View Full Version : France Dropping Concrete Bombs In Libya
article here (http://defensetech.org/2011/04/29/france-using-concrete-bombs-in-libya/)
18776
Forget the United States’ low-collateral damage Small Diameter Bomb (http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=4500), France has begun using concrete filled training bombs to literally crush Gadhafi’s tanks without causing massive explosions that can harm nearby civilians.
Apparently, the 660-pound “training bombs” have not been pressed into combat due to a lack of explosive munitions, as was reported earlier this month. (http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=6295569&c=AIR&s=EUR)
From AFP:
Military spokesman Thierry Burkhard denied rumors the use of the 300-kilogram (660-pound) training devices was prompted by a shortage of real bombs. He said the first such strike crushed an armored vehicle April 26.
“The aim of this munition … is to use the effect of the impact while limiting the risk of collateral damage,” Burkhard said. “It is a very precise strike. There is no, or very little, shrapnel thrown out.”
Concrete bombs have been around for decades (the ones pictured above are from World War II) and are usually used for training. However, a 600-pound piece of concrete dropped from thousands of feet in the air can be pretty darn effective when it hits a relatively small, soft target.
Keep in mind that the bombs, while concrete, are still guided by modern technology like GPS or lasers onto their targets since a near miss with a concrete bomb won’t get you much.
This wouldn’t be the first time such weapons have been used in modern air warfare. The U.S. used laser-guided concrete bombs against Iraqi targets (http://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/07/world/us-wields-defter-weapon-against-iraq-concrete-bomb.html) in the late 1990s for the same reason France says it’s using them.
"............This wouldn’t be the first time such weapons have been used in modern air warfare. The U.S. used laser-guided concrete bombs against Iraqi targets in the late 1990s for the same reason France says it’s using them.................."
Read more: http://defensetech.org/2011/04/29/france-using-concrete-bombs-in-libya/#ixzz1M2b32dAU
Defense.org
I guess it all depends on what you want to do - or not do - with the weapon you are using. The article does state the ones they are using are guided munitions.
LOL, its Mighty Python in the flesh! It's Really just throwing rocks....Catapults? We don't need no catapult
LOL, its Mighty Python in the flesh! It's Really just throwing rocks....Catapults? We don't need no catapult
I hear the Armée de l'Air has an even more powerful weapon in their arsenal: the Wooden Rabbit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2PdyxMtiYM) :D
Kinetic projectiles
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Projectile#Kinetic_projectiles
"....Projectiles which do not contain an explosive charge are termed kinetic projectile, kinetic energy weapon, kinetic warhead or kinetic penetrator. Classic kinetic energy weapons are blunt projectiles such as rocks and round shot, pointed ones such as arrows, and somewhat pointed ones such as bullets. Among projectiles which do not contain explosives are also railguns, coilguns, mass drivers, and kinetic energy penetrators. All of these weapons work by attaining a high muzzle velocity (hypervelocity), and collide with their objective, releasing kinetic energy.
Some kinetic weapons for targeting objects in spaceflight are anti-satellite weapons and anti-ballistic missiles. Since they need to attain a high velocity anyway, they can destroy their target with their released kinetic energy alone; explosives are not necessary. Compare the energy of TNT, 4.6 MJ/kg, to the energy of a kinetic kill vehicle with a closing speed of ten km/s, which is 50 MJ/kg. This saves costly weight and there is no detonation to be precisely timed. This method, however, requires direct contact with the target, which requires a more accurate trajectory.
With regard to anti-missile weapons, the Arrow missile and MIM-104 Patriot have explosives, but the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI), Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile (LEAP, see RIM-161 Standard Missile 3), and THAAD being developed do not (see Missile Defense Agency).
A kinetic projectile can also be dropped from aircraft. In this approach, the explosives of a regular bomb may be replaced with concrete, for a precision hit that causes less collateral damage .[1] A typical bomb has a mass of 900 kg and an impact speed of 800 km/h (220 m/s). This method is also applied when training personnel in the act of dropping a bomb with explosives. It was used in Operation Iraqi Freedom and the subsequent military operations in Iraq by mating concrete-filled training bombs with JDAM GPS guidance kits, to attack vehicles and other relatively "soft" targets located too close to civilian structures for the use of conventional high explosive bombs.
