# Rare weapon used by Israeli Air Force.



## CharlesBronson (Jan 11, 2009)

Recently I had seen some footage in the CNN of jewish air force operation over Gaza and I have a question.

What is that thing wich explodes in the air and opened like a spider web ?

A cluster bomb? a IR jamming device ?

the image I saw is more or less like this:


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 11, 2009)

I do not know, I would have to see the video footage. I am sure it is not a rare weapon though.

Here is a video of cluster bombs. Is this what you saw?


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii5D0MbLrHI_


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 11, 2009)

I think he is thinking of something which is more akin to this (White Phosphorus shells)


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSwV2GpTNVM_


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 11, 2009)

Yeap, that could be it.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 11, 2009)

I'm pretty sure I saw what CB is referring to, in last Friday's paper.

Did it look something like this, but from more of a head-on perspective?
(view is from Israeli lines)


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 11, 2009)

> think he is thinking of something which is more akin to this (White Phosphorus shells)
> 
> YouTube - White Phosphorus used over Gaza.



Definately !! thank you. So is an artillery shell and not a bomb ? it must have some kind of timed or proximity fuze.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 11, 2009)

I believe does have a proximity fuse for it to be an airburst weapon. Can be delivered by any means - bomb, shell etc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_(weapon)


----------



## Airframes (Jan 11, 2009)

Ooh! Naughty! WP is supposed to be banned as a weapon; most armies get around that problem, especially with WP grenades, by calling them 'Smoke Signalling Devices'!


----------



## Amsel (Jan 12, 2009)

Even the Soviets refused to admit using WP in the sacking of Berlin. And they felt in the right to bring "fire and sword" to Germany. WP is not supposed to be used from what I understand against personel.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2009)

Amsel said:


> WP is not supposed to be used from what I understand against personel.



Believe me it is used by everyone...

Here is video of it being used in Fallujah:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxfPCPA2d60_


----------



## Parmigiano (Jan 12, 2009)

Well, the fact that 'Willy Pete' is not used only by Israel does not make the use of it less criminal.
This is a war crime, no questions.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 12, 2009)

> I believe does have a proximity fuse for it to be an airburst weapon. Can be delivered by any means - bomb, shell etc



I was reading some old magazines and I find the WP was also used in the Falklands/Malvinas by Argentine army in the shape of 60mm, 81mm mortar and 105mm howitzer rounds. 

The problem that I see in this videos is that it spread in a relative large area over the city, you cant claim "surgical precision" with this.
However it must be said since the islamist always used to shield their components with women, children and the ONU the same could be said about any weapon used over this city.




> Well, the fact that 'Willy Pete' is not used only by Israel does not make the use of it less criminal.
> This is a war crime, no questions.



I dont think so, it is a nasty weapon indeed, but arent all in that way ?


----------



## Parmigiano (Jan 12, 2009)

Use of WP as smokescreen or for illumination purposes on military target is allowed.

Use of WP on densely populated civilian areas is not allowed by Geneva convention, and is a war crime.

It was a war crime when Saddam used it on the Kurds and it is now and whenever any 'X' army uses it on any 'Y' population.

I don't believe that there is much room for interpretation, I doubt that somebody can claim that in this case it was a 'smokescreen'


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 13, 2009)

I was reading the Geneva Convention online and I have to say you were right.
Quite unfortunately that the IDF is using it in this way


----------



## Erich (Jan 13, 2009)

how can anyone say in there right mind in the time of combat that a weapon of any sort is to be banned ? what utter foolishness. Screw the Geneva convention


----------



## Parmigiano (Jan 13, 2009)

Well, but if you apply the same principle in a neutral way then you should allow also any type of terrorism and human bombs too.

Either you draw a line with a super-partes institution (that is surely not perfect, but is the best possible) and you obey the rules or you can't draw any line. 

But this is a topic that would go too far.


