Ed US Cluster Bombed Misrata?

[McHrozni]

Is it built into ships these days, or "turret-mounted" as you say, stuck on later as-needed? If so, that makes it a modification to the ship's cannon, which is what I meant. The cannon can then aim and shoot things it couldn't before. Otherwise, what's the point of fitting it?

What's the point of the operation? This isn't one of the major points in favor of the NATO intervention, nor is it in any way necessary.

You therefore have two scenarios:

1.
NATO forces secretly equipped a ship to fire mortar cluster munitions, sailed it to within 8000 m of Misrata area that was bombed (that's about 4.3 nautical miles). I don't know for sure which area was bombed, but rebel positions were always at least half that distance from the shoreline - we can safely say the ship was at most 6000 m from shore when it was firing. That's within visible range from anyone watching from the shore. The clandestine ship was also either unobserved by the NATO force (which is impossible), or a large number of officers were in on the attrocity. The purpose of the bombardment is unknown.

2.
Quackdaffis' forces obtained and fired some cluster munitions on the rebels.

Which one is more likely?

McHrozni

 

[sadhatter]

Paper this a.m. has the US complaining that NATO is running out of ammo after only 11 weeks of fighting, and the US has to make up theshortfall.
I guess by loaning it out...

This is why all wars should be fought with knives and throwing knives.

Less people dead, less money wasted, less civilian casualties and except for a few catastrophic failures, everyone can just keep their toys till the next time.

You literally could loan out your ammo and get it back. There is no alternative to war, but i we all just toned it down a notch.....

( in case it isn't obvious, this was a joke. Albeit one that in a semi utopia, could become reality. )

 

[I Ratant]

This is why all wars should be fought with knives and throwing knives.

Less people dead, less money wasted, less civilian casualties and except for a few catastrophic failures, everyone can just keep their toys till the next time.

You literally could loan out your ammo and get it back. There is no alternative to war, but i we all just toned it down a notch.....

( in case it isn't obvious, this was a joke. Albeit one that in a semi utopia, could become reality. )

.
Find an Amelekhite today. Saul's guys had only cutting instruments, and wiped out everyone! and their livestock.

 

[geni]

Sounds like just the kind of thing that could bounce around the secondary market is it's hardly odd that Gadaffi would have them.

It also makes tactical sense to use them. The Misrata rebels may be tougher than the Benghazi lot but they are still only mildly organised. Hitting them with cluster munitions is just the thing to make them lose their nerve.

Yes there are long term clearup issues but libya would be facing those anyway so even if Gadaffi's forces were concerned about that it seems unlikely it would stop them.

 

[sadhatter]

.
Find an Amelekhite today. Saul's guys had only cutting instruments, and wiped out everyone! and their livestock.

Well yes, but not nearly as quickly as they would have with guns.

And, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, besides a few catastrophic failures, Saul and the boys could go and slaughter another group with barely any extra cost or collateral damage. And, unless someone is rocking some ninja scroll level skill ( it was the bible, i won't discount this being a possibility, lol.) , even a missed thrown blade, isn't really going to do that much property damage.

If we are going to slaughter each other, we might as well do it in the least resource consuming way possible.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It's not as easy as just saying that the mortar turret is fitted to a ship. First. the mount would have to be designed, space would have to be found on the deck or an existing weapon removed. Modifications to the hull and decks would need to be designed. Fire control would have to be fitted, Ammunition handling would have to be designed. Some naval yard would have to rebuild the ship to carry the new weapon, quite a big job involving a large number of workers and designers. A factory somewhere would have to build the turret and mortar then the fire control system. This would all have to be tested before fitting. Then the ship would have to go for a work up on the new system to train the crews and show that it worked.
ALl this would generate quite a trail of paperwork and people who were 'in on it'

When the RN removed the 4.5 turret from some of the old Leander Class and replaced them with 4 bolt on Exocet 'bin' launchers it took 2 years to design the conversion and six month to carry it out on each ship. When other Leanders were converted to the 'Ikara' anti submarine missile system in place of the 4.5 turret it took even longer.

It would be easier to put some of the cluster bomblets in a casing and drop them from an aircraft.

