Hubbry Logo
Thermobaric weaponThermobaric weaponMain
Open search
Thermobaric weapon
Community hub
Thermobaric weapon
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Thermobaric weapon
Thermobaric weapon
Thermobaric weapon
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Blast from a US Navy fuel–air explosive used against a decommissioned ship, USS McNulty, 1972

A thermobaric weapon, also called an aerosol bomb, or erroneously a vacuum bomb,[1] is a type of explosive munition that works by dispersing an aerosol cloud of gas, liquid or powdered explosive.[2][3] This allows the chemical combustion to proceed using atmospheric oxygen, so that the weapon does not need to include an oxidizer.

The fuel is usually a single compound, rather than a mixture of multiple substances.[4] Many types of thermobaric weapons can be fitted to hand-held launchers,[5][6] and can also be launched from airplanes.

Terminology

[edit]

The term thermobaric is derived from the Greek words for 'heat' and 'pressure': thermobarikos (θερμοβαρικός), from thermos (θερμός) 'hot' + baros (βάρος) 'weight, pressure' + suffix -ikos (-ικός) '-ic'.

Other terms used for the family of weapons are high-impulse thermobaric weapons, heat and pressure weapons, vacuum bombs, and fuel-air explosives (FAE).

Mechanism

[edit]
  • Demonstration of an open-air dust explosion
  • Experimental setup
    Experimental setup
  • Finely-ground flour is dispersed
    Finely-ground flour is dispersed
  • Cloud of flour is ignited
    Cloud of flour is ignited
  • Fireball spreads rapidly
    Fireball spreads rapidly
  • Intense radiant heat has nothing to ignite here
    Intense radiant heat has nothing to ignite here
  • Fireball and superheated gases rise
    Fireball and superheated gases rise
  • Aftermath of explosion, with unburned flour on the ground
    Aftermath of explosion, with unburned flour on the ground

Most conventional explosives consist of a fuel–oxidiser premix, but thermobaric weapons consist only of fuel and as a result are significantly more energetic than conventional explosives of equal weight.[7] Their reliance on atmospheric oxygen makes them unsuitable for use under water, at high altitude, and in adverse weather. They are, however, considerably more effective when used in enclosed spaces such as tunnels, buildings, and non-hermetically sealed field fortifications (foxholes, bunkers).[8][9]

The initial explosive charge detonates as it hits its target, opening the container and dispersing the fuel mixture as a cloud.[10] The typical blast wave of a thermobaric weapon lasts significantly longer than that of a conventional explosive.

In contrast to an explosive that uses oxidation in a confined region to produce a blast front emanating from a single source, a thermobaric flame front accelerates to a large volume, which produces pressure fronts within the mixture of fuel and oxidant and then also in the surrounding air.[11]

Thermobaric explosives apply the principles underlying accidental unconfined vapor cloud explosions, which include those from dispersions of flammable dusts and droplets.[12] Such dust explosions happened most often in flour mills and their storage containers, grain bins (corn silos etc.), and earlier in coal mines, prior to the 20th century. Accidental unconfined vapor cloud explosions now happen most often in partially or completely empty oil tankers, refinery tanks, and vessels, such as the Buncefield fire in the United Kingdom in 2005, where the blast wave woke people 150 kilometres (93 mi) from its centre.[13]

A typical weapon consists of a container packed with a fuel substance, the centre of which has a small conventional-explosive "scatter charge". Fuels are chosen on the basis of the exothermicity of their oxidation, ranging from powdered metals, such as aluminium or magnesium, to organic materials, possibly with a self-contained partial oxidant.[14] The most recent development involves the use of nanofuels.[15][16]

A thermobaric bomb's effective yield depends on a combination of a number of factors such as how well the fuel is dispersed, how rapidly it mixes with the surrounding atmosphere and the initiation of the igniter and its position relative to the container of fuel. In some designs, strong munitions cases allow the blast pressure to be contained long enough for the fuel to be heated well above its autoignition temperature so that once the container bursts, the superheated fuel autoignites progressively as it comes into contact with atmospheric oxygen.[17] Conventional upper and lower limits of flammability apply to such weapons. Close in, blast from the dispersal charge, compressing and heating the surrounding atmosphere, has some influence on the lower limit. The upper limit has been demonstrated to influence the ignition of fogs above pools of oil strongly.[18] That weakness may be eliminated by designs in which the fuel is preheated well above its ignition temperature so that its cooling during its dispersion still results in a minimal ignition delay on mixing. The continual combustion of the outer layer of fuel molecules, as they come into contact with the air, generates added heat which maintains the temperature of the interior of the fireball, and thus sustains the detonation.[19]

In confinement, a series of reflective shock waves is generated,[20][21] which maintain the fireball and can extend its duration to between 10 and 50 ms as exothermic recombination reactions occur.[22] Further damage can result as the gases cool and pressure drops sharply, leading to a partial vacuum. This rarefaction effect has given rise to the misnomer "vacuum bomb". Piston-type afterburning[clarification needed] is also believed to occur in such structures, as flame-fronts accelerate through it.[23]

Fuel–air explosive

[edit]

A fuel–air explosive (FAE) device consists of a container of fuel and two separate explosive charges. After the munition is dropped or fired, the first explosive charge bursts open the container at a predetermined height and disperses the fuel in a cloud that mixes with atmospheric oxygen (the size of the cloud varies with the size of the munition). The cloud of fuel flows around objects and into structures. The second charge then detonates the cloud and creates a massive blast wave. The blast wave can destroy reinforced buildings, equipment, and kill or injure people. The blast wave's antipersonnel effect is magnified in confined spaces, such as foxholes, tunnels, bunkers and caves.

Effects

[edit]

Conventional countermeasures such as barriers (sandbags) and personnel armour are not effective against thermobaric weapons.[24] A Human Rights Watch report of 1 February 2000[25] quotes a study made by the US Defense Intelligence Agency:

The [blast] kill mechanism against living targets is unique—and unpleasant. ... What kills is the pressure wave, and more importantly, the subsequent rarefaction [vacuum], which ruptures the lungs. ... If the fuel deflagrates but does not detonate, victims will be severely burned and will probably also inhale the burning fuel. Since the most common FAE fuels, ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, are highly toxic, undetonated FAE should prove as lethal to personnel caught within the cloud as with most chemical agents.

According to a US Central Intelligence Agency study,[25]

the effect of an FAE explosion within confined spaces is immense. Those near the ignition point are obliterated. Those at the fringe are likely to suffer many internal, invisible injuries, including burst eardrums and crushed inner ear organs, severe concussions, ruptured lungs and internal organs, and possibly blindness.

Another Defense Intelligence Agency document speculates that, because the "shock and pressure waves cause minimal damage to brain tissue ... it is possible that victims of FAEs are not rendered unconscious by the blast, but instead suffer for several seconds or minutes while they suffocate".[26]

Development

[edit]

German

[edit]

The first attempts occurred during the First World War when incendiary shells (in German 'Brandgranate') used a slow but intense burning material, such as tar impregnated tissue and gunpowder dust. These shells burned for approximately 2 minutes after the shell exploded and spread the burning elements in every direction.[27] In World War II, the German Wehrmacht attempted to develop a thermobaric weapon,[28] under the direction of the Austrian physicist Mario Zippermayr.[29]

The weapon was claimed by a weapons specialist (K.L. Bergmann) to have been tested on the Eastern front under the code-name "Taifun B" and was ready for deployment during the Normandy invasion in June, 1944. Apparently, canisters of a charcoal, aluminium and aviation fuel would have been launched, followed with a secondary launch of incendiary rockets. It was destroyed by a Western artillery barrage minutes before being fired just before Operation Cobra.[30]

United States

[edit]
A BLU-72/B bomb on a USAF A-1E taking off from Nakhon Phanom in Thailand, in September 1968

FAEs were developed by the United States for use in the Vietnam War.[31] The CBU-55 FAE fuel-air cluster bomb was mostly developed by the US Naval Weapons Center at China Lake, California.[32]

Current American FAE munitions include the following:

  • BLU-73 FAE I
  • BLU-95 500 lb (230 kg) (FAE-II)
  • BLU-96 2,000 lb (910 kg) (FAE-II)
  • CBU-72 FAE I
  • AGM-114 Hellfire missile (AGM-114N MAC)
  • XM1060 grenade
  • SMAW-NE round for rocket launcher

The XM1060 40-mm grenade is a small-arms thermobaric device, which was fielded by US forces in Afghanistan in 2002, and proved to be popular against targets in enclosed spaces, such as caves.[33] Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the US Marine Corps has introduced a thermobaric "Novel Explosive" (SMAW-NE) round for the Mk 153 SMAW rocket launcher. One team of Marines reported that they had destroyed a large one-story masonry type building with one round from 100 yards (91 m).[34] The AGM-114N Hellfire II,[35] uses a Metal Augmented Charge (MAC) warhead, which contains a thermobaric explosive fill that uses aluminium powder coated or mixed with PTFE layered between the charge casing and a PBXN-112 explosive mixture. When the PBXN-112 detonates, the aluminium mixture is dispersed and rapidly burns. The result is a sustained high pressure that is extremely effective against people and structures.[36]

