Flamethrowers

[Balrog]

Ignoring for a second the humanitarian arguments against flamethrowers, what would it take for them to return to active military use? Or did the advancement of other weapons simply made them obsolete?

On a side note, what's the best kind of fuel to use in a flamethrower? Would there be any advantages to using something 'futuristic' like plasma?

[wjs7744]

Well, I always understood that they were only really useful for trench-clearing, so modern mobile warfare has pretty much rendered them obsolete. They are a very close range weapon, so no use outside, and indoors they are unsuitable because indoor enviroments tend to be filled with flammables. I don't think it's as much the advanced in other weapons that have made them obsolete as much as the changing nature of warfare itself. Of course, if anyone more knowledgeable about the military knows better, I would love to learn more myself.

[Feil]

Plasma is kind of silly, since you wouldn't be able to project it far enough, and it wouldn't stick to anything.

[wjs7744]

Plasma is kind of silly, since you wouldn't be able to project it far enough, and it wouldn't stick to anything.

Oh, I missed that part. I think Mike put it best, when he said to "imagine a 'hot steam gun'. Doesn't sound so impressive, does it?". Yes, plasma doesn't even remotely resemble napalm.

[Superman]

Why aren't they used anymore anyway?

[Sea Skimmer]

Ignoring for a second the humanitarian arguments against flamethrowers, what would it take for them to return to active military use? Or did the advancement of other weapons simply made them obsolete?

Obsolete.

Manpack flamethrowers never had all that much utility to start with. They are only really useful for attacking strong permanent fortifications and some kinds of field works, like the Japanese rock tunnel systems constructed on various islands. Even then the flamethrower only has a limited role to serve, you used it only once you’d gotten close to the fortification to drive the enemy away form his firing embrasures, and to asphyxiate him by burning up all the oxygen. This then cleared the way for soldiers to get right up to the work destroy it with hand emplaced explosive charges. Today we skip all these steps and call in a 2,000lb laser guided bomb, or shoot the thing with a TOW missile ect...

If the fortification had strong infantry support on the surface, then this kind of attack would basically always fail until that infantry support was destroyed. Well designed fortifications with good mutually supporting fields of fire would also almost always be able to repel this kind of attack.

Guided weapons, infantry shaped charge rockets, massive increases in the firepower of tank guns and the general downfall of permanent fortifications as fighting positions (as opposed to ones that serve simply as shelters) all combined to make classic flamethrowers pointless. Note that except for Japan and Britain, virtually every army on earth assigned flamethrowers to combat engineers, not the infantry.

For fighting under field conditions a flamethrower is just plain suicidal, always was, always will be. Range is too limited and the user is way too blatant a target, with the added bonus of the fuel tank exploding when hit.

Flamethrower tanks have slightly greater utility since they can spray flame over large areas owing to the much larger fuel supply, and a single rifle bullet won’t explode them, but that utility is still not enough to justify keeping them around. You’ll find a billion more targets for 120mm shells then for a stream of flame that can reach perhapes about 150 yards, vs. 20-40 for a manpack unit.

On a side note, what's the best kind of fuel to use in a flamethrower? Would there be any advantages to using something 'futuristic' like plasma?

Napalm works great since it sticks to stuff and provide a persistent fire effect. This is very useful since a typical manpack flame thrower usually had less then 1 minute of fuel, never more then about 2 minutes, and a limited number of igniter cartridges in the nozzle. All modern flamethrowers, WW1 on, have used some kind of thickened gasoline fuel, though you can pretty much use anything you want that burns in any flamethrower.

Plasma is not a fuel, it’s a state of matter, and it’s utterly stupidly pointless to try to think up a way to make a flamethrower that squirts plasma. It would provide no advantage, and would in any realistic situation have huge drawbacks in cost and complexity and effectiveness.

Well, I always understood that they were only really useful for trench-clearing, so modern mobile warfare has pretty much rendered them obsolete.

Some use was made of them in WW1 for trench fighting, but it really didn’t work after the first one or two uses, because everyone learned how absurdly easy it was to kill the flamethrower crews with grenades. Hails of hand grenades are the weapon of choice for close range trench fighting, and pretty much all close in infantry fighting in general.

The Germans actually already had two kinds of flamethrowers when WW1 began, with the expected mission of attacking fortresses. One was the classic manpack flamethrower we all know. The other was a much larger sort of relocateabul system which had to be installed in a friendly trench before it was used, with large fuel tanks and elaborate piping. It threw out a very massive flame once it was ready to use, but you can imagine what happens when enemy artillery hits a trench full of those fuel tanks.

Ironically while this semi static uber flamethrower was short lived, the same general idea of stationary tanks and piping was quickly resurrected as a means of delivering the first poison gas clouds. The same risk of enemy artillery still applied, but at least with a cloud of gas you could kill enemy troops several kilometers away, while the uber flamethrower could still only hit the first line of enemy trenches.

[Balrog]

Thanks SS. If problems like size and fuel were resolved (i.e. flamethrower that doesn't require a manpack) would there be some utility in a limited role?

