Napalm & T-34 tanks

[Talisman]

I have been reading up on the air war and found that T34 tanks were found to be extremely vulnerable to napalm attacks.  I had not thought about this before.

T-34 tanks were highly susceptible to napalm, primarily during the Korean War. Napalm could easily seep into unsealed engine intakes (burning out engines), vision slits, and crew hatches. The searing gel quickly consumed oxygen, stalled the engine, and filled the cramped interior with suffocating smoke, forcing the crew to abandon the vehicle. 

The intense heat generated by napalm also caused secondary hazards, such as the "cooking off" of onboard ammunition and melting external components. 

Specific vulnerabilities included:

• Engine Starvation: Napalm would burn up the ambient air around the tank, stalling the open-air systems of the engine. 
• Crew Incapacitation: The T-34’s interior wasn't completely airtight. Burning napalm on the tank's exterior filled the cramped, un-cooled fighting compartments with toxic smoke and blinding heat. 
• Structural Compromises: Wartime production standards resulted in poorly sealed plates that allowed flaming liquid to seep into the crew spaces.

Edited June 18 by Talisman

[BlitzPig_EL]

Horrific

[Avimimus]

Basically a big molotov cocktail - although it takes a lot of chemical energy to heat up over 30 tons of steel... so the real danger is if it leaks inside.

[Talisman]

Has anyone managed to take out tanks with napalm yet?

I have tried, by no joy so far.  Is it just me or have the developers still got some work to do on the damage effects of napalm on tanks as well as other ground objects?

I have been reading up on the air war and found that T34 tanks were found to be extremely vulnerable to napalm attacks.  I had not thought about this before.

T-34 tanks were highly susceptible to napalm, primarily during the Korean War. Napalm could easily seep into unsealed engine intakes (burning out engines), vision slits, and crew hatches. The searing gel quickly consumed oxygen, stalled the engine, and filled the cramped interior with suffocating smoke, forcing the crew to abandon the vehicle. 

The intense heat generated by napalm also caused secondary hazards, such as the "cooking off" of onboard ammunition and melting external components. 

Specific vulnerabilities included:

• Engine Starvation: Napalm would burn up the ambient air around the tank, stalling the open-air systems of the engine. 
• Crew Incapacitation: The T-34’s interior wasn't completely airtight. Burning napalm on the tank's exterior filled the cramped, un-cooled fighting compartments with toxic smoke and blinding heat. 
• Structural Compromises: Wartime production standards resulted in poorly sealed plates that allowed flaming liquid to seep into the crew spaces.

Happy landings,

Talisman

[Avimimus]

Were did you get this information? I've serious doubts that there is enough localised thermal energy from a napalm hit to actually heat up the tank sufficiently to causes the issues described.

Assuming the hatches are closed - the main risk is the engine air intakes. Even then, there is a bulkhead protecting the crew and the ammunition from the engine compartment - so all that you have is a mission kill.

After that, the crew could suffer from fumes.

[Talisman]

If a modern tank was hit with Napalm, what would be the result? - Quora

Please find extract, below, from link above,

Short Answer

Based upon evidence from WWII and the Korean War, Napalm is considerably superior to conventional high explosive bombing in the antitank role. Napalm also superior to unguided rockets for this purpose. The British chose rockets as being superior in accuracy to bombing, and research estimated that it would take 9 fighters armed with rockets to have a 50% chance of knocking out a Soviet IS-3 heavy tank in comparison to 5 fighters armed with Napalm under the same conditions.

Long Answer with Detailed References

The effects of ground attack aircraft on armoured vehicles are often overestimated, particularly in “popular” accounts.

I have given an example that I took by examining operational research carried out on the effects of air attacks on armour during the Battle of the Bulge at the end of 1944. See Annex A. The reader will see that air attacks were just not very effective and there was rampant overclaiming.

Until the arrival of laser rangefinders, computerised release points, guided weapons etc, aircraft were rarely particularly effective against armour directly. Indirectly, air attack was often decisive- whether in destruction of production plants, fuel supplies, transport infrastructure, supplies etc.

