Yuri0352
Elder Member
Although it is not a MBT, the Scorpion/Scimitar series is also front engine with the driver positioned to the left.
Da Paul Challenge
- Thread starter dlazov
- Start date
- Status
von Marwitz
Forum Guru
witchbottles
Forum Guru
Not too many tanks that can survive the MA there - a 500 gallon Napalm tank does wonders to destroying AFVs.
Justiciar
Elder Member
He is talking about the F-4 not having tracks...you should posted up a pix of the 4, pulling contrail from the air...those are the 'tracks' on a turn and burn like that. And then von M. would have seen that as the tracks...
Is there a confirmed napalm kill on a AFV by a Phantom?
Is there a confirmed napalm kill on a AFV by a Phantom?
witchbottles
Forum Guru
In Korea:
"...Napalm was very effective against enemy personnel and as an antitank weapon. A hit anywhere within fifty feet of a T-34/85 tank was effective. ..."
By F-80s and F-86s using 100-gallon Nape tanks about 1/2 to 2/3 full.
"... Napalm, dropped from low altitude, was recognized as the most effective air weapon against tanks,..."
"...Since the US would not attack irrigation dikes in North Vietnam, the North Vietnamese exploited the situation by placing anti-aircraft sites atop or adjacent to dikes. The air defenses, both fixed and mobile, threatened US forces, and by degrading bombing accuracy against lawful targets led to greater incidental civilian casualties. The Johnson administration denied repeated requests for authorization to attack these air defense sites. When they were finally authorized for attack during Linebacker I, the targets were attacked with weapons that would minimize the risk of structural damage to the dikes. This was accomplished through the use of napalm, strafing, cluster munitions, and other antipersonnel weapons delivered by low altitude strike aircraft such as the F-4, A-6, A-7 and F-105...."
"...In the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, Moshe Dayan was nearly injured when an Egyptian helicopter dropped a napalm barrel near him at Adan's mobile command post on the east bank...."
Napalm has been used against AFVs since WW2, quite successfully. Flown and dropped from a number of source aircraft, but it appears the only combat drops of Nape by F-4 Phantoms on armored targets were the SEAD missions of days 3 and 4 of Linebacker I, targeting the mobile AAA units near Haiphong by F-4Js off Yankee Station. ( According to "Clashes: Air Combat over North Vietnam 1965-1972".) Assuming at least one hit, if not several, armored SA-2 control vans, armored 57mm and 85mm AAA truck mounted artillery were engaged with Napalm via F-4 Phantoms (along with the other planes noted.)
The USMC practices every Spring using Napalm against armored targets at Range 104 near Yuma Proving Grounds, during the WTI exercises. The targets are old M4 Sherman hulls set out in the impact areas along with some old Willys Jeep chassis. It's a heckuva show from Bravo Peak observation platform
witchbottles
Forum Guru
I like these tracks:
these are more common:
Here's the ones you're talking about:
bu MY all time favorite tracks from a Phantom:
Justiciar
Elder Member
My Q was I don't believe a F-4 ever dropped napalm onto an AFV in 'Nam for a kill. Thus no kill.In Korea:
"...Napalm was very effective against enemy personnel and as an antitank weapon. A hit anywhere within fifty feet of a T-34/85 tank was effective. ..."
By F-80s and F-86s using 100-gallon Nape tanks about 1/2 to 2/3 full.
"... Napalm, dropped from low altitude, was recognized as the most effective air weapon against tanks,..."
"...Since the US would not attack irrigation dikes in North Vietnam, the North Vietnamese exploited the situation by placing anti-aircraft sites atop or adjacent to dikes. The air defenses, both fixed and mobile, threatened US forces, and by degrading bombing accuracy against lawful targets led to greater incidental civilian casualties. The Johnson administration denied repeated requests for authorization to attack these air defense sites. When they were finally authorized for attack during Linebacker I, the targets were attacked with weapons that would minimize the risk of structural damage to the dikes. This was accomplished through the use of napalm, strafing, cluster munitions, and other antipersonnel weapons delivered by low altitude strike aircraft such as the F-4, A-6, A-7 and F-105...."
"...In the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, Moshe Dayan was nearly injured when an Egyptian helicopter dropped a napalm barrel near him at Adan's mobile command post on the east bank...."
