Napalm vs HE Best vs Infantry?

I was talking with my dad, and he said they need to use napalm in some of the present conflicts[ but can't ].....as I mentioned before, he has seen napalm strikes....seems like napalm would be more effective against infantry, than HE, in most cases....what about danger close situations??
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/napalm-war

it says here it was very effective against tanks!..... of course jungle conditions would negate the effect somewhat, and might endanger friendlies close by by spreading of fire ...?

 

what's your actual question:

A) "What is considered 'danger close' for Napalm'?
B ) "Why don't we use Napalm anymore?"
C) "Is Napalm more effective than HE against infantry?"
D) "Do you guys think Napalm is neat?"

 

Bronk7, there are certain restrictions our country has signed onto as far as what is acceptable weapons to use which leaves many of us pondering whether this was a good choice or not .......off hand I am remembering that weapons using white phosphorous, napalm cause very severe and disturbing injuries that often end up on women and children nearby.....other weapons were found to nail the human body to nearby trees with small little nail like projectiles and often it was innocents that were experiencing these things so it is no surprise these weapons bring on a great deal of controversial discussion if they are used in todays warfare. You may want to study more about "what we have signed onto" and others may be better at finding that information than me.

 

I will say that I think napalm would be effective against infantry, however the kind of war that we seem to be fighting is we seem to be fighting a more guerrilla enemy. They know how to blend in and they will hide among-st civilians. When it comes to that, we don't know who's civilian or who's terrorist. And to use napalm against a town suspected to be holding terrorists, there are still civilians in that area. What I'm saying is that it can have devastating effects for civilians and can be mistakenly used for something that might not be there. I do think it is more effective against infantry, but with the kind of war that we are fighting it is way too risky.

 

What is the area of coverage of a Napalm bomb vs the blast and/or frag danger zone for an HE bomb of aproximately the same mass?

 

how much more clear could my question be?? it's in the title with the '?', as ordered by the admin..the indents are there as ordered by admin.....I'm surely slow in my brain......

 

A little bit off-topic but I just love the article linked-in above.

'Miltary records indicate that about half the bombs rained on Dresden were Napalm bombs'.

Really !? Which 'military records' ? Because one thing is for sure - RAF Bomber Command did not drop a single Napalm weapon during WWII......

 

A lot more clear, obviously, or I wouldn't have asked

 

My dad who was close to numerous napalm strikes during his three tours in Vietnam has often said that if close, the fireball consumes so much oxygen it actually sucks the air out of you. Also, on many occasions where the actual flame didn't kill the NVA due to the type of cover they had (cave, tunnel, etc.), they'd find them dead from suffocation.

 

before that line, it says incendiary, but I would think you are correct, the napalm was different than the incendiary..

 

salute to your father from me....if that article I put up is right, your dad must've seen a bunch...I am an 'big' reader on WW2, but also Nam, and I was very surprised at the amount of napalm used ....also one of the points were they flew very low to be accurate

 

Try this in Australia and you burn the whole place down...what was the bush fire effect from these?

 

I find morality arguments about weapons rather pointless. The object is to kill your enemy and the tool used should be the most efficient for the job. One thing that napalm does that high explosives don't (to the same degree at least), is to remove cover so that the enemy is exposed if they try to occupy the same ground.

In WWII the Germans levied complaints about American use of White Phosphorous. We ignored them, and damned right! WP was very useful for a number of things, not least because it absolutely terrified the enemy.

 

Seconded.
I used to listen to hippy mates bang on about how awful dying by nuclear war must be, while thinking 'well it can't be that much fun being disembowelled by a rusty lance before falling into the bushes to bleed out over a few hours either'.
Apparently, this viewpoint made me a terrible cynic...

 

Getting to the original question, I'm assuming by the term "HE" you're referring to HE aerial bombs rather than artillery. With either arty or bombs one can get decent protection against their effects by being in foxholes and bunkers. Napalm is superior at killing people under cover by the effects noted above.

 

what else are we prohibited to use now in addition to napalm? cluster bombs? land mines? gas?

 

Yeah. An invasion killing millions one at a time, is apparently better than killing a fraction of that at a stroke and ending the war.

 

Too really determine this you would need the area of effect of various size bombs of both HE and Napalm. At the high end I suspect explosives are more effective not sure about the low end. The latter based on what the large Fuel Air explosives can do. Reports from ODS indicated blast fatalities found more than a mile from the detonation point. Just can't see a napalm bomb no matter how big covering that large of an area.

 

lwd,

You may be right, but I thought we should limit this to weapons of WW2!

 

actually, my first thought was about a max 1000lb HE v napalm...what is more effective if a direct hit on troops mildly dug in.........the FAE type is and were used in big bombings...powerful..... are those called thermobaric also? they are not considered as napalm, I thought? but very interesting information that urged me to look them up... thanks...