Comments for Answering the mail, part 3.

Answering the mail, part 3.

2006-08-18T12:39:20Z

Target attack criteria, bad choices in.

I've already had this discussion in the comments of my two previous posts on artillery this week, but it won't go away, so I'll bring it to the front.

Bob Owens of Confederate Yankee (who got me the trip to Mexico to retrieve the Rodgers, may his tribe increase!) sent me this link, wanting to know if, in fact, this was a cluster bomblet.

It isn't, in a narrow technical sense. But before we rush off to crow about inaccuracy in the media, let's take a break. That is an ~~M80~~ M42 [good catch from an otherwise pointlessly rude commenter - the M80 has a self-destruct mechanism - and one is being retrofitted to the M42/48 series of grenades. -the Armorer] Dual Purpose Improved Conventional Munition. While not from a cluster bomb, it *is* from an artillery round. I'm familiar with the round, and it's contents, these being held in Castle stocks in their inert form.

M80 M42 submunitions">

If the Israelis were shooting DPICM into inhabited areas, they are open to just criticism of their fire orders.

Bad decision on the part of whoever made the call to shoot DPICM. If you are shooting DPICM, you are automatically creating a low-density minefield, due to the dud rate (officially 2-4% depending on the conditions in the target area) of the submunition.

I can see an argument being made by the Israelis that in fact, there is less collateral damage than if you shoot HE at a target in an urban area. Perhaps, depending on construction of the buildings - but HE has a much lower dud rate (nothing is perfect), the effects are over after it hits, and there is no lingering explosive package awaiting discovery by children. And an unexploded HE shell is a lot harder to pick up than a DPICM submunition.

Recording your targets... I don't expect this to happen - but the Israelis should also share their mission fired reports with the Lebanese government, so that EOD can go clear areas targeted with DPICM.

It's just not a good shell for attacking areas that are/will be occupied by non-combatants or OWN TROOPS. The use of dud-producing munitions such as DPICM during Operation Iraqi Freedom in early 2003 caused maneuver problems for the Marines, and caused lingering casualties among Marines and civilians in those areas after operations were ended. This may have been true for Army units as well, I don't have any info on that. Target attack decisions have to be made with cognizance of subsequent operations and events. I know we used to train this with Fire Support Officers back in the day - I assume we still do. I discussed some of that in my post yesterday.

Mind you - if Hezbollah didn't *shoot* from inhabited areas, the Israelis would have had less reason to shoot back into inhabited areas, too.

While I don't support the Israeli choice of ammuntion, I do support their right to shoot back. And find it disingenuous that most of the whining is about what the Israelis shot, and not equally about wherefrom Hezbollah shot.

Comment from ledger on 2006-08-21

2006-08-21T05:47:18Z

Good comments John!

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2006-08-20

2006-08-20T13:20:50Z

Ledger - I can't answer the question about "average" battle anymore. In my time you wouldn't have mixed HE with DPICM on any particular mission, except perhaps massed missions on prepared positions, and the mix in any particular artillery fight would have depended on the purpose of the fight. SSG "Dipshit". No reason to be rude. Ya caught me in a simple (but important) error, which you, Non-commissioned Officer and expert that you profess to be, could have simply pointed out that the M80 submunition is the newest version of the M42-style submunitions - the one that in fact, has a self-destruct mechanism in it and is loaded in the 105mm M915/M916 DPICM rounds. Which was a particularly inapt label for me to have used (and I will go correct it in the posts) as it *is* actually intended to enable the rounds to be fired at otherwise less-than-optimal target areas. If you're an artilleryman, I guess you've only served with medium and rocket artillery, or it's been awhile since you, like I, have been around the guns. By the way, without seeing the markings, what are the differences between the M42 and M46, which are interchangeable in projectile loads? "Stab detonator?" A technical term I'm not familiar with. I'm sure it refers to a needle that pierces a cap, and in these submunitions, does that exactly how? Via... inertia, not a sear release. Deploying the drogue streamer does what? Release the needle so that it may do what? On impact, by inertia, continue in the direction of travel to do what? Pierce the cap. Oh, sorry - "stab" the cap. My apologies for not using terms you find acceptable. Still no reason to be rude. As for the differences between which versions of almost visually identical submunitions made by whom, is that important other than allowing you to come in here and be rude, supercilious and an ass? And would have adding all this to the original post changed anything important? I don't think so. At least you didn't shout. What's an M80? This is. Perhaps you would prefer the USAFAS Gunnery Department? As for making the error... without going into what I do for a job, lets just say that in my defense, I've seen a lot of these M80 submunitions, so to speak, and I admit, they sure to do look gee, a lot different from these M42's. Not. BTW, since you are up on all things artillery, SSG, what's the pipe to the left in the last picture? Now, just what *was* the point of your rudeness?