Napalm has been used against AFVs since WW2, quite successfully. Flown and dropped from a number of source aircraft, but it appears the only combat drops of Nape by F-4 Phantoms on armored targets were the SEAD missions of days 3 and 4 of Linebacker I, targeting the mobile AAA units near Haiphong by F-4Js off Yankee Station. ( According to "Clashes: Air Combat over North Vietnam 1965-1972".) Assuming at least one hit, if not several, armored SA-2 control vans, armored 57mm and 85mm AAA truck mounted artillery were engaged with Napalm via F-4 Phantoms (along with the other planes noted.)
The USMC practices every Spring using Napalm against armored targets at Range 104 near Yuma Proving Grounds, during the WTI exercises. The targets are old M4 Sherman hulls set out in the impact areas along with some old Willys Jeep chassis. It's a heckuva show from Bravo Peak observation platform
Your post reminds me of the 'evidence' about TACAIR against "Panthers" and the like in 1944, wit 500LBs bombs or rocket attack. It was actually found that these were not true kills...but rather abandoned tanks b/c the run in to the crew was too close for them to stand/handle and they bailed...never to return the Allies scoped up the tanks. I remember reading these studies in 'war' themed history journals just beginning to emerge on the history scene at King' College London when I was doing my Ph.D. in medieval history in the 80s...and read such on the side for 'fun'.
50 yard miss, on napalm will not kill a tank, and a miss is not the overspill onto a tank...a miss is a miss, overspill onto a tank could well do it in...and that is a kill. Your not going to get enough O2 sucked out of you inside a tank 50 yards away. You will sh*t yourself, but not die. You might well bail shortly thereafter and leave your tank for good...or be KIA by other means thereafter but the kill is not the nap.
I am not making any statement about napalm vs. troops or fixed emplacements, revetments, etc. 50 yards likely then death too exposed.
You are missing the psyche element against the actually kill element in other references, that this effects the ODDA Loop and could well have series effects no doubt.
My point is nap. vs. armor. Not the most effective weapon, nor its desired target. If it was the A-10 would look very very different than it does.
Mr Incredible
Rod loves red undies
Must be easy to parallel park.
Yuri0352
Elder Member
I recall having personally observed a direct napalm hit squarely upon the top of a LVTP 5 hulk by a USMC A-4. It was the summer of 1982 at the big range north of Las Pulgas on Camp Pendleton. Low angle/flat approach at about 500 feet.In Korea:
"...Napalm was very effective against enemy personnel and as an antitank weapon. A hit anywhere within fifty feet of a T-34/85 tank was effective. ..."
By F-80s and F-86s using 100-gallon Nape tanks about 1/2 to 2/3 full.
"... Napalm, dropped from low altitude, was recognized as the most effective air weapon against tanks,..."
"...Since the US would not attack irrigation dikes in North Vietnam, the North Vietnamese exploited the situation by placing anti-aircraft sites atop or adjacent to dikes. The air defenses, both fixed and mobile, threatened US forces, and by degrading bombing accuracy against lawful targets led to greater incidental civilian casualties. The Johnson administration denied repeated requests for authorization to attack these air defense sites. When they were finally authorized for attack during Linebacker I, the targets were attacked with weapons that would minimize the risk of structural damage to the dikes. This was accomplished through the use of napalm, strafing, cluster munitions, and other antipersonnel weapons delivered by low altitude strike aircraft such as the F-4, A-6, A-7 and F-105...."
"...In the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, Moshe Dayan was nearly injured when an Egyptian helicopter dropped a napalm barrel near him at Adan's mobile command post on the east bank...."
Napalm has been used against AFVs since WW2, quite successfully. Flown and dropped from a number of source aircraft, but it appears the only combat drops of Nape by F-4 Phantoms on armored targets were the SEAD missions of days 3 and 4 of Linebacker I, targeting the mobile AAA units near Haiphong by F-4Js off Yankee Station. ( According to "Clashes: Air Combat over North Vietnam 1965-1972".) Assuming at least one hit, if not several, armored SA-2 control vans, armored 57mm and 85mm AAA truck mounted artillery were engaged with Napalm via F-4 Phantoms (along with the other planes noted.)
