Napalm discussion

[un.Casual]

How would it work would it be a area denial for one or two minutes making any tank going into the aoe catch fire to support your team or possibly destroy foliage and wooden cover?.

[Doctor Eggman]

Nalpalm would actually be highly effective...

These people thinking a tank wouldn't be affected by extreme heat, smh... it can interfere with engines, equipment, crew and many other variables.

Just because a tank is a tank doesn't mean its not affected by water, heat or anything else.

Though if the tank isn't bathed in flames for an extended duration it should be able to drive away, assuming it has an escape route.

[Stridswombat]

Postat inițial de Haken Browning:

Nalpalm would actually be highly effective...

These people thinking a tank wouldn't be affected by extreme heat, smh... it can interfere with engines, equipment, crew and many other variables.

Just because a tank is a tank doesn't mean its not affected by water, heat or anything else.

Though if the tank isn't bathed in flames for an extended duration it should be able to drive away, assuming it has an escape route.

https://youtu.be/Rqq1XtHauoc?t=1111
Watch the end of the video. This is a testing video fo Stridsvagn 103's resistance and survivability. It is more or less immune to napalm and largely unaffected by it. It wouldn't even kill the engine. I doubt it's the only tank that was built to be resistant to the heat of napalm or other incendiaries.

They knew about the threat and they built tanks to resist it. Plus what would it do but kill the engine? That doesn't do much in a game where anything can be repaired in seconds.

[Vyrex]

Postat inițial de NAF-5th.Legion-Waffen.Div:

Postat inițial de Vyrex:

Using molotovs? lol „dont give us that“ what do you want from me. Go home bud.

are you serious??? you were talking about flamethrowers, not molotovcocktails.

Sure my first comment was... but my second i mainly mean fire knocking out tanks and its not necessary tied to flamethrowers and didnt i already basicaly admit that i thought i might read that somewhere that they used flamethrowers? So its wrong why would you assume im still talking about flamethrower fire knocking out tanks. Or should i translate that for you my dear?

[gromchack]

Napalm in terms of removing trees to take your opponent the cover is already in the game.

It is called ULQ

[🐙RampagingSquid🐙]

you lot are all forgetting why napalm would be overpowered... it can burn at upwards of 2700 degrees celsius and higher.

Steel melts at around 1300-1400 degrees celsius.

Aluminium melts at 660 degrees celsius.

There is nothing in game that could sit for any length of time in a burning napalm inferno without simply melting.

Sure some tanks have resistance to fires and even napalm for very short periods of time.

However, even the Stridsvagn I doubt could survive if the hull temperature was allowed to build up to anywhere near that of the burning temperature of napalm.

Ammo and fuel could simply cook off under those temperatures, electrics would burn out very easily at that temperature range as well.

There is also the issue of any tank that doesnt have an internal oxygen supply would end up suffocating the crew because the napalm would be using all the oxygen around the tank to burn.

The engine would stall due to oxygen starvation and it would be impossible to restart the engine until the napalm had burnt out completely, by which point you'd probably be dead anyway.

The aussies found napalm rockets to be more effective than HE bombs against tanks.

[Stridswombat]

A quote from the video: "I lufströmmen vid motorrummets luftintag har i nåra fall uppmätts en temperatur på 1300 grader, men i stridsrummet har temperaturen efter 2 minuters prov aldrig överstigit 40 grader."

Translation: "In the air current by the engine compartments air intake there have been in some cases measured a temperature of 1300 degrees, but in the fighting compartment the temperature after 2 minutes testing never exceeded 40 degrees."

They left the tank sitting in it for 2 minutes, and then had it move off while on fire and it didn't impact its ability to function, nor did it pose a life-threatening danger to the crew. Napalm is not going to stick around burning intensely for long enough to become a threat. It will either have burned out or you will be long gone by then.

[Franss the Coffee Addict]

Postat inițial de RampagingSquid:

The aussies found napalm rockets to be more effective than HE bombs against tanks.

To be fair, this is why Canberras should have napalm pods as the first plane to try them out. IF they're ever added to the game. Sure there were bunch of fighters that could carry them, but since low-flight dive bombing is a meta to CAS I'd be nice to see how they function from higher height.
The issue comes how the napalm's tar works in-game. Like it can't be simple shrapnel dispersion like bombs in the game seem to be. Cause I'm pretty sure the direction of dropping the bomb matters which way the napalm disperses the most.

[NAF-5th.Legion-Waffen.Div]

Postat inițial de Vyrex:

Postat inițial de NAF-5th.Legion-Waffen.Div:

are you serious??? you were talking about flamethrowers, not molotovcocktails.

Sure my first comment was... but my second i mainly mean fire knocking out tanks and its not necessary tied to flamethrowers and didnt i already basicaly admit that i thought i might read that somewhere that they used flamethrowers? So its wrong why would you assume im still talking about flamethrower fire knocking out tanks. Or should i translate that for you my dear?

no need, just be a little specific and stop jumping around alll over the place.

[Big Toe]

i dont think its a good idea, considering the spam people can get

[Franss the Coffee Addict]

Postat inițial de Kitty CatNip:

i dont think its a good idea, considering the spam people can get

IIRC napalm pods were pretty inaccurate, so low-level flight was needed. There's like 4 aircraft in Warthnder I'm sure had napalm loads on them for their time.
And doesn't a plane that drops those things need to go relatively high speed to escape the chance of catching fire themselves?

[Vyrex]

Postat inițial de NAF-5th.Legion-Waffen.Div:

Postat inițial de Vyrex:

Sure my first comment was... but my second i mainly mean fire knocking out tanks and its not necessary tied to flamethrowers and didnt i already basicaly admit that i thought i might read that somewhere that they used flamethrowers? So its wrong why would you assume im still talking about flamethrower fire knocking out tanks. Or should i translate that for you my dear?

no need, just be a little specific and stop jumping around alll over the place.

What i mean im just bored. What else can entertain me while i slave around just so i can buy toilet paper, shampoo and pay 20% tax of my earnings.

[NAF-5th.Legion-Waffen.Div]

Postat inițial de Vyrex:

Postat inițial de NAF-5th.Legion-Waffen.Div:

no need, just be a little specific and stop jumping around alll over the place.

What i mean im just bored. What else can entertain me while i slave around just so i can buy toilet paper, shampoo and pay 20% tax of my earnings.

20%??? you lucky bastard :)

[Stridswombat]

Not sure if you're joking or not but 20% sounds pretty good compared to the 25% I'm paying.

[NAF-5th.Legion-Waffen.Div]

Postat inițial de Stridswombat:

Not sure if you're joking or not but 20% sounds pretty good compared to the 25% I'm paying.

51% here.

[Stridswombat]

Postat inițial de NAF-5th.Legion-Waffen.Div:

51% here.

What kind of tax are we talking about here?