Was Napalm a highly effective weapon, and/or could it still be to this day/war?

Answer 1

Yea it was effective it incinerated everything it touched and not only that it sticks to your skin so you cant wash it off. It could definatly still be used but with its effects theres a moral question.

Answer 2

Napalm has its drawbacks. In WII there were reports it took 8 to 15 minutes to kill somebody. It also requires somebody to either handle this on the field or dropped in large quanities from the air.

I think rose cutters and cluster bombs are much better weapons since they are less volitile, can destroy heavy armor and kills quicker.

Soldiers on the field are basicaly strapping a bomb on their back which could be highly amusing to the enemy as an American soldier gets lit up from a bullet to the tank. It also requires very close range to use and flame throwers run out of juice very quickly.

I think napalm was banned as a weapon under some chemical weapons treaty so it couldn't be legally used.

Answer 3

Napalm is a VERY effective weapon when used in appropriate situations. When fighting irregular troops such as in Iraq and Afgahnistan it is really inappropriate. In Viet Nam it was usually used against regular NVA forces and against the VC when units were in danger of being overrun and there was no doubt that those outside the wire were bad guys.

Answer 4

As to it's prior effectiveness, it depends on your definition of effectiveness. I evaluate battle damage as actually demonstrating the desired battlefield effect it was meant to deliver. If the effect was to demoralize, yes. Actually destroy certain targets of interest, not really.

Can it be used today? Why? We have much better stuff, that does not involve torment. The majority of our targets now do not require napalm. If a type of Fuel-Air Explosive is necessary, we have advanced many, many years in effectiveness. However, most targets do not require a FAE, usually a blast or penetrating one will give the effect, and if necessary, cluster-munition type, which is pretty effective against soft targets.

Answer 5

Yes, it was highly effective in the jungle, and getting the enemy under rain forrest canopy. If it worked then, why do you think it would not work now? Do you think that political correctness would cause an enemy not to use any weapons at thier disposal to attack you? (especially fanatic muslim jihadist who would comandeer an airplane for a suicide mission with innocent women and chilfren aboard) If a sword or hammer was effective in the past, it would still be effective today. War is war.

Answer 6

Napalm is more effective at sucking out the air inside somebody's lungs than burning them... Anyways, this is a pretty effective weapons, when you know that everybody in the area is your ennemy, if not, then you can't really hide from this thing...
By asking this, you mean to use such thing in Afghanistan...
Ennemy there as caves and is very dissiminated so to reduce the effectivity of such weapon.
If it is for Irak, then your mad!!

Answer 7

Napalm is a highly effective weapon and is still seeing use in today's modern day Molotov cocktails. I think the U.S. army prefers to use white phosphorous now for bombardment now.

Answer 8

Napalm was originally designed to clear jungle areas, burn and destroy jungle area to make it easier to find enemy in Vietnam. For what it was designed for it worked. On the other hand, because of it's property of sticking to anything it came in contact with, including people, it did have a devastating effect. In modern combat, most combat is more close quarter, and within cities, so no, it wouldn't be usefull in that respect. There would be too many civilian casualties to justify its use.