EFPs, The M2 SLAM (Shaped charges)

#1
Several articles on these toys.


http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003276.html

http://www.afrlhorizons.com/Briefs/Dec04/MN0407.html

Description
The M2 selectable lightweight attack munition (SLAM) is a multipurpose munition with an anti-tamper feature. The SLAM is compact and weighs only 1 kilogram, so it is easily portable. The SLAM is intended for use against APCs, parked aircraft, wheeled or tracked vehicles, stationary targets (such as electrical transformers), small fuel-storage tanks (less than 10,000-gallon), and ammunition storage facilities. The explosive formed projectile (EFP) warhead can penetrate 40 millimeters of homogeneous steel.

The SLAM has two models -- one is self-neutralizing (M2) and the other is self-destructing (M4): The M2 is solid green and has no labels, brands, or other distinguishing marks. This device is used by SOF and is not available to other units.
The M4 is green with a black warhead (EFP) face. This device is normally used by units designated as light, airborne, air assault, crisis response, and rapid deployment.
The SLAM has four possible modes of detonation--bottom attack, side attack, timed demolition, and command detonation. Bottom Attack: The SLAM has a built-in magnetic sensor, so it can be used as a magnetic- influenced munition against trucks and light armored vehicles. It can be concealed along trails and roads where target vehicles operate and can be camouflaged with dry leaves, grass, and so forth without affecting EFP performance. Mud, gravel, water, and other debris that fill the EFP cup have minimal impact on EFP formation and effectiveness as long as the debris does not extend beyond the depth of the EFP cup. The magnetic sensor is designed to trigger detonation when it senses a vehicle's overpass. For the EFP to form properly, it needs a minimum of 13 centimeters from the point of emplacement to the target. The bottom-attack mode is active when the selector switch is set to 4, 10, or 24 HOURS and the passive infrared sensor (PIRS) cover is in place. The SLAM will self-destruct (M4) or self-neutralize (M2) if the selected time expires before the SLAM is detonated by a vehicle. Side Attack: The SLAM is equipped with a PIRS that was specifically developed for the side-attack mode. The PIRS detects trucks and light armored vehicles by sensing the change in background temperature when vehicles cross in front of the PIRS port. The PIRS is directional and aligned with the EFP when the device is aimed. The side-attack mode is active when the SLAM selector switch is set to 4, 10, or 24 HOURS and the PIRS cover is removed to expose the PIRS. The SLAM will self-destruct (M4) or self-neutralize (M2) if the selected time expires before it is detonated by a vehicle. Timed Demolition: The SLAM's built-in timer will trigger detonation at the end of a selected time. The timed-demolition mode is active when the SLAM selector switch is set to 15, 30, 45, or 60 MINUTES. In this mode, the magnetic sensor and the PIRS are inoperable, and the SLAM will detonate after the selected time has expired. Command Detonation: This mode provides manual warhead initiation using standard military blasting caps and a priming adapter (Figure 4-7). The command-detonation capability bypasses the SLAM's fuse and safing and arming (S&A) assembly. The SLAM has an anti-tamper feature that is only active in the bottom- and side-attack modes. The SLAM will detonate when an attempt is made to change the selector switch's position after arming.

M2 SLAM

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/slam.htm

http://tech.military.com/equipment/view/88701/m2-slam.html
 

Attachments

#3
Some flaws in the article you linked:

No such thing as the Celtic Sea.

PIR was not used by the IRA or any IRT groups. The IRA used active IR and abandoned it after a couple of failed attempts.

PPM were the first to use PIR in NI.

EFP and Shaped Charge are not closely related. They are two different types of attack.

Nice piece of kit mind. Can't see much use for it in Iraq/Afghan, as coalition forces are not experiencing contact with vehicle convoys. Its employability as anti personnel (i.e in lieu of claymore) is somewhat limited.

There seems to be alot of fuss over the possibility of Iran supplying off the shelve models. This would seem strange as EFP's are relatively easy to make and would not require bringing in from other countries.
 
