Is a flamethrower a practical weapon these days?

[fix-the-spade]

Since I personally think that's better than lugging around a 50 pound backpack of fuel and compressed air, I think it's an advantage. What do you think?

Modern battlefield, urban environment, insurgents and boobytraps in all directions, man with large quantity of highly flammable and corrosive liquid strapped to his back.

You either get a PR disaster because he fires it and burns down a city block killing dozens of innocent people horrifically, a sniper puts a round through it and you get a pr disaster as a soldier dies a horrible chemical burn based death, or the fuel ignites and a whole squad dies of a combination of burns and asphyxiation giving you a pr disaster, or lastly said soldier steps on a mine rupturing the highly combustable tank and burning down a city block as a great jet of toxic fire gets blasted down the street and you get a... you get the picture.

The ranges wars are fought from now aren't practical for flamethrowers. In Vietnam and the Pacific theatre they were used because visible range was so short anyway. In Europe they were used a little but generally not favoured because they created wonderful target spots for German tanks to aim at, plus the Germans had a policy of executing flame thrower wielding soldiers on site.

 

[RagnorakTres]

You are correct, they are not, nor were they ever "practical" in the use of killing human beings. However, they are extremely good at scaring the enemy shitless.

Much like snipers, flamethrowers are first and foremost a weapon wielded against morale. Seeing your mate set on fire from fifty feet away is approximately as demoralizing as seeing his head explode with no warning as a three-eighths-inch long piece of metal penetrates his skull at slightly less than Mach 1.

This is the reason flamethrowers and sniper rifles are among the few weapons of the modern age I hold to be "awesome." They inspire awe.

 

[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?

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

i feel like you're missing the point. The flamethrower is no longer used (primarily) because anything else in the modern military's arsenal would be more effective than standing 20 feet away and shooting fire at the target (albeit less awesome)

 

[Tuddle]

Is a flamethrower a practical weapon these days?

I wish......

 

[Mcface]

Back in WW2 and Vietnam, the US have frequently used flamethrowers. Nowadays, we use incedinary rockets and explosives to compensate for this. Since I personally think that's better than lugging around a 50 pound backpack of fuel and compressed air, I think it's an advantage. What do you think?

You would NOT want a flamethrower in the middle east. I'll tell you that right now.

Flamethrowers are offensive weapons, and in a situation where your almost always on the defense, it's a ticking timebomb.

And if there are barricaded hostiles these days, chances are pretty high they will just call a CAS precision air strike or artillery barrage on the house/building.

Also, not to mention some insurgents wear explosive vests. You light the guy on fire, boom, there goes half a city block.

 

[JWAN]

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).

i'm sure you're right, i thought i heard they were considering it but i assume that was someone getting frustrated at the stalemate in the mountains. I don't think its in active service but I know they toyed with a few ideas like dragon's breath shells and suchlike for just hosing the inside clean. frankly its a great idea, nothing says "terror tactics" like a visored guy, all in black, shooting jets of fire.

Id say use a flamethrower mounted in an M1A1 Abrams like the modified Patton tank in Vietnam. It does the same thing as FAB's only its cheaper to retrofit a few tanks than it is to precision weld on guidance systems and computer chips.
I really dont see any problems with it other than tanks and mountains dont mix. But really, then you can just put it on a Bradly or a armored up Humvee

 

[JWAN]

Back in WW2 and Vietnam, the US have frequently used flamethrowers. Nowadays, we use incedinary rockets and explosives to compensate for this. Since I personally think that's better than lugging around a 50 pound backpack of fuel and compressed air, I think it's an advantage. What do you think?

You would NOT want a flamethrower in the middle east. I'll tell you that right now.

Flamethrowers are offensive weapons, and in a situation where your almost always on the defense, it's a ticking timebomb.

And if there are barricaded hostiles these days, chances are pretty high they will just call a CAS precision air strike or artillery barrage on the house/building.

Also, not to mention some insurgents wear explosive vests. You light the guy on fire, boom, there goes half a city block.

if your close enough for the explosion to set off your pack the explosive vest has already killed you

 

[silver wolf009]

Flamethrowers aren't all that practile because the tank are just one big bomb on you back.

 

[ForestFox]

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

I did quote you on that, and i will raise the ante by quoting wikipedia.

