Flamethrowers - still a viable option?

[Firn]

The 4th and 5th Marine Divisions emphasized the greater effectiveness of the main armament type as opposed to the auxiliary flame thrower, of which the 4th Division had twenty-four. These divisions recommended more large capacity flame throwers and their incorporation as organic equipment in all tank battalions.78 Although the 3d Marine Division entered the Iwo Jima operation without main armament flame throwers, it was later on able to borrow some from the other divisions. In its opinion this type was better against enemy defenses than the auxiliary bow gun flame throwers with their shorter range and limited traverse.79

After-action reports for the Iwo Jima operation attested to the value of the flame weapons. Of the two types, the mechanized flame thrower seemed to have come out on top. One battalion commander called it the "best single weapon of the operation."80 The V Amphibious Corps report referred to the mechanized weapon as the "only effective means"

Frequently employed in WWII flamethrowers were first deployed by the German Imperial army in the Great War as part of the solution to reachdecisive breakthroughs. Their fire was feared with good reason:

On 15 December troops of the 126th Infantry, 3 2d Division, were halted in the Ormoc corridor by strong resistance from a pillbox and riflemen situated about twenty yards below the crest of a hill. After one attempt to overcome these defenses had failed, the regiment formed an assault party of fifteen riflemen, a bazooka team, and two flame thrower operators. The party crept around the enemy and opened fire simultaneously with grenades, bazookas, and flame throwers. One flame thrower operator directed his fire on the pillbox, while the other sprayed the rifle positions. The attacking riflemen found that the badly burned and demoralized Japanese offered little resistance.43

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VD89Z0_Rav8&feature=related"]YouTube- Flame throwers in action on Iwo Jima[/nomedia]


The original pioneers incorporated the portable version (an not only) also in WWII into their tactical doctrine, visible in this training video:

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Uz6bB_w-10"]YouTube- Stosstrupp aus der HKL - Lehrfilm Nr. 463 - 2 of 8[/nomedia]


No Western army has a "classic" flamethrower in it's inventary but the question remains: Is it still a viable weapon system?


Firn

 

[rmnp_ccc]

No Western army has a "classic" flamethrower in it's inventary but the question remains: Is it still a viable weapon system?


Firn

Here are my thoughts.

The Western world would have to experience a great shift in thinking before flame weapons make a comeback. Otherwise the battlefield situation would have to be one in which the use of these weapons would not cause a public outcry. For understandable reasons, dropping bombs on enemy soldiers taking cover in caves is more acceptable than ground soldiers squirting fire on them. The disconnect between attack aircraft and their targets seems to have been capitalized on in this respect.

Also, it seems that aircraft can drop ordnance that would be as effective as a flame unit on an AFV. A direct fire flame weapon has obvious advantages over a napalm bomb (if that's what they still call it), but I still am not convinced that flame weapons would be acceptable in today's Western armies. Funny as it sounds, I think the public would be repulsed by the idea of collateral damage from a flame thrower more than they are currently repulsed by civilians killed by a hellfire launched from an aircraft.

I see flame weapons as a product of a total war mentality that we may once again find ourselves in, but for the time being these weapons' battlefield capabilities, which I'm sure others can attest to better than me, are trumped by their place in the public mind.

 

[Waylander]

The Marines of WWII didn't have access to anything even remotely as capable as current thermobaric weapons or something like a bunkerfaust.

These weapons have a better range, are much more versatile, easier to handle, lighter and much less dangerous for the soldiers carrying them.

IMHO such weapons are the main reason for the demise of the flamethrower.

 

[dragonfire]

Would Flamethrowers be a good idea for a urban environment in a fight against Terrorists. Those guys dont surrender usualy once they have started an op, in such scenarios they try to take as many lives as possible before succumbing, maybe Flamethrowers would given an advantage to the counter-terrorist operators. Inputs anyone ?

 

[rmnp_ccc]

Would Flamethrowers be a good idea for a urban environment in a fight against Terrorists. Those guys dont surrender usualy once they have started an op, in such scenarios they try to take as many lives as possible before succumbing, maybe Flamethrowers would given an advantage to the counter-terrorist operators. Inputs anyone ?

Flame weapons in an urban environment seem to carry a higher probability of civilian casualties. If an urban scenario involves a hardened enemy without civilians in the area, I think that leveling the buildings with artillery or aircraft could be more effective. But a weapon in the hands of ground forces can be called upon to quickly bring fire (no pun intended) to bear, instead of calling it in.

