Napalm vs. Tanks

[gojira]

I was just watching a show on the History Channel on the 1967 Israeli war. The Israeli air force used *napalm* against Egyptian tanks ... and it worked! Apparently the napalm generates enough heat that it bakes the people inside, burns up the engine and fuel, and cooks off the ammo. Well, they didn't say exactly what the effect was, but the pictures of the tanks shown looked pretty darn messed up.

 

So how to model this in Hero?

 

I'm thinking the obvious: RKA vs ED, Explosion, Continuous. I'm not sure how many dice on the RKA, but a fair amount. But would that take out at least a medium tank? Or a truck? (Lots of burned up trucks were shown too.)

 

How about adding: NND, Does Body, AE, Continuous. That would take out a tank, and probably totally destroy it as well. Plus the people inside of the tank would be killed too. Defense would be being totally inert and having no moving parts at all. So a rock, or a very sturdy cement structure. (I'm guessing napalm wouldn't work against heavily armored buildings and such like.)

 

What do you all think?

 

(Note: I don't have the main book, or any book where napalm is officially written up.)

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Napalm vs. Tanks

 

Well, keep in mind that this is from 1967. While I don't believe that napalm had improved substantially in composition and capability since then, tank design most definitely has, at least among first-world armies.

[Mantis]

Re: Napalm vs. Tanks

 

Fire has been a useful anti-tank weapon since WWII - the Molotov Cocktail was invented by the Finns as anti-tank weapon. Apart from being flammable, Napalm is sticky, and hard to extinguish when delivered in large quantities. Its initial effect is to consume the oxygen in and around the target, with obvious negative consequences for the engine and crew. Unchecked, it will generate a lot of heat, with further negative effects on a metal target. EDIT: Napalm reaches burning temperatures of approx. 1200 °C.

[gojira]

Re: Napalm vs. Tanks

 

Well' date=' keep in mind that this is from 1967. While I don't believe that napalm had improved substantially in composition and capability since then, tank design most definitely has, at least among first-world armies.[/quote']

 

Yes, I did say medium tank, meaning the type Eqypt had in 1967. Also, 1200 degrees sounds really nasty.

 

The old Champs 2 supplement lists an APC at 10 rDEF, 12 BODY and a light tank at 14 rDEF, 13 BODY. I figure we ought to be aiming around there for a 1967 style tank.

 

Egypt probably had T55 tanks. The Israelis captured many T55 tanks after the Six Day War. They were designed as main battle tanks, but much later the Israelis turned their remaining T55 tanks into APCs (after first designating them medium tanks), so I guess they may not have a lot of armour after all.

 

Let me think about this. I'm wondering if Explosion is good or if AE might be better. Naplam is pretty cohesive. 5d6 RKA Ex or so, Continous for about one turn, would be pretty good at destroying the light tank above. If you add a NND Does Body vs people and engines (oxygen deprivation), then you can probably lower the RKA a bit to, maybe, 4d6 RKA.

 

Edit: More sophisticated types of Napalm can burn for 10 minutes. Talk about continuing damage!

[Sunday_Gamer]

Re: Napalm vs. Tanks

 

Napalm fire damage is penetrating and continuous if you ask me.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Napalm vs. Tanks

 

Does this tactic damage the tank itself, or just its contents? The latter wouild effectively be simulated by an Indirect attack which bypasses the defenses of the vehicle's outer armor to access the softer targets within.

[garou]

Re: Napalm vs. Tanks

 

I'm not sure where I put the reference texts for this, so this might be in error, but. . .

 

The use of napalm against a tank is still reasonably effective, in most cases. Although the armor may not be penetrated, unless the tank is buttoned up and airtight, the napalm will still consume all of the available oxygen in the area. If the tank is an older model (say, pre 1991), the fuel and ammo might not be fully compartmentalized, and, if it cooks off, crew death or destruction of the tank can occur.

 

While napalm may not do much damage to the actual body of the tank itself, there are many interior components which would be able to withstand the temperatures. My guess would be RKA, Indirect, NND, Does Body, Sticky, Continuous. Probably with a couple extra +1 Stun modifiers too - it's supposed to be incredibly painful.