Basically I was thinking of all those settings where flamethrowers are popular like 40k, where principle enemies are monster that save you the trouble by running towards you. Are they wasting resources in equipping their troops with flamers, or is there some logic to their weapon choice?

[Winston Blake]

Thanks SS. If problems like size and fuel were resolved (i.e. flamethrower that doesn't require a manpack) would there be some utility in a limited role?

It exists, it's an M202 Flash quad-rocket launcher - flamethrower meets LAW. Incendiary rocket launchers seem superior to backpack flamethrowers in almost every way.

The M202A1 is an extremely effective weapon for combat in cities or built up areas. Flames can be delivered on distant targets through windows, doorways, or other holes in the structures with pinpoint accuracy. The detonation of rockets within a structure will create panic and confusion among the enemy occupying the structure.

The M202A1 can deliver area fire out to 547 yards (500 m). During urban combat, the range to targets is normally much less. Point targets, such as an alleyway or bunker, can usually be hit from 219 yards (200 m). Precision fire against a bunker aperture is possible at 55 yards (50 m).

The M202A1 Flash is not effective in penetrating typical urban targets. It can penetrate up to 1 inch (25 mm) of plywood at 219 yards (200 m), and at close range it can penetrate some wooden doors. The rocket reliably penetrates window glass. The M202A1 is not effective against brick or cinder block construction.

The flame agent splattered against the top, flanks, and rear of light armored vehicles can be effective. The psychological effect of hits by flame rockets on closed-in crewmen is significant. A round detonating near or on a vehicle's rear deck or engine compartment could set the vehicle on fire. A wheeled vehicle could have its tires severely damaged by the M202A1.

[Jaevric]

Thanks SS. If problems like size and fuel were resolved (i.e. flamethrower that doesn't require a manpack) would there be some utility in a limited role?

Basically I was thinking of all those settings where flamethrowers are popular like 40k, where principle enemies are monster that save you the trouble by running towards you. Are they wasting resources in equipping their troops with flamers, or is there some logic to their weapon choice?

The main users of flamethrowers in Warhammer 40K are the Imperial Guard and the Adeptus Astartes. The Imperial Guard often tend towards trench warfare as a doctrine, and may find flame throwers useful in house-to-house fighting as well--since the buildings seem to be somewhat less flammable than ours. Also, their flamethrowers seem to have a much longer-lasting fuel supply. Flamethrowers are quite useful against Orks as a means of preventing them from spreading spores and creating more Orks. Besides, if a squad of Guardsmen gets incinerated because someone's fuel tank gets shot, who cares? There are plenty more Guardsmen where they came from. And of course the Hellhound is terrific for riot control duties.

...What, it's the Imperium of Man we're talking about. They're bound to use Hellhounds for riot control at least occasionally, for the entertainment of the planetary nobility if nothing else.

The Adeptus Astartes, on the other hand, are shock troops who do a lot of close-quarters fighting and have the added advantage of power armor. So burning down the building they're fighting through doesn't do much more than inconvenience them. For that matter, shooting the fuel tank and causing it to erupt probably won't do much more than piss the Space Marine carrying it off, assuming his armor is sealed and he has his helmet on.

They're still not a great weapon for either of these groups, but there's some limited justification for using them.

[Ford Prefect]

Are they wasting resources in equipping their troops with flamers, or is there some logic to their weapon choice?

The logic behind the various flamers in 40k, from the huge versions mounted on Hellhounds and siege Dreadnaughts (which also have drills) is much the same logic behind the chainsaw swords and axes - they are really cool in an awful and horrific way.

[FSTargetDrone]

For fighting under field conditions a flamethrower is just plain suicidal, always was, always will be. Range is too limited and the user is way too blatant a target, with the added bonus of the fuel tank exploding when hit.

I took some pictures of a WW2-era flame weapon in 2006, being demonstrated at an airshow:





I'm not sure of the exact type of weapon, or if the guy operating it had it working to its maximum range (this was at an airshow, after all) but this gives the sense of what it looks like in action. As Sea Skimmer points out, it's pretty easy to see what kind of obvious target the operator would be.

Incidentally, the crowd watching this was on the other side of a runway and even from there, maybe 200 feet or so away, the heat was very obvious. You could feel successive waves of heat as he squirted off a few bursts. As can be seen in the top picture, it very quickly caused the grass under the stream to start smoldering, even where the flames didn't directly contact the ground.

[Oskuro]

From the wikipedia entry regarding flamethrowers:

It should be noted that flame thrower operators did not usually face a fiery death from the slightest spark or even from having their tank hit by a normal bullet as often depicted in modern war films. The Gas Container [i.e. the pressurizer] is filled with a non-flammable gas that is under high pressure. If this tank were ruptured, it might knock the operator forward as it was expended in the same way a pressurized aerosol can bursts outward when punctured. The fuel mixture in the Fuel Containers is difficult to light which is why magnesium filled igniters are required when the weapon is fired. Fire a bullet into a metal can filled with diesel or napalm and it will merely leak out the hole unless the round was an incendiary type that could possibly ignite the mixture inside. This also applies to the flame thrower Fuel Container.