Comment from ledger on 2006-08-20

2006-08-20T08:34:21Z

Very interesting comments John. But, let me ask a couple more question. On the bomblet inertia fuse mechanism, if it's a dud, what does it take to set it off? Is it the weight of a child's foot or something much more - a truck running over it - or someone throwing it on the ground. These bomblets don't seem to be the type antipersonnel land mine used say in Laos or Vietnam. And, what is the usual mixture of HE shells to DPICM in an average battle?

Comment from Hey, I'm a Dipshit! on 2006-08-19

2006-08-20T02:26:55Z

What exactly is an M80? Sounds like a firework to me. Those in your pictures are M42. Can you tell the difference between that and an M46 or and IMI M85? I don't think so! Inertia fuze? Try stab detonator. A DPICM has a 4 meter casualty radius. The IMI M85 Do have a pyrotechnic SD. Opps. Where do I end... SSG DS

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2006-08-19

2006-08-19T11:38:04Z

Ledger/JTG - JTG is correct, they are streamer-stabilized. If you look at the AP picture link, you'll see the streamer. If you look at my pics, you'll see the streamer on top of the submunition, as they are when packed into the projectile. As for the playing field being tilted *against* Israel. The situation for the Israelis was *much* worse during the Yom Kippur War. The situation that caused so much more than expected damage to the Merkavas was abetted by the unexpected tactical skill of Hezbollah combined with uncharacteristically poor handling of their armor by the Israelis. Any Arab army that wants to stand up and invade Israel is going to get it's ass handed to it. The Israelis have discovered some weaknesses in the Merkava design - but, like us in Iraq, they may lose tanks (many of which are recoverable and returnable to service) and have crew wounded, they aren't having a huge number of catastrophic kills nor crew losses. The Israelis, at senior levels, in the early part of the fight in Lebanon were guilty of a really bad case of hubris. The price, as ever, being paid by the soldiery. Update: Forgot to answer all the questions... No, these submuntions do not have a delay, or secondary self-destruct. When these weapons were designed, they were designed for use in WWIII, when such niceties were considered secondary. They use a simple inertia fuze. When the streamer deploys, that arms the fuze by allowing (usually) the safety to disengage. Then, upon impact, inertia takes the firing pin into the initiator. Sometimes the safety does not fully release - which means it won't function on impact - but might then fully release the safety... which makes it dangerous to pick up. If the submuntion comes down at too flat an angle, it may hit and tumble, which will retard the firing pin. As for a 20-meter CEP, the 155mm round is considered to have a 50 meter bursting radius, meaning blast and fragmentation will have a militarily useful effect within that circle. Firing two to three rounds at a point target (located with sufficient accuracy and still present, mind you) will put plenty of hurt within that 20 meter circle.

Comment from Justthisguy on 2006-08-19

2006-08-19T06:27:30Z

Yup, they're obviously shaped charges, but I don't understand how it's arranged that they arrive at their targets nasty-end first. Is there some kind of aerodynamic drag device, or some special arrangement of the center of mass in those things, which makes them arrive at the target with their dangerous effects pointed in the right direction?

Comment from ledger on 2006-08-19

2006-08-19T05:39:24Z

From Whatziss, Day Three I ask John about the effectiveness of antitank weapons in Hezbollah's hands. John said: Remember - to be effective, it doesn't have to be a catastrophic kill that blows the vehicle up. A tank, to really be a tank, needs to move, shoot, and communicate. All you have to do is immobilize it, render it incapable of accurate fire, or kill the comms, and it's not a tank. In that condition, outside of defending itself to get away, it's really not a tank anymore. So, I gather you are saying that the antitank weapons that the Hezies have are effective. If that is what you mean then the Isrealis really do have a big problem on their hands. It would seem that the playing field is now tilted against Isreal. I say that because they are small nation surround by larger ones (and ones with considerable financial resources). It would seem that the Hezies can be re-supplied with more men and materials faster than Israel can take them out. That's troubling. Next, on the DPICM (sub-munitions artillery shells) - I am confused by the term "dud." Remember, I know little about artillery shells... But, if the 84+ bomblet's have a failure rate of 2% to 4% upon impact how do they become "non-dud" at a later time? Or, does it take a civilian's tinkering to get them to explode at a later date? Is there a secondary trigger mechanism? From John's description of the accuracy of the Israeli guns they have 20 meter circle of accuracy at range. If you are going to knock out a rocket and launcher wouldn't one have to directly hit it with a HE round (or be very close)? If that is true, then the sub munitions round sounds like the only viable method of knocking out these rocket's, the launchers, and the crews (without multiple HE rounds). Putting myself in some Israeli's shoes, if I felt that a ball bearing packed rocket could hit my family's house I probably would not hesitate to use the DPICM round to knock out that rocket (particularly if I ran low on HE rounds).

