Napalm

Don't give us another plane module until developers give us NAPALM.

As of ethic reasons, I would not like to see Napalm.

As of ethic reasons, I would not like to see Napalm.

But CBUs are GTG?

Napalm! :)

WWW2 incendiary bombs (NAPALM)

VIETNAM WAR

:thumbup:I'd like to see nukes and napalm usable by every Plane as well :thumbup:

As of ethic reasons, I would not like to see Napalm.

To each is entilied his/her own option, but it's worth noting:

We already have cluster muntions in dcs despite that irl multiple western nations have signed agreements and banned from use as well as availability of tactical nukes.( mig21)

Besides only reason napalm hasnt been added before is due to flame effects not being suitable In current conditions within the game engine

Mk77 firebombs are confirmed as planned content for the fa18c roadmap. That's is basically pretty close to function to naplam. Same idea, different chemical composition.

As we are playing in DCS "only" with things that were designed to kill, everyone has to make his own decision whats ok for him and whats not.

The difference bewtween Napalm and clusterbombs is for me quite simple:

Cluster bombs are "dead on impact" weapons, they main reason why they are outlawed (is this the correct english term?) is, that there can be a lot of undetonated ammunition remain which is very hard to remove and which could detonate years after.

While Napalm does not really any mechanical damage, it was mainly used efficiently against people. And there, it is a slow burning substance that can't extingushed and also remains very painfull and bad healing wounds.

So the difference is simple: A clusterbomb instantly kills you, while Napalm slowly burns you to death.

Thats why I don't wanna go with Napalm.

Don't forget, the main object should be to get the enemy harmless and not to kill him with the highest possible pain. You also don't shoot at pilots on the chute...

But however, everyone has to make his own decisions...

Agree with Viper on this.

Each one is entitled to his own opinion, but me as well would rather not see napalm implemented, for the very reasons viper listed.Besides infantry scale battles are not really well simulated/represented of DCS and for light vehicles you already have tons of others means of destruction available.

So whats the point?

As for tactical nukes, I think they are a bit pointless in simulation, as the inevitable response is not modelled , which in all likelihood would quick spiral out of control anyway, but hey...

Kind regards,

Snappy.

Viper, it's pixels. There aren't shades in morality when you're conducting simulated warfare. To say 'I don't approve of war games' is logical and straightforward. To say 'I don't approve of a particular imaginary weapon' or 'I don't approve of having civilians cause war crimes' (one frequently cited) is just pretentious nonsense.

And as mentioned, ''napalm derivatives'' are apparently already planned.

Viper, it's pixels.

No its not. At least not for me. Its your decision what you are up to do and what not. Regardless of RL or pixels.

You would also not shoot at babies in a shooter game, of fly into the twin towers with a passenger jet, or would you?

Or would you also like to see child soldiers in ARMA, as they are also there in RL?

And as mentioned, ''napalm derivatives'' are apparently already planned.

Napalm bombs was used against people to kill them with the highest possible amount of pain.

The planned MK-77 bombs have mainly been used to put something on fire (like oil fields etc...)

As it is probably more or less the same, I'm sure you get the difference why I would not like to have Napalm in the game, but MK-77 would not mind me much...

But again, as I said, everybody has to make his own decisions....

Initially, in the late 1800s, napalm was a mixture of sodium palmitate and gasoline.

During the early 1900s and up to the Second World War, a mixture of sodium naphthenates, aluminum palmitate and gasoline was used.

After the Second World War, mixtures based on aluminum oleate and other gelling agents were used.

During the Vietnam War a mixture of benzene, gasoline and polystyrene was used, known as Napalm-B, which is still in use today.

So, in fact, it is a mixture of gasoline with a gelling agent that serves to raise its vapor pressure and increase its calorific value.

Together with Napalm, to increase its incendiary effects, usually 4% by weight of white phosphorus is added.

The presence of white phosphorus increases the calorific value, making the combustion products toxic and highly corrosive.

The addition of white phosphorus, despite being a practice contrary to international standards, is still being carried out, because no army wants to renounce making its incendiary bombs "super-destructive".

Ethics eh, bullet,... grenade,... nuke,... IED,... land mine,... missile. War is not exactly ethical it's about killing in the most efficient way possible and impacting the most physiological damage possible, just think about it.

DCS is just pixels no different to any other FPS except way more fun perhaps. :D

Having said that I'm not so sure about nukes, not from an ethical POV more from a game play POV.

Game play.

We've got the bomb

Oh game over that was quick,.. :megalol:

There is no “good” way to die when it comes to munitions. If not instantly killed, suffering ensues from wounds regardless of what is employed.

Considering what some enemies have done and the suffering they inflict, I have no qualms with employing napalm. Its war, so not going to say oh gee, I’m sorry.

So Give me Napalm with an F4 Phantom to deliver it. I could use a few FABs as well.

Personally I'd prefer to switch the moral discussion on what weapon system is 'okay' to use to the operational side and have the option to use the equipment available to the platforms modelled in our modules.

I strongly disagree with the OP's statement, though. There should not be a complete halt on development of further modules in favour of producing a single payload. Maybe especially so if it is one of questionable use and maximum controversy.

As a (not overly important) side note to the points viper2097 and others raised, I would like to point out that Napalm was not specifically designed to 'kill people with the highest amount of pain possible'. Even whether this is an effect is debatable according to some studies having reached the conclusion that airburst napalm canisters render their victims unconscious due to oxygen deprivation. Of course other studies come to different conclusions. Either way it is a frightful weapon.

All good points even the ethical questions. As a former combat soldier I could care less about pain and suffering of the enemy. I only care about such things as efficiency, destruction of the enemy, area denial, employability, impact on my mission, and saving my men, among other things. The enemy I expect will not care about how painful any of the weapon systems he employs against me. A bayonet can be as painful as napalm. Killing of innocents and civilians on the battlefield however is another thing, and that can happen with any weapon system. Do I understand where Viper is coming from, absolutely. But it was a historical weapon from WWII on. I do hope it gets modeled into the game at some point. It was especially useful against soft targets(HQ, Supply dumps, convoys. etc.) to include infantry. All viable and legal targets in war.

Great conversation. Hope it gets included and players get to decide on its use.

As a former combat soldier I could care less ...

The bottom line is that, based on current code and tech, DCS could not simulate napalm in any way. If you can't do shrapnel from bombs and can't disable a tank then napalm would be nothing more that a useless visual effect. Imagine a soldier that is 75% disabled by napalm. By DCS standards he could still fire a rifle and shoot down a Huey. Please don't bother with useless crap.

I'm pretty sure he also doesn't use the gau-8 so there won't be any DU dust residues to poison virtual villages for years to come. If incendiary munitions are ever implemented, anyone will have the option to use it or not in their loadouts, but you cannot pretend they where not a big part of warfare for decades.

This has to be trolling in this thread. Has to be!

people who cant draw the line between reality and video games are the real danger

Oh you.....:lol:

LOL

I know people who would shoot at kids in a video game...in fact there's an entire game built around "How many 5 year olds to kill you" where you're supposed to kill them before they kill you (and they will, eventually...always increasing spawn numbers).

And then there's dead baby jokes...

It's a game. Pixels. Ions and electricity. Now if the NPCs ever achieve self-awareness, all bets are off. ;)

Yeah!!! It's a game, I don't mind using napalm

Marc..