Hubbry Logo
Smoke screenSmoke screenMain
Open search
Smoke screen
Community hub
Smoke screen
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Smoke screen
Smoke screen
Smoke screen
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Soldiers advancing under the cover of a smoke screen during a training exercise

A smoke screen is smoke released to mask the movement or location of military units such as infantry, tanks, aircraft, or ships.

Smoke screens are commonly deployed either by a canister (such as a grenade) or generated by a vehicle (such as a tank or a warship).

Whereas smoke screens were originally used to hide movement from enemies' line of sight, modern technology means that they are now also available in new forms; they can screen in the infrared as well as visible spectrum of light to prevent detection by infrared sensors or viewers, and they are also available for vehicles in a super-dense form used to block laser beams of enemy laser designators or rangefinders.

Technology

[edit]

Smoke grenades

[edit]
Main article: Smoke grenade
A French Legionnaire moving through a smoke screen generated using a smoke grenade

These are canister-type grenades used as a ground-to-ground or ground-to-air signalling device. The body consists of a steel sheet metal cylinder with a few emission holes on the top and/or bottom to allow smoke release when the smoke composition inside the grenade is ignited. In those that produce colored smoke, the filler consists of 250 to 350 grams of colored (red, green, yellow or violet) smoke mixture (mostly potassium chlorate, sodium bicarbonate, lactose and a dye). In those that produce screening smoke, the filler usually consists of HC smoke mixture (hexachloroethane/zinc) or TA smoke mixture (terephthalic acid). Another type of smoke grenade is filled with white phosphorus (WP), which is spread by explosive action. The phosphorus catches fire in the presence of air, and burns with a brilliant yellow flame, while producing copious amounts of white smoke (phosphorus pentoxide). WP grenades double as incendiary grenades.

Smoke shell

[edit]
See also: Shell (projectile) § Smoke

Artillery and mortars can also fire smoke generating munitions, and are the main means of generating tactical smokescreens on land. As with grenades, artillery shells are available as both emission type smoke shell, and bursting smoke shell. Mortars nearly always use bursting smoke rounds because of the smaller size of mortar bombs and the greater efficiency of bursting rounds.

Smoke generators

[edit]
A British Army Challenger 2 deploying a smoke screen using a smoke generator installed in its rear
A JGSDF Toyota Mega Cruiser with a smoke generator installed in its rear compartment

Very large or sustained smoke screens are produced by a smoke generator. This machine heats a volatile material (typically oil or an oil based mixture) to evaporate it, then mixes the vapor with cool external air at a controlled rate so it condenses to a mist with a controlled droplet size. Cruder designs simply boiled waste oil over a heater, while more sophisticated ones sprayed a specially formulated oily composition ("fog oil") through nozzles onto a heated plate. Choice of a suitable oil, and careful control of cooling rate, can produce droplet sizes close to the ideal size for Mie scattering of visible light. This produces a very effective obscuration per weight of material used. This screen can then be sustained as long as the generator is supplied with oil, and—especially if a number of generators are used—the screen can build up to a considerable size. One 50 gallon drum of fog oil can obscure 60 miles (97 km) of land in 15 minutes.

Whilst producing very large amounts of smoke relatively cheaply, these generators have a number of disadvantages. They are much slower to respond than pyrotechnic sources, and require a valuable piece of equipment to be sited at the point of emission of the smoke. They are also relatively heavy and not readily portable, which is a significant problem if the wind shifts. To overcome this latter problem, they may be used in fixed posts widely dispersed over the battlefield, or else mounted on specially adapted vehicles. An example of the latter is the M56 Coyote generator.

Many armoured fighting vehicles can create smoke screens in a similar way, generally by injecting diesel fuel onto the hot exhaust.

[edit]
Assault Amphibious Vehicles deploying smoke to cover their landing

Warships have sometimes used a simple variation of the smoke generator, by injecting fuel oil directly into the funnel, where it evaporates into a white cloud. An even simpler method that was used in the days of steam-propelled warships was to restrict the supply of air to the boiler. This resulted in incomplete combustion of the coal or oil, which produced a thick black smoke. Because the smoke was black, it absorbed heat from the sun and tended to rise above the water. Therefore, navies turned to various chemicals, such as titanium tetrachloride, that produce a white, low-lying cloud.[1][2]

Infrared smokes

[edit]

The proliferation of thermal imaging FLIR systems on the battlefields necessitates the use of obscurant smokes that are effectively opaque in the infrared part of electromagnetic spectrum. This kind of obscurant smoke is sometimes referred to as "Visual and Infrared Screening Smoke" (VIRSS).[3] To achieve this, the particle size and composition of the smokes has to be adjusted. One of the approaches is using an aerosol of burning red phosphorus particles and aluminium-coated glass fibers; the infrared emissions of such smoke curtains hides the weaker emissions of colder objects behind it, but the effect is only short-lived. Carbon (most often graphite) particles present in the smokes can also serve to absorb the beams of laser designators. Yet another possibility is a water fog sprayed around the vehicle; the presence of large droplets absorbs in infrared band and additionally serves as a countermeasure against radars in 94 GHz band. Other materials used as visible/infrared obscurants are micro-pulverized flakes of brass or graphite, particles of titanium dioxide, or terephthalic acid.

Older systems for production of infrared smoke work as generators of aerosol of dust with controlled particle size. Most contemporary vehicle-mounted systems use this approach. However, the aerosol stays airborne only for a short time.

The brass particles used in some infrared smoke grenades are typically composed of 70% copper and 30% zinc. They are shaped as irregular flakes with a diameter of about 1.7 μm and thickness of 80–320 nm.[4]

Some experimental obscurants work in both infrared and millimeter wave region. They include carbon fibers, metal coated fibers or glass particles, metal microwires, particles of iron and of suitable polymers.[5]

Chemicals used

[edit]
Amphibious vehicles deploying smoke grenades

Zinc chloride

[edit]

Zinc chloride smoke is grey-white and consists of tiny particles of zinc chloride. The most common mixture for generating these is a zinc chloride smoke mixture (HC), consisting of hexachloroethane, grained aluminium and zinc oxide. The smoke consists of zinc chloride, zinc oxychlorides, and hydrochloric acid, which absorb the moisture in the air. The smoke also contains traces of organic chlorinated compounds, phosgene, carbon monoxide, and chlorine.

Its toxicity is caused mainly by the content of strongly acidic hydrochloric acid, but also due to thermal effects of reaction of zinc chloride with water. These effects cause lesions of the mucous membranes of the upper airways. Damage of the lower airways can manifest itself later as well, due to fine particles of zinc chloride and traces of phosgene. In high concentrations the smoke can be very dangerous when inhaled. Symptoms include dyspnea, retrosternal pain, hoarseness, stridor, lachrymation, cough, expectoration, and in some cases haemoptysis. Delayed pulmonary edema, cyanosis or bronchopneumonia may develop. The smoke and the spent canisters contain suspected carcinogens.

