Future of the Flamethrower

Discussion in 'World Armed Forces' started by BKulan, Sep 3, 2005.

  1. BKulan
    Offline

    BKulan New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
    #1 BKulan, Sep 3, 2005
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2005
  2. rommel
    Offline

    rommel Bow Seat
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    554
    Likes Received:
    2

    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.
     
  3. BKulan
    Offline

    BKulan New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  4. rommel
    Offline

    rommel Bow Seat
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    554
    Likes Received:
    2
    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.
     
  5. BKulan
    Offline

    BKulan New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  6. rommel
    Offline

    rommel Bow Seat
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    554
    Likes Received:
    2
    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.
     
  7. BKulan
    Offline

    BKulan New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
    #7 BKulan, Sep 3, 2005
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2005
  8. rommel
    Offline

    rommel Bow Seat
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    554
    Likes Received:
    2
    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 !
     
  9. BKulan
    Offline

    BKulan New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  10. Endymion
    Offline

    Endymion New Member
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
Loading...

Share This Page