----------



## Erich (Jan 13, 2009)

there are no rules when it comes to combating your enemy I will tell you this as a fact, bullets, bombs, rockets, anything, it does not make any difference in the world. Besides both sides are not listening to a western dominated UN never have and never will, you speak of human bombs well look for your ownself and see how long this has been going on from certain mideast factions, funny nobody really is bothered by all the years of relentless explosions amongst busy down town streets and markets and yet if Israel comes into an area with force the whole world points the finger...............maybe it is Israel's time to scatter Hamas to the winds if it means going in like a steam roller all through Gaza


----------



## evangilder (Jan 13, 2009)

Have none of you guys ever worked spotting artillery??? WP is often used for spotting, or "Marker rounds". One to five rounds can be fired to range for the spotter. Also, bear in mind that WP is not prohibited or restricted by Protocol II of the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention (CCWC), the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects. 

According the globalsecurity.org, the Israelis violated no international laws or conventions while using white phosphorous.
White Phosphorus (WP)


----------



## BombTaxi (Jan 14, 2009)

Erich,

I don't think anyone with eyes to see and a mind to think questions _why_ the Israelis have gone into Gaza. It is the _means_ by which the campaign has been conducted which has raised concerns, as well is it's current failure to meet it's objectives. Something like 1,000 Gazans have now been killed, mainly civilians, and the rocket attacks have not stopped. The IDF claims to have destroyed Hama's infrastructure, but this has clearly not had much effect on the guys firing the rockets. So what does the IDF do? Stay there until all 1.5 million Gazans are dead and their territory pounded into dust? While there are some out there who think that is exactly what should happen, I think the other Arab countries would crush Israel before that happened. 

Personally, I am appalled by the suicide bombings and rocket attacks on Israel. But here is a fact - Israel has spent _sixty years_ trying to crush it's Arab neighbours and population by force of arms _and it hasn't changed a thing_. So surely now is the time to end this cycle? Meeting violence with violence is not working. Now is the time for Israel to take the lead, to rebuild Gaza and the West Bank and show the Palestinians that life without Hamas is the better choice. They won't do that by bombing women and children. After all, Israel won't give in to the slaughter of innocents - why should they expect Hamas to do so?


----------



## Erich (Jan 14, 2009)

what you say bomb is all well and good from a westerners point of view but they do not accept nor understand our way of thinking thus cannot apply the more logical way of which we see it. the cycle will never be broken for both sides - they will die by the sword. Study the country's long long past, it is inevitable. While I was there it was so apparent they did not want us westerners living with them or encouraging them in any fashion except to have our money.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jan 14, 2009)

The point is that 'us Westerners' have played such an instrumental part in creating the situation in the Middle East and sustaining the cycle of violence that we cannot now walk away and leave the two sides to fight it out - not if we have any kind of human conscience anyway. I find the implication that the inhabitants of the region are somehow mentally inferior to 'westerners' and therefore incapable of finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict disturbing to say the least, although I assume you are applying to both sides equally?

Fact of the matter is, yes, there has been a lot of conflict between Islam and the 'Western World' over the past 1200 years or so, but there is nothing 'inevitable' in the conflict we see here at the minute. The Israeli state was created by a unilateral declaration of independence, and the people who made that declaration knew that it would not be accepted by the Arabs - they had already rejected the UN resolution and the authority of the UN to decide how Arab land was disposed of. As has been said many times, neither side is innocent, but the reason that this war is going on is because the Israelis created their own state out of someone else's without permission or agreement. Under any other circumstances, that would be considered an unacceptable usurpation of a state's sovereignty - but seeing as the land was British spoils of war and the occupants are Arabs, no-one seems to have a problem. I do not, for even a second, condone or support Hamas and thier activities against Israel. But if Israel took other peoples land, knowing that this transfer had not been agreed to, they cannot expect to live totally unmolested. And if you believe that the land has never belonged to the Arabs, go back and see that it had been under Muslim rule for centuries, during which time the area was no more violent than any other part of the world. The real violence started in the aftermath of WW1, when it became clear that Britain would not honour it's commitment to Arab independence, and that the influx of Jewish immigrants to the area betokened the imminent creation of a Jewish state, at the expense of the Arabs already present in the area.