The prognosis for the casualties depends on the degree of the pulmonary damage. All exposed individuals should be kept under observation for 8 hours. Most affected individuals recover within several days, with some symptoms persisting for up to 1–2 weeks. Severe cases can suffer of reduced pulmonary function for some months, the worst cases developing marked dyspnoea and cyanosis leading to death.

Respirators are required for people coming into contact with the zinc chloride smoke.

Chlorosulfuric acid

[edit]

Chlorosulfuric acid (CSA) is a heavy, strongly acidic liquid. When dispensed in air, it readily absorbs moisture and forms dense white fog of hydrochloric acid and sulfuric acid. In moderate concentrations it is highly irritating to eyes, nose, and skin.

When chlorosulfuric acid comes in contact with water, a strong exothermic reaction scatters the corrosive mixture in all directions. CSA is highly corrosive, so careful handling is required.

Low concentrations cause prickling sensations on the skin, but high concentrations or prolonged exposure to field concentrations can cause severe irritation of the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract, and mild cough and moderate contact dermatitis can result. Liquid CSA causes acid burns of skin and exposure of eyes can lead to severe eye damage.

Affected body parts should be washed with water and then with sodium bicarbonate solution. The burns are then treated like thermal burns. The skin burns heal readily, while cornea burns can result in residual scarring.

Respirators are required for any concentrations sufficient to cause any coughing, irritation of the eyes or prickling of the skin.

Titanium tetrachloride

[edit]

Titanium tetrachloride (FM) is a colorless, non-flammable, corrosive liquid. In contact with damp air it hydrolyzes readily, resulting in a dense white smoke consisting of droplets of hydrochloric acid and particles of titanium oxychloride.

The titanium tetrachloride smoke is an irritant and unpleasant to breathe.

It is dispensed from aircraft to create vertical smoke curtains, and during World War II it was a favorite smoke generation agent on warships.

Goggles and a respirator should be worn when in contact with the smoke, full protective clothing should be worn when handling liquid FM. In direct contact with skin or eyes, liquid FM causes acid burns.

Phosphorus

[edit]
Main article: White phosphorus (weapon)

Red phosphorus and white phosphorus (WP) are red or waxy yellow or white substances. White phosphorus is pyrophoric - can be handled safely when under water, but in contact with air it spontaneously ignites. It is used as an incendiary. Both types of phosphorus are used for smoke generation, mostly in artillery shells, bombs, and grenades.

White phosphorus smoke is typically very hot and may cause burns on contact. Red phosphorus is less reactive, does not ignite spontaneously, and its smoke does not cause thermal burns - for this reason it is safer to handle, but cannot be used so easily as an incendiary.

Aerosol of burning phosphorus particles is an effective obscurant against thermal imaging systems. However, this effect is short-lived. After the phosphorus particles fully burn, the smoke reverts from emission to absorption. While very effective in the visible spectrum, cool phosphorus smoke has only low absorption and scattering in infrared wavelengths. Additives in the smoke that involve this part of the spectrum may be visible to thermal imagers or IR viewers.[6]

Dyes

[edit]
Main article: Colored smoke
Yellow smoke screens deployed to mark soldiers completing an objective during Exercise Northern Edge 2017

Various signalling purposes require the use of colored smoke. The smoke created is a fine mist of dye particles, generated by burning a mixture of one or more dyes with a low-temperature pyrotechnic composition, usually based on potassium chlorate and lactose (also known as milk sugar).

Colored smoke screen is also possible by adding a colored dye into the fog oil mixture. Typical white smoke screen uses titanium dioxide (or other white pigment), but other colors are possible by replacing titanium dioxide with another pigment. When the hot fog oil condenses on contact with air, the pigment particles are suspended along with the oil vapor. Early smoke screen experiments attempted the use of colored pigment, but found that titanium dioxide was the most light scattering particle known and therefore best for use in obscuring troops and naval vessels. Colored smoke became primarily used for signaling rather than obscuring. In today's [when?] military, smoke grenades are found to be non-cancer causing, unlike the 1950s AN-M8 model.

Sulfonic acid

[edit]

The smoke generator on the Medium Mark B tank used sulfonic acid.[7]

Tactics

[edit]

History

[edit]
British and Scottish soldiers disembarking from a landing craft under a smoke screen, 1941

The first documented use of a smoke screen was circa 2000 B.C. in the wars of ancient India, where incendiary devices and toxic fumes caused people to fall asleep.[8]

It was later recorded by a Greek historian, Thucydides, who described that the smoke created by the burning of sulphur, wood and pitch was carried by the wind into Plataea (428 B.C.) and later at Delium (423 B.C.) and that at Delium, defenders were driven from the city walls.[9]

In 1622, a smoke screen was used at the Battle of Macau by the Dutch. A barrel of damp gunpowder was fired into the wind so that the Dutch could land under the cover of smoke.[10]

Later, between 1790 and 1810, Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald (1775–1860), a Scottish Naval commander and officer in the Royal Navy who fought during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, devised a smoke screen created through the burning of sulphur which would be used in warfare after learning about the same methods used at Delium and Plataea.[11][12]

Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald's grandson, Douglas Cochrane, 12th Earl of Dundonald, described in his autobiography how he spoke to Winston Churchill (who once galloped for him when he had a brigade at manœuvres in England) of the importance of using smoke-screens on the battleground, it would in turn be used in both WWI & WW2.[13]

Land warfare

[edit]
A smoke screen obstructing the view of the parachute landing at Nadzab, 1943

Smoke screens are usually used by infantry to conceal their movement in areas of enemy fire. They can also be used by armoured fighting vehicles, such as tanks, to conceal a withdrawal. They have regularly been used since earliest times to disorient or drive off attackers.

During the First World War the Germans used a lot of smoke screens (Nebel) to hide Batterie Pommern.[14][15][16]

A toxic variant of the smokescreen was used and devised by Frank Arthur Brock who used it during the Zeebrugge Raid on 23 April 1918, the British Royal Navy's attempt to neutralize the key Belgian port of Bruges-Zeebrugge.

For the crossing of the Dnieper river in October 1943, the Red Army laid a smoke screen 30 kilometres (19 mi) long. At the Anzio beachhead in 1944, US Chemical Corps troops maintained a 25 km (16 mi) "light haze" smokescreen around the harbour throughout daylight hours, for two months. The density of this screen was adjusted to be sufficient to prevent observation by German forward observers in the surrounding hills, yet not inhibit port operations.