[gojira]

Re: Napalm vs. Tanks

 

Napalm fire damage is penetrating and continuous if you ask me.

Yes, and against soft targets that's a good point. But many tanks have hardened armour, which will negate the penetrating component of the napalm. So I'm looking for what else naplam might do.

 

Does this tactic damage the tank itself' date=' or just its contents? The latter wouild effectively be simulated by an Indirect attack which bypasses the defenses of the vehicle's outer armor to access the softer targets within.[/quote'] The tanks I saw on the History Channel looked pretty messed up. If the naplam reached anywhere close to 1200 degrees, I imagine it would destroy everything by heating up the metal armor until the armor acts like the broiler in your oven and just cooks everything.

 

Wires and coolant hoses in the engine should be destroyed. All electronic equipment including aiming systems, radio, and steering systems would be destroy. I think the greese in the wheels and transmissions would be burned up too. People inside would probably be cooked too, even if they had an independant air supply. Plus I don't think tanks normally run with the independant air supply activated; a lot of times the hatches are open so the driver and the commander can see better. Later versions of the T55 were fitted with positive air preasure systems to defend against chemical and biological weapons.

 

Anyway, tanks are an enclosed box. I don't see how indirect would help here. The attack is not gas or something so I personally wouldn't let it by-pass the armor that way.

 

Is there an advantage that causes seperate attacks against all hit locations? I think that might be appropriate too.

 

The use of napalm against a tank is still reasonably effective' date=' in most cases. Although the armor may not be penetrated, unless the tank is buttoned up and airtight, the napalm will still consume all of the available oxygen in the area. If the tank is an older model (say, pre 1991), the fuel and ammo might not be fully compartmentalized, and, if it cooks off, crew death or destruction of the tank can occur.[/quote']

 

Even with an airtight box, I wonder about the effect of being surrounded by a lot of really hot metal. And I think having the fuel and ammo cook off will destroy the tank (no gas & no ammo = usless tank), even if the crew survives.

 

While napalm may not do much damage to the actual body of the tank itself, there are many interior components which would be able to withstand the temperatures. My guess would be RKA, Indirect, NND, Does Body, Sticky, Continuous. Probably with a couple extra +1 Stun modifiers too - it's supposed to be incredibly painful.

 

Good point about the + Stun and the Sticky.

 

I also think naplam should add damage with other napalm. A little naplam might be 1d6, but a lot of napalm isn't a lot of 1d6, it's one big whooping attack.

[CorpCommander]

Re: Napalm vs. Tanks

 

Napalm is still very effective against tanks. Its not used by modern armies because, guess what, close in air defense has gotten WAY better since 1967. That said, if you are going to use Napalm it should be NND, causes body. It gets in through vents, hatches and other gaps. It causes catastrophic damage to all sorts of things on the inside. Even if it doesn't take out the vehicle the crew will bail - though the area is probably very inhospitable.

 

Napalm has a danger space of about 1500 METERS which means that it is not a close support weapon even though in every vietnam movie ever made its used that way.

 

Napalm has a ~5% failure rate (fail to ignite, bad mix, fail to arm).

 

Napalm is excellent against bunkers, airfields, can clear jungle and has had somewhat limited success against built up areas. Its main detractions are it has been used against population centers which makes it unpopular and thus a political hazard. It was removed from US arsenals on April 4th 2001 and is no longer in US arsenals.

[Kristopher]

Re: Napalm vs. Tanks

 

According to my friend who was a tanker -- a Sargeant in 1st Armor 1-1 Cav, spent time in Iraq a couple years ago -- fire-based weapons such as napalm are of little use against the Abrams and the few other Western tanks of the current generation.

[gojira]

Re: Napalm vs. Tanks

 

It was removed from US arsenals on April 4th 2001 and is no longer in US arsenals.

 

This is not quite correct. While the "classic" naplam forumla is not used anymore, the US still has stuff which while made differently is for all intents and purposes the same (except maybe better). It was used in the most recent Iraq war, for example, against dug-in Iraqi infantry.

 

The stuff that was removed from the US aresenal was Mk 77 bombs Mod 4. This is MK 77 Mod 5, so it's better.

