The Uselesness of Flamethrowers

[Eclectic Dreck]

May I ask what chapter of what agreement?

The use of incendiary weapons was banned by the Geneva Convention. Specifically: Protocol 3 (Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons), Geneva 10 October 1980. It states:

Incendiary weapon" means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. (a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances.
(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:
(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signaling systems;
(ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft
and installations or facilities.

Yeah, USA didn't sign that one. But it seems to abide by it anyway.

You are, in fact, <a href=http://disarmament.un.org/library.nsf/95c7e7dc864dfc0a85256bc8005085b7/e07b6d83084c41628525712c00783bf2/$FILE/ccw.msp.2005.2.pdf>mistaken.

The United States did indeed become a signatory of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, but they failed to sign the above mentioned protocol. They are still signatories to the whole of the work in spite of this, having signed the minimum of two protocols. Given the simple fact that the US is a signator of the Fourth Geneva Convention (The one in 1949), and the fact that this particular meeting acts as an annex to said convention, the US is still bound to it's tennants the same as other signatories. Failure to sign individual protocols is hardly unheard of and is generally nothing more than a diplomatic gesture. It should be noted however, that of the 50 signatories, only the United States and The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia failed to sign protocol 3.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

That's quite a hyperbole considering how well published the terrible injuries from IEDs are only how in the recent past they would NOT survive. It is only through the very most advanced modern medical technology that these people are surviving double and triple amputations.

Hyperbole yes. But you are mistaken in your assumption - it is not quality of care that allows soldiers to survive horrific injuries: it's the body armor. This is the first major war the US has participated in where each individual soldier has been given legitimate ballistic protection. In past wars, the best a soldier could hope for was a flack jacket which can only hope to stop incredibly small shell fragments and grenade splinters. It is this protection to the vital organs that has turned the tide more than anything. To a lesser extent, the fact that every soldier is now issued their own tourniquet (another recent addition) has impacted survival rates for severe injuries.

This does not mean that severe third degree burns are anything less than lethal. After being doused in a flaming accelerant (which is what would happen if you were sprayed with a flamethrower) you may indeed survive, assuming the flames could be doused in a very brief period of time and that you recieved quick medical care. A small patch of third degree burn isn't generally lethal (unless infected) but once a sufficient skin area has been irrepairably damaged, the best medical care in the world won't save you.

Thus, I'd say you are at least partly correct. The flamethrower is not nearly as lethal as the person you responded to would imply but such a weapon has proven time and again to be utterly devestating on the battlefield. What's more, killing a man on the field is not the only measure of success for a weapon - severely wounding him will ensure the nation or group will be forced to provide extended care. Of course, as has already been pointed out, they key thing that makes the flamethrower feared is the simple fact that most every person who has ever walked on this earth fears the idea of being burned alive. The employment of incendiary weapons is utterly devestating on that fact alone.

 

[Treblaine]

That's quite a hyperbole considering how well published the terrible injuries from IEDs are only how in the recent past they would NOT survive. It is only through the very most advanced modern medical technology that these people are surviving double and triple amputations.

Hyperbole yes. But you are mistaken in your assumption - it is not quality of care that allows soldiers to survive horrific injuries: it's the body armor. This is the first major war the US has participated in where each individual soldier has been given legitimate ballistic protection. In past wars, the best a soldier could hope for was a flack jacket which can only hope to stop incredibly small shell fragments and grenade splinters. It is this protection to the vital organs that has turned the tide more than anything. To a lesser extent, the fact that every soldier is now issued their own tourniquet (another recent addition) has impacted survival rates for severe injuries.

This does not mean that severe third degree burns are anything less than lethal. After being doused in a flaming accelerant (which is what would happen if you were sprayed with a flamethrower) you may indeed survive, assuming the flames could be doused in a very brief period of time and that you recieved quick medical care. A small patch of third degree burn isn't generally lethal (unless infected) but once a sufficient skin area has been irrepairably damaged, the best medical care in the world won't save you.

Thus, I'd say you are at least partly correct. The flamethrower is not nearly as lethal as the person you responded to would imply but such a weapon has proven time and again to be utterly devestating on the battlefield. What's more, killing a man on the field is not the only measure of success for a weapon - severely wounding him will ensure the nation or group will be forced to provide extended care. Of course, as has already been pointed out, they key thing that makes the flamethrower feared is the simple fact that most every person who has ever walked on this earth fears the idea of being burned alive. The employment of incendiary weapons is utterly devestating on that fact alone.

Very well then. So it's not JUST technical advancements in medicine but technical advancements in body armour that is both light and strong enough. Also the medical development that ALLOWS tourniquets to be used without the careful monitoring of a surgeons as the restriction of bloodflow can cause trapped blood to turn toxic and kill once that blood flows through the body again (or leave it on till the limb/stump undergoes necrosis). But drugs and the right monitoring means surgeons are no longer horrified to have a patient come in with a tourniquet that they have no idea how long it's been on or a dozen other factors... they have the technology to save their life and save what is left of the limb. Other medical advancements like clotting factors.