In the Vietnam War, "Smoke Ships" were introduced as part of a new Air Mobile Concept to protect crew and man on the ground from small arms fire. In 1964 and 1965, the "Smoke Ship" was first employed by the 145th Combat Aviation Battalion using the UH-1B.[17]

[edit]
USS Lexington (CV-2) obscured by a smoke screen, 1929

There are a number of early examples of using incendiary weapons at sea, such as Greek fire, stinkpots, fire ships, and incendiaries on the decks of turtle ships, which also had the effect of creating smoke. The naval smoke screen is often said to have been proposed by Sir Thomas Cochrane in 1812, although Cochrane's proposal was as much an asphyxiant as an obscurant. It is not until the early twentieth century that there is clear evidence of deliberate use of large scale naval smokescreens as a major tactic.

During the American Civil War, the first smoke screen was used by the R.E. Lee, running the blockade and escaping the USS Iroquois.

The use of smoke screens was common in the naval battles of World War I and World War II.

See also

[edit]

References

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

Smoke screen

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A smokescreen is a mass of dense deployed to conceal units, areas, or activities from by reducing visibility through the or absorption of . In a figurative sense, it denotes any tactic, statement, or device designed to obscure, confuse, or mislead others, often to divert attention from a true or fact. Smoke screens have been employed in warfare since at least the in 1862, when black smoke was used in naval operations to hinder enemy sighting. The began systematic experimentation with smoke and obscurants during , expanding their use extensively in for both ground and naval applications, including large-scale screens to protect cities from aerial bombing. British forces, for instance, deployed massive smoke operations in 1940–1941 to shield industrial centers from German air raids. In , smokescreens primarily function through four roles: screening to hide friendly movements in one's own territory or between forces; obscuring to degrade enemy vision of targets; deceiving to mislead about operational intentions; and signaling or identifying positions for friendly units. They are produced via chemical munitions such as grenades, shells, mortar rounds, or vehicle-mounted generators that release aerosols like or , creating persistent clouds tailored to environmental conditions. Offensively, smokescreens conceal advancing , tanks, or ; mask breaches in obstacles; and support amphibious landings by screening beachheads from defenders. Defensively, they blind observation posts, isolate enemy advances for counterattacks, and impair guided weapons like anti-tank missiles by limiting or targeting. Operations range from hasty, short-duration screens at the level to deliberate, large-area deployments coordinated at or higher echelons. Contemporary developments emphasize multispectral obscuration, with U.S. Army initiatives in 2025 focusing on smoke obscurant munitions (SOM) that not only block visible light but also disrupt , , and other sensors through advanced chemical formulations, enhancing protection against modern precision-guided threats.

Principles of Operation

Visual Obscuration Mechanisms

Smoke screens achieve visual obscuration primarily through the dispersion of aerosol particles that interact with visible via and absorption, reducing the transmission of from target areas to observers. These particles, typically in the range of 0.7 to 50 µm, form a that blocks line-of-sight by attenuating incoming and reflected , thereby concealing movements or positions. The effectiveness depends on achieving a high particle concentration to ensure sufficient optical across the desired coverage area. The dominant mechanism for light interaction in such clouds is Mie scattering, which occurs when aerosol particles have diameters comparable to the wavelength of visible light (approximately 0.4–0.7 µm). Mie theory describes how these particles scatter light asymmetrically, with forward scattering predominating, leading to a diffuse haze that significantly reduces visibility. For optimal obscuration in the visible spectrum, particle sizes around 0.3–1 µm maximize the extinction efficiency, as smaller particles undergo Rayleigh scattering (ineffective for broadband visible blocking) and larger ones settle more quickly. The mass extinction coefficient, which quantifies this attenuation per unit mass of aerosol, is derived from Mie calculations and varies with particle size distribution and refractive index. Particle and dispersion are critical for maintaining obscuration over time and . High initial , modeled as a Gaussian concentration profile C(r)=Qi(2π)3/2σxσyσzexp⁡(−12[(x−xi)2σx2+(y−yi)2σy2+(z−zi)2σz2])C(r) = \frac{Q_i}{(2\pi)^{3/2} \sigma_x \sigma_y \sigma_z} \exp\left(-\frac{1}{2} \left[ \frac{(x-x_i)^2}{\sigma_x^2} + \frac{(y-y_i)^2}{\sigma_y^2} + \frac{(z-z_i)^2}{\sigma_z^2} \right]\right), ensures rapid buildup of , where QiQ_i is the source strength and σ\sigma terms represent dispersion scales. Dispersion widens the cloud, but excessive spreading dilutes and shortens effective duration, typically limiting coverage to minutes without resupply. The degree of obscuration is quantified by τ\tau, defined by the Beer-Lambert law as τ=−ln⁡(I/I0)\tau = -\ln(I / I_0), where II is the transmitted light intensity and I0I_0 is the initial intensity. This τ=∫αC(r) dr\tau = \int \alpha C(r) \, dr, with α\alpha as the mass extinction coefficient and C(r)C(r) as local concentration, must exceed 3–4 for near-total visible blockage over typical path lengths. Environmental factors like wind accelerate dispersion by advecting the cloud centroid at speeds up to several m/s, potentially halving duration in moderate breezes, while high promotes particle growth through or hygroscopic effects, altering size distribution and reducing efficiency by up to 20–30%. These mechanisms can be extended briefly to multispectral screening by adjusting particle properties for broader coverage.

