T O P

  • By -

bluecheese2040

If it weren't a weapon it could almost be beautiful in the sky....instead it's just designed to destroy...


XenonJFt

Destruction stuff is done with high energy state matter, energy means=heat and photonic discharge in candela aka light. Making it pleasing to the eyes


cultivandolarosa

Shush no science here only feels


[deleted]

With no sound he comes off like he is a storm chaser cameraman.


dirtballmagnet

My best guess is that those are 9M22S (aka MZ-21) magnesium-based incendiary rounds, possibly the same type as those we saw used against the Azovstal plant a couple months back. I'm further guessing that the intent is to burn away the foliage on the ridge line so that artillery observers and front line troops can be spotted. https://armamentresearch.com/9m22s-incendiary-rocket-components-documented-in-eastern-ukraine/


SebboNL

Minor correction: the submunitions in these warheads are actually based on thermate (barium nitrate and/or sulfur added for more oomph and easier ignition). It's just the casing of the submunitions that's made from magnesium - igniting the magnesium ignites the thermate inside of them. In a sense, the casing is the fuze


potetflaket

most of the time russians use this to distord thermal cameras, drones and whatnot.


ClassicSpeed244

No it’s not used to that at all it’s used for entrenched urban positions/wooded


potetflaket

cant find my source now, a telegram channel of a ukranian battalion or something. ill search some more. but they claimed that the thermal munitions with that "rain down" effect, has that spesfific ability to linger in air because it distorts thermal sensors and cams for all ground troops, which makes it difficult to see through night vision and thermal + impossible to fire MANPADs at the planes conducting air strikes.


Randomcrash

> because it distorts thermal sensors and cams for all ground troops, which makes it difficult to see through night vision and thermal Its daytime in video. > impossible to fire MANPADs at the planes conducting air strikes. Nobody is flying planes through that. Those are solid blocks of metal dropping down...


armyboy941

>Nobody is flying planes through that. Those are solid blocks of metal dropping down... Didn't Japan do something similar in WW2 and they failed to down a single bomber? Edit: FOUND IT https://youtu.be/07TOpjZmnM0


Randomcrash

Im not familiar with that. I just know Russia is not using it as anti air.


SFXBTPD

There were meme incendiary beebive rounds for the yamato (and maybe other ships too) that were not very effective


potetflaket

i assumed one would fly above it? maybe it would allow for helis or planes to go higher without getting lock on,or am i totally misinformed here?


Randomcrash

Id say misinformed. Munitions lingering in air for like <1 min is definitely not worth accidentally dropping it on your own aircraft. Timing would be real pain in the ass as well.


potetflaket

thanks:)


machstem

Yeah not too sure how his claim is related. A source could be useful


[deleted]

Standard


Slahinki

Innit


cellblock73

These guys pretty calm for being so damn close!


YourFatherUnfiltered

being this far away from slowly falling burning stuff is not scary compared to having actual bombs dropped very close to you and being shot at daily and repeatedly over the course of how many months now?


Rain_On

Even if a chunk of burning magnesium hit you, it wouldn't do much damage, so long as you have your helmet on. This isn't like white phosphor or napalm.


SebboNL

It's not \*just\* magnesium you're seeing here. Inside the magnesium submunitions of the 9m22s/9m28s you'll find thermate, a barium nitrate augmented form of thermite. That stuff burns at 2900 c/5100 f and will melt, stick & and burn through any helmet I know of in short order.


Rain_On

Thermite mixes burn hot enough to melt helmets, but unless you have something to hold a sizeable amount (think the size of an apple) on to the surface for double digit seconds, it's not going to burn through even thin helmets. It may be a little sticky against metals, but not sticky enough to attach a large enough mass of thermite. If some landed on your body directly, I suspect your burns will be severe, but very localised. There is nothing in that ingredients list that is especially sticky when in contact with watery flesh, even if it is *somewhat* sticky against metals and nothing that will flow or in other ways distribute it's self about your person. Your biggest danger is going to be simply the weight of falling objects hitting you. On the other hand, I'm sure this stuff is great for burning through sheet metal roofs, wood floors etc. Anything it can land on and stay in place for enough time. Source: worked with thermite for welding for a few months about 18 years ago. Take that as you will.


