Project Reality Forums

I'm somewhat sure this hasn't been suggested before, so I'll suggest this.

How about White Phosphorus rockets for the attack LB? Basically, it would be a rocket that functions much like an incendiary, but instead it does little to no damage. What it does do is put a heat object smack onto the target you hit. This would allow the attack LB to fulfill it's role of designating targets for the Apache. If you had the accuracy, you can stick WP onto a tank. Then the Apache swoops in and kills it. See an FOB? Shoot a WP rocket, then get the Apache to deal with it.

To account for realism, the LBs would be loaded with 7 WP and 7 HE rockets.

This way, you have a more realistic method of having a way to "lase" targets. You fire the rocket at the target, it hits it and puts a heat object on it. In essence, you are firing heat objects.

This would make for more teamwork and allow the LB to behave realistically as a recon device instead of a gimped attack platform.

Isn't white phosphorous banned?

This helicopter tactic was used in the vietnam conflict.

It was also used by jets in vietnam. The scout planes would roll in on a target and mark it with "willy pete". They would then pull out and the F4 phantoms would come in and drop all ordinance on the white smoke. It was a very effective tactic.

503 wrote:Isn't white phosphorous banned?

The use of WP in a populated urban environment where there is high chance of civilian casualty due to interaction with the burning agents, that is something limited and usually banned by the local CoC.

There is no active theater-wide "ban" on the use of WP munitions, it's simply up to the situation. You aren't going to pop a WP rocket on some local's porch, but at the same time tossing an M15 WP grenade into their back yard is just fine.

In other words, there is no real "ban" on the use of WP munitions. The use of WP is and always will be valid and legal in war, as these munitions are not designed or intended to be used against personnel. They are capable of it, but bullets do the job better.


I don't see a problem giving certain aircraft WP or marking munitions, but they should be designed for marking and screening purposes only. Giving the smoke cloud some sort of "heat signature" or device that can be locked onto defeats the purpose, it should still require the attacking/firing unit to acquire and lock the actual target prior to firing.

Generally, this tactic should already be in use by PR players. You have both handheld and UGL-launched smoke grenades that are capable of marking an enemy position prior to calling in a non-guided air strike.

Due to the limited amount of players and assets on the map in PR, it would actually be less effective to issue aircraft WP marking rounds. Until we have proper recon air assets in the game, if you are flying over the target you might as well just shoot at it with your regular munitions. If your aircraft is not armed, you shouldn't be near dangerous hostile ground units.

Article 1 of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons defines an incendiary weapon as 'any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target'. The same protocol also prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilians (already forbidden by the Geneva Conventions) or in civilian areas.
However, the use against military targets outside civilian areas is not explicitly banned by any treaty. There is a debate on whether white phosphorus should be considered a chemical weapon and thus be outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which went into effect in April 1997. The convention is meant to prohibit weapons that are "dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare" (Article II, Definitions, 9, "Purposes not Prohibited" c.).


Basically:


Illegal against civilians
Legal against military targets
Frowned upon internationally for use upon personnel/infantry targets


Source is Wikipedia take it for what it is...

WP on Little Birds for recon purposes is about to be added to CA so you will be able to test it there if you're interested. I don't believe we have added heat objects in the mix but it would be possible.

Making assumptions based on international law is a tricky business, as in most cases it is basically non-binding (or unenforced), and therefore ignored.

I bow to Ninja2Dan's personal knowledge on the subject, and I agree that smoke marking is already an effective method of target identification in PR. I don't really see the need for WP for the LB, its just going to be a new excuse for getting the LB killed. "I was just marking targets for the apache!". Doesn't seem necessary to me.

Use of WP munitions to attack civilian targets is explicitly banned, and generally taken to be a grey area against military targets.

Use of WP to mark targets is allowed.

The two actions look remarkably similar.

Truism wrote:Use of WP munitions to attack civilian targets is explicitly banned, and generally taken to be a grey area against military targets.

Use of WP to mark targets is allowed.

The two actions look remarkably similar.

The text in red has me confused. I was not aware that any government military force can legally attack a "civilian" target with any munition type, unless that "civilian" target happens to be firing at or using a deadly device against said military forces or other civilians. And in that case, the "civilian" has now become an insurgent/terrorist/etc.


Here's what it all comes down to. White Phosphorus was designed and intended as a marking and screening munition, which even today is still used strictly for that purpose. Due to the limited effectiveness of using WP munitions against personnel, it is always better to use small arms or other types of deadly munitions against personnel. If you were intentionally firing or detonating a WP munition directed at personnel, the use of any other lethal weapon would have been faster, easier, more accurate, and more effective. It's the same reason you don't eat a bowl of soup with a fork.


As for placing WP rockets on the AH/MH-6, you are just better off using the standard FFAR HE rounds. Why mark it for an air strike when you can already just kill it yourself with a short volley of 70mm? Are you going to fire a 40mm smoke grenade from your M203 to mark an enemy squad, and then request another squad to toss frags at them? No, you would have just fired 40mm HE from the start. See my point?