Multispectral Screening

Multispectral screening extends the foundational principles of visual obscuration to broader electromagnetic spectra, enabling smoke screens to counter advanced sensors beyond human sight. Infrared obscuration relies on particles that either absorb or reflect , attenuating signals in the spectrum (0.7–14 μm) where thermal imaging devices operate. Absorptive particles, such as those derived from red phosphorus or metal-organic frameworks, convert incident energy into heat, reducing transmittance through blackbody emission matching the target's thermal signature. Reflective mechanisms involve dielectric or metallic particles that scatter wavelengths via , particularly effective for longer wavelengths in the mid- and long-wave bands used by common thermal imagers. These processes achieve extinction coefficients that can reduce visibility to under 10% within seconds of deployment, depending on optimized for the target spectrum. Development of multispectral smokes has focused on formulations that simultaneously obscure visible light (0.4–0.7 μm), near-infrared for laser designators (around 1.06 μm), and thermal infrared for imaging sensors, addressing the limitations of traditional hexachloroethane-based smokes that primarily target visible wavelengths. Early efforts in the 1990s explored carbon-based aerosols for broadband attenuation, but modern compositions incorporate advanced nanomaterials, such as electrospun conductive nanofibers, to enhance performance across ultraviolet, visible, and infrared regions. These advances counter thermal imaging by disrupting heat contrast and jamming laser designators through spectral absorption at operational wavelengths, as demonstrated in U.S. Army trials with vehicle-mounted systems. In contrast to the narrower visible range, the extended infrared spectrum requires particles tuned to larger sizes (1–10 μm) for efficient interaction with longer wavelengths, ensuring comprehensive sensor denial. As of 2025, ongoing research includes ultra-thin fibers for microwave obscuration and perovskite materials for multi-wavelength effects. Specific adaptations include coded visibility smokes, which provide directional transparency to allow friendly forces visibility while blocking adversaries, as pursued in . The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's Coded Visibility program, initiated in July 2022, develops tunable aerosols using polarized or patterned particles that exploit differences in observer equipment or position, enabling one-way transmittance in the 0.78–14 μm range. This approach builds on patent-protected methods for asymmetric obscuration, where smoke appears opaque from one direction due to angular scattering but permeable from another, enhancing tactical advantages without compromising allied sensors. Such innovations prioritize safety and controllability, avoiding hazardous materials like white phosphorus.

Historical Development

Early and Pre-20th Century Uses

The use of smoke for military concealment has ancient origins, with the first documented instance circa 2000 BC in the wars of ancient , where incendiary devices and toxic fumes were used to create obscuring smoke during battles. Similar techniques appeared in other ancient conflicts, where natural fires or burning vegetation served to obscure troop movements, though these methods were often opportunistic rather than systematically planned. In , smoke generation became a more deliberate tactic among nomadic forces. During the in 1241, at the , Mongol commanders exploited smoke—likely produced by burning reeds or dry grass—to confuse Polish and allied knights, separating their from and enabling flanking maneuvers that led to a decisive victory. Such applications typically involved simple like , wet hay, or other flammable organic materials set ablaze to create dense clouds, allowing raiders or armies to advance or retreat under cover. However, these primitive methods had significant limitations: smoke dispersal was heavily dependent on wind direction and speed, often rendering screens unpredictable and short-lived, while the labor-intensive preparation restricted their scale and reliability in prolonged engagements. By the , smoke screens saw application in more structured conflicts, exemplified during the . In 1863, Confederate General employed combustion of and to generate obscuring smoke, aiding the concealment of troop withdrawals and supply movements amid Union pursuit. This marked an evolution from purely natural fires, incorporating readily available industrial byproducts for denser, more persistent cover. Toward the late , military thinkers began exploring chemical enhancements, with proposals for reactive mixtures that could produce controlled smoke without open flames, setting the stage for industrialized applications.

20th Century Conflicts

The introduction of smoke screens in represented a pivotal shift in tactical obscuration, evolving from ad-hoc methods to systematic deployment for concealing and naval advances. The British pioneered the first notable use during the Dardanelles campaign in 1915, where naval forces employed smoke lighters towed by trawlers to generate protective screens during the Gallipoli landings on April 25, concealing troop movements from Ottoman artillery and machine guns along the beaches. This innovation, though hampered by variable winds and limited chemical formulations like oil-based emissions, allowed initial waves of Allied troops to establish beachheads despite heavy resistance, demonstrating smoke's potential to disrupt enemy observation without lethal effects. Concurrently, introduced smoke grenades around 1916, using chlorosulfonic acid in devices like the Nebelbombe to produce dense white clouds for masking trench raids and , enhancing close-quarters assaults throughout the war. By 1917, smoke screens had become integral to major offensives, particularly in the Third Battle of Ypres (Passchendaele), where British forces integrated them into creeping barrages to shield infantry advances across mud-choked terrain. During operations like the Action of 22 August 1917 near Langemarck, troops carried smoke candles—portable pots emitting chemical vapors—to create localized screens up to 100 meters wide, protecting assaults on German positions from enfilading fire and allowing advances of several hundred yards in sectors where visibility was otherwise nil due to and . This tactical employment reduced casualties by obscuring machine-gun nests and wire entanglements, though effectiveness varied with wind direction, contributing to mixed results in the broader offensive that claimed over 500,000 casualties on both sides. World War II saw expanded integration of smoke into combined-arms tactics, with Allied forces refining creeping barrages to include 10-20% smoke shells for enhanced concealment during amphibious and inland assaults. In operations like the Battle of the Reichswald in , British and Canadian artillery laid yellow smoke markers ahead of high-explosive lifts, enabling infantry to advance 1-2 kilometers under cover against fortified German lines, minimizing exposure to 88mm guns and snipers in the . Naval applications proliferated in the Pacific theater, where U.S. Navy destroyers routinely deployed smokescreens using fumigators and pyrotechnic pots to shield carrier task forces; a prime example occurred during the on October 25, 1944, when USS Heermann and accompanying escorts generated a 5-mile-wide screen of hexachloroethane-based smoke, frustrating Japanese battleship Yamato's gunnery and allowing Taffy 3's jeep carriers to evade destruction despite overwhelming odds. In the 1991 Persian Gulf War, coalition forces extensively used smoke screens, including vehicle-mounted generators producing fog oil plumes, to conceal advances and degrade Iraqi targeting during operations like the ground campaign to liberate . This employment highlighted the integration of smoke with modern sensors, though limited by desert winds. During the era, smoke screen usage remained constrained by international treaties like the 1925 , which blurred distinctions between non-lethal obscurants and prohibited chemical agents, leading to cautious employment in Korea and to avoid escalation accusations. In the , U.S. Army chemical units, such as the 71st Smoke Generator Company, deployed jeep-mounted M1 generators producing fog oil plumes to screen key ports like Inchon and Pusan from North Korean air reconnaissance, operating intermittently from 1950-1953 to cover evacuations and supply lines without broader offensive integration due to fears of reprisal under bans. Similarly, in , restrictions limited widespread tactical smoke amid scrutiny over herbicides like , though specialized "smoke ships"—helicopters modified with exhaust oil injectors—provided localized aerial screens for troop insertions, as seen in Air Mobile operations from 1965 onward, prioritizing defensive concealment over aggressive maneuvers.