 

[catsmate]

Would the rifling of the barrels be enough to destroy mortar rounds? It would certainly leave marks on the munitions, which are clearly not present.



I concur.

McHrozni

I suspect they'd break up in the barrel. If they survived firing the bomb casing would show the effects.
Firing a 120mm mortar bomb (typical muzzle velocity ~300m/s) from a 127mm naval rifle (typical muzzle velocity ~800m/s) using some sort of adapter really isn't practicable, the bomb simply isn't designed for that kind of impulse.
Mortar bombs are thin walled with larger capacity than similar calibre shells because they're low velocity projectiles with far less firing stress; they don't need the structural strength of high velocity shells.
Frankly, as you said, the entire idea is stupid; a huge conspiracy would be needed for negligible gain.
ETA: it's also be necessary to reprogramme the fuse in the mortar round to compensate for the different firing profile. That assumes that the fuse would function properly after such a firing.

 

[catsmate]

It's not as easy as just saying that the mortar turret is fitted to a ship. First. the mount would have to be designed, space would have to be found on the deck or an existing weapon removed. Modifications to the hull and decks would need to be designed. Fire control would have to be fitted, Ammunition handling would have to be designed. Some naval yard would have to rebuild the ship to carry the new weapon, quite a big job involving a large number of workers and designers. A factory somewhere would have to build the turret and mortar then the fire control system. This would all have to be tested before fitting. Then the ship would have to go for a work up on the new system to train the crews and show that it worked.
ALl this would generate quite a trail of paperwork and people who were 'in on it'

When the RN removed the 4.5 turret from some of the old Leander Class and replaced them with 4 bolt on Exocet 'bin' launchers it took 2 years to design the conversion and six month to carry it out on each ship. When other Leanders were converted to the 'Ikara' anti submarine missile system in place of the 4.5 turret it took even longer.

It would be easier to put some of the cluster bomblets in a casing and drop them from an aircraft.

Or send a few people ashore with a 120mm mortar and a few suitable rounds

 

[Caustic Logic]

Alright, let's look at it this way (btw, this is a great way to debunk many CTs).

So the US (or if you wanna take it a step further, the NATO, or if you wanna go nutty, the NWO) wants to cluster bomb Misrata. And pretend it was al-Qaddhafi, then why would they want to use their own ammo (wich only fits their™ ships with modifications in the first place)? If I'm the evil mastermind and I want to do something and claim it was someone else, I'll make sure to make it believable, i.e. use the enemies weapons (look at real black ops, the S.O.G.-operations in South-East Asia during the Vietnam War). In fact, that is the first thing, that comes to mind, and is done when you would actually perform such an operation.

Also, what ship would that have been? The whole crew would have had to be in on it. That's about 350 men. Also, the whole act of shooting these CBs isn't exactly clandestine. There's a high risk many people would notice.

I'm calling major BS on this one. If it had been a conspiracy, then it would have been done completely differently. If anyone now argues, that they™ planned that too, to make it look like that, then boy, they™ either have to much time on their hands, or you a questionable mental state.

That's not bad. HRI speculated using th wrong munition was just a mistake - they thought it was a category 4 export they could say Libya had, but were wrong. Such a mistake is troubling but not impossible.

The crew is also a problem, but I propose it's possible to keep them quiet. It might only be a small crew of select people who set this up. The rest might think they were shooting flares for rebel fighters to see by, or something.

Barring the whole ship explanation, I could see a smaller boat with a mortar on board pulling up close, or even a landing party.

Rebel provocateurs would also have to motive, but the weapon? Maybe.

I finally looked up images of AMOS and NEMO. It looks like its own turret unit, not attacked to existing cannons at all. If so, all talk of shells in cannons should cease. It would clearly take some setting up, but I don't see why that couldn't be done if that's what it's partly designed for.

Considering the method of use, we have one visible night firing of three shells at least, right over the neighborhood (el-Shawahda) where journalists were staying, so they could see it. It dented no one's will, killed no one, just made problems for the regime, even though we can't say they owned this weapon without a fair amount of speculation. Black market from whom? Who's got some MAT-120's missing? Were they trying to frame NATO? Why in the hell did they think thhat would work? They don't have the media access/control that NATO members have, and it could only backfire. Etc. .