 

[Thiel]

Flame weapons in an urban environment seem to carry a higher probability of civilian casualties. If an urban scenario involves a hardened enemy without civilians in the area, I think that leveling the buildings with artillery or aircraft could be more effective. But a weapon in the hands of ground forces can be called upon to quickly bring fire (no pun intended) to bear, instead of calling it in.

On the other hand, the fuel cannisters have a nasty tendency to go boom when hit. Not such a big issue during a straight advance, big issue when you're running around in the city and fire can come from just about any direction.

 

[Firn]

The Marines of WWII didn't have access to anything even remotely as capable as current thermobaric weapons or something like a bunkerfaust.

They might have not thermobaric weapons or a bunkerfaust, but they had quite an arsenal of He-throwers, from the Bazooka to heavy guns, beside all that howitzers, mortars and rockets. The flamethrowers were in very high request in Vietnam and the available firepower there was rightly considered to be massive.

These weapons have a better range, are much more versatile, easier to handle, lighter and much less dangerous for the soldiers carrying them.

IMHO such weapons are the main reason for the demise of the flamethrower.[

The argumentation is not completely accurate, as you seem to have not read the sources I posted. The flamethrowers, delployed by men or vehicles has distinct properties and qualities which can not be replicated by said weapons. Still, especially a Western military does well to address the same problem matrix by thermobaric warheads delivered by conventional means, as not only it offers some advantages beside the disadvantages, but is also more politically feasible.


Firn

 

[dragonfire]

Flame weapons in an urban environment seem to carry a higher probability of civilian casualties. If an urban scenario involves a hardened enemy without civilians in the area, I think that leveling the buildings with artillery or aircraft could be more effective. But a weapon in the hands of ground forces can be called upon to quickly bring fire (no pun intended) to bear, instead of calling it in.

The problem here is the congested urban environment is not conducive to artillery and bombing attacks, besides the infrastructure damage can be minimized in a controlled flaming ops, i have seen pics of Indian Army and Paramilitary forces using arty to blow up houses in semi urban and rural environment but in a congested urban scenario killing someone holed up ready to die is a tough task without suffering casualities

 

[rmnp_ccc]

The problem here is the congested urban environment is not conducive to artillery and bombing attacks, besides the infrastructure damage can be minimized in a controlled flaming ops, i have seen pics of Indian Army and Paramilitary forces using arty to blow up houses in semi urban and rural environment but in a congested urban scenario killing someone holed up ready to die is a tough task without suffering casualities

That's a good point. Precision bombing is a relative term. Even with the trend towards smaller payloads and higher accuracy, if it's absolutely critical that collateral damage be minimized it's best left to the folks on the ground. But what if the flame weapons catch fire to the house next door, then the entire neighborhood? Are we going to limit these weapons to mud brick neighborhoods?

 

[Waylander]

@Firn
I think that the Pacific theater cannot be compared to todays environments. A flamethrower due to it's nature is more effective in such an environment than it is in others.

For example in Afghanistan has a lot of long range engagements besides the usual cleaning of a compound. Carrying a heavy flamethrower for the few situations were it might be usefull (while still staying relatively dangerous to it's carrier) is not very economic.
And modern vehicles have some new nice capabilities. For them going into the infight in Afghanistan is not necessary and only makes them more vulnerable.

In a theater like Iraq one might argue that the urban fighting also keeps the engagement distances relatively small but there one doesn't want to fuel a big fire in a city due to hearts and minds.

And a shoulder launched weapons as well as modern support assets still keeps on being more versatile. A flamethrower is just very limited in its potential usage, especially when one considers it's weight and safety issues.

 

[Firn]

@Firn
I think that the Pacific theater cannot be compared to todays environments. A flamethrower due to it's nature is more effective in such an environment than it is in others.

For example in Afghanistan has a lot of long range engagements besides the usual cleaning of a compound. Carrying a heavy flamethrower for the few situations were it might be usefull (while still staying relatively dangerous to it's carrier) is not very economic.
And modern vehicles have some new nice capabilities. For them going into the infight in Afghanistan is not necessary and only makes them more vulnerable.

In a theater like Iraq one might argue that the urban fighting also keeps the engagement distances relatively small but there one doesn't want to fuel a big fire in a city due to hearts and minds.

And a shoulder launched weapons as well as modern support assets still keeps on being more versatile. A flamethrower is just very limited in its potential usage, especially when one considers it's weight and safety issues.

