Flame weapons

[Gollum1 0]

What is the state of flame weapons like flamethrowers and napalm today?

During WW2, it was discovered that the soldier using a flamethrower is a bullet magnet, if they are captured they will not be treated well to say the least, and the risk of collateral damage is high if the fuel tank ruptures. But I do know that the U.S armed forces were still using flamethrowers as late as Vietnam, and of course napalm that is IIRC outlawed today.

The Russians also had an incendiary warhead for an RPG.

Why did the flame tank concept not take off? You would think that it would be a great weapon for destroying infantry and if it did have a flamethrower.bunkers, and a tank would not be more of a bullet magnet even if it did have a flamethrower.

Well, this is all scraps of information that I remembered and thought about myself, can anyone clarify on the state of flame weapons today? Are they unpopular because they are impractical, inhuman, or probably a combination of both?

[aj_addons 0]

i know russians have been using thermobaric(think thats what there called) weapons in chechnya, laucnched from BM-27's or similar large caliber mlr's

[Gollum1 0]

Yes, I also think that RPG warhead was called thermobaric.

[der bastler 0]

Only use flamethrowers when friendly fire is off.

Seriously, where to use flamethrowers today? Look at Iraq, there are no real battlefields anymore, no trenches to clear. And in urban war zones, a flamethrower would be a risk due to possibly caused collateral damage ("Clear building at 2 o'clock!" -- "Oh no! Great guys, now we have to explain why three families remain in ashes!").

[aj_addons 0]

i think it rpg's designation was RPO or something like that but i cant remeber "sits back and waits for denoir to turn and tell us were wrong"

[Doc. Zaius 0]

I stumbled across this article the other day. May be of some interest.

(On a lighter note: It would blow my mind if this thread descended into a flame war.  )

[aj_addons 0]

lol i think i found info on thermobaric muntions on the fas website but i cant check it no snice im at uni and they dont like me looking at stuff like that

[Gollum1 0]

Only use flamethrowers when friendly fire is off.

Seriously, where to use flamethrowers today? Look at Iraq, there are no real battlefields anymore, no trenches to clear. And in urban war zones, a flamethrower would be a risk due to possibly caused collateral damage ("Clear building at 2 o'clock!" -- "Oh no! Great guys, now we have to explain why three families remain in ashes!").

Iraq is a peacekeeping mission now, not a war! And why just Iraq, do you think that America is the only country that is involved in wars, please.

I guarantee you that there were trenches and fortified houses during the war that needed clearing! But, the collateral damage could have been high, true, and other methods were used instead that worked as well.

[der bastler 0]

Iraq is a peacekeeping mission now, not a war!

Two parties (occupying force vs. rebels) fight each others --I would call this war...

[PhilippRauch 0]

I have a Book about infantry tactics from a Swiss Army Officer (Major v. Dach) where he teaches the use of flamethrowers for various purposes. Its not a really official Training Handbook, although its published by the swiss officers library (or something like that, dont have the right english terms now..)

He depicts their use against most fortified positions in a "real" war... mostly they provide cover for engineer teams to sneak up to that position to place breaching charges and/or satchelcharges to blow up the dangerous part of a fortified position (MG holes, Handgrenade Holes etc..)

so if there is a fight for a position its being used more to blind the enemy than to kill/wound ..

but this weapon and the will to use it seem to have perished since the end of the cold war.. i believe its because of the inhuman appearance of weapons using fire or similiar ... (i think all weapons are inhuman not only the flameweapons)

but saying that flameweapons are "more" inhuman is just silly...

the german army also had a kind of incendiary device... i dont remember its name but it was a like a mix of flaregun and grenadethrower (like the H&K equivalent of the m79) ... its a "throw-away" weapon i.e. after use it was, well useless ;)

it shot a projectile made of thermate (not thermite which is different) i.e. some aluminium based incendiary which burns very hot but brief.. it had a time/concussion fuse which made it ignite on contact or burst after a certain time which made it spread over an area of about 10x15m (not sure about that, its some years since i read about it in the german soldiers handbook)...

although i dont know anyone having used it from all my bundeswehr m8s..not even the engineer guys.. the book was from sometime around the early 80s... so i think they got rid of it sometime afterwards...

[ran 0]

i think it rpg's designation was RPO or something like that but i cant remeber "sits back and waits for denoir to turn and tell us were wrong"

Yeah, it's the RPO-A Shmell, never came accross one but i'd be glad to test out this little bastard someday.

Afaik, it uses a 93mm hollow/thermobaric tandem warhead (light penetration and then fuel air effect inside the target (it has to be only lightly armoured) and it's said to have the same results after impact as a 105mm Artillery gun shell. The AoE is of around 60m3 depending on the envirronment in which it impacts.

It uses a disposable launcher just like a LAW or an RPG22.

The max range is said to be a bit under 1000 meters with an effective range of between 200 and 600 meters (minimal range being of ca. 20 meters).

The projectile filling weights, from the estimations i got of a little bit less than 2.5kg and the warhead as a whole is said to weight a bit more than 6.5kg for a length of ca. 700mm.