#4
FlakeShag said:
What is the point of this?
SLAM has been around for a wile, I still prefer the Gammon grenade.
I have tried to avoid answering your ignorant posts and stupid questions, on subjects that I post. The Band of Brothers post, being one that IMHO showed your profound ignorance.

I guess it never dawned on you as a civilian, that the 'Band of Brothers' that one served in close combat with might just be the reason that one will not forget the ones that he/she served with in wartime (Combat) service with. The ones with the same experiences and nightmares, The ones you always miss, and wish you could re-live that time with your 'Band of Brothers.' No one, in your life, will be as close to you as they have.

Your posts generally, show your ignorance of military subjects, stemming from your total lack of any military service.

Your mates here on ARRSE have defined you as a civilian, with no military servicewho uses narcotics (Coke.) I think they are right! I wonder; however, why they let you get away with posting the crap you do.

The Gammon grenade is just that a grenade of WW II vintage! To compare it to a SLAM is really ignorent and again hows your lack of military background, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gammon_bomb
 
#5
Nice piece of kit mind. Can't see much use for it in Iraq/Afghan, as coalition forces are not experiencing contact with vehicle convoys. Its employability as anti personnel (i.e in lieu of claymore) is somewhat limited.
The British military does not use anti-personnel mines does it? And yea, as you say, there is little need for SLAM.

Trip_Wire said:
The Gammon grenade is just that a grenade of WW II vintage! To compare it to a SLAM is really ignorent and again hows your lack of military background, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gammon_bomb
Just a bit of humour, I was going by the way that SLAM is not exactly needed. Anyway, just because the Gammon bomb is from world war two, does not mean it is not worthy of use. Look at what weapons the US military uses, for example the USMC uses the M16, how old is that!
 
#6
Claymore (and munitions of this type) is not regarded as an anti-personnel mine and is not in contravention of the Ottawa Treaty.
 
#7
FlakeShag said:
Nice piece of kit mind. Can't see much use for it in Iraq/Afghan, as coalition forces are not experiencing contact with vehicle convoys. Its employability as anti personnel (i.e in lieu of claymore) is somewhat limited.
The British military does not use anti-personnel mines does it? And yea, as you say, there is little need for SLAM.

Trip_Wire said:
The Gammon grenade is just that a grenade of WW II vintage! To compare it to a SLAM is really ignorent and again hows your lack of military background, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gammon_bomb
Just a bit of humour, I was going by the way that SLAM is not exactly needed. Anyway, just because the Gammon bomb is from world war two, does not mean it is not worthy of use. Look at what weapons the US military uses, for example the
USMC uses the M16, how old is that!

Just more ignorance on your part! When are you going to wise up and STFU you ignorant twit! :pissedoff:
 
#8
dingerr said:
No such thing as the Celtic Sea.
Not so, you evidently don't sail

dingerr said:
There seems to be alot of fuss over the possibility of Iran supplying off the shelve models. This would seem strange as EFP's are relatively easy to make and would not require bringing in from other countries.
I too think this
 
#9
Trip_Wire said:
Juat more ignorance on your part! When are you going to wise up and STFU you ignorant twit! :pissedoff:
I don't find how you see my post as ignorant. I think you are going to have to wise up and shut your gob yourself.

You mind liking me to the 'Band of Brothers' issue, I am sorry that I have missed your obviously imortant post.

Claymore (and munitions of this type) is not regarded as an anti-personnel mine and is not in contravention of the Ottawa Treaty.
Do we use these type of munitions then? Would the layer of the weapon need to be a specialist too, like an Assault Engineer, I remember this specialisation includes mine warfare, I just thought it was solely Anti-Tank mines.
 
#10
just because the Gammon bomb is from world war two, does not mean it is not worthy of use.
No its not worthy of use, the No247 (Allways) fuze is very dangerous, it would quite often function as the user was attempting to throw it, and contrary to it's common name it didn't 'always' function.

