PLA Small arms

I think single shot FAE launchers are more useful if you have a good idea of where the enemy is.

Flamethrowers are more useful for short repeated advances to flush out or deny an enemy a hiding place (especially caves), if you don't know exactly where they may be.

E.g.: is there someone in that bunker or behind that rock in a cave? A brief burst from a flamethrower would be more useful than wasting an entire FAE rocket, I imagine.

In addition, Flame throwers are also good at starting fires, whereas warheads tend to snuff out any flames they create.

Suspect there are terrorists hiding in the foliage? Get the burners and wait for them to rabbit.

Rockets can also easily cause collapse and cave ins, and if the cave is complex, or very curved, you might just collapse an entrance while leaving the terrorists unhurt to leave through another exit. Or if you want to clear out a strong point at the cave entrance so your troops can advance in to case down high value targets, flame throwers are much safer and effective than warheads.

In urban combat, flamers could be useful in clearing semi-ruined structures of enemies while not destroying them, allowing your own troops to move in and use them after the flames have died away.

Many traditional ME buildings are made of brick and rock, and many modern buildings are concrete and not flammable once all the fixtures and fittings have already burnt away.

You know, If PAP absolutely wants their flamethrowers, why not just put it on a UGV like other weapons? It seems pretty obvious that putting a backpack full of explosive fuel and oxygen on a poor sod is going to result in nothing good for him and his squadmates once a random tracer round found his backpack.

Or, you know, just change the composition of the missile/rocket warhead from HE/Fuel-air explosive to napalm instead and let the bunkered in buggers burn.

dankris said:

You know, If PAP absolutely wants their flamethrowers, why not just put it on a UGV like other weapons? It seems pretty obvious that putting a backpack full of explosive fuel and oxygen on a poor sod is going to result in nothing good for him and his squadmates once a random tracer round found his backpack.

Or, you know, just change the composition of the missile/rocket warhead from HE/Fuel-air explosive to napalm instead and let the bunkered in buggers burn.

Click to expand...

Nothing is absolute. PAP does not do what you proposed is because for the moment no terrorists in China have the capability to mount the kind of threat to PAP flamethrower operators, the kind of threat you talked about is like having machine guns, rocket launchers etc. When and IF they possess such capability, PAP will get tanks or IFVs with whatever weapons necessary mounted on top. One don't need a cannon to shoot a mosquito.

dankris said:

Which is why I'm really confused by the pictures of PAP actually still training with flamethrowers. Given that PAP is really PLA lite, I wonder if PLA doctrine still has some pages about flamethrower usage hidden somewhere.

P.s I prefer Ronson and American cooking pot on tracks

Click to expand...

PAP is not PLA by any means, they are gendarmerie who carries out policing duties in peace time. Their specialty is very different from PLA. In war time, they might be drawn in PLA as light infantry, but that is unlikely to happen for a long long time. So deducing doctrines from one or the other now is pretty much pointless.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Just about Zippo... See what I did there?
I mean other than burning out a hive of Asian Hornets, it’s a weapon more dangerous to the user than intended victim. Short range, heavy weight, you don’t want to use it in any confined space as it consumes all the oxygen. A shot or two and the tank is spent. The only possible use is to clear pill boxes. But the problems I listed are solved by a rocket launcher or grenades.
From every practical aspect with the exception of vehicle mounted systems it’s pretty useless. And Even Vehicle mounted is only good vs infantry and soft targets.

Click to expand...

PAP did use flamethrowers to clear out terrorists hiding in caves. Grenades and other explosives are probably unsuited given the meandering nature of most caves. Flamethrowers would be handy in that situation: if the targets aren't directly set on fire, they'd be suffocating to death. German stormtroopers in WWI used flamethrowers to great effect when clearing out foxholes and subterranean tunnels, which are kind of similar to caves in a way.

dankris said:

What is the advantage of using actual flamethrower compared to using Fuel-air explosives such as the Russian RPO-A Shmel and its derivatives? I can only think of cost.

Click to expand...

There was a video that showed PAP burnt terrorists in a cave in Xingjing years ago.

taxiya said:

Nothing is absolute. PAP does not do what you proposed is because for the moment no terrorists in China have the capability to mount the kind of threat to PAP flamethrower operators, the kind of threat you talked about is like having machine guns, rocket launchers etc. When and IF they possess such capability, PAP will get tanks or IFVs with whatever weapons necessary mounted on top. One don't need a cannon to shoot a mosquito.

Click to expand...

Just like you said, nothing is absolute. Like, just in case, at least if something goes boom it won't be some poor guy assigned to carry the backpack and his squad, just a replaceable UGV.

The case seems to be that PAP wants to use flamethrowers in its tactics, so let's confine that particular discussion to how those flamethrowers can be deployed in a way that they're more a threat to the enemy, not the other way round.

by78 said:

PAP did use flamethrowers to clear out terrorists hiding in a cave. Grenades and other explosives are probably unsuited given the meandering nature of most caves. Flamethrowers would be handy in that situation: if the targets aren't directly set on fire, they'd be suffocating to death. German stormtroopers in WWI used flamethrowers to great effect when clearing out foxholes and subterranean tunnels, which are kind of similar to caves in a way.

Click to expand...

Can't thermobaric weapons do the same thing? Also, if it can't, why not just put a napalm warhead on the rocket/missile and call it a day? There's no need to put flamethrowers back on the front line with all the risks involved for the crew. Of course, if the potential human cost is cheaper than the rocket/missile cost that is another story...

dankris said:

Can't thermobaric weapons do the same thing? Also, if it can't, why not just put a napalm warhead on the rocket/missile and call it a day? There's no need to put flamethrowers back on the front line with all the risks involved for the crew. Of course, if the potential human cost is cheaper than the rocket/missile cost that is another story...

Click to expand...

PAP are hardly 'frontline', and terrorists in China are unlikely to be equipped to take advantage of a flamethrower's vulnerabilities. Flamethrowers can be – and many are – rigged to use a thickened liquid that adhere to surfaces and continue burning for a time, with napalm being one of those liquids used. And it might not be wise to use a high-explosive device (thermobaric or not) inside a confined space that you might share with your targets; you don't want a cave in or falling rocks, not to mention a flash explosion may not be enough to disable the targets because caves are an ideal place to evade explosions: how deep is it, and are the targets hiding behind thick rock walls or in hidden crevices? The list goes on and on.

I can easily see a typical scenario where terrorists are cornered in a cave by armed PAP soldiers pointing their guns at the exit. Then they bring forward a flamethrower to flush out the cave. A this point an assessment would have already been made on whether it's risky to use a flamethrower. If the terrorists are dumb enough to charge out of the cave, they'd be met with a wall of gunfire and flames. The point is, flamethrowers don't operate alone, so their vulnerabilities are largely mitigated; a soldier would have others to watch his six and his flanks while he operates the flamethrower.

Ultimately, it all depends on the requirements of a particular job. You need different tools for different jobs. Flamethrowers have their uses, thermobaric grenades have theirs.

P.S. Do we even know if the PAP have thermobaric grenades in their arsenal?