Rebirth of the Military Flamethrower

Originally posted by DarkSide

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]

Bullet damage is a science if you think its morbid or not. Balistic studies and studies of bullet damage is important to many gun crime scenes. Many crimes are solved through this type of information.

If you want to be ignorant about it thats your choice. I just hope the homicide detectives in your area dont share your point of view.


Also show me where Flame throwers are banned to the US. Even if they are mention in the Hague Convention that is only binding between two Contracting parties that signed that agreement. Terrorist organizations did not sign the Hague convention so they are non-Contracting parties and it does not apply to them.

[edit on 4-10-2004 by ShadowXIX]

yes I know it's a science.but you are talking about it in a morbid way

Originally posted by DarkSide
yes I know it's a science.but you are talking about it in a morbid way

Please show me where I was talking about it in a "Morbid" way.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

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

Wow, thanks for the information. I did not realize that the Geneva Convention did not cover weapons. I get that mixed up with NATO regulations all the time. I don't really know the NATO standard on flamethrowers. I just know the standards for round sizes and types of rounds. I will have to look up more information on this subject because it is very interesting.

FNG_J Ive been looking into it alot and have not found Flame throwers themselves mentioned at all in any treaty. The Hague Convention has alot of information on weapon laws in war. But even America is not a party to all of these agreements thus there are not legally bound by them. Also these laws are no longer binding when quote-

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

So with a terrorist enemy these laws do not apply to them.



[edit on 4-10-2004 by ShadowXIX]

u've got a form of flamethrowers in use: the thermo-baric bombs used to clear out caves although the main killer is the pressure flames still fly out especially if the weapon misfires ( partial combustion ).
In fact the yellow gazes and flames caused by partial combustion were behind claims that the russians used chemical weapons in grozny (2nd war) whereas they used thermo-baric bombs.

In my view flamethrowers are an essential weapon of war. Not only do they intimidate the enemy but are also fantastic at clearing out rooms, caves, hallways etc.

Using grenades in some urban situations can be dangerous, where as torching a room would be more appropriate.

If both countries agree not to use these weapons and are at war there is a problem, but as ShadowXIX said, Terrorist cells do not follow these agreements, and so any laws regarding this by Nato are void.

War is war, and any weapon which helps you win and save your citizens lifes should be used to it's full potential. ( with the exclusion of mass nuclear weapons, for all our sakes )

Originally posted by Bl00D_Th0rN
In fact the yellow gazes and flames caused by partial combustion were behind claims that the russians used chemical weapons in grozny (2nd war) whereas they used thermo-baric bombs.

The ingredients of the unexploded Russian FAE's caused chemical burns to people in Grozny. FAE's are different to thermobaric weapons.

ur right on this my mistake, but most of themobaric bombs sre basicly air fuel explosives
except a few like the MOAB that use normal powder to create the effect

I think Americans are going to be the only ones banned from using any weapons that will help win a fight. Other nations are going to play to win. We just seem to play.

PLA still uses handheld flamethrowers, impressive range as well

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by mwm1331
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.

Check this out. About 10 years ago, there was a game called "Team Fortress Classic". Some of you probably remember it. It was a game where two teams of soldiers fought against each other for various objectives. Anyway, one of the soldiers you could be was called a Pyro. He used a flame thrower in the game.

The interesting thing was this: in the game, the flame thrower did very little damage, but put flames on the screen as if you were on fire. EVERY SINGLE TIME someone would get hit with this, they would start backing up and/or running around. A single pyro running in and blasting everyone would send their lines into sheer mayhem. (Which was TOTALLY FUN in a game!) Anyway, the only thing I could think of is that the fear of fire is so ingrained in our instincts, it even affected people when they were playing a game.

Even, having played the game forever, they KNEW the fire wouldn't "kill them" before they killed the pyro, they would STILL run away. So, it seems that the psychological effect of "flame throwers" extend into the game too.

Note: In Team Fortress 2, they changed how the flames were presented on screen, so it no longer looked as if YOU were on fire. They made the pyro much stronger (as in, can kill opponents much quicker). But they don't cause as much havoc in TF2 as they did in TF1!

[edit on 12-8-2008 by sir_chancealot]

This thing has replaced the Flamethrower in the US Forces, Does any other nation use it?

reply to post by ShadowXIX


They are illegal to use against people. That's a pretty good reason to not use them any more.

reply to post by Esoterica


Have entire countries to flee? If the topic is about using flame throwers to clear our caves, what does neighboring countries have to do with it? Terrorists would most likely be trapped in the cave. How could they flee to another country?

Terrorists' only hope is if the cave runs deeper where they can evade. But that leaves Coalition troops to clear out the caves deeper. Wouldn't you want to use a flamethrower?

Its the same logic US had to decide. End the war by A) Nuking two cities; or B) Invading Japan. Option A would have cost an estimated 2 million deaths in a long bloody fight thru cities and rural areas. Option B cost 220,000 lives.

Which would you have picked? Same logic can be put using flamesthrowers on caves.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
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.

Ever spent much time in a cave? After a few minutes of 2 people in an enclosed space with little or no air flow, the air becomes heavy and hard to breathe.

What happens when the oxygen is used up? Oxidizer maybe?

Originally posted by Solarity
Is it just me or were flame weapons banned in the GC?

yeah that was my understanding as well.
also i noticed later on in this thread someone mentioned the use of hollow point rounds, again i believe they where banned by the Convention, as well as the use of high caliber AP rounds on infantry under a certain distance.

and i can't see how anyone can justify the use of flame throwers in any form of modern combat.

Originally posted by Cutaway
This thing has replaced the Flamethrower in the US Forces, Does any other nation use it?

Well, Russia uses the RPO "shmel" NATO: "Bumbelbee"

Pic:

reply to post by ShadowXIX


Eh, there are ways to avoid being torched by a flamethrower by using smart tunnel design. Not as easy in a cave. In Vietnam, VC would dig tunnels which had a dip in them, which would be filled with water. You effectively swam through the dip, which created a seal so that if US soldiers used a flamethrower on the opening, the flamethrower wouldn't suck the air out of the space. That's the real power of flamethrowers- they kill by suffocation.

We have much better and horrifying weapons for getting rid of caves- one bomb creates an incredibly powerful pressure wave that literally shatters the body.

Flamethrowers do not burn people alive per se, not unless you get hit with the flame directly.

You are more likely to be asphixiated in any enclosed place, due to the fact that the flames consume all the oxygen within the area, even in the open. [This was one of the effects of napalm and the main reason why it was so effective]

Flamethrowers are an area weapon and best used on bunkers and trenches and are especially useful when clearing the entrences to a cave system BUT, once 'in', they become a double-edged weapon and should be withdrawn as they are a liability.