Dillweed Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 Do we still use 'em? I was wonder that a while ago. I imagine that some engineer units still have a few rattling around, but don't really brag about it for obvious reasons. Kinda like napalm From the ASAKW: "The United States officially destroyed its last container of napalm in a public ceremony in 1991, however it had reportedly been using napalm-like incendiaries in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In August 2003, the Pentagon confirmed the use of Mark 77 firebombs (codenamed MK77s). 'We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches,' said Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11. 'Unfortunately there were people there ... you could see them in the cockpit video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect.' These bombs contain a substance 'remarkably similar' to napalm. This substance is made with kerosene, a polystyrene derivative, and other additives." Not expecting to see FTs in CMSF, just kinda curious. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellfish Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 I don't know if there are infantry-level flame or thermobaric weapons in the US. I never saw any when I was in and the latest one I'd ever heard about was the M202 Flash, from the early 70s or so. There are thermobaric versions of Soviet missiles and RPGs, though. Actually, now that I think about it there may be a thermobaric version of the AT4 LAW for the US now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dillweed Posted October 11, 2005 Author Share Posted October 11, 2005 I didn't see 'em either but I would imagine they generally don't let medics (in training) use 'em. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imported_Captain_Wacky Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 Originally posted by fytinghellfish: I don't know if there are infantry-level flame or thermobaric weapons in the US. I never saw any when I was in and the latest one I'd ever heard about was the M202 Flash, from the early 70s or so. There are thermobaric versions of Soviet missiles and RPGs, though. Actually, now that I think about it there may be a thermobaric version of the AT4 LAW for the US now. The SMAW can fire a thermobaric rocket 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 Flame weapons are prohibited in Canada, apparently some international convention against their use? Don't know if the US is a signatory to that or not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoat Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Flame weapons are prohibited in Canada, apparently some international convention against their use? Don't know if the US is a signatory to that or not. The 1980 Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons deals specifically with the Use of Incendiary Weapons, and their use against civilians. That one? Ha, since when does the US sign international conventions? Certainly didn't sign this one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoat Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 We just have some benzene with kerosene or jet fuel mixture that we jerry-rigged to drop on whomever the Marines please. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dillweed Posted October 11, 2005 Author Share Posted October 11, 2005 Originally posted by stoat: We just have some benzene with kerosene or jet fuel mixture that we jerry-rigged to drop on whomever the Marines please. From the sound of it the MK-77s are actually worse, harder to put out too. But they don't use gasoline, so they aren't napalm. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoat Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 Originally posted by Dillweed: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by stoat: We just have some benzene with kerosene or jet fuel mixture that we jerry-rigged to drop on whomever the Marines please. From the sound of it the MK-77s are actually worse, harder to put out too. But they don't use gasoline, so they aren't napalm. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 How about the "house guest" used today in Iraq? Does it count? (...propane bottle + some C-4 explosive = warm adios to the occupants of the dwelling.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dillweed Posted October 11, 2005 Author Share Posted October 11, 2005 Originally posted by stoat: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dillweed: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by stoat: We just have some benzene with kerosene or jet fuel mixture that we jerry-rigged to drop on whomever the Marines please. From the sound of it the MK-77s are actually worse, harder to put out too. But they don't use gasoline, so they aren't napalm. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoat Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 Note how it says modern "napalm". The quotation marks explain it all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beastttt Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 that would be an air-fuel explosion c4 to burst the bottle and let the contents fill an area then a delay fuse to ignite the gassed area causing a lot of overpressure damage but little burn damage Originally posted by gunnergoz: How about the "house guest" used today in Iraq? Does it count? (...propane bottle + some C-4 explosive = warm adios to the occupants of the dwelling.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dillweed Posted October 11, 2005 Author Share Posted October 11, 2005 Originally posted by stoat: Note how it says modern "napalm". The quotation marks explain it all. I see your swartz is a big as mine, but do you know how to use it? My original point was that the US may indeed still use flamethrows, just call them something different. Just as they have with napalm. I think that we can all agree that a jellied petrol bomb is one of the more horrible ways to die offered up by modern military science, regarless of the type of petrol used or the stabalizing agent. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodyBucket Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 No flamethrowers that I am aware of. Yes, there is a modern version of Napalm that was used during OIF. The only infantry version of a "flame weapon" that I know of currently is the old WP grenade, mostly used to destroy equiptment. I have wondered if the old flamethrower might have been useful in Afghanistan in some of those caves. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixxkiller Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 I have spent 2 tours in Afghanistan and we didnt use any form of a "flamethrower" nor since I have been in have I been trained to use or even seen one. Not saying it wouldnt have its uses, but I would hate to be the guy who has to lug it through the mountain passes or be around him in a firefight. Just not practicle in this type of environment. -Ray 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassh Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 Why use a flamethrower when you can use the m72 HH or M141 BDM? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undead reindeer cavalry Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 flamethrowers? wait till we get the Russian module that comes with TOS-1. here's some sweet 220mm thermobaric goodness for you: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drusus Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 In the Small Unit Tactics AAR thread there is mentioned that molotov coktails are in use: Molotov cocktails - one part liquid laundry detergent, two parts gasoline - Used when contact is made in a house and the enemy must be burned out 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juan_gigante Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 After the German 337mm incindieries in CMx1 games, anything's going to be a let down. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodyBucket Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 "Why use a flamethrower when you can use the m72 HH or M141 BDM?" Good question. There may be situations where the above mentioned munitions might not be suitable, and there is also the morale effect of the "traditional" flamethrower. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 Originally posted by BloodyBucket: "Why use a flamethrower when you can use the m72 HH or M141 BDM?" Good question. There may be situations where the above mentioned munitions might not be suitable, and there is also the morale effect of the "traditional" flamethrower. AIUI that cuts both ways. Finding people who will operate flamethrowers is a non-trivial problem. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasper 2x Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 The USA did have the M202A1 Flame Assault Shoulder Weapon (Flash) http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/flame/M202.html [ October 11, 2005, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: Jasper 2x ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.