So, if eighty years of killing has failed to secure the Jewish state, maybe it's time for a different approach. And peace should be mediated and guaranteed by the UK and the US - we did so much to create and then sustain Israel, it's time we owned up to our responsibilities instead of leaving another broken country in out post-colonial wake...


----------



## Erich (Jan 14, 2009)

inferior I said nothing of the sort, I did say they think the way they do because they are of the eastern mindset.

bomb this is getting nowhere just like the other thread brought up stupidly by Jug. I know the history well enough with contacts that I had - from both sides and still do, and relatives living their for eons. simply put they do not want anything we can offer to give them and they in a word are content with the struggles that they have.
Getting to the talk table would be grand, can it be done, surely it can, but both are unwilling.
Violence is Biblical long before the British came and left, you can believe it or deny it. I remain on this that the two peoples will unceasingly try to terminate each other till the end of time


----------



## timshatz (Jan 14, 2009)

Could be two different weapons. 

The pic looks like a WP and seems like a marker. I've seen on TV, but do not have pics of, the air bursts. Some of them seemed to be just standard air burst artillery shells (Prox Fused). Seems they would be very effective against a bunch of guys setting up a rocket.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jan 14, 2009)

I apologise Erich for misconstruing your comments. Nevertheless, I think the US and UK need to own up to their responsibility in the situation instead of pretending it's hopeless and walking away. The UK in particular owes that to the people on both sides that we have betrayed


----------



## Erich (Jan 14, 2009)

or just forget the conflict entirely and get back to bolstering their own ~ US and UK's economy. Bomb, I was told too many times " go home and leave us alone "


----------



## fly boy (Jan 14, 2009)

CharlesBronson said:


> Recently I had seen some footage in the CNN of jewish air force operation over Gaza and I have a question.
> 
> What is that thing wich explodes in the air and opened like a spider web ?
> 
> ...



reminds me of napalm but that is not used by anyone i know of


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 14, 2009)

> reminds me of napalm



Not quite, it is phosphor, the napalm is dropped in the shape of cointainers or fuel tanks and ingnites when impact with the ground.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 14, 2009)

Parmigiano said:


> Well, the fact that 'Willy Pete' is not used only by Israel does not make the use of it less criminal.
> This is a war crime, no questions.


If it were a war against a country, it would be. The Geneva convention doesn't recognise police actions within a country. People keep trying to imagne a Palestinian State, but it doesn't exist.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 15, 2009)

That isn't stopping the UN complaining about it (not that they can really do anything about it)...

BBC NEWS | Middle East | UN accuses Israel over phosphorus


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 15, 2009)

I really do not think any of us can judge this (especially based off of the videos that have been posted). 

1. We are not there.
2. We do not know what the use was for.
3. We do not know what the targets were.


----------



## Parmigiano (Jan 16, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> If it were a war against a country, it would be. The Geneva convention doesn't recognise police actions within a country. People keep trying to imagne a Palestinian State, but it doesn't exist.



I honestly don't understand your point.

Do you mean that Palestine is part of Israel and so this is an 'internal police affair' ?
If so I believe you take a wrong assumption.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 16, 2009)

I question whether it is Willie Pete. I think we are looking at nothing more than airburst artillery. Heck there is a pic of it our local liberal paper and not a single mention of the evil Isrealis using forbidden armaments.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 16, 2009)

Parmigiano said:


> I honestly don't understand your point.
> 
> Do you mean that Palestine is part of Israel and so this is an 'internal police affair' ?
> If so I believe you take a wrong assumption.


Legally, yes. The Geneva convention only applies to wars between states with lawful combatants. Gaza isn't a country. Hamas are not lawful combatants. The convention doesn't apply to that any more than it applies to a riot in Los Angeles.


----------



## Parmigiano (Jan 16, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Legally, yes. The Geneva convention only applies to wars between states with lawful combatants. Gaza isn't a country. Hamas are not lawful combatants. The convention doesn't apply to that any more than it applies to a riot in Los Angeles.