I have witnessed “firepower demonstrations” where fighters whizz in and blast tank targets with rockets etc, but these are “set ups”. If you want to understand the effectiveness of weapons, I think you need to undertake more detailed research. Even in the modern age, some air campaigns- such as the NATO campaign against Serbia in 1999 were not particularly effective (albeit in circumstances that were challenging politically, strategically and tactically see Ref 1

The Ground Attack Problem

There are several problems facing the pilot trying to attack a tank.

• Seeing the tank (the pilot may be directed by a forward air controller, but sometimes that means he is attacking a smoke marker etc), people may note that computer games tag targets with indicators. Unless the country is flat and open, the pilot may fail to see or misidentify the target (in the research covered Annex A, some “Tiger Tanks” were revealed to be Huts” on closer investigation!
• Releasing the weapon on the target at the right time with the right aim. An error of 0.1 s in release time will miss the target by 13 metres at 300 mph. Even with a 500 lb bomb, that’s a miss! “I saw a bomb miss a tank by ten feet and it just kept going” [Ref 2].
• Damaging a hard target.
• Avoiding ground fire- the accurate aiming often involves flying straight and smooth- just the right target for anti-aircraft guns.

As a result of the above, dropping conventional “iron” bombs has rarely been effective. Different weapons have been tried- bomblets, cluster bombs, napalm, rockets and large calibre guns.

The first four are acting like a shotgun- giving a spread of damage hoping to hit something in order to overcome aiming errors.

The last pair give the pilot some stand off and a more direct aim.

Bombs, Rockets and Napalm

The question asks about bombs v Napalm, but I shall include rockets for completeness – and national bias- they were Britain’s air to ground weapon of choice in WW2, following a brief dalliance with a heavy-cannon armed fighter (Hurricane IId). The British used 3” rockets as the anti-tank weapon, even so, these weren’t really all that great in material terms, although Operational Research showed the Germans suffered a considerable morale reduction from their use (Ref 3). Photo below shows 3″ rockets being fired at German transport.

Commonwealth Operational Research tested the accuracy of RAF ground attack aircraft [Ref 4] showed rockets could get 89% of rounds within 150 yards of a point target, with an average miss distance of 40-60 yards. With bombs, 45% fell within 150 yards, with the average miss distance of about 160 yards. Even allowing for the blast radius of bombs, they are clearly less effective in the antitank role. It may be notable that US forces called in RAF Typhoons to attack German armour when in close proximity to US troops [Ref 5].

Napalm

Now let us look at the use of the disagreeable weapon in detail. The original compound was 25% aluminium napthenate (nap)and 75% aluminium soap from coconut fatty acids (giving the “palm” part), Packed as a powder, it was mixed with petrol (gasoline for those who speak in the US dialect) in the field.

Use of Napalm Against Armour in World War II

Napalm was first used by the US in 1944, [Ref 6]: Early use was normally a mix of 500 lb bombs and napalm tanks. [Ref 7] The first effective use of napalm against armour was an attack on seven M3 Stuart tanks captured by the Wehrmacht and partly concealed in a wood. The attack, as usual combined with 500 lb bombs was very successful [Ref 8].

The British were initially sceptical that the Napalm bomb was particularly effective based on WWII reports and trials of the weapon [ref 9] However, they re-evaluated the weapon after reports of its success in Korea.

Use of Napalm Against Armour in the Korean War

By 16 Oct 1950, the US forces had dropped 700 000 US gallons of Napalm in Korea[Ref 10]. Press reports on the effect were greatly exaggerated “when there is a direct hit, half the tank melts” [Ref 10 again] but did make a good point “with rocket, a five-yard miss is as good as a mile” [Ref 11].

My father witnessed the US use of Napalm in that conflict- he thought it was decidedly not cricket! Squeamishness diminished after seeing the handiwork of North Korean forces in massacring civilians.

An US operational research report stated that of 175 T34/85 tanks knocked out, 102 had been knocked out by air attack, of which 60 had been accounted for by Napalm attacks. [Ref 12]. The attacks were mainly by F-51 Mustangs using rockets and Napalm, and F80 Shooting Stars using rockets only.

