Napalm the bocage!

samneanderthal

Active member
The Normandy bocage cost 40,000 casualties, invaluable time, lots of tanks, ammo, etc,
Since the Germans were hiding in thick, flammable vegetation, why not set fire to it with napalm, which the navy used extensibly in the Pacific? This would have both eliminated the obstacle and the German troops and equipment.
 
I dunno, maybe you can tell us why they didn't. Maybe it was because the British told them not to, so it was their fault?:coffee:
 
Last edited:
The Normandy bocage cost 40,000 casualties, invaluable time, lots of tanks, ammo, etc,
Since the Germans were hiding in thick, flammable vegetation, why not set fire to it with napalm, which the navy used extensibly in the Pacific? This would have both eliminated the obstacle and the German troops and equipment.

I assume it received limited use in the area because of the close proximity of the fighting.
 
I assume it received limited use in the area because of the close proximity of the fighting.
Napalm was developed at Harvard University in 1942-43 by a team of chemists led by chemistry professor Louis F. Fieser, so in 1944 it was a new weapon.

On July 17, 1944 Napalm bombs were dropped for the first time by American P-38 pilots on a fuel depot at Coutances, near St. Lô, France.

The German word "bombenbrandschrumpfeichen" was created in response to napalm bombing of German bunkers. Soldiers in bunkers would be baked by the heat, and the word means "firebomb shrunken flesh.
 
Napalm was developed at Harvard University in 1942-43 by a team of chemists led by chemistry professor Louis F. Fieser, so in 1944 it was a new weapon.

On July 17, 1944 Napalm bombs were dropped for the first time by American P-38 pilots on a fuel depot at Coutances, near St. Lô, France.

The German word "bombenbrandschrumpfeichen" was created in response to napalm bombing of German bunkers. Soldiers in bunkers would be baked by the heat, and the word means "firebomb shrunken flesh.

Yep I know it was developed and used during WW2 in both theatres but I am suggesting that the answer to Sams question is that delivery inaccuracies and the close nature of the fighting between troops meant that it probably wasn't the best weapon in Bocage country.
 
It could be a possible answer,since a large amount of carbon monoxide is produced once a napalm bomb is set off. When Napalm ignites Oxygen is replaced with carbon monoxide as a result of incomplete combustion.
 
Quite often the only thing that separated the two sides was the thickness of a hedge. By using Napalm you would have wound up killing as many of your men as you did of theres. Napalm covers quite a wide area when it is dropped let alone large drops of it that are thrown out on impact.
 
And then there's the aspect of collateral damage, the battle-zone wasn't like the battlefields of WW I where the civilian population was evacuated long before trenches was dug.

And while the idea of setting the rural districts of northern France ablaze could have proven efficient in a scorched-earth tactic scenario, it would be quite obvious why the allies didn't turn to those methods.
After all they were about to liberate the land, and the strain of putting out major wildfires on top of fighting the Germans would most likely stop the entire operation.
 
It is always possible to withdraw your troops and then napalm the area and advance in open terrain with a lot of charred bodies.. However, BritinAfrica may be right. The planes were quite busy dropping 7,000 tons of bombs, so Monty could advance 7 miles. Mostly because the ground attack took place long after the bombing, allowing Gerry to recover.

Hi 84RFK burning Hedgerows can hardly be categorized as wildfires. The local population was bombed time and again, so that a great many French civilians died from bombing in more populated areas than the bocage.

A P-47 or a Mosquito can place the napalm pretty accurately. Little napalm is necessary, since the vegetation provides most of the fuel.
 
Last edited:
It would appear that the person who is posting above has never seen any action and would not know just how napalm spreads once it is dropped. Even the shells were not always perdictable as a many things would affect there flight.
 
The only combat I've seen is with my former mother in law.
Is anybody familiar with what Tedder (one of the few good British leaders) thought about Monty when he refused to use the planes to finish off Rommel after el Alamein II and when he wasted a thousand tons of bombs per mile?
 
Last edited:
Hi 84RFK burning Hedgerows can hardly be categorized as wildfires. The local population was bombed time and again, so that a great many French civilians died from bombing in more populated areas than the bocage.

A P-47 or a Mosquito can place the napalm pretty accurately. Little napalm is necessary, since the vegetation provides most of the fuel.


Well, you see, the scorched-earth tactic is most commonly applied as a defensive strateghy, in order to deny an aggressor any possible benefit from the terrain he captures, and are generally avoided by the attacking side in the conflict.
Yes, Dresden and Hamburg was torched and burned violently after bombing raids, but they were considered enemy territory, and not a friendly country about to be liberated.

A single hedgerow is not considered a wildfire, no, but these hedgerows had a tendency to be situated close to farmland and villages, and the effect of napalm in dry land around midsummer.....you will have a wildfire.
 
it was a pretty wet midsummer, so that half the flights had to be cancelled.

burning lines of trees does not compare with dropping 13,000 tons of bombs that fell too far inland to harm the coast fortifications on D-day or 7,000 tons near Caen, etc,
Carpet bombing was far worse that starting fires that allow people to run away from them.
 
The only combat I've seen is with my former mother in law.

That says it all

Is anybody familiar with what Tedder (one of the few good British leaders) thought about Monty when he refused to use the planes to finish off Rommel after el Alamein II and when he wasted a thousand tons of bombs per mile?

Good Lor, he admits to a good British leader.

Wasted a thousand bombs a mile? Where on earth do you get your information from?

Carpet bombing was far worse that starting fires that allow people to run away from them.

The whole idea is to kill people and destroy equipment, not allow them to run away.
 
Last edited:
Proximity has not always been a big issue with Napalm or even some other stuff.
You drop it when and where you can and then sort things out.
There was probably still a steep learning curve on it's use at Normandy.
Also delivery resources.
Even Agent Orang accomplished some good things as intended.
I think a rather small number of members here have seen action or even bothered serve.
That does not preclude them having questions or thoughts.
 
@sam

Next time I go to war - join me.

Then it may be that you realize that war is a big chaos and all your good ideas are not worth a ****. In combat, things happen fast and decisions must be made ​​in a split second.

I don´t understand how you can be so arrogant without having any practical experience as a soldier. You talk to people who have/had this as their profession for many years - some even with combat experience. Are you just as damned arrogant when you talk to other professionals? Do you tell the surgeon how to perform a heart surgery – the mechanic how to assemble an engine or the lawyer how to pursue a case in court?

Why are you on this forum? Why are you asking questions when you've already decided that you know better than us? Why don´t you just write a book entitled "How the world works" then we can get the answers on everything.

You are just an arrogant idiot and nitpicker without any understanding or experience in this area.
 
Back
Top