Why Did The Military Stop Using Flamethrowers?
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 06. 2023
- Check out one of our FULL VIDEOS: How Advanced Weapons Are Changing The Nature Of War
• Video
#army #military #navy #usarmy #usmilitary #usnavy #ukraine #militarytraining #veterans #marines #marinecorps #tank #artillery #navyseals - Zábava
![[CHUCKLES IN FLAMMENWERFER] | Enlisted](/img/n.gif)
Also Geneva Convention kind of bans them, also better incendiary weapons that require less risk were produced... couldn't fit that all into the 1 min unfortunately.
Check out one of our FULL VIDEOS: How The M109 Became A Battlefield Legend
czcams.com/video/oWNqDtSUrXg/video.html
It actually doesn't. People just asume that.
@@DesislavJeliazkovexactly, ive always been saying that but i didnt realise that they actually have been banned for awhile
@@DesislavJeliazkov the government got around that by considering it a tool not a weapon, if your holding a tool and don't have an easy to access weapon you can get away with using it in self defense.
Damn Geneva Suggestions
Flamethrowers and any incendiary weapons are banned by the Geneva conventions against CIVILIAN TARGETS, they are not banned when used against military targets in any way, shape, or form
The moment you light up your flamethrower, every single enemy combatant
starts shooting at you. All of them.
Yeah. If you're a flamethrower your government won't have to worry about giving you a military pension.
Bruh, how the fuck did they even get soldiers to put these things on? I’d rather be walking around with dynamite in my fucking bag, at least if you get shot it’s instant death. I can only imagine there’s a few seconds of indescribable pain when your fucking flamethrower blows up on your back
You’ll be surprised how many flamethrowers survived
@@that_kidjay7911I'd guess 3 lol
Of course the ones in the trenches were quickly deleted however.
The tanks when pressurized are remarkably bullet resistant. Large caliber weapons will still penetrate but small arms weapons won’t do much.
Not to mention the curvature would have saved a couple people’s asses too
Came here to mention this same thing.
I was going to say the same thing, funny that we have to correct this video maker on his facts. I believe the real reason they stopped using them was because it went against the Geneva conventions.
@@HK41731 I don’t remember them being banned, I thought it was just because they just became impractical due to the environments the conflicts where in
@@nathanr950 yes I believe you’re right
My Uncle used a flame throwers in WWII. It not only was a psychological weapon on the enemy, it also worked on the soldiers that used them! Think about it...these guys saw a live human burn to death. It hit some soldiers harder than others....
Kinda wondered how those guys in particular were affected when they came back home & all the ghost followed them .
I've heard most of them came back total vegetarians because they couldn't stand the smell of burnt flesh
@@rickymeadows5176 PTSD and a Lot of suicides, even in the 90 s and 2000s with the modern wars Like the Irak Mission
@@rickymeadows5176I remember an article saying a lot of men came back and became serial killers due to the horrors of ww2. And also ww1 too. After the two great wars lot of unsolved murders happened that could be tired to single individuals. There was no VA and no help. Sure there were lots of suicides but a lot of men didn't kill themselves and still couldn't cope
I'd say, did he have any mishaps I wonder
In ww2 when flamethrower operators were being trained their instructors would shoot the flamethrower tanks with their pistols and even rifles to show that they were incredibly bullet resistant and unable to be easily penetrated by small arms
And what about a source ?
@@BBYG-ig9ix You can easily find videos of people shooting tanks on youtube, Pretty sure demoranch did one and big rifle rounds will bounce off.
Still explode facing sniper with dedicated bullet.
@@marczhu7473 read previous replies
Edit: smartass
@@marczhu7473 mate, I hate to break it to you
but if a sniper has a bullet with your name on it you're dead regardless of whether or not there's a tank of pressurised gasoline on your back.
Woody Williams from West Virginia was a recipient of the Medal of Honor for his actions during the Battle of Iwo Jima, in which he used a flame thrower. That's Woody with the soft cover (hat), no helmet. Semper Fi from an old Marine Sergeant
I don't blame him. When you have a flamethrower you're either surviving the engagement unharmed or you're not surviving at all.
