/k/ - Weapons

>>539979

Yes.

>>539979

Aren't the distances in our current battles just too far for effective flamethrowers?

Not the super soaker ones. Everything else yes.

Not really, they were even niche back in their heyday. A bit bulky to be used in very close range combat, don't forget collateral damage, and useless at longer combat ranges. You also have to produce new weapons, parts, and ammunition/fuel, which is a whole other logistical can of worms.

I think most military's today have taken on the attitude of

>why bother

towards flamethrowers. For example, they may find use in ukraine or syria(The only two major theaters involving city fighting) , but not enough to bother with them when you can just use guns, bombs, explosives ect.

>>539987

Forgot to mention thermobaric bombs, which are also much more useful than flamethrowers.

>>539979

No, the distance is to short.

They've been replaced by thermobaric bombs- hell in a can.

>>539988 (czeched)

This is true. Russkies stopped using napalm because thermobarics are more effective. Didnt sign a treaty, do soul searching, or get criticized into it by libs. They dumped napalm over performance issues.

They kill structures better because theyre the ultimate HEP/HESH weapon. They set fires better because their thermal radiation is thousands of degrees celsius, enough to vaporise dry vegetation. They kill unbottoned armor as gas can penetrate in it and kill people, and even exploding outside ensures mission kills. And thermobarics kill people better because pressure pops their lungs, and unexploded ordnance is a potent chemical weapon.

Its superior to napalm in every way. Downsides against HE are lower ability against (buttoned up) armor, and shorter ranges. HE can send frag for hundreds of meters, but thermobaric has no frag.

>>540003

I wonder if napalm would make a comeback if there were cities where one couldn't just thermobaricly bomb it.

>>540003

>thermobaric has no frag

Would adding a frag layer around a thermobaric warhead prevent it from operating normally? The pressure involved should be enough to send shrapnel at ridiculous speeds for at least a few hundred meters.

>>540008

tl:dr Not sure.

Thermobarics have 2 explosions. First is a small bursting charge that spreads the thermobaric mixture out and lets it mix with air. Second charge sets off the actual explosion. If the second charge is mis-timed, you dont get a full detonation.

Thats why frag casing cant work, the real explosion happens after the mixture is spread out.

>>540010

>Thats why frag casing cant work, the real explosion happens after the mixture is spread out.

That sounds like a good reason for no frag with thermobaric warheads. Then again, with the mix of 'hellfire' and 'pressure wave resembling the fist of an angry god' it shouldn't need frag.

Hehe, just pictured pitching replacing all standard HE with thermobarics for howitzer/mortar shells, bombs, rocket launchers, grenades etc for all NATO armies because the lack of fragmentation limits collateral damage. :^) Even if that is complete and obvious horseshit it would have to be effective against pretty much everything except ridiculously overbuilt, superheavy, tanks - and even if they button up with full CBRN pressure seals etc that's got to be a mobility kill at least.

>>540003

Technically Russia call all it's thermobaric weapons "flamethrowers".

In the sense they do the same thing flamethrowers did (but better. For starters they're rocket launched).

Flamethrowers never killed anyone by setting them on fire, they killed by burning the oxygen in the air (causing immediate asphyxiation/searing of lungs) and creating quick waves of overpressure (nature hates emptiness, if you quickly deplete oxygen, nearest oxygen try to replace the missing one = wind. Really fast wind = overpressure).

The incendiary nature, while powerful psychologically, is a side effect of the physical phenomena that make the flamethrower such a powerful weapon against enclosed positions.

Anyone close enough to a flamethrower flame is dead long before his gear/flesh catches fire.

That's the big problem with the "incendiary weapon treaty" thing.

The USAF was fucking trigger happy with napalm (go ask North Korea. Vietnam got tiny doses of napalm compared to NK), but the thing with napalm (I'm not even sure they actually put napalm in flamethrowers) the infantry used never was primarily used to actually set shit on fire.

>>540008

>The pressure involved should be enough to send shrapnel at ridiculous speeds for at least a few hundred meters.

Not really. Mainly because thermobaric weapons have an already stupid kill radius, it's dubious adding shrapnel would do anything to increase it while you would add weight. IF you can add weight just put more thermobaric compound.

>>539985

No, your infantry just isn't motivated enough in that case.

>>539985

Fuck no. Ranges have decreased due to increased urban conflict.

So thermobaric rifle grenades are the way of the future?

>>540044

[Hungarian Throat Singing]

>>539985

>What are rockets, the post

>>540044

Only if they weight ~250g and can be used as hand grenades too.

>>540048

Vid related.

>>539979

I overheard a vet talking about how he used a flamethrower in Vietnam to repel gooks carrying explosives through the wire in a night time raid. They would pop a flare and see them crawling in their loins with a satchel to blow up the big guns and burn the fuckers as they tried to cut through. Turns out they're a great terror weapon when your enemies are only a few meters from you and are trying to advance.

>>540216

Oh, we postan historical music nao?

>>540216

more like this