The USMC practices every Spring using Napalm against armored targets at Range 104 near Yuma Proving Grounds, during the WTI exercises. The targets are old M4 Sherman hulls set out in the impact areas along with some old Willys Jeep chassis. It's a heckuva show from Bravo Peak observation platform
I wasn't an air-winger, so I don't know what the Corp's doctrine is or was with regards to napalm as an anti-armor weapon. I just know what I observed and I was impressed by the results.
I would not be surprised if the Israeli air force made use of napalm on Arab AFV'S during the '67 and '73 wars.
witchbottles
Forum Guru
My Q was I don't believe a F-4 ever dropped napalm onto an AFV in 'Nam for a kill. Thus no kill.
Your post reminds me of the 'evidence' about TACAIR against "Panthers" and the like in 1944, wit 500LBs bombs or rocket attack. It was actually found that these were not true kills...but rather abandoned tanks b/c the run in to the crew was too close for them to stand/handle and they bailed...never to return the Allies scoped up the tanks. I remember reading these studies in 'war' themed history journals just beginning to emerge on the history scene at King' College London when I was doing my Ph.D. in medieval history in the 80s...and read such on the side for 'fun'.
50 yard miss, on napalm will not kill a tank, and a miss is not the overspill onto a tank...a miss is a miss, overspill onto a tank could well do it in...and that is a kill. Your not going to get enough O2 sucked out of you inside a tank 50 yards away. You will sh*t yourself, but not die. You might well bail shortly thereafter and leave your tank for good...or be KIA by other means thereafter but the kill is not the nap.
I am not making any statement about napalm vs. troops or fixed emplacements, revetments, etc. 50 yards likely then death too exposed.
You are missing the psyche element against the actually kill element in other references, that this effects the ODDA Loop and could well have series effects no doubt.
My point is nap. vs. armor. Not the most effective weapon, nor its desired target. If it was the A-10 would look very very different than it does.
Type 63 Mobile AA gun, likely qualifies as an AFV - 11 knocked out in the Alpha Strike on Day 3 of Linebacker I near Haiphong, by Tactical aircraft carrying a mix of the weapons noted in the reference (Napalm, CBUs, 5" Zuni rockets, 2.75 " FFARS Rockets, 20mm APC.) did any of the Napalm hit one of these 11, I do not know for certain, but I am investigating this one for the next week or so to determine if any refs exist to positive ID a Napalm onto one of these. DPRV had 28 of these on hand in their inventory on Day 1 of Linebacker I.
The DPRV Shilka's ( 12 of them) were not on hand and operational until the Easter Offensive 1972, and they served in the Pleiku column AA Regiment.
Their ZSU 57-2 platoons (4 of 5 vehicles each), only took part in the 1975 Saigon Offensive.
The BTR 40A was another likely qualifying as an AFV:
used extensively by DPRV from 1968 on. Several dozen were identified as being in the general vicinity of central Hanoi during Linebacker I and II.
Again, I am seeking a positive reference of one of these actually being hit by Napalm during the SEAD strikes on days 3 and 4.
The BTR 152 A was provided to DPRV as early as 1967. By 1972 and Linebacker I, there were more than 100 operational near all high value targets in North Vietnam. IT is also likely fitting to call this an AFV - and again one more I am seeking a positive reference to indicate one or more of these knocked out during LB I by SEAD strikes.
witchbottles
Forum Guru
Not sure if this qualifies as an AFV or not, but many were targeted all through LB I and II by SEAD strikes armed with Napalm and CBU and 5" ZXuni Rockets. Dozens knocked out. Likely a napalm hit on one of these would be an immediate kill, and disable the entire SA-2 missile battery.
witchbottles
Forum Guru
screw propelled ZVM 2901 truck
jrv
Forum Guru
There is no F4 counter in ASL and for a good reason: it's dumb. No one seems to care if Pa got any of those deer that were in the corn: http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/index.php?threads/da-paul-challenge.114213/page-64#post-1896592
JR
JR
witchbottles
Forum Guru
witchbottles
Forum Guru
How about this one?
jrv
Forum Guru
Eagle4ty
Forum Guru
You could add an A10 to that list! (If Pigs Could Fly!)
The only AFV I ever needed to see in order to know who was gonna win
Mr Incredible
Rod loves red undies
SFiedler
Senior Member
2 donkeys ?
- Status