Musing.
As a child, I saw a film... maybe 'Tobruk!' ? which involved flame throwers... and it horrified me.  
But.. Airfix / Matchbox men always has flame throwers... so 'got used to them'.. but did not 'like'.  
Later, well, a Churchill Crocodile was a definite table  'asset'... but...    

Then there was the iconic: "I love the smell of napalm in the morning!" BUT, Falklands...  

NOW!    Stick a sexy Blonde on a Dragon... and she can incinerate  Bad Guys / execute prisoners / good guys... or anyone else... and 'Fine By Me!'   (Even if it is not meant to be!).    

So. Any musings, chaps? There may be different 'levels'...

I will NOT be 'offended' by comments! 

Did once proof read a set of WWII rules where the author refused to inclued flame weapons. Also the RAF has never used napalm - because it's less effective than several alternatives.

Quote from: Lord Kermit of Birkenhead on 09 May 2021, 08:28:00 AM
Did once proof read a set of WWII rules where the author refused to inclued flame weapons. Also the RAF has never used napalm - because it's less effective than several alternatives.

That wonderful and reliable source of wikipedia assures the reader that it was used by the RAF on 14 July 1944.  I have read elsewhere of its use during WWII by the RAF.  It may be that it was not used subsequently by the RAF.  From what I have read flame has more of a psychological use than practical use, except against defences if you can get close enough to use it.

Quote from: hammurabi70 on 09 May 2021, 08:42:00 AM
That wonderful and reliable source of wikipedia assures the reader that it was used by the RAF on 14 July 1944.  I have read elsewhere of its use during WWII by the RAF.  It may be that it was not used subsequently by the RAF.  From what I have read flame has more of a psychological use than practical use, except against defences if you can get close enough to use it.

Can't find that entry. The reason they didn't use wasn't moral but doubts about it's effectiveness against most targets.

Quote from: Lord Kermit of Birkenhead on 09 May 2021, 08:56:58 AM
Can't find that entry. The reason they didn't use wasn't moral but doubts about it's effectiveness against most targets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napalm

The British De Havilland Mosquito FB Mk.VIs of No. 140 Wing RAF, Second Tactical Air Force on 14 July 1944

Ta La

Aye, agree that fire/flame/burning is horrible in "modern" movies.

Private Ryan - bunker busting and then not shooting the burning Germans as they scramble out, and in Fury - the young Lt. who shoots himself before he burns to death, and again not shooting the Germans when they've been hit with white phosphorous.

Both horrible examples.

Giant dragons burning 10,000 CGI troops - meh. Maybe because it's shown as an instant death. The red priestess burning people at the stake was pretty "urgh" though.

Quote from: Lord Kermit of Birkenhead on 09 May 2021, 08:56:58 AM
Can't find that entry. The reason they didn't use wasn't moral but doubts about it's effectiveness against most targets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napalm#Military_use

Limited use, fighter bomber style interdiction.

Bomber Command preferred traditional incendiaries for their night raids.

Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 09 May 2021, 10:12:25 AM
Bomber Command preferred traditional incendiaries for their night raids.

That was for aircraft saftey, If they were hit in the bombbay with naplam abord there would have been a major fire before anyone knew about it.

Quote from: Lord Kermit of Birkenhead on 09 May 2021, 10:24:27 AM
That was for aircraft saftey, If they were hit in the bombbay with naplam abord there would have been a major fire before anyone knew about it.

Was it a significantly greater risk than normal incendiaries or photoflash bombs?

In "D-day through German eyes" there are several reports of the RAF using White phosphorous, Often from Huri-bombers.  The powder would spread easily through the firing slits of the bunkers and onto those inside, thus any hit on the bunker was effective.  At worst it blinded the bunker with smoke, often it incapacitated the occupants. According to one report you could actually breath it in, causing burning from the inside out - horrible.

So i doubt their was any moral reason for the RAF not using napalm. 

Being a liquid it could spread further, and could leak, so whilst a blast bomb or photoflash could possibly take a small fragment the naplam would leak.

While on this philosophical musing, I  have a strange aversion to mini wargaming from WW1 onwards (although I own and play boardgames) which I used to rationalise as horrors of "real" war.  But its totally illogical as flames (WRG flaming pigs, Mongol naptha carriers, medieval castle undermining, ...) and many other horrors existed in other eras if not quite as frequently as Hollywoods love of flaming projectile yet strangely wooden trebuchets might suggest.   

Dragons though are pure fantasy although possibly more likely than me meeting sexy blondes.

Quote from: DecemDave on 09 May 2021, 11:58:01 AM
Dragons though are pure fantasy although possibly more likely than me meeting sexy blondes.

Our Welsh members have seen them even if only after many pints of beer. Other things - flaming pigs - for use against elephants, maddend bears and baskets of hornets in seige tunnels, baskets of snakes off the walls in segies. Thgiose are listed in WRG Ancients 5th edition seige appendix.

Though the Welsh members of the forum tend not to use such a complete, random,
freeform bastardisation of the language and spelling that some here utilise.....especially as those members are allegedly English.

Gimme fringing strength.   

In despair - Phil.