Is a flamethrower a practical weapon these days?

[JWAN]

Heh. I don't think it was ever practical.
But then, practicality was never it's selling point.
The reason it caught on in the first place was "HOLY FUCK I CAN LIGHT THAT GUY ON FIRE FROM FIFTY FEET! This is awesome!"

it worked better than rushing bunkers with satchel charges

e.x any battle in the Pacific Theater during WWII

 

[JWAN]

Obviously anyone who takes one someone with weapon that has a 15 to 20 meter range who has a gun that can place a bullet in the center of a bulls eye from 1000m away would have to have multiple blood clots in his brain.

yea but they arent used against snipers. there used against bunkers and trenches. You use air and arty on snipers

 

[Macgyvercas]

The reason flamethrowers are not practical.

Compressed gas tank + bullet = EXPLOSION!!!

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

No, as they are mostly effective in trench warfare and this is hardly ever how wars are fought these days.

They aren't banned, however, and I believe its legal to own in my state

 

[Hybridwolf]

In these modern times, no. Not until they have made a smaller hand held one, where the fuel tank makes up part of the gun.

And considering they've been banned anyway, except for defoilation (I think), I doubt there will ever be handheld ones.

Whoever came up with the idea of a flamethrower tank was a psycopath. A clever one, but a psycopath.

 

[JWAN]

When were they ever practical?

Back when Trench warfare was practical.

When were they ever practical?

trenches
bunkers
close quarters jungle warfare
no one EVER hauled it around in the open. people who used flamethrowers only used them in certain scenarios. other than that they would usually haul a LMG or a regular rifle and they would pick it up at a supply depot. have you ever seen a person hauling a flamethrower through the surf on a beach landing? hell no.

 

[Dorian6]

Flamethrowers are completely impractical unless you are in a heavily wooded (or otherwise flammable) area.

that's why they haven't been used since Vietnam. Can you imagine a flamethrower being effective in a desert? No trees, most of the buildings are made of clay and brick.

 

[Dorian]

Flamethrowers are COMPLETELY impractical these days.

Unless it has a compression blast.
Then it's automatically a competent weapon.

 

[Iron Mal]

Flamethrowers could be argued as being useful for two things:

1- Fighting in enclosed spaces in close combat where the fact that you're spraying liquid fire around would be almost instantly lethal for anyone in the area of effect.

2- Destroying enemy morale, seeing your friends burn slowly and painfully to death in front of you with no chance of escape would break most people (anyone in their right mind would start running before that), flamethrowers were feared because of how inhumane they are (also, we are inately afraid of fire so it only makes sense that something that shoots a 30ft cone of it would scare us shitless).

 

[JWAN]

Flamethrowers are completely impractical unless you are in a heavily wooded (or otherwise flammable) area.

that's why they haven't been used since Vietnam. Can you imagine a flamethrower being effective in a desert? No trees, most of the buildings are made of clay and brick.

it would turn a brick house into a brick oven and it would take the oxygen out of basements/bunkers/caves
put it into an armored vehicle and I think it would be plenty effective.

 

[JWAN]

Would be great for clearing out a room full of enemies... but then again, so is a fully automatic gun. A flamethrower sure is more unique though!

It would also suffocate anyone that was in an enclosed space so you wouldn't have to run into a room with a machene gun. you just stand in the bunkers blind spot and spray it at the door for 3 seconds then while the enemy was gasping for air you toss in a satchel charge.

why does no one grasp the concept of suffocation? I guess you do have an air force badge but even you must understand the concept of napalm. Why did we use napalm? was it because it burned? yea but it suffocated entire tunnel systems in WW2/Korea/Vietnam or it took the air out long enough for someone to throw in some high explosives.

 

[JWAN]

In these modern times, no. Not until they have made a smaller hand held one, where the fuel tank makes up part of the gun.

And considering they've been banned anyway, except for defoilation (I think), I doubt there will ever be handheld ones.

Whoever came up with the idea of a flamethrower tank was a psycopath. A clever one, but a psycopath.

and they didn't want to get shot by a sniper or machine gun.