Soviet, later Russian

[edit]
A Soviet RPO-A Shmel (Bumblebee) rocket and launcher

Following FAEs developed by the United States for use in the Vietnam War,[31] Soviet Union scientists quickly developed their own FAE weapons. Since Afghanistan, research and development has continued, and Russian forces now field a wide array of third-generation FAE warheads,[37] such as the RPO-A.[38][39] The Russian armed forces have developed thermobaric ammunition variants for several of their weapons, such as the TBG-7V thermobaric grenade with a lethality radius of 10 m (33 ft), which can be launched from a rocket propelled grenade (RPG) RPG-7. The GM-94 is a 43 mm (1.7 in) pump-action grenade launcher designed mainly to fire thermobaric grenades for close combat. The grenade weighed 250 g (8.8 oz) and contained 160 g (5.6 oz) of explosive, its lethality radius is 3 m (9.8 ft), but due to the deliberate "fragmentation-free" design of the grenade, a distance of 4 m (13 ft) is considered safe.[40]

The RPO-A and upgraded RPO-M are infantry-portable rocket propelled grenades designed to fire thermobaric rockets. The RPO-M, for instance, has a thermobaric warhead with a TNT equivalence of 5.5 kg (12 lb) and destructive capabilities similar to a 152 mm (6 in) high-explosive fragmentation artillery shell.[41][42] The RShG-1 and the RShG-2 are thermobaric variants of the RPG-27 and RPG-26 respectively. The RShG-1 is the more powerful variant, with its warhead having a 10-metre (33 ft) lethality radius and producing about the same effect as 6 kg (13 lb) of TNT.[43] The RMG is a further derivative of the RPG-26 that uses a tandem-charge warhead, with the precursor high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) warhead blasting an opening for the main thermobaric charge to enter and detonate inside.[44] The RMG's precursor HEAT warhead can penetrate 300 mm of reinforced concrete or over 100 mm of rolled homogeneous armour, thus allowing the 105 mm (4.1 in)-diameter thermobaric warhead to detonate inside.[45]

Other examples include the semi-automatic command to line of sight (SACLOS) or millimeter-wave active radar homing guided thermobaric variants of the 9M123 Khrizantema, the 9M133F-1 thermobaric warhead variant of the 9M133 Kornet, and the 9M131F thermobaric warhead variant of the 9K115-2 Metis-M, all of which are anti-tank missiles. The Kornet has since been upgraded to the Kornet-EM, and its thermobaric variant has a maximum range of 10 km (6 mi) and has a TNT equivalence of 7 kg (15 lb).[46] The 300 mm (12 in) 9M55S thermobaric cluster warhead rocket was built to be fired from the BM-30 Smerch MLRS. A dedicated carrier of thermobaric weapons is the purpose-built TOS-1, a 24-tube MLRS designed to fire 220 mm (8.7 in) thermobaric rockets. A full salvo from the TOS-1 will cover a rectangle 200 by 400 m (220 by 440 yd).[47] The Iskander-M theatre ballistic missile can also carry a 700 kg (1,540 lb) thermobaric warhead.[48]

Many Russian Air Force munitions have thermobaric variants. The 80 mm (3.1 in) S-8 rocket has the S-8DM and S-8DF thermobaric variants. The S-8's 122 mm (4.8 in) brother, the S-13, has the S-13D and S-13DF thermobaric variants. The S-13DF's warhead weighs only 32 kg (71 lb), but its power is equivalent to 40 kg (88 lb) of TNT. The KAB-500-OD variant of the KAB-500KR has a 250 kg (550 lb) thermobaric warhead. The ODAB-500PM and ODAB-500PMV[49] unguided bombs carry a 190 kg (420 lb) fuel–air explosive each. ODAB-1500 is a larger version of the bomb.[50] The KAB-1500S GLONASS/GPS guided 1,500 kg (3,300 lb) bomb also has a thermobaric variant. Its fireball will cover a 150 m (490 ft) radius and its lethal zone is a 500 m (1,600 ft) radius.[51] The 9M120 Ataka-V and the 9K114 Shturm ATGMs both have thermobaric variants.

In September 2007, Russia exploded the largest thermobaric weapon ever made, and claimed that its yield was equivalent to that of a nuclear weapon.[52][53] Russia named this particular ordnance the "Father of All Bombs" in response to the American-developed Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) bomb, which has the backronym "Mother of All Bombs" and once held the title of the most powerful non-nuclear weapon in history.[54]

Iraq

[edit]

Iraq was alleged to possess the technology as early as 1990.[55]

Israel

[edit]

Israel was alleged to possess thermobaric technology as early as 1990, according to Pentagon sources.[55]

Spain

[edit]

In 1983, a program of military research was launched with collaboration between the Spanish Ministry of Defence (Directorate General of Armament and Material, DGAM) and Explosivos Alaveses (EXPAL) which was a subsidiary of Unión Explosivos Río Tinto (ERT). The goal of the programme was to develop a thermobaric bomb, the BEAC (Bomba Explosiva de Aire-Combustible).[55] A prototype was tested successfully in a foreign location out of safety and confidentiality concerns.[56] The Spanish Air and Space Force has an undetermined number of BEACs in its inventory.[57]

China

[edit]

In 1996, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) began development of the PF-97, a portable thermobaric rocket launcher, based on the Soviet RPO-A Shmel. Introduced in 2000 it is reported to weigh 3.5 kg and contains 2.1 kg of thermobaric filler. An improved version called the PF-97A was introduced in 2008.[58]

China is reported to have other thermobaric weapons, including bombs, grenades and rockets.[59] Research continues on thermobaric weapons capable of reaching 2,500 degrees.[60][dubious – discuss][clarification needed]

Brazil

[edit]

In 2004, under the request of the Estado Maior da Aeronáutica (Military Staff of Aeronautics) and the Diretoria de Material Aeronáutico e Bélico (Board of Aeronautical and Military Equipment) the Instituto de Aeronautica e Espaço (Institute of Aeronautics and Space) started developing a thermobaric bomb called Trocano .

Trocano is a thermobaric weapon similar in design to the United States' MOAB weapon or Russia's FOAB. Like the US weapon, the Trocano was designed to be pallet-loaded into a C-130 Hercules aircraft, and deployed using a parachute to drag it from the C-130's cargo bay and separate the bomb from its pallet.[61]

United Kingdom

[edit]

In 2009, the British Ministry of Defence (MoD) acknowledged that Army Air Corps (AAC) AgustaWestland Apaches had used AGM-114 Hellfire missiles purchased from the United States against Taliban forces in Afghanistan. The MoD stated that 20 missiles, described as "blast fragmentation warheads", were used in 2008 and a further 20 in 2009. MoD officials told Guardian journalist Richard Norton-Taylor that the missiles were "particularly designed to take down structures and kill everyone in the buildings", as AAC AgustaWestland Apaches were previously equipped with weapon systems deemed ineffective to combat the Taliban. The MoD also stated that "British pilots' rules of engagement were strict and everything a pilot sees from the cockpit is recorded."[62]

In 2018, the MoD accidentally divulged the details of General Atomics MQ-9 Reapers utilised by the Royal Air Force (RAF) during the Syrian civil war, which revealed that the drones were equipped with AGM-114 Hellfire missiles. The MoD had sent a report to a British publication, Drone Wars, in response to a freedom of information request.[63] In the report, it was stated that AGM-114N Hellfire missiles which contained a thermobaric warhead were used by RAF attack drones in Syria.[64][65]

India

[edit]

Based on the high-explosive squash head (HESH) round, a 120 mm thermobaric round was developed in the 2010s by the Indian Ministry of Defence. This HESH round packs thermobaric explosives into the tank shells to increase the effectiveness against enemy bunkers and light armoured vehicles.[66]

The design and the development of the round was taken up by Armament Research and Development Establishment (ARDE). The rounds were designed for the Arjun MBT. The TB rounds contains fuel rich explosive composition called thermobaric explosive. As the name implies, the shells, when they hit a target, produce blast overpressure and heat energy for hundreds of milliseconds. The overpressure and heat causes damage to enemy fortified structures like bunkers and buildings and for soft targets like enemy personnel and light armoured vehicles.[67][68]

Serbia

[edit]

The company Balkan Novoteh, formed in 2011, provides the Thermobaric hand grenade TG-1 to the market.[69]

Military Technical Institute in Belgrade has developed a technology for producing cast-cured thermobaric PBX explosives. Since recently, the Factory of Explosives and Pyrotechnics TRAYAL Corporation has been producing cast-cured thermobaric PBX formulations.[70]

Ukraine

[edit]

In 2017 Ukroboronprom's Scientific Research Institute for Chemical Products in conjunction with Artem State Enterprise [uk] (aka Artem Holding Company) announced to the market its new product, the RGT-27S [uk]. These can be combined with the RPV-16 [uk] grenade launcher, a demonstration of which was witnessed by Oleksandr Turchynov. The grenades, of approximately 600 grams, "create a two second fire cloud with a volume of not less than 13 m³, inside of which the temperature reaches 2,500 degrees[clarification needed]. This temperature allows not only for the destruction of the enemy, but are also able to disable lightly armored vehicles."[71][72] The firm showed them at the Azerbaijan International Defense Exhibition in 2018.[73]

In 2024, Ukraine started using drones rigged with thermobaric explosives to strike Russian positions in the Russo-Ukrainian War.[74]

History

[edit]

Attempted prohibitions

[edit]

Mexico, Switzerland and Sweden presented in 1980 a joint motion to the United Nations to prohibit the use of thermobaric weapons, to no avail.[55]

United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research categorises these weapons as "enhanced blast weapons" and there was pressure to regulate these around 2010, again to no avail.[75]

Military use

[edit]

United States

[edit]
US Navy BLU-118B being prepared for shipping to Afghanistan, 5 March 2002

FAEs such as first-generation CBU-55 fuel–air weapons saw extensive use in the Vietnam War.[32] A second generation of FAE weapons were based on those, and were used by the United States in Iraq during Operation Desert Storm.[76] A total of 254 CBU-72s were dropped by the United States Marine Corps, mostly from A-6Es. They were targeted against mine fields and personnel in foxholes, but were more useful as a psychological weapon.

