Where have all the flamethrowers gone?

[General Melchid]

 I find it perplexing that modern armies do not appear to field flamethrowers, either personal or vehicle mounted.

Can anyone tell me why not; seems like a useful weapon to have available in some circumstances eg house/bunker clearing.

[Jammersix]

Because American soldiers like to come home.

Everything is a tradeoff. If it can be done faster, cheaper, with fewer people who are younger, lower ranked with less training, with less hardware or with less risk, political fallout or pieces, with equipment that is stamped instead of cast, has a larger magazine, is more accurate at night, in fog, rain and weighs less, it's a dead end.

The advantages of a vehicle mounted or infantry flamethrower have never outweighed the disadvantages.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Jammersix

[Sublime]

I do wonder about napalm though.

Of course we have better air to ground AT weapons now but for something that was pretty much the only truly effective US tank killer from planes..  I think its a combination of public revulsion and holdover feelings from the Vietnam era and of course what Jammer said about there simply being better ways for our military kill.

[Anthony P.]

Still around, MK-77. Apparently harder to put out than "old napalm". Also, environmentally friendly, surely a reassuring thought for the intended targets. Last used in OIF IIRC.

[Codename Duchess]

The Russians have the RPO and according to Wikipedia we still have the most metal looking weapon of all time (M202 Flash). Plus we still have the Mk-77 incendiary bomb. Personally I have no experience with it but I imagine it's a context needed thing. Plus there's a thermobaric warhead for the Hellfire.

RPO and Flash are both thermobaric weapons. Same end result (actually more lethal) as a flamethrower, but from farther away and lighter. Also less likely to have CNN calling you a war criminal of footage of a rocket launcher than a backpack spitting fire.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

3 hours ago, Jammersix said:

Because American soldiers like to come home.

Everything is a tradeoff. If it can be done faster, cheaper, with fewer people who are younger, lower ranked with less training, with less hardware or with less risk, political fallout or pieces, with equipment that is stamped instead of cast, has a larger magazine, is more accurate at night, in fog, rain and weighs less, it's a dead end.

The advantages of a vehicle mounted or infantry flamethrower have never outweighed the disadvantages.

I'd contend in certain times and places flamethrowers were invaluable, namely the Pacific Theater in World War Two.  But there's nothing modern that invalidates your main statement.  

[VladimirTarasov]

There are weapons similar to flame throwers being used, for example the Russian air force in Syria are targeting ISIS ammunition/training camps with incendiary bombs which are effective because it brings morale to zero and you have ammunition cooking off in flame. How ever using a flame thrower in the infantry scale is a world war 2/world war 1 thing. Who's going to lug around a flammable back pack in a squad to what tactical advantage. There are weapons like RPOs which provides death of a house in one shot at way farther ranges, it's even effective against armored vehicles even tanks. 

[General Melchid]

Thanks for the replies; certainly weapons like RPO do seem to be a sort of replacement with easier use plus the over-pressure effect. I still doubt there's anything more terrifying morale-wise then a flame based attack.

[Codename Duchess]

24 minutes ago, General Melchid said:

I still doubt there's anything more terrifying morale-wise then a flame based attack.

Obviously you've never had to sit through 6 hours of "Don't get drunk off tobacco and rape a motorcycle" power points.

[VladimirTarasov]

7 minutes ago, Codename Duchess said:

Obviously you've never had to sit through 6 hours of "Don't get drunk off tobacco and rape a motorcycle" power points.

They made you watch that in the Navy?  

[Codename Duchess]

They tend to hit us with our "General Military Training" videos all in one day so they blend together and remind me that I could be flying but noooo. I understand the importance of them the first time* but it's usually a pretty soul crushing day of the month, especially since I don't use tobacco, ride motorcycles, or rape things.

Did you guys have anything like that in the Russian Armed Forces? I.e. safety briefings on random things unrelated to your job. I often wonder these things.

*As an officer it's more about knowing how to help your guys rather than worry about yourself although you'd be surprised.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Codename Duchess

[General Melchid]

I think the useless power point presentation is a thing of all Nationalities and transcends the military-civilian divide to be a curse on all men.

Edited June 20, 2016 by General Melchid
spelling

[VladimirTarasov]

3 minutes ago, Codename Duchess said:

They tend to hit us with our "General Military Training" videos all in one day so they blend together and remind me that I could be flying but noooo. I understand the importance of them the first time* but it's usually a pretty soul crushing day of the month, especially since I don't use tobacco, ride motorcycles, or rape things.

Did you guys have anything like that in the Russian Armed Forces? I.e. safety briefings on random things unrelated to your job. I often wonder these things.

*As an officer it's more about knowing how to help your guys rather than worry about yourself although you'd be surprised.

Well it isn't a bad thing to be hit by that in the Russian military we have potato peel sessions  In the Russian military you can be asked to do anything, such as paint the sidewalks paint the walls. In the VDV we didn't really have any safety power points that were not related except for a few "Don't be drunk" notices maybe we did and I forgot.

Most of our briefings well at least for my unit was stuff like how to operate as a unit. And then we'd be taken to the live training and we'd have that one lame guy training us he'd explain things quickly and then be like "Any questions?" and before anyone could say "Yes I do" we'd start the drill  God forbid you did something like shoot the gun when fellow troops are ahead of you. Someone made that mistake and he was "disciplined" on the spot.

However, I'm sure the Russian Air Force probably has similar powerpoints to yours. In Russia we have some things that are quite extra and not needed, so it wouldn't surprise me if VDV now has power points like "Don't eat Vodka and do a parachute drop" or maybe the instructor goes through a lame list of what not to do. 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

10 hours ago, Codename Duchess said:

Obviously you've never had to sit through 6 hours of "Don't get drunk off tobacco and rape a motorcycle" power points.

