drn@pinet.aip.org (donald_newcomb) (02/14/91)
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
tb2@doc.ic.ac.uk (Timothy Brown) (02/15/91)
From: Timothy Brown <tb2@doc.ic.ac.uk> In article <1991Feb13.221434.5832@cbnews.att.com> drn@pinet.aip.org (donald_newcomb) writes: >>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. > >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? Is this the article which bans shotguns? I read that shotguns were banned under the Geneva convention, but the Americans still used them in Vietnam as a last resort. Back to flame thowers though, granted they are very painful to be attacked with, but they are meant to be lethal weapons. Shotguns and some mines are in many cases used to debilitate soldiers- and this article probably refers more to these kinds of weapons, which leave a lasting pain. Tim B. -- ,------------------------------------------------------------------------^^ | HUMPTY DUMPTY WAS PUSHED... BUT BRITISH JUSTICE CONVICTED THE WRONG |oo| | MEN. FREE THE HUMPTY DUMPTY 6! (or mailed flames sorry) \v / '-Sorry, can't respond to international E-mail^(YET)---tb2@doc.ic.ac.uk--mm
mbin@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil (Mary Binseel) (02/15/91)
From: Mary Binseel <mbin@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil> >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? Gee I'm not crazy! (Well, maybe... :-)) When I was at the Ft. Bragg, NC (the World's Largest Inland Beach) for ROTC "Summer Camp" in 1978, I got a neat toy to play with. It was the M203 "Flash," which I've would've described exactly as above. It had a composite tube, with the 4 shots arranged in a 2x2 holder in the rear. Looked like a cross between a LAW and a Stinger. It fired a round which contained a material which would deform over and cling to the target before ignition (presumably Napalm.) We were told it was not-in-the-field/not-in-the-field-in -large-numbers-yet (can't remember which.) It must've been available only in low numbers, as only 2 cadets per platoon were chosen to fire it. We fired at an old tank hull. Nice effect. Later, when I started working for the US Army labs, I occassionally asked people who should know about the system, as I had never heard of it or seen it again after that summer. They just looked at me with a blank look on their faces. I was beginning to think I had imagined tha whole thing. Apparently it never reached production. Can anyone else tell me of the fate of this thing? E-mail me, as this is getting a little esoteric. I'll post a summary if anyone's interested. ****************************************************************************** Mary S. Binseel Pilot-in-training mbin@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil '85 Honda CB700SC Nighthawk S Carpe diem! '88 Honda GL1500 GoldWing
IO80914%MAINE.BITNET@VM1.gatech.edu (Sloth) (02/18/91)
From: Sloth <IO80914%MAINE.BITNET@VM1.gatech.edu> > Donald Newcomb >> 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? I can't elucidate, but I can clarify what he's talking about. Granted, it's not the best reference, but it's all I've got. >From _Combat_Leader's_Field_Guide_ (9th Edition, 1980): Multishot Portable Flame Weapon, M202A2 Weight: 26.6 lbs Maximum effective range: 200m (point targets) 750m (area targets) Use: Against field fortifications or jungle targets Remarks: Fires four-shot clips of 66mm incendiary rockets ]:-)> ---> Malcolm Fuller Email: io00672@maine.bitnet Surveying Engineering Department malcolmf@mecan1.bitnet University of Maine Malo Periculosam Libertatem Quam Quietam Servitutem