Infantry Discussion Thread, Mk. 8 Mod. 0 [No Kaiju]

[EsToVnIa]

damn you got me there gg

[New Nirvash]

>kiddo

You're a big guy.

[Gallia-]

im a big guy

where it counts

;)

[Vortukia]

>kiddo

You're a big guy.

Thank you.
*Understood the sarcasm*

[Spirit of Hope]

Flame throwers hayday is in the past.

Yes flamethrowers are scary, but not enough that well trained troops are going to just run away from them. To get close enough to use a flamethrower you have to be well within the enemies rifles and machineguns, and good troops will use that range advantage to make mincemeat of any flamethrowers. To use the flamethrower you must outmaneuver your opponents forces, and if you are doing that you would be able to push them back without it, it only makes your job a little easier.

Want to know what makes your job even easier? A LAW, or other rocket weapon. Trooper sees a bunker, pulls out his LAW and fires. Or calls for the platoon/company rocket/AT team who hit the bunker with their weapons.

Are LAW's potentially more expensive than a flamethrower? Only minimally, a flamethrower soldier requires completely different training from a regular rifleman, while the use of a LAW can be taught to every rifleman. Plus again, versatility. You probably want to issuing LAW's anyways because they can be used against armored vehicles, and helicopters. Where as a flamethrower can't really engage either of those.

You basically need to have the rocket weapons (LAW, AT-4, RPG-7) around anyways, and they will take out the bunker, or other fortified structure, more easily than the flamethrower. So why issue the flamethrower?

There are very few situations where a flamethrower is going to be able to provide capability some other weapons system you already have can't replace it.

Plenty, in a close quarters urban setting, a explosive device isn't always going to cut it. However a flamethrower not only solves it, but it's directional, to the point where you can comfortably roast a unit of soldiers through a window, where a LAW might propose damaging yourself.

Again, you are unlikely to be fighting at such close ranges that you can not safely use the LAW, grenades, UBGL or other such weapons. Even in urban engagements.

Not to mention that a well trained soldier is taught to avoid perilous circumstances where the risk-strategic reward is against their interest or the mission interest. A flamethrower certainly would fall a HUMAN BEING back on fight of flight tactics. Soldiers again, as well trained as they are. They're still human, the inescapable truth is that we are weak willed in cases, a species is engraved to avoid fire. It's bad, you don't just walk towards a bonfire and stand in it, why? Because you die.

You really need to look up how well flamethrowers worked in real life. The appearance of flamethrowers, and their use, never really made troops break like you seam to be suggesting. Against green and under trained troops they saw the best results, but even then they rarely caused them to fall apart. Flame throwers really only saw use against fortifications, and largely to drive the defenders out into the open where other small arms could kill them. With a grenade, or rocket, you could kill them in the bunker from farther away.

No I wouldn't walk into a bonfire, but I also wouldn't sit on top of a grenade.

Seeing your buddy burned to a crisp in seconds, slowly dying and begging for mercy. That buddy that you have shared many battles with. Yeah, that'd take some PTSD on people, not to mention immediate emotional repercussions.

So would seeing that same buddy slowly bleed to death from multiple shrapnel injuries, or missing some limbs. And again flamethrowers mostly just drove troops out into the open. They didn't have the best record of killing opponents just by themselves.

How about people hiding in shrubbery, or flora? You think a LAW is going to help get them out? Well sir I'd like to introduce you to the Japanese in WW2, and Viet-cong, it spreads, and does what fire does. It burns things, and it does it very well. Any good strategic thinker would pick a LAW, or a Flamethrower dependent on CIRCUMSTANCES, and recognize every tool has it's uses.

Funny I didn't know the LAW, or other rocket weapons, was really around in WWII, and in Vietnam you saw the US Army realizing that flamethrowers weren't doing much.

Again, flamethrowers were largely used to drive enemies out of fortifications. Enemies in shrubbery is the ideal target for a LAW, or rifle fire, or mortars and the worst target for flamethrowers. Little cover that will actually stop shrapnel or bullets, while affording the enemy good lines of sight and maneuverability.

See flamethrowers only work when you can advance close to the enemy, without them seeing you and either shooting at you or pulling back. Which is generally the situation with fortifications and not the situation with troops in the open.