Technologies and Delivery Methods

Portable and Ground Devices

Smoke grenades serve as primary handheld devices for to deploy smoke screens rapidly in mobile or close-quarters operations, enabling concealment during advances or retreats. These pyrotechnic munitions, such as the U.S. Army's AN/M8 white and M18 , feature a cylindrical body approximately 2.5 inches in diameter and 5.5 inches long, filled with a smoke-producing composition like (HC) for white smoke or dye-infused mixtures for variants. Ignition occurs via a standard M204A1 or M201A1 with a 1.2- to 2-second delay after the is pulled and released, allowing safe throwing without premature activation. Soldiers can typically throw these up to 30-40 meters, depending on physical conditioning and terrain, providing immediate visual obscuration over an area of about 20-30 meters in diameter. Burn times range from 50 to 90 seconds, during which they emit dense smoke at rates sufficient to screen small teams from direct observation, though effectiveness diminishes in windy conditions. For ground-based support in portable scenarios, shells like the M375 105mm cartridge employ HC mixtures to generate broader screens from man-portable or towed positions. These shells consist of a bursting charge that disperses the HC composition—typically 45-50% , 28-30% , 15-20% aluminum, and 5-10% —upon impact or airburst, creating a lasting 2-5 minutes over 200-400 meters. The HC formulation produces particulates that effectively obscure visible and near-infrared spectra, with emission rates around 10-15 m³/s in calm winds, allowing units to request for tactical masking without dedicated vehicle systems. Portable smoke pots and backpack generators provide sustained ground cover for defensive positions or ambushes, deployable by individual soldiers or small units. The M8 screening smoke pot, a canister weighing about 25 pounds when filled, ignites via a pull-wire to burn for 3-5 minutes, producing approximately 100,000-150,000 cubic feet (2,800-4,200 m³) of smoke at rates of 10-20 m³/s, suitable for obscuring a 50-100 meter front. Larger variants like the M1 land smoke pot extend this to 10-15 minutes of emission, using similar HC fillers in a 15-20 pound pot that can be hand-carried and placed for static screening. These devices prioritize ease of transport, with pots requiring no external power. Safety protocols for troops emphasize minimizing exposure to toxic byproducts like from HC smokes, mandating that personnel remain upwind during deployment and ignition to avoid respiratory irritation. Gloves must be worn when handling or throwing grenades and pots to prevent chemical burns from hot casings reaching 200-300°C, and entry into plumes requires full protective masks, long-sleeved uniforms, and head coverings. doctrines prohibit use in enclosed spaces without ventilation and limit exposure durations to under 15 minutes without gear, with post-use using water to neutralize residues. Such measures ensure operational effectiveness while mitigating health risks in field conditions. For larger-scale applications, these portable systems can integrate with vehicle-mounted generators to extend coverage across broader fronts.

Vehicle-Mounted and Large-Scale Systems

Vehicle-mounted smoke systems on tanks and armored personnel carriers (APCs) enable rapid deployment of obscurants for self-protection and maneuver concealment. These typically consist of multi-tube grenade launchers that fire pyrotechnic smoke grenades to create instantaneous screens. For instance, the Russian T-72 main battle tank features eight 81-mm smoke grenade launchers mounted on the left side of the turret, capable of launching up to 32 grenades to produce a protective smoke veil around the vehicle. Complementing this, the T-72's exhaust smoke system injects fuel into the engine exhaust to generate a trailing smoke cloud while the vehicle moves at speeds up to 25 km/h, enhancing mobility under cover. Similarly, U.S. APCs like the M113 employ the M239 smoke grenade launcher system, with one four-tube cluster on each side of the hull that simultaneously fires eight 66-mm smoke grenades total for immediate visual obscuration during tactical repositioning. In naval applications, shipboard smoke generators provide fleet-level protection by deploying dense clouds to mask vessel formations from visual and detection. Modern systems often use portable pots or line-charge dispensers that release chemical aerosols, such as those tested for countering anti-ship missiles and surveillance. These setups, evolved from historical designs like the U.S. Navy's Mod 1 generator with four tanks producing continuous via vaporized , now emphasize rapid activation for defensive screens during high-threat scenarios. Aerial dispensers on aircraft carriers or support ships can further extend coverage, laying linear trails to obscure entire task forces. Large-scale ground systems, such as the U.S. Army's , deliver sustained battlefield obscuration from vehicle platforms to deny enemy observation over wide areas. Mounted on a High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV), the M56 integrates a smoke generating unit with a 120-gallon and power unit, producing 90 minutes of visual/near-infrared smoke or 30 minutes of mid-infrared obscuration without resupply by atomizing fog oil through a . This system supports division-level operations by creating dynamic screens up to several kilometers in extent, protecting maneuvering forces from reconnaissance. Its successor, the M75 Screening Obscuration Module (SOM), offers a lighter, 60-pound vehicle-mountable alternative using or diesel to generate targeted smoke clouds for breaching and concealment. Post-2010 developments have integrated smoke delivery with unmanned systems for enhanced precision and reduced risk. The U.S. M75 SOM, for example, can be transported by the TRV-150 tactical resupply drone, allowing remote deployment of obscurants in contested zones. In the conflict, Russian forces have employed first-person-view (FPV) drones to lay screens by maneuvering the to disperse payloads, creating temporary covers that obscure assaults from and drone spotters while compensating for wind drift. These adaptations extend vehicle-mounted capabilities to aerial platforms, enabling layered, on-demand area denial.