Also, for more recent uses of flame weaponry:



As has been stated, modern warfare has little application for flame weapons, but in situations such as those found in WH40K (with large mobs of close-combat enemies) they can be useful. Also, WH40K weapons are mostly compacted to the actual weapon, without the backpack, or even compacted to pistol size, making it a less cumbersome weapon (In the case of flame-pistols, they would be an awesome backup for close combat, even in modern warfare), wich was one of the major drawbacks of the real-life weapon.

[KlavoHunter]

How about Napalm? Is there any situation where it is more useful for attack aircraft to deliver a napalm payload, than it is for them to drop cluster bombs or fuel-air explosives?

[K. A. Pital]

Today's flamethrowers are mostly not burning liquid stream flamethrowers, but reactive flamethrowers, like RPO-A "Shmel" for example, essentially throwing fire shells against the enemy to increase range and lower the waste of the combustive chemicals. A combustion grenade launcher.

[Big Phil]

From the wikipedia entry regarding flamethrowers:

It should be noted that flame thrower operators did not usually face a fiery death from the slightest spark or even from having their tank hit by a normal bullet as often depicted in modern war films. The Gas Container [i.e. the pressurizer] is filled with a non-flammable gas that is under high pressure. If this tank were ruptured, it might knock the operator forward as it was expended in the same way a pressurized aerosol can bursts outward when punctured. The fuel mixture in the Fuel Containers is difficult to light which is why magnesium filled igniters are required when the weapon is fired. Fire a bullet into a metal can filled with diesel or napalm and it will merely leak out the hole unless the round was an incendiary type that could possibly ignite the mixture inside. This also applies to the flame thrower Fuel Container.

That doesn't mean it was a safe weapon or that you were perfectly safe getting hit by bullets while carrying a flamethrower - even though they may not immediately explode upon getting shot, that doesn't mean the risk wasn't high. And the comment about "fiery death from the slightest spark" strikes me as a strawman.

[Aaron]

Being a flamethrower operator turned you into a bullet magnet. No one wants to be burned alive, so guess what happens when you see one approaching?

[Singular Intellect]

Being a flamethrower operator turned you into a bullet magnet. No one wants to be burned alive, so guess what happens when you see one approaching?

No kidding. I bet every soldier on the field would gladly have taken a couple of bullets rather than be hit by one of those things. I know I would.

[Oskuro]

Apparently, flamethrowers were so hated, that their operators were summarily executed on the spot if captured, so yeah, it does make you a bullet magnet.

Another fun factoid from the wikipedia article is that during WWI, it was customary to shoot opponent victims of a flamethrower to spare them the suffering. Apparently, said sign of mercy was dropped during WWII.

[Aaron]

Apparently, flamethrowers were so hated, that their operators were summarily executed on the spot if captured, so yeah, it does make you a bullet magnet.

Another fun factoid from the wikipedia article is that during WWI, it was customary to shoot opponent victims of a flamethrower to spare them the suffering. Apparently, said sign of mercy was dropped during WWII.

If that is true, I can see the reasoning behind it. If you survived the attack, you'd probably die from infection thanks to the lack of antibiotics.

[andrewgpaul]

...What, it's the Imperium of Man we're talking about. They're bound to use Hellhounds for riot control at least occasionally, for the entertainment of the planetary nobility if nothing else.

Space Marine has an instance of a multi-melta being used for crow control.

[Sea Skimmer]

How about Napalm? Is there any situation where it is more useful for attack aircraft to deliver a napalm payload, than it is for them to drop cluster bombs or fuel-air explosives?

Certain kinds of entrenchments would be best attacked by napalm, but it’s fairly suicidal for aircraft deliver napalm tanks against any kind of anti aircraft fire, they must be dropped much lower and closer to the target then even unguided iron or cluster bombs. These days if you could locate the entrenchments precisely enough to napalm them, then you’d just end up dropping JDAM from 15,000ft. Cluster bombs are better then FAEs BTW for hitting entrenchments, because they cover way bigger areas. FAEs are best for destroying soft targets located above ground level, like say a bunch of warehouse buildings. This plays to the FAEs advantage of producing a not particularly strong air blast over a wide radius.

Course, if we wanted a precision guided napalm tank is perfectly feasible to develop, but I can see no real point to doing that. Most cluster bombs already have a limited incendiary effect already.

As for those Vietnam flamethrower river monitors, the USN only built a handful (IIRC 8 total) of them because production of monitor hulls outpaced production of the desired turreted 105mm howitzer armament. They did not prove very popular or effective in service, and mainly got used to burn off brush along waterways, a useful enough role I suppose.

[DrMckay]

Hey! Flamethrowers have proven effectiveness in the role of zombie mop-up.

[Hawkwings]

No, then you just have flaming zombies out to get you.

[DrMckay]

You sir, have obviously not read the Zombie Survival Guide, and authority on such matters. With an adequate supply of fuel, and intelligent usage; (See: mop-up,) the flamethrower is indeed a potent weapon against the flesh-munching hordes.

[Gomu Niwatari]

That is true, but only in mop-up. Because otherwise, you'd just have them setting your defenses on fire. (I love that book )