Comment from ry on 2006-08-18

2006-08-18T22:40:48Z

How about complex jamming(with jamming tech being profilgate and Hezbo being subsidized by Iran...)? UAVs are expensive toys if you can't control them.

Comment from Big D on 2006-08-18

2006-08-18T21:24:41Z

There's a reason why all MLRS rockets being bought these days are unitary GPS guided. What I truly can't understand is that with such a history of UAVs, Israel couldn't flood the zone with them. Do they have RF bandwidth or concurrency issues, or something?

Comment from MajMike on 2006-08-18

2006-08-18T19:35:16Z

yup. they are scary. me no like 'em.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2006-08-18

2006-08-18T18:47:06Z

Um, they are. That's the purpose of the shaped charge. Top attack.

Comment from Chuck Simmins on 2006-08-18

2006-08-18T18:42:56Z

The news story that went with the picture quoted the guy from the mine removal agency as saying that these were an anti-armor weapon. [snicker]

Comment from OD on 2006-08-18

2006-08-18T18:28:44Z

One thing I find particularly ironic is that while many Americans (wrongly in my view) blamed the Israelis for talking their government into invading Iraq, many Israelis are now blaming the Americans for talking their government into invading Lebanon. In both cases the logic is identical: This crazy war was so clearly against our national interest that foreigners must have put us up to it somehow. But in both cases the opinion polls show the public was all for it at the time. The problem with democracies is that voters are sovereign, so they reserve the right to blame everyone but themselves when things go wrong.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2006-08-18

2006-08-18T18:19:09Z

I think my lesson learned from the recent troubles is a rather (to me) stunning amount of arrogance on the part of the Israeli General Staff. They seemingly learned absolutely nothing from their previous experiences in the Lebanon *or* from our on-going learning labs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Seemingly.not.a.thing.

Comment from OD on 2006-08-18

2006-08-18T17:34:03Z

Ryan is probably right about the reason for DPICM use. Both sides had a good idea of the other's weapons. As John already said, there's no need to be standing next to the Katyusha at the moment of launch. Tactically, if not morally, that could explain the DPICM. It probably didn't get many though. Jim B, regarding shake and bake, I wouldn't speak too soon. http://uruknet.info/?p=24885 I've heard reports from two Lebanese doctors who insist WP was used offensively, and a third who won't speculate but also has victims with similar wounds. PS before you say it, I realise a hot vehicle fire could also create these wound effects. As for the equipment reservists lacked, I've heard night vision mentioned a lot. I believe they often wore the old PASGT-equivalent helmets, and may also have lacked ceramic plate (hard to believe given that Israel is a leading body armour manufacturer). Also, all the reservists I saw, unlike regulars, had humble iron sights on their M16s and M4s. But I think the big gripe was food and commanders' attention. Peretz and Halutz tried to create last-minute facts on the ground by spraying troops all over the South. These isolated pockets couldn't all be resupplied over last weekend and several went hungry. Finally, the reservists weren't adequately integrated into regular forces, with the result that many were left hanging around in dangerous areas for lack of orders. Like those rocketed in Kiryat Shemona, for example. Other squads were told to wait in houses in places like Bint Jbeil. The Hezbollah men on the hills would see them going in and start hitting the walls with Saggers. Several groups spent very unpleasant afternoons this way, feeling completely forgotten by their officers. Here's one conversation related in the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/18/world/middleeast/18israel.html?_r=1&oref=slogin 'In one unusual incident, a group of reservists from the Alexandroni Brigade criticized and booed their commander, Col. Shlomi Cohen, at a meeting after they withdrew from Lebanon. The discussion became tense as soldiers raised questions that included why they entered Lebanon during the day, rather than at night, and about a lack of food and water, Yediot Aharonot reported. One reserve soldier, Yair Levy, 40, confronted the colonel, saying, "I left my house, my job, my three kids, and after two weeks in Lebanon, you say I have chutzpah because I asked for equipment and food." "If that's the attitude and those are your answers, next time we won't come," he continued. The colonel replied: "Don't come. Don't bother."' ENDS Yikes. I know the IDF is very informal and democratic, but...wow.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2006-08-18