The US military used thermobaric weapons in Afghanistan. On 3 March 2002, a single 2,000 lb (910 kg) laser guided thermobaric bomb was used by the United States Air Force against cave complexes in which Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters had taken refuge in the Gardez region of Afghanistan.[77][78] The SMAW-NE was used by the US Marines during the First Battle of Fallujah and the Second Battle of Fallujah. The AGM-114N Hellfire II was first used by US forces in 2003 in Iraq.[79]

Soviet Union

[edit]

FAEs were reportedly used against China in the 1969 Sino-Soviet border conflict.[80][28]

The TOS-1 system was test fired in Panjshir Valley during the Soviet–Afghan War in the late 1980s.[81] MiG-27 attack aircraft of the 134th APIB used ODAB-500S/P fuel–air bombs against Mujahideen forces in Afghanistan, but they were found to be unreliable and dangerous to ground crew.[82]

Russia

[edit]
TOS-1A Solntsepyok is a Russian multiple launch rocket system capable of using thermobaric warheads.

Russian military forces reportedly used ground-delivered thermobaric weapons during the Battle for Grozny (first and second Chechen Wars) to attack dug-in Chechen fighters. The use of TOS-1 heavy MLRS and "RPO-A Shmel" shoulder-fired rocket system during the Chechen Wars is reported to have occurred.[83] Russia used the RPO-A Shmel in the First Battle of Grozny, whereupon it was designated as a very useful round.[39]

It was thought that, during the September 2004 Beslan school hostage crisis, a multitude of handheld thermobaric weapons were used by the Russian Armed Forces in their efforts to retake the school. The RPO-A and either the TGB-7V thermobaric rocket from the RPG-7 or rockets from either the RShG-1 or the RShG-2 is claimed to have been used by the Spetsnaz during the initial storming of the school.[84][85][86] At least three and as many as nine RPO-A casings were later found at the positions of the Spetsnaz.[87][88] In July 2005 the Russian government admitted to the use of the RPO-A during the crisis.[89]

During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, CNN reported that Russian forces were moving thermobaric weapons into Ukraine.[90][91] On 28 February 2022, Ukraine's ambassador to the United States accused Russia of deploying a thermobaric bomb.[92][93] Russia has claimed to have used the weapon in March 2024 against Ukrainian soldiers in an unspecified location (denied by Ukraine),[94] and during the August 2024 Ukrainian incursion into Kursk Oblast.[95]

United Kingdom

[edit]

During the War in Afghanistan, British forces, including the Army Air Corps and Royal Air Force, used thermobaric AGM-114N Hellfire missiles against the Taliban.[62] In the Syrian civil war, British military drones used AGM-114N Hellfire missiles; in the first three months of 2018, British drones fired 92 Hellfire missiles in Syria.[96]

Israel

[edit]

A report by Human Rights Watch claimed Israel has used thermobaric weaponry in the past including the 2008–2009 conflict in Gaza. Moreover, Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor states that Israel appears to be using thermobaric weaponry in the current Gaza war. Both organizations claim that the use of this weaponry in densely populated neighborhoods violates international humanitarian law due to its damaging affects on civilians and civilian structures.[97][98] The Eurasian Times reported that an Israeli AH-64D Apache attack helicopter was photographed with a 'mystery' warhead with a red band that was speculated to be a thermobaric warhead capable of destroying Hamas tunnels and multi-story buildings.[99][98]

Syria

[edit]

Reports by the rebel fighters of the Free Syrian Army claim the Syrian Air Force used such weapons against residential area targets occupied by the rebel fighters, such as during the Battle of Aleppo[100] and in Kafar Batna.[101] Others contend that in 2012 the Syrian government used an ODAB-500PM [ru] bomb in Azaz.[102] A United Nations panel of human rights investigators reported that the Syrian government had used thermobaric bombs against the rebellious town of Al-Qusayr in March 2013.[103]

The Russia and Syrian governments have used thermobaric bombs and other thermobaric munitions during the Syrian civil war against insurgents and insurgent-held civilian areas.[104][102][105]

Ukraine

[edit]

Mikhail Tolstykh, a top rank pro-Russian officer in the war in Donbas was killed on 8 February 2017 at his office in Donetsk by an RPO-A rocket fired by members of the Security Service of Ukraine.[106][107] In March 2023 soldiers from the 59th Motorised Brigade of Ukraine showed off the destruction of a derelict Russian infantry fighting vehicle by a thermobaric RGT-27S2 hand grenade delivered by Mavic 3 drone.[108]

Non-state actor use

[edit]

Thermobaric and fuel–air explosives have been used in guerrilla warfare since the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing in Lebanon, which used a gas-enhanced explosive mechanism that was probably propane, butane, or acetylene.[109] The explosive used by the bombers in the US 1993 World Trade Center bombing incorporated the FAE principle by using three tanks of bottled hydrogen gas to enhance the blast.[110][111]

Jemaah Islamiyah bombers used a shock-dispersed solid fuel charge,[112] based on the thermobaric principle,[113] to attack the Sari nightclub during the 2002 Bali bombings in Indonesia.[114]

International law

[edit]

International law does not prohibit the use of thermobaric munitions, fuel-air explosive devices, or vacuum bombs against military targets.[115][28] As of March 2024, all past attempts to regulate or restrict thermobaric weapons have failed.[116][28]

According to some scholars [who?], thermobaric weapons are not intrinsically indiscriminate by nature, as they are often engineered for precision targeting capabilities [citation needed]. This precision aspect serves to provide humanitarian advantages by potentially minimizing collateral damage [citation needed] and also lessens the amount of munitions needed to effectively engage with the chosen military goals. Nonetheless, authors holding this view recommend that the use of thermobaric weapons in populated areas should be minimised due to their wide-area impact and multiple harm mechanisms.[117]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Thermobaric weapon

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

Thermobaric weapons, also designated as fuel-air explosives or enhanced blast munitions, operate by dispersing an cloud of fuel particles—such as or volatile metal powders—into the target area, followed by ignition that consumes surrounding atmospheric oxygen to sustain a yielding temperatures of 2,500–3,000°C and s reaching 73 kg/cm² with a prolonged pressure wave. This mechanism generates a blast effect markedly more devastating in confined environments like bunkers, tunnels, or urban structures compared to conventional high explosives, as the fireball expands to fill voids and the sustained inflicts compounded trauma through primary blast injuries including pulmonary rupture, air embolisms, and burns. Originating from experimental incendiary devices like German Nebelwerfer rockets employing propane gas during , thermobaric technology advanced through U.S. applications of large-yield fuel-air bombs such as the in for minefield clearance and obstacle breaching, while the pioneered man-portable variants used extensively in and for assaulting fortified positions. Both the and continue development, with American systems incorporating thermobaric warheads in missiles like the and shoulder-launched munitions such as the M72A9 LAW for enhanced penetration against hardened targets, and Russian platforms including the TOS-1A multiple rocket launcher and rocket, the latter equivalent in building demolition to 122 mm rounds. In modern conflicts, including Russia's operations in , thermobaric systems like the TOS-1A have demonstrated tactical utility in suppressing entrenched defenses and urban strongpoints by combining incendiary and effects to destroy cover and demoralize personnel, though operational limitations such as short range, to counterfire, and environmental constraints like rain or altitude reduce their strategic impact. Despite assertions of illegality, thermobaric weapons remain permissible under provided their employment adheres to principles of distinction and proportionality, with no specific treaty prohibition akin to those on chemical or cluster munitions. Their defining characteristic lies in exploiting air as an oxygen source for volumetric explosions, enabling superior lethality against dispersed or sheltered targets without reliance on shrapnel for primary damage.

