Some basic info: http://t.co/xPhAYONy
With assistance of a few other BOCN members. Feedback, as always, is welcome.
With assistance of a few other BOCN members. Feedback, as always, is welcome.
British Ordnance Collectors Network
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
ZAB-2.5 submunitions in Syria
- Thread starter RogueAdventurer
- Start date
The items described and translations ID these as ZAB 2.5's but the ZAB 2.5 I have been familiar with looksl\nothing line these. See attached photo of what I know as a ZAB 2.5 So questions is are we talking about the same muntion are is the one in the article a new version? The lettering on the cluster does clearly Id it as a ZAB 2.5
I also included a photo that was reported to me to be a burned out or crusted over incendiary sub any ideas here?
I also included a photo that was reported to me to be a burned out or crusted over incendiary sub any ideas here?
Last edited:
Mike it is a new(ish) version. They first started showing up in the Parade books in 1996 as available for export, so probably developed in the late 1980s?
The earliest mentioning of these was in 1956, so they were developed somewhat before I think.
EOD, either we are mis-communicating or I've been missing something. The basic ZAB was a WWII piece and has evolved since. I have never seen anything on the version referred to by Rogueadventurer prior to the 1990s however. If you have something earlier please share.
Jeff
I first recall the ZAB 2.5 in the early 80's when we started getting al the new training aids, this one was not made of plastic but steel and looked just like the ins in my photos. In fact I asked around and there is still a EODP 60T 35- 2-34 which is unclassifeid but i still can't get a copy, as I have been told that pub also covers the ZAB as we have seen it
These ones that have shown up on RogueAdventure are new to me, but he does post a pretty god reference for them. I think some where along the line the actual designation between the 2 have got messed up.
don't think the EODP wouold be wrong???
I first recall the ZAB 2.5 in the early 80's when we started getting al the new training aids, this one was not made of plastic but steel and looked just like the ins in my photos. In fact I asked around and there is still a EODP 60T 35- 2-34 which is unclassifeid but i still can't get a copy, as I have been told that pub also covers the ZAB as we have seen it
These ones that have shown up on RogueAdventure are new to me, but he does post a pretty god reference for them. I think some where along the line the actual designation between the 2 have got messed up.
don't think the EODP wouold be wrong???
Mike,
haven't tried to pull a TM on the new version, don't think I have it. As mentioned there have been a great many versions over the years as it has evolved, but all were (as far as I know) under the general heading of ZAB. There is a great Russian book on bombs (through 1945) that shows a dozen or more, just around WWII. I have seen sheet metal bodies, magnesium bodies, etc. Seems that this one had a designation after the ZAB, but I have not had time to look. I'll try and pull up more later, got to get on the road for now.
haven't tried to pull a TM on the new version, don't think I have it. As mentioned there have been a great many versions over the years as it has evolved, but all were (as far as I know) under the general heading of ZAB. There is a great Russian book on bombs (through 1945) that shows a dozen or more, just around WWII. I have seen sheet metal bodies, magnesium bodies, etc. Seems that this one had a designation after the ZAB, but I have not had time to look. I'll try and pull up more later, got to get on the road for now.
We are still on the same subject and are talking about exactly the same items. The diagrams in Rogue Adventurer's blog are from 1956. The designation of these submunituions is in fact "ZAB-2.5".
This confusion is why I published that piece. In particular, ZAB-2.5 and ZAB-2.5M subs are very regularly confused. Also seems to be a point of confusion that the RBK-250 ZAB-2.5 (and several other clusters) contain subs with a variety of compositions.
EOD has posted the ones that are often mistaken (particularly ZAB-2.5T).
Sent from my GT-I9100T using Tapatalk 2
EOD has posted the ones that are often mistaken (particularly ZAB-2.5T).
Sent from my GT-I9100T using Tapatalk 2
That would be the 2.5M
Mike,
we are only seeing small slices of the development, so it is hard to say. The Russian bomb book has a pretty good listing, but it only runs to 1945, and is while it is the best book on the subject I've seen it is not necessarily a definitive reference. In regard to what work was done after 1945 - who knows?
TM 60 series calls the heavy bodied welded version just ZAB 2.5. Looking at the Russian book I'd say ZAB 2.5T. Don't know if its a mistake in the 60 series or something post 1945. Like the newer one in question - would ZAB 2.5 being going back in designation series, or is there just no series? So much to learn -
Here are a couple of mine.
we are only seeing small slices of the development, so it is hard to say. The Russian bomb book has a pretty good listing, but it only runs to 1945, and is while it is the best book on the subject I've seen it is not necessarily a definitive reference. In regard to what work was done after 1945 - who knows?
TM 60 series calls the heavy bodied welded version just ZAB 2.5. Looking at the Russian book I'd say ZAB 2.5T. Don't know if its a mistake in the 60 series or something post 1945. Like the newer one in question - would ZAB 2.5 being going back in designation series, or is there just no series? So much to learn -
Here are a couple of mine.
thanks Jeff - you are so right about just seeing small slices. becasue of a couple other issues with some EODPs I don't want to rely onthem as factual information. Mainly it is ID stuff, but becasue I don't have access to a nice classified set I can't double check them.