These reports, combined with concerns about the standard British 60 pound rocket against the Soviet IS-3 heavy tank – a big bugbear at the time (see my answer to At the end of WWII/beginning of the Cold War, did the Allies have anything that could take on the Soviet IS-2 and IS-3 tanks?) , the British re-evaluated Napalm in the antitank role.

The British report analysed three tests carried out to test the effect of napalm on tanks, one in Taegu Korea against T34/85s [Ref 13] in 1950,and one in Gauhati India (against dummy targets) in 1945 [Ref 14] and one in Germany against two stationary Churchill tanks in 1950. [Ref 15].

The Korean test showed that low-level splashing with Napalm would set fire to road wheels (if fitted with rubber tyres)but this would not immobilise the tank. Total envelopment of the tank would certainly immobilise it. In the tests, the goat and chicken occupants perished. A minute’s silence whilst we contemplate the sacrifice of these animals. Cause of death was not recorded, but the British commentator stated that carbon monoxide poisoning was not considered of major importance. In the test on the Churchill tanks, they had open hatches. Any entry of flame fuel into the fighting compartment would cause casualties and lead to the crew to bail out.

The main cause of Napalm immobilising a tank would be entering the engine compartment. Tests showed that levels as small as 1 litre in the compartment could cause damage that would result in immobilisation -e.g. by destroying the cooling fan belt and melting insulation on electrics. Larger amounts would cause a major fire which could be fed by engine fuel leading to the writing off the vehicle. The exact amount of fuel entering the engine compartment would depend on the direction of attack and the design of the engine louvres, fans etc. For low level “splashing” destruction would involve a chance component.

The tests looked at the pattern of Napalm on the ground. See diagram below [Ref 16] from the test in India. Any tank in the area marked “medium” would have sufficient fuel enter the engine to be immobilised. Tanks in the high area would probably be destroyed.

Happy landings,

Talisman

[Talisman]

Further to above, please find link below and an extract from the link re data on Korean tank losses:

T-34-85 in North Korean Service - Tank Encyclopedia

Data on Korean tank losses

After the UN Pusan Perimeter Offensive, in the period from September 26th to October 21st, 1950, seven teams traveled every road that could be traveled by armored vehicles from the Pusan Perimeter to the 38th parallel. This survey was meant to discover the number of armored vehicles lost by the Korean People’s Army between June 25th and October 21st, 1950. It revealed 239 destroyed or abandoned T-34-85s tanks and 74 self-propelled SU-76Ms guns since the war began. The same survey counted 136 U.S. tanks destroyed and unrecovered.

Abandoned (Cause unknown but no damage)5924,7*Note* The 60 lost to napalm bombs are 58,8 % of the total losses ascribed to air strikes and equivalent to 25,1 % of the total losses of T-34-85

DPRK T-34-85 Casualities
Cause		Number	% of Total
Air Strikes	All	102	42,7
	Napalm Bombs	(60)*	(25,1)*
UN Tanks and Artillery		39	16,3
Bazooka Fire		13	5,4
Naval Gun Fire		12	5
Others (mines and those lost “not for military causes”		14	5,9
Total>		239	100
** Calculated figures based on total losses from all casuses minus total from all other causes combined

The survey found that airstrikes destroyed 102 T-34-85 tanks (43%). Of these, 60 (25%) were knocked out by napalm bombs. 59 T-34-85s were abandoned (25%) with no visible evidence of damage. 39 T-34-85s were destroyed by UN tanks or artillery (16%) and Bazooka fire destroyed 13 tanks (5%).

Of the remaining 26 (11%) T-34-85s destroyed, 12 (4.6%) were destroyed by cannon fire from US Navy ships, a very small number had been disabled or destroyed by mines, and the remainder were lost “not to military causes”.

Happy landings,

Talisman

 

[Dash,Polder]

Yes, I've killed them, but you have to directly hit the tank with the canister and completely douse it with napalm.  It has to directly stick, the tank may drive several hundred yards out of the main napalm burn area, but it will continue to burn until it cooks off and blows after several minutes.  If it drives out of the flames and isn't burning continuously you never hit it directly.