Really the best gauge of the flamethrowers usefulness in MT is who is still issuing them. Basically no one. When was the last real flamethrower developed? The 1960's. Same goes for vehicle mounted flamethrowers. It would appear the people who actually get paid to do this have decided flamethrowers aren't worth the investment.

[Gallia-]

how can you call yourself a member of the community-society gestalt and not be willing to throw yourself on a grenade?

[Spirit of Hope]

how can you call yourself a member of the community-society gestalt and not be willing to throw yourself on a grenade?

I may throw myself on a grenade to save others, I'm not going to do it for fun. Same goes with bonfires.

[Vortukia]

Plenty, in a close quarters urban setting, a explosive device isn't always going to cut it. However a flamethrower not only solves it, but it's directional, to the point where you can comfortably roast a unit of soldiers through a window, where a LAW might propose damaging yourself.

Again, you are unlikely to be fighting at such close ranges that you can not safely use the LAW, grenades, UBGL or other such weapons. Even in urban engagements.

Not to mention that a well trained soldier is taught to avoid perilous circumstances where the risk-strategic reward is against their interest or the mission interest. A flamethrower certainly would fall a HUMAN BEING back on fight of flight tactics. Soldiers again, as well trained as they are. They're still human, the inescapable truth is that we are weak willed in cases, a species is engraved to avoid fire. It's bad, you don't just walk towards a bonfire and stand in it, why? Because you die.

You really need to look up how well flamethrowers worked in real life. The appearance of flamethrowers, and their use, never really made troops break like you seam to be suggesting. Against green and under trained troops they saw the best results, but even then they rarely caused them to fall apart. Flame throwers really only saw use against fortifications, and largely to drive the defenders out into the open where other small arms could kill them. With a grenade, or rocket, you could kill them in the bunker from farther away.

No I wouldn't walk into a bonfire, but I also wouldn't sit on top of a grenade.

Seeing your buddy burned to a crisp in seconds, slowly dying and begging for mercy. That buddy that you have shared many battles with. Yeah, that'd take some PTSD on people, not to mention immediate emotional repercussions.

So would seeing that same buddy slowly bleed to death from multiple shrapnel injuries, or missing some limbs. And again flamethrowers mostly just drove troops out into the open. They didn't have the best record of killing opponents just by themselves.

How about people hiding in shrubbery, or flora? You think a LAW is going to help get them out? Well sir I'd like to introduce you to the Japanese in WW2, and Viet-cong, it spreads, and does what fire does. It burns things, and it does it very well. Any good strategic thinker would pick a LAW, or a Flamethrower dependent on CIRCUMSTANCES, and recognize every tool has it's uses.

Funny I didn't know the LAW, or other rocket weapons, was really around in WWII, and in Vietnam you saw the US Army realizing that flamethrowers weren't doing much.

Again, flamethrowers were largely used to drive enemies out of fortifications. Enemies in shrubbery is the ideal target for a LAW, or rifle fire, or mortars and the worst target for flamethrowers. Little cover that will actually stop shrapnel or bullets, while affording the enemy good lines of sight and maneuverability.

See flamethrowers only work when you can advance close to the enemy, without them seeing you and either shooting at you or pulling back. Which is generally the situation with fortifications and not the situation with troops in the open.

Really the best gauge of the flamethrowers usefulness in MT is who is still issuing them. Basically no one. When was the last real flamethrower developed? The 1960's. Same goes for vehicle mounted flamethrowers. It would appear the people who actually get paid to do this have decided flamethrowers aren't worth the investment.

No the LAW wasn't around in WW2, but predecessors to man portable rocket launched weapons were. In a large area covered in shrubbery filled with fighters stashed inside, I will kill more guerrillas with a flame thrower, FAR faster then you will using the LAW. Only because I only have to hold down a igniting trigger, and do the left to right. Smooth sailing at that point.

Yes driving out of fortifications, but in situations where enemies like to hide in places, driving them out could be the difference between life and death. It's much cheaper and logistically plausible to burn a whole town, or a hills shrubbery to draw would-be ambushes or hiders out, rather than attack them with LAWS.

Flamethrowers actually have greater distance than you realize, honestly it surprised the hell out of me too so I can't get you there. Those puppies, I'd love to delve into the logistics of them, but they tended to reach more than enough distance you would need in CQC. I'm guessing just a pressure nozzel?