You'll be wanting No80 greanades back next, fecking horrible things.
 
#11
just because the Gammon bomb is from world war two, does not mean it is not worthy of use.
No its not worthy of use, the No247 (Allways) fuze is very dangerous, it would quite often function as the user was attempting to throw it, and contrary to it's common name it didn't 'always' function.

You'll be wanting No80 greanades back next, fecking horrible things.
 
#12
dingerr said:
Some flaws in the article you linked:

No such thing as the Celtic Sea.

PIR was not used by the IRA or any IRT groups. The IRA used active IR and abandoned it after a couple of failed attempts.

PPM were the first to use PIR in NI.

EFP and Shaped Charge are not closely related. They are two different types of attack.

Nice piece of kit mind. Can't see much use for it in Iraq/Afghan, as coalition forces are not experiencing contact with vehicle convoys. Its employability as anti personnel (i.e in lieu of claymore) is somewhat limited.

There seems to be alot of fuss over the possibility of Iran supplying off the shelve models. This would seem strange as EFP's are relatively easy to make and would not require bringing in from other countries.
I suggest you nit-pick with the source of the articles!

Celtic Sea.:

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

Other:

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001881.html
 
#13
dingerr said:
just because the Gammon bomb is from world war two, does not mean it is not worthy of use.
No its not worthy of use, the No247 (Allways) fuze is very dangerous, it would quite often function as the user was attempting to throw it, and contrary to it's common name it didn't 'always' function.

You'll be wanting No80 greanades back next, fecking horrible things.
Granted that the 'always fuse' is a liability. But to fill the thing with anything you wanted (and the two sticks of explosive you get with it) would be useful in certain situations; I am not going to defend the thing though as you could do the same with a sock and a fuse, a wãnk sock would add to the amount of shrapnel :pissed:
 
#14
FlakeShag:

Quote

"I don't find how you see my post as ignorant. I think you are going to have to wise up and shut your gob yourself."

I think you need another 'quick fix,' with your favorite narcotic. You are a real POS! The more you post the deeper in shite you get! You put most 'Walts' to shame!
 
#15
You posted it as a source of information. That you had obviously read. I was just making minor corrections so that your were a correct, but i'm sure you didn't need the corrections as you do seem to know it all.
 
#16
Trip_Wire said:
You put most 'Walts' to shame!
I think you should learn what the word means.

And I need to repost this,
Trip_Wire said:
Juat more ignorance on your part! When are you going to wise up and STFU you ignorant twit! :pissedoff:
I don't find how you see my post as ignorant. I think you are going to have to wise up and shut your gob yourself.

You mind liking me to the 'Band of Brothers' issue, I am sorry that I have missed your obviously imortant post.

Claymore (and munitions of this type) is not regarded as an anti-personnel mine and is not in contravention of the Ottawa Treaty.
Do we use these type of munitions then? Would the layer of the weapon need to be a specialist too, like an Assault Engineer, I remember this specialisation includes mine warfare, I just thought it was solely Anti-Tank mines.
 
#17
dingerr said:
You posted it as a source of information. That you had obviously read. I was just making minor corrections so that your were a correct, but i'm sure you didn't need the corrections as you do seem to know it all.
The Celtic Sea? Seem there is one! :thumright:

Well, dingerr, I don't claim to know it all; however; I my job in the American Special Forces was as an 18C Engineer and I was trained as a police bomb technician. What is your expertise?

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/enlistedjobs/a/18c.htm

http://www.metrokc.gov/sheriff/what/specialized_services/disposal.aspx
 
#18
Area defence weapons (claymore etc) are not engineer specilized munitions they are available to the infanteer. They can be layed and recovered as many times as necessary.

There is really such a thing as mine warfare. A minefield is passive/defensive, so doesn't engage the enemy, the enemy engages it.
 