Chemical Agents

Traditional Smoke-Producing Chemicals

Traditional smoke-producing chemicals, employed primarily in military applications from the early to mid-20th century, relied on or combustion reactions to generate dense aerosols for visual obscuration. These agents, such as zinc chloride-based formulations, mixtures, , white phosphorus, and red phosphorus compositions, produced smoke through interactions with atmospheric or ignition, often resulting in hazardous byproducts. Their effectiveness stemmed from the formation of fine particles that scattered light effectively, though many posed significant risks due to corrosiveness and . Zinc chloride (HC) smoke was generated by combusting a pyrotechnic mixture of (C₂Cl₆), zinc oxide (ZnO), and aluminum, yielding approximately 62.5% (ZnCl₂) by mass in the resulting smoke. The reaction proceeds exothermically as C₂Cl₆ + ZnO → ZnCl₂ + carbon products, with the ZnCl₂ vapor cooling and nucleating into submicron aerosols that enhance obscuration upon reacting with to form hygroscopic particles. This created dense, persistent white smoke suitable for ground-based munitions like grenades and shells. However, ZnCl₂'s corrosiveness led to severe concerns, including and respiratory distress at concentrations above 1,700–2,000 mg·min/m³, with lethal exposures reaching 50,000 mg·min/m³ in enclosed spaces during military training. Chlorosulfuric acid (FS) smoke involved a of 45% chlorosulfonic acid (HSO₃Cl) and 55% (SO₃), dispersed via vaporization or atomization in smoke generators. Upon release, SO₃ hydrolyzed with atmospheric according to SO₃ + H₂O → H₂SO₄, forming a stable mist that condensed into fine droplets for rapid screening, achieving obscuration within 1–3 seconds and persisting for 10–15 minutes in naval operations. This agent saw extensive use in naval tactics, where it was sprayed from ships or to conceal fleets and maneuvers over areas up to 300 meters long. The resulting hydrochloric and s made FS highly corrosive and irritating to personnel and equipment. Titanium tetrachloride (FM) smoke was produced by hydrolyzing the liquid upon dispersal into humid air, following the reaction + 2H₂O → TiO₂ + 4HCl, which generated fine (TiO₂) particles and vapor. The particle size, typically ranging from 0.1 to 1 µm depending on hydrolysis conditions like and , was critical for smoke density, as smaller particles improved scattering and obscuration efficiency without rapid settling. This non-combustive method allowed for quick deployment from portable or vehicle-mounted devices, creating thick white clouds effective for short-range screening. The byproduct HCl contributed to the agent's irritancy, though less persistently toxic than ZnCl₂. White phosphorus (WP) smoke was generated by the ignition of white phosphorus (P₄), a waxy, pyrophoric solid that spontaneously ignites in air at around 30°C, burning to produce (P₄O₁₀) which rapidly hydrolyzes with atmospheric moisture: P₄O₁₀ + 6H₂O → 4H₃PO₄, forming dense aerosols for visual obscuration. Used in shells, grenades, and mortar rounds since , WP provided immediate, persistent white smoke for screening and signaling, often combined with a bursting charge for dispersal. However, its high reactivity posed severe risks, including deep burns, from phosphorus vapors causing and organ damage, and environmental concerns leading to restrictions under as an incendiary weapon when used against personnel. Red phosphorus (RP) smoke relied on the ignition of polymeric red ((P₄)ₙ) mixed with oxidizers like and binders, igniting at approximately 280°C to produce (P₄O₁₀) that hydrolyzed with moisture into aerosols for obscuration. This combustion-based approach, used in mortar rounds and grenades, generated persistent smoke clouds suitable for area denial, with the red phosphorus form being less spontaneously reactive than white . Military compositions often included 80–95% red phosphorus to balance ignition reliability and smoke yield. Additives such as dyes could be incorporated to produce colored variants for signaling purposes.

Advanced and Specialized Formulations

Advanced smoke screen formulations have evolved from traditional chemical bases to incorporate modern priorities such as reduced , multispectral obscuration capabilities, and adherence to international environmental standards. These developments address the limitations of earlier agents by emphasizing safer pyrotechnic mixes that minimize risks to personnel while maintaining effective screening in visual, , and spectra. Research by the U.S. Army has focused on iterative improvements to legacy compositions, replacing hazardous components with less reactive alternatives to lower overall exposure hazards. Hexachloroethane (HC)-based mixtures have been reformulated to reduce toxicity, often substituting zinc oxide or with compounds like stannous oxide and aluminum to produce white comparable to older zinc-based versions but with lower environmental and impacts. These updated HC compositions, developed by the U.S. Army's DEVCOM Chemical Biological Center, avoid the severe pulmonary injuries associated with zinc aerosols while providing similar obscuration duration and density for grenades such as the M18. The goal is to achieve lethal concentration 50 (LC50) values indicative of minimal acute risk, aligning with safety thresholds that prevent fatalities from short-term exposures during training or operations. For multispectral applications, and metal flake composites serve as radar-attenuating additives in smoke clouds, enhancing electromagnetic obscuration beyond visible blocking. flakes, dispersed in pyrotechnic mixes, effectively scatter millimeter-wave and signals, providing broadband protection against detection systems; when combined with metal flakes such as or aluminum, these composites extend attenuation into frequencies, floating longer than heavier metal alone to maintain persistent screens. U.S. military research highlights their use in field-deployable obscurants to counter advanced sensors, with formulations tuned for to optimize suspension time and signal jamming efficiency. Non-pyrophoric alternatives to white , such as carbide-based compounds, represent a key advancement in safe, incendiary-free production. U.S. investigations, including work by RDECOM-ARDEC and ECBC, have developed B4C/KNO3 mixtures with diluents and burn-rate modifiers like , yielding grenades that outperform standard M83 TA phosphorus rounds in obscuration mass and duration without ignition risks or toxic byproducts. These formulations, tested in chambers and field trials, support compliance with restrictions on pyrophoric materials by using benign oxidizers and fuels, with ongoing assessments confirming low inhalation toxicity profiles. Although initial prototypes date to , subsequent refinements continue to refine particle for reduction and performance tuning. Specialized additives like dyes and sulfonic acids enable persistent or colored smokes for signaling and extended screening. derivatives, such as 1-N-methylaminoanthraquinone, produce vivid smoke when vaporized in pyrotechnic reactions, offering high-purity coloration for identification markers with molecular weights optimized for stability. Sulfonic acids, including chlorosulfonic acid in liquid-dispersed formulations, generate dense, long-lasting white fogs by reacting with atmospheric moisture, historically used in military sprays for rapid area denial but now integrated into safer mixes to enhance persistence without excessive acidity. These elements are selected to meet formulation goals of environmental compliance, including lower LC50 thresholds to avoid classification as toxic chemicals under the 1993 , which prohibits agents with significant incapacitating effects while permitting non-lethal obscurants.