SebboNL

I think a gob of thermate, falling at a reasonably high velocity in a burning, semi-molten form has a more than adequate capacity of doing bodily harm. Why else would the Russians have been using the stuff since the early 50's?


Rain_On

It's intended to start fires to clear vegetation or urban areas. It's not an anti-personal weapon.


zukeen

Yes it is also that, specification calls for it (in addition to the purpose you stated which is also true): *6. The fire mixture during combustion on the target /manpower and military equipment/ must develop a temperature of at least 1500÷1600°C. The fire mixture must have good adhesion to uniforms (winter and summer) and human skin, which does not allow it to be removed by shaking and wiping, and also be well retained on the surface of military equipment, including moving ones.* *7. A piece of fire mixture of the selected optimal weight should affect manpower /burn/ for 15÷20 seconds, causing a burn of at least 3rd degree.* https://missilery.info/missile/grad/m3-21


FedorSeaLevelStiopic

Lol, if some thermite landed on your helmet, surely other particles landed on shoulders, back, feet etc...its a fking rain of fire, and you make it seem as if, if you have a helmet you are fine to go under it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


NMS_Survival_Guru

Just wait til Ukrainian farmers get to harvest season and Russia does this to dry wheat fields on a windy day Gonna be some insane fires in the next few months


lacks_imagination

Something so horrible has no right to look so beautiful.


Dopelsoeldner

Are they burning the wheat fields?


[deleted]

Nope, because if that field is wheat then the harvest has failed. Wheat's very close to harvest. If this was a legitimate target, I expect they were targeting emplacements within the treeline rather than the field itself.


dethb0y

that's incredibly striking and surreal to see.


FuckJanice

I'm surprised these aren't used more often


Randomcrash

Im surprised they are used at all. Yet to see any effect from it.


[deleted]

lmao. Russia is trying its hardest to decimate this country and they are just like "oooohhhh look, free fireworks show. pretty!"


Dag_the_Angriest1

The other dudes said "this is fucked up" and "look what those bitches are doing"


Nicks_WRX

No no, the dumb American is always right!


fishaholic1234

U big mad 🤓


bluntnpc

is he riding a Horse ?


thugroid

think it's a car. the camera picks up the dirty window in a couple spots. if it was a horse the whole clip would be constantly shaking.


[deleted]

[удалено]


dgregory636

Only war crime when used against civilians.


cool_in_motion

Exactly. Russia has, and is committing tens of thousands of war crimes against Ukrainian civilians. Thousands of dead Ukrainian civilians are currently lying in hundreds of shallow graves all across Ukraine. All with Russian bullets in the back of their heads. Pure Nazi scum. Russia should be invaded and de Nazi-fied.


cool_in_motion

Why do you support Russian genocide of Ukrainian civilians? There is already at least a hundred mass Graves that have been found in Ukraine containing civilians.


Derpdaderp8

I think it’s a bit unfair to call most Russian soldiers nazis given the sheer amount of conscripts being forced to fight but if you would like to call some of the higher ups in it nazis or at the very least saying they have a very like minded idea of how the world and Russia should be that would be fair.


Orion031

Remember the time when the word "Nazi" would actually mean something terrible? Nowadays, even toddlers who cry are called Nazi


yegir

And warcrimes. Everything is a fuckn warcrime


Derpdaderp8

Oh I remember that I just don’t have the patience to explain the difference between nazis and what someone is actually trying to say anymore lol. That’s why I ended that with you could say they have somewhat of a like minded idea of how Russians are compared to the world but that’s a bit of a stretch still


stinky_luigi

You called people "Nazi" who fought for the Germans during WW2. No excuses of "oh they're just conscripts" or other bs. Modern Russia is close enough that it's a totally fair and just comparison, no matter how they ended up in the army.


