Why don't modern armies use flamethrowers?

Slightly related but I want to post this, found some fellas bachelors thesis on thermobarics
researchgate.net/publication/322553927_Use_of_Thermobaric_Weapons

Flamethrowers were really useful in an era before man-portable thermobaric and HE rockets, and that era was a long time ago.

*cough*
I have something to say
*ahem*
FUCK INFANTRY

Attached: 20181211063422_1.jpg (1920x1080, 472K)

The US didn't sign the Geneva Convention, they just unofficially follow it.

Holy shit. retard.

Heavy
Wierd logistics
Dangerous to the user
Bad PR

Why don't you just ask google before posting on here, even a 15 year old could figure this shit out.

>wasting time googling shit
>when you can just ask the spoonfeeding board and they'll bitch and moan but ultimately do your homework for you
this is why you dont fuck

Wrong, faggot

Attached: 6D0B0EEF-5154-4A26-9126-1E064EDB38DF.jpg (4032x3024, 3.25M)

Attached: AgonizingBlandBlueandgoldmackaw.webm (400x214, 213K)

Why the fuck is poison banned.

Poison doesn't stick to kids.

non-discriminating weapon. same reason we dont use chemical weapons.

We only use racist weapons?

Enemies must be eliminated with extreme prejudice.

pretty much. when's the last time we killed any white guys? about the same time mustard was last used.

Werfing flammen is dangerous because you have a big target on your back that can hurt your friends.

>The United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW or CCWC), concluded at Geneva on October 10, 1980, and entered into force in December 1983, seeks to prohibit or restrict the use of certain conventional weapons which are considered excessively injurious or whose effects are indiscriminate. The full title is Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects. The convention covers landmines, booby traps, incendiary weapons, blinding laser weapons and clearance of explosive remnants of war.

I was wrong about them bieng banned, but they apear to be heavily restricted or banned in areas where civilains are present. This makes them super useful in modern warfare which tends to be in urban areas, right? Plus the media and public would have a fucking stroke if they filmed the effects.
>retard
I do try anons.

>media would have a stroke if they filmed effects in modern battlefield
unironically this, i can already hear the typing of angry animal healthcare members... weapons is a weapon, it was designed to do its job, but OH NOOOES ITS TOO BRUTAL... how do you fight enemy then ? beg them to surrender ? throw potates at em ?

Again, vehicle mounted weapons

This.

First off we are fighting against guerrilla warfare, flamethrowers are good against emplacements and there are just not enough of those, then even if there were emplacements an airstrike or gunrun from the brrrt machine would be 100x more effective than a outdated form of weaponry

I'm sorry for calling you a retard user, laws of war just trigger my autism

>throw potates at em
better make sure youre not fighting the IRA, itd just make em stronger

>retard
Doesn't that just mean average Jow Forumsommando

How do you fight enemies? Give them citizenship in your country, let them drive over your christmas markets and rape your women without punishment. God i hate bieng a eurocuck

Flamethrowers are an incredibly demoralizing weapon. Think about everything around you. Now think of it all on fire. Guerillas don't have anywhere to hide if you burn down all the hidey spots.

Aparently a lot of german soldiers would instantly surrender if they saw a crocodile tank aproaching, no fucking wonder

There was that time last year when Russian PMCs assaulted a position held by Americans, and they got obliterated by air assets.

because white fucking phosphorous

Russians do.

>be me, Spec Ops: The Line
>player gets to point in game
>Hey player, I need you to willy your peter all over these nasty-ass civilians.
>Player: no I don’t wanna
>me: fuck you, do it or quit playing
>Player: fine.
>me: YOU FUCKIN MONSTER
>me: le_troll_faic.jaypeggybundy

>A thread about flamethrowers
>Vatnik posts a rocket launcher

Retard, atleast Chinese enthusiasts post well meaning posts with factual information, vatniks just post anything. That's why Americans believes Chinese posts more.

>entire country is hidey spots

sounds like a great plan

Because faggot liberals get their feel-feels triggered by some gook getting lit up like a Christmas tree.

LOL no one gives a shit about the Geneva Convention dude. What do you think "enhanced interrogation" is?

Attached: flamethrower.jpg (1022x589, 111K)

There is always a strategic application for incinerating non-whites

Attached: last good cod game.jpg (1280x720, 125K)

French combat engineers still use them (here on an open days demonstration)
youtube.com/watch?v=DbVZFoNE01U
I know Italy designed a modern flamethrower in the the late 90s, too.

Sadly, like mines, documentation is scarce on those weapons.

Here is the treaty
ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=14FEADAF9AF35FA9C12563CD0051EF1E

You're not supposed to use any weapon on civilians, but particular precautions are to be taken with incendiary devices because fire spreads (duh), in order to avoid people shooting a ton of flares at worthless dry savannah upwind the refugee camp, and claiming the resulting fire was lawful because they didn't directly target them.
As you can see in the link you can still use them in most circumstances.

Thermobaric or incendiary rockets have remplaced flamethrowers in most of their roles. So it is factual information, sorta.
RPO Rys, RPO-A Shmel, M202 Flash, AGI 3x40, FHJ-84, SMAW-NE, ammo for regular rocket launchers, rifle grenades, and so on...

