DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech examines the intersection of technology and defense from every angle and provides analysis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • ‘Canes
  • Af-Cam
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the “Buzz”
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Crazy Ivan
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT’s Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • F-35 Watch
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Bubble with Joe Buff
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • PEO Soldier
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar’s Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples’ Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward’z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Ammo and Munitions » Thermobaric Foes: Explosive Threat

Thermobaric Foes: Explosive Threat

Thermobaric warheads put the power to demolish buildings into the hands of the average U.S. marine. But Americans arent the only ones with the weapons. The Chinese, the Russians — even guerilla groups — now have thermobarics’ shockingly destructive power in their grasps.
chinese_thermo.jpgThermobarics aren’t just a more powerful version of normal high explosive. The term encompasses a range of different types of warhead from fuel-air explosives, which release a cloud of flammable material and detonate it, to metallized explosives whose expanding fireball takes in oxygen from the air. What they have in common is that they produce blast which has a lower overpressure but a longer duration than normal condensed explosives. In effect it is a shove rather than a punch: a thermobaric explosion does not smash a hole in a wall, it pushes the wall over. An instantaneous explosive overpressure of 50 psi [pounds per square inch] is needed to kill. But one sustained for a fraction of a second at 10 psi is also lethal. Thats how thermobarics kill.
The basic idea goes way back, and anyone interested in the background — including a bizarre German WWII weapon, how a 500lb of coal dust can break windows five miles away and what new ultra-fine nanoexplosives can do — should put my book Weapons Grade on their Christmas list.
But the thermobaric threat isnt confined to history books. In Iraq and Afghanistan, many US lives have been saved by the protection afforded by armored patrol vehicles, body armor and prompt medical attention. Thermobarics may change that. Armored vehicles are safe only when buttoned up, as the blast from a thermobaric warhead will ‘flow’ through hatches or other openings.
A detailed analysis points out that “conventional countermeasures such as barriers (sandbags) and personnel amour are not effective against thermobaric weaponry.“
Other research indicates that current ballistic body armor actually increases the severity of blast injuries. Similarly, current combat medicine is not geared to deal with the damage to lungs and intestines which are typical of thermobarics — “diagnosis and treatment of blast injuries may require computed tomography, which might not be readily available in the battlefield.“
thermo2.gifIn 1988, the Russians were the first to field a shoulder-launched thermobaric weapon, the RPO-A. It is also known as Shmel or Schmel from the Russian for Bumblebee.
As with the Marines thermobaric SMAW-NE weapon, the Shmel is quite capable of destroying buildings as this video shows. The Shmel complemented a wide range of other thermobaric weapons including bombs, rockets and artillery in the Russian arsenal. Controversially, security forces used the Shmel in the school siege at Beslan, a questionable choice for a hostage situation.
New Russian developments include a compact multi-shot thermobaric grenade launcher for urban combat and a thermobaric warhead for the RPG-7 used by guerrilla forces worldwide. Similar products are offered for export by the Bulgarians and other Eastern European nations.
Rumors of a Chinese licensed copy of the Shmel appear to be confirmed with the emergence of this clone — it has the same calibre, same appearance and described as “fuel air blasting explosive”. Its effectiveness against buildings, bunkers is noted, as well as the fact that because the blast takes oxygen from the air, “personnel in the airtight space suffocates because of the oxygen deficit.“
Are such weapons in the hands of insurgents and terrorists? During the Chechen conflict, there were persistent stories that Chechen separatists had them:
“The Russian force, to explain extensive damage to buildings in Grozny, stated that the Chechens had captured a boxcar full of Shmel weapons and were now using them indiscriminately,” one report noted. Newspapers reported that the weapons were recovered from Chechen arms caches
However, according to Tourpal-Ali Kaimov, a Chechen commander interviewed by the USMC only a handful of Shmel were captured.

The Russian claim that the Chechens captured a ‘box car’ load of these weapons was part of a Russian disinformation campaign. The indiscriminate use of these weapons combined with its destructive capabilities produced a lot of collateral damage and deaths/injuries among non-combatants. The Russian claim was a ruse in order to place at least part of the blame on Chechen use of the Schmel.