As a matter of fact I mostly agree with this position, as the integration costs, current battlefields and political realities are all set against flamethrowers.

It might be sensible to design and acquire thermobaric ammunition for the main heavy weapons systems like tank guns, mortars, artillery, missiles and heavier shoulder-launched weapons. The Soviets and now the Russian have developed a thermobaric warhead for pretty much every single sensible system.

The also made quite some use of it in conflicts fought in a way which a Western nation should not take as a yardstick. But if they are so efficient against well protected positions it could be costly to ignore them.

This is 1.5 to 2 times greater than the overpressure caused by conventional explosives. Personnel under the cloud are literally crushed to death. Outside the cloud area, the blast wave travels at some 3,000 meters per second [9843 feet per second]. 2 The resultant vacuum pulls in loose objects to fill the void.

As a result, a fuel-air explosive can have the effect of a tactical nuclear weapon without residual radiation. 3 Since a fuel-air mixture flows easily into any cavities, neither natural terrain features nor non-hermetically sealed field fortifications (emplacements, covered slit trenches, bunkers) protect against the effects of fuel-air explosives.

If a fuel-air charge is fired inside a building or bunker, the cloud is contained and this amplifies the destruction of the load-bearing components of the structure.
Fuel-air can be an effective weapon against exposed enemy personnel, combat equipment, fortified areas and individual fighting positions. It can be used to clear minefields and to clear and prepare landing zones for assault forces and helicopters. It can be used to destroy communication centers and urban strong points. It can be used to defend against anti-ship missile attacks and against surface and submarine naval attacks. Fuel-air explosions can also be used as a herbicide, destroying crops and vegetation. 4 Thermobaric is another term for fuel-air. 5

Firn

 

[dragonfire]

That's a good point. Precision bombing is a relative term. Even with the trend towards smaller payloads and higher accuracy, if it's absolutely critical that collateral damage be minimized it's best left to the folks on the ground. But what if the flame weapons catch fire to the house next door, then the entire neighborhood? Are we going to limit these weapons to mud brick neighborhoods?

Or maybe some nice thermals combined with some grenade launchers should do the trick at least the infrastructure damage would be limited. Wonder what other methods could be employed to eliminate such hidden threats unwilling to surrender

 

[Kilo 2-3]

It seems to me there's a general consensus here that infantry-carried flamethrowers are becoming less and less of a viable weapon. However, do you think that vehicle-mounted systems still have some utility?

This could take the form of a modular system/kit for use on tanks, IFVs, or APCs and maybe a smaller system/option for small UGVs. A dedicated flamethrower tank probably doesn't make much sense, hence my reasoning for a removable/fittable flame attachment.

Just curious as to your thoughts on this idea.

 

[Waylander]

I also don't think it is worth the penalty in weight, room and a tank full of highly flammable liquid.

Just give a tank some more rounds for it's main gun. With all the ammo types available carrying more rounds is much more usefull.

The same goes for IFVs. Carrying more rounds for the autocannon as well as modern thermobaric/bunker buster ATGMs (if the type can launch them) is more usefull.

 

[Firn]

It seems to me there's a general consensus here that infantry-carried flamethrowers are becoming less and less of a viable weapon. However, do you think that vehicle-mounted systems still have some utility?

Actually we have no proof for that. As long as they were available they were greatly used and considered to be an excellent weapon system. It is certainly strange that they were praised in times of war and discarded by new generations in times of peace.

This could take the form of a modular system/kit for use on tanks, IFVs, or APCs and maybe a smaller system/option for small UGVs. A dedicated flamethrower tank probably doesn't make much sense, hence my reasoning for a removable/fittable flame attachment.

Just curious as to your thoughts on this idea.

This paper about flamethrower vehicles might give you some ideas. It is part two out of three and shows that a lot of concepts existed. The flaming spray of some vehicle-born throwers could reach accurately 200 yards and more.


Firn


P.S: I almost completely agree with Waylander. In the current environment modern thermobaric ammunition which can be delivered by the main weapon system would offer very considerable advantages with little hassle and at relative small costs.