You're also more likely to kill more with a flamethrower shooting into a window, then with a LAW. Those troops may, and probably should be wearing vests and padding to protect against shrapnel. But fire does what fire does best, and spreads around the room, burning air, causing smoke, and catching people on fire, burning through their armor.

[EsToVnIa]

it's like thermobaurics aren't a thing

[Gallia-]

how can you call yourself a member of the community-society gestalt and not be willing to throw yourself on a grenade?

I may throw myself on a grenade to save others, I'm not going to do it for fun. Same goes with bonfires.

but if you keep it warm it might hatch!

[Husseinarti]

No the LAW wasn't around in WW2, but predecessors to man portable rocket launched weapons were. In a large area covered in shrubbery filled with fighters stashed inside, I will kill more guerrillas with a flame thrower, FAR faster then you will using the LAW. Only because I only have to hold down a igniting trigger, and do the left to right. Smooth sailing at that point.

Yes driving out of fortifications, but in situations where enemies like to hide in places, driving them out could be the difference between life and death. It's much cheaper and logistically plausible to burn a whole town, or a hills shrubbery to draw would-be ambushes or hiders out, rather than attack them with LAWS.

Flamethrowers actually have greater distance than you realize, honestly it surprised the hell out of me too so I can't get you there. Those puppies, I'd love to delve into the logistics of them, but they tended to reach more than enough distance you would need in CQC. I'm guessing just a pressure nozzel?

You're also more likely to kill more with a flamethrower shooting into a window, then with a LAW. Those troops may, and probably should be wearing vests and padding to protect against shrapnel. But fire does what fire does best, and spreads around the room, burning air, causing smoke, and catching people on fire, burning through their armor.

Are you suffering from some king of edgy preteen mental disorder?

[Spirit of Hope]

Again, you are unlikely to be fighting at such close ranges that you can not safely use the LAW, grenades, UBGL or other such weapons. Even in urban engagements.



You really need to look up how well flamethrowers worked in real life. The appearance of flamethrowers, and their use, never really made troops break like you seam to be suggesting. Against green and under trained troops they saw the best results, but even then they rarely caused them to fall apart. Flame throwers really only saw use against fortifications, and largely to drive the defenders out into the open where other small arms could kill them. With a grenade, or rocket, you could kill them in the bunker from farther away.

No I wouldn't walk into a bonfire, but I also wouldn't sit on top of a grenade.



So would seeing that same buddy slowly bleed to death from multiple shrapnel injuries, or missing some limbs. And again flamethrowers mostly just drove troops out into the open. They didn't have the best record of killing opponents just by themselves.



Funny I didn't know the LAW, or other rocket weapons, was really around in WWII, and in Vietnam you saw the US Army realizing that flamethrowers weren't doing much.

Again, flamethrowers were largely used to drive enemies out of fortifications. Enemies in shrubbery is the ideal target for a LAW, or rifle fire, or mortars and the worst target for flamethrowers. Little cover that will actually stop shrapnel or bullets, while affording the enemy good lines of sight and maneuverability.

See flamethrowers only work when you can advance close to the enemy, without them seeing you and either shooting at you or pulling back. Which is generally the situation with fortifications and not the situation with troops in the open.

Really the best gauge of the flamethrowers usefulness in MT is who is still issuing them. Basically no one. When was the last real flamethrower developed? The 1960's. Same goes for vehicle mounted flamethrowers. It would appear the people who actually get paid to do this have decided flamethrowers aren't worth the investment.

No the LAW wasn't around in WW2, but predecessors to man portable rocket launched weapons were. In a large area covered in shrubbery filled with fighters stashed inside, I will kill more guerrillas with a flame thrower, FAR faster then you will using the LAW. Only because I only have to hold down a igniting trigger, and do the left to right. Smooth sailing at that point.

1) I assume you are talking about the Bazooka? Yep that was around, and had a number of issues throughout WWII.
2) That assumes that they let you get close enough to use the flamethrower.
3) That's not actually how a flamethrower would work in this situation. (hint: flamethrowers don't just spew flame out, they shoot a strait jet of burning liquids)
4) I wouldn't use a LAW, I would use a machine gun or mortar, but even a LAW would be better than the flamethrower since I could use it from 200 meters, instead of 80 meters.

