Author Topic: why dont we have napalm? (Read 715 times)

Karnak · « **Reply #30 on:** July 22, 2002, 03:40:27 PM »

Which aircraft in WWII carried napalm?

The only two that I know for sure are the Typhoon and B-29A. I taking from the post about the first use of napalm that F4Us and/or F6Fs (TBMs?) also carried it.

JoeDirt · « **Reply #31 on:** July 22, 2002, 04:06:25 PM »

corse the F4U used it.....dont ya ever watch blacksheep squadron?

Pei · « **Reply #32 on:** July 22, 2002, 06:32:36 PM »

I was just reading a book (To Win the Winter Sky, can't remeber the authors name) which is about the air war over the Ardennes offensive. It mentioned the US Ninth Air Force fighter-bombers using napalm (P-51s and P-47s). Sunno how accurate it is in this respect but otherwise it seems to be pretty good.
Let me see if I can find a reference.

EDIT:
see http://paul.rutgers.edu/~mcgrew/wwii/usaf/html/Jul.44.html

July 1944
"PACIFIC OCEAN AREA (POA, Seventh Air Force): P-47s from Saipan Island, using
napalm-bombs for the first time, hit Tinian and Pagan Islands. Makin Island-
based B-25s pound Ponape Island."

also
see http://www.telusplanet.net/public/bailart/A_Letter_from_Robert_Bailey/Robert_Bailey_s__Touched_by_Li/_Touched_by_Lightening__-_The_/_touched_by_lightening__-_the_.html

"When Coenen arrived in England in January, 1944, no P-47s were available for the group, so they began flying P-38 Lockheed Lightnings from Andover Field, Hants, on Salisbury Plain. Captain Coenen eventually flew 73 missions with 122 sorties. The months leading up to D-Day saw him flying in a variety of roles: bomber escort, dive bombing, strafing, armed reconnaissance and, after the Invasion, ground support for army units. On D-Day he flew three missions over the beachheads, providing cover.
The first Ninth Air Force unit to use napalm in combat was the 370th Fighter Group, during ground support missions in July.
"

Biggles · « **Reply #33 on:** July 22, 2002, 06:58:59 PM »

If we had napalm everybody would want to fly in the morning, and there would be severe server overload.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #34 on:** July 22, 2002, 07:35:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hangtime
Wonder how many perks it would take to get the Enola Gay w/ Fat Man in the bomb bay?

I'd rather have Bocks Car

JoeDirt · « **Reply #35 on:** July 22, 2002, 09:45:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Biggles
If we had napalm everybody would want to fly in the morning, and there would be severe server overload.

why just in the morning?

Dead Man Flying · « **Reply #36 on:** July 23, 2002, 01:03:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by JoeDirt
why just in the morning?

Well, I can't speak for everyone else, but I know that I love the smell of napalm in the morning. Smells like victory.

-- Todd/Leviathn

bloodstain · « **Reply #37 on:** July 23, 2002, 01:09:16 AM »

Quote

Mostly because the Rooks and Bish would confuse it with personal lubricant

Hmmm must be one of those crazy Knit Wits!:D

Seeker · « **Reply #38 on:** July 23, 2002, 01:40:37 AM »

The USAAF also used napalm extensively in the Italian campaign.

P47 squads used it.

Voss · « **Reply #39 on:** July 23, 2002, 03:35:18 AM »

I thought it would be neat when it was first thought of over a year ago (you can search I guess).

I think fighters already have a great advantage over GV's and they'd be the only targets for Napalm. Okay, you *could* vultch with it. And it might mess up a runway for awhile. Hmm, maybe a better solution then making runways bumpy?

Still, against a *really* good GV guy in an air-to-ground vehicle a fighter will have even odds, if it attacks alone. Otherwise, GV's can fight on even ground. So, napalm would just be eye candy if not just unbalancing of the air-to-ground war. Sure, it can be done, but it just wouldn't add anything to the game.

I would like to see sub operations first, or another Grumman or North American design (F8F, P51, A36). I wouldn't mind if they were perked, even. Of course, I would expect that of the Bearcat.