Because getting within 50 meters of an enemy position with a 70lb tank on your back and letting loose a big plume of "aim here" for everyone else on the battlefield to see is pretty suicidal.

>>65646043
modern flamethrowers are fuel-air explosive RPGs

Although various configurations were attempted, this weapon was never deployed on a large scale.
Unless the operation had reached the mopping-up phase, the level of protection found in a flamethrower tank was required.

because there are thermobaric hellfire's.

File: 1708532214591.jpg (868 KB, 1843x2416)

868 KB JPG

>>65646043
Like chemical weapons, they've been phased out more because of how much of an unholy headache they are for all involved and because viable alternatives to most of what they do were developed rather than any moral compunction.

Though militaries that actually intend to do things are loathe to completely abandoned incendiary weapons completely so no comprehensive ban was put in place. Just a cope treaty to mollify the hippies soipointing at that picture of burned Vietnamese dirt farmers.

File: M202 flash ahnold.jpg (26 KB, 636x358)

26 KB JPG

>>65646043
because flamethrower tanks made handheld flamethrowers obsolete
and handheld thermobaric weapons have the same effect on target, with more range, less risk to the user, and without carrying several liters of gas on your back

>>65646043
Juicy drone target.

>>65646318
not even, the biggest danger to flamethrower operators are just getting shot because there isnt an easy way to protect yourself while using it, since it requires being within less than 100m of your target
you would be dead long before a drone ever showed up, which is why flamethrowers were replaced as quickly as possible by flamethrower tanks and then incendiary projectiles after

File: 1687221649103_now_topstor(...).jpg (104 KB, 1500x844)

104 KB JPG

>>65646321
>>65646145
>>65646079
>>65646106
>Just use thermobarics bro
>Blows himself up with rest of the squad

>>65646321
>you would be dead long before a drone ever showed up (from bullets)
>drones have ranges measured in miles while bullets have ranges measured in yards
>drones more accurate than bullets
What?

>>65646043
Because you can fire themobaric warheads instead and be further away form people shooting at you, suck the air out of their lungs when they hide in structures without wantering around with a giant flammable can of napalm strapped to you while people with treacers in belt fed and full auto guns shoot at you.

Think it through

thermobaric 84mm carl gustaf wins

>>65646340
>thermobaric 84mm carl gustaf wins
>>65646043
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baR4riIx6BA

>>65646334
if you pulled out a flamethrower, it would be within less than 100m
the enemy doesnt even need to wait for a drone, they can just shoot you
they can do so easily because your target is both extremely close and revealing himself with a gout of fire

you dont need a long-range munition to take care of them because you can just shoot them
this was a problem that was so bad that flamethrower units in iwo jima had replaced 90% of their original users

File: MiniMax_H3_00005_ (1).mp4 (1.34 MB, 640x640)

1.34 MB MP4

>>65646343
>flamethrower units in iwo jima had replaced 90% of their original users

>>65646343
>if you pulled out a flamethrower, it would be within less than 100m
>instant flamethrower teleportation tactics!

>the enemy doesnt even need to wait for a drone, they can just shoot you
You don't understand how to employ weapon systems do you? Like, you can just use the longer range weapon way before you use the bullet.

>they can do so easily because your target is both extremely close and revealing himself with a gout of fire
They can do so much sooner because the drone can outrange the bullets

>you dont need a long-range munition to take care of them because you can just shoot them
>wait until the enemy gets within 100 meters of you meaning they probably have been able to advance to that position because of some combination of numerical or tactical advantage

>this was a problem that was so bad that flamethrower units in iwo jima had replaced 90% of their original users
incorrect comparison as drones didn't exist at the time and we have no data for said comparison

Glad you're not in charge of anything, imagine detecting an enemy a mile away so you send drones to soften targets and you see fucking flamethrowers, and your commander is like, "Naw, don't worry about those, WAIT TILL THEY GET CLOSER THEN WE CAN JUST SHOOT THEM."

Mental illness posting.

>>65646374
>instant flamethrower teleportation tactics!
flamethrowers are short ranged weapons, so the user is extremely vulnerable when using them
a drone isnt even necessary because its within the envelope of normal guns

> Like, you can just use the longer range weapon way before you use the bullet.
other way around
if you can see someone with a flamethrower at close range, you can just shoot them instead of using a drone

>They can do so much sooner because the drone can outrange the bullets
the bullet does so sooner because if someone is using a flamethrower it is faster to just shoot them instead of wait for a drone

>incorrect comparison as drones didn't exist at the time and we have no data for said comparison
its a perfectly fine comparison that shows that flamethrowers are insanely risky weapons to use against guns, nevermind anything else

>>65646043
Flamethrower duty would be analogous to plasma gun duty in the Imperial Guard.
Suicide.

>>65646414
flamethrower duty would be analagous to flamethrower duty in the imperial guard
which is also suicide

plasma guns no longer explode when fired, only when deliberately overcharged

I feel like the obvious response to all the mentions of flamethrowers being unwieldy is that we obviously wouldn't just deploy thesame M2s we used in Vietnam. By now there are definitely ways to norrow down the gas bottles and maybe even lighten them.
I really wouldn't be surprised if there was serious potential for a drone counter measure in flamethrowers.

