Would Napalm Be Useful in Ukraine?

Now it seems all but certain that the Ukies will be getting F-16's this year along with possibly Gripens, I was wondering what the best munitions for CAS runs against trenches would be, as the only real option you have is a very risky boom and zoom one, so you won't have enough time on target to properly use smart munitions to get the bombs into the trenches instead of just scattering them around them.

Would Napalm make for a good trench clearer because of this, or are their better options out there?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >or are their better options out there?
    bombs

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      But how would bombs be any different to the artillery that is already in use?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        a 500lb bomb has significantly more impact than a 155mm shell thanks
        but F-16s can carry the 1000lb and 2000lb bombs as well, which are more powerful still
        a single strike mission can replace entire batteries of artillery and since it drops it all in a single pass rather than over a period of time, the enemy has no time to dig in

        napalm has literally no advantages whatsoever over conventional explosives for tactical use

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Air blast versus shrapnel. Today 155mm is used because it's a solid all-around logistical choice but it began as needing a 15-20lb amount of explosive to reliably wreck a certain class of WW1 bunkers on a direct hit. It'll ruin a house, but the blast itself is a little on the small side once you accept you're only using a single shot due to precise guidance along with counterbattery preventing you from doing the everlasting dumb round spam of WW1.
        500lb is a better size for killing a small fortification without worrying about needing to check for survivors. It's big enough for conventional war but not so big it reduces your shots per plane under ~4-6.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Correct. That’s why Russia took Avdiika so quickly once they started sending in air power slinging actual bombs. Although those glide kits aren’t as accurate or capable as JDAMs they’re carrying MUCH larger payloads a lot close to target than arty can and results speak for themselves.

          F-16s will struggle because I don’t think those are being equipped with advanced EW systems so they’ll have to rely on traditional protection against AD, ie, flying low and using terrain masking as much possible but that also makes flying CAS basically impossible. They CAN use them to spam JDAM-ERs if the US is willing to supply them in decent quantities which could be very bad for the Russian frontlines. Maybe with actual air support Ukies can attempt a minefield assault. Even if they can’t exploit a breakthrough it could be enough of a win to motivate the West into providing greater support, ie, showing the world that they CAN win.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ukraine retreated from Avdiivka because they ran out of shells to stop the Russian wave attacks that were walking across the fields. They had to engage those waves with infantry, which drove up the K:D ratio to a level they considered unsustainable. Jury rigged bombs didn't do shit.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >That’s why Russia took Avdiika so quickly
            4 months, 16k Kia and over 1000 vehicles lost

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >once they started sending in air power slinging actual bombs
              Maybe you should improve your reading comprehension. Russia took months to take a square inch of ground, with massive losses. Then they started using glide bombs, and they captured Avdiivka quite quickly (compared to the previous blyatkrieg manoeuvres), although that did cost them a couple of Su-24s.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >4 months
              10 years. 8 years on the front lines after the Clankening, then two years of near-daily attacks, then 5 months of siege/strategic focus.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          It is time to bring back the 240mm Black Dragon

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      They would be pretty useful thanks to all the trenches, same thing with anti-personnel white phosphorus.

      a 500lb bomb has significantly more impact than a 155mm shell thanks
      but F-16s can carry the 1000lb and 2000lb bombs as well, which are more powerful still
      a single strike mission can replace entire batteries of artillery and since it drops it all in a single pass rather than over a period of time, the enemy has no time to dig in

      napalm has literally no advantages whatsoever over conventional explosives for tactical use

      You stupid idiot, napalm is used as the load of bombs. You thought they were doing what, dumping jellied gasoline onto the ground?

      Unnecessarily rude
      and no that is not why napalm got phased out, moron

      It never got phased out. It was used in the 2003 Iraq War even, it was even dropped on bridges.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    you have to be +18 to post here.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Well, the russians are quite fond of thermobarics, aren't they? Reckon they'd be good for trench whacking. Plus, they'll be instantly cubeable.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    My Dad was in Vietnam & he said it wasn't actually as effective as most people think in open combat environments. Believe it or not, it's much more effective in urban warfare, but has been banned for areas where civilians might still be. Beyond that, there are better compounds available to use now than Napalm. Despite the pop culture of the Vietnam war in the movies & the use of napalm, it's just simply not worth the effort to get the results wanted.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      We don’t need you or or homosexual dad who went to Vietnam to know that an area covered in burning gasoline is very deadly and destroys structures. He is moronic and napalm is cheap and covers a lot of area. The only thing it can’t do well is defeat armor. Incredible weapon which is only not used because of cultural Marxism lawyer nonsense. You’re like that homosexuals who say full auto is bad because they’re moronic alcoholic uncle who shoots one deer a decade says so.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Unnecessarily rude
        and no that is not why napalm got phased out, moron

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          That’s exactly why it got phased out. The photos of children from Vietnam caused a congressional vote. No more flamethrowers or napalm.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It ain't me.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Napalm on Moscow...

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Larger 1000 and 2000lbs bombs are much better, forget clearing people from the trench, clear the trench from the map. Also there are significantly more spicy cluster munitions than you can get from an artillery shell.

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Probably. I should ask one of the EOD guys I know how dumb it would be to start putting plastic bags full of diesel in front of the cones of some PG-7v warheads. or maybe do the same thing with some spg-9 rounds.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It'd probably just make it really front heavy and unstable in flight.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yes and flame tanks; they were good with dealing with trenches in Vietnam.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >napalm against trenches
    Pretty much useless compared to conventional explosives.

    Could be effective against vatniks hiding in ruins and cities, but for some reason that seems to be an actual warcrime

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Not really but it is funny

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Would Napalm Be Useful in Ukraine
    If it was modernized guided bombs, then HELL YES

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Napalm would be most useful in Moscow....say, 13,000,000 gallons of it.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    napalm sticks to zigs

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I want to see Moscow burn as Neapolitan seen it

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *