Rebirth of the Military Flamethrower

If ever a weapon deserved the term "Horrific" it is probably the Flamethrower.Many armies seem to have phased it out of service, at least publicly. The basic idea of a flamethrower is to spread fire by launching burning fuel. The earliest flamethrowers, dating roughly from the 5th century B.C. One example of early use of this weapon is the famous "Greek fire".





All this cave fighting in places like Afghanistan got me thinking about how effective a anti-cave weapon the old The old WW2 flamethrower was. The Japanese had many cave networks on Pacific Islands in WW2. During the war Flamethrowers were effective in clearing out enemy emplacements such as fortified positions, caves, tunnels.

I remember hearing of atleast one incident when US troops were taking fire from a cave entrance, and one soldier carrying a flame thrower ("torchmen") shot a burst into the cave. After the smoke and fighting ended they found some fifty Japanese soldiers were found dead inside the cave as the result of one torchmen.

I think there are still valid tactical roles for this weapon. Perhaps not that a human should carry it, We learned some hard lessons about that in WW2. But rather it should be used on cave clearing robots. Something like a version of the Packbot could be used for this. Packbots have already been armed with shotguns and grenade launchers.

Packbot


A modern flamethrower should use an electrical ignition system as standard, this being stealthier than a pilot light or ignition cartridge system and allowing the firing of as many bursts as the user has fuel for. There have been many advancements in technology that could benifit the design of flame throwers. A new flame thrower robot might make a very effective weapon in cave fighting.


Flame throwers
How Flame throwers work
Packbot

One differene about the Japanese is that they were trapped on islands. They stayed in the caves because they had nowhere else to go. Terrorists have entire nations to flee to.

Not saying it's an ineffective weapon, they're just two dofferent scenarios.

Is it just me or were flame weapons banned in the GC?

This would seem to be an effective weapon to clear out entrenched urban fighters as well.

Might save many troops lives if you could send one of these in first, maybe even the threat of it could be enough to make an enemy give up.

I dont think so Solarity we were still using them in Vietnam. Brazil is also still developing flamethrowers.

Originally posted by Phoenix
This would seem to be an effective weapon to clear out entrenched urban fighters as well.

Might save many troops lives if you could send one of these in first, maybe even the threat of it could be enough to make an enemy give up.

A great point Phoenix they could have use in a urban setting. Just imagine if they are in a wood building you could just burn it down. I had invisioned a robot that would be fully armoured up to atleast AK-47 rounds.

I didnt really think of the psychological effect of such a weapon. Combine the effect of fighting a robot which would have a huge psychological factor by itself. But also add death by fire one of the worst ways to die IMO I would rather be shot in the head or blown up anyday.

[edit on 1-10-2004 by ShadowXIX]

American soldiers are not even allowed to use hollow point bullets. It is highly unlikely they will ever be able to use flame throwers.

No Military uses hollow point bullets there ablity to penetrate is quite crappy it really just slows the bullet down. AP rounds and AP incendiary rounds are much more deadly than any hollow point. The US uses DU Depleted Uranium rounds if hollow points were better they would use them.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
No Military uses hollow point bullets there ablity to penetrate is quite crappy it really just slows the bullet down. AP rounds and AP incendiary rounds are much more deadly than any hollow point. The US uses DU Depleted Uranium rounds if hollow points were better they would use them.

Hollow points are more deadly against humans. They expand on impact and cause massive tissue damage. Hollow points are not used in warfare because of the Hague convention.

There's no doubt that it would be an effective weapon in certain situations, but I don't know that it serves much of a purpose on the "modern" battlefield. Range is the major limiting factor that I see.

A robot might work well for cave fighting, but I don't know if I could justify killing people that way. I'd rather see money spent on non-lethal ways of dealing with threats than flamethrowers, personally.

All high velocity rounds cause shock including nurogenic (big word for nerve) shock. The effect of high velocity rounds can cause effects more devastating then HP bullets. If the shock is great enough from a bullet a shot in the arm or leg can kill. The shock will be transfered to internal organs. Most military targets are armoured in one form or another, be it a helmet or even simple sand bags. HP are pretty much useless against any armour.

The Hague Convention doesnt even work.

You can use a High Explosive or Incendiary round to attack a vehicle, building etc but supposedly not a human as it would violate the following clause's

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


High Explosive or Incendiary rounds cause superfluous injury to people and they are often used on a person if it is need. A gunner is not going stop firing his 50 cal with Incendiary bullets if a enemy appears in front of him with a AK-47 not in a vehicle.

The very notion of Rules of war is crazy as war itself is a total dissregard for the law of the country attacked. The US uses perhaps the worst round ever devloped the DU round if they thought HPs would give them any advantage they would use it.

There is a reason why I can go out and buy HP rounds but can't go out and buy AP or Incendiary bullets. Its not because HPs are more deadly.


Hague Convention

JAG Rulings in 1985 and 1990 declared that open-tip bullets employed by military snipers do no cause unnecessary suffering as stated in the Hague Convention.