@@johnnyvonjoe yes, so very true. I met Woody Williams several years ago, here in West Virginia, he was not very tall. 100% Hero. Semper Fi
Thank you sir for your service! :)
@SoundwaveX7 Thank you too. It was an honor to serve our great Nation and our beloved Marine Corps. Semper Fi
@@usmc-veteran73-77y’all are so cool man.. wish I could meet a marine & have a beer while I hear some cool or funny or even dark stories . Thank you for your service sir !
If I remember correctly, instructors would shoot an M2 tank full of fuel right infront of trainees to show them how hard it was to ignite them witha bullet. Scary, but neat stuff!
If a bomb goes off which may result in its untimely ignition the lightly hood you’ve not been reduced to atom is less then 80% 10% your a mangle corpse barely alive the other your alive now on fire
There is not one occasion where this happened,
This is a myth that a flamethrower tank explodes when you shoot it.
@@Wojtek1003 So they never explode in the first place?
Can you tell me why is that? i'm curious
@@ronanchristiana.belleza9270from another comment, pressurized tanks were bullet proof to an extent. Even if it did penetrate, a non incendiary bullet might not blow it up
1984 South Korea, my unit was training with Korean marines and we were putting on a live fire demo for big brass. The last part of the assault had two Korean marines run up to a bunker and hose it down with flamethrowers. The flames sputtered on one, i saw the one marine fiddle with the others flamethrower and next there was big flash of flame and one guy came running down the hill engulfed in flames. Thats when i was very happy we didnt use them anymore. He was medevaced out , I always wondered what became of him.
returned to the Earth
damn…
My father was in the pacific in WW 2. In one of the few times he ever spoke about his combat experiences, we were watching a movie that showed soldiers just cleaning up the battlefield with flame throwers like it was the ultimate weapon. My father usually didn’t react to this stuff but said “That flamethrower would have been knocked out in ten seconds. You learn real quick not to be anywhere near the guy with the flamethrower”
Makes sense every guy with a gun on the opposite side would shoot the guy literally throwing flames at your comrades.
No one wants to burn to death..
Generally flamethrowers don’t actually explode when they’re hit. It takes a really hot ignition like a magnesium starter to ignite the fuel. Usually when a flamethrowers tank is hit it’s the pressure inside the tank that can cause problems for the user.
Tbh, we really haven't stopped using them. These days we just throw the flame thrower container at others and hope it explodes😅
You might hope. The people who design them, though, make it explode.
Grandpa: cqb? Back in my day it was the enemy who wanted to go out
I worked around hot asphalt most of my early life. I've been in burn units a few times. I can't imagine setting someone on fire. It may have been needed. But I couldn't ever do it. After you have seen. Someone beg not to be put in a whirlpool. To get the dead skin off. You will never be the same.
With modern tech I feel like it could be a viable weapon again
Look up thermobaric weapons
@@michaelkang2096Not remotely comparable to Flamethrowers, maybe in some bonkers scenarios in which the fire of the flamethrower consumed the air in the bunker
china still uses them in modern version type 74
Don't forget the fact of which weapon you bring on battlefield your enemy can get his hands on its either. While there are multiple other tactics of clearing a trench,bunker or room,no need to cause unnecessary pain around
Also a war crime.
The American government still uses them, sort of, since there aren't pillbox and trench wars any more in the west we don't use them, instead we train for longer range engagements due to most recent wars being in open areas and civilian populated areas.
31 years of service. Never saw a flamethrower outside of a museum.
@@skipdreadman8765 good, means you haven't been in a suitable environment for them, a lot of solders don't see every piece of equipment, much less something with almost no use.