In the future, if and when PR does add aircraft specifically intended for scouting and recon operations (such as a Kiowa), then I can see a good reason to add marking or screening munitions. But on an aircraft that is designed primarily as an attack/support unit, you are better off fitting those pods with offensive weapons. That means M151/M229/M247/M261 or maybe the M255 warheads, not WP or RP.

[R-DEV]Ninja2dan wrote:Generally, this tactic should already be in use by PR players. You have both handheld and UGL-launched smoke grenades that are capable of marking an enemy position prior to calling in a non-guided air strike.

In PR this isnt a viable tactic atleast with my computer specs. When going in on a fast attack run(barracuda attack huey), I am only able to see the smoke till I am almost overtop of it or until its too late to correct. For me just a grid works better than marking the enmy with smoke.

I was under the impression that smoke effects don't draw correctly if they start out of your view range, part of the reason why an SL marking his desired pickup zone with colored smoke doesn't work.

The OA-10 is the FAC which its load out is primarily WP rockets for marking targets for other GCAS aircraft and it still uses em today so I dont see why Wp rockets are not a feasible if not a decent suggestion imo...
The fact that Wp grenades are used on tanks and other armoured vehicles to create an almost instant smoke grenade is another reminder that Wp is still used...

they say WP is "used" for smoke screen but....i highly dought that

ma21212 wrote:they say WP is "used" for smoke screen but....i highly dought that

I did look it up on wikipedia which is hardly a reliable source...

Hitman.2.5 wrote:The OA-10 is the FAC which its load out is primarily WP rockets for marking targets for other GCAS aircraft and it still uses em today so I dont see why Wp rockets are not a feasible if not a decent suggestion imo...
The fact that Wp grenades are used on tanks and other armoured vehicles to create an almost instant smoke grenade is another reminder that Wp is still used...

Did you mean the OV-10 Bronco? If you are using wikipedia as your source of reference, and rely on the text below, you'll notice that the two aircraft are different.

At the beginning of the 1990s the USAF had replaced their OV-10A fleet with OA-37B and OA-10A aircraft.

The OA-10A that they are referring to is actually the A-10 Thunderbolt II "Warthog" that you see in game already. There are other nations that do still use the OV-10 Bronco, such as the Philippines where I have personally flown in their aircraft several years ago. The nations that are still using the old Bronco are often referred to as low-budget nations who can't afford more modern aircraft with hefty price tags.

The use of the Bronco as a FAC has now been replaced in the US military with other aircraft, commonly the A-10 which is capable of not only spotting targets but engaging them as well.

ma21212 wrote:they say WP is "used" for smoke screen but....i highly dought that

Which "they" are you referring to?


The US military uses WP and RP (White Phosphorus and Red Phosphorus) munitions specifically for the purpose of marking positions and for screening. In very rare situations, WP can be used to start fires or mark an area for reference with thermal imaging devices. And when I say rare, I'm talking maybe a dozen times per year, military-wide.

The use of WP munitions in an anti-personnel role is very ineffective. Trust me, we have many more munition types available that will maim and kill personnel much faster and easier than WP. Be it artillery-based, air-launched, or ground-fired, there will always be better anti-personnel munitions other than WP.

Giving an actual purpose for an attack LB beyond engaging inf and lightly armored vehicles would be nice.

Also, giving a heat target would simulate how it would light up on FLIR like someone burning a house down. Also, as some don't have the specs to actually see smoke from afar, having a heat target would make it so that just because one can see the smoke, they can be more accurate.

This also might make lasing something a lot easier, with a lot less relasing to try and get the laser target to stick on the target. If you see the WP hit, then you stuck a heat target on it and you can get away. Attack LBs can help the Apache with dispatching tanks and things that SLs cannot lase due to the squad being pinned do

white phos was used in fallujah the second time around by the marine corps. there was a whole shit storm about it.

SHAKE N BAKE!!!

[R-DEV]Ninja2dan wrote:Did you mean the OV-10 Bronco? If you are using wikipedia as your source of reference, and rely on the text below, you'll notice that the two aircraft are different.

The OA-10A that they are referring to is actually the A-10 Thunderbolt II "Warthog" that you see in game already. There are other nations that do still use the OV-10 Bronco, such as the Philippines where I have personally flown in their aircraft several years ago. The nations that are still using the old Bronco are often referred to as low-budget nations who can't afford more modern aircraft with hefty price tags.

The use of the Bronco as a FAC has now been replaced in the US military with other aircraft, commonly the A-10 which is capable of not only spotting targets but engaging them as well.


Which "they" are you referring to?

I was referring to the 0A-10A like I said XD

[R-DEV]Ninja2dan wrote: The use of WP munitions in an anti-personnel role is very ineffective. Trust me, we have many more munition types available that will maim and kill personnel much faster and easier than WP. Be it artillery-based, air-launched, or ground-fired, there will always be better anti-personnel munitions other than WP.

Something tells me the people making all those war crimes cockumentaries regarding WP use are completely unaware of this.

Just as a short recap for those who don't want to read the two pages so far:

Suggestion is to add White Phosphorus rockets to attack LB, giving you a loadout of the miniguns, 7 HE, and 7 WP rockets.

WP rockets would have heat target stick capability, letting attack LB designate targets and act as recon, putting heat on tanks for attack helo to take out.

whiskey pete ftw,, think its a good idea