 

[geni]

It's not as easy as just saying that the mortar turret is fitted to a ship. First. the mount would have to be designed, space would have to be found on the deck or an existing weapon removed. Modifications to the hull and decks would need to be designed. Fire control would have to be fitted, Ammunition handling would have to be designed. Some naval yard would have to rebuild the ship to carry the new weapon, quite a big job involving a large number of workers and designers. A factory somewhere would have to build the turret and mortar then the fire control system. This would all have to be tested before fitting. Then the ship would have to go for a work up on the new system to train the crews and show that it worked.
ALl this would generate quite a trail of paperwork and people who were 'in on it'

In a peacetime navy when you want a system to work well perhaps. In practice if your targets is the size of misrata and you are only interested in fireing a few rounds you could probably just spot weld the thing to the deck.

 

[geni]

Incidentally, while the Wikipedia entry for shell (projectile) does mention cluster shells, it doesn't cite any examples. Google searches for "naval gun cluster bomb" and "naval gun cluster munition" turned up no such example within the first page of results. It appears that the military-industrial complexes of the world, and their fanboys, find such things supremely uninteresting.

An example would be the:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M483A1

However marine deployment would be odd. Usually ships guns are looking to hit specific targets. If you want to impact a wider area you should have fitted a bigger gun.

 

[Greedo]

You really want to believe this, don't you?

That's not bad. HRI speculated using th wrong munition was just a mistake - they thought it was a category 4 export they could say Libya had, but were wrong. Such a mistake is troubling but not impossible.

Erm, okay. I don't think so. If a CTist can find it out, they™ will know it.

Also, why the whole boat thing? Why not send CIA operatives in range on land, and fire them off? Oops, now that fueled the CT, didn't it. (btw, I just pulled that out of my rectum in good CTist manner)

...even though we can't say they owned this weapon without a fair amount of speculation.

Now who's speculating?

...It might only be a small crew of select people who set this up. The rest might think they were shooting flares for rebel fighters to see by, or something.

You need a certain amount of people to run such a ship, the pros will know exactly. I doubt you could just set up a "small crew of select people". 350 men are usually on board. So even if you took all the unnecessary sailors off board, I presume it would still be a lot of people.

The crew is also a problem, but I propose it's possible to keep them quiet...

I see you do. How exactly?
You see, it doesn't quite work like in the movies.

...Why in the hell did they think thhat would work?

If what you speculate was the case, it did work, didn't it?

 

[Caustic Logic]

Erm, okay. I don't think so. If a CTist can find it out, they™ will know it.

The TM indicates you don't even believe "they" exist, so clearly you're just making things up.

Also, why the whole boat thing? Why not send CIA operatives in range on land, and fire them off? Oops, now that fueled the CT, didn't it. (btw, I just pulled that out of my rectum in good CTist manner)

You can't get arrested by gov't troops off shore, for one thing. But either option is possible.

Now who's speculating?

we all are.

You need a certain amount of people to run such a ship, the pros will know exactly. I doubt you could just set up a "small crew of select people". 350 men are usually on board. So even if you took all the unnecessary sailors off board, I presume it would still be a lot of people.

Sorry, by crew I meant team of people that sets up the gun, not the crew of the whole ship.

I see you do. How exactly?
You see, it doesn't quite work like in the movies.

Clandestine missions to do sneaky stuff would have to have a confidentiality agreement for all involved. National Security, right? Would it hold forever? Maybe not, but it's only been six weeks.

If what you speculate was the case, it did work, didn't it?

No, I'm speculating the opposite, and if that happened, it clearly worked. You're proof, the media reports stating as fact that Gaddafi troops fired these things are better proof yet.

 

[Andy_Ross]

In a peacetime navy when you want a system to work well perhaps. In practice if your targets is the size of misrata and you are only interested in fireing a few rounds you could probably just spot weld the thing to the deck.

Spot weld it to the deck? are you serious? Where on the deck? How would you aorganise power, fire control and ammunition handling?
All that would have to be designed. Turrets are only the visible part of the weapons system. One of those gun turrets has hoists, handling rooms and magazines that reach to the bottom of the hull.
Even if it was self contained it would need to be designed and fitted etc.

