Napalm for anti-shipping

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

So - spraying gas into the intake would be like spraying starting fluid into a carburetor. It makes the engine (fire) speed up some. In the case of a napalm bomb the total amount would pretty much have to be trivial that could make it down the intake. You certainly aren't going to displace enough oxygen to matter. Maybe a brief disruption to a boiler. Of which even destroyers had more than one.

if this did become problematic it would not be difficult to rig a saltwater sprinkler system to wash off flaming liquid. You don't usually want to put water on a gas fire. But if all you are doing is washing it off the side of the ship it is not really a big deal. The ships I was aboard in the Navy had such for decon purposes.
 
GrauGeist said:
It takes a considerable effort to shut down a boiler and they don't go out instantly unless the boiler is damaged by combat.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction. I was thinking more of oil-fired boilers, where there's no body of hot fuel preserving the conditions for combustion.

ETA: I see this has already been addressed, that'll teach me to answer before catching up the thread completely!
 
It was meant to be a quick overview, but the boilers aboardship were complex devices (toss out any comparison to a locomotive) that did not have an ambient draw of atmosphere, but rather had blowers that forced air into the firebox via redundant vents topside.
A modern, massive air-fuel bomb detonating directly over the intakes would momentarily deplete oxygen being drawn into the blowers, which *may* extinguish the fire being fed by the oil injectors but the crew (who would still have plenty of air in the fire room) would simply reignite the injectors as soon as air was coming back into the fire-box via the blowers (which would still be operating) without the boilers missing a beat.
The napalm would most likely roast exposed crewmen (as noted earlier) like AA mounts and any souls moving between their general quarters stations - anyone in armored turrets *might* suffer effects via the turret's vents and there's the possibility that the detonation would blow out the windows on the island/superstructure, injuring/killing those in direct proximity (depending on the type of napalm bomb(s) used), so there may be some merit to striking a warship with such a weapon as long as it was directly followed up by conventional weapons (torpedoes, bombs, shelling) while it was momentarily incapacitated (defensively).
But by itself, napalm won't stop a ship - unless it was a small troop transport or landing craft, of course.
 

Thanks. I have zero experience dealing with napalm as a weapon, given that I served at a SAC nuke base and the Reserve TFW stationed there was air-superiority with limited ground attack exercises. I appreciate you taking the time to lay this out.

GrauGeist said:
But by itself, napalm won't stop a ship - unless it was a small troop transport or landing craft, of course.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this I knew. Armored warships need to be holed or blown apart for sinking.
 
Lets think this through.

Napalm is basically thickened gasoline. Other chemical compositions have exited, especially after WW II.

However the basic differences between Napalm and gasoline is that Napalm burns a bit slower and the the thicker concentration means it doesn't run off things/targets as fast.

Now how many large ships were put out of action for long periods of time by an aircraft crashing into the ship with 100 gallons or so fuel remaining (or twin engine aircraft with several hundred gallons) ????

Find the damage reports for the crashed aircraft and you will be close to the damage the Napalm would do.

Accuracy with napalm might be less than using regular bombs, depending on finning. They are lighter for a given size/volume and will slow down quicker.
 
SaparotRob said:
One of the D.E.s at the Battle of Samar used star shells after using up everything else. It set the upper works of an IJN cruiser ablaze and was surprisingly effective.
Click to expand...
In the book Clash of the Carriers written by Barrett Tillman, I know of one, possibly two, recorded incidents when Japanese planes attempted to drop white phosphorus bombs on American ships. The first happened during what the US Navy called Raid IV of the Marianas Turkey Shoot. Three Yokosuka D4Y1 dive-bombers, code name "Judy", broke through over the carrier USS Wasp before one was taken down by flak and one of the remaining dropped A WHITE PHOSPHORUS BOMB that presumably exploded early at an altitude of approximately 300 feet. From that height, the phosphorus tendrils dispersed before hitting the ship causing no damage.
This leaves the question why white phosphorus? Ordnance loader mistake? Bomccb shortage? An attempt to "mark" a ship so other planes and subs in the area can get a visualization in order to plot an attack? Or could the pilot have been testing the theory discussed here using WP in place of napalm in an attempt to clear the decks of pesky 20 mike mike gunners.
 
Last edited:
Milosh said:
Didn't napalm not also consume oxygen that people needed to breathe? Many Japanese in their tunnels were not crispy after an attack but asphyxiated.
Click to expand...

