our M1A1 tank is to far advanced and too brutal, maybe someone should tell congress that the Marines, should just use civil war style, black powder cannons, bet it would be more cost effective too :uhoh:
 
"Brutal" new weapon?

Explosive devices run the gamut when it comes to destructive mechanisms. We are more familiar with bombs and artillery rounds that use shrapnel for the destructive mechanism. These are approximately 30% blast effect and 70% shrapnel for killing power. FAEs, on the opther hand are 100% blast effect. We (The Marines) introduced them in Viet Nam, used to detonate mines (IEDs) and collapse bunkers and for landing zone prep. When the fuel cloud detonated, you could easily see the shock wave expanding, then collapsing. I led the mission south of the Que Sons introducing them as a combat test. They were 100% effective and, I believe, saved lives during our subsequent inserts. I find this not brutal, but life saving. Brutality is blowing up innocent wedding guests, beheading captives and the like.
The big advance here is making them man portable and giving them enough range to keep the shooter safe. My belief is that something that keeps our people safe is a good thing.

Be Well,

Scraface
 
All the weapons I know of are brutal, from sword and battleaxe to nuclear.

WAR ITSELF is brutal.

Just because some lace-trimmed reporter or commentator gets their knickers in a knot upon discovering the inherent brutality of weapons and war is nothing for me to get upset about. War is hell, as Sherman said. We should never lose sight of that fact and therefore always make certain the wars we prosecute are just and lawful. That is the standard we demand of every other country and we must abide by it also.

lpl/nc
 
This is a great weapon if it performs as advertised. If you've got a hard point that's serving as a bunker you can surgically kill the occupants without destroying the block of buildings it sits in. How is this brutal? The noncombatants in nearby buildings are not put at risk. The "bunker" occupants are killed. The assaulting troops don't have to charge into the fire from the bunker. What's bad about this? As long as it's used on confirmed bunkers it's a great weapon.
 
OK, I just want to see if I have this right.

Perforating a man with a number of .223" holes and having him flop around, scream and bleed to death is not brutal.

Perforating a man with a large number of irregularly shaped and sized, white hot, shell fragments, possibly taking limbs off, and having him flop around, scream and bleed to death is not brutal.

Killing a man from overpressure while simultaneously dropping a building on him IS brutal.


Ummmm...... Did I miss a meeting here or something?
 
The Marines should play a VERY LOUD recording of a hog being slaughtered just before firing the weapon. :evil:

A little "psychological warfare.......... :D

Yanus
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top