Why did the flamethrower stop being a commonly used infantry

>>3310446
More effective weapons came along. Thermobaric weapons and white phosphorus made them obsolete.

>>3310446
high risk, limited range, pretty inefficient and inaccurate, more difficult to refuel/reload, high chance of friendly fire, dangerous for the operator (e.g. fuel tanks exploding after getting hit)

>>3310480
This, except fuel tanks exploding was less of a danger than you'd think. The real issue was everyone on the opposing side noticing your flamethrower and try to kill you first. Flamethrower operators were absolutely despised, for obvious reasons, and had a very low life expectancy in combat.

>>3310501
Even if they surrendered, flamethrower operators and snipers had the lowest survival rates in POW camps.

>>3310446
appart from the hazards that come with being a flamethrower operator after Vietnam people chimped out and had it banned on the Geneva conventions because muh hooman rights in war

>>3310636
What a surprise.

>>3310501
>>3310636
I've always heard this "snipers and flamethrower operators get treated roughly/killed" thing, but never seen hard evidence. Did it actually happen? Just curious, not trying to start a 4chan argument where I call you a cuck 2 posts later and pretend I'm someone else

>>3310446
They werent, soldiers just use rockets filled with incendiary chems instead of flamethrowers as you know.

>The United States Marines used flamethrowers in the Korean and Vietnam Wars. The M132 Armored Flamethrower, an M113 armored personnel carrier with a mounted flame thrower was successfully used in the conflict.[28]

>Flamethrowers have not been in the U.S. arsenal since 1978, when the Department of Defense unilaterally stopped using them. They have been deemed of questionable effectiveness in modern combat and the use of flame weapons is always a public relations issue due to the horrific death they inflict. Despite some assertions, they are not generally banned, but are banned for use against civilians, or against military targets in a concentration of civilians under some circumstances.

>>3310446
I recently patented a version of this weapon for urban protests. It doesn't use flame, as that would light buildings on fire.

It uses pressurized urine. Oh sure, it takes many men and a lot of Coors Light to reload, but it's very effective.

>>3310736
First thing the Geneva and Hauge conventions are different things, the Geneva convention is concerning how militaries conduct themselves toward civilians. The Hauge conventions lay down the rules for militaries fighting each other (ie no frangible bullets).
Secondly no major powers signed anything that would prohibit them using an incendiary.

>>3312035
Different jobs have different life expectancies in battle, depending on how the enemy prioritizes killing them. For instance, a forward observer who lazes targets has a life expectancy of a few seconds.

Snipers are force multipliers, and usually kill more people than a platoon full of grunts. They're also very high on the kill list. Both sides use sniper ghosts to hunt each other.

Flamethrowers are awful; you would never want to be killed by one. So you kill the guy as soon as you see him. And it's not that hard, as his tanks will explode and detonate, killing him.

File: nps-do-you-know-what-the-m-97-flamethrower-sounds-like-5145019.png (115KB, 500x672px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 500x672px

>>3310446
they have no advantage versus other incendiary weapons

>>3312880
Not the same Anon, but I think he was referring to their life expectancy in POW camps specifically.