Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military From: IA80024%MAINE.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Nicholas C. Hester) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: re: napalm and tanks Message-ID: <13419@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 23 Jan 90 03:57:38 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Lines: 34 Approved: military@att.att.com From: "Nicholas C. Hester" In article <13380@cbnews.ATT.COM>, muller@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Mark B. Muller) says: : :From: muller@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Mark B. Muller) : :>>From: animage%sandstorm.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Cal-Animage Club) : :>Aw, hell. It seems apparent to me that it's becoming more and more :>complicated and expensiveto try to think and research ways of defeating :>reactive armor. Has anyone even thought about disabling the tank WITHOUT :>having to blast it to pieces? Why don't we just go with a simple and cheap :>solution of firing gooey substances that get sucked into a tank's engine that :>react thermally and expand choking out the air intake into the engine thereby :>immobilizing the tank by killing the engine. : : Ther is a substance that will do this even better than you described; : Napalm. Against tanks, it tends to get into any opening available, : including things like hatches, air intakes, and exhaust sytems. Of : course, it also burns real well, causing it to not only stop the engine : in question, but also burn out the whole vehicle very nicely. This has : Aren't todays tanks NBC rated? Wouldn't the overpressurization of the crew compartment keep out the Napalm? Also, I read that the M-1 has extensive fire- control systems for the outside of the hull, is this true, and would it be enough to take care of Napalm? Nicholas C. Hester ia80024@Maine.Bitnet ia80024@Maine.Maine.edu