I know within the last three years I saw U.S. arsenal photos with two flamethrowers from what looked like the Vietnam era and one that looked more modern. So unless they were just being kept for sentimental value in a building designed to hold in-use armaments then I have no explanation, but most of the time, even when you stop using sht it gets kept in case you need it or given to the police, and I don't think that is going to the police
The U.S. government does not use flamethrowers. Lol
@@Doi-that's just ridiculous. You have no clue how the military works. Every company has an arms room. Every brigade has master gun Smith's. If they were being used or active we would all know. Also. I went thru the OPFOR Academy at NTC in California, and I went thru the history of US weapons and foreign weapons. No flamethrower. They were withdrawn in the late 70s. If that isn't good enough? Go to ft Moore in Georgia and the infantry museum. Then the marine Corp museum. Sorry man, not used anymore.
@@willthorson4543 sorry that I simplified words?
In the 80s I was in the hospital at ft Irwin. The 1 man who was a patient. An awesome young man. His flathrower the moment he turned it on, blew up in his hands.
I entered service in 1982. In 31 years and three combat tours, the only flamethrower I ever saw was in a museum.
Also, the explosive flamethrower scene from Saving Private Ryan was debunked by Mythbusters years ago. So, you get a runs down and a "do not recommend."
I don't need to see more BS.
the mythbusters are often wrong and your first sentence mostly proved this video
During ww2 when training flame thrower men they would take a full, fully pressurized m2 and shoot at it. Nothing would happen. Without the test most would refuse to the point of court martial not to use one in combat.
Amen about the last part. To much misinformation
@@CashOut3well they weren't wrong about the flamethrower. The creator clearly gets their info from Hollywood
The main issue is how close you have to get to be able to use one effectively. There are better options - at all distances.
They still do. It’s just dropped from planes
Said same thing b4 saw your comment. These days we basically just throw the entire thing at ppl and then wait for it explode
Uhhh, no it's not. The us has no incendiary airborne munitions that are dropped from fixed wing aircraft
@@gavinhansen5685Stuff like napalm & FA Explosives are most definitely banned these days.
@@GiantAsteroid-2024 Not even remotely banned. Fuel Air bombs, and Thermobaric Rockets are also still used, so is White Phosphorus.
@@wintesrain The use of incendiary weapons on civilian populations &/or in civilian-populated areas is most definitely banned & constitutes a war crime - e.g the Blitz & the bombing of Germany were both war crimes in a grand scale, as were Hiroshima & Nagasaki.
Further, the GC outlaws by default any weapon designed to cause or prolong suffering.
They can be used against military targets only, which is why Russia keeps claiming everything from hospitals to preschools to grain silos is a "military target".
It's not a new thing. The DoD has long claimed that weddings, funerals, birthday parties, hospitals with giant Red Crosses painted on the roof and even baby food factories are (or used to be) _strictly military targets_ .
Fact is it wouldn't matter even if they were banned. They would still be used indiscriminately against civilians because it's only the grunts on the ground who are ever held accountable. Even then it needs to be so blatant that even mass murderers on death row be like _"To be fair, you did go a little too far..."_
The other reason why they are no longer used is because they have been deemed as inhumane, and so are now banned in warfare.
They use a more effective and inhumane weapon: napalm bomb
@@MinhNguyen-hz2zn napalm has been banned by the UN since 1980
1. They are not banned
2. Napalm isn't banned either, the CCW Protocol III mentions incendiary weapons against civilians. That's it though. We still use White Phosphorus too I don't know where these silly rumors come from.
White phosphorous is fine though.
@@wintesrain The source of most silly rumors is the internet
The video was correct on it's first 2 points in that the was heavy and it did make the person using it a larger target. On the last point he was mostly wrong, in fact on D-Day in France there were no flamethrower explosions. From what I understand the tank would lose pressure if it became compromised.
I was playing COD with a friend and I mentioned how cool it would have been to be the flamethrower and he said something I would never have thought of. Imagine the psychological torment of the users hearing people scream as they are burned alive or seeing their skin melt off. I'm curious to know the stats on flamethrower personnel. How many died in combat, committed suicide or had a normal life after.
