StarDestroyer.Net BBS

What is the power of your typical flame-thrower? How does this compare with the power of an M-16?

The real advantages of the flame thrower are for area effect. They are designed to clear out bunkers and fortified positions like caves or trenches. In this manner, they actually never have to hit you in order to kill you. They can sometimes just suck the air from a bunker. In any case, at close range they are very powerful in infantry combat, however they have nowhere near the range as almost any other weapon, they are heavy, and they generally require significant support. I don't really know how to answer your question, other than to say what you see is basically what you get. Certainly the flamethrower is more dangerous up close, but it is also a much more limited weapon than an assault rifle or a machine gun, or indeed most other small arms.

I remember seeing schematics somewhere for a flamer-lite that would allow about 1-2 seconds of burn time that would be mounted underneath an M-16 a la M203.

weemadando wrote:I remember seeing schematics somewhere for a flamer-lite that would allow about 1-2 seconds of burn time that would be mounted underneath an M-16 a la M203.

In this fashion, one wonders what the advantage is over a grenade.

If you mean kinetic energy, then the M16 round has a flamethrower beat, though a man hit with a flame thrower wont be moving for long. However it is really a very poor and near impossible comparison to make. One is a moderate sized bullet, the other is a spray of burning fuel…

Anyway, the flame thrower is an anti fortification weapon, that’s why everyone but the British and Japanese issued them to there combat engineers rather then the infantry. America sometimes gave them out to the infantry, but normally only if they had special training for them.

Today things like the aptly named "Bunker Defeat Munition", Predator, LAW 80, RPG-22 and many other compact rocket launchers are far more effective against fortifications, have better range, and are far less risky to use. Man portable Flamethrowers max out at about 15 meters normally, even a small HEAT rocket can reach 200 with good accuracy.

Today only the Chinese have flamethrowers as general issue at the division level, though the Russians have some specialized units that use them. Beyond that you would be very hard pressed to find one in modern service. They count in most books as Chemical weapons just like napalm and FAE, so that further limits their use. For the USAF to use such requires an executive order specific to the conflict in question. Such was made for the Gulf War.

Actually I believe that range was up around 40 meters.

Master of Ossus wrote:

weemadando wrote:I remember seeing schematics somewhere for a flamer-lite that would allow about 1-2 seconds of burn time that would be mounted underneath an M-16 a la M203.

In this fashion, one wonders what the advantage is over a grenade.

CQB, for those awkward moments between magazines.

Master of Ossus wrote:

weemadando wrote:I remember seeing schematics somewhere for a flamer-lite that would allow about 1-2 seconds of burn time that would be mounted underneath an M-16 a la M203.

In this fashion, one wonders what the advantage is over a grenade.

Minimal range, M203 rounds take some time to arm, and would be lethal to the firer at flame thrower ranges.

Howedar wrote:Actually I believe that range was up around 40 meters.

Only with the heaviest, near useless models which your average man could barely lift. Such were not common. Most were limited to around 15, but the firer could actually walk for 25 meters, rather then just stand in place with a couple guys braceing him up..

Sea Skimmer wrote: Only with the heaviest, near useless models which your average man could barely lift. Such were not common. Most were limited to around 15, but the firer could actually walk for 25 meters, rather then just stand in place with a couple guys braceing him up..

What about the new Russkie Thermobaric RPG warheads? It's like having
a flamethrower that can reach out to a klick, or the late lamented
M202 Flash?

MKSheppard wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote: Only with the heaviest, near useless models which your average man could barely lift. Such were not common. Most were limited to around 15, but the firer could actually walk for 25 meters, rather then just stand in place with a couple guys braceing him up..

What about the new Russkie Thermobaric RPG warheads? It's like having
a flamethrower that can reach out to a klick.

Its very cool, but that’s a rocket, not a flamethrower. The Russians also have had the RPO napalm rocket launcher for some time, it saw heavy use in Afghanistan.

Today the Russians and Ukraine are churning out urban combat equipment at a huge rate, new tank, APC, IFV, mobile gun, missile and infantry weapon designs pop up every month, all for the urban war. That’s what the Russian RPG warheads are really meant for, use by specially equipped urban combat battalions.

Sea Skimmer wrote: Its very cool, but that’s a rocket, not a flamethrower.

Then why the hell is it referred to as:

"RPO-A Shmel rocket infantry flame-thrower"

http://www.indianarmedforces.com/arms/armyweapons.htm

MKSheppard wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote: Its very cool, but that’s a rocket, not a flamethrower.

Then why the hell is it referred to as:

"RPO-A Shmel rocket infantry flame-thrower"

http://www.indianarmedforces.com/arms/armyweapons.htm

Because the Russians like screwy names for things. Deception at every level..

Really though, it is a rocket and beyond using fire, it operates totally differently then a normal flamethrower. Thus it would be incorrect to call it one at least in my book. All definition of flame through I have seen say that to be one they must use compressed gas to spread the flames.

This is the nation, which brought you the Cell Phone Seeking missile after all, god/Wong only knows what they will think up and name next..

Sea Skimmer wrote:If you mean kinetic energy, then the M16 round has a flamethrower beat, though a man hit with a flame thrower wont be moving for long. However it is really a very poor and near impossible comparison to make. One is a moderate sized bullet, the other is a spray of burning fuel.

I was thinking more in terms of heat energy per second. And yes, I know that the effects of the two weapons are vastly different - which is what makes the comparison more interesting. As an amateur SF writer, I occassionally try to look into the physics of real-life weaponry and scale up accordingly.