Yes. Napalm was discovered to be very effective against caves, tunnels, bunkers and such because it consumes oxygen at a prodigious rate. Same for a flame thrower used at the entrance of such. (You could even say this is the primary purpose of using napalm on Pacific islands, not to start fires.) A substantial portion of the oxygen inside would be converted into carbon dioxide and (more lethally) carbon monoxide. I suspect many of the Japanese stumbling out of a bunker or cave (and being shot down) that we see in WWII films were suffering from extreme hypoxia as well as some degree of carbon monoxide poisoning. They were simply desperate to breathe regardless of the consequences and probably not thinking clearly. Dropping napalm on hills containing caves and bunkers was very effective even if the fire did not penetrate deep into them. A very hot fire at the entrance of a cave or bunker would, in a very short time, make the air unbreathable quite deep into it. From GlobalSecurity.org: "When Napalm ignites, it rapidly deoxygenates the available air. Oxygen is replaced with carbon monoxide (CO) as a result of incomplete combustion. As little as 0.4 percent CO is fatal in one hour because of the high affinity between carbon monoxide and hemoglobin. Napalm creates a localized atmosphere of at least 20 percent carbon monoxide."
 
Last edited:
Not as much hypoxia as you might think. My wife designs fire suppression systems, and one of them is termed 'hypoxic' where they manipulate the atmosphere to reduce oxygen levels to a point that combustion won't start. The levels are about the same as is found at 10,000ft. Above this combustion is difficult to self-sustain; I know you can light a fire above this altitude, but sustaining it becomes an issue within an enclosed space.
I'd most likely expect that it was CO poisoning or smoke was the cause of death.
 

I'm still looking for my source, but, I have read that among the various types of deaths involving flame throwers and bunker/cave complexes in the Pacific, it was noted that a substantial amount of the time it was concluded that the brain just shut down in an almost surrender to the inevitable action. It appears related to the process in which the circulatory system slows to an almost standstill during extreme cases of hypothermia, in this case,the nervous system starts tripping circuit breakers in an attempt to save the body, unfortunately, in cases of flame thrower attacks, the high-temps and displacement of oxygen are too much and sustained for too long for the nervous system to "reboot".

I will follow up with the reference once found..
 
THanks,
I was quite surprised when I worked out the altitude equivalent of the partial pressure of 02 in a hypoxic fire prevention system. The customer wanted to make sure that employees could still work in there for long periods.
 
From this CWS site (Chemical Warefare Service) CWS.

Toxicology of Flame Attack

A year after the initial operations in the Pacific the CWS began studies to discover the predominating characteristics and cause of death by flame and to learn what defensive measures might be devised against the use of flame by the enemy. The agencies engaged in various aspects of flame attack research with the CWS included NDRC units at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Standard Oil Development Co., New York University, Harvard and Johns Hopkins Medical Schools; units of the Bureaus of Ordnance and Medicine of the Navy Department, the Armored Medical Research Laboratory; and the Experiment Station at Suffield, Canada.

In studying the toxicology of flame attack in poorly ventilated enclosed spaces like those found in Japanese bunkers and similar fortifications, researchers determined that three important changes occurred within them at the moment of flame attack, quite aside from the penetration of the flaming fuel itself: there was a sudden jump in temperature, lethal concentrations of carbon monoxide were built up in the bunker, and there was a dangerous lowering of oxygen content. They learned that 70 percent carbon monoxide in the blood resulted in unconsciousness and frequently in death and that this accumulation was obtainable in flame attack within two minutes. Furthermore, only one-tenth of one percent carbon monoxide in the air was sufficient to maintain this lethal blood level, and it was present in bunkers for seven to ten minutes after flame attack. They also learned that for intervals up to fifteen seconds there was almost complete absence of oxygen in a bunker under attack, and that unconsciousness would likely be almost instantaneous in such an event. Any one of these factors or any combination of them, therefore, meant certain death, quite aside from the effects of direct contact with the flame.
 
Reading that article it becomes apparent that the napalm didn't accomplish a lot, at least in terms of fatalities. 8 died in the initial strafing attack and 25 in the torpedo attack, the helmsman was killed by gunfire from the torpedo boat for a total of 34.
 
removing a ship from operation so that it takes up resources for repair is accomplishing something.
 



"INERGEN® is a mixture of 52% Nitrogen, 40% Argon and 8% CO2. However, in the event of a fire, when INERGEN® is discharged, it mixes with the air present in the room to create a mixture that comprises of 67.3% Nitrogen, 12.5% Oxygen, 17% Argon and 3.2% Carbon Dioxide.
This discharge mixture makes INERGEN® singularly unique. No other inert gas has the unique ability to rapidly extinguish a fire yet at the same time provide a safe environment for any person within the occupied area by actually decreasing cardiac distress and maintaining arterial blood oxygenation and mental performance in low oxygen levels. "

Not many substances will combust at 12.5% O2. The CO2 is added to increase respiration rate to compensate for the lower oxygen levels.

One of the hazards of cockpit fires was a breach in the oxygen system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Alternative light and anti-tank guns, 1935-45
10 11 12
Replies
226
Views
8K
Shortround6
S
P
Skyraider suitable for escort carriers??
Replies
13
Views
1K
EwenS
E
I
Question on Luftwaffe protocols for missing aircraft??
Replies
2
Views
173
Ireland
I
W
Here's a test for you all...
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
GrauGeist
T
Early records of UK preparation for WWII
Replies
3
Views
713
yulzari
Menu
Log in
Register