Yes driving out of fortifications, but in situations where enemies like to hide in places, driving them out could be the difference between life and death. It's much cheaper and logistically plausible to burn a whole town, or a hills shrubbery to draw would-be ambushes or hiders out, rather than attack them with LAWS.

You aren't going to burn down a whole town or hillside with a flamethrower. You would be better off calling for fire support from artillery or aviation assets.

If your dealing with bunkers/fortifications, and can't call on the above, you would still be better off to engage them with rockets and rifles from 200 meters than with a flamethrower from 80 meters.

Flamethrowers actually have greater distance than you realize, honestly it surprised the hell out of me too so I can't get you there. Those puppies, I'd love to delve into the logistics of them, but they tended to reach more than enough distance you would need in CQC. I'm guessing just a pressure nozzel?

A good flamethrower gets maybe 80-100 meters. The LAW gets 200 meters, as does the RPG-7, a rifle gets 300 meters (mostly depending on user).

You're also more likely to kill more with a flamethrower shooting into a window, then with a LAW. Those troops may, and probably should be wearing vests and padding to protect against shrapnel. But fire does what fire does best, and spreads around the room, burning air, causing smoke, and catching people on fire, burning through their armor.

Armour generally only covers chest, head, and groin. Shrapnel will still hit the soldiers in the face, arms, and legs. Over pressure from the explosion will still kill them, blow their eardrums out, give them a concussion, or otherwise injure them. Plus even if the armor stops all of that shrapnel the energy just gets spread out, so instead you get broken ribs, internal bleeding and massive bruising.

it's like thermobaurics aren't a thing

Mentioned them at the very beginning. They really replace flamethrowers in every way.

I may throw myself on a grenade to save others, I'm not going to do it for fun. Same goes with bonfires.

but if you keep it warm it might hatch!

Will you keep it warm with me?

[Gallia-]

No.

only one speg has stolen my heart

e: and 400 odd hours of my life

[EsToVnIa]

SoH you should just stop wasting your time

[Puzikas]

14 guys jesus

I guess if its like 1945 that'd be cool.

That would probably be including support elements(driver, squad leader, APC crew, etc).

"The squad, 班, or section was the basic unit of the National Revolutionary Army (the Republic of China), and would usually be 14 men strong. An infantry squad from an elite German-trained division would ideally have one light machine gun and 10 rifles, but only one of the three squads in a non-elite Central Army division would have a light machine gun. Furthermore, the regular provincial army divisions had no machine guns at all.[5]"
Source

The Grerman army was actually composed of
-Squad Leader
-Assistant SL
Machine Gun trupp
-Machine Gunner
-Asst. Gunner
-Tripod bearer (Also acted as a Rifleman for defense)
-Ammunition bearer (Also acted as a spotter)
-Rifle Trupp
-x7 Riflemen, armed with x5-6 K98ks and x1-2 MP38/40s, or rarely StGs would suppliment the K98

Ill go into greater detail on this when I do that Machine gun post.

Someone once argued that carbines have already replaced rifles. Because he opined that all modern service assault rifles are too short to be called rifles.

The M16 is still 20"..

I'd reckon if GPC will be a thing someday you will see a stop to this miniaturization if not longer barrels..

You know why Carbines have become a thing?
Weight savings.
You know why GPCs wont be a thing?
Weight savings.

GPC would've been the thing in the 70s/80s, not present-day

now it's CTA and PCTA like san said

IMO the GPC concepts time was the 1940s-1950s. The problem was the SCHVs revolution was right around the corner and the concept was never going to take off like it could have. It might have been able to curb the SCHV revolution until the 80s for the West (Non-US), but the USSR was already all about SCHVs by 1965. It just so happened so much development was slowed by Nikita "Lil' Nik" Khrushchev and his successor Leonid "Brezt Milk" Brezhnev and their focus on development of more significant military equipment (Most of the funding for the project was actually stripped and redirected into the development program that would create things like the Object 775 and friends tanks, the 9K111 and the NSV) that it took until the late 60s for them to really get a proper working set. The US was doing research into SCHVs as early as 1942.