This memorandum considers whether United States Army Snipers may employ match-grade, "open-tip" ammunition in combat or other special missions. It concludes that such ammunition does not violate the law of war obligations of the United States, and may be employed in peacetime or wartime missions of the Army.

www.thegunzone.com...

"The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions."

The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.

It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Parties, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-Contracting Power.

A interesting note is that the US is not even a party to this accord, as a matter of policy the United States has acknowledged and respected its applicability in conventional combat operations since its adoption more than one century ago.

This practice began to change subsequent to a 23 September 1985 opinion

"...expanding point ammunition is legally permissible in counterterrorist operations not involving the engagement of the armed forces of another State."



the U.S. did sign on, however, was with the Hague Convention IV of 1907, Article 23(e) of which Annex states:

"...it is especially forbidden -

To employ arms, projectiles, or material [sic] calculated to cause

www.thegunzone.com...

Ah you beat me to it Para

I thought of this weapon as use mainly in cave settings were sending in a human would be to much of a risk. I just think fire is one of the most effective weapons in a cave.

"Rules of War" is the stupidest thing ever in history of warfare. It defeats the whole purpose of war: survival.

Anyway, I think the flamethrower is almost a necessary weapon. Especially against the insurgents in Iraq, you have to sort of force them out of hiding. A flamethrower is perfect.

The problem is, how do you protect the fuel? That's the biggest concern, which makes the robot very attractive. But a robot, even human-controlled, will never have the same kind of omnipotence and reaction time of a human, thus it's actually more vulnerable.

Originally posted by Jimi Hendrix

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
No Military uses hollow point bullets there ablity to penetrate is quite crappy it really just slows the bullet down. AP rounds and AP incendiary rounds are much more deadly than any hollow point. The US uses DU Depleted Uranium rounds if hollow points were better they would use them.

Hollow points are more deadly against humans. They expand on impact and cause massive tissue damage. Hollow points are not used in warfare because of the Hague convention.

Your only about 30 years behind current "Projectile" developments, The soviets have been using an AK round with a cavity behind the 'tip' of the projectile & a lead core/plug at the base, the result is a Projectile that "folds" on impact & then proceeds to tumble for about 6 inches before it turns in another direction for a further 6 inches, so not only is it ripping,tearing & causing "massive tissue damage" it makes it near impossible for a surgeon to find without X-rays.....

HP's might sound neat but the developments in "Projectile" technology & manufacturing techniques are staggering.

IMO possibly the worst round to come onto the battlefield has been the Australian designed & produced .224/5.56mm (F1) Round
The F1 Round is of conventional outer copper jacket design but with a Flat nosed inner Steel Penetrator, upon hitting the target the outer sheath isn't just 'discarded' it's shattered into dozens of pieces as small as .5mm, the "Kinetic" energy drives these pieces for up to 200mm internally in every direction,Potentially piercing every major Organ in your body, that's the front half of the projectile, the rear portion of the jacket folds back onto itself into 5 or 6 "Petals" & you still have the Stell Penetrator (by now tumbling) driving it's way further into your body.

If your hit in the Torso, it's simple, your dead.


I take it, these "DP" rounds are primarily for defeating body armour?


[edit on 3/10/04 by SilentRunner]

I think the greatest argument for the use of flamethrowers on the battlefield s the physcologcal impact they have on the enemy force. During WW2 japanese forces who would happily charge machine gun postions would flee in terror at the sight of a flamethrower. Many men will, with the right motivation face death at the hands of a bullet or bomb while the dea of being burned alive will make even the strongest man quail in terror.

It would be an effective weapon in today's fight but unfortunately flamethrowers are banned by the Geneva Convention. They were not used in Vietnam. Napalm was used and is not banned by the GC. Napalm isn't used because it destroys large areas. NATO has banned flamethrowers for military use as well. Many countries may be developing flamethrowers but they are not supposed to be used by the military.

Originally posted by FNG_J
It would be an effective weapon in today's fight but unfortunately flamethrowers are banned by the Geneva Convention. They were not used in Vietnam. Napalm was used and is not banned by the GC. Napalm isn't used because it destroys large areas. NATO has banned flamethrowers for military use as well. Many countries may be developing flamethrowers but they are not supposed to be used by the military.

This is a myth and wrong the Geneva Convention does not deal with any weapons at all. It mainly deals with treatment of POWS.

Vietnam did indeed see the use of flame throweres "In Vietnam the most widely used mechanized flamethrower was the M132/M132A1 variants of the M113. Some flame track units insisted on loading their secondary weapons with nothing but tracers so that they were "all flame". At least one USMC flame track bore the legend "Semper Flame."

Even more proof they were used in Vietnam



A picture of a guy using a flame thrower in Vietnam

www.nixonfoundation.org... BIBLIOGRAPHY.shtml

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I dont think so Solarity we were still using them in Vietnam. Brazil is also still developing flamethrowers.

they are banned.using them is illegal

PS:this discussion is morbid

are you fascinated by bullet damage or what?

[edit on 4-10-2004 by DarkSide]