Posted on 01/06/2015 8:52:24 AM PST by C19fan
That would be clearing the room; many buildings have more than one room though... plus, as you illustrate it would give a false sense of security because a room that was hastily cleared via flamethrower could have held a hidy-hole (or closet) that a hostile was hiding in.
The only downside is that they really are extremely dangerous to operate.
More from the incoming small-arms fire of being a bullet-magnet than any deficiency/danger of the flamethrower itself. (IIUC, the fuel is typically akin to diesel and needs more than a typical spark to ignite.)
Given the ATF and regulations, that's not likely to happen.
We need a 21st century Moses Browning.The modern federal bureaucracy wouldn't give him the time of day.
RE South Korea Daiwoo:
“...That South Korea could produce a superior rifle should embarrass all Americans...”
Oh, I don’t know... there’s something about a fat little psychopath with a bad hairdo sitting across the border from you and threatening to invade and kill that sorta ... PROMPTS one to develop a really good battle rifle. I’d kind of expect them to come up with something decent.
“...What John Moses Browning would say about the AR series would be most interesting - probably obscene, but inlightening, none the less...”
It would be colorful, for sure...
Thing is, Gene Stoner MADE a piston drive prior to the AR - the M63 Stoner (Robinson Arms M96 is a descendent, unless I’m wrong.)
Never fired one, but people who have told me it’s a fine firearm.
Actually, I believed that flamethrowers would suffocate the enemy, so hiding in an area that isn’t sealed is just as deadly as being burned.
The flamethrower is an essential weapon for all kinds of close combat where the enemy’s well concealed and dug in like ticks. I tried to get M2A2s for the second attack on Fallujah but was informed by some pompous major at HQMC that the flamethrower violates some treaty now.
We used three types of fuel back when I was a PFC; gasoline, diesel and napalm. Gas gives a huge, billowing flame out to 15-20 meters which is great for enveloping a suspected hideout and really blinds the enemy gunners when you’re executing a road crossing. A skilled operator can actually bounce the stream of flame against a wall to shoot around a corner! Diesel shoots further and is really smoky, also good for obscuring and napalm gets out 40-50 meters or so in a long stream that sticks to your target. Great stuff.
As far as the M-16/M4 family go, we need to replace them as soon as possible. They are far too vulnerable to dirt and debris, too weak for sustained operations, and terrible for rapid clearing and cleaning.
The 5.56 caliber has been tried and found inadequate. In Iraq, it was OK at close engagement but poor at longer ranges and when the enemy had cover. We need a caliber that has good long distance lethality and good penetration of cover, like walls.
We are a nation of firearms expertise - we can do better.
Now, THAT, I would strap into...!!!!
The main problems with the M-16 in Vietnam were the case head separation jams and inaccessibility of the chamber. The cases would stick in the chamber and the extractor would tear the whole rear part of the cartridge way, leaving the rest of the cartridge case on the chamber. The next round was fed right Ito it, fusing the mess together.
So there you are, fighting for your life, and you have remove the magazine, knock out the rear pin, open the receiver, remove the bolt and bolt carrier - the use an assembled cleaning rod to knock the mess in your chamber out of the weapon. Then you had to reassemble everything and slam in a new magazine, chamber a round and pray it didn’t do it again.
A lot of good men died by their broken M-16s over there. They tried blaming it on us back then but long after the war, some truth came out.
I got my M14 back and kept it. If by some freaky chance a cartridge stuck in a ‘14, you could reach it with a knife blade.
For later.
Interesting... that’s an M4 Sherman. Thread is about an “M4”, too.
The Brits put a “17pdr” (90mm) gun on it and called it a Firefly.
But the flamethrower version would be much suited to that nickname, dontcha think?
That very much depends — flame-throwers have to be conservative with their usage because they have relatively little ammo
. (See here.)
I recall the USMC formally requested to use flamethrowers in Fallujah, but were denied...
One can only imagine the glee of Al Jazeera filming that...
Having had several M-16/M-4s I can testify that they are pretty temperamental WRT foreign material.
The P-90 is amazingly easy to disassemble, clean, and reassemble compared to it.
The 5.56 caliber has been tried and found inadequate. In Iraq, it was OK at close engagement but poor at longer ranges and when the enemy had cover. We need a caliber that has good long distance lethality and good penetration of cover, like walls.
There's a lot of rounds that are better; I read a comparison of the 5.7x28 to the 5.56 and even that 0.14mm seems to make a difference.
We are a nation of firearms expertise - we can do better.
Agreed.
Yes we are.
The biggest thing about gas pistons is that recoil lift they give off. The beauty of the AR-15 platform is the ability to shoot and pretty much keep the sights on target. The AK suffers from that recoil lift too.
The artile has a link to the new 5.56 M885a1 round.
Click the link.
From a standard M4 platform at a distance as short as 12ft, the round will yaw and create a 4.5in cavity through 14 inches of ballistic gelatin.
That's plenty, I don't care who you are.
Will also pierce 3/8in armor plate at 100yds. Or a concrete block at 40yds.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with those numbers.
The only thing lacking is RANGE.
You need to click that link and read the test results.
It's a FAR SUPERIOR round than any 5.56 ever produced.
From one fellow “war criminal” to another, I agree with you.
I thought I read that the M855A1 will yaw at about one inch?
The ability to carry more goes a long way in my book and while it may lack range it has still proven itself past 500 yards at times.
“The only thing lacking is RANGE.”
And for some/many of us, views beyond 500 yds are _rare_ (or easily evaded), enough so that it’s not a serious consideration. If you’re in sight of my house, I can just about throw things at you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.