Flamethrowers - still a viable option?

[VforVictory]

What if we reverse the order. [Mod edit: Nonsensical text on aliens deleted]
Another good use i can think of is crowd control weapon for [Mod edit: Nonsensical text on zombies deleted]

[Mod edit: This is not a sci-fi forum and your post has been reported by other members. Do not derail this thread with further nonsensical discussions on aliens, zombies or other extreme flights of fancy.]

 

[t68]

What if we reverse the order. [Mod edit: Nonsensical text on aliens deleted]
Another good use i can think of is crowd control weapon for [Mod edit: Nonsensical text on zombies deleted]

I think if the human race becomes advanced enough to cross the cosmos than flamethrowers and current generation arms will part off the history pages of the human race, star wars tech light sabre’s will be your personnel weapon and cyborg tech will be our standing army.

Time to come back to reality, it’s 2010 not 3010.
[Mod edit: Guys, it's time to come back to reality. Do not feed the trolls]

 

[t68]

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

M202A1 FLASH - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And it has been deployed to Afghanistan

U.S. Denies Incendiary Weapon Use in Afghanistan | Danger Room | Wired.com

.I would have thought these weapons would be regulated against the Geneva convection, the same way as white phosphorus to be only used in the event of a withdrawal.

If memory serves me correct after Vietnam they made it against the rules of modern warfare, can some one correct me if this is right or wrong.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

.I would have thought these weapons would be regulated against the Geneva convection, the same way as white phosphorus to be only used in the event of a withdrawal.

If memory serves me correct after Vietnam they made it against the rules of modern warfare, can some one correct me if this is right or wrong.

According to what I found on the 1980 "Geneva Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons," flame weapons are still legal for use by militaries against enemy military targets.

However, they may not be used against civilian centers, or against targets with a high risk of collateral damage to civilian targets, or as defoliants (the latter effectively bans a Ranch Hand-type operation using something like napalm).

You can find the link here(Protocol III - Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons)

 

[Beatmaster]

Well ill guess that killing a group of soldiers with a flametrower is a horrible sight and idea.
And killing the same group with machine gun fire sounds a little more humane.
I mean its both a horrible way to die.
But somehow a machinegun (Or any gun) is alot more accepted then a army that uses flametrowers on a large scale to BBQ its enemies.
IMO Flametrowers should not be used ever, while machine guns would kill your targets just as easy. And in this case i get goesbumb by the idea that you BBQ a person so if you need to kill a target then a simple bullet seems a more humane and friendly way to do the job.


* Imagine that you are a soldier and you use a flame trower to BBQ a squad, ill bet that you would perfer a automatic rifle instead of watching those poor guys going crispy.:lol2

 

[Kilo 2-3]

Well ill guess that killing a group of soldiers with a flametrower is a horrible sight and idea.
And killing the same group with machine gun fire sounds a little more humane.
I mean its both a horrible way to die.
But somehow a machinegun (Or any gun) is alot more accepted then a army that uses flametrowers on a large scale to BBQ its enemies.
IMO Flametrowers should not be used ever, while machine guns would kill your targets just as easy. And in this case i get goesbumb by the idea that you BBQ a person so if you need to kill a target then a simple bullet seems a more humane and friendly way to do the job.


* Imagine that you are a soldier and you use a flame trower to BBQ a squad, ill bet that you would perfer a automatic rifle instead of watching those poor guys going crispy.:lol2

Beatmaster, you need to keep in mind that every weapon has a set of strengths and weaknesses which affect and shape its tactical employment. Making an across-the-board statement that "X should replace Y," doesn't really reflect reality.

Machine guns offer a relatively portable means of providing direct, mid-ranged fire support against "soft" targets. Flamethrowers have a completely different purpose and usage. They're primarily urban warfare/MOUT or fortification-clearing weapons, and unlike machine guns, infantry-portable ones are fairly short-ranged.

In my mind, making warfare humane is an important, but secondary concern. If I'm an infantry captain and my company is pinned down and taking casualties, killing the enemy humanely is going to be a low priority for me. My first commitment will be to my mission and to my men, and I'd use any weapon (within reason) to achieve those objectives.

 

[Waylander]

I just can support this.

In this thread many people highlighted the pros and cons of flamethrowers and IMHO the idea that they are not human is very low on the priority list.

 

[Beatmaster]

Beatmaster, you need to keep in mind that every weapon has a set of strengths and weaknesses which affect and shape its tactical employment. Making an across-the-board statement that "X should replace Y," doesn't really reflect reality.

Machine guns offer a relatively portable means of providing direct, mid-ranged fire support against "soft" targets. Flamethrowers have a completely different purpose and usage. They're primarily urban warfare/MOUT or fortification-clearing weapons, and unlike machine guns, infantry-portable ones are fairly short-ranged.

In my mind, making warfare humane is an important, but secondary concern. If I'm an infantry captain and my company is pinned down and taking casualties, killing the enemy humanely is going to be a low priority for me. My first commitment will be to my mission and to my men, and I'd use any weapon (within reason) to achieve those objectives.

I uderstand that each weapon has his cons and pros but thats not my point.
My point in this matter is that the civilian population will not accept that their goverment/army uses weapons like a flametrower because its just horrible.
And yes you are totally right if i where a lt and my crew is pinned down then the last thing i worry about is public opinion and how human the enemies did die.
Just saying iam not a weapon expert but my guesses are that there are better weapons out there then the classic bbq & crispy flametrower.

 

[chihuahuense87]

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




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


Firn[/quote]

I suppose they are a viable option, specially in Urban combat, but the horrible death they inflict maybe a bad thing in terms of public opinion

 

[chihuahuense87]

Beatmaster, you need to keep in mind that every weapon has a set of strengths and weaknesses which affect and shape its tactical employment. Making an across-the-board statement that "X should replace Y," doesn't really reflect reality.

Machine guns offer a relatively portable means of providing direct, mid-ranged fire support against "soft" targets. Flamethrowers have a completely different purpose and usage. They're primarily urban warfare/MOUT or fortification-clearing weapons, and unlike machine guns, infantry-portable ones are fairly short-ranged.

In my mind, making warfare humane is an important, but secondary concern. If I'm an infantry captain and my company is pinned down and taking casualties, killing the enemy humanely is going to be a low priority for me. My first commitment will be to my mission and to my men, and I'd use any weapon (within reason) to achieve those objectives.

you are right, but the humanization of warfare is for public opinion not for soldiers, i suppose it affects more to hear some poor men are being roasted to death , that some men were killed by a 155 artillery round, even if these were dismembered by the explosion

 

[Belesari]

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 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.

I think your biggest problem is A) public support for such weapons as was said.
B) who wants to carry 4 gallons of naphalm on there back?