I don’t think it would matter if the napalm was still close enough to destroy the object/material by burning. Sticking to it wouldn’t necessarily be necessary, would it?
In unscientific terms, Napalm is gellied gasoline. It doesn’t matter if it sticks. It just does all kinds of nasty things when it applied and ignited. I suppose a fireproof suit is somewhat effective but they’ve already been invented. However, I don’t think that you can get thousands of villagers in a war zone to walk around in fireproof suits all day.
Stickingness aside, the melting point of all of the various elements can provide some indication of what things are going to retain their shape when in contact with napalm. Apparently everything from magnesium on shouldn’t be affected (not that I would want to be the guy who has to test dumping a load of magnesium in napalm gell.)
I’m not sure what the measurement is for slickness, but I believe there is one. So if we were to compare that table to the one above, you should be able to get an answer.
True. However, it might come in handy when designing Killbots armed with flame throwers, so it’ll be easier to get the burning stuff off of 'em if a napalm tank gets breached.
That’s pretty unscientific; it’s in the neighborhood of being right, but it’s not right. Napalm was Dow Chemical’s trade name for a now-defunct mixture of aluminum naphthenate and aluminum palmitate which forms an oily, sticky, high-temperature incendiary. Other gelatinous incendiaries are called “napalm” in the same way that tissues are called “Kleenexes”.