See it is actually very hard to actually soak someone in burning fuel. I already made a post outlining why flame-troopers suffered such high-losses and how hard it was for them to be effective. Basically, everyone is trying to kill the flame trooper and the giant flame coming out the end means they make a big target.

What goes a hell of a lot further is high explosives. They generate incredible fear even in professional soldiers as they are so hard to combat, conscript are scared of flame-throwers as they don't have to training to combat it. But IEDs, grenades and mortars are extremely hard to combat for their indirectness and how so little, just a couple hundred grams causes incredible destruction.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Very well then. So it's not JUST technical advancements in medicine but technical advancements in body armour that is both light and strong enough. Also the medical development that ALLOWS tourniquets to be used without the careful monitoring of a surgeons as the restriction of bloodflow can cause trapped blood to turn toxic and kill once that blood flows through the body again (or leave it on till the limb/stump undergoes necrosis). But drugs and the right monitoring means surgeons are no longer horrified to have a patient come in with a tourniquet that they have no idea how long it's been on or a dozen other factors... they have the technology to save their life and save what is left of the limb. Other medical advancements like clotting factors.

A tourniquet is a tourniquet. In this case, it is a strap of 1 inch ballistic nylon and a metal bar. The strap is tightened around the limb and the bar is turned (thus further tightening the tourniquet) until bleeding halts. It is then secured in place. Furthermore, casualties are then marked with a "T" on their forehead because the standard caveats to tourniquet apply.

The device is not advanced by any stretch, it simply gives one to each soldier ensuring one is not forced to improvise with available materials (clothing and rifle parts are the objects commonly cited in US Army Combat Lifesaver training).

See it is actually very hard to actually soak someone in burning fuel. I already made a post outlining why flame-troopers suffered such high-losses and how hard it was for them to be effective. Basically, everyone is trying to kill the flame trooper and the giant flame coming out the end means they make a big target.

And yet you miss the point entirely. Yes, flame wielding troops are high priority targets but so are machine gun and mortar teams. In a great man cases in modern (and historic) warfare, the battle is not won simply by destroying the enemy but by instead destroying their will to continue the fight. The simple truth of the matter is, if flame units are being used then you can rest assured that two conditions are true: the battle is close quarters (by modern standards that >150m) and the enemy is in a prepared defensive position. An assault without overwhelming numerical advantage and a wide front to capitalize on such an advantage ensures the attacking force will take significant casualties. If units bearing incendiary weapons can cause a break in the disciplined execution of the defense, even briefly, their contribution on the battlefield has been made.

What goes a hell of a lot further is high explosives. They generate incredible fear even in professional soldiers as they are so hard to combat, conscript are scared of flame-throwers as they don't have to training to combat it. But IEDs, grenades and mortars are extremely hard to combat for their indirectness and how so little, just a couple hundred grams causes incredible destruction.

Do you realize just how many high explosives it takes to "neutralize" (by US Army doctrine that amounts to 10% of a unit killed and 30% wounded resulting in the temporary ability of a unit to conduct operations) a platoon (30 so so men) entrenched across a few acres (a reasonable distribution of a platoon sized element)? According to the manual, something on the order of 900 155mm shells or >1200 122mm shells.

Artillery against a prepared defense does little but force the defenders to keep their heads down - thus why many a world war 1 assaults were foiled after extensive artillery preparation. A modern take on the use of such weapons in conjunction with an infantry assault is to keep fire on the defensive position as long as possible (while the infantry unit advances) and then shift the fire behind the position as the infantry crosses the threshold of the "danger area" (that is, they come close enough that a commander can no longer be certain that friendly artillery won't hit them).

Artillery is the king of the battlefield not because it is supremely lethal but because it offers freedom of movement for a maneuver element while simultaneously denying it to the enemy. Yes, a sudden barrage against troops in the open can be devastating, but to presume that artillery alone is an effective measure is folly demonstrated by the bloody stalemates of the first world war. Seizing a position held by a determined enemy still requires the use of troops who will engage in close quarters combat where weapons like hand grenades come into their own.

For a more recent example, look at Lebanon. In 2007 or so, Sunni militants based in the Nahir al-Barid Refugee camp were engaged by the Lebanese army. In the course of a bloody house to house fight that took weeks to resolve the camp was all but demolished thanks to the use of untold thousands of rounds of artillery. While such firepower gave the Lebanese army an edge in the battle (beyond that enjoyed by superior numbers and unbroken supply lines) it still fell to the poor bloody infantry to crawl block by block, house by house through the camp.

