Napalm vs Fuel/Air against infantry?

Napalm vs Fuel/Air against infantry

  • Napalm

    Votes: 6 33.3%
  • Fuel/Air explosives

    Votes: 12 66.7%

  • Total voters
    18

Wendigo

Banned
If you had to kill/eliminate any amount of enemy infantry between 100 and 1000 that were close together, what would be the better weapon napalm or fuel/air explosives?
 
If you had to kill/eliminate any amount of enemy infantry between 100 and 1000 that were close together, what would be the better weapon napalm or fuel/air explosives?
Well it'd depend on what deliver systems are available; morters, MRLs, tube artillery, aircraft et cetera and their capacity. For those numbers light artillery firing canister or fused fragmentation, mortars firing airburst or even machine guns should be fine. The problems with large area effect weapons like ICM, thermobarics, poison gas and napalm is the area of effect could hit friendly troops.
 
Napalm can be carried by multiple smaller delivery systems; fuel-air seems to need something big to carry it, which has a major effect on the environment you can use it.
 
Napalm can be carried by multiple smaller delivery systems; fuel-air seems to need something big to carry it, which has a major effect on the environment you can use it.
There are smallish FAE rockets, including RPG warheads.
 
Indeed. And it's surely a more humane kill mechanism than, basically, 'torching' 'em and having the poor souls run around, screaming.
Not really, thermobarics cause extensive burns and lung damage to the injured.
Though it's a bit of a silly idea to me; what's the real difference between burns from WP/napalm and sulphur mustard or Lewisite? Or the lung damage from a thermobaric explosion or chloropicrin? Or being blinded by a laser or phosgene?
 
Napalm is more cost-effective, in addition, it can be use to denie an area to infantry.
Fuel-air explosive are more effective against bunker or close building due to the atmospheric depression the explosion make that litteraly suck the fire inside without resistance.
 
Not really, thermobarics cause extensive burns and lung damage to the injured.
Though it's a bit of a silly idea to me; what's the real difference between burns from WP/napalm and sulphur mustard or Lewisite? Or the lung damage from a thermobaric explosion or chloropicrin? Or being blinded by a laser or phosgene?

Lung damage!?? Well, if you're not immolated in the blast itself, the pressure wave will liquidise all your internal organs leading to near - instantaneous death, so yeah - I suppose that counts as lung damage. Of course, if you're unlucky enough to be at the back of a cave / tunnel complex, rather than out in the open, you might just fall victim to good, ole' fashioned asphyxia, too. And, for the record, all weapons - from bullets to block busters - have secondary, non - lethal effects outside of certain parameters / radii. Further, what do you suppose the injuries to the survivor of a napalm attack might look like - do you suppose they perhaps involve extensive burns and lung damage??

The fact remains that the most efficient / humane way of dealing with the OP (which, by the way, doesn't mention area denial - which would be short - lived anyhow) would be to choose FAE.

If you don't understand the 'real' difference in weapons effects (and, indeed, legality) of the substances and mechanisms you posit, may I suggest you avoid a career in either military planning or procurement?
 
Last edited:
Depends on the terrain, altitude, and weather conditions. As a rule of thumb, the more open it is, the higher it is, and/or the more precipitation there is... you are going to want to resort to napalm more then Fuel/Air.
 
Top