Terminology and Classification

Definitions and Nomenclature

A thermobaric weapon is a type of explosive munition that employs a fuel-rich primary charge to disperse fine particles, droplets, or vapors of a combustible fuel into the air, forming an aerosol cloud that mixes with atmospheric oxygen before secondary ignition, thereby generating a high-temperature detonation with prolonged blast overpressure and thermal effects. This mechanism distinguishes it as a single-cycle system where the blast derives significant energy from afterburning of the fuel in air, rather than solely from the initial chemical decomposition of the explosive. The "thermobaric" derives from the Russian military term termobaricheskiy, a compound of termo- () and baricheskiy (relating to ), reflecting the weapon's production of both intense heat and sustained pressure waves exceeding those of equivalent high explosives by leveraging environmental oxygen. In Western contexts, the term evolved in the late 1980s and is often used interchangeably with "fuel-rich explosives" or "enhanced-blast explosives," emphasizing the extended thermal pulse that supports the shock front. Related terms include "fuel-air explosive" (FAE), which specifically denotes variants using liquid or vaporized fuels dispersed over a volume, as opposed to solid-particle thermobarics; " bomb," highlighting the mist or cloud formation; "bombe thermobarique" (French term); and "enhanced blast weapon," a broader U.S. designation for munitions optimized for increased in confined spaces. The label " bomb" appears in some Russian descriptions and media reports but inaccurately implies vacuum creation; in reality, it results from oxygen consumption producing post-detonation underpressure amid superheated gases, not a sustained . Russian scientific terminology may refer to them as "low-density explosives" or "metallized volumetric explosives" when incorporating metal additives for denser fireballs.

Distinction from Conventional Explosives

Thermobaric weapons differ fundamentally from conventional high explosives in their operational mechanism and energy release profile. Conventional high explosives, such as TNT or , detonate through a self-sustained supersonic driven by rapid intramolecular decomposition, where the explosive molecules inherently balance fuel and oxidizer components without reliance on external oxygen, yielding a blast characterized by high peak that decays quickly—typically within milliseconds. Examples of such conventional high-explosive munitions include the MK-84, a 2,000 lb general-purpose bomb filled with tritonal or similar; the BLU-109, a hardened penetrator bomb with tritonal fill; and the GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb, which uses blast fragmentation or enhanced blast warheads like AFX-757. These are not thermobaric weapons, as they do not employ fuel-air mixtures for enhanced blast and heat effects. A thermobaric variant exists for the BLU-109 as the BLU-118/B with PBXIH-135 fill. In contrast, thermobaric weapons employ a two-stage process: an initial low-order disperses a fuel-rich (often metallized with aluminum or magnesium particles) into the air to form a combustible , followed by a secondary ignition that draws oxygen from the atmosphere for aerobic , extending the reaction duration into tens of milliseconds or longer. This mechanistic divergence produces distinct blast dynamics and lethality patterns. Conventional explosives generate intense but brief shock waves optimal for structural fragmentation and open-field effects, with energy primarily from anaerobic detonation products. Thermobaric devices, however, produce a lower initial overpressure (5-17% below equivalent RDX masses) but sustain it through afterburning, amplifying total impulse and thermal output—reaching temperatures of 2,500-3,000°C—while the oxygen consumption creates localized vacuum-like conditions that exacerbate injuries via prolonged exposure and asphyxiation. Such characteristics render thermobaric weapons particularly effective against soft targets in enclosed or semi-enclosed environments, like bunkers or urban structures, where reflected waves intensify the quasi-static , unlike the rapid dissipation of conventional blasts in similar settings.
CharacteristicConventional High ExplosivesThermobaric Weapons
Detonation StagesSingle-stage anaerobicMulti-stage (dispersion + aerobic afterburn)
Oxygen DependencyNone (internal oxidizer)High (atmospheric O₂ consumption)
Peak OverpressureHigh, short-livedModerate, sustained
Primary EffectsShock and fragmentationProlonged blast, heat, and oxygen depletion

Physics and Operational Mechanism

Fuel Dispersion and Aerosol Formation

The first operational stage of thermobaric weapons entails dispersing a fuel agent to create a combustible aerosol cloud intermixed with ambient oxygen. A small high-explosive burster charge, often composed of materials like RDX, detonates to rupture the fuel container and propel the contents outward, atomizing liquids into droplets or scattering solid particles through the shock wave. This dispersion mechanism ensures the fuel expands to fill a targeted volume, with the aerosol conforming to irregular surfaces and penetrating enclosures such as bunkers or buildings due to its gaseous nature. Fuels employed include volatile liquids like and , which facilitate rapid vaporization, as well as solids such as finely powdered aluminum or magnesium, which remain particulate. Slurries, exemplified by the GSX mixture of , aluminum powder, and used in the bomb, provide an alternative for enhanced stability and dispersibility. In shock-dispersed fuel designs, the initial blast wave from a brisant core aids in ejecting metal or reactive particles beyond the primary shock front, promoting broader coverage. Effective formation requires optimal particle or droplet sizes, typically 1-120 micrometers for reactive aluminum, with smaller sizes enabling greater expansion and mixing efficiency beyond the leading . Agglomeration of particles can further influence dispersal dynamics, while the fuel-air ratio approaches to maximize subsequent energy release upon ignition. This volumetric , whether from gaseous, , or dust-like fuels, underpins the weapon's capacity for sustained by leveraging atmospheric oxygen for .

Two-Stage Detonation Process

The two-stage detonation process distinguishes thermobaric weapons from conventional high explosives by separating fuel dispersion from combustion, enabling volumetric detonation of a fuel-air mixture. In the first stage, a central burster charge—typically composed of a high explosive such as RDX or HMX—detonates to rupture the warhead casing and disperse the liquid, solid, or gaseous fuel payload into the surrounding air, forming an aerosol cloud within hundreds of microseconds. This dispersion relies on the initial shock wave generated by the burster to atomize and mix the fuel (e.g., ethylene oxide, propylene oxide, or metal powders like aluminum) with atmospheric oxygen, creating a flammable mist that expands to fill a targeted volume, often several times the warhead's physical size. The process is anaerobic at this point, with the burster's energy primarily driving fragmentation and dispersal rather than sustained combustion. The second stage follows milliseconds after dispersion, where a secondary igniter or the residual heat from the first detonation triggers combustion of the aerosol cloud. This aerobic phase involves rapid oxidation of the fuel particles with ambient oxygen, producing a high-temperature fireball (reaching temperatures exceeding 2,500°C) and a prolonged positive-pressure phase due to the volume-filling nature of the detonation. Unlike the instantaneous blast of traditional explosives, this afterburning sustains overpressure for tens of milliseconds, as the combustion propagates through the cloud at subsonic to near-detonation velocities, enhancing lethality in enclosed or semi-enclosed spaces by consuming available oxygen and generating secondary shock waves. Timing between stages is critical; delays of 5-100 milliseconds optimize cloud formation before ignition, with particle size (e.g., 1-120 µm for aluminum) influencing burn rate and efficiency. This mechanism amplifies blast effects by leveraging atmospheric oxygen, yielding effective yields up to several times that of the burster charge alone.

Blast Wave Propagation and Thermal Effects

In thermobaric weapons, the originates from the rapid expansion of products following fuel aerosol ignition, distinct from the instantaneous of conventional high explosives like or TNT. The initial high-explosive charge disperses the fuel, creating a secondary enhanced by aerobic afterburning, which sustains through ongoing oxygen-fueled reactions. This results in a lower peak —typically 5-17% below that of equivalent charges—but a markedly prolonged positive-phase duration, often 10-50 milliseconds for late-time impulses and up to 1 second in confined environments, compared to the microseconds-to-milliseconds decay in conventional blasts. The propagation of this blast wave exhibits a wider overpressure profile due to secondary shocks from distributed combustion, with total impulse increased by 40-45% over reference charges through mechanisms like activated aluminum reactions boosting wall velocity by 13-20% over time. In open spaces, the aerosol cloud disperses before ignition, forming an expanding plasma that drives the wave outward with quasi-static pressures up to 20% higher than RDX in volumetric tests. In enclosed or semi-enclosed spaces, such as tunnels or bunkers, reflections amplify the wave, generating multiple pressure insults and higher lethality via sustained impulse rather than peak intensity alone. Thermal effects are intrinsically coupled to the blast, as the produces a fireball with temperatures reaching 2500-4000 , including plasma clouds at 2500-3000°C and peaks of approximately 3153 for 100 kg RDX-based charges. This generates radiant fluxes causing burns and ignition, with doses 3.6-4.8 times greater than TNT equivalents, and lethal ranges extending to 40 meters based on dose criteria. Oxygen consumption during afterburning exacerbates damage through asphyxiation and a post-detonation effect, while in confined spaces, high temperatures (308-348 ) persist for hundreds of seconds—e.g., 725 seconds cooling time for 100 kg charges—promoting secondary fires and prolonged exposure. Fireball duration includes a 50-millisecond lethal phase, with output 3-4 times longer than in conventional explosives.