I once worked with 3 Black guys that were a flamethrower crew during WW2. The operator said seeing soldiers running away on fire freaked him out and was sure he was doomed to Hell until a priest helped him to get over it. The other 2 didn't care since they had to provide covering fire for him.
@@billwilson-es5yn it's good he got some help overcoming it. No doubt those screams stick with you forever or the smell.
It wasn't viewed as acceptable to struggle with mental health either. You're a man, act like one and suck it up. Plus they were black, they weren't treated well back then. Fighting for a country that treats you like garbage must have been difficult as well.
Skin doesn’t melt, it burns
You don’t need a flamethrower when you’re fighting in a desert
Those flamethrowers were not terribly prone to exploding when hit. One tank was just propellant, if it got it just violently decompressed, which could be its own problem. The fuel tanks aren't pressurized, so they would just leak like a jug of milk. The bullet wasn't likely to ignite the fuel, so as long as the guy with the flamethrower kept the pilot light of his weapon away from the leak he was fine.
Well, as long as he didn't get by those bullets too.
My uncle talked about during the Great War. That a flame thrower was a job he's seen soldiers reject and been shot for disobeying a direct order. Then the soldier next to him was supposed to assume his position. crazy stories
I have a very clear memory being like 7 and asking my dad, who was a soldier, why we didn’t use flame throwers anymore and he looked me dead in the face and told me “it isn’t good to make enemies suffer longer than they should”
Everybody gangsta till an enemy soldier throws acoin in the air
Those flamethrowers had disc-shaped igniter cartridges which had to be changed out during course of combat if soldier was using a lot of short bursts.
I'm sure the marines at Okinawa and Peleliu were glad to have them. The Japanese were hard to flush out.
yes, but sometimes, flamethrower operators would've been down in seconds and the average life expectancy of a flamethrower operator on the battlefield was about 5 minutes
No we just switched to the M202 Flash
An incendiary rocket launcher.
Mr Zippo would have saved lives in places like Fallujah
My uncle was a tunnel rat in nam and spoke about their use a few times over the years he was still with us. Unfortunately the horrors of battle stuck with him and he ended up taking his own life after years of suffering from extreme ptsd, which wasnt treated properly when he was discharged after getting back home.
It can't really be treated, just managed. I'm sorry for your loss, I've lost a lot of good battle buddies over the years to it.
I think the Chemical Weapons Convention also outlawed their use in the 90s
my great grandfather was in world war 2 and the Vietnam conflict as a flamethrower and bazooka man during the Vietnam war him and his platoon were trapped in a collapsed building for 3 days he heard the screams of his men dieing when he was rescued he was sent back home when he was home he had PTSD and was mean to most of the people he was around I never met him but the story's are the one reason I know him as a person
need a light?
-starcraft firebat
But you were not caring around the backpack full of pressurized flammable liquid the two tanks both carried non-flammable liquid, but when they were both mixed, it became flammable
no, it didn't work that way. what are these non-flammable liquids you think are being mixed?
BS! Only in the movies do they blow up if hit. We had them in the Marine Corps mounted on tanks. Very effective weapon!
Also the adoption of the M203 also made the Flamethrower useless because it can do pretty much the same job as a Flamethrower but you can do it behind cover and be less exposed
In WWII everybody was always needing a light for their cigarette.
why ban something effective? It works very well and there is nothing else that serves this purpose that well
Humanism
It's less that it's not effective and more that the short range is an issue when their are better tools.
The Geneva convention is based on making wars "Cleaner" - You sacrifice using a devestating weapon as all signatories agreed that they would prefer not to see their own men charred with 3rd degree burns but still very much alive
Against the laws of war, cruel and unusual punishment.
You're completely incorrect. First they were used extensively in Vietnam due to the thick foliage and the commies tendency to tunnel. And they aren't used anymore solely because of the massive amount of pain it inflicts before death, making it inhumane. The worst way to die is death by flame. Also the troopers that used these pieces wore special flame retardant clothing to not get burnt but the jet of jelly usually was to thin and pressured to have any bounce back before 10-15 feet.
