Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Durkin Tactical Franklin Armory
User Panel

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/16/2011 1:48:57 PM EDT
Curious if anyone knew the actual reason.
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 1:49:58 PM EDT
[#1]
I believe it had to do with them being equally unsafe for the operator...
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 1:51:19 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
I believe it had to do with them being equally unsafe for the operator...


I thought that was just a movie myth?
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 1:52:03 PM EDT
[#3]
Modern law of war. To prevent uneccessry suffering.
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 1:52:56 PM EDT
[#4]
Because there are better anti-structure weapons that are safer and more effective.
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 1:53:11 PM EDT
[#5]
just to put things in perspective, they wont even let us use hand grenades
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 1:53:25 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Curious if anyone knew the actual reason.


They are heavy as shit and there are more effective weapons to take out bunkers/caves/etc now.
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 1:53:44 PM EDT
[#7]
Well...when the average engagement range in Afghanistan is in the neighborhood of 300+ meters, a flamethrower doesn't really make any sense.

Link Posted: 3/16/2011 1:54:02 PM EDT
[#8]

I'd guess that they preferred to use more grenades (hand and launched), and rocket/missile (whatever the difference is) weapon systems.



Can't be much fun having to lug a flammenwerfer around when tracer fire is all around you either.

Link Posted: 3/16/2011 1:54:02 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Modern law of war. To prevent uneccessry suffering.


False. There is no prohibition, legally, through international treaty or otherwise on the use of incendiary weapons including flamethrowers by US forces.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/incendiary-legal.htm

On Jan. 21, 2009, the United States deposited its consent to be bound by the third protocol to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapon, which bans the use of incendiary weapons against civilian targets. By protocol definition, incendiary weapons, such as flamethrowers, are “primarily designed to set fire to objects or cause burn injury to persons…by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target.”

In its depositary notification, the United States made a reservation that allowed for “the right to use incendiary weapons against military objectives located in concentrations of civilians where it is judged that such use would cause fewer casualties and/or less collateral damage than alternative weapons.” In a clarification to the reservation, Washington stated that those responsible for the use of incendiary weapons could be judged only on the basis of information they had at the time, not on information acquired afterward (see sidebar).

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2010_04/Incendiary


We were just talking about this yesterday: http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1162366
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 1:54:31 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Curious if anyone knew the actual reason.


They are heavy as shit and there are more effective weapons to take out bunkers/caves/etc now.


I thought about that, but it seems it would be a terrifying weapon in urban combat.
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 1:54:32 PM EDT
[#11]
inhumane would be my guess.
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 1:54:55 PM EDT
[#12]
Because there are better ways to kill the enemy and loving them to death isn't one of them.
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 1:56:08 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Because there are better ways to kill the enemy and loving them to death isn't one of them.


I said flameTHROWERS, not flamers.
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 1:56:35 PM EDT
[#14]
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 1:57:55 PM EDT
[#15]

Link Posted: 3/16/2011 1:58:10 PM EDT
[#16]
FLamethrowers with a max 50m range were replaced by the M202A1 FLASH firing incendiary rockets to max 200m range.

Link Posted: 3/16/2011 1:58:31 PM EDT
[#17]
Three good reasons:

1) Hadji snipers
2) We have 40mm launchers now
3) Close air support
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 1:59:51 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
just to put things in perspective, they wont even let us use hand grenades


That could be because you're the County Health Inspector.


Link Posted: 3/16/2011 2:00:11 PM EDT
[#19]

Also, the Russians employed Thermobaric weapons in Chechnya, and also Dagestan (Primorsky posted some footage recently).


The US is using the same kind of thing in the SMAW now, or so I hear.


One of these must do a number on anyone inside a structure:





Link Posted: 3/16/2011 2:00:30 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
just to put things in perspective, they wont even let us use hand grenades


Really?
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 2:02:47 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Curious if anyone knew the actual reason.


They are heavy as shit and there are more effective weapons to take out bunkers/caves/etc now.


I thought about that, but it seems it would be a terrifying weapon in urban combat.


To which side?  It would suck to start a building on fire only to have the fire quickly spread and surround your unit as well.

Grenades do the job just as well (if not better) and don't have that problem.

