Greek Fire Vs Napalm

[Tobias]

G'day everyone

I was intrigued by how similar Greek Fire was to Napalm. I instituted this topic to find people's views on the uses of Greek Fire and Napalm, battles where they were used and to have a general comparison in the destructive power, pros and cons of both these highly volatile liquid flames. As well, i believe to this day that the complete chemical composition of Greek fire is still unknown (those Byzantines could hardly be blamed for not wanting to lose their secret weapon), and it'd be interesting to hear some views on what the compositon is thought to be. So, overall, a general comparison of Greek Fire and Napalm os the purpose of this topic

[Lacertus]

Most likely the secret of it was lost.

Greek fire

There are guess-works only but they have rights to live.

Incendiary weapons were nothing new in warfare in the Mediterranean world. Naphtha, a petroleum distillate, was known in the 4th century BCE. In combat on both land and sea, petroleum, sulphur, bitumen, and resin had been used since early Christian times. But Greek fire was more insidious. It was projected upon enemy forces in the fashion of a flamethrower. Contemporary accounts frequently mention the mixture being discharged from tubes mounted on the prows of Byzantine ships. Like modern napalm, it adhered to whatever it struck, and could not be extinguished with water.

[Favonius Cornelius]

Between napalm and Greek Fire, there really is little comparison tactically speaking. Greek Fire for the Byzantines granted a huge tactical superiority against all their seaborne foes for quite a while. It was almost the equivalent of the nuclear option for sea. Napalm on the other hand did not change much in the Vietnam war, and still is of dubious use. If you are defoliating to win a war you got problems.

[Tobias]

I agree. Are the any other practical applications of Napalm though? Apart from defoliating? I realise that it would not answer against today's armoured navies, but is it used anywhere else? One would hope that it won't be aimed directly at bodies of troops or (god forbid) civilians in battle.

[Hamilcar Barca]

I realise that it would not answer against today's armoured navies, but is it used anywhere else? One would hope that it won't be aimed directly at bodies of troops or (god forbid) civilians in battle.

 

When and where was napalm ever used for anything other than defoliation or killing people? Napalm was invented for just such purposes. In fact, during the Vietnam' war it evolved to get specifically better at killing poeple:

 

Stage 1 (start of war): Napalm can cause severe burns, but is found that in some cases victims can scrape it off before it causes grevious bodilly harm

 

Stage 2: US military engineers add an adhesive quality to the gel that sticks to targets as to prevent scraping off.

 

Stage 3 (closing years of war): Military engineers add white phosphate to the gel so that even if the victim doses themselves in water, the phosphate continues to burn, eroding in many cases right down to the bone. yay.

 

Napalm and Greek fire were both deisgned to KILL people. That is the bottom line. In any case incinidary based wepaons are for the most part outdated, Napalm hasn't been used on a grand scale in any recent decades of conflict. This owing to the fact that there are far more deadly weposn around now.

[Tobias]

Perhaps i worded myself wrong there

[Pertinax]

incendiary weapons also tend to bring death to any captured operatives very swifly

[Spurius]

Napalm and Greek fire were both deisgned to KILL people. That is the bottom line. In any case incinidary based wepaons are for the most part outdated, Napalm hasn't been used on a grand scale in any recent decades of conflict. This owing to the fact that there are far more deadly weposn around now.

 

Yeah, we haven't had the clustering of soft or immobile targets in recent wars. Flame weapons can still take out otherwise invulnerable targets by sheer heat and air intake problems.

 

Also, adding WP was added to increase napalm's casualty causing effects...not kill outright but make people hurt and force the enemy to expend medical resources. Sure, covered with napalm kills you outright but seldom did that happen. Mostly you got tagged, then shot in combat or suffer and possibly die in hospital/aid station. And if you live, you'll need help with PT and the scars.

 

Nasty stuff to scare sane individuals spitless...

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

I suppose napalm would be better because we know we can improve it anytime for much deadlier potency. Sadly, we don't have Greek fire to improve.

[Pertinax]

Lacertus' link to greek fire is interesting as the illustration toward the head of the page is of Mamluk incendiary troops .These troops used the "naft" fireworks in their elaborate ceremonial games and displays but were also deployed as naft throwers -not on any great scale though they were deployed against the Mongols on a large scale in 1299.I presume naft is a possibly some sort of emulsified petroleum product? Does anyone have knowledge of the use and deployment of this weapon?