Moderator: NecronLord
No, that's a popular myth. The Geneva Convention doesn't outlaw any weapons use. Some militaries are still developing new flamethrowers for urban environments. As has been said, its good for clearing rooms and getting around/through cover.Kartr_Kana wrote:Aren't flamethrowers outlawed by the Geneva Convention?
Which comes with the horrible bonus of meaning the sucker with the tank (and by extension, anyone near him) is dead meat first. No one wants to be burned alive.CaptainChewbacca wrote: No, that's a popular myth. The Geneva Convention doesn't outlaw any weapons use. Some militaries are still developing new flamethrowers for urban environments. As has been said, its good for clearing rooms and getting around/through cover.
Plus, a flamethrower coming at you is absolutely terrifying.
No. Protocol III of the Geneva Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons bans the use of incendiary weapons against civilians, military targets in civilian areas but not any specific weapons. In fact it explicitly defines a number of weapons with incendiary effects as not being primarily incendiary and thus excluded from the ban. So using a flamethrower to burn down occupied civilian homes is banned… but burn up soldiers all day long, you can even burn down forests if they’ve been used for concealment according to the text.Kartr_Kana wrote:Aren't flamethrowers outlawed by the Geneva Convention?
The US used a river monitor flamethrower in Vietnam that could reach about 200 yards on a good day but it had quite the volume of space to dedicate to fuel and propellant. The SMAW NE warhead was scaled up for AGM-114N Hellfire so now just one man at any distance from which a cave or bunker entrance can be seen can call in the equivalent of a flamethrower strike from 7 kilometers away.Plus flamethrowers have a much shorter range the rockets (100m for the tank mounted ones in WW2 IIRC vs 250m for a SMAW Novel Explosive round)
Yeah, its actually because a lot of countries decided it was a huge PR nightmare to use flamethrowers and incendiary weapons.No, that's a popular myth.
The range and ammunition on tank based flamethrowers is much greater to boot. The M67A2 Zippo had a 365 gallon tank and a range of 256m.The gas tanks are safe, range isn't that much of an issue, there is far less danger to the users, etc.
And how much incendiary do you think your grenade will have to hold, assuming we';re not going with some insane super-sciency energy density stuff like some universes (IE 40K) do?Zixinus wrote: Grenades can.
So according to you, any and all combat will onyl occur at many hundreds of yard distance, but never closer? I guess all thsoe references to CQB are internet myths then.Psychological value loses itself over range and with the advent of rifled erm, rifles ranges now usually extend far beyond that of a flame-thrower.
By modern technology. But in sci fi that's not always true. A good example is SW and personal and theatre shielding.Bunkers are now also pretty obsolete, knowing that if the enemy has the means, there is no building in the world that can't be blown to everloving high hell unless its deep underground.
Look, given the flamethrower I looked up (the US M2 you're probably looking at about 1-2 kg worth of fuel chucked out each second. The "grenade" capable of matching that is likewise going to be large, bulky, heavy, and quite distinctive.Also, anybody carrying a flamethrower will be the first target of any sniper or ambush if given a choice: this is the case of when psychological terror is working against you.
In a Command and Conquer fanfic I'm writing, I have the Black Hand using flamethrowers as part of their psychological weaponry, too. Half the squad carries flamethrower rifles that have extremely high pressure and can shoot flames up to a hundred meters away, and the other half of the squad carries laser rifles.Teleros wrote:I use them for the same thing - in most sci-fi settings about the only advantage a flamethrower has over another weapon is the psychological effect.Really, the best use I've seen regarding the flamethrower is in the 40K Gaunt's Ghosts books, where its used as a sort of close-in weapon for clearing fortifications or holding off attackers who have a preference for massed, close assaults.
Impact-detonated grenades were designed, but they weren't mass-produced and issued to frontline infantry due to safety reasons. If you're a soldier, and you arm an impact-detonated grenade, but the enemy shoots at you as you prepare to throw it and make you drop the grenade... see the problem?Zixinus wrote:Also, I'm fairly certain that there exists impact-based or contact-based grenades.
