Re: Napalm

[James Robert Dennis III <jrdennis@earthlink.net>]

A well dug in position can defeat Napalm.  The biggest threat to the 
troops inside those positions, i.e. bunkers and foxholes with overhead 
cover and a means to shut the firing slots, is the loss of oxygen.  If 
the fire gets into the bunker, unless it is a considerable amount, it 
causes only limited damage.  The same goes for an armored vehicle.  Tanks 
and closed top armored vehicles can drive through a napalm strike.  

Shrapnel (a separate ammunition type) can be useful against infantry that 
isn't deeply dug in.  The infantry officers who had experienced shrapnel 
in World War I and II sorely missed it in Korea.  (the pack 75s used 
shrapnel as well as HE).   One of the reasons that "beehive" rounds were 
developed was to be a replacement for the shrapnel round (the flachettes 
are essentially "shrapnel" in the shape of "langrage".   The new shape of 
the shrapnel, (nail not ball) makes it more effective and covered a wider 
and deeper area.

Only HE with it's variety of fuzes, like delay and concrete, can destroy 
bunkers.  

>In a message dated 6/6/2001 3:18:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
>mike_yared@hotmail.com writes:
>
>
>> "use of napalm in Korean, especially int he iron triangle, proved to be a 
>> highly effective anti-personnle weapon.
>> 
>
>Two or three years ago I was at the new National Archives in Maryland 
>researching the Korean War.  While at the Archives I read several 
>declassified documents, that evaluated tactics, troops and weapons during 
>the 
>Korean War. In the report it stated that while napalm was a highly effective 
>weapon against ground troops it was believed that high explosive/shrapnel 
>shells and bombs were more effective against an infantry who were well 
>dug-in 
>on a hill.   Don
>