#19
dingerr said:
Area defence weapons (claymore etc) are not engineer specilized munitions they are available to the infanteer. They can be layed and recovered as many times as necessary.

There is really such a thing as mine warfare. A minefield is passive/defensive, so doesn't engage the enemy, the enemy engages it.
Who was this (above) statement aimed at? Not me I hope!

18C -- Special Operations Engineer

Major duties. The special operations engineer employs conventional and unconventional warfare tactics and techniques in combat engineering and maintains detachment engineer equipment and supplies. Performs and maintains proficiency in all Major Duties- Performs and teaches tasks in demolitions, explosives, improvised munitions, U.S. and foreign landmines, mine/countermine operations, construction, field fortification, bridging, rigging, electrical wiring, reconnaissance, target analysis and civil action projects. Instructions and performs land and water navigation duties by interpreting maps, overlays, photos, charts and using standard and nonstandard navigational techniques and equipment. Plans, teaches and performs sabotage operations with standard, nonstandard and improvised munitions and explosives.

(1) Skill Level 3. Performs and maintains proficiency in all major duties. Performs and teaches tasks in demolitions, explosives, improvised munitions, U.S. and foreign landmines, mine/counter-mine operations, construction, field fortification, bridging, rigging, electrical wiring, reconnaissance, target analysis and civil action projects. Instructs and performs land and water navigation duties by interpreting maps, overlays, photos, charts and using standard and nonstandard navigational techniques and equipment. Plans, teaches and performs sabotage operations with standard, nonstandard and improvised munitions and explosives. Plans, prepares and conducts the target portion of the area study and conducts briefings, briefbacks and debriefings. Supervises combat engineering functions when conducting split-detachment operations and missions.

(2) Skill Level 4. Performs all duties of preceding skill level. Provides tactical and technical guidance to the Detachment Commander, indigenous and allied personnel. Plans, organizes, trains, advises, assists and supervises indigenous and allied personnel on employing and engineer company in defensive/offensive operations and engineers in support of brigade operations. Prepares and reviews target analysis folders. Responsible for the planning, execution and supervision of cross training of detachment members in special forces engineering skills. When directed, conducts operational and intelligence planning, preparation, and execution of detachment missions.

Physical demands rating and qualifications for initial award of MOS.

(1) physical demands rating,--N/A.

(2) A physical profile, of 111221.

(3) Minimum scores, of 110 in aptitude area GT, and 100 in aptitude area CO.

(4) A Security Clearance, of SECRET.

(5) Must complete Special Forces Qualification Course formal training course.

(6) Must meet requirements listed in AR 614-200.

(7) A U.S. citizen.

(8) Must be able to swim 50-meters wearing boots and battle dress uniform (BDU) prior to beginning the Special Forces Qualification Course. All Soldiers will be given a swim assessment during SFAS to determine whether he has the appitude to learn to swim.

(9) Must score a minimum of 229 points on the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT), with no less than 60 points on any event, using the standards for age group 17-21.

(10) Enlisted applicants must be in the pay grade of E-4 to E-7. Successful completion of SFAS is a prerequisite to the SFQC. (Note: There is an exception for new recruits enlisting in the new 18X recruitment program).

(11) Must be a high school graduate or have a general equivalency diploma (GED).

(12) Specialists, Corporals, and Sergeants who successfully complete SFAS will normally have their Retention Control Point waived to attend the SFQC. Upon successful completion of SFQC, they will be allowed continued service. Staff Sergeants approaching their RCP will not be allowed to apply. Each Sergeant First Class (SFC) must have no more than 12 years time in service and nine months time in grade when applying for SFAS and must be either airborne or ranger qualified. SFCs must also be able to PCS to the SFQC within six months of selection from SFAS.
 
#20
It was answering Flakeshag's Question.

My point being that it was not for sole use by the Engineer.

T_W i don't understand what you are getting at with copying and pasting the Eng Job Spec.

Look at my profile, as a 'bomb tech' you should understand my speciality.
 

Similar threads

Top