Nope.

"The Geneva Conventions and other international tractates recognize that land a) conquered in the course of a war; and b) the disposition of which is unresolved through subsequent peace treaties is "occupied" and subject to international laws of war and international humanitarian law. This includes special protection of individuals in those territories, limitations on the use of land in those territories, and access by international relief agencies."

International law and the Arabâ€“Israeli conflict - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Beside the 'laws', the concept that a state can violate any kind of rule to fix an 'internal problem' is questionable on itself.
It seems to me that when Saddam was using this reasoning to solve his 'internal problem' with the Kurds nobody with common sense was defending that approach.

And if London would had WP bombed Belfast (given that the IRA terrorist were hiding among the 'civilians') I suppose that there would not have been worldwide appreciation.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 16, 2009)

Parmigiano said:


> Nope.
> 
> "The Geneva Conventions and other international tractates recognize that land a) conquered in the course of a war; and b) the disposition of which is unresolved through subsequent peace treaties is "occupied" and subject to international laws of war and international humanitarian law. This includes special protection of individuals in those territories, limitations on the use of land in those territories, and access by international relief agencies."
> 
> ...



The French certainly had no problems selling him weapons to do it with, "food for oil" style. Also the UN didn't exactly sanction action against Iraq when we went in there.

I think attempting to ban weapons from war zones is retarded, with perhaps the exception of nerve gas. All it ever does is give the advantage to the people willing to break the rules.

WP is a hard way to die. I'd pick something else, given the choice. Does it bother me when it is used? Not really.

If the Israelis start dropping huge cannisters of Sarin gas, then that's an act of a genocidal nature. Of course they never would, and Hamas would if they could.


----------



## Parmigiano (Jan 16, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> The French certainly had no problems selling him weapons to do it with, "food for oil" style. Also the UN didn't exactly sanction action against Iraq when we went in there.



Nor the US and any other Country who had chance to make a business (I think also italy sold him weapons)



Clay_Allison said:


> I think attempting to ban weapons from war zones is retarded, with perhaps the exception of nerve gas. All it ever does is give the advantage to the people willing to break the rules.



Why nerve gas should be different from other weapons that 'should not be banned' ? Personal taste? 
I think that there is some International agreement about the forbidden list, that might not be the perfect way but is still way better than to let a single Nation or individual decide what is allowed and what not



Clay_Allison said:


> WP is a hard way to die. I'd pick something else, given the choice. Does it bother me when it is used? Not really.



Me too, I would prefer several other ways to blow my dirty soul, many of them include a bedroom and some individuals of the other sex.

Does it bother me that somebody uses stuff like WP?
Yes, at different levels. 



Clay_Allison said:


> If the Israelis start dropping huge cannisters of Sarin gas, then that's an act of a genocidal nature. Of course they never would, and Hamas would if they could.



Tht's exactly why the use of certain weapons must be restricted.
Who sets the limit between an 'act of genocidal nature' and 'act of self defense'?
Can't be one of the party involved (regardless of which war and side)
Remember that, before having an army, the Israeli people was fighting with terrorist attacks too against their 'oppressor' that in the case was Great Britain.


----------



## Junkers88A1 (Jan 16, 2009)

i agree with Erich


----------



## DBII (Jan 16, 2009)

IMHO, war is war. The purpose is to kill the other side as quickly as possible. The thought that any weapon system is outlawed is a crazy. Side A is waring against side B and kicking the snot out of them. The only way for side B to when is to use a banned weapon system. Side B thinks, I can die and lose everything or I can use the dreaded weapon X and save my neck....of course side B is going to use the weapon. 

The law of war is like a contract, it is only as good as the people that sign it. Once one side stops playing by the laws of war then the rules are no longer in effect. No I am not saying that troops should be allowed to become hoards stealing everthing in site, attacking women and children and shooting pets. I am not saying that tourture for the sake of tourture in allowable either. My point is that I am just as dead from an arty round, WP, bee hive, chemical attack or bullet. 

