Welcome to the Inert Ordnance Collectors.
  • Login:
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16
  1. #11
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    4,475
    Thanks
    799
    Thanked 1,284 Times in 739 Posts
    There were two types of Incendiary rockets.

    http://www.military-today.com/firearms/m202.htm

    Good article that says the system is still in use and was stocked in Afghanistan.

    https://www.wired.com/2009/05/us-inc...stan-revealed/

    Great article mentioning corroded rockets
    Last edited by HAZORD; 8th April 2021 at 01:13 AM.
    ___HAZ/
    _____/ORD Hazardous Ordnance Recognition
    ________Saving Lives Through Education

  2. #12
    ORDNANCE APPROVED/Premium Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Michigan - US
    Posts
    3,888
    Thanks
    293
    Thanked 3,856 Times in 1,108 Posts
    John I'd disagree with the way you state your point above. While the M202 went through a developmental phase like all munitions, I doubt that the XM-191 existed for long enough to characterize it as existing in the US inventory. I know that I've never seen one, and have never spoken to anyone that has seen one. The M202 rocket itself is extremely rare, the one that Pat shows above is one of only a handful of actual (non-BS pieces) that I've seen across the country. Stating that the US had two types makes it sound as if they were stockpiled. If you want to count minor developmental models you could probably say that the US had a couple of hundred types, going back to a dozen or so for the 2.36-inch. I would tend to discount the XM191 on this basis.

    Each of the articles linked seem a bit weak. The first is written by a non-technical person that doesn't seem to know much about ordnance (LAWS? Thickened Pyrotechnic Agent?) and the second is overly emotional and relying on assumption and "failure to deny" to make their case. I personally doubt very much that the M202 was in theater in Afghanistan, the bulk of these systems were produced in the 1960s-70s and neither the motor propellant or the pyrophoric agent ages terribly well. Refitting the systems would make no sense as everything would need to be replaced. What the author failed to realize or explore was the Russian advancements (and US consequential interest) in thermobarics, well advanced beyond the M202. A little info got out on US entry into the field back around the entry into Afghanistan, then everything went quiet. That would seem like a much more likely scenario than deploying an obsolete and potentially hazardous (to the user) 30-40+ year old system.
    All dug or live ordnance shown in my posts is under EOD control and has been or will be dealt with accordingly by EOD personnel

  3. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Posts
    75
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 25 Times in 7 Posts
    Thank you for interesting articles.

    After consideration I realised I was wrong - the "stick effect" is possible. Rockets aren't delivered or stored separately - only in 4-rounds clips, factory loaded and sealed. So even in cause of TPA leak it couldn't start fire because it has no contact with air (a small amount of air inside the clip is unimportant). But thanks to rubber thickener it could acted as glue and stick rocket inside clip as you described.

  4. #14
    ORDNANCE APPROVED/Premium Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Michigan - US
    Posts
    3,888
    Thanks
    293
    Thanked 3,856 Times in 1,108 Posts
    The clip was not a sealed unit. The warhead sections extend out (forward) of the clip, the motor section is enclosed in the clip. The clip is more like a magazine for a rifle, simply holding the rounds in position for firing. Pull the old clip out, insert a new clip. You can see this in the photos provided by M8 above, look at the reload clip inside its overpack, the last photo, you can see the warheads visible, with the yellow band midway (black and white) on the warhead.
    All dug or live ordnance shown in my posts is under EOD control and has been or will be dealt with accordingly by EOD personnel

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Okaloosa County, FL, USA
    Posts
    137
    Thanks
    132
    Thanked 35 Times in 25 Posts
    Really interesting thread--THANKS to the OP for starting it and for sharing the manual. I travelled with the Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board, and the safety engineers assigned would ask for certain things the minute we arrived on an installation: Copy of recent explosives safety site plan, storage location of OLDEST lot stored at that location, and location of any DODIC H110 (M74 Incendiary Rocket) stored there. The TEA munitions were considered by these engineers to be the MOST HAZARDOUS munitions items in the US inventory, and while they could not "survey" all munitions at even the smallest DoD installation, they NEVER missed checking on the TEA munitions anywhere we travelled worldwide. I don't have the accident/incident history that led them to this conclusion, but I know they would have preferred that this item be retired from service ASAP. These items could not be stored--based on Hazard Class/Division--with any other munition. I do note that my most recent Hazard Classification Guide "yellow book" is Rev 15, 1 June 2012, and DODIC H110 is still listed.

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Taber10 For This Useful Post:

    HAZORD (8th April 2021), wichitaslumlord (9th April 2021)

  7. #16
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    19
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 9 Times in 6 Posts
    The military-today article is also by "blacktail", an alias of "Sparky"- more properly former 2nd Lt Mike Sparks, a well-known "reformer" type who hates the USMC and is pretty much an anti-source on military topics.

    He's the guy who gave us the M113 "Gavin" meme and thinks the entire US military should be M113 variants. If you've ever had the misfortune to stumble across the CombatReform website....that's him.


    Besides, per a DTIC paper, the XM191 used TPA, not napalm.


    And yeah, the Wired article is empty alarmist fearmongering

 

 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Back to top