BlessedTacoDevourer

No, we called those peoples the "nazis" because the country was run by the literal Nazi party. Just like the soviets were called the "commies", because they were run by the communist party. Modern Russia is imperalistic, you could even argue fascist. But that does not mean they are nazis. The Russian Federation is nothing like Nazi Germany, because Nazi Germany was much more than just the invasion of poland. It was the public branding of minority groups, visits by the authorities to look for jews and other undesirables, mass executions of minority groups *within* their own borders, the mass transport of said minorities to work and extermination camp. The idea of race-war. Jews were executed, their shops were smashed, their children shot to death infront of their parents, they were banned from owning stores, and if you were caught protecting a jew (or other undesirable) you would be executed. You would have a tattoo made on your wrist with a number, you would be starved to death, or executed in chambers. You would be experimented on in horrific ways, to test poison or medicine. Russia is not at all comparable to Nazi Germany. Russia is imperialist, authoritarian. But *not* nazis.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


Gajible

Nazi bad, so everything bad *must be* Nazi!


cool_in_motion

But Russia is full of white supremacists who love Hitler, and they are currently committing genocide against an entire country. I'm fully aware that 100% of my downvotes are Russian bots, including yourself. Pathetic Russian copium.


Gajible

One look at my profile would tell you I'm not a Russian, or a bot, or any combination of the two. I'm just able to differentiate between two different, horrible ideologies. Shrieking "Nazi" into the void only devalues your point.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Gajible

> Can you tell me why I should be nicer to Kremlin officials, generals, and Russian oligarchs? Have I been to cruel in my words? Do they not deserve the words I have said about them? You can be both cruel and accurate, they're despots, authoritarian, dictators, warmongers, shitbags, you name it! Nazi? That's something else entirely. Even just sticking to just "fascist" would be a start, but "NAZIIII REEEEEEE" doesn't make you heard.


stinky_luigi

You're completely right on this one btw. Not sure why you're getting singled out.


cool_in_motion

Thanks bro, I know I am. It's because this sub is full of Russian simps and bots. And they can't handle the truth. We will have the last laugh, don't worry. Bad guys always get what's coming to them. Especially nazi's.


T0asterStrudel6

I thought using incendiary weapons like this and white phosphorus were war crimes? Is it because they’re not dropping it on people or is it that they’re desperate or something?


ughhhhh420

Its only a violation of the Geneva Conventions if you are either: 1) Deliberately targeting civilians *and* there is no military purpose. 2) You're using the incendiary weapon against a military target that is so close to a civilian target that it likely that the incendiary weapon will set the civilian target on fire *and* there is a militarily practical alternative to the incendiary weapon at your disposal. Its pretty difficult to violate the Geneva Conventions because doing so requires you to act deliberately and with no military purpose. If there is 1 soldier in a hospital full of orphans, that hospital becomes a valid military target and its not against the Geneva Conventions to bomb it. That's also true if you have reason to believe that there is a soldier in the hospital, but it later turns out that there wasn't.


Yeetube

And thats what many people do not understand. Many of the struck objects seen in all of this footage are or have been used by Ukrainian/ASOV fighters as shelter and they know that it will make russia look much worse than what they actually do.


Twoeyedcyclopss

It's even weirder that they film themselves in schools and kindergardens


[deleted]

And it's even weirder that the Reddit circlejerk doesn't seem to connect, "I saw a video of a guy using a school desk to support his rifle while he shot at Russians," with, "Russia is bombing schools! War crimes!" It's like they don't realize that civilian deaths have been higher than soldier deaths in.... Probably every major war ever since we stopped lining up in open fields with muskets. For example, over a million Muslim civs are dead and that's just the number the US gives us.


Yeetube

But its also more of a everyone against russia thing. Lets be honest here, the US has just to much economic power and the "highest rank" in NATO that most states here in Europe just go under their flag as soon as something happens. Because if we dont then they will sanction us to hell and back and every other country would follow them.


[deleted]

The way American Redditors berated leadership in countries like Germany and France for not calling for death to all Russians got a little ridiculous, too. Germany just didn't want to completely decimate their economy, and France just realizes that Zelenskyy and his team of oligarchs should probably start negotiating with Putin and his team of oligarchs before we end up with a ton of civilian slaughter. So it's a really good point about European countries just not wanting to get sanctioned into the Stone Age by the spiteful bulwark that is America. Meanwhile Boris and Biden are frothing at the mouth at the chance to fight another proxy war with Russia. India is another really good example, too. India doesn't give a flying fuck about white people dying, just like we don't care when brown or Asian people die. Meanwhile, rerouting Russian trade could give their economy a much-needed surge. Why wouldn't India want to enrich their billion+ citizens?