 

[kiwifighter300]

Just thought I would point out that the current rifleman fire weapon in the US Army is the M202A1

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M202A1_FLASH"]M202A1 FLASH - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:M202A1.png" class="image"><img alt="M202A1.png" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/M202A1.png/300px-M202A1.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/f/f8/M202A1.png/300px-M202A1.png[/ame]

And it has been deployed to Afghanistan

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/05/us-incendiary-weapon-in-afghanistan-revealed/

 

[PeterCrisp]

This may not be a military reason but the first video of someone being hit by a flame thrower and then surrendering in a shroud of flame and screams is not likely to go down well with public opinion at all. I realise people surrender and then die from wounds just after all the time in war but I think the symbolism of a fiery death would just be to much.

 

[VforVictory]

Interesting topic
Flamethrower is too cumbersome and heavy for practical use. Conventional grenade can draw enemies out of their cover. Incendiary grenades can be used to destroy enemies resources or clearing paths.
I think flamethrower can only be useful when facing enemies who do not possess ranged weaponry like... [Mod edit: Nonsensical text on aliens deleted] I also think flamethrower could be an excellent application for turret defense for example against infantry rush tactics where you could be facing large number of enemies who are getting close and ready to chuck a grenade into the turret. So turrets should have heavy machine guns/gun turrets for long to medium range suppress fire and flamethrower for close quarter defense.

[Mod edit: Do not derail this thread with further nonsensical discussions on alien invasions and other extreme flights of fancy.]

 

[Kilo 2-3]

Interesting topic
Flamethrower is too cumbersome and heavy for practical use. Conventional grenade can draw enemies out of their cover. Incendiary grenades can be used to destroy enemies resources or clearing paths.

I think flamethrower can only be useful when facing enemies who do not possess ranged weaponry like... [Mod edit: Nonsensical text on aliens deleted].

I also think flamethrower could be an excellent application for turret defense for example against infantry rush tactics where you could be facing large number of enemies who are getting close and ready to chuck a grenade into the turret. So turrets should have heavy machine guns/gun turrets for long to medium range suppress fire and flamethrower for close quarter defense.

Modern military thinking quite simply doesn't account for aliens of any sort. They're unlikely to ever appear and there's no point spending billions of dollars and precious time and manpower to revise doctrine and force structure to address a threat which we aren't even sure exists. Plus, vulnerable "alien hives" or waves of frontal-attacking aliens are not likely to even occur.

Any species advanced enough to cross the galaxy just to pick a fight with us is going to have enough technology to invest in weaponry vastly superior to our own, and as a consequence I can't see them attempting bayonet charges or their equivalents on Earth forces.

Generally, there's better ways to bust a bunker than a frontal charge. Armor, airstrikes, shoulder-fired weapons, flanking attacks supported by a base of fire, etc. are all options which involve less casualty risk and more assurance of success than a frontal attack. You're far better off spending your time building mutually supporting bunker positions than worrying about procuring flamethrowers to fend off human wave attacks.

I'll refer you to "Battle Drill 5. Knock out Bunkers" from the US Army's FM 7-8, about halfway down the linked page. (FM 7-8 Chptr 4 Battle Drills)

 

[Firn]

Modern military thinking quite simply doesn't account for aliens of any sort. They're unlikely to ever appear and there's no point spending billions of dollars and precious time and manpower to revise doctrine and force structure to address a threat which we aren't even sure exists. Plus, vulnerable "alien hives" or waves of frontal-attacking aliens are not likely to even occur.

Any species advanced enough to cross the galaxy just to pick a fight with us is going to have enough technology to invest in weaponry vastly superior to our own, and as a consequence I can't see them attempting bayonet charges or their equivalents on Earth forces.

Generally, there's better ways to bust a bunker than a frontal charge. Armor, airstrikes, shoulder-fired weapons, flanking attacks supported by a base of fire, etc. are all options which involve less casualty risk and more assurance of success than a frontal attack. You're far better off spending your time building mutually supporting bunker positions than worrying about procuring flamethrowers to fend off human wave attacks.

I'll refer you to "Battle Drill 5. Knock out Bunkers" from the US Army's FM 7-8, about halfway down the linked page. (FM 7-8 Chptr 4 Battle Drills)

Pretty much spot on, although the thought to crisp aliens with flamethrowers froming into neat alien waves after only hopping from a distant galaxy is an entertaining one. :idea2

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39VYt9Ah-Go"]YouTube- Stosstrupp aus der HKL - Lehrfilm Nr. 463 - 1 of 8[/nomedia] you can see the classic infantry way to assault a heavily fortified enemy trench sector. Note the heavy emphasis on careful preparation, combined (infantry) arms, surprise, speed and a lot of grenades.


Firn