I know a guy who's dad was in Nam.
He told this story.
Some native woman walked out on a board on a river to pee.
This guy was in a boat in the 'Brown Water Navy'.
He had a flame thrower on his boat.
They lit her up just for laughs.
I support our military but guys like that existed and did stuff like this.
I want to tell all citizens of the world who's country we have invaded.
We Americans are not like this.
That was one of my jobs in the Marines. Not one I liked.😮😢
... and, y'know, the range issue.
Hehe war crimes...
Civilians cant run alot, oh wait...
The m2 could spit a stream of flammable jelly more than 200 feet, wich is above the average marksman distance of the time it was used.
@@gavinhansen5685It’s maximum range was 132ft (40m) so I’m not sure where you’re getting 200ft from.
There was also another effect/ risk for the user: that recurring nightmare of hearing the screams of the people that you not only set on fire, but are now coated in a flammable gelatine mixture which they cannot put out. Those images in their memory of people burned down to their bones, and the thought that they just did that.
It's bad enough trying to get past shooting someone. To know you caused incredible suffering before death must be considerably harder.
Now they have flame catchers
They were considered inhumane and they hardly blew up, a Marine on Iwo Jima took quite a few hits never blew up, also they that's why they don't use napalm, it's inhumane
@@zyncwargaming179If your country is strong, the rules do not apply to your country
Fun fact they still used them in the Afghanistan and Iraq War.
Fun fact: No. They didn't. In three tours in combat I neither saw nor heard of their use. In 31 years of service, I never even saw one outside of a museum.
Your pants are on fire.
Can you get me the names and social security numbers of these flamethrower operators so I can "hide" them from NATO for their outstanding war crimes that are punishable by death. You know, so I can "protect" them. I work with veterans and the only ones that have even said the word "flame" are vets from Vietnam. Shut your fuckin mouth and research before you spread misinformation that will lead to discrimination towards innocent vets.
@@skipdreadman8765depends on which war in Afghanistan and Iraq we’re talking about, Russians used the LPO-50 in the Afghan-Soviet War and Iraq used them in the Iran-Iraq War so technically speaking he isn’t wrong. Remember, the U.S. wasn’t the only country to invade these countries.
@@skipdreadman8765 I know for a fact they got used instead of chasing enemy combatants into the tunnel systems. Were you ever with SoF or just a normal Grunt? They are weapons that have very niche use cases, you can produce the same effect with Fuel Air bombs, or any other thermobaric munition.
A taste of their own medicine. War is evil and hell
It's like the classic video game trope "Aim for the thing on it's back" BOOM!
Flamethrower operators had to be psychopaths
The guy carrying the flame thrower , his life expentency was about 30 mins.
The myth of the tanks exploding when hit. Just didn't happen.
A good cinematic example of this is the d-day landing scene in saving private Ryan when the soldier with the flamethrower get the tank on his back shot and ignites himself and several other soldiers
I watched Vietnam in HD and a Sgt. Commanded a soldier that didn't know how too use flame throwers to use it; so it was on the ground training right in the middle of a combat zone!
He used it for awhile till The V.C. shot the tank and He burned too Death Right in front the commander of the unit and his Team!
when they were being removed from arsenals, my dad got to use one. said it was awesome! so as a kid, I made my own.
Look up the FLASH launcher, the flamethrower got an upgrade and it is still in use today, not officially ofcourse.
I laughed so hard when I watched Deer Hunter and DeNiro gave some villagers taste of his flamethrower. 😆
Flamethrower guy running in battle..."Hey why doesn't anybody wanna run next to m......oh right".
I once got to handle a M2 flamethrower, and I was shocked how heavy it was even when empty.
There's a reason why you never see fellow soldiers next to the flamethrower while it is flaming a bunker.