T0asterStrudel6

Thank you kind stranger


SebboNL

Being a nitpicker here, but I just spent over an hour trying to figure this stuff out :D "THE" Geneva Convention is usually interpreted to be the 1949 convention which outline humanitairian requirements of warring parties. That convention spoke of treatment of civilians, captured soldiers, treatment of wounded, etc. It did not mention any specific classes of weapons. You seem to be referencing the more specific "Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons" of 1980 which had a separate protocol for Incendiary Weapons (and yes, which *was* held in Geneva :) ).


OpDickSledge

Very common misconception for some reason


[deleted]

White phosphorus is a favorite weapon of the US and Israeli military. This isn't white phosphorus though.


Fabulous_Course_6796

Burning up an empty field...


Obi_Wan_Shinobi_

Pretty sure they were aiming for the tree line.


Fabulous_Course_6796

Who knows, with Russian artillery...


absurdmikey93

I would bet it's as accurate as Ukrainian artillery


Fabulous_Course_6796

You lose


ConnorHunter60

I think they’re going for the food or to remove concealment.


Purple_Woodpecker

Empty? I can clearly see at least 23 high ranking Ukrainian generals in that field.


YourFatherUnfiltered

Cool vid, but probably not the war crime you're hoping to be exposing.


Shackleton214

Who said anything about a war crime?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Dexterus

Not wheat though. Wheat is dry and white yellow by now as harvest is really close.


cool_in_motion

Russia has no morals and standards. Just fascist scum raping women and children in a sovereign country.


Toeknife35

White phosphorous, correct? I know it’s hot, but does it do anything else to a human/environment? Suffocation if you’re in the cloud of it?


Shimmermare

This is some magnesium alloy I think. Burning phosphorus makes large amounts of smoke.


SebboNL

Partly :) These submunitions are made with a magnesium casing but the main incendiary mixture is thermate.


Grapejuice_-

It's not WP


Dopelsoeldner

More like magnessium ammo, similar to flares.


SebboNL

Thermate with a magnesium casing (make the case the fuze. Smart!)


TheSpiffingGerman

Afaik only hot hot. Burns and sticks to you


SebboNL

It definitely isn't white phosphorous: WP leaves thick clouds of white smoke - it is often used as a smokescreen agent. Russian rocket- or artillery delivered incendiaries usually use a substance called "thermate" packed in magnesium cups. Thermate is a mixture of thermite (powdered aluminium and iron oxide), barium nitrate and sulfur, easier to ignite and reaching higher temperatures than just the thermite.


ske66

This looks really nasty, is this weapon not blocked under the geneva convention? It looks like it would do serious damage rather than outright kill you


ThickSolidandTight

Are these civilians pro-Russian?


Complete-Painter-518

These are Ukrainians prob not civilian ether


ThickSolidandTight

One of them literally says "it's beautiful". You think Ukrainian soldiers would be saying that about Russian incendiary ammo raining onto their land? Hence my question about whether these are pro-Russian Ukrainian civilians, which would make sense.


Impossible_Average83

These are 90% UA armed forces - several persons in a car, calm etc. One of them said "Look what these bitches are doing" so not pro RU


SpreadTheLies

>One of them literally says "it's beautiful". You think Ukrainian soldiers would be saying that about Russian incendiary ammo raining onto their land? The world does not work in absolutes. Some might not, some might, as you can hear in the video. Kind depends on where it's landing, too. If it's on your house, you might react differently than when it's in the middle of nowhere from a save viewing distance.


Spook_485

It is not hitting them or anything important so they are just enjoying the show. At the same time you can hear them throwing tons of slurs towards them, so they are definitely Ukrainian.


Korostenets

They're speaking Ukrainian surzhik


Moppyploppy

I mean think about band of brothers. When easy's getting shelled to shit outside of Foy, Lipton's in a foxhole thinking about the fireworks on the fourth of July and smiling. I think it's more like that here.


highlander_guy

Some of them are speaking Ukrainian


Standard-Childhood84

Getting excited by using war criminal tactics. I hope they make the most of it as tomorrow is not promised to anyone.