I do not remember to details but either prior to WWI or shortly afterwards the world met and banned war. That went rather well. The only reason why chemicals were not used by the Geramns in WWII was because Hitler lived through a chemical attack in WWI not because of any law or international agreement. During the cold war, we expected the Warsaw Pact to use chemicals. I have not kept up with military history the past 10 years but I do not recall reading anything showing that chemicals was not in their war plans. I would be interested in hearing from our friends in Europe about their possible use. 

I think screaming about law of war violations is in order. After all, we now classify making prisinors wear underwear on their heads as a war crime. 

DBII


----------



## Parmigiano (Jan 16, 2009)

There is one thing called 'evolution'
It should bring to something called 'civilization'

In past centuries, was normal the the winning party killed everybody or took population as slaves. Not to say what was happening to women and childrens.

In WW1 the effect of mustard gas brought the Nations to ban this kind of weapons.
There were small violations to this treaty (for instance Italy has the shame to have used it in the colonial war), but this prevented the use of gas in WW2.
Giving that weight to the story of Hitler is fantasy. 
Churchill did not had this problem, but gas was not used i.e. in Dieppe
Stalin had even lesser moral problems, but he did not used the gas in Stalingrad.

That in terms of preparation one tries to be ready for any event is normal: I bet that in the cold war the Russian too were training to counter NBC attacks from the west (... oops NBC is Nuclear, Bacteriological, Chemical: i don't know the english terms)

You want to ban every weapon rule, but you say "No I am not saying that troops should be allowed to become hoards stealing everthing in site, attacking women and children and shooting pets. I am not saying that tourture for the sake of tourture in allowable either."

Here you contradict yourself, because what you do is to establish a PERSONAL rule, a rule that for you is OK.
And what if is not ok for me? I may say 'I won the war, so I am entitled to do what I want with the conquered land, women and pets. Don't bother me if I feel like to shoot and rape them'
What's wrong? You set your rules, I set mine.

Maybe is better that a recognised set of rules is agreed and that we stick with it.

Then you say "Once one side stops playing by the laws of war then the rules are no longer in effect"
I agree, that's why is so important that breaking rules is not allowed.


----------



## timshatz (Jan 16, 2009)

Parmigiano said:


> I agree, that's why is so important that breaking rules is not allowed.



Parm, no offense but that is a pretty "out there" statement. People go to war because "the rules" (whatever they may be) aren't working to their satisfaction. It's a little like a criminal expected to "play by the rules" when the definition of a criminal is one who doesn't play by "the rules".

If a weapon hasn't been used in a war (NBC, Napalm, Land Mines, to name a few) it is more often a case of the active combat not having gone on long enough. Usually, in a case of total war anyway, all weapons will eventually get used as the war progresses (regresses? degresses? I don't know but I guess the verbage I'm looking for means "the war gets steadily and progressively worse from a position of ability, desire and will to inflict harm on the opposition).


----------



## Parmigiano (Jan 16, 2009)

Tim,

criminals always existed and will always exist, but is no reason to drop all the laws (the 'rules') and let everybody act as they please. 

We all brag about Iran that maybe in 5 years will have an A bomb. Israel has about 150-200 of them (according to the best available estimate, officially they have none). Should we allow them to nuke half of middle east, if the odds of that endless war will turn against them?
Or should we approve if the Palestinian will own some bacteria and start to send some kamikaze to infect the Israelian towns? 
All in all in both cases is a 'legitimate use of all possible weapons to win the war', according to the 'no rules' theory. 

The fact that nobody was massively gassed in ww2 maybe means that the 'rules' were worth something, of course this 'rules' can only be retroactive because in every war something new will be developed and marked 'inhuman' only afterwards.

The point is that there should be an enforcing system in place that make the rule breaking too costly for the 'criminal'.
You use a forbidden weapon? Well, every commercial relationship with the rest of the world is broken for 25 years.

I know that this is wishful thinking, but on the real-world side i believe that rules are useful, and that everytime someone breaks them should be at least pointed out as a criminal. 