It was impressed upon me in training that any attempt at cooking is idiotic.The trick described in SOG: The Secret Wars of America's Commandos in Vietnam is to pull the pin, hold the grenade for two seconds, and then throw it so the grenade will explode over the enemy's head.
The trick was used by an SOG unit (three Americans leading a platoon of Montagnard mercs) that was trapped in a cave by a NVA battalion. It's understandable for men in such desperate straits to resort to such a desperate measure.Thanatos wrote:It was impressed upon me in training that any attempt at cooking is idiotic.
I may be imagining it, but I'm fairly certain I've seen a book which claims that modern grenades can actually be set to explode with different fuse lengths.Thanatos wrote: It was impressed upon me in training that any attempt at cooking is idiotic.
I wouldn't bank much on the accuracy of anything that happens in his books. Patriot Games is the only one I own that I can get through since I completed my training.Besides, Tom Clancy's 'Without Remorse'
Running around with people shooting at you is also idiotic. Especially idiotic is strapping a tank full of highly flammable substances to your back, putting said fuel under pressure, and then running out to get shot at, giving the tank a chance to explode on you.Thanatos wrote:It was impressed upon me in training that any attempt at cooking is idiotic.The trick described in SOG: The Secret Wars of America's Commandos in Vietnam is to pull the pin, hold the grenade for two seconds, and then throw it so the grenade will explode over the enemy's head.
It hardly matters how much ONE grenade can hold because you can carry a shitton of grenades for far less weight then a loaded flamethrower.Connor MacLeod wrote: And how much incendiary do you think your grenade will have to hold, assuming we';re not going with some insane super-sciency energy density stuff like some universes (IE 40K) do?
Bearing in mind too that the size/mass of the grenade will affect your ability to throw it.
Grenades can be used from behind cover at close quarters, flamethrowers cannot be. That makes flamethrowers extra suicidal in close quarters combat. The Germans sent whole flamethrower companies into Stalingrad and saw them wiped out in a couple days without accomplishing anything at all. The proper use of flamethrowers is against fixed bunkers and fortifications which have limited fields of fire, and even then a flamethrower attack could be foiled by properly sitting bunkers to have mutually supporting fields of fire. Merely fighting at close ranges does not mean flamethrowers suddenly have real utility.So according to you, any and all combat will onyl occur at many hundreds of yard distance, but never closer? I guess all thsoe references to CQB are internet myths then.
Use a grenade launcher then. Even the obsolete M79 can reach almost 450 yards and weighs all of six pounds, less then one forth as much as even an EMPTY flamethrower! What’s more we even now have thermobaric 40mm grenades in service, which are ideal for attacking enclosed spaces.
Besides which, given what you seem to be envisioning, I'm questioning whether your hypothetical grenade would have much better range (particulariyl given its heavier than a frag grenade.)
A flamethrower is going to accomplish what exactly against a position with a shield? A shield which can repel anything like demolition charges, grenades and anti tank rounds will repel a spatter of low velocity flame with trivial ease.By modern technology. But in sci fi that's not always true. A good example is SW and personal and theatre shielding.
Why does one grenade need to match the firepower of a 70 fucking pound flamethrower? You could have an M79 grenade launcher and 100 40mm grenades and it would still weigh less, shoot absurdly further and it would be more effective too because you aren’t stuck using only an incendiary weapon.Look, given the flamethrower I looked up (the US M2 you're probably looking at about 1-2 kg worth of fuel chucked out each second. The "grenade" capable of matching that is likewise going to be large, bulky, heavy, and quite distinctive.
And with damn good reason. Grenade fuses are little cut lengths of cord made by the lowest bidder, they don’t all get cut the exact same length and they sure don’t always burn at the same rate, so cooking is asking to have your hand blown off. Special forces units sometimes cut their own grenade fuses so they can be sure of the length, but they still don’t cook them, they just cut down the delay length outright and then mark which ones are normal, which are short fuse.Thanatos wrote: It was impressed upon me in training that any attempt at cooking is idiotic.