Why not just use a conventional artillery mortar set up on the flight deck? 3 man crew and packs down to man portable pieces, all you have to worry about then is keeping the rest of the crew out of the way while you fire it.

At the end of the day why go to such trouble for such a small outcome?

 

[Greedo]

The TM indicates you don't even believe "they" exist, so clearly you're just making things up.

I don't quite understand what your point is here. I was bringing logic to the CT. I guess I should have written would (if they existed) instead of will but I had just woken up, was tired, so was my english. I hope that didn't cause any misunderstanding. Still, I don't see how that is "making things up"

we all are.

misunderstood/misread ya there, again, one shouldn't use the internet when tired.

Sorry, by crew I meant team of people that sets up the gun, not the crew of the whole ship.

Yeah but if they used a ship, then surely the whole crew would notice such a change. You see, soldiers do talk. They're not mindless robots that will follow any order. If one would plan such a "mission", then one surely wouldn't risk so many witnesses, and in the end, get such little effect. Also, this just came to mind: If the US really did this, and they did it to stamp al-G. as evil/crazy/ruthless, then why didn't this attack produce any casualties? I mean, thank goodness it didn't, but that is, at least in my opinion, one of those things you generally want to have for such a "false flag" thing. If not real ones, then just show random photos of dead children, or just make it up! Especially since this will be forgotten by the general public quite quickly because there were no casualties. The German media reported this for about two days, I'd say. If this is such a vast conspiracy as you / the site in the OP claim(s), then I'd say it was planned rather poorly. And executed in the same manner.

Clandestine missions to do sneaky stuff would have to have a confidentiality agreement for all involved. National Security, right? Would it hold forever? Maybe not, but it's only been six weeks.

ftfy. In six weeks, someone would have spilled the beans. Type in "Misrata Cluster" into the YouTube search bar. One of the first videos is one that defends just this CT position. And there are more on the same page. You can hardly not find information about the Misrata cluster bombing without stumbling upon a CT site that holds that position, and you know, they do so in bold letters with caps on, in red.

And I presume the CTists spam the comment sections of the reporting news sites big time. In fact I'm sure of it.

 

[Travis]

Remind me what the motive behind this is again?

 

[catsmate]

Remind me what the motive behind this is again?

The USA is evil, therefore.........................

 

[Greedo]

Remind me what the motive behind this is again?

They™ did it to make al-G. look evul! You sheeples are so blinds!



Why no casualties? Why no epic media coverage? I just talked to my mother about this, and when I mentioned Misrata cluster bombing, she didn't even remember. Kinda defeats the purpose of a propaganda operation...

I'd like to see an analysis of the "forged" photos. As for the scratch being "under" the text - I'd say the scratch happened during production.

And even if the photos would show to be forged, I think it's much more likely that either some CTist did it to "open the sheeple's eyes" or some other anti-american.

Consider this: Why photoshop the shells at all? Why mark the shells with a text that would give the exact type, so everyone can find out that the type was only sold to NATO? I find this ridiculous.

 

[Hans]

They™ did it to make al-G. look evul! You sheeples are so blinds!



Why no casualties? Why no epic media coverage? I just talked to my mother about this, and when I mentioned Misrata cluster bombing, she didn't even remember. Kinda defeats the purpose of a propaganda operation...

I'd like to see an analysis of the "forged" photos. As for the scratch being "under" the text - I'd say the scratch happened during production.

And even if the photos would show to be forged, I think it's much more likely that either some CTist did it to "open the sheeple's eyes" or some other anti-american.

Consider this: Why photoshop the shells at all? Why mark the shells with a text that would give the exact type, so everyone can find out that the type was only sold to NATO? I find this ridiculous.

Them thar Amerikans ares a particularly sneaky people ya know

 

[Kid Eager]

So, here we have a conspiracy theory based upon a forged photo. Kind of appropriate...

It was actually invisible helicopters lobbing the mortar rounds from barrels lashed to the fuselage. This fits with the evidence available, yet you're all going for the disinfo of them being fired from warships. Sheeple...