How effective would a napalm shell be for tanks, compared to

No.

>>28433537
No. Never effective against anything. You wouldn't be able to ever get enough napalm in it to do any damage

>>28433537
>>28433565
WP might be a better idea but it's still limited by volume, a larger rocket-propelled canister would work better.

>>28433537
>would napalm be effective against tanks
>would fire be effective against tanks

Think about how fucking stupid you sound.

>>28433592
or just a 500+lbs canister dropped by a fighter jet.
>vietnerm!

>>28433598
Wouldn't it theoretically suffocate the crew if it was shot in the right place?

Against tanks...are you retarded?

It would be good for light fortifications, and tunnel systems, but I'm not sure a tank would be the best way to deliver that.

And if we really 'needed' a new type of tank shell it would be some form of air-burst anti-personnel shell.

File: 1442120609002.jpg (256KB, 900x1070px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 900x1070px

>>28433537
>fire
>against 3rd/4th gen tanks

Unless you can get that fire into the fighting compartments go back to Africa.

>>28433537
>napalm shell

Seems like you wouldn't be slinging enough napalm to do shit.

Its a retarded idea. It can work but chances are it will not. Not many machines are built to be engulfed in flames but you would need to blanket a tank in rounds to achieve that so it's really stupid. The time alone it would take before you actually achieve any sort of effect is unfathomably inefficient

File: 1450207614791.gif (2MB, 360x203px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 360x203px

I dont think anyone would want that shit in the tank with them. A napalm shell would be a huge fucking safety risk. One eneny hit and our own shell may turn us into crispy niggers.

>>28433537
Molotov cocktails seem to work pretty well.
Vehicles don't seem to operate well engulfed in flames.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmg-6kmMWoY

>>28435968
As opposed to HE, HESH, HEAT and every other type of shell, right?

>>28434886

>TC our tank is on fire
>So fucking what
>TC the fire is starving the engine of oxygen
>Engines don't need oxygen. Keep going.
>TC We can't see out the fucking periscopes or open the hatches because of the fire
>We don't need to see. Keep fighting.

This is you.

>>28435998
Nigga, you'd deliver at most just a few kilograms of the thing, which would more than likely just splatter on the tank and past it. Ignition would be a huge problem as well, since napalm's flame front is terribly slow.

>>28435984
i would prefer dying by HE shell to dying by being roasted alive

>>28436005
Hence why WP rounds are more effective.

>>28433629
Pretty time consuming conversion if a normal shot would do better than a napalm round.

It'd be like saying "Yo, man. Let's change out out vacuum cleaners for this swiffer dustmop thing."

And then another guy goes "Why would we waste the money on more swiffer mops when our vacuum cleaners already get the job done?"

I mean, swiffer mops are pretty wham-and-bam, but the vacuum cleaner does it just as well, if not better.

Cost:Profit ratio is bretty bad me thinks.

>>28433537
Its "Only" effective when combating Infantry when they are garrisoned or in the open.

Rest its a no even against another tank.

>>28435998

Why not use foam or paint and cover your enemies in slippery shit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiWCpIJ5dBw&feature=youtu.be&t=1100
>late sixties
>even sticky napalm doesn't do shit but lower the RPM a little
>you now have to fight a burning tank

>>28436454
>Sweden had napalm during the coldwar

Huh i thought it was always considered "inhumane"

>>28436476
Oh please, we had our own nuclear program.

Canceled after the wives of all the politicians started to protest of course, nobody cared until then. Thats when we started with the whole inhumane muh UN rubbish because we couldn't do anything else.

This thread got me thinking, napalm shells are a no-go, but what about thermite or a similar substance that can get hot enough to melt tank armor? Sure, you're limited in quantities that you can stuff in a shell, but would it be hot enough to dissolve the outer layer of armor?

>>28436454
holy fuck
guys are inside
WHILE THEY NAPALM THE TANK

man I'm not getting paid enough for this shit

>>28436014
Friend I think you need to watch some footage of tank combat in syria

>what is a cookoff

>>28436642
Well then you're just propelling a jet of hot slag with an explosion, which is exactly what an EFP is. When you're using them, you may as well just use normal HEAT or APDS.

File: aek.jpg (512KB, 1444x916px) Image search: [Google]

512KB, 1444x916px

>>28433537
Depends on type of tank. Effectiveness may differ from not effective to very effective.

>>28433537
1. napalm is only effective by weight, same with WP. shells rely on speed, not weight

2. the shell would disperse all over the place instead of concentrating on a target

3. fire has a limited effectiveness against modern tanks, ventilation systems are sealed, fuel is stored inside with munitions
it's not like a ww2 tank that is just a tin can on wheels

so you could splatter a tank with a bit of burning shit, the tank would not even blink

compare that to self shaping, tandem warhead , delayed detonation, penetrator rounds which defeat active protection, drive a two foot length of tungsten into the hull and blow up inside the tank

>>28436662
It's remote controlled, They were quick to point that out.

>>28433537
If you want to burn the crew you just use shaped charges, Then the crew can feel the awesome power of hot molten copper

>>28434840
Oh goodness could you imagine a 120mm airburst grenade similar to what the OICW program and the XM25 were developing? Is there anything like that already for tank ammo?