Never mind that even if it was a precise fuse, you're relying on the assumption that you can accurately time it.And with damn good reason. Grenade fuses are little cut lengths of cord made by the lowest bidder, they don’t all get cut the exact same length and they sure don’t always burn at the same rate, so cooking is asking to have your hand blown off.
The Dragon's Breath shotgun ammunition just shoots a spray of magnesium dust mixed in with the buckshot. More often than not, it fails to ignite. When it does ignite, you get a nice fireworks show and an after-image floating in your vision for a few minutes, and not much else. Ordinary tracer ammunition has about the same probability of starting a fire.Zixinus wrote:If we want something set on fire, why not use special ammunition or grenades that do that? You have a bit more control what will get ignited, it is lighter and less sophisticated (in use anyway), it can travel ranges that a flame-thrower can't, etc. I heard that there is a Dragon's Breath or Napalm rounds for shotguns. Can similiar technologies be put into regular rifles?
Nowadays, assault rifles get grenade launchers attached to them. There was the XM36 OICW project was actually a grenade launcher and a sophisticated targeting system with a full-automatic (donnu if I can call it an assoult rifle or a sub-machine gun) attached to it. It wouldn't be a terribly big stretch to assume that a future weapons would travel in that direction.
As discussed in another thread, in the future you can expect massive space infrastructure and the habitable space that goes along with it. In those cases artillery and air support are pretty much out of the question. But on most things beyond Island 3, most of the space will be city like. Which means a flamethrower will be well suited for combat as pretty much everything you are going up against is a series of tight enclosed spaces - which is what flamethrowers are meant for.Swindle1984 wrote:I think for a futuristic 'flamethrower' concept, we really need to narrow down what specific purpose it's going to have: anti-personnel? Bunker clearing? General mayhem?
That's what they are called, not what they are: http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=981503 I know its an amateur writing, but it was all I was able to find.There are no napalm rounds for shotguns.
Could you please sum it up for me?And the OICW project was a massive failure from the beginning for too many reasons to go into.
Say, your typical futuristic space marine against your typical Bugs From Outer Space: they need several bullets to get down, are not much of a treat from a distance but are very deadly up close and always in enormous numbers. Infantry is usually sent to worlds with atmosphere and are there to secure key points while other measures deal with the bugs elsewhere.I think for a futuristic 'flamethrower' concept, we really need to narrow down what specific purpose it's going to have: anti-personnel? Bunker clearing? General mayhem?
A rough summary: Too big, too heavy, too awkward to use, the "smart" grenades didn't turn out to be as lethal as they thought they were going to be, limited utility compared to 40mm grenades (theres a fuck ton of things you can do with a 40mm grenade launcher) , etc.Could you please sum it up for me?
Pretty much. I'd add "over complicated as fuck-all" to the list.Thanatos wrote:A rough summary: Too big, too heavy, too awkward to use, the "smart" grenades didn't turn out to be as lethal as they thought they were going to be, limited utility compared to 40mm grenades (theres a fuck ton of things you can do with a 40mm grenade launcher) , etc.Could you please sum it up for me?
Part of the peacetime Army obsession with "Gee-Whiz!" shit that was high tech for the sake of being high tech basically.
That thing couldn't do anything right either.Shit, in videogames where the grenades always explode after exactly the same time and there are even displays that tell you how much of the fuse has burned, cooking grenades can still lead to a face full of shrapnel.Thanatos wrote:Never mind that even if it was a precise fuse, you're relying on the assumption that you can accurately time it.And with damn good reason. Grenade fuses are little cut lengths of cord made by the lowest bidder, they don’t all get cut the exact same length and they sure don’t always burn at the same rate, so cooking is asking to have your hand blown off.
To counter nanobots/micromachines, something that pumps out high levels of electromagnetic energy (microwave-based directed energy weapons, EM bombs, radar set to HIGH, and as a last resort, nukes) would probably be more effective.Peptuck wrote:I keep thinking of flamethrowers as a weapon that might be effective against small drones or gray goo nanotech (though with nanotech, you wouldn't need much energy in the first place to wipe them out) You know, the kind of futuretech-wank where lots of little drones attack their targets like locusts or ants with claws or saws and tear them apart.