Motorcycle Rape: The Silent Killer.  If only you had been wearing several reflective belts, eye protection, and forgot there's a female gender, this would have never happened.

Frankly nothing made me more suicidal than the suicide prevention briefs, nor as angry and maladjusted as the fiddy hours of classes before/during/after redeployment.

"HEY WE JUST WASTED A WHOLE YEAR OF YOUR LIFE IN IRAQ, WATCH US WHILE WE STEAL A FEW MORE HOURS ON THE END TO TELL YOU NOT TO BE MAD AND TO EXPECT THINGS TO BE DIFFERENT* WHEN YOU GET BACK" 

Re: "Morale"

The thing with the greatest morale damage to the enemy is killing them in the face.  How it affects their mood so long as it is lethal really is entirely secondary.  

*To be fair, I did walk into Lady Gaga's rise to fame blind, and was rather confused and frankly a little scared.

[sburke]

2 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

  *To be fair, I did walk into Lady Gaga's rise to fame blind, and was rather confused and frankly a little scared.

I still have that problem

[Jammersix]

When I got home, it turned out that Fleetwood Mac hadn't been included on AFKN.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

maaaaaanchuuuuu,

Re: Poker Face

I was totally flopped out.  Like I'd been redeployed on the first plane back to the US because I'd been sent to Kuwait early to be the "last man out" for the Squadron, only to have that tasking be rescinded by the time I was on the ground.  So I was back in the US two weeks early, no apartment, no change of clothes, and I'd gotten into a hotel by basically wedging myself into the back of a friend's family's car.  I wandered into the local 7-11 for food and beverages still reeking of the middle east shortly after checking in, shambled back into the hotel, got cleaned up, threw on the clean pair of PTs I'd stashed in my assault pack and started getting caught up on TV.

By that point I was watching SNL I think.  And then Lady Gaga comes on.  And I was torn between two fundamental lines of thought:

1. Is Madonna making another, even weirder comeback?

2. Is this some sort of Twilight Zone episode, and I'll step outside the next morning to be addressed as "Comrade Solider" in the Soviet of Kansas?

In either event, neither turned out to be true and I spent the next day getting human clothes from the Sears across the way, and giving college students the evil eye at Applebees because I was now a seasoned combat veteran, and full master of powerpoint.  

 

[VladimirTarasov]

LOL I thought my service was hard.

[Sublime]

Lmfaaooo

" giving college students the evil eye bc i was a seasoned combat vet and master of power point"

[Kinophile]

PowerPoint. 

The devils best invention. 

One thing I love about my work in Film and TV is that using PowerPoint to make a creative  pitch is creative death - no one,  absolutely no one will take you seriously.  

I've suffered my time through corporate demos/training. Oh God the children,  save the children! 

Edited June 21, 2016 by kinophile

[Jammersix]

On 6/20/2016 at 5:52 AM, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

I'd contend in certain times and places flamethrowers were invaluable, namely the Pacific Theater in World War Two.  But there's nothing modern that invalidates your main statement.  

Contend away.

What we know is that flamethrowers got the flamethrower gunner killed a lot, in an absolutely horror filled manner, and that in light of their experience using flamethrowers in the Pacific Theatre during World War Two, the American army decided to stop using them. Because as valuable as they may have been (and I contend that a dead gunner is counter productive) it turns out that there are better uses for the lives, materiel, time and treasure. There are more effective ways to kill the enemy.

That's not invaluable.

The M2 is invaluable. The flamethrower concept, not so much.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Jammersix

[Codename Duchess]

They were used to success in Korea and Vietnam. Step-Grandpa was a flamethrowerman in WW2. He died before I could ask but from what I've researched I think the whole tank explosion thing is a Hollywood myth.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

29 minutes ago, Jammersix said:

Contend away.

What we know is that flamethrowers got the flamethrower gunner killed a lot, in an absolutely horror filled manner, and that in light of their experience using flamethrowers in the Pacific Theatre during World War Two, the American army decided to stop using them. Because as valuable as they may have been (and I contend that a dead gunner is counter productive) it turns out that there are better uses for the lives, materiel, time and treasure. There are more effective ways to kill the enemy.

That's not invaluable.

The M2 is invaluable. The flamethrower concept, not so much.

See Duchess's response.  We still had flamethrower tanks into the 70's too.  It's a specialist tool for sure, but reading on Pacific fighting, the flamethrower was an indispensable part of the fighting.  

The exploding tanks thing was indeed an urban legend.  Flamethower operators suffered appalling losses all the same, but it was mostly from carrying 80 lbs of weapon+being a high priority target from folks who object to being on fire.   

[Jammersix]

2 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Flamethower operators suffered appalling losses all the same, but it was mostly from carrying 80 lbs of weapon+being a high priority target from folks who object to being on fire.   

Yup. The very definition of "there has to be a better way."

And there is.

Read Korean war history. It wasn't flamethrowers that did the job.

Why do we still have the M2?

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

I never claimed they were especially effective in Korea.  Just that virtually all accounts I've read of the Pacific in World War Two agree that flamethrowers were very important, and often the only effective measure against Japanese fortifications.  The US Army went as far as to establish an entire tank battalion around flamethrower tanks.  

They're not the ultimate weapon, or even a good idea now, but the consensus seems to be the US Army and USMC both saw flame weapons as desirable well into Vietnam, and while both institutions are capable of remarkable boneheaded decision making, it would seem odd to maintain a weapon that positively was not at all useful ever and only got a lot of people killed every time.  

With precision fires, and better infantry stand-off options, flamethrowers are obsolete eight ways to sunday.  But they had their time and place.