Tactical Employment

Land-Based Tactics

In land-based tactics, smoke screens have been employed offensively to facilitate advances by concealing movements from enemy observation and providing cover during assaults. A prominent example is the creeping barrage during , where artillery fire, often incorporating smoke shells, advanced incrementally ahead of to suppress defenders and obscure the attackers' positions, as seen in British operations from 1917 onward that integrated smoke with shrapnel for enhanced concealment. This tactic evolved into combined smoke and explosive barrages that allowed troops to cross open terrain with reduced exposure to machine-gun fire. In the , U.S. forces utilized smoke grenades and generator units to screen airmobile insertions and ground advances through dense , masking troop concentrations from enemy spotters and enabling surprise maneuvers despite limited large-scale obscuration compared to earlier conflicts. Defensively, smoke screens serve to obscure retreats and fortifications, denying visual targeting to enemy and observers. During the , the U.S. 338th Smoke Generator Company maintained a continuous smoke screen over four months near Pork Chop Hill from November 1952 to February 1953, significantly reducing the effectiveness of North Korean fire on entrenched positions and allowing defenders to reposition without detection. Similarly, in World War II's , American engineers and used smoke pots to veil bridgeheads across the Moselle River, protecting fortifications and withdrawal movements from German . These applications highlight smoke's role in channeling enemy advances into kill zones or buying time for defensive consolidations by disrupting line-of-sight targeting. Smoke integrates seamlessly with operations to deny spotting and support assaults, enhancing overall maneuverability. By obscuring forward observers and enemy systems, smoke isolates opposing forces and protects advancing armor; for instance, in the 1973 , Egyptian smoke operations across the concealed crossings and reduced Israeli aerial spotting, enabling five divisions to advance 100,000 personnel in 24 hours. In assaults, smoke generators and munitions provide immediate cover for breaching obstacles, as demonstrated in Soviet tactics during where battalions advanced through smoke corridors created by mortar-delivered chemicals to shield against anti- guns. This synchronization with , mortars, and multiplies combat power while minimizing friendly losses from visual-based threats. U.S. Army , as outlined in FM 3-50 Smoke Operations, emphasizes employment thresholds based on METT-TC factors—mission, enemy, terrain and weather, troops and support available, time, and civil considerations—to ensure enhances rather than hinders operations. Planning must account for unit proficiency in low-visibility conditions, with timed to key to avoid interfering with friendly or movement; for example, "base the planning factor on METT-T and the proficiency of your unit to operate under as shown in previous combat (or training) operations." Adaptations from have influenced amphibious land operations, such as veils at in 1944 to screen defenses. In , smoke screens have been employed to obscure fleet movements and evade enemy gunfire, particularly during . During the pursuit of the in May 1941, British forces, including , deployed smoke to cover their withdrawal after sustaining damage in the . These tactics relied on destroyer-launched smoke to create dense curtains that reduced visibility for optical gunnery, allowing damaged vessels to disengage without immediate pursuit. In amphibious operations, smoke corridors were critical for establishing safe paths from ships to shore, shielding from coastal defenses. During rehearsals and assaults, such as those in the Pacific theater, naval forces laid ship-to-shore smoke screens using generators and to mask the approach of assault waves, preventing enemy observation and fire on vulnerable boats. For instance, in operations like the Marianas campaign, integrated smoke tactics concealed fleet positions and created protective lanes, enabling troops to reach beaches under reduced enemy . This combined naval-air effort often involved aircraft dropping smoke pots to extend corridors inland, minimizing casualties during the critical landing phase. Aerial tactics incorporating smoke screens focused on evasion and support roles, with aircraft deploying them to protect formations or enhance ground operations. In , U.S. Army Air Forces used M10 smoke tanks on fighters and light bombers to lay aerial screens, concealing troop movements or disrupting anti-aircraft fire during missions. In the Pacific theater, smoke from M10 tanks aided in masking carrier-based strikes. In , smoke not only marked targets for precision strikes but also screened attacking aircraft from ground fire, allowing low-level passes with reduced exposure. Modern have revived interest in smoke screens for defense against advanced threats, including missiles. A 2022 analysis by the U.S. Naval Institute proposed reintegrating smokescreens into fleet operations, arguing that despite radar's dominance, they could counter munitions, drones, and anti-ship missiles by obscuring visual and signatures in contested environments. This evolving role emphasizes rapid-deployment systems, such as -obscuring aerosols, to create temporary "" against hypersonic and autonomous threats, potentially complementing electronic countermeasures in high-speed engagements.

Modern Developments and Limitations

Contemporary Military Applications

In post-2000 conflicts, particularly in and , U.S. military forces utilized smoke screens extensively for convoy protection and urban operations to obscure movements and deny enemy observation. For instance, during urban engagements in Buhriz, , in 2007, soldiers from the 1st deployed smoke grenades to provide immediate concealment while engaging insurgent forces. These applications drew on foundational doctrines from earlier wars but adapted to asymmetric threats, where smoke helped mitigate improvised explosive devices and sniper fire during patrols and logistics movements. The U.S. Army announced advancements in its next-generation smokescreen program in 2025, focusing on concealment in drone-dominated environments. The M75 Screening Obscuration Module (SOM), first employed operationally that year, replaces the legacy system and offers lighter weight, faster deployment, and enhanced multispectral obscuration to counter unmanned aerial surveillance and targeting. This development addresses the proliferation of low-cost drones observed in recent conflicts, enabling forces to mask maneuvers against advanced . NATO has pursued standardization of multispectral smoke munitions through collaborative studies and agreements to ensure interoperability among member states. A key 1980s report by Sub-Panel VI detailed requirements for multi-spectral screening smokes, influencing subsequent munitions development for visual, infrared, and radar obscuration in joint operations. These efforts support unified deployment in multinational scenarios, with compatible systems meeting NATO STANAG criteria. Contemporary training emphasizes smoke integration in simulations against peer adversaries like and , preparing forces for large-scale combat operations (LSCO). Virtual and live-fire exercises, such as those outlined in U.S. Army , incorporate smoke screens for close and obscuration during contested maneuvers, simulating high-intensity environments with electronic warfare and precision strikes. Multinational events like Combined Resolve further test these tactics, using smoke to replicate denial against near-peer threats in urban and open terrain.

Countermeasures and Environmental Considerations

Countermeasures to smoke screens primarily rely on advanced sensor technologies and tactical adjustments that exploit the limitations of obscurants. Thermal imaging systems can often bypass traditional smoke by detecting heat signatures that particles do not fully obscure, though specialized in the short-wave (SWIR) range has proven particularly effective in penetrating military-grade screening smoke, revealing movement and details invisible in the . Wind dispersion tactics further undermine smoke effectiveness, as varying wind speeds and directions can rapidly dilute or shift screens, requiring operators to account for meteorological conditions to maintain coverage, with low winds allowing longer persistence while stronger gusts necessitate increased munition expenditures. systems penetrate smoke screens with minimal interference, as the of waves exceeds the size of smoke particles, enabling detection of targets regardless of visual or obscuration. Environmental effects of smoke agents pose significant risks to ecosystems, particularly from formulations like (HC) smoke, which produces as a byproduct. exhibits toxicity in soil and water, where it contributes to chloride accumulation and forms less mobile species that can alter levels and bioaccumulate, potentially harming aquatic and vegetation in contaminated areas. (WP), historically used in smoke munitions for its obscuring properties, faces restrictions under Protocol III of the 1980 (CCW), which prohibits or limits incendiary weapons—including WP when employed to cause burns—against civilian concentrations or in ways that endanger non-combatants, due to its persistent burning and toxic residues. Health risks to users from smoke agents are predominantly respiratory, with inhalation causing acute symptoms such as coughing, dyspnea, and inflammation, potentially leading to severe conditions like adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) even from brief exposures in training or combat. Long-term studies on military personnel indicate that repeated exposure to smoke obscurants may contribute to chronic respiratory issues, with some research linking multi-agent exposures—including particulates from smokes—during operations like the to unexplained syndromes involving , joint pain, and persistent lung damage. Regulatory frameworks under the , particularly the CCW and its protocols, have increasingly addressed persistent smokes since the early , emphasizing restrictions on agents with prolonged environmental impacts to mitigate unnecessary suffering and ecological harm, though non-toxic obscurants remain permissible in limited tactical roles. These measures drive modern military applications toward safer, biodegradable formulations to balance operational needs with sustainability.