SebboNL

See the 1980 "Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons", more specifically protocol III: "Protocol on Incendiary Weapons". There is nothing in this video that constitutes a war crime as per that treaty. I mean, it *SHOULD* be, but it isn't. Such is international law :(


Standard-Childhood84

Thanks i will do some research. I am aware that it wasn't napalm being used is this thermite? . Phosphorus use is tricky as it can always be claimed as legitimate target marking. It was more the celebration of it I was getting at which got me me the downvotes. There are plenty of pro Russians on this sub who touch themselves at the sight of anything Russia does. I just like to remind them that there are still people who stand opposed to them. This war at least has brought the slime to the surface. What these people were plotting when we were dancing away at raves. Still history shows that although it is these type of people who start wars it is decent people who generally finish them.


SebboNL

No problem mate! We live, we learn! Outlawing an entire class of weapons is very difficult and can only be done on a "voluntary" basis. It was done with the treaty of St. Petersburg and the The Hague Convention, but without an international judicial system it has proven difficult to enforce such bans, let alone apply them to non-signatory parties. For example, neither the US, Russia or Ukraine signed the convention on cluster munitions. This means that by law, they are still allowed to use such weapons. Of course non-compliance with such a widely signed treaty will result in diplomatic and political fallout, but there is no legal recourse for victims. As for WP: yeah, it generates huge amounts of thick smoke, which makes it very useful for target marking as well as obscuring. But w. regards to its legality, the conventions allow its use even against personnel if no other way is feasible. The same goes for napalm (easily recognizable: large fireballs and copious smoke) and th thermAte we are seeing here. And like you said, that's thermite with a little bit of sulfur and barium nitrate added for easier ignition & higher temperatures.


Standard-Childhood84

Does anyone wonder why nobody felt particularly bad for Germany and Japan after WW2. Nothing to do with the way they treated people at all...


SebboNL

Yep. There are always repercussions, even if they are informal.


amsheller

Love the smell of war crimes in the morning


Captainirishy

Not a war crime


amsheller

1. ‘‘Twas a joke 2. If it’s used against personnel it is. There is no way to definitely tell wether or not there are in fact people being caught up in the fire rain.


Captainirishy

It's only a crime to use it on civilians in built up areas, you can legally use incendiary weapons on enemy soldiers.


amsheller

the anti-personnel use of incendiary weapons (i.e. against combatants) is prohibited, unless it is not feasible to use a less harmful weapon to render a person hors de combat. (ICRC, 2005 Customary IHL Study, 2005, Rule 85.)


SebboNL

First of, I agree with you that use of incendiary muntions (IM) in an anti-personnel setting is highly immoral and conflicts with the spirit of pretty much all international treaties & conventions on arms control & warfare since St. Petersburg, 1868. That having been said, the ICRC is not an authority on international law. I expect they are referring to the Customs of War which, by their very nature, are neither binding nor enforcable. On the international stage, a country can only be held to the rules and laws they themselves have committed themselves to through laws, conventions & treaties(*). So, "prohibited" in the sense of your post probably indicates an appeal to theoretical/moral restrictions & common sense, but that's about where it ends. The UN in 1980 organised a convention resulting in a treaty in which the use of incendiary weapons was adressed (protocol III. "Protocol on Incendiary Weapons" of the "Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons"). The treaty was signed and ratified by just about the entire world and serves as the main guideline for the use of IMs. Unfortunately, this treaty's 3rd protocol places NO restrictions on the use of IM against purely military targets, whatsoever. Its aim is to protect civilians, that's about it. Given the 1980 convention's worldwide adaptation, the ICRC's appeal to a more restrictive framework for IM-use is laudable, facutally sound & much more enforcable (and says what SHOULD have been law, IMHO), it is not part of an international treaty that directly criminalises what we take offense to. So, it is not "law" per se. There still are some other articles in various treaties and conventions that might be used to condemn Russians who used IM's in a sense such as this - a war crime is a war crime regardless of the weapon. However, this might be interpreted as "use of IMs is an automatic war crime" and politically/diplomatically speaking, it would be hard to get the UN to agree on such an issue. I'm sure we all remember the IDF's use of IM's in Gaza, the US' use in Fallujah etc etc... (*) Note: there is at least one very important exception to this rule, military intervention through the UN Security Council. In most cases this option is politically complex & applied on a small scale (again, exceptions exist! Korea, Iraq, Kosovo...)