Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Are there any ways to protect yourself from a modern flame-thrower?
If it's urban warfare and your position is in a building. But your enemies in the street have a modern flame-thrower, do you have a chance? And if mole-squads in Vietnam had had them, would US have won that war?
I mean Russian Shmel' and it's likes, those that produce "vacuum"
6 Answers
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
Flame throwers that were man packed had a very small amount of fuel relative to larger vehicle borne flame throwers such as the British Crocodile of WWII. In addition the fuel could not be projected much further than 20-30 yards. Most times an experienced operator would project the fuel without the heat element allowing the fuel to travel further than flame alone. The fuel would than be ignited by tracers from marines or soldiers in the area backing the assault. The drawback was that you didn't get the intimidating WHOOSH that accompanied the flame being projected. One effect that people don't consider is the flame projected through an embrasure uses all the oxygen in the confined space
suffocating the occupants and cooking off the ammunition. The best way to protect ones self was mutually supporting positions. Also, Man portable flame throwers are very heavy. You have a tank of fuel a tank of pressurized air and a heavy hose and nozzle projector. It's not easy to run to cover with 80-100 pounds on ones back.
Source(s): Osprey Publishing: Infantry Assault tactics and myself - DoubleLLv 61 decade ago
Modern Flame thrower? No Modern Army uses flame throwers. I guess you could wear a crash rescue fire suit...Course, that shiny silver suit would make you one fat juicy target but, you could wear one.
- Anonymous5 years ago
They'd probably help with operations in urban terrain. Bunch of baddies in a building, just burn the mother down. The collateral damage would still probably make them not worth it though... And who wants to be the dude carrying gallons of flammable crap on his back in a war zone :P EDIT: Wow, good call Jamie. Didn't think of that one.
- Joel VLv 71 decade ago
Last I checked there were no "modern" flamethrowers, we haven't used them since korea, at the very, very latest. Probably since WWII.
You wouldn't want to use it in vietnam anyway. You'd wind up burning the whole jungle down, as well as any villages in it.
- boreduninspiredLv 51 decade ago
Yeah, easy. Shoot the guy before he gets close enough to use it.
(There's a reason nobody uses them any more, it's pretty hard to get within 20 feet of somebody without getting killed first)
