M4000 Distraction, point 2: The Blown-Off Tail Section

October 19, 2019

An in-progress article on "Philip Watson's M4000 Distraction" got entirely too bloated trying to include an entire 13 points in detail on one page. The compound points 2 and 3 deserving their own posts, this one especially due to ramblings that seemed too informative to delete. Point 1 on binary sarin and the M4000 also deserves its own post and, being its own issue with other peoples' confusion also involved, it already got that over here.

The final M4000 distraction overview will include a link to here and a summary of the following under point 2. This dedicated space also allows for any rebuttal or revisions, etc. that I can also consider for the summary.

2 The blown-off tail section ...
2a … that's not blown off
In his recent part 3, Watson considers the second M4000 Bellingcat located in a 2014 video. He describes it as "a more retarded (distorted) version with blown off tail section" that was "blown off in, what seems to be, perfect fashion." (that might hold a clue to the nature of any optical error at work here - he doesn't explain the details of his decision, either verbally or visually, except that perfection note - does he see a hacksaw cut but is soft-pedaling it for now?).

To me, that's just baffling. As I'll re-show, the back end is entirely there, minus the ring around the tailfins that are now flattened so the thing looks like fat metal cuttlefish. I showed this to him in a discussion on October 7, with that note to help spur a review. He just slapped the same image back laughing that I was mad to see a tail section there and promising to end the discussion on this note (tweet). I asked him to clarify what he saw instead, but he repeated he was out of time either because the discussion "is degenerating swiftly" (his tweet) or, as I proposed "you don't have time to explain what that image shows. Ok." With that and some more closing provocation on my part (bit 1, bit 2, both to be illustrated in the course of this project), he proceeded to block me.

Well gosh, he should be correct as all hell to take such a firm stand, right?

To be fair, I didn't draw on there what area I meant, as I do in the image below, but it should be evident enough, filling the whole frame he tried to ridicule me with.

I ask all readers, likely including him, what else can be specified as filling that white outlined space with a shadow beneath it? I think probably 98% of humans would recognize it as an extension of the same object, and probably some higher mammals could do the same. Lower invertebrates - aside from maybe cuttlefish - would probably lodge no recognition.

I guess Watson thinks this is a hacksawed part of the middle of the bomb, and the tail should be further out if it were there. But all the parts of that tail except the support ring are in there. The possibly telling shape of the distorted fins in there were first noted (that I know of) by Amin251, who partly traced them in red dots, a good method (cropped image at right. This tries to show (starting at image center and reading to the left) the curled top edge and, then the curving back edge of the one fin holding up all that rope, AND the straight-seeming edge of another fin in shadow below that.

However a problem I was late to notice - Amin's line jumps early (at the sharp angle on the left). The first fin continues further 'til it's invisible under the rope, and the next one starts back there as well. There's a smudge of dirt on the lens here, blurring the view, but we can still see the rusty plane of the lower fin continuing into that corner, if we look close. Add: if we look even closer, the first curving line of dots could run another 2 dots or so to the left, but the second line starts in the right spot. I misread a piece of pavement as the rest of that fin.

Amin humbly suggested the curves traced there might be the same seen in 2013, and I wound up agreeing, as explained in more detail here. (that small error has no bearing on the match) So for what it's worth, this second M4000 from 2014 was actually seen 8 months earlier, and just remained half-buried for the time between. This is a find of some interest we come back to below.

Philip Watson may not even see these details, let alone agree on how to read them. But to his credit, he turns a disadvantage around, and uses that blindness to inform and expand his analysis...

2b ... that was blown-off with a tail impact fuze?
"[T]he video of the M4000 with missing tail section," Watson explained, is exactly the mystery that "made me ask the question if the Syrian military had added a tail fuse to the munition as part of its ‘repurposing’? That would certainly explain the missing tail section." This refers to an impact fuze/fuse (both spellings are used), basically the "button" meant to be pushed on impact, to trigger the detonation of explosives, or whatever that weapon does. And Watson pointed to a certain Russian-made bomb (shown, named as "FAB 250 (M54 variant)." I found the photo at uxoinfo.com (as shown here, a little ways below), with no attached info I found on the model or location. But it had a protrusion in the back Watson decided was an "impact fuse" on the tail. It's probably not the only one in the world with such an attachment, so...