Historical Development

Early Concepts (Pre-1940s)

The explosive potential of finely dispersed combustible materials in air, a core principle underlying later thermobaric technologies, was first empirically observed in industrial accidents predating organized military development. The earliest recorded incident occurred on December 14, 1785, at Giacomelli's Bakery warehouse in Turin, Italy, where a cloud of flour dust ignited upon contact with an open flame, severely injuring two workers and demonstrating the rapid propagation of combustion in aerosolized particulates. This event highlighted how solid fuels, when suspended as dust, could form explosive mixtures with atmospheric oxygen, producing overpressures far exceeding those of deflagrations in bulk material. Subsequent analyses attributed the blast to the high surface area of the dispersed particles facilitating rapid oxidation, though contemporary accounts lacked quantitative modeling. Throughout the , similar phenomena were documented in grain mills, sawmills, and coal mines, reinforcing the concept of minimum concentrations for dust-air mixtures. A notable series of coal dust explosions in European mines, beginning with incidents in the , prompted investigations into ignition sources and confinement effects; for instance, a 1844 explosion at Haswell Colliery in killed 95 miners and spurred early research by figures like , who confirmed in 1845 experiments that dry coal dust alone could sustain propagation when dispersed. These observations established that aerosolized fuels required only 30-500 grams per cubic meter for , depending on and volatility, principles later adapted for volumetric . No evidence exists of pre-1940 military weaponization of these effects, as prevailing doctrines favored high- or incendiary ordnance with self-contained oxidizers; however, the physics of fuel-oxygen mixing informed theoretical studies, such as those on gaseous flames by Pierre Vieille in 1889, laying indirect groundwork for engineered blasts. By the early , industrial reports quantified blast yields from dust clouds—e.g., aluminum dust tests in German labs yielding energies akin to black but with extended durations—yet applications remained confined to hazard mitigation rather than armament. These pre-1940s empirical insights into aerosol , derived from accidental rather than intentional designs, underscored the efficiency of air-sourced oxidation for maximizing blast volume, a causal mechanism central to subsequent thermobaric innovations.

World War II and Immediate Postwar Experiments

During , the German conducted experiments with early forms of thermobaric weapons, focusing on dispersion and ignition to generate enhanced blast effects. Mario Zippermayr directed these efforts, developing devices that dispersed combustible mixtures such as , , and , or kerosene-based liquids with carbon and aluminum particles, followed by secondary detonation. One such system, Taifun A, was tested and reportedly used against Soviet bunkers in in 1942, aiming to produce overpressure waves capable of collapsing fortified structures. A variant, Taifun-Gerät (also known as Schlaganfall), consisted of a cart-mounted apparatus that released fuel gases into confined spaces like sewers during the Warsaw Uprising in August 1944, igniting them to asphyxiate and incinerate resistance fighters below ground; Polish and German records confirm its deployment, though yields were limited by imprecise mixing and ignition timing. Taifun B represented an advancement as a multiple-launch rocket system mounted on tracked vehicles, intended for area denial against Allied landings; positioned in Normandy in July 1944 during Operation Cobra, units were destroyed by counter-battery fire before firing, preventing operational use. Parallel Project Hexenkessel explored coal dust dispersion from aerial bombs, with tests demonstrating a blast radius exceeding 500 meters that felled trees through sustained combustion and pressure waves, drawing from observed industrial dust explosion physics. These weapons prioritized volumetric explosion effects over fragmentation, but deployment was constrained by technical unreliability, such as inconsistent formation in open air, and strategic fears of retaliatory chemical attacks from adversaries. No large-scale production occurred, with efforts curtailed by resource shortages and Allied advances by 1945. reportedly employed similar volumetric devices against Soviet forces earlier in the , though details remain sparse due to classified records. In the immediate postwar period, Allied forces captured German prototypes and documents, prompting preliminary experiments in the United States and Soviet Union. U.S. researchers examined aerosol detonation principles, incorporating insights from German tests and domestic studies of dust explosions, with early trials in the late 1940s focusing on airborne fuel dispersion for potential naval and land applications; these laid groundwork for later fuel-air explosive systems but yielded no deployable weapons by 1950 due to challenges in scalable ignition. Soviet captors acquired Zippermayr's technical staff, integrating captured knowledge into enhanced blast weapon programs, though systematic development accelerated only in the 1950s. British evaluations of Hexenkessel remnants similarly informed overpressure modeling, but prioritized conventional munitions amid demobilization.

Cold War Era Advancements (1950s-1980s)

The United States initiated significant development of fuel-air explosives (FAEs) in the 1960s to counter dense vegetation and fortified positions during the Vietnam War, focusing on aerial delivery systems for area denial and clearing operations. The CBU-55 cluster bomb, featuring BLU-73/B FAE submunitions that dispersed ethylene oxide and propylene oxide aerosols, was engineered for enhanced blast effects over conventional munitions, with initial deployments occurring by 1970 in South Vietnam. Complementing this, the BLU-82/B "Daisy Cutter," a 15,000-pound (6,800 kg) bomb filled with a slurry of ammonium nitrate, aluminum powder, and polystyrene, was first employed on March 23, 1970, to create helicopter landing zones by generating a massive overpressure wave and fireball spanning up to 300 meters. These systems emphasized precise fuel dispersion mechanisms to form combustible clouds, followed by secondary detonation, achieving overpressures 2-5 times greater than TNT equivalents in open areas while prioritizing psychological impact on enemy morale through visible fireballs. Parallel advancements occurred in the , where thermobaric research began in the 1960s, yielding early field applications by the late decade. Soviet forces reportedly deployed thermobaric munitions during the 1969 Sino-Soviet border clashes along the Ussuri River, marking one of the first combat uses to exploit in confined terrains. By the , integration into ordnance progressed, with unguided rockets such as the S-8D and S-13D incorporating thermobaric warheads for and fixed-wing platforms, designed to produce sustained blast waves lethal in bunkers and caves. The Soviet emphasis shifted toward ground-launched systems in the , exemplified by adaptations for multiple rocket launchers like the , which fired fuel-rich projectiles generating volumetric explosions with temperatures exceeding 2,500°C and negative pressure phases causing internal organ rupture. These innovations, tested extensively at sites like Shikhany, prioritized metallized fuels for prolonged combustion, reflecting a doctrinal focus on urban and mountainous combat efficacy over precision. Both superpowers refined two-stage detonation processes during this era, incorporating burster charges for and optimized ignition delays to maximize cloud homogeneity, though challenges persisted with wind sensitivity and incomplete fuel burn in open environments. U.S. efforts culminated in the BLU-82's to allies and limited stockpile retention into the 1980s, while Soviet programs scaled production for the 1979-1989 Afghan intervention, where thermobaric rockets and bombs proved effective against cave networks, inflicting casualties through oxygen depletion and thermal trauma beyond the initial . Empirical data from these deployments indicated FAE yields equivalent to 1.5-3 times their nominal weight, underscoring causal advantages in low-oxygen settings but highlighting vulnerabilities to countermeasures like suppression foams.

National Programs and Technological Innovations

United States Initiatives

The military has emphasized the development of thermobaric weapons, commonly referred to as fuel-air explosives (FAE), with a primary focus on airborne delivery systems for enhanced blast effects against fortified structures and personnel in confined spaces. These initiatives trace back to experiments in the mid-20th century but intensified during conflicts requiring precision against bunkers and urban targets. In response to operational needs in post-2001, the and developed the BLU-118/B, a 2,000-pound thermobaric penetrator designed to breach hardened underground facilities before dispersing a fuel-air mixture for and destruction inside. This bomb, filled with a specialized PBXN-114 thermobaric , was rapidly prototyped and fielded, with production involving facilities like Indian Head Division for loading and shipping. Similarly, the BLU-121/B emerged under the Defeat program as another 2,000-pound thermobaric variant optimized for deep penetration and volumetric explosion effects. For close-quarters combat, the Army's expedited the XM1060 40mm thermobaric , achieving development and fielding in just four months to provide with a man-portable option for clearing rooms and caves through sustained blast waves. Shoulder-launched systems, such as the SMAW-NE rocket with a novel thermobaric warhead, were also integrated into Marine Corps inventories for breaching fortified positions in and , delivering aerosol-dispersed fuel for prolonged fireballs and . These efforts prioritized empirical testing of blast propagation in enclosures, yielding munitions with demonstrated lethality against dispersed or sheltered adversaries.

Soviet and Russian Systems

The Soviet Union pursued thermobaric weapon development during the Cold War, achieving early operational deployment in the 1969 Sino-Soviet border conflict where fuel-air explosives were reportedly employed. Further refinement occurred amid the Soviet-Afghan War (1979-1989), where these munitions proved effective against entrenched fighters in caves and fortifications due to their enhanced blast overpressure and thermal effects in confined environments. A key man-portable system was the , a disposable 93 mm with a designed for infantry use against personnel in bunkers and buildings. Developed as the successor to the , it entered Soviet service in the late 1980s, with a range of up to 600 meters and a producing a fuel-air for area denial. The Shmel's deployment in targeted positions, leveraging its ability to generate sustained high-pressure waves. Heavy systems included the , a 220 mm 30-tube mounted on a chassis, developed in the early for delivering thermobaric rockets over short ranges of 3-5 kilometers. First combat-tested in 1988-1989 during operations in Afghanistan's , it cleared rebel strongholds by dispersing fuel aerosols followed by ignition, creating devastating fireballs and vacuum-like aftereffects. Following the Soviet dissolution, upgraded the to the TOS-1A Solntsepyok variant, introduced around 2001, which features 24 rockets with extended range up to 6 kilometers, improved armor, and automated fire control while retaining thermobaric payloads for anti-personnel and anti-fortification roles. These systems were employed in the First and Second Chechen Wars (1994-1996 and 1999-2009), where their use against urban and cave defenses was documented, emphasizing 's emphasis on volumetric explosives for asymmetric threats.

