How effective would a napalm shell be for tanks, compared to an HE shell? Would it be effective against tanks?
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.
>against 3rd/4th gen tanks
Unless you can get that fire into the fighting compartments go back to Africa.
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
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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?
Depends on type of tank. Effectiveness may differ from not effective to very effective.
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
It's remote controlled, They were quick to point that out.
If you want to burn the crew you just use shaped charges, Then the crew can feel the awesome power of hot molten copper