To me the next leap is conventional ammunition with a polymer case, then PCTA; the GPC meme is just annoying.

the nice thing about opinions is that, while everybody can have them, they can also be wrong

i know that. generally when your opinion of what should be done differs significantly from what is done IRL that's a good sign you may be wrong, I acknowledge this

edit: my fixation with a bigger intermediate leaning into GPC territory could, thinking about it, have something to do with my fetish for "battle rifles"

actually, i've remembered that a lot of folks here had a problem with the term "battle rifle" although I don't get the point behind this. language is supposed to serve us by making communication easier and more convenient. it is after all a easy way of differentiating between automatic rifles firing intermediate and full power cartridges, the former being commonly called "assault rifles". i don't get what the big fuss is all about, or why some have to be so anal about it. yes, the terms may not explain every little detail and cover every single nuance or borderline case, but that's not what individual terms are for, they're still useful in usual parlance.

*cue someone spelling out a long story about how the two referred to the same thing initially or started at the same point and thus weren't really different in the beginning or how one or another term was coined by the "media" or the average Joe and thus isn't worthy enough of being used or w/e bullshit*

Tbh there was an attempt (by me) to quantify the difference between "battle rifles" and "Assault rifles".

For the layman, i.e, the person who isnt a gunsperg, its a useful term to differentiate cold-war era service rifles from modern era combat rifles. In truth, the difference between a battle rifle and and assault rifle in a perfect world is nil, as both have similar effective ranges. The problem is battle rifles have less volume of fire than assault rifles and are therefore, more or less, less effective than a contemporary modern service rifle.

There really isnt a term that fits well for they layman and the gunperson.
get good at guns is the best advice.

actually, i've remembered that a lot of folks here had a problem with the term "battle rifle" although I don't get the point behind this. language is supposed to serve us by making communication easier and more convenient. it is after all a easy way of differentiating between automatic rifles firing intermediate and full power cartridges, the former being commonly called "assault rifles". i don't get what the big fuss is all about

I distinguish between "assault rifles" and "battle rifles," but terms like "full-power" and "intermediate" are ultimately relative terms. It's hard to get more specific than "you'll know the difference when you see it" when it comes to telling the two apart, and terms can vary based on doctrine and language.

Wikipedia defines an "intermediate cartridge" as one that is less powerful than a round like .30-06, but with a longer effective range than a pistol cartridge. With these vague specifications, you could make the argument that 7.62x51mm is an intermediate cartridge.

TIL .303 burrdash is intermediate.

I would really define intermediate more in terms of the cartridge weight in all honesty; less than, I dont know, 18-20 grams.

Of course defining a cartridge by one feature is pretty stupid, weight is probably the best way to do it of all the single things.

You do this allot. You have a semi correct idea but then shit it up. LMG and GPMG aren't distinguished by rounds, they are typically distinguished by weight of the rifle and if its belt or magazine fed. An RPK is an LMG, but the M249 is an LMG. LMG and GPMG are void terms in allot of cases, as weapons apply and don't apply based on the operators choice at the time. The PKM, being in the same weight range as the M249 can be considered either an LMG (Because of its weight) or a GPMG (Because of its caliber and its ability to fire for longer-sustained bursts, but the M249 can do the same thing in terms of sustainment of fire.

Also the two major LMGs able to take belts and mags is an old Russian modification of an RPK/PKM hybrid which didn't go anywhere and the FN Minimi, this isn't 'many LMGs', its two. 2. Two. It isn't good for the FN Minimi either. You want to keep spent magazines to reload them later because disposable magazines aren't. The bolt of the FN Minimi crushes the feed lips of STANAG mags and I'm pretty sure it shatters the PMAG feed lips. You get the magazine and its 30 rounds once, then you have wasted a magazine. Automatic Riflemen carry thousands of rounds on them, they don't run out as fast a rifleman will though his ammo.

Related; the highest command experience in a military setting I have was near the end of my career in the RNI as a Comapny-level Infantryman, advising LTs and Captains. At the time, Russia was doing studies on how to increase the effectiveness of each individual rapid deployment force (VDV and RMP) at a Battalion level; most of the proposals involved sticking more machine Guns around. A Company would have had about 6+2 PKs normally plus those in the IFVs; one proposal called for 12+2 PKs. At the time, the Company I was in was heavy on the Machine guns, with 7+3, and I really was unable to even think of where the others would go.

Russia is now looking to have 9+2 as a mix of PKPs and PKMs.

The IP-2 almost became a thing, but it just wasn't as good or cool as the RPK and PK I guess.

snip

dude you're being so fucking annoying. idk what i've done to piss you off or whatever but you're coming off as being very condescending and acting as a know it all.

