Why is the flammenwerfer obsolete and not used in warfare anymore? did the Geneva conventions forbid it? it was great for clearing out bunkers.
Why is the flammenwerfer obsolete and not used in warfare anymore? did the Geneva conventions forbid it...
Michael Brooks
Other urls found in this thread:
taskandpurpose.com
twitter.com
Gabriel Sullivan
Thermobaric munitions do it better, further, safer and more flexibly.
Brayden Torres
>hey dude, strap these fuckhuge tanks of gasoline on your back and run over to that building over there while under fire
Easton Cook
Heavy, bulky, dangerous to user, makes you a target, risk of accidentally torching civies in urban environments, needs speciality fuel/ammo, bad optics.
Lucas Morgan
I don't think gasoline blows up when shot.
Ryder Parker
yep flame weapons banned
Lincoln Hughes
No but it'll definitely fucking burn
Lincoln Roberts
Trips of truth, plus we arent fighting entrenched Asians anymore.
Anthony Diaz
>this
Sand people country is far too open for the proper use of flamethrowers anyway
Caleb Smith
Which is why White phosphorous is a thing
Camden Hall
Maybe in the movies you fucking child, lol. Even tracers go out when they hit gasoline.
Jacob Bailey
anyone order some well done kebabs
Zachary Fisher
Because a rocket with a fuel-air warhead does the bunker clearing thing in a far more handy package with several times the range.
Lucas Barnes
It's forbidden by the IHL.
Rule 70. The use of means and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering is prohibited.
Rule 85. The anti-personnel use of incendiary weapons is prohibited, unless it is not feasible to use a less harmful weapon to render a person hors de combat.
Isaac Nelson
gasoline doesn't, but compressed nitrogen does
Jeremiah Sullivan
>heavy
>slow
>questionable safety
>pathetic range
>limited capacity
>grenades and munitions do the same thing but not retarded
I wonder.
Brandon Bailey
Because the smell made soldiers too hungry.
Gavin Walker
They use it in china all the time. Granted it isn't exactly "warfare", but I'd assume they'd use it there too.
Ryan Cook
Because they are fucking trash
>68 lbs
>empty in 7 seconds
Fuck that
Parker White
>obsolete
Except it's not.
>not used in warfare
Except it is.
Jason Richardson
In the USA, cops use "smoke grenades" to do the same thing. RIP Dorner.
Elijah Parker
This.
Plus,Willy Pete is more handy and has more uses.
Kayden Cooper
Why does this thread appear every week?
It always the same stupid shit.
Leo Ross
Yeah but not when they hit gasoline vapors. Lrn 2 science
Ryder Edwards
Bentley Robinson
That's clearly not what he meant you dumb nigger
David Cox
If theres a spark it will
Austin Diaz
TOS-1 killed more terrorists in Syria than any other ground-based weapons system.
Brody Hughes
triplo sette su ogni cosa
also if someone could go to war and at least expect with good probability that he won't face a flamethrower, that'd be nice, seen that there are already enough torchings in current war without flamethrowers
Eli Butler
lbs
>>empty in 7 seconds
My balls when the wife finally puts out
Gabriel Bailey
It is, kinda.
>A U.S. Army soldier uses a flamethrower to ignite a controlled fire near Al Anaflsah, Iraq, to eliminate brush from roadsides so bombs cannot be concealed, Sept. 11, 2008. The soldiers are assigned to the 25th Infantry Division's 66th Engineer Company.
More seriously, there are some calling for its return as there are niche environments in which man-portable flame weapon would be useful;
taskandpurpose.com
So long as the public associates it with napalm and crispy vietnamese children, rather than a weapon that kills by oxygen deprivation, doubt that happens.