 

[Dorian6]

Flamethrowers are completely impractical unless you are in a heavily wooded (or otherwise flammable) area.

that's why they haven't been used since Vietnam. Can you imagine a flamethrower being effective in a desert? No trees, most of the buildings are made of clay and brick.

it would turn a brick house into a brick oven and it would take the oxygen out of basements/bunkers/caves
put it into an armored vehicle and I think it would be plenty effective.

ok, so you shoot fire at a house for ten minutes and it bakes everyone inside. how is that more effective than, say, destroying the house with rocket propelled grenade?

 

[Blindrooster]

Play rogue warrior and shoot a nauts back pack.
We can't let the same think happen to our troops.

Back in WW2 and Vietnam, the US have frequently used flamethrowers.

Oh wait nevermind.
I joke.

And the packs explode.... there was a really dramatic scene with that in the movie 'Windtalkers.' Very sad.

 

[Ham_authority95]

Against the undead yes.

Besides that, I don't really see a modern military from a developed country using one ,although it would be awsome if they did, as inpractical as it may be.

 

[JWAN]

I think the U.N. has banned the use of flamethrowers. Don't quote me on that though.

I quoted you because you are right. UN banned it, along with Napalm.

Its not practical since most wars now are in urban setting. Lugging around highly flammable material in a backpack seems kind of counterproductive

That's not true about Flamethrowers or Napalm.

Flamethrowers were voluntarily removed due to bad PR and general concerns about viability in combat.
Napalm against military targets is fair play, if you haven't signed one of the Protocols restricting usage against some more types of target. The United States has not signed the relevant protocol.

we have (essentially) replaced our inventory of napalm with fuel-air bombs but I gotta admit I wish we would just use some cheap ass napalm on the caves in Afghanistan because its more precise, burns longer and gives the troops more time to blow the cave shut while the enemy gasps for air.

 

[JWAN]

Fifty feet!? What kind of super advanced flame thrower is that?
More like 20 feet or less.

try more like 33 metres for the mark 2 used by the americans in world war 2. actual flamethrowers don't so much work on the conical blast formula as a thin strweam of fuel that spreads like crazy on impact. much as i hated it, the first new wolfenstein game was about right.

Even if this is true, neither the US or Russia adhere to this convention, as vehicle mounted flamethrowers are used by both of them, as well as thermobaric weapons (which are, in laymans terms, flamethrower bombs, the Russian's even call thermobaric missile launchers "flamethrowers")

thermobaric bombs operate on a compression-wave principle. it disperses a fine mist of fuel into the air which is then ignited and burns off in a hundredth of a second, creating a massively focussed blast wave. its not an incendiary weapon in the conventional sense. the target isn't burnt, its 'stomped flat' by the huge wave of downwards moving air from above it.

as for a general comment, flamethrowers are basically a specialised tool, they were brought up when needed and then retired back when not. they are excellent at a. winkling people out of caves and bunkers and b. destroying materials like barricades, sandbags and supply dumps. they were never really designed for use in a straight up fight but could achieve a good range by tilting the nozzle upwards. (ever arc a super soaker? same principle)

in fact...i think the US army was considering them for afghanistan wasn't it?

I'm pretty sure that they are just using straight up fuel-air bombs and WP (white phosphorous) but it does the same thing as FAB's only its cheaper and more precise (if they used it in a vehicle that is, but no one has wanted/designed a backpack full of napalm since 1939).

 

[JWAN]

Flamethrowers are completely impractical unless you are in a heavily wooded (or otherwise flammable) area.

that's why they haven't been used since Vietnam. Can you imagine a flamethrower being effective in a desert? No trees, most of the buildings are made of clay and brick.

it would turn a brick house into a brick oven and it would take the oxygen out of basements/bunkers/caves
put it into an armored vehicle and I think it would be plenty effective.

ok, so you shoot fire at a house for ten minutes and it bakes everyone inside. how is that more effective than, say, destroying the house with rocket propelled grenade?

because you can stand around a corner and compress a trigger instead of running out in direct line of sight of the building and taking careful aim.

and you cant destroy a house with an RPG unless its a one room shack