White phosphorous grenades have made flamethrowers obsolete. They produce the same area-effect burning damage and cause horrifying wounds, at a small fraction of the bulk, cost, and danger to the user (imagine what happens to a flamethrower-equipped man and anybody near him if his tanks get hit).

Darth Wong wrote:White phosphorous grenades have made flamethrowers obsolete. They produce the same area-effect burning damage and cause horrifying wounds, at a small fraction of the bulk, cost, and danger to the user (imagine what happens to a flamethrower-equipped man and anybody near him if his tanks get hit).

No, that's what the M202 Flash is for. It replaced the Flamethrower as the
inciendary terror weapon of choice, although both are out of vogue. But mark
my words, when we get back to fighting in Urban Terrain, the good old
flame throwers will make a comeback in rocket projectiles and tank-mounted
flamers.

Tank mounted flamers are great.


U.S. MARINE CORPS FLAMETHROWER TANK IN ACTION NEAR DA NANG.

The U.S. Army no longer had flamethrower tanks but the Marine Corps
sent several to Vietnam.

Darth Wong wrote:White phosphorous grenades have made flamethrowers obsolete. They produce the same area-effect burning damage and cause horrifying wounds, at a small fraction of the bulk, cost, and danger to the user (imagine what happens to a flamethrower-equipped man and anybody near him if his tanks get hit).

Not really. The task, for which a flamethrower was designed, assaulting fortifications, can't be replicated with a WP round. The biggest part is minimal range, you can safely use a flamethrower aginst a bunker when your 2 meters away, WP can't be.

What made the flamethrower obsolete for most everything was the ranged shaped charge, anti tank rockets, and the power of artillery and aircraft. The only remaining use was starting destructive fires, which WP is not all that good at.

Darth Wong wrote:White phosphorous grenades have made flamethrowers obsolete. They produce the same area-effect burning damage and cause horrifying wounds, at a small fraction of the bulk, cost, and danger to the user (imagine what happens to a flamethrower-equipped man and anybody near him if his tanks get hit).

Isn't WP illegal? At least on artillery, certain WP+fuze combinations (that would allow, say, a WP round to fall into a trench and detonate as opposed to acting as a flare overhead) are not allowed, at least not in the Canadian army. I'm not sure which international convention this rule is based on.

Doomriser wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:White phosphorous grenades have made flamethrowers obsolete. They produce the same area-effect burning damage and cause horrifying wounds, at a small fraction of the bulk, cost, and danger to the user (imagine what happens to a flamethrower-equipped man and anybody near him if his tanks get hit).

Isn't WP illegal? At least on artillery, certain WP+fuze combinations (that would allow, say, a WP round to fall into a trench and detonate as opposed to acting as a flare overhead) are not allowed, at least not in the Canadian army. I'm not sure which international convention this rule is based on.

In theory it is illegal to use against people, as is Napalm, FAE's, flamethrowers and tear gas.

In practice it is accepted as legal by all powers since its primary usage is smoke, not anti personal. DPICM is far more effective against infantry anyway, so there's little point in firing WP at them.

IIRC WP does not require executive order for use in wartime in the US, unlike Napalm and FAE's.

When did WP grenades become illegal to use against people? My understanding is that they were quite popular with the British Infantry during the Falklands, not least due to the pretty flash they make when they detonate.

Akm72 wrote:When did WP grenades become illegal to use against people? My understanding is that they were quite popular with the British Infantry during the Falklands, not least due to the pretty flash they make when they detonate.

Reminds me of a running joke I had with some friends over the enforcement of the Geneva convention on the battlefield.

*Setting: A brutal battlefield, bodies are everywhere in varying states of decomposition and in many many pieces.*

[A whistle blows and a man in a Referees outfit runs over to where some CQB and HtH is taking place]
Ref: Sonny, thats an illegal length bayonet, fifteen minutes in the sin-bin.
Soldier1: But sir! His boots are of an illegal tread pattern!
Ref: Is that so? Let me have a look...

I'm sure you get the idea.

weemadando wrote: Reminds me of a running joke I had with some friends over the enforcement of the Geneva convention on the battlefield.

*Setting: A brutal battlefield, bodies are everywhere in varying states of decomposition and in many many pieces.*

[A whistle blows and a man in a Referees outfit runs over to where some CQB and HtH is taking place]
Ref: Sonny, thats an illegal length bayonet, fifteen minutes in the sin-bin.
Soldier1: But sir! His boots are of an illegal tread pattern!
Ref: Is that so? Let me have a look...

I'm sure you get the idea.

Yeah, I have yet to see or hear of a 'moral' or 'fair' weapon of any sort.

With regards to POW and civilian treatment etc, yes the Geneva convention should be enforced. (note, this is NOT going to turn into "[OT] FFS... The Geneva Convention obviously does not apply" [If you are confused this was one of the most impressive flamewars on ASVS this year])

On the battlefield, well its a tough thing to enforce.

There is no compairson, u can kill a guy from 100 feet away with a flamethower and u can kill a guy form like 900 feet away! And bullets travel a lot faster than a flame! AND u cant kill a guy in 1 shot from a flame thower but u can with a m 16

There is no compairson, u can kill a guy from 100 feet away with a flamethower and u can kill a guy form like 900 feet away! And bullets travel a lot faster than a flame! AND u cant kill a guy in 1 shot from a flame thower but u can with a m 16

Thats not what a flame-thrower is designer for however

Theres a good part of Saving Private Ryan which shows exactly what a Flame-Thrower is for after they get on top of the beach
And also happens to show the inhertent dangers of flamers a bit earierl