A kinetic bombardment may involve a projectile dropped from Earth orbit.
A hypothetical kinetic weapon that travels at a significant fraction of the speed of light, usually found in science fiction, is called a relativistic kill vehicle (RKV)........"
Or it could be just the French being French.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGf-sS4js5Y
The Israeli's used TOW missiles in the '73 war without the warhead against armor.
Killed the crew thru kinetic energy and the tanks were recoverable for reuse.
Pete, I understand the seriousness and the need to limit damage, but having worked in France, nothing could be more French, going to war with concrete, we all remember how well the Maginot line held back the German Blitzkrieg.
It certainly has potential...
A 300 kilo (660 lbs) "bomb" @ 70 mt per sec(150+/- mph) will product 735,000 joules (542,115 ft lbs)
That is a bunch of kick-ass,, if it hits the target..
LOL, its Mighty Python in the flesh!
A new Marvel comics Saturday morning cartoon show or a movie sequel to Anaconda?
"Here I come to save the day...Mighty Python's on his way...!" :p
France Dropping Concrete Bombs In Libya
Well, that's certainly one way to cement a relationship...
Richard :munchin
Airbornelawyer
05-11-2011, 10:15
Pete, I understand the seriousness and the need to limit damage, but having worked in France, nothing could be more French, going to war with concrete, we all remember how well the Maginot line held back the German Blitzkrieg.
Unfortunately, we all remember something inaccurate.
The Maginot Line's purpose wasn't to hold back the Germans. It was to force the Germans to attack around it, through the Low Countries, rather than across the German-French border. It was to force a replay of the Schlieffen Plan, or a variant thereof, whereby the Germans would invade Belgium and French and British forces would advance to meet them in a meeting engagement a la the Battle of Mons in World War I. The French weren't stupid, they were cynical, trying to fight the next war on Belgian soil rather than their own.
And the Maginot Line worked as planned. It forced the Germans to outflank it. German planners initially did plan a wheeling movement through Belgium, but after the plans were compromised the later Field Marshal Erich von Manstein, then serving on the Great General Staff, came up with the plan to move through the Ardennes, with the wheeling movement through Belgium as a feint to draw French and British forces north and cut them off with a penetration into their flank.
In hindsight, von Manstein's plan appears brilliant, but it was fraught with risks and relied on a lot of fortuitous developments. The Ardennes is terrible tank country, forcing German armored columns to rely on a few crowded roads to make their penetration. If the French and British had not been paralyzed by confusion in the early phases, they might have shifted their focus from Belgium and pinched the German penetration off, leaving Germany's best Panzer forces encircled. This would have especially been a possible scenario if the Belgian fortification line had held better, another German gamble that paid off, especially with the German seizure of Fort Eban Emael by coup de main.
Indeed, several French and British counterattacks did but the fear into the Germans of having their forces cut off, but Allied commanders failed to follow up operationally on these tactical successes.
That said, while the French armed forces did not view the Maginot Line purely defensively, many French civilians fell into that trap. So French politicians, looking for savings elsewhere after all the expenditures on the Maginot Line, did cut procurement of armor and transport necessary to make the maneuver force which was to meet the German attack effective. And on the tactical level, the French, with some exceptions like de Gaulle, failed to appreciate the tank as a cavalry weapon and parceled out their tanks primarily as infantry support weapons.
The French did get some measure of revenge a few years later. In Italy, the German Gustav Line across the Liri Valley, anchored on Monte Cassino, held off several major Allied offensives and an attempted end run at Anzio at the beginning of 1943. The final breakthrough of the line was brought about by Gen. Alphonse Juin's French Expeditionary Corps, serving in the U.S. Fifth Army. The French, leading experienced Moroccan and Algerian mountain troops, penetrated the flanks of the German line in the mountains on the southern flank of the Liri Valley, which the Germans considered relatively safe due to the difficult terrain. The French penetration facilitated US II Corps' breakthrough, and allowed Fifth Army to make a major push in what was initially supposed to be a mere supporting action to the British Eighth Army's frontal assault on the Gustav Line.
Sorry for the long rant, but the Maginot Line has long been a peeve of mine.