There is at least one documented instance of an irregular force receiving Shmel: the Cobra militia in the Republic of Congo reported in 2003.

Among these shipments were significant quantities of the RPO-A ‘Shmel’, an extremely lethal hand-held launcher whose projectile uses fuel-air explosive… This is the first time this weapon has been seen in the possession of a non-state actor.

The report, by the Swiss-based Small Arms Survey group, does not identify the source of the weapon, but does provides photographic evidence.
So far, insurgents in Iraq havent gotten their hands on thermobaric weapons. And reports from Afghanistan describing thermobaric victims as being found dead without a mark on them have been overstated — and allegations about ‘displaced eyeballs’ — are highly doubtful. But it would seem only a matter of time until these weapons make them into the worlds most intense conflicts.
Some attention has been paid to the threat posed by thermobarics, but little has been made public. In a series of computer simulations called Project Albert, the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory has evaluated the effect of arming platoons of attackers and defenders with enhanced blast weapons in urban assault. The results are significant — when the attackers alone are armed with them, they are much more successful, but when both sides have them the advantage shifts towards the defenders.
This may be important for the future of warfare in cities. The spread of these weapons will make such actions more destructive, and it will make infantry assault even more costly in terms of lives.
Agreement on an international ban on the manufacture and export of such weapons might have been possible some years ago, but now the genie is well and truly out of the bottle. Now it is a matter of preparing ourselves with better tactical awareness of what such weapons can do, and improving the medical facilities for dealing with thermobaric casualties.
– David Hambling

Share |

November 28th, 2005 | Ammo and Munitions | 292925 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2005/11/28/thermobaric-foes-explosive-threat/Thermobaric+Foes%3A+Explosive+Threat2005-11-28+13%3A00%3A50jason You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Rapid Fire 11/28/05 | Ward to Wingers: Get Lost » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Nicholas Weaver says:
    November 28, 2005 at 12:53 pm

    Bad link: It should be http://​www​.mcwl​.quantico​.usmc​.mil/​A​l​b​e​r​t​/​p​a​i​w​6​/​o​u​t​b​r​i​e​f​s​/​e​b​w​.​ppt
    for the marine corps wargaming scenarios.

    Reply
  2. Noah Shachtman says:
    November 28, 2005 at 2:51 pm

    Fixed.
    nms

    Reply
  3. Christopher Karel says:
    November 28, 2005 at 3:39 pm

    Pete,
    I was as surprised as you to see those results. One would instinctively think that those inside buildings would be at higher risk from overpressure, as well as collapsing structures. Likewise, I would imagine someone in an armored vehicle, even if not ‘buttoned up’, would be much better protected.
    Looking at the conclusion power point presentation, it looks like the test scenario was a little different than I had imagined. It would appear as though both the defenders and attackers had multiple teams, in multiple buildings. Combat could easily have been between neighboring houses, or inside the same structure. This is a bit of a contrast to the last Thermobaric article, which covered insurgents holed up in a small house turned into a makeshift bunker. It’s quite possible that the advantage that portable thermobarics gives a defender is quite dependent on the type of environment? It may not be the end of the world if Iraqi insurgents start using these, but could be quite a problem if two standing armies butted heads with them.
    –Christopher Karel

    Reply
  4. Wembley says:
    November 29, 2005 at 2:47 am

    This is a new capability — HEAT rounds are notoriously bad at causing damage after they penetrate, and being able to clear bunkers and buildings with a single shoulder-launched round changes things. If it really means that whole cities get flattened then tactics (and expectations) need to be adjusted.
    In the short term, the effect on body armor and vehicles is of more concern. Sounds like thermobarics are good for ‘asymmetric’ warfare against advanced opposition which is not good news.

    Reply
  5. pete says:
    November 30, 2005 at 12:48 pm

    Well Thank you David. I was not aware of the classifications of these different explosives because of the hype surrounding the term “fuel-air” explosives. It reminds me of the hype surrounding “napalm” during the Vietnam Conflict.
    As if we didn’t firebomb cities and use flame-throwers during WW2.
    Now we are hearing that WP is a horrible, brutal weapon and inhumane to boot. The politics behind this stuff can begin to get very silly. The only country that I can think of off the top of my head that engages in such platitudes is the good ol’ US of A.