Developments in Other Nations

China has pursued thermobaric weapon development since the 1960s, incorporating fuel-air explosive (FAE) systems deliverable by multiple-launch rocket systems (MLRS), aircraft bombs, and shoulder-launched grenades. In recent advancements, Chinese researchers tested a non-nuclear hydrogen-fueled explosive device in early 2025, producing a sustained fireball reaching 1,800°F (980°C) and lasting over two seconds—15 times longer than TNT's detonation flash—intended for enhanced thermal and overpressure effects. The People's Liberation Army has also proposed integrating thermobaric warheads onto combat robots for urban warfare scenarios, emphasizing their utility in confined spaces due to oxygen-consuming blasts that generate prolonged heat and pressure waves. The initiated thermobaric research in the , paralleling early FAE efforts with delivery via MLRS, aerial munitions, and man-portable launchers, though specific operational systems remain classified or limited in public disclosure. British assessments have focused on enhanced-blast variants, such as those akin to the U.S. AGM-114N Hellfire, evaluating their compliance with international norms amid concerns over indiscriminate effects in populated areas. India's High Energy Materials Research Laboratory (HEMRL) developed a 1,000 lb (454 kg) thermobaric bomb, with commencing mass production announced at 2023; an initial order of 500 units for the was slated for delivery by late 2023 to bolster bunker-busting and area-denial capabilities. The arsenal includes various FAE systems optimized for volumetric explosions in enclosed environments. Poland's Armament Agency initiated market consultations in early 2023 for the procurement of thermobaric munitions, including hand grenades, 60 mm, 98 mm, and 120 mm mortar bombs, RPG projectiles, and various grenade launcher munitions, with submissions due by February 24, 2023. Multiple domestic and international firms expressed interest, reflecting efforts to enhance capabilities in volumetric explosive effects for the Polish Armed Forces. Spain maintains FAE and thermobaric munitions in its inventory, though detailed timelines or indigenous innovations are not publicly specified, reflecting broader European interest in enhanced-blast technologies for counter-fortification roles.

Military Applications and Effectiveness

Tactical and Strategic Advantages

Thermobaric weapons provide tactical advantages primarily through their volumetric effects, dispersing a fuel-air aerosol that, upon ignition, generates a prolonged blast wave with sustained overpressure, heat, and oxygen consumption, making them highly effective against personnel in confined spaces such as bunkers, tunnels, and urban structures where conventional high explosives lose efficacy due to limited propagation. Unlike traditional munitions that rely on fragmentation or direct blast, thermobarics fill enclosures with combustible mixture, enabling the explosion to reflect off walls and sustain pressure for milliseconds longer—up to several times the duration of high-explosive blasts—resulting in enhanced lethality via barotrauma, burns, and asphyxiation without requiring precise penetration. This capability proved decisive in Russian operations, as with the TOS-1A system in Ukraine, where short-range barrages neutralized entrenched defenders in urban terrain by overwhelming protected positions. In , these weapons excel at clearing multi-room buildings or complexes, as the cloud seeps through openings and ignites uniformly, denying cover and forcing enemy dispersal or surrender, a factor in Russian recapture efforts during the Chechen conflicts. Shoulder-launched variants like the RPO-A further amplify infantry-level tactics, allowing small units to defeat fortified holdouts at ranges up to 500 meters with minimal exposure, outperforming standard rockets against soft-skinned or concealed targets. Empirical assessments indicate thermobarics can achieve near-total personnel incapacitation in targeted volumes, with impulses exceeding those of equivalent-weight TNT by factors of 2-5 in enclosed environments, though effectiveness diminishes in open air due to rapid fuel dissipation. Strategically, thermobaric systems enable breakthroughs against dug-in adversaries, reducing the need for costly assaults and accelerating advances in fortified theaters, as demonstrated by Russian employment to seize key terrain in by 2024. Their integration into multiple rocket launchers like TOS-1A provides that suppresses area defenses over 3-6 km ranges, creating windows for maneuver units and imposing psychological deterrence through visible fireballs and sustained destruction. In peer conflicts, they overwhelm enemy medical capacities by generating disproportionate blast lung and thermal injuries, potentially shifting operational tempo by straining , though proliferation risks escalation due to their non-nuclear destructive scale. Overall, these advantages stem from exploiting atmospheric oxygen for amplified yield, yielding 1.5-3 times the effective release of conventional fillers in volumetric kill mechanisms.

Combat Deployments and Case Studies

The deployed thermobaric weapons during its invasion of from 1979 to 1989, including the rocket launcher for close-quarters combat against fortified positions and the multiple rocket launcher tested in the . These systems targeted cave networks and bunkers, leveraging the weapons' and thermal effects to penetrate enclosures where conventional explosives proved less effective. MiG-27 aircraft also delivered thermobaric munitions in support of ground operations. In the Second Chechen War beginning in 1999, Russian forces employed fuel-air explosive bombs, with reporting their use on December 27, 1999, during assaults on to clear urban strongpoints held by separatists. The system saw application in urban environments, where its thermobaric rockets created sustained blast waves suitable for collapsing reinforced structures and neutralizing entrenched fighters. Syrian government forces, supported by Russia, utilized the TOS-1 Buratino in the civil war, notably deploying it against rebel positions in Hama in October 2015 and subsequent operations through 2016 and 2018. These deployments targeted fortified rebel-held areas, with the system's 220 mm rockets dispersing fuel aerosols to generate intense fireballs and pressure pulses that devastated enclosed spaces. Russia extensively employed the TOS-1A Solntsepek in the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, with confirmed uses including a thermobaric strike on February 28, 2022, that Ukrainian officials reported killed 70 soldiers in a single incident. The system supported advances in urban battles like , firing salvos of up to 24 thermobaric rockets over short ranges to suppress fortifications and concentrations, though its vulnerability to limited sustained exposure. The developed and used thermobaric munitions in post-2001, including the BLU-118/B bomb designed for cave destruction, credited with neutralizing positions in . In April 2017, a C-130 dropped the — a large-yield fuel-air —against ISIS-K tunnels in , killing an estimated 96 militants without U.S. casualties. These applications emphasized precision delivery to exploit thermobaric effects against hardened underground targets.

Comparative Performance Data

Thermobaric weapons generate blast effects through a two-stage process: initial dispersal of a fuel aerosol followed by ignition, producing a prolonged positive-pressure phase compared to the sharp, short-duration of conventional high explosives like TNT or . This results in higher total impulse—often 15% greater for aluminum-laden formulations—despite peak overpressures that can be 5-17% lower in open air. The extended duration enhances structural damage and lethality by allowing multiple reflections in confined spaces, where quasi-static pressures reach up to 20% above those of equivalent conventional charges. Thermal output further differentiates thermobarics, with plasma temperatures of 2,500–3,000°C sustaining fireballs 2–10 times the volume and 2–5 times the duration of TNT equivalents, amplifying radiant heat and combustion effects. Oxygen consumption in enclosures exacerbates asphyxiation and primary blast injuries, yielding higher incidences of and organ rupture than conventional explosives, which rely primarily on fragmentation and instantaneous . TNT equivalence for thermobarics varies by metric and environment; blast impulse can exceed TNT by factors up to 2.5 in optimized mixes, while thermal damage is 3.6–4.8 times greater. In fragment-driving tests, certain thermobaric formulations achieve 1.29 times TNT equivalence. Open-field effectiveness is comparable or slightly inferior for penetration but superior for area denial in bunkers or urban settings due to afterburning.
ParameterThermobaric WeaponsConventional High Explosives (e.g., TNT/)Key Differences/Source Notes
Peak Overpressure (Open Air)5–17% lower than baseline; up to 73 kg/cm² (1,000 psi) at sourceHigher initial peak (e.g., baseline)Longer duration compensates; measured in Al-TBX tests
Positive Phase DurationProlonged (seconds) due to MillisecondsIncreases impulse by 15–45%; enhances confined
Blast Impulse15–45% higher than baselineBaselineFrom secondary aerobic
Quasi-Static Pressure (Confined)Up to 20% higherBaselineReflections and oxygen depletion amplify effects
Thermal Effects2,500–3,000°C; fireball 2–10x TNT volume~3,000°C but brief; lower sustained heat3.6–4.8x thermal damage vs. TNT
TNT Equivalence (Variable)1.29–2.5x (blast/thermal metrics)1.0 (baseline)Context-dependent; higher in enclosures