>>65646419
That only applies to Primaris Marine plasma guns, the Guard gets the exact same unreliable garbage.

>>65646403
>a drone isnt even necessary because its within the envelope of normal guns
>completely discounts the advantage of situational awareness, target selection, and ability to circumvent cover in favor of a short range direct fire weapon
Mental illness posting.

>other way around
No.

>the bullet does so sooner because if someone is using a flamethrower it is faster to just shoot them instead of wait for a drone
You can send a drone earlier therefore sooner.

>its a perfectly fine comparison that shows that flamethrowers are insanely risky weapons to use against guns
Most combat casualties in war are from drones now, which means flamethrowers would be even more vulnerable.

>>65646421
Technically you don't need a fuel pack, you'll just have a lot less "ammo" in a self-contained flamethrower.

>>65646425
>Mental illness posting.
person with flamerthrower is firing
he is vulnerable so you can fire at them
this is faster than calling in a drone

>Most combat casualties in war are from drones now, which means flamethrowers would be even more vulnerable.
the point being made is that flamethrowers were already vulnerable to bullets even before drones
you wouldnt even need a drone because shooting them the moment they reveal themselves is just as good now as it was back then
no special counter-measures, just shoot them

>>65646429
I know that but surely a compromise between a super soaker that can burn things 8 feet away and an M2 would be ideal.

>>65646421
underbarrel flamethrowers have even less range than a regular one
now you are within pistol range of the enemy
the only benefit is that you can still use a regular gun, but you might as well throw away your mini-flamer from how often you will use it

File: Flamethrower Firing Range.jpg (163 KB, 1024x576)

163 KB JPG

>>65646043
>Why isn't flamethrower coming back now
China never exactly threw them away.

When it comes to drones we already have shotguns, what would be nice is for those shotguns to have dedicated anti-drone shells.

>>65646436
Holy WW2, China.

>>65646430
>this is faster than calling in a drone
drone can hit them miles out
this is faster than waiting to shoot them
mental illness posting

>the point being made is that flamethrowers were already vulnerable to bullets even before drones
Now they're even more vulnerable to drones

>>65646439
the best option for dispersed AA is a thermally sighted RWS
the hardest part of shooting a drone down is spotting it in the first place, and the reason so many people get hit by them is because they cant see them coming
company-level radar and giving every truck and jeep a machine gun that can spot drones against the sky is the best option, apart from battalion-level anti-drone coverage

>>65646434
I never mentioned anything about those.

>>65646450
>Now they're even more vulnerable to drones
again, a drone isnt even necessary because flamethrowers are short ranged and leave the user vulnerable
guns kill them just fine

>>65646454
those were the smallest flamethrowers that were ever actually made, and the closest we ever got to bottle-sized flamethrowers
and they were even more useless than regular flamethrowers

>>65646451
Radar is asking for much, a RCWS on top of every vehicle is feasible.

>>65646461
Yes but what I suggested woukd be more akin to improving upon the conventional back-mounted systems to make those more maneuverable.

>>65646457
>wait till the enemy gets in burn you to a crisp range before shooting them
Mental illness posting

>>65646475
>wait till the enemy gets in burn you to a crisp range before shooting them
and if they try that, they reveal themselves and get machine gunned
the enemy risks a lot and you risk very little

this was true back then and its true now, the drones wont have any flamethrower troops to hit in the first place because they all died the moment they popped out of cover

>>65646436
TBF, they aren't keeping those to fight a peer-to-peer conflict. They keep those to demoralize any developing nation they are already curb-stomping.

>>65646482
>they reveal themselves and get machine gunned
By who? If they got within 100 meters of your position you're seriously on your back foot. You machine gun them and get murdered by his 10 friends to his left and right. Bummer, now you get burned alive, shoulda used a drone an hour earlier.

>>65646485
Who? Fights with India are with clubs and spears, they have puppet guerrillas to fight their war in Myanmar, and a flamethrower isn't much use in a duel between ships.

>>65646488
>Bummer, now you get burned alive, shoulda used a drone an hour earlier.
are you seriously arguing that flamethrower troops pose an actual threat to anyone even though it was a ridiculously lethal job to its own user?
people replaced the flamethrower as quickly as they could after WW2 because there was no realistic way for a man on foot to get within 100m of the target fire and still survive
the ultimate tactic was to use real weapons to defeat the defenders and only after neutralizing the defenders was the flamethrower brought in to smoke the defenders after they had retreated further into the defensive line

flamethrowers were already a suicide job before drones came around, so there really isnt a point to wasting a drone on a flamethrower when all of them would be dead before they could ever fire

>>65646497
>are you seriously arguing that flamethrower troops pose an actual threat to anyone even though it was a ridiculously lethal job to its own user?
No? I'm saying drones are better at killing them than bullets and you'd be retarded to let them get close to you for a "better shot"

>people replaced the flamethrower as quickly as they could after WW2 because there was no realistic way for a man on foot to get within 100m of the target fire and still survive
>"The M2 flamethrower was an American, man-portable, backpack flamethrower that was used in World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War."
Wew mental illness posting.

