Flamethrowers

sven hassell

sven hassell

Active member
Just saw this pic of Legion combat engineers training with a flamethrower.
I know the U.S. has not had them in their arsenal for twenty years or so but cant find a source for if this training is current.
Does any army currently have flamethrowers to be deployed? If so who and any links to tech spec.
2REG_flame_thrower_0604350532658.jpg

2REG_flame_thrower_0604350532658.jpg (58KB, MIME type: image/jpeg)

2th foreign engineers (French Foreign Legion) training with flame throwers
 
Officially, Flame throwers are banned in the world as the breach the Human Rights. But, I believe that China's PLA is still training with it.
 
Incendiaries, such as napalm and flame throwers are not illegal per se or by international treaty, but they are banned used on civilian targets according to the Geneva Convention. Military wise they should not be used to cause unnecessary suffering to individuals. You find more info on the links below.

Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/incendiary-legal.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/int/convention_conventional-wpns_prot-iii.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/incendiary.htm
 
Last edited:
There are a greater range of weapons that can be used these days than before. WW2 the flame thrower was a great way of taking out a pill box, but these days you can do the same thing with a Lars rocket and at a greater distance.
 
If there was a way to compress the fuel somehow into a smaller package, I'd say they should make flamethrowers for mounting on M4s - nothing clears a building better.
 
Afghanistan would be a great place for them. Lots of times we thought "man, I wish I had a flame-thrower." Mostly in the poppy fields, amongst the beautiful leafy marijuana plants and in and around caves. The thing is, I don't know of anyone that would have wanted to hump it in the valley or on the mtn, esp. when we've got bigger, more incendiary means of burning stuff up.

As for the humanity of them, war isn't humane. Making bad guys turn into crispy critters has always had great psychological benefits to it and will continue to.




 
Flame throwers are now a redundant weapon. There are more effective and economic methods to achieve the same effect.
 
Well, I believe that Flame thrower is a very dangerous weapon to the user too. IF the tanks he carries explode, he'll cause a friendly "fire".
 
Well maybe the flamethrower, instead of large tanks strapped to the back. It coould be loaded with cans that hold fuel inside them. And there would be a compartment that they would be loaded in. Such like one in this picture.

flamethrower.jpg


So less likely to get blown up.
 
Neat...but please do not use flamethrower so, the gas price in USA can be go down.
 
Well, if the flame thrower has a machine that draws the fuel from the oxygen from the surrounding gas and shoots it, It would be the best weapon!
 
Better yet, I think that the RPO has the only practical application on the modern battlefield. A recoiless flame "thrower".
It is essentially a unguided rocket launcher that fires a rocket with a "napalm" like charge.

Those people in the Australian Army who have done Musorian Of Ops will know of this weapon.
 
In my opinion the main reason why the army abandoned flamethrowers is becouse they were a hazard to the person operating it and the people around it. A single bullet hit could cause it to explode. When incendiaries are needed (like taking out a bunker for example) the U.S. Army relies on the air force for such jobs. They could use napalm or even bunker busters.
There are also economic reasons that the army isnt using flame throwers.
We are running out of petrolium and there are better uses for it other than as weapons
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top