Airbornelawyer
05-11-2011, 10:28
Kinetic projectiles
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Projectile#Kinetic_projectiles
"....Projectiles which do not contain an explosive charge are termed kinetic projectile, kinetic energy weapon, kinetic warhead or kinetic penetrator. Classic kinetic energy weapons are blunt projectiles such as rocks and round shot, pointed ones such as arrows, and somewhat pointed ones such as bullets. Among projectiles which do not contain explosives are also railguns, coilguns, mass drivers, and kinetic energy penetrators. All of these weapons work by attaining a high muzzle velocity (hypervelocity), and collide with their objective, releasing kinetic energy.
Some kinetic weapons for targeting objects in spaceflight are anti-satellite weapons and anti-ballistic missiles. Since they need to attain a high velocity anyway, they can destroy their target with their released kinetic energy alone; explosives are not necessary. Compare the energy of TNT, 4.6 MJ/kg, to the energy of a kinetic kill vehicle with a closing speed of ten km/s, which is 50 MJ/kg. This saves costly weight and there is no detonation to be precisely timed. This method, however, requires direct contact with the target, which requires a more accurate trajectory.
With regard to anti-missile weapons, the Arrow missile and MIM-104 Patriot have explosives, but the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI), Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile (LEAP, see RIM-161 Standard Missile 3), and THAAD being developed do not (see Missile Defense Agency).
A kinetic projectile can also be dropped from aircraft. In this approach, the explosives of a regular bomb may be replaced with concrete, for a precision hit that causes less collateral damage .[1] A typical bomb has a mass of 900 kg and an impact speed of 800 km/h (220 m/s). This method is also applied when training personnel in the act of dropping a bomb with explosives. It was used in Operation Iraqi Freedom and the subsequent military operations in Iraq by mating concrete-filled training bombs with JDAM GPS guidance kits, to attack vehicles and other relatively "soft" targets located too close to civilian structures for the use of conventional high explosive bombs.
A kinetic bombardment may involve a projectile dropped from Earth orbit.
A hypothetical kinetic weapon that travels at a significant fraction of the speed of light, usually found in science fiction, is called a relativistic kill vehicle (RKV)........"
When I was doing armored warfare analysis at the Infantry School in the mid-1990s, I remember noting the "kinetic" euphemisms. Sabot rounds were kinetic energy penetrators (KEPs) and HEAT rounds were chemical energy penetrators (CEPs).
But my favorite euphemism goes back to the 1980s. When they realized that laser targeting might present some technological problems, the developers of the Strategic Defense Initiative hit on the "Brilliant Pebbles" concept, whereby a defensive satellite would fire a large number of small projectiles in the path of a Soviet ICBM. Like skeet shot or a Phalanx CIWS, I suppose. But the Pentagon bureaucrats apparently needed a cooler term, so they called the "kinetic kill vehicles". Or as we know them more familiarly, bullets.
If the French truly want to drop bombs, they merely have to have a Luc Benson film festival in Tripoli.
PedOncoDoc
05-11-2011, 11:24
LOL, its Mighty Python in the flesh! It's Really just throwing rocks....Catapults? We don't need no catapult
Fetchez les vaches! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7qxqvjTbu0) :D
mark46th
05-11-2011, 13:14
"Come back, English Swine, so we can throw more shit upon you"!!
Ret10Echo
06-30-2011, 05:26
From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13966976)
French military are presenting their decision to parachute in weaponry to the Libyan rebels in the western Nafusa mountains as a response to a specific local situation.
Civilians, they say, were encircled by government forces who refused to allow the opening up of an aid corridor to reach them.
A French military spokesman says weapons including assault rifles, machine guns and rocket launchers were air-dropped earlier this month.
A report in today's Le Figaro newspaper suggests that Milan anti-tank missiles may also have been included.
Arming the rebels is of course controversial, not least because in February, UN Security Council resolution 1970 established an arms embargo that appeared to apply to all sides in Libya. It talked about banning sales to the Libyan nation - the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.
However there were those, not least the US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, who argued that the subsequent UN resolution 1973 - the one that allowed all necessary means to be used to protect Libyan civilians - actually amended or overrode the earlier UN decision.