Posted: 3/12/2007 8:10:45 PM EDT
| Do you think we need/should have an updated flamethrower in the inventory? I know there were some situations where it would have come in handy and haji and Islam have a thing with fire/cremation and the body. That psychological aspect alone and ability to piss-off haji is enough to sell me. |
Kill it with fire at every possible opportunity. Flame thrower, napalm, incendiary bombs, phosphorous grenades. For my money, it doesn't get any better. I celebrate the entire incendiary weapons arsenal. Edit; Flame tanks. Bring back the flame tank. Nothing like a 60 ton armored flame thrower to put a smile on my face. 
|
|
Flamethrowers are quite often just as dangerous to the user as to the target. Bulky and unsafe - then again that was in WWII. If we could come up with a better, safer system I think it would be an excellent tool in the kit. What I find very interesting is how often the Chinese incorporate fire into their training. They seem to know our propensity for incendiary weapons and are hardening their troops against it. |
|
I was in the forum and I figured I'd post my .02, I think it is probably a tactically sound weapon, can be good in implementation with all the armor advancements, the danger to the user was being shot while wearing it, only problem is with the Geneva Convention and the Liberal's they wouldn't advocate it's use, though it could be very effective, let me put it this way. If you can't take pictures of prisoners (the ones that weren't abused) because you're demeaning them, what're the odds we're going to reinvent the flame thrower? Good Idea, never will be used again, I think in all honesty why we never saw an update or an upgraded version of it, through WW2, Korea, and Vietnam (Early days in Vietnam I think I can recall hearing it being implemented, could be wrong.) just something about it, but it'd be great for the caves in Afghanistan, I bet you they wouldn't be holed up for too long without surrender in a hole once you sent a jet of flame down in the tunnel. (only worry would be detonating stock piled ordinance) |
|
The Geneva Conventions have absolutely nothing to do with what weapons are legal. Most of that comes from the various Hague Conventions and declarations. Additionally, even if there were a specific prohibition in one of the Hague conventions, they wouldn't apply since they cease to apply as soon as a non-contract member joins a belligerant party. Just like it would be completely legal for use to use hollowpoints against the Taliban and Al Queda or the insurgents in Iraq. They never signed onto the Hague Conventions. |
Thermobaric weapons are the sh*t!! They make flamethrowers look like a nine year old with magnifying glass!! There is no place to hide in a enclosed environment when you bring thermobarics to the fight. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/thermobaric.htm |
|
The "lucky guy" who gets to hump 75lbs of high pressure air and highly flamable fuel on his back is not going to last long trying to get into range to use it in todays battlefield. Having owned and fired a Flamethrower, It is a heavy bitch to hump, a P.I.T.A. to service in the field and while I never had anyone shoot at me, I'd be extreme pucker factor if I had to go against an emplaced ememy while having all that explosive air and fuel straped to my back. The Thermobaric rocket is a much better to be able to get the payload to the target and keep the operator alive. The Russias dumped their LPO-50 flamethrowers to go with this system and it provides the opportunity for more effective and more concentrated use by more troopers. Now Vehicle mounted units are a whole 'nuther story. I wouldn't mind seeing flamethrower added to some of the Engineering tanks or added as a Point Blank Range Defense Weapon on existing combat vehicles against Jihadis and Suicide bomers. BIGGER_HAMMER 
|
No - they are HEAVY, too dangerous to the operator, too short ranged, and far less effective than a medium-machinegun (M240B) for the type of engagements we fight... For the weight of a flamer with fuel, you can get a M240B with ammo... Which has a better range, is far more effective in open terrain, much more accurate, and causes much less collateral damage... As noted we are looking at a 75LB weapon UN-ARMORED (most of the weight is fuel, at 6lbs/gal and compressed air)... An M240B wears 26lbs (and people bitch about it being 'too heavy'), how much damage would 50lbs of .308 do to unarmored troops? Alot more than that flamer would... Flamethrowres were A-OK for clearing bunkers in WWII, they're not A-OK for a mixed enemy/civillian environment, where starting civillian property (that is NOT being used by the enemy) on fire is a BAD THING... |
The M2HB does a much better job at that... Remember, a flamer isn't going to stop a car bomb, or even a suicide bomber... If the enemy is using C4, it won't even set the bomb off... They're really only good for clearing bunkers and older tanks (by using up all the O2 and suffocating the occupants)... |
| I think with modern design and materials a weight reduction of 20%-40% is achievable over M2-2 type WWII systems, as has been done in the M3 Carl Gustav compared to the older M2 model with about a reduction from 30 lbs to around 20 lbs. Thermobaric weapons such as the Russian RPO-A, M202 Flash and rounds for AT-4, M3, TOW, SMAW and 40mm systems are an asset. A modernized flamethrower, available to take on missions and put in the back of a Brad, Stryker, Buffalo, LAV, Amtrac or whatever vehicle you’re in would have been nice to grab on occasion, especially in OIF I and Falluja type operations as a complement to other weapons. |
|
"What was wrong with the M202 flash? It was before my time so I never saw one, just read a manual or two on it. Man portable incindiery rocket launcher, held 4 rockets." It was a damn site better than the old flame thrower but it had one serious flaw, or so I heard. I was an 0351 in the Marines during the mid to late 70's. I've fired the M202 several times. It was a cool weapon to shoot. 4) TPA filled 66mm rockets, reloadable by a clip that was inserted into the rear of the weapon and then extended by pulling it back to the rear until it locked in place. It looked kinda like 4 LAAWs strapped together within a rectangular package. When closed you could sling it over your sholder like a rifle but it was a PITA to carry. Not heavy but bulky. 4 rounds as fast as you could pull the trigger. 200 meters max effective range. When the round exploaded it looked just like a mini WP round. Burned like hell. Even under water. Bad ass for sure. I always heard that every now and then a rocket would ignite or fire when it was being loaded which was a real problem since you had to lean over the rocket motors to shove the clip in. Bad juju if it went off then. We humped it around for a while at Lejeune and Oki, shot it now and then. I never saw it again after '78 or so. |