    Reply
  6. David Hambling says:
    November 30, 2005 at 3:45 pm

    Pete,
    No, the Europeans are worse — even the term ‘thermobaric’ is beyond the pale in the UK.
    Interestingly, the thermobaric SMAW-NE is a suggested replacement for the Flash M202A1, which itself replaced those old-style WWII flamethrowers. But it won’t necessarily get better press.
    Trying not to make war more inhumane is a tricky business.

    Reply
  7. dk says:
    October 28, 2006 at 8:22 pm

    Are the results of Project Albert regarding considerations of both defenders and attackers having access to these weapons available anywhere? I’d be interested to read more about that but the reference link given above had been discontinued, http://​www​.mcwl​.quantico​.usmc​.mil/​A​l​b​e​r​t​/​p​a​i​w​6​/​o​u​t​b​r​i​e​f​s​/​e​b​w​.​ppt
    Many thanks!
    dk

    Reply
  8. Dick says:
    April 21, 2007 at 3:31 pm

    The fuel air weapon was secretly experimented with in Loas 1969–1970. Concept was to use a ‘small’ portable fuel dispensing device remotely triggered for use against the trail, route 10 etc. Atmospheric / tropical conditions was the major problem.
    You will NEVER see this confirmed, something about it now being classified as a WMD.
    Air Force had a pretty good fuel air bomb, another story but less classified.

    Reply
  9. Walker says:
    August 26, 2007 at 3:30 pm

    “No, the Europeans are worse — even the term ‘thermobaric’ is beyond the pale in the UK.“
    Things change:
    http://​rawstory​.com/​n​e​w​s​/​2​0​0​7​/​B​r​i​t​i​s​h​_​A​r​m​y​_​d​e​p​l​o​y​s​_​n​e​w​_​w​e​a​p​o​n​_​b​a​s​e​d​_​0​8​2​3​.​h​tml

    Reply
  10. John says:
    October 3, 2007 at 12:54 am

    Killing is Killing, no matter what weapon you use the objective is the same, there is no such thing as Killing humanely.

    Reply
  11. chs says:
    November 28, 2007 at 11:49 am

    i thinkthe bad you cant get away and wat about if bad people get theam no 1 wouls suvive

    Reply
  12. surya says:
    September 18, 2008 at 6:37 am

    more information

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

    Recent Articles
    • Army Fast Tracks GPS Mortar Round
    • That Elephant’s Going To Do What? Where?
    • JSF Costs Jump 50 Percent
    • Let’s Talk AirSea Battle
    • More Vehicle Digital Camouflage
    • Chinese Digi-Camo
    • Defense Spending Headed Down
    • Those Wonderful Sea Lines of Communication
    • Army’s GCV Not Just MGV Warmed Over
    • Cancel Cyber Command
    Recent Comments
    • Let’s Talk AirSea Battle
      BTW: We mustn’t forget Heritage's links to...
      Anon E Moose
    • Let’s Talk AirSea Battle
      First Member: "Whaat? Oh. Hmmm. Very well then....
      Anon E Moose
    • Let’s Talk AirSea Battle
      First Member of the People's Liberation Front of...
      Anon E Moose
    • Gimme Some Skin!
      its about time someone made a tactical pen priced at what there really worth...
      alva
    • JSF Costs Jump 50 Percent
      If there is a contract with the cost per plane written on it, and...
      Roland
    • Army’s GCV Not Just MGV Warmed Over
      The 82nd has not had M551s assigned since...
      FormerDirtDart
    • Come One – Come All
      Yes, let's put all our experimental cyber eggs into one big...
      irv
    • That Elephant’s Going To Do What? Where?
      Yes the F35 program has taken longer than...
      jeff
    • Giant Blimp, Deflated
      anyone else notice the Kamov KA-29 in flight over the blimp? Was this a...
      guest
    • Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer (Part 2)
      I keep seeing comments about the troops not...
      Guest
  • Channels:Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty |Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money |Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network:Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz |SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps |Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program |Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy |User Agreement| © 2010 Military Advantage