 

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20030805-9999_1n5bomb.html

 

I'm still intending to make some more write ups, it's just takin' a little while. Add more ideas if you want to!

[CorpCommander]

Re: Napalm vs. Tanks

 

According to my friend who was a tanker -- a Sargeant in 1st Armor 1-1 Cav' date=' spent time in Iraq a couple years ago -- fire-based weapons such as napalm are of little use against the Abrams and the few other Western tanks of the current generation.[/quote']

 

That is interesting. Being a turbine it has a huge open vent on the back to suck in as much air as it can. It has a filtration system to keep out dust but I was unaware it was sealed against Napalm. I am not saying this is not possible but I am curious as to how it works. The Abrams has an internal over-pressure system to keep out chemical weapons so perhaps they've made some real advances. Worth looking up!

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Napalm vs. Tanks

 

According to my friend who was a tanker -- a Sargeant in 1st Armor 1-1 Cav' date=' spent time in Iraq a couple years ago -- fire-based weapons such as napalm are of little use against the Abrams and the few other Western tanks of the current generation.[/quote']

That was my understanding as well, but I can't swear to it without more research than I have time to do now. I think it's fair to say napalm is less effective against modern tanks, but quantifying how much less? Hard to say.

 

In terms of mechanics, I think I'd go with NND, defense is being completely sealed (bio-chem) and heat insulated. Of course, this all begs the question of what kind of genre you're looking at. In reality, even a light tank is going to have way more than 14 points of armor - that's a comic-book tank.

 

That is interesting. Being a turbine it has a huge open vent on the back to suck in as much air as it can.

I would think at a minimum the engine would choke out from lack of air, at least until the napalm burns out.

[garou]

Re: Napalm vs. Tanks

 

It is possible that Molotov cocktails, man-portable flamethrowers and the like are no longer effective against the Abrams, due to improvements in armor and the like. Still, if the tank has an open hatch, and gets hit with napalm, it honestly does not matter how good the armor is - the crew would still bake.

 

Napalm is also typically dropped onto a target, and the thinnest armor on a tank is on the top. It might not penetrate directly, but the stuff will seep down into any cracks or holes - so you might not lose the crew, but the tank might still wind up as a mobility & firepower kill.

[Sunday_Gamer]

Re: Napalm vs. Tanks

 

I would say that older tanks, while having hardened PD, did not have hardened ED, hance why the penetrating would "seep" inside and kill the crew. This is special effected out to: consumming all the air, cooking off ammo or just cooking the crew.

 

One might say that the more modern tanks also have hardened ED hence why the napalm is not so useful against the modern ones.

 

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

Sunday

[gojira]

Re: Napalm vs. Tanks

 

In reality' date=' even a light tank is going to have way more than 14 points of armor - that's a comic-book tank. [/quote']

 

How do you figure? 14 rDef makes you immune to all small arms and machine guns short of .50 cal, iirc.

 

They heavy tank was 19 rDef and 14 body, btw.

 

I just remembered that Sidekick (which I have) has a few vehicles. The Abrams is listed as 20 rDef, Hardened, from the front and 16 rDef Hardened on all other sides, and 19 body.

[CorpCommander]

Re: Napalm vs. Tanks

 

OK got more info. Looks like British, German and American tanks use a system that detects a Napalm attack and basically shuts off all air intakes and shuts down the engine. Of course you have to wait for the napalm to burn off before you can restart the thing so effectively the tank is out of commission for a while. Probably 5 or 6 full turns realistically.

 

Very interesting indeed. So the defense for a NND defined Napalm is Automatic Intake Shutdown on Napalm attack built as a trigger most likely.

 

But who is doing bombing runs on tanks now? With MANPADS and effective radar guided AAA in the hands of even the weakest warlord the present belongs to missiles.

 

--Pete

[gojira]

Re: Napalm vs. Tanks

 

Very interesting indeed. So the defense for a NND defined Napalm is Automatic Intake Shutdown on Napalm attack built as a trigger most likely.

 

I might go for Life Support, Doesn't breathe (ie., doesn't intake oxygen), which would be effective against oxygen depletion and carbon monoxide poisoning, the two NND powers I now think naplam should have. Make it a lock out power with the tanks movement, and maybe more.