The bottom line is simple enough - incendiary weapons of many sorts have proven their worth on countless battlefields in spite of the inherent disadvantages they face precisely because people are quite naturally terrified by the prospect of burning to death. Like any weapon ever created, their efficiency on the battlefield relies entirely upon how effectively they are employed. That they were outlawed had little to do with their efficiency on the battlefield; instead, it was a (misguided) effort to ensure warfare is somewhat less brutal and horrific - a fools errand by any account. Warfare has always will will always be an ugly terrible affair rife with plenty of awful ways that one may meet their end.

 

[Treblaine]

A tourniquet is a tourniquet. In this case, it is a strap of 1 inch ballistic nylon and a metal bar. The strap is tightened around the limb and the bar is turned (thus further tightening the tourniquet) until bleeding halts. It is then secured in place. Furthermore, casualties are then marked with a "T" on their forehead because the standard caveats to tourniquet apply.

The device is not advanced by any stretch, it simply gives one to each soldier ensuring one is not forced to improvise with available materials (clothing and rifle parts are the objects commonly cited in US Army Combat Lifesaver training).

I'd just like to say, just because tourniquet is simple by form it is NOT simple by function.

Applying a tourniquet causes so many problems, mainly to do with trapped blood turning toxic which could instantly kill the patient if the tourniquet even slips and that blood is pumped back to the heart. Also necrosis in the tissue south of the tourniquet.

That is why I'd like to inform you that to spite the technique of applying tourniquets being well known for centuries throughout the application of tourniquets was HIGHLY discouraged and normally only qualified doctors could do it. Because if someone comes in with a tourniquet the surgeon has to risk killing the patient in removing it or risk everything south of the tourniquet turning necrotic to leave it on. That is why troops were not issued tourniquets up till recently.

Let me emphasis this again, RECENTLY there have been advancement in trauma medicine at the OPERATING THEATRE level allow surgeons to safely and reliably deal with tourniquets even if they have been applied by a soldier who can never has as much training as a proper medical doctor. There are drugs, techniques, blood vessel catheters to deal with worst case scenarios.

So in a round about way it IS advancement in medicine... not just that they were finally able to afford some cord to give to each soldier. They just made it safe to apply them.

 

[Lem0nade Inlay]

Because nothing says "owned" like burning a zombie to the ground!

In all seriousness, I'm not really sure. But I guess it's used to clear out bunkers/trenches etc. Maybe also it was effective on tanks when they were still pretty poorly designed.

 

[chinangel]

What exactly is the point of flamethrowers? A machine gun will kill ordinary people much faster for less weight, and its not much good against zombies because the avereage human body will burn for at least an hour.

They were designed as a weapon that demoralizes the enemy.

 

[Xyliss]

For poops and giggles?

 

[2xDouble]

Flammenwerfer 41 [http://www.spike.com/video/nazis-play-with-fire/3388422] 'Nuff Said.

It is used to clear close quarters and I'm sure no ones gonna be in a fighting mood while they're at a couple hundred degrees if not more.

Closer to a few THOUSAND degrees! lol. It may take a few minutes for the body to "burn", but at those temperatures, the human body will "melt" then "burn" (watch the video).

 

[silver wolf009]

Originally they were meant to be a close to medium range military exclusive weapon for clearing out jungle or other flammable areas. They were outlawed for a few reasons. One, when hit by the flames it is not a pleasant death because you are alive for a rather long time in excruciating pain. It also made the wearer a priority target as they were carrying a bomb on their back.

 

[TheKwertyeweyoppe]

They were used for clearing fortifications and to deal with armour. Although more modern munitions kinda put a stop to 'em.

How'd they stop tanks?
Wouldn't a tank just roll straight through the flames and run the guy over?

Despite popular beieif, tanks don't respond well to several hundred degrees in their vulnerable under carriage. besides not all armor is tanks

 

[Kiefer13]

What exactly is the point of flamethrowers? A machine gun will kill ordinary people much faster for less weight, and its not much good against zombies because the avereage human body will burn for at least an hour.

Try clearing out a bunker full of hostiles with a machine gun. Flamethrowers were always a very specialised weapon and never really intended for general combat. For getting rid of people hiding in buildings or tightly packed jungle you didn't mind burning down, I'd imagine they were quite effective.

 

[Actual]

They kill zerg.

 

[Captain Pancake]

Used to be used to clear out bunkers and buildings, but it was banned under the Geneva convention. There's just nothing humane about burning people alive.

 

[bubba145]

all the reasons have been said. but still they are good at clearing defenses.

 

[instantbenz]

A quote from a friend of mine. "Well some crazy German said 'ya know? I think I'd like to start that guy on fire over there from over here' and the flamethrower was born."

He's a WWII historian with concentration in German studies, but I think he was lying.

As for usefulness, you die if you're on fire. Sounds pretty useful to me.

 

[Tharwen]

They destroy organic cover, making them effective in the Vietnam war, amongst other places.