"That discovery had got me thinking how much like the schematic design of the M4000 this part of the bomb looked like," Watson explains, referring to what I call a "spindle" sticking out between the tail fins (red box here). That seems to be linked to the mixing arm inside, for breaking the dividing wall and mixing the binary precursors. The Russian bomb he shows has a similar cylindrical object in the same spot. It seems to have a fatter shape, and it should have a different purpose, as OFAB are regular high explosive bombs with nothing inside that needs mixing.

"Then when I saw the video from Bellingcat," Watson continues, "I thought the idea of a tail fuse being added, in place of the mixing arm, to be a plausible concept." He seems to propose an impact fuze on the back (in case it landed tail-first?), and he suspects that's what blew off the back end. Well …

Initially I thought this claim was ludicrous. In general, as the Wikipedia article explains it, a contact fuze - which includes impact and inertia types - is "placed in the nose of a bomb or shell so that it will detonate on contact with a hard surface." No other placements are mentioned, and general bomb design is to fall nose first, always if possible.

Per Wikipedia, an inertia fuze is a variation of the same usual kind that's more sensitive, useful if the impact is too indirect for a conventional device. Maybe it just senses the sudden stop the whole bomb would "feel." Watson concluded the visible nosecone fuze on the 2013 example was an "inertia fuse," with no basis I know of. But it could be. The schematics show a zig-zag wire, perhaps a real thing we don't see on the field examples? Making this a proximity fuze maybe? That uses radar-like signals to sense when it's close to impact. A sarin bomb should have one.

Usually, as the Wikipedia entry suggests, neither kind nor any kind is put on the tail end of the bomb, although logically an inertia fuze might work there.But after some digging I learned something new: Russia's FAB-250 class bombs are described as having "a massive warhead without a fuse socket." (Global Security), and the shown example seems to fit that bill, with just an aerodynamic metal battering ram of a nosecone and no kind of push-able button sticking out of it. And there must be a fuze on there somewhere...

The following does ramble a bit, but goes to say he might be right on calling that a tail fuze, and such a thing might be used wherever, including on re-purposed M4000s in Syria.

On Watson's example model: As this page on FAB-250 explains, the M numbers refer to the basic design or model, while the 250, 150, 500, etc. clearly refer to weight. That helps correlate a chart someone shared here showing different FAB bombs, some with visible fuzes in the nosecone and some without There's an FAB-250 M46 variant shown, that has different structural details (more fins, etc.) but the same plain round nosecone. There may be an inertia fuze in the back, though neither it nor the others has such a thing drawn in at the back. (Two other 250s are shown, labeled with no M number - the plain-old FAB-250 has a nose similar to the M46 and the longer OFAB-250 has a flat nose with an apparent fuze sticking out).

The M54 model at 250 size isn't included in that chart, but an M54 style in the larger FAB-500 size is shown. That has better structural matches to the photo, suggesting M54 is the right style, except it has a nosecone fuze. Other variances: a different kind of ridge behind the nosecone, and 4 fins vs. 6, it seems. Maybe M54 in the 250 size just has those differences. Moving on …

There's nothing else I can think of with my limited knowledge to explain the protrusions we see on the OFAB-250 M54. Possibly some radio guidance transmitter device? I don't see any moving parts on there (fins mainly, to adjust the fall) that could be remotely controlled = no reason to talk to the bomb once it's dropped. So as far as I know, there's nothing else that could be but the speculated tail-end fuze, presumably of the inertia type. But for the M4000, April 2013 case, with the slender object as shown above, I propose the regular designed spindle of the mixing arm.

