/k/ - Weapons

>>628355

As far as morale goes, flamethrowers are great against your enemy when they're used, but until then are a 'walking dead man' syndrome so it's a double edged sword. Honestly if it were my platoon I wouldn't use them. Incendiary grenades and molotov's would suffice.

Incendiary weapon sounds like the perfect urban weapon to me.

Imagine that instead of just knocking it down, or go in doing CQC shit that is very dangerous, you just burn it down, or torch down the interior. The high temperature, smoke and lack of oxygen will kill alone, no need for the flame.

Is that a war crime?

>>628544

>war crime this war crime that

The US dropping the nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the UK burning down Drezda are the two undeniable examples that it's not a war crime if you win. Don't even get me started on the Soviets…

>>628553

Man, the US could have done this instead of focusing all the money on muh air strikes.

I want a 500 yard flame thrower. That's all I want.

>>628553

Thermobaric weapons aren't flamethrowers though. They don't set anything on fire. They spread "fuel" in the air and give it a millisecond to spread and mix with the oxygen before detonating everything. This generates a big explosion, not a flame, and it will not set anything on fire either.

>>628523

> The sheer amount of still births and miscarriages is frightful enough from agent orange

They didn't know it would do that then. It certainly wasn't done on purpose.

Assuming 9/11 went the way it did purely due to fires and not pre-rigged demolition charges, how many flamethrowers would one need to flatten Manhattan?

What exactly was the chemical composition of that Greek Fire stuff?

>>628648

>incendiary lasers

It's seem I've found a tiny little ray of hope for the future.

>>628709

Depends on who you ask. To me, the most likely solution was naptha, resin, and quicklime (CaO). However, people have also suggested bitumen, animal fat, sulfur, potassium bitartrate, and saltpeter, which I think may have been used as well, though to what degrees I don't know.

>>628721 was it true that Greek fire combusted when exposed to air? Or did it first need spark or flame to immolate?

>>628640

A flame isn't the same as an explosion. One is a prolonged burning process causing a slow release of energy in the form of heat to the surrounding area, the other is a quick expansion of hot gasses with the intent of creating a shock-wave.

>>628653

Lots. An average 737 has a fuel capacity of roughly 50 to 70 tonns.

Assuming that this is the exact amount of fuel required to weaken an average building to the point of collapse (which it is not), you would need 6.5 to 9,1 thousand tonns to destroy the 130 tallest buildings of New York City. However: there are more than 6000 registered "highrise" buildings and many many more just below that limit.

6.5 thousand tonns of Kerosene costs roughly 32.5 million US dollars, not counting for rebate on buying large quantities, or the cost of transport/storage.

However: this calculation is absolute dogshit.

How much fuel it takes to make a building collapse depends entirely on the building, and the way you start the fire. Using existing furniture (or cars in an underground garage) to keep the fire going will drastically increase the temperature of the fire. Smoke detectors and sprinklers can ruin your plans entirely. Closing all windows before starting the fire will mean that less oxygen enters the building, and thus it will not burn as hot.

Some older buildings still use wood, which will burn like hell, other modern ones have hallways designed in a way that heat is transferred away from structural elements. You would need to either douse the entire city in fuel, or autistically inspect each building, plan how you start the fire, and how you will ignite all of them at once, causing the fire services to be completely overwhelmed.