References

  1. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/smoke-screen
  2. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0704052.pdf
  3. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA398331
  4. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA398331.pdf
  5. https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/army/fm/3-6/3-6ch2.htm
  6. https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2025/10/14/the-army-is-working-to-produce-a-next-gen-battlefield-smokescreen/
  7. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/15/20/5038
  8. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA102752.pdf
  9. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA111922.pdf
  10. https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/9/2299
  11. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-50/Appg.htm
  12. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA333582.pdf
  13. https://www.army.mil/article/214084/new_obscurants_hold_potential_for_blocking_infrared_sensors
  14. https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=US299112645&docAn=16387733
  15. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340684584_Multi_Spectral_Smoke_Obscurants_for_the_M1A1_Abrams_Tank_and_M88A2_Hercules_Recovery_Vehicle
  16. https://idstch.com/technology/electronics/advances-in-obscurant-technologies-for-modern-defense-systems/
  17. https://www.oejournal.org/oep/en/article/pdf/preview/10.29026/oep.2025.250001.pdf
  18. https://www.darpa.mil/research/programs/coded-visibility
  19. https://patents.google.com/patent/US6484640B1/en
  20. https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/39605/20220829/smoke-invisibility-cloak-underway-troops-replace-controversial-white-phosphorus.htm
  21. https://www.rti.org/sites/default/files/resources/bk-0003-1109-chapter14.pdf
  22. https://www.historynet.com/mongol-invasions-battle-of-liegnitz/
  23. https://www.defensenews.com/news/your-army/2025/10/14/the-army-is-working-to-produce-a-next-gen-battlefield-smokescreen/
  24. https://medcoeckapwstorprd01.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/pfw-images/borden/chemwarfare/CHAP2_Pg_09-76.pdf
  25. https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/86112-naval-smoke-screen-at-gallipoli-landings/
  26. https://www.passioncompassion1418.com/decouvertes/english_grenades_all.html
  27. https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/89241-smoke/
  28. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA189331.pdf
  29. https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/reichswald-the-battle-for-a-sinister-forest/
  30. https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/art/exhibits/conflicts-and-operations/wwii/art-of-naval-amphibious-operations-from-wwii/smoke-screen.html
  31. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA250000.pdf
  32. https://www.ausa.org/sites/default/files/LPE-97-2-Smoke-Operations-in-21st-Century-Warfare.pdf
  33. https://rdl.train.army.mil/catalog-ws/view/100.ATSC/281D394F-2572-4719-9761-D64FF79E5C26-1385476058812/tc3_23x30wc1.pdf
  34. https://jpeoaa.army.mil/Project-Offices/PM-CCS/Organizations/PdD-Combat-Armaments-and-Protection-Systems/Products/Grenades/Smoke-Grenades/
  35. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0474437.pdf
  36. https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/land/smoke.htm
  37. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA276774.pdf
  38. https://jpeoaa.army.mil/Portals/94/CCS/FactSheets/CAPS/M8%2520Smoke%2520Pot%2520Fact%2520Sheet.pdf?ver=rvdN1odyS-AKctuUvqNIog%253D%253D
  39. https://www.militarynewbie.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/TB-CML-100-Smoke-Pots.pdf
  40. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK224729/
  41. https://home.army.mil/knox/application/files/1316/7768/3533/DA_Pam_385-63_Range_Safety_20140416.pdf
  42. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/t-72-specs.htm
  43. https://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/weapon/launchers.html
  44. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/7-7/Appj.htm
  45. https://azmirror.com/briefs/payson-police-got-a-smoke-generator-from-a-navy-ship/
  46. https://maritime.org/doc/smoke/index.php
  47. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2022/january/fog-war-navy-should-reconsider-smokescreen-tactics
  48. https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/land/m56.htm
  49. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-50/Ch7.htm
  50. https://www.janes.com/osint-insights/defence-news/security/us-army-fields-new-breaching-obscuration-tech
  51. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2025/03/24/smokescreen-laying-drone-covers--russian-assault/
  52. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/5582/chapter/7
  53. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA277838.pdf
  54. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0479680.pdf
  55. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Titanium-Tetrachloride
  56. https://www.pnnl.gov/publications/hydrolysis-ticl4-initial-steps-production-tio2
  57. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK224560/
  58. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/5582/chapter/6
  59. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/prep.200700212
  60. https://techlinkcenter.org/technologies/safer-more-environmentally-friendly-smoke-screens-for-obscuring-and-signaling/3e2282df-545c-4b00-a5cd-f8c480fd19fa
  61. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK224564/
  62. https://patents.google.com/patent/US5656794A/en
  63. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA268872.pdf
  64. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA603697.pdf
  65. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA107286.pdf
  66. https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/annexes/annex-chemicals/annex-chemicals
  67. https://anzacportal.dva.gov.au/wars-and-missions/ww1/military-organisation/tactics-in-warfare
  68. https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/smokescreens-fighting-for-metz/
  69. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-50/Ch3.htm
  70. https://www.tankarchives.com/2023/09/smokescreens-in-31st-tank-corps.html
  71. https://www.kbismarck.com/denmark-strait-battle.html
  72. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1958/july/exploits-and-end-battleship-bismarck
  73. https://publications.drdo.gov.in/ojs/index.php/dsj/article/download/4166/2427
  74. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/10/amphibious-warfare/656967/
  75. https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/196221/m10-airplane-smoke-tank/
  76. https://www.defense.gov/Multimedia/Photos/igphoto/2002024745/
  77. https://www.army.mil/article/126407/army_develops_smoke_screens_for_future_battles
  78. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/military-review/Archives/English/MA-25/Battlefield-Obscuration/Battlefield-Obscuration-LSCO-UA.pdf
  79. https://archives.nato.int/report-by-the-chairman-of-sub-panel-vi-on-multi-spectral-screening-smokes-and-smoke-munitions
  80. https://www.kowa-lenses.com/blog/Smoke-Screening-Scenarios
  81. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-50/Ch2.htm
  82. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA185377.pdf
  83. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/ccw-protocol-iii-1980
  84. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28074704/
  85. https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/gulfwar/medically-unexplained-illness.asp
  86. http://disarmament.unoda.org/en/our-work/conventional-arms/convention-certain-conventional-weapons
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.