Flame thrower survives as a viable weapon till now
- Thread starter Khanzeer
- Start date
Flamethrowers had several big disadvantages. The biggest one was probably that they drew tremendous amounts of attention to the man operating them and he was unlikely to survive long. I read a report made by the ordnance department after D-Day. They recovered hundreds of flamethrowers from the beaches and the vast majority had never been fired. The report was of the opinion that the men carrying them had thrown them away (rather than being killed or wounded). The second problem was that they only had enough fuel for a few seconds worth of firing.
Indiana Beach Crow
Monthly Donor
I remember reading that the Marine Corps estimate for the combat life expectancy of a flamethrower operator during the Pacific Campaign was somewhere around four minutes.
BigBlueBox
Banned
Why use a flamethrower when you can have a rocket launcher with incendiary warheads?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M202_FLASH
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M202_FLASH
Khanzeer
Banned
Sad
How about fitting longer reaching flamethrowers to tanks ? Maybe firing bigger incendiary rounds like a landbased napalm firing platform
They still get used on occasion in Iraq and Afghanistan for select purposes. They kind of come with bad PR and that is very important in modern wars and we don't tend to use them in city battles these days. Though a dense field on the outskirts of a city like Fallujah that enemy snipers could hide in is a different story. Though the set up is not very elaborate. Small high pressure propane bottle attached to a high velocity hose. No big lumbering tank to walk around.
Last edited:
Maybe if they become Flame Shot-esque weapons, i.e. specialized grenade launchers that fire incendiary rounds, then sure that might be doable; already a few weapons are like that, albeit like rocket launchers, i.e. the Flash M202.
Barry Bull
Donor
It is not an official USMC estimate, but one particular Marine's personal estimation.
https://ncfic.org/uploads/blog/Flame Throwers.pdf
Also, the conception that the fuel tank of a portable flamethrower resemble a bomb is at best a misnomer or a myth:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6d2hw6/flamethrower/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamethrower
When then tank can simply use its main gun with high explosive, why should such rounds be used when the resulting fire may cause obstructions to friendly troops and give rise to undesirable collateral damages?
When indiscriminate use of weapons is allowed, there are simply many more choice of standoff weapons available to a modern army. If use of weapons is subject to restrictive ROEs, flamethrowers is highly unlikely to be allowed to use.
That means flamethrowers is unlikely to be used widely in modern combat.
They can't. Their range is too short, their fuel supply too heavy and their signature too great.
If you changed the world so those on the receiving end utterly lack anti-armour weapons.
marathag
Banned
The main problem is range.
While modern Armored Vehicles have ABC protection fof the crew, that does not extend to the engine compartment.they still need air to run.
Another point is the sooty residue on the various sensors, and while it does take a lot to get the rubber on the tracks and roadwheels to ignite, that is a worry
Which is the reason for flame projectile weapons like the Flash and DM-34; liquid projectors are bulky and difficult to get into effective range of armoured vehicles except in FIBUA scenarios.
JSchafer
Banned
They are more than viable in urban combat however the emphasis on minimizing damage to civilian population and properties put a damper on flamethrowers. The primary problem of it was not the danger of the tank exploding which rarely ever happened but rather finding men who are willing to burn other men alive. Modern states have a huge problem of teaching their kids that all life is sacred and every death a tragedy that scars for life and then expecting their kids to go into war zone eager to kill. Unlike a rifle which can trough training be made into almost a reflexive move at the sight of an enemy flamethrower is a much slower instrument that is used close up and produces traumatizing images for the user
Barry Bull
Donor
1. SLA Marshall's work on the alleged difficulties on soldiers shooting enemies has been severely critized.
2. Why would a pacifist mindset be problematic when the Westphalian concept of nation states that emphasized monopoly of violence is flawed?
JSchafer
Banned
Not refering to that study, shooting a man and setting him on fire is not one and the same.
Its problematic psychologically, demanding one thing and praising another.
Khanzeer
Banned
My friend who is trapper came to his kids school to explain what "daddy did at work "
He spent 10 min explaining why skunks, coons and coyotes are pests and how he eliminates them without wasting any bullets. Every kid was crying and teachers forced him to stop , he was embarrassed and felt so guilty ! In reality he does great service for the community
I read a book some time ago that made the argument that the high rates of PTSD that occur in the modern US military is due to a culture that glorifies violence and war but makes the concept of death something to shield and protect from children. Thus creating a military that is very quick to use force but also not be able to process the results of said force or process the sudden death of someone. Not sure how sound that argument is but it sure was an interesting book.
marathag
Banned
Since Marines in the Pacific were more than willing to keep Japanese Skulls as keepsakes, there wasn't a shortage of guys who wanted to use any and all means possible to kill more of them