My cousins who served in Nam were flame thrower soldiers..they flushed out the Viet Kong from the Mole Caves they hid in
The Sniper "oh yeah if I just hit this tank Ill get a 5 streak kill"
Remember the movie Commando with Arnold? That 4x launcher was a "flame rocket" launcher, intended to replace a flame thrower.
*Doctors worst nightmare* 💀
William Manchester, in "Goodbye Darkness," described a Marine using one...untrained, he wasn't ready for the firehose-like "kick," the nozzle went wild and he incinerated himself.
Geneva convention more like Geneva suggestion
Gordon Ramsay: "You were supposed to cook it, not cremate it!"
" The average life expectancy of a flamethrower operator in combat during World War 2 was less than 10 minutes.On Iwo Jima it suffered a 92% casualty rate with a life expectancy of about 4 minutes.
They do. Just not for the same purposes. For now.
The overriding reason they stopped using them (according to our professors at the Infantry Officer Basic Course) was the duration of the flame is so shockingly short something like eight SECONDS. Why carry a hunk of heavy metal around on your back after it’s empty. IIRC there were also armored vehicle variants that were used and had better performance.
C- 2/504 82ed I lost my gunner due to a flamethrower accident in 73.
Fun fact another thing a lot of people aren’t aware of is how short the burn time was on those flamethrowers in ‘nam you only got about 8 secs because the two side cans are pressurized air and the middle one is the one with the gas for flames
U.S. tanks are still equipped with flamethrowers
We don’t use Napalm anymore either despite its effectiveness.
"We don't put our best men on the flame throwers" The Terror.
from what ive read/heard, if bullets are flying past your shoulders as close as those canniseters are, you have something way scarier to worry about than accidental immolation (instant death)
In the 1970s, the M202 Flash took their place.
They also had a short life span on the battle field. I read somewhere they only lived less than a few minutes before they were unalived.
I saw PLA Chinese Army using a flamethrower
Poor guys lasted about 5 minutes in the Pacific theater
That’s why the Russians have thermobarics rockets but tbh I don’t think they’re quite the same
Flamethrower operators were generally not taken prisoner
Someone makes video and has no clue, what is new.
Flame throwers come in different varieties and are not banned. The reason they are not used anymore is because they are now classified as chemical weapons.
Btw were heavily used in Vietnam.
Yeah, just imagine a master prestige level 1000 like me coming around a flank and shooting that thing making you explode.
My mom was a flamethrower soldier n she sed it was a fun thing to do.. going around burning people up and hearing ther agonizing screams..
mainly because the geneva convention says its an inhumane weapon
cell phones have cameras now
Then it recently stopped. Because they are used for special things that they are needed for.
I feel like they should still be on vehicles, especially something like the Bradley. Fire is amazing at clearing spaces, and the terror that comes with it is unbeatable.
Thats why china is currently training troops on flame throwers. Because they know fire is effective.
Im not sure about how many units of flame throwers they have, but ive seen videos of folk in China’s PLA training in fields with the flame throwers.
>the terror that comes with it is unbeatable
I think the three people who used flamethrowers and survived it would definitely agree with you, considering how shellshock-inducing that job must be.
Another practical consideration is range. If you are going to solely dedicate a person to use a flamethrower, they are only useful in limited circumstances, whereas a semi or full auto rifle can be effective at close and long range
Even those who survived using one often had major psychological problems after that.
Wow cool. You told us flamethrowers were dangerous. Good to know
"Damn it, Jackson, it was for defoliaging!"
"Those soldiers were in the way!"
Just wait until someone figures out how to strap one to a drone 💀
my father was the flame thrower operator for an instructional movie while in the US Army in WWII, think he was in San Diego at the time.
My dad was a pilot ( N Africa, Italy, Burma ). Somehow he knew enough to teach his children " Stay as far away from flamethrowers as you can."
Initially they did have an easily flammable fuel but once they went to napalm, it was FAR less volatile compared to standard gasoline mixtures.
My grandpa was a flame trooper and survived the war