Flamethrowers ?

Delancey

A friend of mine ( ex PDF ) says that Flamethrowers are now banned by international convention - is this really the case ?

concussion

The 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons allows the use of incendiaries, including flamethrowers, against combatants with the proviso that air-launched incendiaries are not used against military targets in civilian areas. That said, I don't think there are any air-launched flamethrowers (interesting weapon!), that provision is for weapons such as napalm (now used under a new name) and white phosporous (non-smoke rounds)

Incendiary weapons

Incendiary weapons are those that are primarily designed to set fire to objects or to burn persons through the action of flame or heat, such as napalm and flame throwers (Art. 1).

It is prohibited in all circumstances to use them against civilians. It is also prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.

Finally, it is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons unless they are being used to conceal combatants or other military objectives .

SlabMurphy

concussion wrote: »

The 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons allows the use of incendiaries, including flamethrowers, against combatants with the proviso that air-launched incendiaries are not used against military targets in civilian areas. That said, I don't think there are any air-launched flamethrowers (interesting weapon!), that provision is for weapons such as napalm (now used under a new name) and white phosporous (non-smoke rounds)

Interesting. I remember watching a programme on Discovery about tanks and it showed one the British used called a Churchill Crocidle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_Crocodile.

Anyway one of the crew of the tank told how if a tank was somehow captured, the enemy understandably regarded it as such a cruel and horrible weapon ( I'm sure the Germans had their varation of it also ) that the crew could expect nothing else but a horrible death.

I see white phosphorus is rightfully banned. Naturally that didn't strop the Zio nazi's from using it.

" The Israeli army used white phosphorus, a weapon with a highly incendiary effect, in densely populated civilian residential areas of Gaza City, according to indisputable evidence "
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/israeli-armys-use-white-phosphorus-gaza-clear-undeniable-20090119

It wasn't me!

It's not banned, but its use is controlled. It's legitimate to use it for the purposes of producing smoke.

Manic Moran

It wasn't me! wrote: »

It's legitimate to use it for the purposes of producing smoke.

And for killing people and for setting things on fire.

The main reason that flamethrowers are generally out of service is that they have been replaced by more effective munitions. Fuel-Air Explosives will do just as good a job of rooting people out of cover as flamethrowers, and you don't need to get anywhere near as close to do it. Not the same psychological value, granted, but if they're dead, who cares?

NTM

Hande hoche!

Yep additionally thermobaric weapons are used particularly in Russian service http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl46-e.htm while the US in Afghanistan has reportedly used M202a1 rocket launchers which will be familiar to anyone who has seen commando
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M202A1_FLASH

Delancey

I have a friend whose father was a flamethrower operator during Operation Market Garden in 1944 - he was warned that if captured he was history so he was advised to make sure he ditched his set if capture was imminent - otherwise bullet in the head time :eek: