Why aren't flamethrowers being used in Ukraine? Seems like they'd be very useful clearing trenches which we see a lot of.
FYI they are not banned by any treaty. Only using flame/incendary weapons around civilians is, which obviously doesn't apply to trench warfare (and is rarely respected anyway, see: white phosphorus use in civilian areas).
Even if neither side has them in inventory seems like the sort of thing you could throw together from welding and agricultural equipment laying around.
Is it simply that grenades are good enough and more portable?
Supposedly the Russians have flamethrowers for their storm groups, but so far I haven't seen a single video of them being used in combat
RPO-A, RPO-M and ukranian RPV-16 are flamethrowers.
Not like OP likely thinks of them. They are kaBoom at a distance, simply optimised for soft target mauling rather than high brisance-anti armor piercing.
no they aren't
it's just a misinterpretation of Russian that homos like to use to sound all zany and interesting
they are thermobaric weapons
Yes and no. Yes, they are thermobaric weapons, not flamethrowers in the conventional sense, but at the same time, thermobaric weapons are the successors of flamethrowers and are used in similar contexts. The basic mechanism is the same: fuel is mixed with air and ignited, killing via pressure, heat, and asphyxiation. Its just that thermobarics are much better at generating those effects than traditional flamethrowers.
the effect of squirting burning fuel at someone and blowing them up with a thermobaric weapon is completely different. thermobarics cannot fill a bunker or trench with pools of burning fuel that persists
The Russian flamethrower is a "shmel" rocket launcher.
Basically, people have realized they'd rather not be forced to advance to 30m with a hugeass backpack of flammable fuel. Flamethrowing is still on the menu, just not handheld fuel nozzle type flamethrowers.
Couldn't someone make a modern version of a single shot flamethrower? The Germans had the handflammpatrone during the cold war
i legit considered something like this as perhaps a valuable option for business oportunity
A small 40mm single shot hand held grenade launcher with thermobaric or white phosphorus grenades wouldn't be much different from this.
Is there a 40mm WP round available to soldiers? Can't find any evidence of a current one
No, hence the need for a bullet trap adapter for any cylindrical grenade which tend much bigger than 40mm babby nades.
The word you want is "prohibitED" you brown non-citation quoting (onus probandi, motherfucker) moron.
Flamethrowers are not banned nor is WP. Both have prohibited USES.
The Protocol was 1980, not 1982:
>FYI they are not banned by any treaty. Only using flame/incendary weapons around civilians is, which obviously doesn't apply to trench warfare (and is rarely respected anyway, see: white phosphorus use in civilian areas).
>Flamethrowers are not banned nor is WP. Both have prohibited USES.
The treaty based prohibited uses around civilians in CCW protocol III is just one part of the question though. The use of flamethrowers must be accessed against general LOAC as well, where the principle of unnecessary suffering arguably bans use against personnel.
ICRC certainly argues that that's the case, though the opinion among scholars varies.
At best, flamethrowers are in a dodgy grey zone of jus in bello, and at worst, a serious violation of general LOAC.
You don't say.
This, tourists just don't know what passes as a flamethrower in Russia.
>with a hugeass backpack of flammable fuel
The flamethrower backpack exploding meme is a Hollywood myth.
Obviously, but it's still a big, heavy piece of shit strapped to your back you have to lug everywhere with piss poor range of maybe 80m. Vs a 10 pound tube that can reach out to 300m
Did he say exploding?
Carry a compressed gas cylinder and a fuel cylinder w. associated plumbing and get back to us.
they are for sure using launchers like rpo shmel which are technically "flamethrowers". wherever you saw that info probably just didnt specify what its not classic world wars era flamethrowers
Their "flamethrowers" are thermobaric rocket launchers is why.
Those flamethrowers are the same rockets used by the FSB to kill givi.
xaxa westoids cannot comprehend glorious tos flamethrower roasting piggies *~~
>Is it simply that grenades are good enough and more portable?
Yes, thermobaric grenades get used pretty often and they're basically instant flamethrowers
Heavy, short ranged, makes it rather hard to advance into the area you just cleared out. Just dump some explosives on whatever you want pacified and move on.
Explosives are for sealing the flavor juices in.
because it puts a huge fucking target on you and is a general liability
What is better anon? A 70 pound flamethrower strapped to one poor targets back? Or 70x thermobaric grenades which can be shared out among the troops and dropped from quadcopters?
A 70 pound flamethrower would be kino
>Even if neither side has them in inventory seems like the sort of thing you could throw together from welding and agricultural equipment laying around.
Would you want to storm trenches with Ivan and Aleksanders homemade flamethrower?
Grenades and mortars are better for clearing small trenches with the pressure waves and shrapnel. Flamethrowers were more useful in ww1 and ww2 when the enemy had much deeper and more extensive trenches and underground fortifications, like US marines clearing out the mazes the Japanese dug everywhere. Trenches in Ukraine are too small and bare to make flamethrowers necessary.
Some of the Russian fortifications look like nests now. They're really dug in.
Still it looks like a couple of grenades would sort that nest out, no need to carry a tank of gas on your back in a warzone.
Sorry, video here
WP grenades would be a very good idea along with bullet trap full-sized grenade adapters (manual throws lack range) for clearing holes.
>use flamethrower in trench combat
>now everything in front of you is burning like fuck and you have a hard time advancing.
>"ah but I'll advance first, then burn backwards!"
>now you have cut off your own retreat, good job
Flamethrowers are good for clearing some things, but trenches aint one of them. I'd just stick to grenades.
Russia only has shallow trenches, not fully fortified line, massively I inferior and much less substantial than anything on the western front in ww2 and even ww1. The trenches are so shallow, have no underground networks, that drones and grenades alone can clear everything defending them, flamer wouldn't provide anything more potent against such primative defences
TOS-1 was used many times already
You can either piss around with a hose and hope the fortification is shit enough that you're not just making one exit unusable while the rest of the fortification lives on as usual, or you can just chuck in a thermobaric and instantly liquefy anything stupid enough to lounge around in the entire damn network. There's a reason why modern Russian "flamethrowers" are just slav LAWs with special warheads and only China actively deploys the WWII dudes with napalm backpacks.
guy with a flamethrower is usually a guy without a rifle and guys with rifles are important.
>Why isn't this incredibly horrific war ten times as horrific
We'll get there when NATO gets involved OP, monke won't be able to resist the nooks
you need to get really close with a heavy thing strapped to your back that is liable to explode/burn when hit
using thermometric rockets from a relative distance is a lot better
and the russians and ukraninas have rpg launched options so why use a flamtrower?
The fuel pack of a flamethrower doesn't burn or explode unless its hit by explosives or incendiary ammunition. They also can hit things 30 or even 50 meters away.
depending on the feul being used and the pressure the tank is under
but getting a tank hold flammable liquid under several bar is a great way to create a cloud of flammable aerosol. I would not want to be in that and most certainly not when under fire.
and yes 30-50 meters is neat, if the people you are going up against didn't have rifles, rpg's, machine guns, ect
and at those ranges, why not just use a thermometric grenade?
Because Flamethrowers are banned in the 1982 Protocol over prohibitive weapons which Ukraine is a signatory.
Aren't covered by it.
Thermobaric weapons munitions are more efficient in every way.
So how could modernize a flamethrower to reduce the risks to the operator?
Pack the burning bits into a projectile that you can launch at the enemy from far away. They aren't as exposed to enemy fire and are less likely to blow out their back carrying it
You anons talking about incendiary munitions are missing the point. None of those help a squad tasked with cleaning a structure full of enemies in close combat when conventional shelling already hasn't been good enough or it's unavaliable.
We've already seen several videos where a modern version of a flamethrower, even a sci-fi style smaller version, would have made a lot of difference over grenades and rifles.
This. We've seen lots of videos where opposing forces are in the same trench around a corner from each other, both knowing the presence of the other. Sure, a lucky grenade toss would do the job in such cases, but a flamethrower takes away the luck element.
It's a mystery anon.
>Increase range with an aerodynamic casing
>make the casings modular for faster reloading
>add a rocket motor to improve range
>distribute them across a squad to reduce risk on any single soldier
Small cheap disposable weapons. Even just being able to fire once into a trench dugout would be incredibly useful.
Another thirdie tourist tech illiterate.
inb4 die phoneposter
Because flamethrowers as you describe are incredibly heavy and the fuel can be used up insanely fast. The guy with 70lbs of flamethrower fuel could probably be carrying a lot more useful shit, such as additional ammunition for the rest of his team, utility and medical equipment, or other shit you need to stay alive/hydrated/fed in the field. It's also like a big fucking beacon where you and your team are. Combat gets confusing quickly and even with modern communication equipment you can lose track of everyone, but seeing a jet of flame out of nowhere? That dude just exposed his position and everyone around him.
if you're close enough to use a flamethrower that doesn't really matter, the enemy can already hear your footsteps
You're not going to be hearing footsteps that well if there gunfire near you, you've got some form of hearing protection to keep you from going deaf, your adrenaline is spiking, and with people potentially yelling at each other. Plus you are still holding all that weight on you for a weapon that will only ever give you ten-twelve bursts at max. Fuck I didn't even think of how difficult it would be to keep a weapon that resupplied too.