Future of the Flamethrower

[BKulan]

This is a thread we had on old forum that i think could gain a lot by being discussed once again in this forum, especially now when we have more than double number of members then on last forum. Also i will start more threads on other related weapon types if interest is high.

Will the flamethrower have a future?

since future wars are very likely to be in urban areas where the enemy almost always are less than 100 meters away, will the flamethrower be the ultimate morale weapon once again?

with ranges of up to a 100-150 meters, excellent morale effect (due to natural fear of fire and especially blazing infernos), effectiveness against infantry, vehicles and even tanks as well as fortified positions (building, bunker, wreckage) will the flamethrower or flame using weapons (missiles, bombs, grenade launchers) be reintroduced?

[rommel]

This is a thread we had on old forum that i think could gain a lot by being discussed once again in this forum, especially now when we have more than double number of members then on last forum. Also i will start more threads on other related weapon types if interest is high.

Will the flamethrower have a future?

since future wars are very likely to be in urban areas where the enemy almost always are less than 100 meters away, will the flamethrower be the ultimate morale weapon once again?

with ranges of up to a 100-150 meters (infantry carried, more if put on vehicle), excellent morale effect (due to natural fear of fire and especially blazing infernos), effectiveness against infantry, vehicles and even tanks as well as fortified positions (building, bunker, wreckage) will the flamethrower or flame using weapons (missiles, bombs, grenade launchers) be reintroduced?


do you come from Mars ? the longest flammethrower range I know it's around 100m and it was on the OT-62 flamme tank of the USSR !!! I want to remind you than the latest infantry flammethrower (well, that was in the 60's) was of 55m.

[BKulan]

well we do have more powerful pumps nowadays. but also it would depend on investment in it, if you want a flamethrower with that range then i can assure you that you can if you are just willing to spend enough money on the development of one.

wouldn't really matter. you would probably need no more than 60 meters anyway.

[rommel]

well we do have more powerful pumps nowadays. but also it would depend on investment in it, if you want a flamethrower with that range then i can assure you that you can if you are just willing to spend enough money on the development of one.

wouldn't really matter. you would probably need no more than 60 meters anyway.

you are really dumb, sorry for insult but there is no pumps in a flamethrower... Did you ever wonder why there's always 2 side on a classical flamethrower ?? One for the fuel and one for the gas propellant. The range is of a FT is because of the nature of fuel it use. That's why the German FT of WWII can only fire at 30m and the US M2 can fired up to 45m, the US develloped a special fuel.

[BKulan]

trust me, flamethrowers can use pumps too.

i know that flamethrowers have a canister (on back in most cases) and that there is another canister filled with a highly pressurized gas that give the flamethrower it's range by creating pressure and therefor forcing the fuel out of the flamethrower when it's fired.

[rommel]

trust me, flamethrowers can use pumps too.

i know that flamethrowers have a canister (on back in most cases) and that there is another canister filled with a highly pressurized gas that give the flamethrower it's range by creating pressure and therefor forcing the fuel out of the flamethrower when it's fired.

Can doesn't mean that we actually use. The flammethrower was not used since those treaties where we bannished it from fighting and it's vulnerable even in armor. You don't want anybody or any vehicule to become a bullet magnet.

[BKulan]

Good now that we agree on the fact that a flamethrower can use a pump and therefor also nullifying you calling me stupid then i can be willing to compromise with you to turn this topic from anymore name calling. just for the sake of argument let's say 60-100 meters then. would that be low enough for you?

we could use more peoples opinion on this, and also the technical possibilites and uses if anyone know some not mentioned here

[rommel]

Good now that we agree on the fact that a flamethrower can use a pump and therefor also nullifying you calling me stupid then i can be willing to compromise with you to turn this topic from anymore name calling. let's say 60-100 meters then. would that be good enough for you?

okay, the fact, if we forget the few treaties bannishing the use of flamethrower, i'll say that the FT is an intersting piece of equipement, heavy, don't have a lot fuel, disadvange anyone carrying it because he become a bullet magnet but it's really efficient in urban and jungle warfare, scare the hell out of the ennemy but now, we use flamme weapon, flamme rocket more exactly for the US Army Engineers, have better range, and less heavy, more easier to hide also, you cannot hide a trail of flame !!! So in modern fighting, FT is efficient only when the ennemy don't that this big "bag" on the back of this guy is a flamethrower, otherwise, he's dead !