Controversies and Debates

Allegations of Indiscriminate or Excessive Harm

Critics, including organizations, have alleged that thermobaric weapons inflict indiscriminate or excessive harm due to their mechanism of dispersing a fuel-air that generates a prolonged , intense thermal effects, and temporary oxygen depletion in confined spaces, potentially amplifying casualties beyond those from conventional explosives in urban or enclosed environments. These claims often highlight the weapons' larger radius of severe injury—up to several times that of high-explosive munitions of equivalent yield in structures—raising concerns about proportionality in populated areas, though proponents argue the effects are comparable in open air and depend on precise targeting rather than inherent indiscriminateness. In the Second Chechen War, reported Russian forces' use of fuel-air explosive bombs, a type of thermobaric munition, during the 1999-2000 of , where dense urban fighting amid civilian presence led to widespread destruction and an estimated 25,000-50,000 civilian deaths overall from aerial and campaigns, though direct attribution of thermobaric-specific casualties remains limited by the chaotic context and lack of forensic differentiation from other ordnance. Russian media outlets confirmed deployment of such weapons against fortified rebel positions in the city on December 27, 1999, but critics contended the area effects exacerbated in a battleground infiltrated by non-combatants. During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Ukrainian officials, including the ambassador to the , alleged Russian deployment of thermobaric "vacuum bombs" in combat, citing an incident on , 2022, that killed approximately 70 Ukrainian soldiers, with broader accusations of indiscriminate use in civilian-adjacent areas prompting calls for scrutiny under , though independent verification of excessive civilian harm tied specifically to these weapons has been constrained by ongoing hostilities. documented Russian employment of enhanced blast warheads in various munitions but emphasized that unlawfulness stems from attack planning rather than the weapon type alone. In Myanmar's ongoing civil conflict, Human Rights Watch analyzed a April 11, 2023, airstrike on Pa Zi Gyi village in Sagaing Region, attributing over 160 deaths—predominantly civilians attending a public event—to a thermobaric enhanced blast munition based on crater dimensions, lack of fragmentation, and reported symptoms like internal injuries without external wounds; the group deemed the strike a likely war crime due to the absence of apparent military objectives and disproportionate impact on a civilian gathering. Myanmar military denials notwithstanding, the incident fueled allegations of systematic use against opposition-held areas with high civilian density. United States use of the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB), a large-yield thermobaric bomb, in Afghanistan on April 13, 2017, against an ISIS-K cave complex in Nangarhar Province drew limited allegations of excessive harm, with U.S. officials reporting 90+ militants killed and no civilian casualties confirmed, despite initial Afghan provincial claims of non-combatant deaths that lacked substantiation; the remote, terrain-isolated target mitigated indiscriminate risk compared to urban scenarios. Empirical assessments of thermobaric injury patterns indicate heightened risks of blast lung, burns, and asphyxia in survivors, but aggregate civilian casualty data from deployments often intertwine with broader operational factors like targeting errors rather than weapon physics alone.

Humanitarian and Ethical Criticisms

Humanitarian organizations have criticized thermobaric weapons for their potential to cause widespread and severe injuries, particularly in urban or enclosed environments, where the weapons' overpressure waves and oxygen-consuming fireballs can lead to pulmonary , burns, and asphyxiation among both combatants and non-combatants. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has noted that while these weapons are not prohibited under , their use in populated areas should be avoided due to the difficulty in distinguishing between military targets and civilians, given the expansive blast radii and prolonged pressure effects that exceed those of conventional high explosives. In specific conflicts, such as Russia's operations in in late 1999, (HRW) reported the deployment of fuel-air explosives, arguing that their area-effect nature rendered them indiscriminate when used near civilian concentrations, potentially violating principles of distinction and proportionality under the . Similarly, in Myanmar's 2023 on Pa Zyi Gyi village on , HRW documented the use of an enhanced blast munition—identified as a fuel-air explosive—that killed over 160 civilians, including more than 50 children, highlighting the weapons' capacity for high in attacks on alleged insurgent gatherings. These incidents underscore ethical concerns that thermobaric effects, including internal organ rupture from blast and secondary fires, may inflict unnecessary suffering disproportionate to military gains, though assessments of proportionality depend on target verification and precautions taken. Critics, including advocacy groups, have called for restrictions or bans akin to those on blinding lasers or incendiary weapons, citing the weapons' psychological terror and long-term health impacts like blast-related traumatic brain injuries, which studies show are more prevalent and severe than from fragmenting munitions. However, empirical data on civilian casualty rates specifically attributable to thermobaric weapons remains limited, with much criticism relying on anecdotal reports from non-governmental observers whose methodologies have faced scrutiny for potential confirmation bias in attributing effects to these munitions over conventional alternatives. In urban warfare scenarios, such as alleged Russian uses in in 2022, the weapons' tactical efficacy against fortified positions is weighed against ethical imperatives to minimize civilian exposure, prompting debates on whether their inherent effects inherently breach customary international law's prohibition on superfluous injury.

Empirical Evidence on Injury Patterns

Thermobaric weapons produce injury patterns characterized by a combination of primary blast effects, thermal burns, and secondary hypoxia, distinct from conventional high explosives due to their prolonged positive pressure phase and post-detonation negative pressure . These effects stem from the aerosolized dispersion followed by ignition, generating overpressures up to 73 kg/cm² and temperatures of 2,500–3,000°C within the fireball, with oxygen consumption exacerbating tissue damage in confined environments. Autopsy and clinical data from the Russia-Ukraine conflict reveal predominant and burns from systems like the TOS-1A. Forensic examinations of affected Ukrainian personnel showed gelatinous, bright-red impregnation of thigh and pelvic muscles and subcutaneous fat indicative of hemorrhagic , alongside superficial injuries without charring of hair, diffuse abrasions, and shallow fragment wounds. Experimental models exposed to simulated air shock waves (31.62 ± 4.84 kPa) exhibited focal liver hemorrhages, venous ruptures, and sinusoidal congestion, as well as small intestine , venous disruptions, and focal , underscoring visceral patterns. Burn injuries in TOS-1A casualties frequently involved third- and fourth-degree coverage of 31%–90% , exceeding typical trauma distributions, with 17.3% of cases affecting 31%–40% of the body (versus 7.8% in general burns) and 28.0% affecting 51%–60% (versus 9.1%). Upper damage, including perforations and closed , combined with blast effects extending to 300 meters, contributed to high lethality, particularly within 50 meters of the fireball where occurs. Pulmonary injuries, termed "blast lung," manifest as alveolar ruptures leading to arterial gas emboli, pneumothorax, or hemothorax, with symptoms potentially delayed up to 48 hours; animal studies confirm associated cardiac and cerebral hemorrhages. Blast-related traumatic brain injuries (bTBI) arise from shock wave transmission, with models estimating hundreds of cases per thermobaric salvo in urban settings like Odessa, yielding long-term cognitive and neuropsychiatric deficits beyond immediate trauma. Cardiovascular effects include myocardial damage or coronary emboli detectable via ECG, while gastrointestinal perforations at gas-filled sites like the ileocecal junction emerge within 14 days. Auditory trauma ranges from tympanic membrane rupture to permanent deafness and vertigo.

Status Under International Humanitarian Law

Thermobaric weapons are not expressly prohibited by any international treaty, including the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols. They fall under the general prohibitions and restrictions on means of warfare in international humanitarian law (IHL), particularly the requirements of distinction between combatants and civilians (Article 48, Additional Protocol I), proportionality in attacks (Article 51(5)(b)), and the ban on causing superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering (Article 35(2)). Legal assessments conclude that thermobaric weapons do not inherently violate the superfluous injury rule, as their , , and oxygen-depletion effects serve legitimate purposes—such as destroying fortified positions or personnel in enclosed spaces—without effects exceeding those of conventional high-explosive munitions relative to the anticipated advantage. This aligns with the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868 and customary IHL, which permit suffering incidental to achieving a definite objective. They are also not regulated as incendiary weapons under Protocol III to the (CCW), adopted in , because their primary design intent is blast and pressure effects rather than setting fires or causing burns to persons or objects. No other CCW protocol, Hague Convention declaration, or chemical weapons treaty specifically addresses or bans them. Customary IHL similarly imposes no per se prohibition, treating them as conventional munitions lawful when directed at valid military targets with feasible precautions to spare civilians. Their status permits use in international armed conflicts, provided attacks comply with IHL targeting rules; violations occur through misuse, such as indiscriminate deployment in populated areas where wide blast radii may foreseeably cause excessive harm disproportionate to gain. Claims of outright bans, including statements by Ukrainian officials in March 2022 alleging Convention prohibitions, lack legal basis and misrepresent IHL, which evaluates weapons by context of employment rather than categorical exclusion. Both state parties to Additional Protocol I, such as Russia and Ukraine, and non-parties are bound by these customary norms, with Article 36 requiring weapons reviews to ensure IHL compatibility—a process thermobaric weapons have passed in possessing militaries. Environmental effects from isolated uses do not trigger Article 35(3) or 55 restrictions on widespread, long-term, and severe damage.

Failed Prohibition Efforts

Despite periodic criticisms of their effects, particularly in enclosed or urban settings, international efforts to prohibit thermobaric weapons outright or classify them under existing restrictions have failed to produce binding agreements. The 1980 (CCW), through its Protocol III on incendiary weapons, restricts air-delivered incendiaries but excludes thermobaric munitions due to their primary mechanism of blast overpressure rather than incendiary ignition as the dominant effect. Legal evaluations confirm that thermobaric weapons do not meet Protocol III's criteria, which require weapons "primarily designed" to cause burns or fires, preventing their automatic prohibition under this framework. Review conferences and expert groups under the CCW have not resulted in amendments to encompass thermobaric weapons, despite acknowledgments of gaps in coverage. For example, a December 2024 UN Office for Disarmament Affairs event highlighted Protocol III's limitations regarding thermobaric weapons alongside white phosphorus, yet no consensus emerged for expansion or new protocols targeting them specifically. Opposition from states possessing such capabilities, including the —which deployed thermobaric warheads like the BLU-118B in starting November 2001—and , has stymied restrictive measures, prioritizing their perceived tactical advantages in breaching fortifications and against personnel. Allegations of illegality during active conflicts have similarly faltered under scrutiny. In March 2022, following Russian use of thermobaric systems in , Ukrainian Ambassador claimed they violated the , but analyses affirmed no such categorical ban exists, as the conventions regulate use rather than prohibiting specific conventional munitions absent CCW coverage. NGO advocacy, including academic calls for bans citing oxygen-depletion and prolonged blast waves, has influenced discourse on explosive weapons in populated areas but yielded no dedicated treaty, reflecting the absence of universal agreement on their indiscriminate nature compared to banned categories like chemical weapons.

