Why arent flamethrowers used anymore?

>>31995373
No.

>>31995373
Collateral damage ? Hello ?
Modern warfare consists of neutralizing your enemies with surgical precision not fucking destroying everything in their path
Also they are dangerous, where would you use them in closed quarters

>>31995394
Clearing a bunker?

>>31995404
Just blow it up.
At least the flamethrower guy doesn't risk getting shot.

>>31995373
You must have never heard of the Geneva convention. Its the same reason we don't use gas

>>31995373
Geneva convention and thermobarics are more efficient for clearing bunkers, buildings, etc.

Because having four shots or three seconds of flame (whichever comes first) isn't generally thought to be worth the 70 lbs of weight that comes with a fueled flamethrower and the danger which comes with bullets flying around the tanks thereof.

For the same range and the same incendiary potential, we now can give soldiers four granades (7lbs) instead of a flamethrower and that 90% weight production is generally a good thing.

Why flamethrower a bunker when you can just drop a JDAM on it from a safe distance?

And don't tell me about cost the US doesn't give a flying fuck about the price tag

>>31995373
Because we have better weapons for the job now.

If someone in a bunker is shot with burning napalm very close during 5-10 seconds, will he die directly or later due to injuries? What exactly kills (what body part injury will cause death) when shot with a flamethrower btw?

>>31995604
Prolly asphyxiation before anything else.

>>31995373
Most of the wars fought by anyone who even used to use flamethrowers are now fought in mountainous desert environments. Not very practical to use something that coughs diesel from 20 feet.

>>31995373
Didn't China just use them against ISIS?

>>31995373
ammunition, mostly. A full backpack tank weighing in at something like 30 lbs gives you maybe 2 minutes of continuous use. By contrast, a backpack full of 7.62x39mmR will give you enough ammo to set the handguards on fire.

Also, it's easier to make an incendiary grenade.

File: image.jpg (17KB, 400x308px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 400x308px

>>31995373
The US replaced the M2 with the M202 FLASH quite some time ago.

Why doesnt this thing get more publicity? 750m max range, less than half the weigh of the M2 and reloadable, fucking badass

>>31995604
Maybe 30 seconds for suffocation. More if they've got good ventilation or hold their breath.

Burning to death takes a while because the body is mostly water. Heat exhaustion can also disable a man but it usually takes hours under normal circumstances.

>>31995685
the M2 machine gun?

>>31995699
The M2 Flamethrower friendo

>>31995685
Isn't this the thing that brown girl shot a building with in that ahnuld movie?

>>31995373
Why arent flame throwers used anymore.
>muh feels
Fuck, the swiss army had theirs until '89, but noooo the focus of the threat became "assymetric" and "not needed anymore". I wish I was in charge.

>>31995373

I think it would be a good idea if they were more compact and less hazardous

>>31995419
False.
America and Canada never signed the later edit that included fire weapons and shotguns.

This is fuddlore, stop repeating it.

>>31997277
>shotguns banned by Geneva
What fucking rationale is behind this?

>>31997277
Anyone who begins a statement with "False." Is usually on the spectrum.

>>31995703
TOO DAMN MANT M2s
there's the M2 ball ammo
M2 Bradley
M2 carbine
M2 half track
M2 tanks
M2 Mortar
and the HMS M2

Next time somebody says M2 without specifying I'm gonna punch them in the nose.

>>31997372
It was actually a thing that the German Empire (WW1) came up with because of how deadly shotguns were in trench warfare. Yes, the people that first used mustard gas thought that the shotgun was too cruel.

Anyhow. the small pellets from a shotgun tend not to overpenetrate and with so many pellets, digging them out is sometimes more damaging than leaving them in. The pain would also be greater than a typical gunshot.

Never mind that your chances of survival against a shotgun blast were better than a bullet wound or that you could live for years with buckshot in you and not really care.

>>31995373
>I understand their impracticalities
Why did you start this thread then? Dipshit.

>>31995656
>2 mins of continuous use
You'd have been a hell of a lot closer if you'd said 2 seconds.

>>31997512
>came up with
No, they argued for it, but it wasn't put in place.

What do you think the general public would think when they would see the first charred remains of some afghan kids who died as collateral damage?

>>31997372
Cause they are fucking crazy effective in trenchwarfare

Just look at this video and you will understand why

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgcXPx9M8zg

>>31997683
More than 1 way to cook a kebab.

>>31995656
the full tanks of fuel and compressed gas for an M2 flamethrower weigh 70 lbs, the m2 can fire either 4 times (4 ignition caps) or up to 7 seconds of continuous fire

>>31995373
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ts55TNp1Fq4

this is part of a series of videos which explains in detail the answer to that question.

>>31997512
>>31997728
That makes more sense now that I know the context. I'd imagine the sentiment died out with the end of WW1 and the reintroduction of an infantry force with the ability to move in more than two directions.

>>31997900
¨Yeah exactly once warfare became more mobile and longer engagements became common people stopped giving a shit about shotguns being OP

>>31995713
Yes.
And it was ridiculous that she fired it backwards for the dumbniggerchick joke.
M202 is plainly directional with pistolgrips, trigger etc.
Maybe use M72 or AT4 backward because of press button lever firing mechs but not M202

>>31995604
Ignoring the joke responses if someones stuck with enough fuel (estimating but gonna say >25% body coverage) they'll die of shock well before they suffocate in about 5 or so seconds, if there's less coverage and they put the fire out quick enough you might have a chance of only being horrifically disfigured. In bunkers as others have said deaths deeper down in the system come from the burning fuel releasing CO, which is a poison.

File: silver-flamethrower-front1.png (1MB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x1000px

How do new civilian flamethrowers stack up to the old military ones?

http://xm42.com/
https://throwflame.com/
https://throwflame.com/products/flamethrower/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYgnOc6Cd34

>>31998605
Basically toys

>>31998605
Says it's fueled with napalm. How do you get that?

I know some people say gas and styrofoam, but that's not really napalm is it?

>>31995604
If you're hit directly with the flame, it's hard to say what kills you. Can't really pin it down to one thing. You just kinda stop being biology and start being chemistry.

If you're not hit directly, carbon monoxide poisoning will cause loss of consciousness in just a few seconds, under 10, death in a few minutes.

File: Rocket Launcher Russian RPO-A Shmel.jpg (221KB, 1315x520px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1315x520px

>>31995373
Incendiary weapons will never go out of style, but man-portable flamethrowers are an obsolete weapon system, like revolvers. If you need something incinerated, use an RPO or >>31995685. They do everything the flamethrower does, but better, with more range, precision and safety for the shooter.

Politicians.
They're all too concerned about human rights and other garbage.

>>31998641
They sell a thicking agent

>>31997277
Who said anything about America and Canada?

>>31998826
Don't be stupid and read the thread

>>31995656
>7.62x39mmR

>>31995394
> Hello?
Fuck off

Not OP, but if anything, could flamethrowers be used to demoralize the enemy? Like, there could be fake burnings of POWs or something?

>>31997378
Your statement is pointless and contributes nothing.

>>32000356
False.