Oh I almost missed that one. Very good.Originally Posted by Tribesman
Then your question is irrevelant - since they are both air burst munitions. But I am beginning to get the picture in which you are attempting to paint based upon lack of knowledge. To bad the stupid state department used the wrong descriptions abut what smoke is - smacks of either a cover-up or pure stupidity of the briefer.Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. U.S. forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters.![]()
But oh no I asked[ I]Are these air burst munitions or are they arrested descent illumination projectiles [/I]
So I obviously don't know any different do I
The incident I mentioned involved magnesium based parachute flares I think.
The use of the munition in a city was never the issue, that is only a minor side issue to me - War is war after all - the possible lie by the state department (initial issue) and the possible violation of the rules of war by some Military commanders (issue brought forward by Aurlean comments about civilians being turned back) are the real issues as far as I am concerned. The distraction of calling the munitions chemical weapons is the red herring of the discussion which I pursued down the rabbit hole to get to the real issue.Again you don't use smoke to illuminate anything.
But there is no smoke without fire is therePhosphorous burns does it not . Since the allegations are about people being burnt by phosphorous then that is the issue .
Yep it lights up the sky for several miles especially when you get to hit a divisional supply point on an artillery raid.Your not suppose to use it as an airburst - unless you were going after a fuel dump.
Now that smoke would really cause quite an illumination would it not![]()
Bookmarks