WTF does "shake and bake" in this after action report refer to?
Al Dykes
http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/Previous_Editions/05/mar-apr05/PAGE24-30.pdf
page 26, lower left corner
b. White Phosphorous. WP proved to be an effective and versatile
munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and,
later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the
insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get
effects on them with HE. We fired "shake and bake" missions at the
insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out.
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
Billzz
news:dl51mm$28l$1...@panix5.panix.com...
"Shake" is the HE round, "Bake" is the WP round.
Al Dykes
Billzz <billzz...@starband.net> wrote:
>"Al Dykes" <ady...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:dl51mm$28l$1...@panix5.panix.com...
>> What does "shake and bake" refer to in this article?
>>
>> http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/Previous_Editions/05/mar-apr05/PAGE24-30.pdf
>>
>> page 26, lower left corner
>>
>> b. White Phosphorous. WP proved to be an effective and versatile
>> munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and,
>> later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the
>> insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get
>> effects on them with HE. We fired "shake and bake" missions at the
>> insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out.
>>
>>
>
>
>
That sounds like use of napalm, which I don't have a problem with
against troops.
Correct?
Billzz
There is no use of napalm mentioned. This article is from the Field
Artillery Magazine published by the US Army Field Artillery School at Fort
Sill, Oklahoma. and describes the use of field artillery. Field artillery
howitzers have as ammuntion, (amongt others) High Explosive (HE) and White
Phosphorous (WP) rounds, but do not have napalm rounds because napalm
(essentially a jellied gasoline liquid) would not be able to stand the
g-forces, fired out of a howitzer tube. In fact I do not remember any
napalm in the army inventory, it being used only by USAF/USMC/Navy
fighter-bombers and dropped from wing tanks. As an aside, it was first used
in WWII by simply filling extra airplane fuel tanks with gasoline and the
"jellying" mixture, then dropping the tanks just like dropping an empty fuel
tank.
Al Dykes
You're right of course. I was thinking of arial bombs.
As a civilian that likes to understand what I read can someone
please describe what the the mission does?
Why should troops that survive a HE bombardment stand up and get hit
with WP rounds, which sounds to me like anti-personnel use and not use
submunitions rounds, instead.
Billzz
Well, I should explain that the Field Artillery Magazine is a "trade paper"
in that it is written for other field artillery units, and people to explain
what they did. It has two purposes. First is that the Artillery School
(where the magazine comes from) can pick up and teach "new" tactics to
students, who may be on their way to the units in Iraq, and second, the
authors get their names "mentioned in dispatches" and although one does not
usually think of the army as a career within which one must "publish or
perish," members of the next major promotion board may remember the name of
a published captain. Truth-in-lending, I was once an instructor at the
school, and in over three years probably taught every captain in the US Army
field artillery. I also get the magazine every quarter, or so.
The article is really a technical paper, filled with acronyms, which have
inherent meaning within the four standard tactical missions, and the seven
inherent responsibilities, etc. all things that the artillery reader
already know so just the acronym is used. When he says a "danger close"
mission I know what that means, but the average reader can only guess.
Anyway, "shake and bake" is a "GI" term, not an official one, that means
firing a mix of HE & WP rounds. Note that the WP explodes with a brilliant
burst of light but has a small radius of effect. The HE has a small display
of light, but spreads shrapnel a far greater distance. The Minimum Safe
Distance, for an aircraft, flying over a 155mm HE round is 1500 meters and I
forget the WP, but it's in the hundreds.
It's simplistic (but poetic license) to say that one fires WP to get them to
run, and then shoots HE for the kill. Actually one fires an artillery
"barrage" (that term is no longer used) to get the enemy to stop shooting at
our infantry. The WP, with the HE gets their attention, gets them to duck,
maybe run, but gets them to stop shooting. Usually the first rounds will
kill the majority, but then they'll hole up or run. There are calculations
for the number of rounds per area per population. They will be so
disoriented, and unable to function as a cohesive unit, that then the
infantry can "close with and destroy." Only the infantry can take and hold
ground, everybody else is supporting them to do that.
Submunitions (cluster bomblets, whatever) are usually dropped from planes,
but they should not be employed in areas in which friendly forces or
civilians are going to be. The same holds true of chemical, so when you
next read an article that says US forces used chemical, and then stormed
into Falujah, and even includes pics of soldiers without gas masks, you can
recognize an anti-american - and I just plonk them, don't even bother.
I usually am not this wordy, but you seemed to ask a reasonable question. I
don't even bother to answer most questions as they seem to be a prelude to
an argument, or an anti-american screed, but I hope I have answered your
question.
Howard C. Berkowitz
<billzz...@starband.net> wrote:
As you point out, napalm and its successors are based on gasoline,
which inherently has a low density. Low-density fillers are
impractical in the limited volume of an artillery shell, or even an
artillery rocket.
The original thickener, developed by Dr. Louis Fieser of Harvard,
coauthor of the standard organic chemistry text inflicted on a couple
of generations, was named after the coprecipitated aluminum stearate of
NAPthenic and PALMitic acids. True napalm thickener is relatively
unstable and was replaced by dissolved plastics.
>In fact I do not remember any
> napalm in the army inventory,
Thickened gasoline was used in flamethrowers, but flamethrowers have
also generally gone out of use.
> it being used only by USAF/USMC/Navy
> fighter-bombers and dropped from wing tanks. As an aside, it was first used
> in WWII by simply filling extra airplane fuel tanks with gasoline and the
> "jellying" mixture, then dropping the tanks just like dropping an empty fuel
> tank.
IIRC, the basic airdropped munition was 560 gallon, although larger
tanks were also used. These are too large for an attack helicopter.
Note that the tanks were not fin-stabilized. It was desirable for them
to tumble, so they would splash the jelly on impact. Helicopters rarely
go fast enough to achieve these terminal ballistics.
Howard C. Berkowitz
wrote:
That's a good question. First, just to stay with WP, switch the order.
Troops in trenches need near-direct hits from HE to be hurt. Airburst
WP, or indeed cluster munitions, cover a larger area than HE. WP
fragments may, however, force troops out of trenches and make them more
vulnerable to HE or cluster munitions.
As an aside, many of the cluster munitions are partially made of
zirconium, providing an incendiary effect. The major problem with
cluster munitions is a significant dud rate, such that unexploded
bomblets leave a continuing hazard to civilians and your own forces
once in the area. WP has very little residual effect, although it
doesn't have the coverage of cluster munitions.
Al Dykes
Thanks. I've been reading stuff like this for years and "shake and bake"
was the only bit I didn't understand.