[BKulan]

yes this topic wasn't only meant to be about the flamethrower but any flame using weapon systems can be discussed here. the russians have grenade launchers that are classed as flame using weapons and probably a lot of other countries, like the US that rommel mentioned use them too

[Endymion]

Too indiscriminate of a weapon. Even the flamethrower will have unforseen effects - I mean it's fire, its unpredictable.

In this PC world where the media can get a hold of anything and expose it within hours, can you imagine the PR if a flamethrower was used in a house of terrorists in Kabul but the fire spread and burnt down a house with civilians? Do they want to take that risk?

Same rules apply with incendiary grenades - only worse cause it's a radius attack and goes everywhere.

With the US wanting to minimalize civilian casualties as much as possible (though they suck at it) this is something that they don't need weighing on their shoulders. At best such devices will be a very situational one to use.

[TerraN_EmpirE]

The future of the Flame thrower is..... Forestry? :eek:
One. use of the traditional Flame thrower was banned.

Two. It is a impractical weapon, Bulky Heavy Hard to use,Little or no accuracy
(It's a sledge hammer where a pall pin would be fine)
Often causing adverse effects to the user and there compatriots
( fumes caused headaches and when used in a enclosed space it sucked up all the oxygen) the new safety regulations with The user would have to wear fire retardant clothing slowing him down making him a bigger target. physiological warfare any other function is more likely to harm your cause.

Three Use of a Traditional flame thrower would only work in

The only function might be to help Pre burns in forest fires but thats iffy.

[MIGleader]

the pla may need a flame thrower if it needs to go island hopping in the southeast. but in a modern high tech battlefield, they have little use and are torture weapons.

[BKulan]

what about the other kinds of weapons then?

Flame rockets, firebombs?

we all know that the potential is there but in most cases, like flamethrowers they are often very bulky but can be an extremely powerful weapon, especially if no one is expecting such attacks.

one use could be deforesting but urban terrain is also excellent place for the use of flamethrowers (if you don't care if you torch half the city). completely immolating fortified buildings and forcing the enemy to show himself.

but what can be done about tanks? Well it could heat the tank to a level where the crew either suffocates, or is burned to death and/or melting the tracks/wheels of a vehicle and making it immobilized.

Firebombings may have more of a future than flamethrowers but still it is a weapon we may see once again on the battlefield.

It is a very cruel weapon but so is war and one day someone might take that step and once again begin using them.

[Aluka]

http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/1668/48312gc.th.jpg (http://img341.imageshack.us/my.php?image=48312gc.jpg)

Currently russian army uses devices, called flamethrowers, but actually those are RPGs with flame grenades. There's some variety of devices, including TOS-1 MLRS, designed to fire flame rockets.

[MIGleader]

modern technology will come up with a new solution to the flamethrower, like a lazer blinder to get people out of foxholes. such a destructicve weapon is cruel on people and can be more cruel to the environment.

[Aluka]

By the way, i can't help but correct info about ranges. OT-55/OT-62 had range of 160m, Obiekt483 (on picture) could fire at a range of 270m. Still those tanks were assumed useless, and didn't went into mass production. Why do you think liquid flamethrowers should be revived now?

[BKulan]

i don't think they should be revived but i believe that it is important to discuss this topic anyway, and it isn't only about liquid flamethrowers, it's about all kinds of flameusing weapons.

added: i saw it as an opportunity to learn more facts and gain views that i didn't have myself and at the same time open up debate and after posting even more threads related to this one give some of you a more open mind about unconventional weapons and what future war may look like. After all we know little about the past and nothing about the future.

[Aluka]

If you're talking of other types of flamethrower weapons, then flamethrowers do live till today. Russian RHBZ troops have variety of those things, and as i told before, haviest of them is TOS-1. Furthermore, we don't just have em, we use em in chechnya.

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/8890/155hv.th.jpg (http://img244.imageshack.us/my.php?image=155hv.jpg)http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/5253/1184ve.th.jpg (http://img244.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1184ve.jpg)http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/6025/149rr.th.jpg (http://img244.imageshack.us/my.php?image=149rr.jpg)http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/7166/197sw.th.jpg (http://img244.imageshack.us/my.php?image=197sw.jpg)