|
NAPALM
I was wondering if the UK and the USA still hold stocks of air droppable Napalm and also the means of delivering it. The reasons for my pondering the use of this awful weapon right now is its established potency as a terror weapon. IS seem to derive much of their power by the use of terror so why shouldn't we use terror against them? Napalm might just be a suitable weapon, don't you think?
|
Oh yeah, and whilst we're at it we can start using roadside bombs and suicide attacks!!
|
The US destroyed their stocks in 2001 I think, it's also banned against use on civilians. It's a bit like land mines, something you do not want to go back too.
|
I rather thought the idea of napalm was mainly to burn out enemy concealed in heavily wooded areas, as are found all over Vietnam. As there do not appear to be many trees in the areas currently being terrorised by IS I doubt if its use would be much good.
I would have that that the use of accurately targeted bombs against selected targets (gun emplacements, vehicles, troop concentrations etc) would be a more effective use of airpower. |
Correct, TTN.
It was found to be particularly effective against the heavily bunkered Japs in the South West Pacific Area during WWII. |
It might not be something you don't want to go back to, but it was developed out of necessity, and if things ever got heavy again then Napalm and Landmine stocks would be topped up.
We have all experienced how peacetime brings out the worst in military and particularly government doctrine and procurement. Edit: Didn't read the IS connection. The Question to that is: 'Is what we currently stock capable?' I would say yes. Though, The cheapest way for the British government to do 'Terror' is to grow some balls. |
Is napalm not avtur with a jelling agent? I did not think it was stored long term.
Lots of fuel tanks had the fittings to allow them to be used as 'fire bombs'. |
I believe there was a plan in 1958 to use napalm against the insurgents in the Radfan Mountains. However the only capable aircraft of the period were Hunter 6's using converted drop tanks and none were based in Aden at that time.
During WWII it was found that napalm was far more effective than rockets or cannon in destroying moving columns of vehicles and armour. The terror factor was also significant and particularly so in the Far East. I am not aware of napalm being used by the RAF in Europe but flame throwing tanks were in extensive use. In the mid 1970's napalm was dropped on the stricken tanker Torrey Canyon when it went aground on rocks off Lands End in a vain attempt to set it alight. |
Oh yeah, and whilst we're at it we can start using roadside bombs and suicide attacks!! Just different terminology. Fuel air explosives on a convoy would be just as effective. |
The IAF used it to very good effect in killing Tanks and Vehicles.
The one draw back is One must fly directly over the Target at very low altitude. Something that is not conducive to accumulating lots of flying hours and Mission Count! |
I must admit I've never really understood the squeamishness about napalm. It's ok to blast someone to pieces with high explosives or rip them apart with flying shards of metal, shoot them, stab them, strangle them, drown them or crush them in a holed submarine, fry them with thermobaric missiles...but it's not ok to incinerate them with napalm.
They are all violent ways to go. |
I must admit I've never really understood the squeamishness about napalm. It's ok to blast someone to pieces with high explosives or rip them apart with flying shards of metal, shoot them, stab them, strangle them, drown them or crush them in a holed submarine, fry them with thermobaric missiles...but it's not ok to incinerate them with napalm. They are all violent ways to go. |
Originally Posted by Marcantilan
(Post 8621724)
The key word is unnecessary suffering.
edit: or the guy having his head hacked off with a rusty knife.. |
Marc
"The key word is unnecessary suffering." Coming from an Argentinian, that's funny. Hempy You are right, that is a typical lefty, pollie HR type statement. |
Napalm was used by the RAF in Europe in WW2 - Mossies from 140 Wing used it an attack on 17th SS Panzergrenadier Regiment in July 1944 and also by 100 Group in attacks (under the codename Firebash) against German nigh-fighter airfields in the latter days of the war.
|
The RAAF used napalm head rockets in Korea from 77Sqn Meteors..
From AWM source: Wg Cdr John Campbell Smith MBE talks about: his training as, and the duties of an armament officer; his joining the RAAF Reserve after the Second World War and being called up for service at RAAF Base Williamtown and then in Japan and Korea; the CO of No. 77 Squadron defining the need for a napalm rocket and Smith’s inventing one whilst at Williamtown; rocket testing in Australia, Japan and Korea; napalm rocket production in Japan; use of napalm rockets and North Korean reactions to them; patenting his invention despite Commonwealth objections; his short service commission not being renewed in 1954 because of his conflict with senior officers over his patent; other armament problems encountered by No. 77 Squadron pilots; his flying occasional missions; Meteors, Mig-15s and Sabres; how napalm rockets saved Seoul; his being deprived of the highest South Korean award as only British awards could be accepted; his presentation of the MBE by the Queen; solving the problem of cannon stoppages; No.77 Squadron efficiency and morale; working from an American base during winter; a comparison of Australian and American contributions to the Korean war: why the Americans could not win the war without nuclear weapons, and his posting from Williamtown to Japan and the effects on his family. |
The key word is unnecessary suffering. |
Napalm rockets??
I seriously doubt that such a store was developed, let alone used. It may have gone one stage beyond concept to the point where a patent was applied for - but beyond that... Is there any documentary evidence (aside from the late Wing Commander's recollection) to support that such a weapon was used operationally? I'm always willing to be educated on such matters. It's got me intrigued, that one. |
There were idiots in the press during Gulf War one who were upset that we used blades on tanks to bulldoze trenches and bury Iraquis alive in stead of getting out and fighting to give them a chance.
|
DS - except that there are almost always survivors from a napalm attack in addition to the deaths.
These have life-long scars and disabilities from the burns (after taking weeks/months in agony to heal) - those that don't die from their burns after days/weeks/months in agony. Yes, it is a bit hypocritical to pick one method of killing/maiming to ban but not touch the others - but fire is one of the methods that inflicts the most suffering on both its survivors and those who die slowly from it. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:19. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.