This is how we talk to each other. You've been around.

2. Splitting the squads is an Army of Excellence thing, TBH. I don't know of any other armies that have squads that can't fit inside their IFVs. Korea, maybe, but not since K21, and Stryker platoons are fine. It works. It might reduce maneuver to section level (a section is an organizational intermediary between the squad and platoon in the US Army), bute in practice since infantry platoons tend to operate in squares rather than triangles, so two-by-two maneuver (aka two-shooting-two-moving) is almost standard the (Western) world over.

Chinese squads were split for awhile there back in the 80s and 90s.
I forget why.
There were times when a squad was split up in a platoon in a few countries, but this got fixed once the 70s wore off in 1983.

Since you've specified a weapon like MAG or M60 or PKM, you're going to need two men to use a weapon, which basically ties you to having an asymmetric layout. This isn't bad, but it's not very flexible. Barrier penetration is mostly overrated for a cartridge, like the mythical "stopping power", and the "range dilemma", so that's not a terribly convincing argument.

For what its worth the PK gunner in Russian structures typically no longer has a true assistant; its more like a rifleman buddy who does rifleman things who sticks by the PK man. He carries one or two extra barrel(s) and a few hundred more rounds of ammo; Russian kit have a pocket thats intended to hold between 100 and 300 rounds of 7.62x54mmR in belts depending on the kit; everyone generally carried 100 rounds in their kit, the gunner carries between 400 and 1500 depending on how many Chechens there are, and his bestest friend Misha carries about 300-500. This effectively gives him many, many shootings without ever having to truly take away a rifleman like the general machine guns mate of WWII/50s and 60s might have. I beleive this is true of most armies now, though, with the M240 and whatever else there is.

That said, snipers tend to use the same rifles as the other riflemen, with heavier barrels and optics, or a sniperized variant of the automatic rifle like SDM-R or PSL. They aren't really necessary either, they're an artefact of police actions, like the "range dilemma", the oughties revival of outdated ideas like the GPC, and LWMMG.

Again this is kind of doctrinal. The SDM in the Russian doctrine will typically act under platoons direction as a kind of recon or artificial extension to the Platoons effective range. They arent going to just start shooting as the enemy advance but are generally supposed to act kind of how a sniper might; move to a position, eliminate targets from longer ranges and support the element by providing accurate, rapid fire outside the enemies effective range. They arent even really a major casualty producer ofc, thats still the PK and RPG.

That was a "success" ?

Don't rain on my parade.

I got people to show up and shoot others in the same server. Success!

You just got mad because I killed you with grorious nippion sterr katana of much grory.
forrded one thousan time in groriouss furnace of sacred eldaru forge
our divine wind brew american freet from iowa jima 10/10 for the emperuu-sama.

He should probably just use 5.45x39, 5.56x45 or 5.8x42 really.
Or make his own intermediate.

Define intermediate.

Any supersonic rifle cartridge whos mass is less than 278 grains/18 grams, having a projectile with a mass of less than 80 grains/5.2 grams/generating a recoil of less than 7.5 foot pounds/10.2j energy from a loaded rifle with a mass of no more than 3.8kg/8.4lb with an effective range of no less than 300 meters.

Are flamethrowers actually helpful on the battlefield or just there for awesomeness? (Modern Tech)

On the modern battlefeild they have basically no uses, they were a very niche weapon to begin with. The development of of reconciles rifles, man portable rockets, and missiles really got rid of their remaining utility. Especially with the development of thermobaric warheads.

tbh flamethrowers are good at exactly one thing anymore

Starting fires

Thermobarics do this too but not as well as flamethrowers actually.


The switch from flamethrowers to thermobarics/FAMs was because Flamethrowers actuality are not as effective as thought in most situations. The Flametroop was armed with one flamethrower and one pistol, for which he could shoot himself in the head with. He had 6-18 seconds of fuel, generally, and an effective fire range of about 40m generally. He was encumbered, slow and an easy target. It took a team to protect him. While I will never argue that flamethrowers are fucking horrifying, having come against a home made one at one point, I will argue their effectiveness as a combat weapon generally is very limited to niche roles.