[MiGCap]

Photo from the (very good) book „Bully Able Leader, The Story Of A Fighter-Bomber Pilot In The Korean War“, from Lt.Gen. George G. Loving, USAF (ret.):

[BlitzPig_EL]

I have killed several T-34/85s with Napalm.  It usually takes from a few seconds to a couple minutes for the kill message to appear.  These were stationary, in a tree line covering a road.  I have also destroyed moving trains and moving truck convoys with the hot gel.  It has become my weapon of choice for ground attack.

I find rockets to have one purpose, increasing drag on my plane in flight.  They are worthless.  I am much better with guns.  The 1000lb. bomb works pretty well too.

[MiGCap]

15 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I have killed several T-34/85s with Napalm.  It usually takes from a few seconds to a couple minutes for the kill message to appear.  These were stationary, in a tree line covering a road.  I have also destroyed moving trains and moving truck convoys with the hot gel.  It has become my weapon of choice for ground attack.

I find rockets to have one purpose, increasing drag on my plane in flight.  They are worthless.  I am much better with guns.  The 1000lb. bomb works pretty well too.

+1!

And I never hit with this damned rockets, except a ship (sometimes). 

Napalm is the perfect allrounder, 1000lbs for trains and bridges and guns for smaller targets.

[MajorMagee]

It looks to me like they were already a mobility kill before anyone dropped napalm on them.

[MiGCap]

Loving stated in his book that napalm was a very effective weapon against tanks.

[Panthercules]

I've actually been able to score a few hits with rockets against trains - maybe only every 4th or 5th one hits, but they look cool and are very satisfying when they do impact on target.  But yeah, napalm is my favorite 😁

[FuriousMeow]

Tanks absolutely get destroyed by nape. Just have to hit close to them. This was pretty much a direct hit, it was an instakill.

Rockets are pretty useful, from the F51 at least, just have to use the two lines on the bottom of the sight. I also get in close with mobile vehicles. Stationary I can be a bit further out. I use the top one for close ups, like screenshot below. The bottom one for a bit further out. 

After the pass:

Took these two out with 1 rocket each:

Just takes practice, but with those two lines on the sight it is a good starting point.

[LukeFF]

You guys need to use this rocket-aiming procedure for the F-80 and F-51. 🙂 It's a real-world procedure and works very reliably: 

 

[BlitzPig_EL]

Thanks for the repost Luke, but I am already out of buttons that I can assign.  

Also, how does anyone think of all those actions when in combat?  The jets require an inordinate amount of concentration as it is, what with their faster closing speeds and skittish handling.  I'm enjoying Korea, but the Pacific cannot arrive fast enough.

Edited September 14 by BlitzPig_EL

[BoeingVertol]

Napalm in this game is incredible, best I have seen/played with in a game that I can think of.  Absolutely devastating, and really fun to use.  Also, remember kids.. it sticks like glue!! Props to the devs for its implementation, they nailed the tumbling canisters as well.  Biggest thing with rockets is keeping your airspeed down in the jets if using them.

Edited September 14 by BoeingVertol

[ATAG_Ezzie]

Concur re napalm and fun. Can cause a lot of damage if they are aimed well. 
 

I just had an interesting thing happen re napalm on Combat Box. I was attacking an airfield and had set up my bombs/ napalm to all drop at the same time. 
 

Got some hits on the tents but not as much as I was expecting given I had dropped 2 napalm. Must have gone long I thought. 
 

But when I reviewed the video I saw that the 2 napalm cans had collided while tumbling soon after release and had gone off before hitting the ground. After they went off the fireball fell to the ground short of the tgt. 
 

Not sure why this happened. I don’t normally drop both cans at the same time so not sure how often this occurs. Maybe the tumbling motion can impart different flight paths for each can and in this case one hit the other?
 

Cool to see. 
 

ezzie

[BlitzPig_EL]

I always drop mine one at a time in quick succession.  Never had an issue doing that, even with the F80 loaded with 4 of them.

[MiGCap]

6 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I always drop mine one at a time in quick succession.  Never had an issue doing that, even with the F80 loaded with 4 of them.

The same here.