I was thinking more along the lines of Iraq.  When I was there, most their buildings were stone/concrete, so it didn't seem like the fire would spread.  Add in the courtyards around the houses, I would think you'd be good to go.  I don't know, maybe it's just my sick fantasy...
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 2:04:12 PM EDT
[#22]
thermobaric SMAW rounds





Link Posted: 3/16/2011 2:04:34 PM EDT
[#23]



Quoted:


just to put things in perspective, they wont even let us use hand grenades






 



where
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 2:04:36 PM EDT
[#24]



Quoted:



Quoted:

just to put things in perspective, they wont even let us use hand grenades




That could be because you're the County Health Inspector.











 
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 2:05:15 PM EDT
[#25]
We can use radios to call in bombs with much better effect than a flamethrower.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 2:05:27 PM EDT
[#26]

Personally, if I were tasked to 'flush' out a bunker (not likely unless the forces are recruiting fat smelly retards), I want something like this:





Link Posted: 3/16/2011 2:05:52 PM EDT
[#27]
Global Warming.
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 2:06:47 PM EDT
[#28]
You carry it.
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 2:07:30 PM EDT
[#29]
Because getting 'sploded would suck.





And IIRC, we don't use that 4 barrel thing anymore, either.
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 2:08:08 PM EDT
[#30]
Pressurized containers of thickened gasoline strapped to the backs of Soldiers/Marines is a mighty target for a sniper.




Link Posted: 3/16/2011 2:10:06 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
Well...when the average engagement range in Afghanistan is in the neighborhood of 300+ meters, a flamethrower doesn't really make any sense.



So??

Put a scope on it.
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 2:13:00 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Quoted:
just to put things in perspective, they wont even let us use hand grenades


That could be because you're the County Health Inspector.




LOL!

Will you quit bring facts into arfcom!
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 2:15:25 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well...when the average engagement range in Afghanistan is in the neighborhood of 300+ meters, a flamethrower doesn't really make any sense.



So??

Put a scope on it.


Should I dual wield it as well?
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 2:15:31 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Personally, if I were tasked to 'flush' out a bunker (not likely unless the forces are recruiting fat smelly retards), I want something like this:




DO WANT!!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 2:17:23 PM EDT
[#35]
We should ask a flamethrower operator about what he thinks of it...



CWO4 Hershell "Woody" Williams.

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty as Demolition Sergeant serving with the First Battalion, Twenty-First Marines, Third Marine Division, in action against enemy Japanese forces on Iwo Jima, Volcano Island, 23 February 1945. Quick to volunteer his services when our tanks were maneuvering vainly to open a lane for the infantry through the network of reinforced concrete pillboxes, buried mines and black, volcanic sands, Corporal Williams daringly went forward alone to attempt the reduction of devastating machine-gun fire from the unyielding positions. Covered only by four riflemen, he fought desperately for four hours under terrific enemy small-arms fire and repeatedly returned to his own lines to prepare demolition charges and obtain serviced flame throwers, struggling back, frequently to the rear of hostile emplacements, to wipe out one position after another. On one occasion he daringly mounted a pillbox to insert the nozzle of his flame thrower through the air vent, kill the occupants and silence the gun; on another he grimly charged enemy riflemen who attempted to stop him with bayonets and destroyed them with a burst of flame from his weapon. His unyielding determination and extraordinary heroism in the face of ruthless enemy resistance were directly instrumental in neutralizing one of the most fanatically defended Japanese strong points encountered by his regiment and aided in enabling his company to reach its' objective. Corporal Williams' aggressive fighting spirit and valiant devotion to duty throughout this fiercely contested action sustain and enhance the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.


BALLS OF STEEL; HE HAS THEM.
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 2:20:06 PM EDT
[#36]
While watching WW II footage on Tee Vee years ago, My Son & His friend were talking about if They went to war, They wanted to be the Guy with the flame thrower.

I commented that if I saw two dozen troops coming at Me, the one I shoot first is the Dude with the flame thrower. Fill Me full of holes, but I'd rather not be burned to death.