>the ultimate tactic was to use real weapons to defeat the defenders and only after neutralizing the defenders was the flamethrower brought in to smoke the defenders after they had retreated further into the defensive line
So then you'd have even less of a chance to shoot them and should use a drone to destroy those units even earlier?

>flamethrowers were already a suicide job before drones came around
And drones are still more effective at killing them.

>>65646502
>I'm saying drones are better at killing them than bullets and you'd be retarded to let them get close to you for a "better shot"
you wouldnt need a drone in the first place, because you already shot them for even trying to pull out a flamethrower in the firstplace

>So then you'd have even less of a chance to shoot them and should use a drone to destroy those units even earlier?
the only time a flamethrower would ever be used is if there wasnt anyone shooting back at them in the first place
the drone would therefore be far better spent killing the guy with an RPG who actually does pose a threat rather than the guy with a flamethrower, who would die in 20- seconds if he ever tried to show his face and would only get to fire his weapon after his side had already functionally won

>And drones are still more effective at killing them.
you wouldnt need a drone in the first place because the flamethrower is such a danger to its own user that nobody would use it in the first place

and the M2 flamethrower was only on the books in vietnam wasnt used in direct combat, it was used in relatively safe roles where the user doersnt expect to be shot at
the frontline role of the flamethrower was long replaced by flamethrower tanks which are both protected from small arms and have a range of almost 300 hundred meters
and even then, flamethrowers were still primarily employed for mopping up, after the defenders had mostly been neutralized

>>65646526
>because you already shot them for even trying to pull out a flamethrower in the firstplace
You shot them miles out?

>the only time a flamethrower would ever be used is if there wasnt anyone shooting back at them in the first place
Exactly, so use a drone.

>you wouldnt need a drone in the first place because the flamethrower is such a danger to its own user that nobody would use it in the first place
And drones are still more effective against them

>and the M2 flamethrower was only on the books in vietnam wasnt used in direct combat
moving goalposts, you said "people replaced as quickly as they could" but it stayed in use for decades after lol. You don't know anything, you just keep trying to adjust your nigger brained story every time I ballstomp you.

>>65646544
>You shot them miles out?
The only time a flamethrower is being used is if they are in mortal danger from being shot
You dont need to waste drones on them because guns do a good job keeping them away in the first place

>Exactly, so use a drone.
Against actual threats
Flamethrowers are already weak to bullets

>And drones are still more effective against them
There wouldn't be a point to droning them because they all would have been shot for even trying to use a flamethrower

>you said "people replaced as quickly as they could" but it stayed in use for decades after lol.
Because all the discussion was about their inability to be used without being shot first
Their use as utility gear after WW2 is mostly irrelevant to the fact that armored flamethrowers replaced them in roles that mattered
Unless you are also trying to claim that ceremonnial artillery pieces count as still being in service

The point is that its not necessary to use a drone on a flamethower because their short range and huge size means they are neutralised by boots on the ground long before a drone is necessary

>>65646562
>The only time a flamethrower is being used is if they are in mortal danger from being shot
>INSTANT TELEPORTING FLAMETHROWERS!
Mental illness posting.

>You dont need to waste drones on them because guns do a good job keeping them away in the first place
>Ukraine literally targeting individual riflemen with drones despite having a fraction of the funding and supply of the US.
You know it's not considered a waste when it effectively eliminates the enemy, correct?

>Flamethrowers are already weak to bullets
People are weak to everything, we still use drones to blow them up individually.

>There wouldn't be a point to droning them because they all would have been shot for even trying to use a flamethrower
Miles out?

>Because all the discussion was about their inability to be used without being shot first
>fucktons of stories and examples of flamethrowers being used
Are you suggesting they never made their objective?

>The point is that its not necessary to use a drone on a flamethower
The rest of the world disagrees with viable examples, you're just retarded and brown.

File: 3t0cddfzogk51.jpg (22 KB, 525x584)

22 KB JPG

>>65646043
Okay this is gonna sound really retarded....BUT! What if you somehow designed it with a long curved barrel (Pic)? Clearing trenches would be easy as fuck, just come up to a corner give a few second squirt and then move up to the next corner.

>>65646331
pretty sure you're not supposed to use a flamethrower in the trench either.

>>65646436
Based Chinks

>>65646331
>jpg
Come on now

File: e291c176a4acd9909b9718c06(...).jpg (162 KB, 1100x874)

162 KB JPG

>>65646436
They're a fun show on state TV but not much more.

>>65646051
conscript lives are meaningless

>>65646613
better idea
what if instead of forcing the user to expose any part of himself with a heavy flamethrower
we just put the fuel inside grenades and let the user toss them through doorways or windows or bank them off walls or whatever without ever needing to expose any part of himself