Of course, in case of a global world war this cannot be applied, but then the only option is to cross the fingers.


----------



## DBII (Jan 16, 2009)

PARMIGIANO, we may be in agreement in theory but not the out come. I agree that there is a slippery slope issue. At what point does a man go from being a solider to being a monster? I do believe that the civilian population should be protected as much as possible but not at all cost. 

Dealing with armed combatants that are not conforming to accepted practices of waring nations should not be entitled to protection from those same rules. You have to remember that we are talking about warfare here and not someone that robbed a bank or stole a car. War is a state were the only rule is to kill or be killed. Everything else is PC BS. Sure it is nice to follow a rules as if it was a football game but that is not the way the battle field works. 

If party A does not follow the law of war and party B does nothing to Stop A then what? Party A continues the same action. So then what? The UN release several notices? That will do the trick. Lets burry them in paper work.

Interesting statment on the non use of chemicals during WWII. The world was at war already. If Geramny had used chemicals what could the other countires do as punishment, a time out? No use chemicals also. If the other nations failed to lauch their own chemical strikes, the Germans would be continue it's use because it worked. The balance of power would be shift in their favor. So both sides would be lauching chemicals as in WWI. It is nasty but that is war. 

I suggest that the lack of chemical warefare was the fact that everyone could launch a strike and Europe still remembered WWI. I do not know what stock piles were availible but it would have been easy enough for everyone to make them. My thoughts is that mutual destruction much like the arms race of the cold war prevented chemical use. I do not think that Axies were to affraid of what the world would think if they went "dirty" (used chemicals.) 

The world could not enforce a ban against Iraq, there is no way to cut off trade for 25 years. If the ban did work, it would be used as a battle cry for those that broke the rules. They would become the victims of the world oppression and break additional laws of war by using terrorism. It is a never ending cycle. It is much better to cut off the leg and save the body from the cancer. 

I wish I could stay long and talk. 
DBII


----------



## Junkers88A1 (Jan 17, 2009)

a picture of the weapon on impact..


----------



## Junkers88A1 (Jan 17, 2009)

to me it loos like magnesiumballs on fire.. probably to start more fires..and see how the bounces of here and there they dont seem to do much damage ( except from starting fires..and that is ofcourse damage enough )
these guys have been fighting for 4000 years or something since the pharao threm the jews out ( freed them ) and they wandered of and setteled in the region..and the fighting will continue..so let them do their things..its the only thing they know


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 18, 2009)

> a picture of the weapon on impact..



 Impressive !! thank you Junkers.


----------



## fly boy (Feb 10, 2009)

in modern aircraft are the caf and jaming in pods or built in 



.... or it could be a satilite


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 10, 2009)

fly boy said:


> in modern aircraft are the caf and jaming in pods or built in
> 
> 
> 
> .... or it could be a satilite



Sorry can you please explain that better? I do not understand what you are saying or asking.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Feb 10, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Sorry can you please explain that better? I do not understand what you are saying or asking.



Maybe he's talking about radar jamming pods?


----------



## SoD Stitch (Feb 10, 2009)

fly boy said:


> in modern aircraft are the caf and jaming in pods or built in
> 
> 
> 
> .... or it could be a satilite



What's a "caf"? Do you mean "chaff"?

And, to answer your question, most modern a/c have the chaff and flare dispensers and jamming electronics built-in, though some of the smaller and older a/c are required to carry it on one of their hardpoints, thereby limiting the number of offensive stores they can carry. 

For instance, when the A-10 first came out, it had NO built-in defensive countermeasures, such as chaff/flare dispensers and jamming pods, so it was required to carry an extra jamming pod (typically an AN/ALQ-119) and/or a chaff/flare dispenser on one of the outboard pylons. However, updated versions of the A-10 (in particular the OA-10A and the A-10C) have had chaff/flare dispensers installed in the rear portion of the gear pods and at the wingtips.

And I still don't get the satellite part . . . . .


----------

