Thermobaric warheads put the power to demolish buildings into the hands of the average U.S. marine. But Americans aren’t the only ones with the weapons. The Chinese, the Russians — even guerilla groups — now have thermobarics’ shockingly destructive power in their grasps.
Thermobarics 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. That’s 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 isn’t 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.”
In 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 haven’t 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 world’s 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.
Bad link: It should be http://www.mcwl.quantico.usmc.mil/Albert/paiw6/outbriefs/ebw.ppt
for the marine corps wargaming scenarios.
Fixed.
nms
WOW!
I would have thought that the defenders in a given urban scenario would be at a disadvantage because of the fact that they would likely be inside buildings where the overpressure effects of the weapon would be more effective.
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
Pete–From what I’ve read (and I’m a civilian) of urban combat, the defender should not start defending the town from the outermost buildings and expose himself to direct fire from the attacker’s supporting elements. It’s better to be somewhat inside the town to prevent this, and booby-trap/mine those exposed buildings which the attacker will be forced to occupy (or he’ll be exposed in the streets).
I think this would result in the situation where both attacker and defender are occupying the buildings, and since the defender does not (or, at least, should not) advertise his positions, the defender will often get the first shot. The defender is not just defending the town as a whole, but choosing which individual buildings to occupy and which to sacrifice.
The attacker will likely not have the ammo nor the desire to flatten every building, and to be effective they must close with the defender, meaning they must seek cover to do so–and cover in urban combat typically means a structure.
Again, I’m a civilian and this is just my speculation, but I think the attacker will be likely to occupy buildings just as frequently as the defender, but the defender has the advantage of spotting and firing on the attacker first.
Color me unimpressed. Taking out bunkers with portable rocket rounds is a capability that infantrymen have had since the invention of the bazooka. This weapon doesn’t seem to have given either the Russians or the Chechens an edge, despite the fact that the Russians had it first, after which the Chechens stole it, upon which the edge is supposed to have passed on to them, since this weapon is supposed to favor defenders if both sides have it. But the Chechens aren’t winning, are they?
Even if these things are as good for the defender during infantry assaults on urban areas as this article says they are, much more destructive (of physical property) tactics will simply be employed by the attacking force. In future, artillery will flatten buildings starting from the outskirts into the interior of the cities to be taken. The defending force will not be given the opportunity to use these weapons to maximum effect.
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.
While working for Popular Mechanics Russia some years ago I spoke to a lot of experts and they strongly disagree with your classification. I was told that thermobaric weapons do have virtually nothing in common with fuel-air explosives. The principles differ – while one former is detonation in dispersed accelerant, the latter is not detonation, it’s semi-instant deflagration of fuel. The famous sugar-factory bomb is FAE, not thermobaric.
Chuck,
Terminology is difficult, as there is no fixed convention. The Russian military use the term Thermobaric indiscriminately for everything from FAE to enhanced explosives,* others take a more nuanced approach. In the US there are at least four levels defined.** Some of this is to do with politics rather than physics.
What they do have in common is that they are ‘volumetric’ and the blast is distinctly different from that produced by condensed explosives. (Or would you disagree?)
I would also suggest that a true fuel-air weapon will produce detonation (ie supersonic) not deflagration.
* “The Russians use fuel-air and thermobaric interchangeably though there may be a technical distinction in the scientific community.”
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/fuelair/fuelair.htm
** ” There are four types of recognized enhanced-blast explosives: (1) Metallized Explosives. (2) Reactive Surround. (3) Fuel-Air. (4) Thermobaric.”
http://das.cs.amedd.army.mil/PDF/J04_4_6.pdf
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.
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.
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/Albert/paiw6/outbriefs/ebw.ppt
Many thanks!
dk