 

So right now I'm thinking 6d6 RKA Explosion (or similar AoE), Sticky, Uncontrolled (or Continuing Charge), +2 Stun (or so) mod,

 

plus

 

NND AOE Oxygen depletion (self contained breathing, doesnt' breath, can hold breath for the whole time)

 

plus

 

NND Does Body Carbon Monoxide Poisoning (self contained breathing, LS vs poisons, can hold breath the whole time)

 

So that's kinda weird that the carbon monoixde might kill the tank but the effect is about correct.

 

I'm using Explosion or AoE on bombs, for a flame thrower I might use Indirect also.

 

But who is doing bombing runs on tanks now? With MANPADS and effective radar guided AAA in the hands of even the weakest warlord the present belongs to missiles.

 

--Pete

 

Well, if the other guy doesn't have tanks which can seal their engines, WE should!

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Napalm vs. Tanks

 

I would say that older tanks' date=' while having hardened PD, did not have hardened ED, hance why the penetrating would "seep" inside and kill the crew.[/quote']

Problem is that HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank) rounds, anti-tank missiles and the like are all energy attacks: essentially they use a focused explosion to burn a hole through the armor. So they would apply against ED, not PD. I think it's better to keep napalm a special case, NND or AVLD.

 

But who is doing bombing runs on tanks now? With MANPADS and effective radar guided AAA in the hands of even the weakest warlord the present belongs to missiles.

Right. I guess in theory you could deliver napalm by missile, but why would you want to when there are so much more effective things you can do with a missile? Only thing I can think of is some kind of booby trap that spits napalm on the tank when it drives by. Could be somewhat effective, particularly in urban areas. Not as effective as a good AT mine, but then not everyone can afford good AT mines.

 

Rep to CC for doing the homework!

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Napalm vs. Tanks

 

How do you figure? 14 rDef makes you immune to all small arms and machine guns short of .50 cal' date=' iirc.[/quote']

Yes, it's all balanced pretty well against the weapons effects as listed. My problem is that I also think that heavy weapons are way underpowered. Sorry, it's more a philosophical thing for me.

 

[DERAIL]

According to 5ER, you can get Kevlar suits worth up to 11 rDEF; yet an M113 APC only has 10 rDEF? And a light tank only has 14 rDEF? IMO, it would be more realistic to have that APC around 20 rDEF, the light tank around 30 rDEF, and the Abrams around 40 rDEF. But then you have to increase weapon damage for rifles and heavy weapons, to the point where one shot will kill any PC around, which sucks from a game standpoint - realism ain't everything, after all. Also, then the Hulk wouldn't be able to rip apart a tank like a can of sardines, which detracts from the supers genre.

 

In other words, it's just the crusty wargamer/military historian in the corner saying "Tanks should be tougher!" Pay him/me no mind.

 

[/DERAIL] (Sorry for the disturbance, folks. )

[CorpCommander]

Tank Engines - off topic, Re: Napalm vs. Tanks

 

While doing more homework on the Abrams engine I came across a very cool article that I put up in my blog. Read the whole thing - the initial arguments are all discussed in great detail and its a good eye opener. Sadly it doesn't say anything about the effectiveness of defense vs. Napalm so that is why this is off topic.

 

My blog: http://corpcommander.blogspot.com

[Kenn]

Re: Napalm vs. Tanks

 

Yes' date=' it's all balanced pretty well against the weapons effects as listed. My problem is that I [u']also[/u] think that heavy weapons are way underpowered. Sorry, it's more a philosophical thing for me.

 

[DERAIL]

According to 5ER, you can get Kevlar suits worth up to 11 rDEF; yet an M113 APC only has 10 rDEF? And a light tank only has 14 rDEF? IMO, it would be more realistic to have that APC around 20 rDEF, the light tank around 30 rDEF, and the Abrams around 40 rDEF. But then you have to increase weapon damage for rifles and heavy weapons, to the point where one shot will kill any PC around, which sucks from a game standpoint - realism ain't everything, after all. Also, then the Hulk wouldn't be able to rip apart a tank like a can of sardines, which detracts from the supers genre.

