SinoSoldier
Colonel
Flamethrowers are also good for eliminating dangerous pests such as hornets and wasps. There is a YouTube video of Chinese police using a flamethrower to take out an Asian giant hornet nest.
PLA Small arms
- Thread starter Vanguard1688
- Start date
I would like to give my 2 cents on why the training is necessary and why UGVs or other methods may not be ideal.
There are a few consideration that I think we need to look at and I apologize if others have already iterated the points.
1, Terrain: for COIN or Counter terrorists ops, there are possible terrain issue including but not limited to the following, mountainous regions, multi story building and narrow caves. These terrain will present difficulty for general UGVs to traverse, therefore you will need a soldier with the flamer anyway hence the need for the training.
2, UGV designs: terrain as mention above is already an issue, the UGV will likely need to be specially designed for some of the terrain it will likely encounter, considering the limited number of these incidence in China it would not be worthwhile to especially design and produce something you will ultimately have very limited use. Also for a flamer UGV, its not as simple as striping a flamer to currently available UGVs like guns, since like you said the fuel (ammo) of the flamer is like bomb in itself, some form of protection will needed for the fuel otherwise the UGV become a liability rather then an asset.
3, Rockets, Warhead and bombs: the problem here is potential collateral damage, like some have said possible cave-in for caves, collateral explosive damage in urban areas and 'detonation on contact vs delayed fuse' where there is a likelihood that if detonation on contact is desired then that might put the throw or launcher at risk but for delayed fuses, there is an opportunity for the other side to return the grenade. These are all solved with a flamer who can quick come up to the needed location from the back do his thing and drop back to the back of the formation.
4, Most importantly, regardless of whether the UGVs are used or not, human operator training is still necessary if flamers are to be incorporated into PAP units.
Okay, looks like I've need to clear up my point.
First, I don't dispute that flamethrowers are useful. It's just they have to get real close to be effective, which is not a good idea when it is essentially a liquid bomb on a backpack.
The flamethrower was phased out of other armed forces for a good reason.
As for the way to ignite targets from further away, there's incendiary rockets. Russia is really good on this one. They have RPO-Z and MRO-Z, which trades the thermobaric warhead of RPO-A and MRO-A with an incendiary warhead.
Since the warhead burns instead of explodes, the collateral damage would be kept to a minimum (as if there's a minimum collateral damage with fire). At most the concern would be the leftover rocket motor fuel when the rocket hits the target.
The point of flamethrower is to flush out entrenched targets anyway (they either bugger out or die holding on), and you most likely won't worry too much about collateral damage when you need to bring literal fire out.
For me the only exception for the rule is when the LoS is short enough to nullify rocket's range advantage (with plenty of cover so they can't shoot the flamethrower easily). Otherwise why risk your men when you can just flush out the enemy with incendiary rocket right into your killing zone?
I rest my case here. There's no point for us to continue butting heads over frickin' flamethrowers.
First, I don't dispute that flamethrowers are useful. It's just they have to get real close to be effective, which is not a good idea when it is essentially a liquid bomb on a backpack.
The flamethrower was phased out of other armed forces for a good reason.
As for the way to ignite targets from further away, there's incendiary rockets. Russia is really good on this one. They have RPO-Z and MRO-Z, which trades the thermobaric warhead of RPO-A and MRO-A with an incendiary warhead.
Since the warhead burns instead of explodes, the collateral damage would be kept to a minimum (as if there's a minimum collateral damage with fire). At most the concern would be the leftover rocket motor fuel when the rocket hits the target.
The point of flamethrower is to flush out entrenched targets anyway (they either bugger out or die holding on), and you most likely won't worry too much about collateral damage when you need to bring literal fire out.
For me the only exception for the rule is when the LoS is short enough to nullify rocket's range advantage (with plenty of cover so they can't shoot the flamethrower easily). Otherwise why risk your men when you can just flush out the enemy with incendiary rocket right into your killing zone?
I rest my case here. There's no point for us to continue butting heads over frickin' flamethrowers.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
As the saving goes, don’t let perfection become the enemy of better.
UGVs are great, but how much do they cost? How many can you afford to deploy vs flamethrowers?
Is it better to have a flamethrower or zero UGVs?
In any scenario where the PAP might deploy flamethrowers, they would have the target cornered and pinned down. As such the risk of enemy fire striking the flamer trooper is negligible. What more, it is highly unlikely modern flamethrowers would explode if punctured like WWII relics since fire safety tech has improved just a tad since.
If you think a simple rifle round will cause a Hollywood explosion with a flamethrower, you might want to take a look at just how (in)effective it is to shoot modern propane tanks with even 50BMG if you want a big fireball and explosions.
Just so you know, a Raufoss is a high explosive incendiary. It’s pretty much as explosive as any man portable rifle round can get. And civilian propane tanks were not designed with battlefield conditions in mind, so that would pretty much be the minimum safety standard I would expect from the tanks of those PAP flamethrower tanks.