The Ol' Crew Chief



Link Posted: 3/16/2011 2:40:08 PM EDT
[#37]
Several drawbacks of the flamethrower:



1) Extremely short range

2) Duration - as in the tanks don't store a lot of fuel.  I read that in WWII they'd only get less than 30 seconds of use out of them before the tanks ran dry

3) Risks to the operator - not because of the tank exploding or anything, but the operator generally had to expose himself to enemy fire in order to use the flamethrower and to make matters worse he was a very visible target. Every enemy within a half mile will start shooting at him the moment the flamethrower is used.
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 2:41:36 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Several drawbacks of the flamethrower:

1) Extremely short range
2) Duration - as in the tanks don't store a lot of fuel.  I read that in WWII they'd only get less than 30 seconds of use out of them before the tanks ran dry
3) Risks to the operator - not because of the tank exploding or anything, but the operator generally had to expose himself to enemy fire in order to use the flamethrower and to make matters worse he was a very visible target. Every enemy within a half mile will start shooting at him the moment the flamethrower is used.


While I generally agree with this, I still think in specific situations it would be extremely effective.
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 2:43:16 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Several drawbacks of the flamethrower:

1) Extremely short range
2) Duration - as in the tanks don't store a lot of fuel.  I read that in WWII they'd only get less than 30 seconds of use out of them before the tanks ran dry
3) Risks to the operator - not because of the tank exploding or anything, but the operator generally had to expose himself to enemy fire in order to use the flamethrower and to make matters worse he was a very visible target. Every enemy within a half mile will start shooting at him the moment the flamethrower is used.


While I generally agree with this, I still think in specific situations it would be extremely effective.


For what exactly?
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 2:43:59 PM EDT
[#40]
Thermobaric rounds are more effective and safer to the good guys.
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 2:49:56 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Several drawbacks of the flamethrower:

1) Extremely short range
2) Duration - as in the tanks don't store a lot of fuel.  I read that in WWII they'd only get less than 30 seconds of use out of them before the tanks ran dry
3) Risks to the operator - not because of the tank exploding or anything, but the operator generally had to expose himself to enemy fire in order to use the flamethrower and to make matters worse he was a very visible target. Every enemy within a half mile will start shooting at him the moment the flamethrower is used.


While I generally agree with this, I still think in specific situations it would be extremely effective.


For what exactly?


Haji's barricaded in buildings, for one.  Caves in Afghanistan.  I see a few have mentioned thermobaric rounds.  I never got to see one used.  We had a few SMAW's during the invasion, but never got to use them.  Having read the replies, it seems that their are better options out there for most applications, but raining firey death onto insurgents, well, the thought just makes me happy.
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 2:53:50 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Because getting 'sploded would suck.


And IIRC, we don't use that 4 barrel thing anymore, either.


The M202A1 Flash is still in the inventory. The only time I saw one in 11 years of infantry service was in the movie Commando.
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 2:56:19 PM EDT
[#43]

RPO-A Shmel (mentioned by another arfcommer in a similar thread the other day), and the M202A1 Flash:







Link Posted: 3/16/2011 3:03:38 PM EDT
[#44]

Some more cool RPO-A Shmel footage!










Link Posted: 3/16/2011 3:08:51 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Several drawbacks of the flamethrower:

1) Extremely short range
2) Duration - as in the tanks don't store a lot of fuel.  I read that in WWII they'd only get less than 30 seconds of use out of them before the tanks ran dry
3) Risks to the operator - not because of the tank exploding or anything, but the operator generally had to expose himself to enemy fire in order to use the flamethrower and to make matters worse he was a very visible target. Every enemy within a half mile will start shooting at him the moment the flamethrower is used.


While I generally agree with this, I still think in specific situations it would be extremely effective.


 They are useful for some specific situations,like burning reeds so Hadji can't snipe from them:

 

Link Posted: 3/16/2011 3:09:11 PM EDT
[#46]
Army got tired of the troops wasting all the fuel roasting marshmallows.
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 3:17:12 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
I'd guess that they preferred to use more grenades (hand and launched), and rocket/missile (whatever the difference is) weapon systems.

Can't be much fun having to lug a flammenwerfer around when tracer fire is all around you either.



Flammenwerfer, Word of the Day!
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 3:19:48 PM EDT
[#48]
I don't think the SMAW or M202A1 FLASH can replace a standard flamethrower in a use case similar to routing out Japanese troops hidden in caves in WWII.

Did this use case just disappear?
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 3:24:21 PM EDT
[#49]
A 3 to 5 meter interval turns into a 25 or 30 meter interval really quick. Even your friends don't want to be around you.
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 3:28:06 PM EDT
[#50]
Loved the 'ring of fire' coming out window at 1:21 in first video.
SHHHHHHHHHH, you would not want to be in there!
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top