Is white phosphor overrated?
it's not WP
While i acknowledge being burned to death makes people scream i dont think it even comes close to what Vx, Radiations induced cancer or starvation must feel.I would encourage israel to test it on gazans though.
>>64401954That's not white phosphorus. Neither Russias or Ukrainians use them, they use thermite.
>>64401954Question: date and location of your vid?
>>64401954we've been over this again and again you retarded subhuman rat, that is not white phosphorus it is artillery shells filled with these magnesium pellets that get ignited at super hot temperatures and burn for a couple minutes, they don't produce a toxic gas and you can stand besides them and they'll do nothing to you as long as you don't touch them or get caught in a fire and they have been almost entirely ineffective at doing anything through this entire war other than burning some grass and giving sick propaganda shots for zegroids, but other than that they have been pretty much a total nothingburger
>>64402452It's magnesium, the Russians use it but I don't know what you would need hot glitter for, maybe just cause it looks pretty?
Burning phosphorus, as used in smoke shells, should produce a characteristically large amount of white smoke.
>>64403341They did use them to burn down some of the hedges.
>>64403552I'd hazard a guess that it's for target/area illumination. The average russian trooper wont have access to nvds so they'll need to have the region illuminated - that's my limited logic behind my guess.
>>64403596Here's some Ukrainian white phosphorus, then
>>64403552>>64403646>I'd hazard a guess that it's for target/area illumination.Here's some during the day. Its incendiary terror weapon, simple as.
>>64403748how do I get some for the 4th of July?
>>64403761Someone in the Russian army will gladly sell you some. However it is uncertain whether you will actually get magnesium, shredded paper, or pasta.
>>64403552>>64403646start fires over a wide area and also look very impressive on camera
>>64401954WP is overrated as are Magnesium rounds. Besides limited situational use they are counterproductive. I will stand and die on this hill.
>>64403777Yo why they got macaroni in the tank box
>>64407038>WP>overratedStay in your lane retard
>>64408254Why wouldn't there be dry, portable, shelf stable food in the box?
>>64408633Because it stops having all these properties as soon as it gets in contact with any moisture. Where's a reason they sell it in plastic bags.
>>64408724It's in a box tho.Those Soviet boxes keep things stored for many decades.
>>64403748>Trying to set a steelmill on fireAnother brilliant Russian tactic.At least it looks good on video.
>>64408724its not meant to be stored there for yearsthey would probably have eaten it within a few days and they probably looted it from some convenience store they passed bythere isnt exactly any storage space inside the tank so putting it in a box on the outside is what you would do
>>64403748I want to know where the camera that captured this was. Because it is clearly stationary. Another smokestack?
>>64403748Goddamn that looks pathetic compared to napalm. It looks like fireworks.
>>64408875Napalm is for burning jungle.Soviet incendiaries are for burning civilian infrastructure.
>>64408898Good post for /int/ but not for here. Napalm was literally created in a US lab because thermite didn't work for burning down Japanese cities. So yes, Napalm is for burning down infrastructure.
>>64408840>what is stabilizationthe drone is probably very high though
>>64408977At this point in time Ukrainian drone units were civilians who communicated with military units over cellphones while sending them coords from Google maps they got with their mavics.Russians didn't even bother unboxing their Orlans yet and that shit absolutely has no stabilization or fidelity.This is a camera with a cord running to it.
>>64408765No.
>>64408990can't it be bayraktar?
>>64408898>>64408958Just because a weapon was created for one purpose, doesn't mean it can't be used for something else.Israel destroyed a fuck-ton of eqyptian tanks with napalm during the 6 day war
>>64408998They were busy hunting tanks or dodging manpads or pantsirs
>>64401954WP is actually really good at making smokescreens. Phosphorus burns to make phosphorus pentoxide (PO5) which in turn pulls water vapor right out of the air. This means you're getting a lot of smoke for very little phosphorus. The fact that this shit burns easily also fucks with heat seekers since now you've got tiny heat sigs scattered all over the place. If anything, the destructive effects of WP is a detriment which makes it less useful for defensive smokescreens.
>>64408254Sometimes you gotta get a cheeky lil snackie mid-battle.
>>64409404Gunfire ain't so bad when you're crunching a mouthfull of dry elbow macaroni.
>>64409064For tanks and IFVs self protection air bursting WP smoke launchers also make an excellent both smoke screen and close range protection against infantry, even though the range and effectiveness is somewhat limited due to low payload.
>>64401954No. Its really good for illumination and concealment. Its bad in Ukraine because both armies are deeply dug in.
>>64409028>Israel destroyed a fuck-ton of eqyptian tanks with napalm during the 6 day warAnd messed up an AGTR ship out in international waters.
>>64401954My only question is how they get it in NODS and if they break will the guy just die?
>>64409759Just so long as you don't have escorting infantry.
Which is superior in terms of safety in transportation and storage: gelled fuel or white phosphorus?
>>64412885That's terrorist HATO tactics
>>64412897Tough call but I'd go with Gelled Fuel since it's easier to put out. With WP you need to get it wet and keep it wet until it cools down and that can take days. That means collecting every tiny fragment of Phosphorus and storing them in waterDon't get me wrong, jelled fuel is dangerous as all hell but you can manage it with dry chem and foam. Just remember, no water.
>>64408898>>64408958>>64409028I am talking straight out of my ass here, but I think the Russian incendiary pellet is more suited against European structures with, the hotter pellets being able to burn through heavier roofs easier, while Napalm is better at engulfing a target with 'lower' temperature flame. You also get more heat per shell with solid fuels, albeit the area effect is worse.
>>64412897Why not both?>The MK-77 is the primary incendiary weapon currently in use by the United States military. Instead of the gasoline, polystyrene, and benzene mixture used in napalm bombs, the MK-77 uses kerosene-based fuel with a lower concentration of benzene. >The Pentagon has claimed that the MK-77 has less impact on the environment than napalm. The mixture reportedly also contains an oxidizing agent, making it more difficult to put out once ignited, as well as white phosphorus