UGVs are great, but how much do they cost? How many can you afford to deploy vs flamethrowers?
Is it better to have a flamethrower or zero UGVs?
In any scenario where the PAP might deploy flamethrowers, they would have the target cornered and pinned down. As such the risk of enemy fire striking the flamer trooper is negligible. What more, it is highly unlikely modern flamethrowers would explode if punctured like WWII relics since fire safety tech has improved just a tad since.
If you think a simple rifle round will cause a Hollywood explosion with a flamethrower, you might want to take a look at just how (in)effective it is to shoot modern propane tanks with even 50BMG if you want a big fireball and explosions.
Just so you know, a Raufoss is a high explosive incendiary. It’s pretty much as explosive as any man portable rifle round can get. And civilian propane tanks were not designed with battlefield conditions in mind, so that would pretty much be the minimum safety standard I would expect from the tanks of those PAP flamethrower tanks.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Remember I mentioned Asian hornet hives. A few years back we saw some troopers using it on those.
Which seems like a possible use. Might also bust useful for creating counter fires vs widefires. Perhaps disposal of narcotics.
Problem with using them against caves is it’s strength works against the User.
You burn up the oxygen for both the guys in the cave and those doing the burning. The US encountered that when they were used against entrenched Japanese soldiers in caves and fortified positions during the Second World War. Sure they took out the Japanese but more than one Zippo man didn’t come back either.
Which seems like a possible use. Might also bust useful for creating counter fires vs widefires. Perhaps disposal of narcotics.
Problem with using them against caves is it’s strength works against the User.
You burn up the oxygen for both the guys in the cave and those doing the burning. The US encountered that when they were used against entrenched Japanese soldiers in caves and fortified positions during the Second World War. Sure they took out the Japanese but more than one Zippo man didn’t come back either.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Explosion is Hollywood where ever car is a bomb on wheels and gas stations blow up at the slightest gust of wind. Basically the least of the worries, at least a fuel explosion.
One of the tanks is compressed gas used to propel the fuel. This tank can explode if punctured and you don’t need an incendiary round for that. Any piece of fragmentation or well aimed shot can do that. The effect would be akin to a blast grenade on the operators back. It’s not a flaming boom but a deadly one.
The flame thrower slows down the user and singles him out for his specialty marking him as a target.
Thermobaric Warheads don’t snuff themselves out, they consume the oxygen in an enclosed space and use it for the effect and not the fire is why flame throwers were used against caves and fortified positions. The fuel air effect is more than a conventional bomb.
Basically it’s not a weapon that has a lot goring for it. In alternative uses it’s more practical. Controlled burns whether against insects, dead foliage, contaminated items, even snow removal.
Outside of fire some flamethrowers have in other nations been modified to disperse CS Agent for riot control.
One of the tanks is compressed gas used to propel the fuel. This tank can explode if punctured and you don’t need an incendiary round for that. Any piece of fragmentation or well aimed shot can do that. The effect would be akin to a blast grenade on the operators back. It’s not a flaming boom but a deadly one.
The flame thrower slows down the user and singles him out for his specialty marking him as a target.
Thermobaric Warheads don’t snuff themselves out, they consume the oxygen in an enclosed space and use it for the effect and not the fire is why flame throwers were used against caves and fortified positions. The fuel air effect is more than a conventional bomb.
Basically it’s not a weapon that has a lot goring for it. In alternative uses it’s more practical. Controlled burns whether against insects, dead foliage, contaminated items, even snow removal.
Outside of fire some flamethrowers have in other nations been modified to disperse CS Agent for riot control.
Really? Well, I guess that makes sense with its inherently longer range compared to your run-of-the-mill agricultural spray.
After reading a few other posts, I guess my knowledge about flamethrowers is rather inaccurate. However, I think what you're saying is similar to the concern I'm raising, just from a different angle.
Instead of the danger coming from his backpack exploding, the flamethrower guy is in greater danger because carrying a flamethrower is basically like carrying a big, heavy "Shoot Me!" Sign for enemies that don't want to die a fiery death.
Okay, I'll change my attitude towards flamethrowers a little. As shown by multiple parties in WW1 and 2, they can be quite useful to flush out bunkered down enemies. However, incendiary rockets can do the same job as the flamethrower in a safer way for probably 90% of the time (longer ranged, many are disposable after use), leaving flamethrowers for niche applications like in tight and confined spaces with little to no clear LoS or starting small fires.
MwRYum
Major
In modern days, especially in counter-insurgency warfare, you won't be seeing flamethrower troops as part of the leading wave, rather they'd be the specialists to be called in when encountering holdouts not viable to clear out by the means of more "conventional measures."
Likewise if and when AGLs and/or thermobaric rockets are called for, though in such situation that's the "all targets expendable" type...
Likewise if and when AGLs and/or thermobaric rockets are called for, though in such situation that's the "all targets expendable" type...