 

In other words, it's just the crusty wargamer/military historian in the corner saying "Tanks should be tougher!" Pay him/me no mind.

 

[/DERAIL] (Sorry for the disturbance, folks. )

 

I think the problem comes from the more-or-less exponential nature of the system. The 70 STR brick is 4096 times stronger than the average 10 STR cop. But his punch is 7x as many dice. +12 DC for something 4096 as powerful. That works out for +1d6 Killing Damage for every 8 times increase in power. With that kind of scaling, there's going to be variences.

[Kristopher]

Re: Napalm vs. Tanks

 

It is possible that Molotov cocktails, man-portable flamethrowers and the like are no longer effective against the Abrams, due to improvements in armor and the like. Still, if the tank has an open hatch, and gets hit with napalm, it honestly does not matter how good the armor is - the crew would still bake.

 

Napalm is also typically dropped onto a target, and the thinnest armor on a tank is on the top. It might not penetrate directly, but the stuff will seep down into any cracks or holes - so you might not lose the crew, but the tank might still wind up as a mobility & firepower kill.

 

Running buttoned-up, the Abrams and its kin are sealed and overpresured, and napalm is quite thick.

[garou]

Re: Napalm vs. Tanks

 

OK got more info. Looks like British, German and American tanks use a system that detects a Napalm attack and basically shuts off all air intakes and shuts down the engine. Of course you have to wait for the napalm to burn off before you can restart the thing so effectively the tank is out of commission for a while. Probably 5 or 6 full turns realistically.

 

Very interesting indeed. So the defense for a NND defined Napalm is Automatic Intake Shutdown on Napalm attack built as a trigger most likely.

 

But who is doing bombing runs on tanks now? With MANPADS and effective radar guided AAA in the hands of even the weakest warlord the present belongs to missiles.

 

--Pete

Apparently there are multiple grades of napalm. Per Wiki,

 

Unlike conventional napalm, which burns for only 15-30 seconds, napalm B burns for up to 10 minutes with less fireballs, sticks better to surfaces, and offers improved destruction effects. It is not as easy to ignite, which reduces the number of accidents caused by smoking soldiers. . .

 

So, the tank is either out of commision for 4 turns or so (after all, you want to be sure that the fireball surrounding you is out), or a looong time (in terms of combat rounds - I mean, really, 50 turns? How many combats go that long? And you'd probably stay buttoned up for 15 minutes, just in case, so call it 75 turns).

 

Anyways, I suspect that you do bombing runs on tanks for a variety of reasons - one, you have complete air superiority (or nearly so, meaning little use of accurate, portable AA and virtually no enemy aircraft); two, ordinance reasons. I suspect that most SRBMs have a payload of less than 250 kg, because heavier payload = shorter range, whereas planes can drop 500 lb bombs like they were nothing. I suspect also that three, planes (aside from being on the ground) are less of a potential target than a missile truck (and cruise missiles do have to be programmed onto a target, limiting the battlefield role); and four - bombs might well be cheaper than missiles - after all, no motor or rocket, just a big explosive encased in a shell. (Yes, and a targeting device + directional fins - but the same gear is on any missile.)

 

Missiles are incredibly useful, but the era of combat aircraft is far from over.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Napalm vs. Tanks

 

I think the problem comes from the more-or-less exponential nature of the system. The 70 STR brick is 4096 times stronger than the average 10 STR cop. But his punch is 7x as many dice. +12 DC for something 4096 as powerful. That works out for +1d6 Killing Damage for every 8 times increase in power. With that kind of scaling' date=' there's going to be variences.[/quote']

Sure. I actually like the exponential nature of damage. It's one of the things that allows Hero to scale from street-punk level up to Galactic Champions level without the system losing coherance. (Besides, that 4000d6 EB would take awhile to count up!) I just think that from a realism standpoint, the curve should probably be stretched out a bit farther than it currently is. The jump from pistol ammo (easily stopped by most modern body armor) to rifle ammo (will easily penetrate most body armor) should be more than just a DC or two; the jump from there to heavy weapons should be similarly increased. From a realism standpoint. But I also acknowledge that from a playability standpoint, that would likely cause more problems than it solves, at least for most genres.