Many thanks!

dk

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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