[TML] Molding Ships

[shadow at shadowgard.com]

On 2 Oct 2007 at 16:54, Charles Prevatte wrote:

> 
> > I'm not sure that airdropped napalm would be all that effective
> > against men sheltered below ground level in trenches. If the aircraft
> > got a direct hit then you'd kill the men in one particular bay of the
> > trench. No more. In other words, apart from the terror factor, not
> > really any more effective than an artillery bombardment.
> >
> 
> 
> The whole point of napalm is that you can not hide from it.  If you are in a
> bunker underground you still die, just of suffication.  Napalm was designed
> as a bunker killer.  Just like with flame throwers, a direct hit was not
> needed.
> 
> The only real defence against a naplam strike in a sealed bunker with it's
> own air supply.

Have you ever looked at how WWI trench lines were set up? Napalm 
wouldn't be all that effective because of the ways they were dug in,

> As for the planes, well those would have had to be upgraded first as their
> payload in that time period  (WW1) was a few hundred pounds.  Bombs at that
> point were often hand dropped, and the fighters were armed with 2 lewis guns
> (at best) with a lower cyclic rate than a WW2 tommy gun.  Fortunately for
> the pilots of that era they did not generally carry enough ammo to melt the
> barrels of their guns.  A common problem for their army buddies that had to
> keep firing for longer periods of time to stop the current "over the top"
> charge.  WW1 was a very different war from WW2.  Most of us today would have
> a hard time understanding the problems involved in fighting WW1.

A few hundred pounds of napalm is *not* going to kill that much 
trench. Nor can it be targeted that accurately without risking the 
plane.

--
Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
shadow at shadowgard dot com