"After 1945



The United States Marines used flamethrowers in the Korean and Vietnam Wars.
Flamethrowers have not been in the U.S. arsenal since 1978, when the Department of Defense unilaterally stopped using them. They have been deemed of questionable effectiveness in modern combat and the use of flame weapons is always a public relations issue due to the horrific death they inflict. They are not banned in any international treaty the U.S. has signed. Thus, the U.S. decision to remove flamethrowers from its arsenal is entirely voluntary"

As we can see the flamethrower was just abandoned the poor thing.

 

[ma55ter_fett]

It's still awesome to use...when your enemy has no long rang weapons. >
I love fire....

So the only modern day use for flame throwers is against people armed with either nothing or spears...

Either way thats not very sporting of you.

 

[Kathinka]

that aside, i know the u.s. don't give a shit about laws and justice and stuff (using incindiary weapons, indiscriminate bombing of cililians, torturing of prisoners, illegaly invading and occupying countries, all that kind of fun stuff), but still weapon systems that are primerily meant to set fire to equipment or personell are banned...

just saying..

 

[Mcface]

Back in WW2 and Vietnam, the US have frequently used flamethrowers. Nowadays, we use incedinary rockets and explosives to compensate for this. Since I personally think that's better than lugging around a 50 pound backpack of fuel and compressed air, I think it's an advantage. What do you think?

You would NOT want a flamethrower in the middle east. I'll tell you that right now.

Flamethrowers are offensive weapons, and in a situation where your almost always on the defense, it's a ticking timebomb.

And if there are barricaded hostiles these days, chances are pretty high they will just call a CAS precision air strike or artillery barrage on the house/building.

Also, not to mention some insurgents wear explosive vests. You light the guy on fire, boom, there goes half a city block.

if your close enough for the explosion to set off your pack the explosive vest has already killed you

Yeah, that's my point.
A bullet isn't going to set a vest off.

 

[TheGreatCoolEnergy]

Not really. I mean the full rig weighs like 80 pounds, the fuel is painfully expensive, and they're range is much less than even the shittiest rifle. Also illegal. Infact, the only good thing about a flame thrower is that it is a fear weapon: a man made fire breathing dragon if you would.

 

[Juven Ignus]

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

Nope. People can still own and use them as long as they have written that they will use it for the purpose of fighting Africanized honey bees. After all, they're too small to shoot and to numerous to beat with a stick.

 

[oppp7]

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!"

This. Why use a somewhat close range weapon that slows you down instead of just shooting them from a distance?

 

[MONSTERheart]

They stopped using flame-throwers because they were too psychologically scarring, both for the user and the victims.

Oh, and the whole burning-to-death thing is a bit inhumane.

Bring on the rockets and missiles!

 

[Dorian Cornelius Jasper]

Well they are a bit impractical for a large scale war yes. But if it was just some, small scale battle...perhaps it involved capturing intelligence or pushing a cart laden with explosives to a checkpoint then I say it could come in handy.

Flamethrower Airblasts are a particularly mean way to get people off the cart.

 

[zyoto12]

outside of games, flamethrowers are a horrible option.

 

[JWAN]

Back in WW2 and Vietnam, the US have frequently used flamethrowers. Nowadays, we use incedinary rockets and explosives to compensate for this. Since I personally think that's better than lugging around a 50 pound backpack of fuel and compressed air, I think it's an advantage. What do you think?

You would NOT want a flamethrower in the middle east. I'll tell you that right now.

Flamethrowers are offensive weapons, and in a situation where your almost always on the defense, it's a ticking timebomb.

And if there are barricaded hostiles these days, chances are pretty high they will just call a CAS precision air strike or artillery barrage on the house/building.

Also, not to mention some insurgents wear explosive vests. You light the guy on fire, boom, there goes half a city block.

if your close enough for the explosion to set off your pack the explosive vest has already killed you

Yeah, that's my point.
A bullet isn't going to set a vest off.

see, now that's a whole other angle. We can start talking about types of explosives for everything from garage brewed to demo charges to military grade explosives.
Fire/concussions do not always set off explosives, but some of the most random things you can imagine do. For instance straight up dynamite can go off if its improperly stored and gets casually dropped(or shot) where as C4 wont necessarily explode unless its electronically triggered.
And for that i would have to ask my engineer buddy.
Some of them burn others explode and some just smolder and those variables are so numerous I don't think the forum could handle them.
I agree with you to a point but holy God in heaven i don't want to start discussing the THOUSANDS of materiel's or the MILLIONS of scenarios.