Recent Conflict Implications

Russia's deployment of thermobaric systems like the TOS-1A Solntsepek in the conflict since February 2022 has underscored their role in attritional warfare against fortified Ukrainian positions, enabling the delivery of high-volume, short-range blasts that penetrate bunkers and structures more effectively than standard high-explosive munitions. In operations around and in the region, these weapons have been integrated into tactics to suppress entrenched defenders, with documented uses as early as late February 2022 near , where a thermobaric strike reportedly killed approximately 70 Ukrainian troops in a confined area. This application highlights a tactical advantage in urban and semi-urban environments, where the weapons' overpressure waves and sustained fireballs consume oxygen and generate temperatures exceeding 2,500°C, causing rapid incapacitation even behind cover. The implications extend to injury profiles that overwhelm field medicine, with Ukrainian casualties exhibiting patterns of primary blast lung injuries, severe burns, and multi-organ failure from pressure differentials—distinct from fragmentation wounds typical of conventional artillery. A 2024 U.S. analysis notes that Russian TOS-1A salvos, firing up to 30 thermobaric rockets in seconds, have facilitated breakthroughs in defensive lines but at the cost of exposing launch vehicles to due to their limited range (under 10 km) and vulnerability, prompting adaptations like drone overwatch for targeting. By mid-2023, sustained use in and demonstrated how these munitions demoralize opposing forces through psychological effects of near-total destruction in targeted volumes, though their reliance on line-of-sight and weather-sensitive dispersion limits scalability in mobile operations. Strategically, thermobaric employment in has influenced force posture, accelerating Ukrainian shifts toward dispersed, mobile defenses to mitigate blast radii—up to 300 meters for TOS-1A effects—and highlighting gaps in Western-supplied countermeasures, such as active protection systems ineffective against clouds. Reports from 2024-2025 indicate continued Russian reliance on man-portable variants like the for close-quarters assaults, amplifying infantry firepower in but raising logistical strains from specialized fuel mixtures. Overall, these weapons have validated their niche in high-intensity, positionally static conflicts, prompting doctrinal reviews on urban combat resilience, while empirical casualty data reveals a 2-3 times higher per strike in enclosed spaces compared to equivalent TNT yields.

References

  1. https://jmvh.org/article/munitions-thermobaric-munitions-and-their-medical-effects/
  2. https://www.navair.navy.mil/node/14071
  3. https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NSWC_Indian_Head/Resources/MCG-9-13-SLW.pdf
  4. https://oe.tradoc.army.mil/product/russias-thermobaric-weapons-employment-in-the-ukrainian-conflict/
  5. https://lieber.westpoint.edu/detonating-air-legality-use-thermobaric-weapons-under-ihl/
  6. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/10918/chapter/5
  7. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thermobaric
  8. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/blu-118.htm
  9. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214914716300927
  10. https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apr/article/5/1/011303/570361/Understanding-the-shock-and-detonation-response-of
  11. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-60571395
  12. https://jmvh.org/article/thermobaric-munitions-and-their-medical-effects-2/
  13. https://www.cbc.ca/news2/background/tech/how-it-works/thermobaric-weapons.html
  14. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214914725002533
  15. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2017/5427485
  16. https://info.hughesenv.com/history-of-combustible-dust-explosions
  17. https://www.powderbulksolids.com/explosion-protection-safety/history-of-dust-explosions
  18. https://dustsafetyscience.com/what-is-the-giacomelli-bakery-flour-dust-explosion/
  19. https://dl.astm.org/stps/book/371/chapter/76903/A-Brief-History-of-Dust-Explosions
  20. https://www.explosionhazards.co.uk/list-of-historic-explosions/
  21. https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/npsg/explosives/Chapter2.pdf
  22. https://dustsafetyprofessionals.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Dust-Explosions-Flexible-Ducting.pdf
  23. https://www.standingwellback.com/ww2-thermobarics/
  24. https://www.academia.edu/38786261/THE_USE_OF_THERMOBARIC_WEAPONS
  25. https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/196739/bomb-live-unit-blu-82b/
  26. https://theconversation.com/what-are-thermobaric-weapons-and-why-should-they-be-banned-178289
  27. https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NSWC_Indian_Head/Resources/USNIP-4-09-WSIAE.pdf
  28. https://www.militaryperiscope.com/weapons/missilesrocketsbombs/land-attacktheater/blu-121b-thermobaric-bomb/overview/
  29. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m1060.htm
  30. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/the-american-militarys-deadly-thermobaric-arsenal-14505
  31. https://www.army-technology.com/features/russia-invasion-ukraine-war-thermobaric-weapons/
  32. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/flame-russia-working-rocket-propelled-infantry-flamethrower-196315/
  33. https://odin.tradoc.army.mil/WEG/Asset/24545d12ad1fc52e6f8294d37562d474
  34. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/forget-nukes-russias-tos-1-buratino-burns-everything-its-path-166770
  35. https://euro-sd.com/2022/11/articles/26805/thermobarics-developments-and-deployments/
  36. https://interestingengineering.com/military/china-non-nuclear-hydrogen-bomb-tested
  37. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3299415/china-arms-combat-robots-controversial-thermobaric-weapon-urban-warfare-drill
  38. https://www.janes.com/osint-insights/defence-news/defence/aero-india-2023-munitions-india-to-start-mass-producing-1000-lb-thermobaric-bombs
  39. https://defence24.com/industry/thermobaric-munitions-for-the-polish-army
  40. https://defence24.com/industry/thermobaric-munitions-for-the-polish-armed-forces-bidders-lining-up
  41. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/27257415_Aspects_of_Thermobaric_Weaponry
  42. https://euro-sd.com/2024/06/articles/39038/thermobaric-weapons-on-the-battlefield/
  43. https://rdl.train.army.mil/catalog-ws/view/100.ATSC/796D87F6-9E95-4D54-8ED9-DDA10E9C209E-1708699291986/ATP7_100x1.pdf
  44. https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/articles/will-thermobaric-weapons-overwhelm-the-military-health-system/
  45. https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/1aomqto/the_soviet_rpoa_in_mainly_afghanistan/
  46. https://aoav.org.uk/2022/what-is-a-thermobaric-or-vacuum-bomb/
  47. https://www.hrw.org/news/2000/02/01/chechnya-conflict-use-vacuum-bombs-russian-forces
  48. http://www.theworldwars.net/weapons/entry.php?b=land&m=tos-1&u=i
  49. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russias-lethal-thermobaric-rocket-launchers-coming-syria-14493/
  50. https://www.popsci.com/thermobaric-bombs-and-other-nightmare-weapons-syrian-civil-war/
  51. https://armscontrolcenter.org/fact-sheet-russias-use-of-thermobaric-weapons-in-ukraine/
  52. https://servicetoamericamedals.org/honorees/anh-duong/
  53. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39596333
  54. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-40230-5
  55. https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-gruesome-frontier-of-thermobaric-weapons/
  56. https://lieber.westpoint.edu/are-thermobaric-weapons-lawful/
  57. https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/07/enhanced-blast-weapons-ukraine
  58. https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/05/09/myanmar-enhanced-blast-strike-likely-war-crime
  59. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/5/9/hrw-says-myanmar-used-fuel-air-explosive-on-army-rule-opponents
  60. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/13/world/asia/moab-mother-of-all-bombs-afghanistan.html
  61. https://academic.oup.com/milmed/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/milmed/usaf400/8255573
  62. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40971913/
  63. http://international-review.icrc.org/articles/detonating-the-air-the-legality-of-the-use-of-thermobaric-weapons-under-ihl-923
  64. https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/reviews-pdf/2023-06/detonating-the-air-the-legality-of-thermobaric-weapons-under-ihl-923.pdf
  65. https://www.hrw.org/legacy/press/2000/02/chech0215b.htm
  66. https://apnews.com/article/myanmar-thermobaric-bombing-f1902357415217f46abceffab23f7995
  67. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370090288_Detonating_the_air_The_legality_of_the_use_of_thermobaric_weapons_under_international_humanitarian_law
  68. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36028113/
  69. https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/vacuum-bombs-thermobaric-russia-ukraine-rcna18127
  70. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S003960602500162X
  71. https://morphology-journal.com/index.php/journal/article/view/632
  72. http://international-review.icrc.org/articles/detonating-the-air-the-legality-of-thermobaric-weapons-under-ihl-923
  73. http://disarmament.unoda.org/en/updates/united-nations-office-disarmament-affairs-hosted-event-regulation-incendiary-weapons
  74. https://www.surgjournal.com/article/S0039-6060%2825%2900162-X/abstract
  75. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10344429/
  76. https://www.pism.pl/publications/cluster-munitions-and-thermobaric-weapons-in-russias-military-tactics-in-ukraine
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.