Why did the US stop using flame weapons?

This would have been useful in Iraq where it took 20 TOW missiles to knock down a concrete building.

Attached: Chinese-terror-flamethrower-396749.jpg (590x350, 52K)

Because
>boohoohoo muh human rights
>muh Geneva Convention

>muh Geneva Convention
Did it ban flame weapons?

This.
>tfw the Geneva convention is still applied to fanatical terrorist who don’t follow the same rules

Attached: DD461265-1DEF-448F-BCA1-5262A3AD039C.jpg (620x424, 110K)

I think it banned napalm and white phosphorus. Or there's some other UN declaration banning them (though the US often doesn't give a shit).

Or are you talking about stuff like incendiary/tracer/Dragon's Breath rounds?

I think the "future war" people that thought all war would be fought from the air got a hold of it.

Attached: Screenshot 2019-03-16 at 11.02.46 AM.png (1189x251, 62K)

Flame weapons were never banned. They're just not very effective at anything except clearing a structure you can safely get within a few yards of. Plus in today's world of instant social media it's bad optics to have a grinning soldier standing in front of a pile of burning corpses.

Nobody banned flamethrowers. Its just for the west, it became considered obsolete and favored other delivery devices for thermobaric weapons such as aircraft, rockets, etc.

The Chinese continue to use it largely because what you've seen so far are videos from the People's Armed Police, who are tasked with anti-smuggler/terror/insurgency duties. They can't and won't drop munitions on their own country just to kill some druggies/terrorists/crossborder smugglers, so they root them out old style with boots on the ground.

That, and the Chinese flamethrower has ridiculous range.

Attached: Chinese Flamethrower2.jpg (480x393, 29K)

>obsolete
Just a way to sell a new fancy overpriced thermobaric weapons.

>obsolete
It's obsolete when you can rain fire from the sky instead of paying sacks of meat to walk it to your targets front door.

Willie Pete can still be used, but not against personnel. Not that Israel cares much about following goyim rules.

The Geneva concretion is about how to treat prisoners and such, it says nothing about weapons. It's the Hague conventions that cover that, and they have no issues with flamethrowers (they're both from before WW1 and basically fine with anything used in either world war). The one thing that does talk abotu incendiary weapons, "Protocol III to the 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" don't prohibit the use of any incendiary weapon in general, only their use when it's likely to end up burning a bunch of civilians. The only incendiary that can be a bit questionable is white phosphorus, since that's toxic enough to have issues with the ban on chemical weapons.

Anyone telling you flamethrowers are banned by international treaty is a liar, and idiot, or both.

Maybe actually know what you are talking about.
It can't be used against civilians. Same with the other incendiary weapons.

This question is so simple to google. Why do we need to have this thread twice a week?

>you can rain fire from the sky instead of paying sacks of meat to walk it to your targets front door.
When did this happen? That isn't how the Battle of Fallujah went down.

Attached: 920x920.jpg (920x668, 59K)

>WP
Burning leather triangles do no incinerate people.

>Geneva
>the Hague
My former neocon ways get them mixed up. I still see both of 'em as passive-aggressive Eurocucks telling us how we can and can't deal with threats to Israel.

>can
Operative words eh?
Crayon eaters participating in urban combat and throwing their meatshields into the grinder on repeat until they take the city has no bearing on said tactics being obsolete or not.

If there is a building you want to burn down full of men with guns do you walk up to it with a flamethrower or rain fire from heaven?

Then why are grenades still in the doctrine?

Because sometimes air support is unavailable and nobody wants to be the first man to walk into an unexploded room

>Because sometimes air support is unavailable

Attached: thereitis.gif (390x205, 2.07M)

Air support not being unlimited =! flamethrowers and grenades being obsolete.

Air support is always superior, any action on the ground is making due or policing.

>=! flamethrowers and grenades not* being obsolete.

>Air support is always superior,
Total war is superior in every way.

>This would have been useful in Iraq where it took 20 TOW missiles to knock down a concrete building.

No, this is where you call in someone to set and detonate explosives in the support structures.

>detonate explosives in the support structures.
Have you seen how they build? They don't understand engineering so they overbuild.

Dangerous for the user. Physically (you are slow target with explosive/flammable backpack) and psychologically (screams of burning people).

Isn't that what the m202 flash or whatever is for?

all the homosexuals in the military requested them

Napalm is cheap, TOWs are expensive, expensive means some kike or some kikes minion gets to line their pockets

The u.s. never signed that you stupid fuck. We're just nice enough to play along.

>Air support is always superior
Artillery is better, Ruskie flamethrower artillery is even better

>Piles of Rubble in the desert
Its what there countries become, because they refuse to build cheap

Building cheap has advantages, it makes messes easier to clean up and remove, and makes rebuilding snappy and quick

hague. hague convention. geneva convention is treatment of POWs, hague convention is weapons of war

Shooting a jet of flames sounds bitchin', until you have to carry a backpack of heavy, flammable fuel that can obviously be shot at, just to have a few seconds of fire if you're just that stupid or pyromaniacal.

>Maybe actually know what you are talking about.
I was mistaken. It cannot be used against civilians and cannot be used in civilian areas under the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Protocol III. Its use against military targets and enemy combatants is still legal.

Transporting flamethrower everything is costlier than just replacing that with more ammo. Which is more effective really. I cant believe they transported all that gelled napalm during the logistical nightmare of the pacific theater.

So your plan is to burn concrete??

You're actually one of the few to admit they got details wrong and do further research.
Sorry for the earlier snark and have a great day.

Attached: nozzle.jpg (578x800, 52K)