Bit harder to cover up roasting some peanuts than waterboarding some hajis though is'nt it

What now?

youtube.com/watch?v=hERBw71NjCo

You're not allowed to throw potatoes in case they're allergic to them!

flamethrower thread?

Attached: 3910ed2d34f667853ef9d22e6edba945.jpg (1280x836, 132K)

Attached: c15721960de1fc737ec4923d1e66d4a9.jpg (432x500, 51K)

flamethrower Stuar tank in the pacific

Attached: TW1wZG0.png (469x329, 199K)

Attached: 3931285.jpg (1890x3490, 111K)

Flamethrower variant of the "hetzer"

Attached: 16154480971_d836f5d623_b.jpg (1022x542, 177K)

Sexy

Flamethrower variant of the Char B1

Attached: charbp5s04-3481980185b8596add42976a7f7c3762.jpg (928x515, 151K)

They do, but are reserved for special occasions

Attached: 1535518308014.jpg (1458x1161, 208K)

This works both ways though.
Most soldiers can probably stomach seeing enemy bodies killed by shrapnel or "minor" explosions. Not pretty, but generally it's not that much more horrifying than bullet wounds. And they room they have to secure is pretty nice, if you ignore the little holes everywhere, the occasional blood splatter and stuff like that. Now imagine you have to enter, secure and check or even hold a room where just moments before someone from your squad emptied half of his flamethrower into.

Any recent source on that? They have some nice thermobaric launchers, I can't see why they would bother with flamethrowers.
The only army I can think of that actually has them as their regular doctrine is China, and even they only use it to burn Muslims hiding in their jungles.

Attached: 1401113073896.gif (300x224, 1.72M)

OP clearly stated 'modern armies'.

Attached: 7318838312_387856a076.jpg (500x330, 121K)

Attached: 7271582402_e95f3bdac8_b.jpg (631x714, 150K)

Attached: French FT.jpg (525x719, 82K)

Why are flamethrowers not used any longer? The answer is simple- flamethrowers are very good at what they do, but are very limited in what they can do. If you're clearing prepared fortifications, yes, flamethrowers are incredibly useful. However, that's not a very common problem in today's environment. Furthermore, flamethrowers have a problem of being bulky, heavy, vulnerable due to high visibility of use and high priority of shooting where the flame is coming from, and, most importantly, extremely short ranged for everything but vehicle mounted projectors. If you can achieve most of the same effects with thermobaric rockets from longer range, and using a launcher you can easily put down, why in the world wouldn't you?

that's the same thing that killed givi, right? does the us have an equivalent?

They're heavy, bulky, and have extremely limited capacity if not mounted to a vehicle. I won't give you any fuddlore about how they'll ignite if shot but generally speaking I think it's both a metaphorical and literal weight off of shoulders to not have to carry them. Webm related was the M2 flamethrower replacement. Better range, lighter, disposable, and as an added bonus less likely to fuck your knees up.

Attached: M202 FLASH.webm (600x480, 1.23M)

Fields

Attached: Flammenwerfer.jpg (398x334, 31K)

Attached: flamethrower2.jpg (1500x960, 221K)

I'm amazed no one gets wise to this machine gun thing. Seems pretty obvious what someone's doing when they're not aiming at you.

Bunkers could make a hidden gun slit for snipers to look for the real threat.

Those men were merely Russian tourists that went on a back packing trip to Syria and got lost on their way back to their base camp. The Russian MoD is working to ensure that no such future tragedy occurs by providing Russian tourists with better maps and GPS.

lol.

The name is quite funny

Attached: Panzer_II_Flamingo_Sd_Kfz_122.jpg (1100x719, 110K)

>Now imagine you have to enter, secure and check or even hold a room where just moments before someone from your squad emptied half of his flamethrower into.
Sounds like Tarawa, Guadalcanal and a thousand incidents on other islands during the war.

Being a flamethrower operator was one of the best ways to get shot immediately if you were captured, though.

When you have no fuel for the flamethrower left, impale the enemies on your tank.

Attached: clawtank.jpg (656x422, 92K)

Why would they need to?

Looks cool

Attached: 14650460446_396a61caa6_b.jpg (517x960, 124K)

Attached: Hast du mal Feuer.jpg (1000x1444, 128K)

Sounds like a good tactic in vietnam

Its called guns

Vietnam in a nutshell.

>here's your flamethrower bro

Attached: tos-1-buratino-3d-model-obj-3ds-fbx-c4d.jpg (676x380, 23K)

NOOT NOOT MOTHERFUCKERS

Attached: 1452890542562.gif (499x281, 1.52M)

>20kg of metal and napalm
>Does the same thing a Willy Pete grenade can do or an Air Strike
y tho

Attached: 1468558340433.jpg (765x539, 100K)

pretty sure 90% of the flamethrower dudes died

the Lügenpresse is falling apart, Günther. Soon.

Flamethrowers were used in Nam right, didn't they get banned shortly after that?

They were never banned, but the US stopped using them instead of superior alternatives.

>testing incendiary weapons by firing at the woods

no, it's called flamable rocket launcher. or something like that.