This was to Watson "only a theory I’m positing," but it might transform to gospel and play into the conclusion that follows; "What the Higgins found videos tell us is that if these munitions are M4000’s then they had indeed been repurposed in 2013 and were being used as conventional weapons." That might well be, but only two points are mentioned to support that view:

1) the very presence of the bomb at a time (2013) when Syria claimed it was dropping M4000 re-purposed for conventional explosives (and that's a good point)

2) the dwelt-on "tail fuse" and "missing tail" nonsense, which seems even more central to showing his point. It should be, as it's all about the visual evidence and - as it turns out - his ridiculously poor comprehension of it.

As noted, the mixing arm built into the M4000 is inconvenient for Watson's argument the M4000 cannot be used with binary precursors; this device has no other known purpose than to "mix" once-divided precursors. But he might have found a way to erase that problem, if it could be "proven" (hypothesized and then quickly and firmly believed) that another object had filled the "spindle's" spot - especially if it were an impact fuze that would also require a tube of explosive packing to replace the whole mixing arm assembly inside. That would really prove it can't deliver sarin. And the idea he liked was that this device was added "in place of the mixing arm."

So the notion of a tail fuze isn't that implausible, but the whole reason to suspect one was his strangely failing to see something that's really pretty obvious. Puzzling then how he got to the question, but he may be convincing himself right now that this was done, the mixing arm was nixed and the proof of it is that perfectly blown-off tail assembly.

2c The missing tail found, in the year 2013?

Finally, I just confused things when I brought up my recent sighting of the same unit - its supposedly missing tail end anyway - as seen after the supposed bomb drop, on or before 15 July, 2013 - or so I think, and with good reason.

But it was buried so only the tail is visible, and that was bound to confuse the poor guy. As I recall Watson was giggling at my supposed theory they buried the back half here and the front half somewhere else - I guess since he's so certain the two were disconnected he couldn't even fathom that I honestly disagreed with that. In fact he picked this as a strong point to close the discussion with. Another tweet, sorry, that's worth citing:

"Oh I see! So the opposition buried the M4000 body and the tail section, separately, for 8 months hence why it's full of, what you claim, is "dirt"? And whilst arguing you found the rear section you're also arguing it's still on the M400? I'm going to leave it there."

But he also denied that was the back end of any M4000 I had found, on account of the "spindle" (or impact fuze?) looking different (tweet). Somewhere he claimed (tweet deleted) the difference was the early view has a tail fuze attached just like the Russian bomb did, as it were "in place of the mixing arm."

It does look different, comparing the above and below images at right: the detailed tip with a flat-sided bolt seen at the end may be part of the design (unclear from the other example at top). But the lower example looks more bulky, and not just from being off its axis, which it also seems to be. This could be another device swapped in, or just some kind of sleeve bolted over the mixing arm (and it's not off-axis, just loose?) on a unit where that wasn't to be used. Maybe a protective cover most of them have prior to use? That would make the other example the odd one out for missing it.

Well, whatever that is, it seems to be part of the unit Watson already called a probable M4000. As shown above, the fins on that have broken free of the support ring in the same way and display perhaps the same exact bending and curling as the ones seen here more clearly … and as I show below, that wrinkled-edge square-cut hole into the payload tank (main body) is the exact same hole cut into the same part of the same intact 2014 example he already called M4000 (below, cropped images rotated to the same angle and compared). So this clear tail end of - apparently - an M4000 seems to exactly what was inside that white outline above, as it was seen about 8 months earlier.

Watson was proud of being on such a "different level" (as I first put it) from me, Amin, and most others so far who've seen this and lodged a view. As I recall, he protested the 2013 tail section was not M4000 because it had an "impact fuse" instead of the mixing arm spindle, just like the Russian bomb. Of course, he had just been proposing the same thing (a fuze put in the tail of a M4000) as an intriguing lead, so … why pass up a spotting of just that? (I asked here: not the same "Because it has an 'impact fuze' swapped on? "I thought the idea of a tail fuse being added, in place of the mixing arm, to be a plausible concept." Briefly?" - he never answered) Well, it seems he wanted this device to be proven by the blown-off back end. If so, maybe he just didn't want to see it sitting there in the middle of the still-attached back end.

So he picked a course, and kept this unit divorced from itself, taking the separate burial invented reading as his strong point to "leave it there," with no need to venture any further towards, for example, basic visual comprehension.