Yuku free message boards

Accordng to one write-up

" Thermobaric weapons can be dangerous to armor vehicles if they penetrate engine compartments and vents.[ii] If they strike the hull or a building exterior, they're relatively ineffective. These weapons are most devastating when fired into building where blast waves destroy un-reinforced buildings, killing and severely injuring personnel inside. Rather than providing protection as they would from conventional explosive ammunition, building interior walls, particularly cement or other hard surfaces, magnify and channel the shockwaves created by a thermobaric detonation. The stronger the walls, the higher the pressure's reflective effect."
The US and British forces have setup programs to figure out the optimum location to attack a building to get the most coverage from a Therobaric round. The Hellfire Missile is also becoming the weapon of choice. Against a bunker, if penetrated and open access is available to a thermobaric based weapon and it detonated inside, would be very deadly. As stated in many reports, this weapon can go around corners and sucks the oxygen out of the facility. Some taliban have been found several 100 meters in caves from the extent of a Thermobaric round dead as there lungs were starved from lack of oxygen.

There is evidence to suggest that an M1 Abrams was taken out by a Thermobaric equipped Kornet-E with a dual warhead which contained a thermobaric charge. The tank was not locked down and the overpressure entered the hatch and vents. Another tactic is to use RPG-O thermobaric weapons on an RPG to fire at a tank and destroy its optics and external communications capability. Blinded it then is rained down on by RPG-7's. Only the latest Russian tanks are equiped to completely shut off itself from an effect of a Thermobaric round. All Nato tanks NBC cababilities allow it to survive an attack if they are buttoned up.

As for your other question, the UK bought man portable Thermobaric missiles in 2007 based on the LAW called the SMAW or SMAW-NE (Shoulder-Mounted Antitank Weapon, New Explosive). They also actively deployed other weapons now including the Cruise variant which caused issues when disclosed as the use of the weapon is still debated. Does it violate the Geneva Convention? it is, based on the wording of the convention, a Chemical Weapon. The British like calling it an " enhanced Blast " weapon. Americans like calling it an NE weapon or New Explosive.

Hope that helps.