2006-08-18T15:56:52Z

Actually, you could make the argument that VT would cause less collateral damage - you are still going to get frag damage, but the blast damage to structures would be reduced. But now we're getting silly.

Comment from jim b on 2006-08-18

2006-08-18T15:51:19Z

I agree HE VT or PD is the weapon of choice. Of course the propagandists would call the use of VT antipersonnel rounds in a populated area too. God forbid they used shake and bake. I am surprised that a Lebanese cop didn't show up and arrest them all for discharging cannon in city limits. :-)

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2006-08-18

2006-08-18T15:45:53Z

I've answered that before. HE. VT if the terrain supported it, PD if it didn't. Trees and tall buildings can make VT function too early. While possible, I find it improbable, given that they weren't barraging, that any battery was out of HE. If *I'm* the Fire Direction Officer (assuming I'm not getting my fire orders from somewhere else) I'll request a confirmation of a fire order that includes DPICM on habitations. But we don't know what their attack guidance and target attack criteria were. Anybody has a copy, send 'em over.

Comment from jim b on 2006-08-18

2006-08-18T15:37:25Z

This in from Drudge: ISRAELI SOLDIERS ANGRY AT COMMANDERS Fri Aug 18 2006 10:30:15 ET Israeli reservists are returning from the war in Lebanon with unprecedented criticism toward their commanders: They say the army was poorly prepared, abandoned injured comrades and suffered from a dire lack of supplies. Developing... I wonder what supplies they lacked?

Comment from MajMike on 2006-08-18

2006-08-18T15:24:02Z

I would expect my FO to call for VT, wouldn't I?

Comment from jim b on 2006-08-18

2006-08-18T15:08:25Z

Your point is well taken John. What type of munitions would you choose for dealing with rockets being launched from populated areas? I will say if I were an Israeli artie cmdr, and that's all I had on hand to fire counterbattery I would use them.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2006-08-18

2006-08-18T14:45:57Z

I don't either, Jim. That said, it's *still* not a good choice of shell/fuze combo. Yes, I am criticizing the Israelis on this, if they did it. I've already been whaling on Hezbollah. Their choice of how to fight the fight lead to this. They could have used the old "open city" construct... or at least let their residents evacuate.

Comment from jim b on 2006-08-18

2006-08-18T14:35:26Z

I agree that that munition leaves too many potentially unpleasant surprises lying about that could possibly put an expiration date on the birth certificate of follow on troops. However I do not hold the Israelis to Marquis of Queensbury Rules. Those rules either govern both fighters or neither.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2006-08-18

2006-08-18T14:13:49Z

Ryan - of course it could. I would still argue against using it in this target environment. Boq - while possible, I really rather doubt it. I do use the word "if" when I talk about the Israeli use of DPICM - but I do know from pictures of the guns that there were broken pallets of DPICM at Israeli gun positions. DPICM was developed to help us deal with the anticipate Soviet Horde in a battle to the death. For years, the standard fire order was "Battalion 3 Rounds, DPCIM" meaning the whole battalion shoot 3 rounds. That was an artifact of bad training habits, where the effects tables required a minimumb "battalion 3" of DPICM to score an armor kill at the National Training Center. Then along comes Desert Storm, where we shot that stuff like candy - and then had to move through it ourselves. That caused a sea change in how we viewed/used DPICM. I don't know *why* the Israelis used it as it appears they have - but I would say that current "best practices" argue *against* using it in the threat/target environment they are fighting in in Lebanon.

Comment from Ryan Gill on 2006-08-18

2006-08-18T13:38:59Z

Could the DPICM have been an attempt to get the guys that set up the Katyushas and then skedaddle from the launcher while it continues it's ripple fire sequence?

Comment from Boquisucio on 2006-08-18

2006-08-18T13:20:46Z

With the amount of intentional/propagandistic disinformation cast out ther in favor of our enemies, I'd rather withold judgement on which side scattered these beasties, until proven otherwise.