Why don't we have these guys anymore? Also how badass were

File: m202_flash.jpg (45KB, 650x362px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 650x362px

>>33061874
Obsolete when you can spew fire at people from long range.

>>33061874
Because now we can launch a 40mm white phosphorous grenade through a window 120 yards away and burn the whole fucking building down with enough ammo left over to do it again 30 more times.

>>33061874

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XchwE9zVdnw

Also I think there are some laws set up by the geneva convention against countries using flamethrowers on people. You can use incendiary to clear foliage though

File: 1487538520518.gif (165KB, 1096x717px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1096x717px

Thermobarics and incendiary weapons

Explosive>Fire
Fire distributed by explosive at range>Fire

Still cool AF tho

File: type 89.jpg (1MB, 3275x2399px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3275x2399px

>>33062109
Don't they mean Type 89 Medium?

>>33062088
The US did not sign in regards to that portion of the treaty, we don't use flamethrowers because they are cumbersome and a PR nightmare.

>>33062088

>falling for the "I'm not targeting the enemy, I'm targeting their equipment" meme
There is nothing preventing the US from dropping white phosphorous and using other pyro weapons on personnel. There is nothing preventing the US from directly targeting personnel with Raufoss or DU either.

>>33061909
>taking the lazy way out
Come on anon, frolic with the fire for once

File: 1466318994359.jpg (92KB, 600x506px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 600x506px

we have a legit pyro who has to post flamethrower threads every day and probably masturbates to videos of burning buildings.

Because I doubt you could find someone today willing to strap a highly flammable tank to their back and run at an enemy position

File: g0ppTz0[1].jpg (28KB, 300x290px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 300x290px

>>33061874
France still does. Some other are countries probably the same.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbVZFoNE01U&list=PL1D435365E037815D

But unless you're fighting in a building complex, thermobaric rocket launchers are generally better.

>>33062088
Only on civilians, and that covers secondary incendiary means (like throwing flares at them). Soldiers are fair game.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/ART/515-830002?OpenDocument&xp_articleSelected=830002

>>33067741
Dunno anon... I'm no longer surprised by anything coming out of the middle east these days...

>>33061874
Should I build a backpack mounted flamethrower? Or should I save my money?

>>33069782
Seen WP rounds land on some of them in the middle east and afghan, they don't like fire much
Mind you, actually building a flame thrower locally that works more than once is probably a bit above most of them

>>33069740
>and that covers secondary incendiary means (like throwing flares at them)
Why would someone throw flares at civilians? For what purpose except being a dick?

File: CHYNA.jpg (209KB, 607x852px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 607x852px

It breaches a number of acts / regulations and international laws.

>Stop killing people with deadly weapons!
>It hurts my feelings

I can't stand flamethowers in fiction. They always use some gaz igniter intead of pyrotechnic cartrigdes. Sure it allows for cool scenes where the guy lights his cigar with his weapon, but come on, it's WW1 tech.

>>33069869
To set them on fire.
"Oh, I just wanted to illuminate that particular area where the refugee camp was. Such a shame that their tents caught on fire and they all died"
Or "Damn, who could have thought that conducting live shooting training here would cause a forest fire and destroy this town"

>>33069884
What model does the PLA use?
Does anyone know a good source for modern flamethrowers?
Info on anything that isn't US or soviet is excessingly difficult to find.
For example I've never seen a decent pic of a LFP 54.

>>33069782

Experience from Chechnya taught both Jihadists and Russians of the effectiveness of Flamethrowers in urban settings

It was more of a reminder for the Russians but regardless, one of the MRRs had a Pioneer unit that hadn't been issued the RPOs or RGSh yet and was still using LPO-50s and other backpack flame throwers.
They ended up being one of the most, I don't want to say casualty inflicting, but certainly battle hardened units of the war. They burned their way through the rubble of Grozny and probably flushed out hundreds of Chechen separatists in tactics not at all dissimilar to the US and Soviet tactics as employed in WWII in close fighting, where the flame unit burned out infantry from structures or emplacements and were shot to bits by MG teams.

The Chechens fashioned home made flame throwers they employed in a similar way, but favored ambush tactics and used them against civilians for the most part, since they could never realistically manuver close to Russian forces without motorization.

>>33070602
>What model does the PLA use?

A incendiary launcher, the PF-97, and a multi-shot launcher, the FHJ-84. They have two backpack throwers the Type 74 and 58, with the 58 being a copy of the LPO-50 IIRC.

>For example I've never seen a decent pic of a LFP 54.

AFAIK it's literally a copy/update of the US M2A1-7/M2-A1E2

>Does anyone know a good source for modern flamethrowers?

I really just look around and remember the useless stuff desu.

>>33065716
Personnel being the key word. We can't target civilian areas with it...unless of course the enemy is there.

Ref: Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Protocol III

File: 1481516536881.gif (2MB, 300x182px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x182px

>>33061874
>Motherfuckers running around spewing fire at people, from close range and all.

There's your problem. I'm surprised nobody in Syria has tried making one though.

>>33069884
horse shit, at least in the US. there are no laws against flamethrowers and they're not even NFA items.

>>33069884
It's less about the killing people and more about the killing them with fire, which is excessively painful and inhumane. The flamethrower is also actually an incredibly impractical weapon strictly in a killing sense. Its ammunition doesn't last long, it's incredibly heavy and dangerous to the operator not only by being a god damn flamethrower (punctured tanks or hoses, anyone?) but also by making him a target- a highly visible target who WILL be prioritized by the enemy so they can avoid being burned alive. On top of all this, it can backfire pretty badly. See, it tends to cause fires, yes? It was actually more of a psychological tool, intended to frighten the enemy because fucking fire. It was also fantastic for clearing structures and foliage. If anything, it was an auxiliary support weapon that was simply so horrifically inhumane and dangerous to civilian populations and its own users that everyone agreed that it was bad and to take it out of combat. Even the Japs refused to use them, and made it a point to destroy the things at any opportunity.

>>33070785
We can also own and use hollow point rounds. Doesn't necessarily mean it's ok for military use

becase no one likes being burned to death so guy shooting firey stremes o' death is guy normlly gitting made to swiss cheese.(and the gneva con.=(.)

>>33061874
Jimmy Carter killed the flame thrower use in the military because it was "too inhumane"

>>33070776
>swedish flag

That person is an American.

>>33070847
That's Gay Army, a Swedish reality show about them trying to go thru Army boot camp. It's so much cringe in 30 minutes.

Because Flame Tanks quickly outpaced them in terms of battlefield effectiveness, and after the war the use if flame units quickly became abandoned due to controversy.

You have to remember that an American M2 Flamethrower got about 12 seconds of burst fire and then it was dead weight.

>>33065716
The U.S. didn't sign the Geneva Convention either way. Most of the "Geneva" Convention rules we follow are actually attributed to the Hague Convention.

File: 1471496929913.jpg (18KB, 351x351px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 351x351px

>>33070847
>Runar the American

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkt1vAX0MRM

>>33072246
>>Runar the American
He speaks Norwegian and its a common Norwegian name that no swede has.

>>33071679
>That's Gay Army, a Swedish reality show
3 seconds with google
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Army
>Gay Army is a Danish[1] comedy reality television series

The only languages spoken in >>33072246
was norwegian, danish and english

>>33067741
The M2 unit from the Pacific and Korean wars is actually incredibly well engineered and safe, Ian made a video on it.

>>33069884
See thing, chink
>>33069740
the whole "geneva banned muh flamenwerfers" meme is really tired at this point

>>33074694
*this