The Thermobaric rocket, by comparison, is lightweight, portable and omipurpose. It can destroy a LAV or building with ease, and immediately produces a huge number of casualties as a result of its pressure wave, which is the primary method of incapacitation in most explosives. The Russian RPO has an explosive yield roughly equal to the 3OF45 High-explosive artillery shell while weighing only 11kg; a Russian Flamethrower unit (Actually just a bunch of pissed of Russians with RPOs) have 36 of them.
Per squad.


Swedish pioneering units had like 8 flamethrowers in them until the 70s or something. They tried in the 60s to make a flamethrower that shot 300m.
They now use Thermobarcs and HE.

im a big guy

where it counts

I have a big nose too.

No the LAW wasn't around in WW2, but predecessors to man portable rocket launched weapons were.

In a large area covered in shrubbery filled with fighters stashed inside, I will kill more guerrillas with a flame thrower, FAR faster then you will using the LAW. Only because I only have to hold down a igniting trigger, and do the left to right. Smooth sailing at that point.

Yes driving out of fortifications, but in situations where enemies like to hide in places, driving them out could be the difference between life and death. It's much cheaper and logistically plausible to burn a whole town, or a hills shrubbery to draw would-be ambushes or hiders out, rather than attack them with LAWS.

Flamethrowers actually have greater distance than you realize, honestly it surprised the hell out of me too so I can't get you there. Those puppies, I'd love to delve into the logistics of them, but they tended to reach more than enough distance you would need in CQC. I'm guessing just a pressure nozzel?

Ive shot eight different two Flamethrowers in my life.
Eight.
These include the M1A1, M2, LPO-50, FmW. 35 and 41, the ROKS-2/3, and two Civilian made Flamethrowers for purpose of sale.
The longest range of these was able to ignite targets at a distance of a little more than 40 meters.
I have fired over 26 different types of rocket in my life at static, moving, and targets actively attempting to kill me.
I have been able to hit targets at more than 60 meters about 90% of the time with these.
Compare that to the Flamethrowers, which have a 0% success rate at said distance.
Since 90% of infantry combat takes place at 100-300 meters, ill stick with the rocket and rifle combination.

You're also more likely to kill more with a flamethrower shooting into a window, then with a LAW. Those troops may, and probably should be wearing vests and padding to protect against shrapnel. But fire does what fire does best, and spreads around the room, burning air, causing smoke, and catching people on fire, burning through their armor.

[Kazarogkai]

If I really want to set a bunch of guys on fire I would much rather make use of napalm dropped from some Attack/COIN Aircraft than dedicated slow moving flame thrower troops. Just my opinion.

[Allanea]

If I really want to set a bunch of guys on fire I would much rather make use of napalm dropped from some Attack/COIN Aircraft than dedicated slow moving flame thrower troops. Just my opinion.

[Allanea]

You're also more likely to kill more with a flamethrower shooting into a window, then with a LAW. Those troops may, and probably should be wearing vests and padding to protect against shrapnel. But fire does what fire does best, and spreads around the room, burning air, causing smoke, and catching people on fire, burning through their armor.

If only there was a way to lob napalm at people at LAW-like ranges.

Possibly, if there was an FAE weapon of some kind.

Perhaps we would call it a rocket flamethrower.

[Palmyrion]

Choose your poison:

95gr .277"

vs

75gr .240"

75gr .240"

That said, what muzzle velocity do you want?

[Fordorsia]

no you're just spreading false, misguided information so pls stop

False misguided information? Sorry to say kiddo, but if you really want to call something misguided and false, actually put the effort to look into it first.

What is it with people calling others kiddo during internet arguments. It just makes you looks worse when you find out they're right and you're wrong.

[Rhodesialund]

False misguided information? Sorry to say kiddo, but if you really want to call something misguided and false, actually put the effort to look into it first.

What is it with people calling others kiddo during internet arguments. It just makes you looks worse when you find out they're right and you're wrong.

Same thing with you Kiddo.

[Sevvania]

On the subject of flamethrowers, have a Finnish model fitted with an over-barrel Suomi SMG.

[Fordorsia]

On the subject of flamethrowers, have a Finnish model fitted with an over-barrel Suomi SMG.
(Image)

muh 40k

[Crookfur]

On the subject of flamethrowers, have a Finnish model fitted with an over-barrel Suomi SMG.
(Image)

muh 40k

Nah still needs a paint stripper, ugl or disco ball arc welder thingy for 40k.

[Liberben]

HK416 V.S M16a2?