Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
5. Not likely. Chemical shells have a different design from normal high explosive.
Sun Aug 25, 2013, 09:30 PM
Aug 2013

Last edited Mon Aug 26, 2013, 12:06 AM - Edit history (3)

While some designs have enough explosive to efficiently disperse the chemical agent, pieces of the rear part of of the shell are likely to found in the area of the barrage,and that shell fragments will be coated with significant residue.

A. Here's a cross-section of a typical chemical artillery shell:




______________________________________________________
B. Meanwhile, below, is a high-explosive shell. Note the tapering, relatively thick walls of rear shell casing (extra wall thickness required for strength to contain the initial blast so it can build up burst pressure). Quite different:



C. Shell casing fragment (105mm HE round from WW2)
(Note the tapered shape of the rear body)

Hague is hoping someone will notice him. dipsydoodle Aug 2013 #1
No surprise there... FarPoint Aug 2013 #2
Riiiighht. Arctic Dave Aug 2013 #3
Sad thing is, this may be right. n/t AverageJoe90 Aug 2013 #4
Not likely. Chemical shells have a different design from normal high explosive. leveymg Aug 2013 #5
Damn scientists. GeorgeGist Aug 2013 #8
One, problem, you also need the same SHELL design in a Chemical Shell happyslug Aug 2013 #9
No. The wall thickness in HE shells is much greater, as shown. The difference is readily apparent leveymg Aug 2013 #10
However, from the outside, the shells look virtually identical. That tells me something leveymg Aug 2013 #11
No trained Artillery would fire such a round happyslug Aug 2013 #13
If someone repainted a chem round to appear to be an HE, would the handler be able to tell? leveymg Aug 2013 #15
You can tell, for each batch has been known to be different happyslug Aug 2013 #16
If someone intentionally wanted to have an artillery unit fire chemical shells by repainting them to leveymg Aug 2013 #17
About one shell, when it does NOT land where it is suppose to. happyslug Aug 2013 #18
What would the effect be on the ability of forward observers to spot random misses at night in the leveymg Aug 2013 #23
Mass Barrage. what are you thinking, WWI?? happyslug Aug 2013 #25
Thanks. This is very useful first-hand info about artillery. It largely confirms what I suspected. leveymg Aug 2013 #27
As to rockets, these would have to a mass firing of rockets happyslug Aug 2013 #26
The rockets that we've seen appear homemade and contain only 1-2 liters of agent leveymg Aug 2013 #28
Sarin is toxic in small amount IF IT GETS INTO THE LUNGS happyslug Aug 2013 #29
No the shell thickness would be less in chemical shells happyslug Aug 2013 #12
That's exactly my point - investigators would be able to see from the larger fragments that chemical leveymg Aug 2013 #14
We know who did it daleo Aug 2013 #6
+1 nt Javaman Aug 2013 #19
Evidence is coming in. Check my post here for links that have details: freshwest Aug 2013 #24
"The absence of evidence..." er, how does that go again? Comrade Grumpy Aug 2013 #7
anyone who suffocated to death from that 'gas' still has a lung full. test the dead. Sunlei Aug 2013 #20
give the shell pieces to those who lifted dna/finger prints off the boston bombers mess. Sunlei Aug 2013 #21
that's what the rebels are doing. they sent out samples for testing. KittyWampus Aug 2013 #22
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Syria chemical attack evi...»Reply #5