To me it looks like the right solution for an infantry-fired incendiary device.

[cam0flage 0]

i know russians have been using thermobaric(think thats what there called) weapons in chechnya, laucnched from BM-27's or similar large caliber mlr's

I think it was a TOS-1 instead of BM-series MRLS. Not sure though, correct me if I am wrong.

[Balschoiw 0]

We have the "Handflamm" a single use weapon for ranges up to 90 meters. It contains phosphor and creates temperatures around 2000 degrees centigrade.

It´s not allowed to use live ammo here in germany but we had some tests abroad. As far as I know it has never been used by BW units in combat.

[DracoPaladore 0]

What is the state of flame weapons like flamethrowers and napalm today?

During WW2, it was discovered that the soldier using a flamethrower is a bullet magnet, if they are captured they will not be treated well to say the least, and the risk of collateral damage is high if the fuel tank ruptures. But I do know that the U.S armed forces were still using flamethrowers as late as Vietnam, and of course napalm that is IIRC outlawed today.

The Russians also had an incendiary warhead for an RPG.

Why did the flame tank concept not take off? You would think that it would be a great weapon for destroying infantry and if it did have a flamethrower.bunkers, and a tank would not be more of a bullet magnet even if it did have a flamethrower.

Well, this is all scraps of information that I remembered and thought about myself, can anyone clarify on the state of flame weapons today? Are they unpopular because they are impractical, inhuman, or probably a combination of both?

Well, I do know that the first flame throwers were developed by the German army in the first world war to clear out trenches. But, it was unwieldy considering that it had a short range and that the stream wasn't all that consistent. I don't think there were very many cases of these being run across. I'll have to check out my world war one book again.

World War Two? I know that they were used more, seeing the big leap in technology. Tanks and infantry carried these weapons, but it was still hazardous. Especially to the infantry since a spark such as a bullet hitting the tank could set if off. Personally, I wouldn't want to be near that guy.

Tanks, I could see them being taken out for a big reason of unstability. If there happened to be a spark or perhaps the tank is penetrated, I'm sure that it would be ignited and probobly start an internal fire. If that isn't bad enough, the ammo would surely be cooked as well as ruin the tank for any chance of repair.

I'm pretty sure thats the same reason for nowadays, just unstability. Nowadays I think the only real fire weapon is one of the American bombs, I beleive. Called the Mk82 or something like that. I beleive that there was actually a report in a newspaper about that. But I don't recall much, but only that it was just a sort of napalm with the full burning effects.

And I'm pretty sure that the biggest reason of them all is that the flame thrower probobly went against the Geneva convention mainly because a person would catch fire and burn to death.

Well, thats as far as I know and probobly pretty bad information. But I think the general idea is unstability and against Geneva.

[NavyEEL 0]

heh a funny quote I heard about flamethrowers, can't remember it exactly but basically it was like:

The invention of the flamethrower came about as a result of someone, somewhere, at some point in time saying "You know, I want to set that group of people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to do it myself."

[IceFire 0]

Actually I once read that the battle of Iwo Jima in WW2 was won with alot of help from mainly flamethrowers.

The japanese were hiding in holes and tunnels and were killiing Marines like that. And the Marines were using flame throwers as the primary weapon to kill the japanese soldiers hiding in diches and tunnels.

You've all seen the statue/photograph of Iwo jima of the Marines raising the US flag. The one with the three anonymous Marines raising the US Flag on Iwo jima. It's very famous.

[Milkman 1]

hand held/mounted Flame Throwers were used extensivly in the Pacific Theater during WW2. Am I reading this right or is Napalm banned by the geneva convention?

[DracoPaladore 0]

Yes, Napalm is banned.

[Milkman 1]

Yes, Napalm is banned.

Why?

Because it kills people too well?

[Gadger 0]

Yes and not very pleasently.

[DracoPaladore 0]

Yes, Napalm is banned.

Why?

Because it kills people too well?

I think Geneva's all about preventing people from suffering horrible painful unimaginable slow deaths and woundings.

[Lester 0]

Banned .. yes !

But that doesn't mean that this weapons not be produced.

eg. the german BW has a lot of "Feuer-Brand" bombs,

thats only another name for napalm bombs.

I think other NATO states (an other too) will have same 'toys' in depot  

Napalm bombs are too effective and low cost to abadon it.

[DracoPaladore 0]

I remember an article awhile ago about the US using a Mk21 bomb or something like that, which had little difference with the napalm.

[Lester 0]

I remember an article awhile ago about the US using a Mk21 bomb or something like that, which had little difference with the napalm.

The US troops use imho all possible (and impossible ) weapons without scruple.

Napalm in comparsion with 'daisy cutters" seem to be the nearly a 'fair' weapon.

[Gollum1 0]

I remember an article awhile ago about the US using a Mk21 bomb or something like that, which had little difference with the napalm.

The US troops use imho all possible (and impossible ) weapons without scruple.

Yes, we've all seen this last wave of nukings in Iraq...