Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: drn@pinet.aip.org (donald_newcomb)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Flamethrowers synopsis
Message-ID: <1991Feb13.221434.5832@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 13 Feb 91 22:14:34 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 61
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: drn@pinet.aip.org (donald_newcomb)

This is the synopsis of responses to my query on flamethrowers.

>From: rja@Eng.Sun.COM (Robert Allen)
>As far as I know we don't use flamethrowers, per se, any more.  We
>do however have a 4 shot, reloadable, shoulder launched flame weapon.
>The name escapes me, but you can see what it looks like in the Arnold
>movie, Commando (I make no comments on how realistic it looks in the
>movie).  This weapon is really not the same as a true flamethrower, but
>supposedly it does fire flame rockets.

Hummm. Can anyone elucidate us about this?

>From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
>Modern preference is to use rockets with incendiary warheads instead;
>they have longer range and are less dangerous to carry.  The danger in
>carrying a flamethrower is that you have to get quite close to use it,
>and *everybody* will be shooting at you.  Even noncombatants like medics
>tend to grab the nearest gun and open fire when a flamethrower appears.
>
>Iraq may still have some, but they are long obsolete in Western armies.

The flamethrower may well be the "red headed step child" of the
battlefield. Some are regarded as only slightly less dangerous to
the troops using them as they are to those upon whom they are
used. The Soviet LPO-50 has three fuel cylinders, each one of
which is pressurized by an explosive charge. I believe that once
a charge is fired the stream continues until the fuel is all
used. If the operator meets with some unfortunate accident
during this process (e.g. getting shot) the uncontrolled
flamethrower may well hose down his comrades with napalm. Not
exactly to endear yourself to others 8-). For a photo of the
LPO-50 in Iraqui service see page 28 of the _Time Magazine_ issue
of 11 Feb. 1991.

>From: tnc!m0229@uunet.uu.net
> If you'll look at Jane's AFV roster under the M113 family you'll see
>a Flame varient. I myself have seen them organic to Division Engineer
>Battalions while I was on active duty. They mount a flame nozzel with
>a m240 7.62 coaxelly in a sealed turret.

During Vietnam flamethrowers were also mounted in river monitors.

>From: techno@lime.in-berlin.de (Techno)
>As far as I know, flamethrowers are banned by the Geneva convention.
>I consider this a good thing.

I checked a copy of the Hague and Geneva Conventions out of the
library and couldn't find flamethrowers. Article XXIII of the
second Hague Convention (1899) prohibits the use of poison and
"arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous
injury." I doubt that this has been interperted to include flame-
throwers as they have been used in every war since WWI and fire
has been a valid implement of war since prehistory. Comments
anyone?

Donald Newcomb
drn@pinet.aip.org