Why Modern Armies Have Abandoned Flamethrowers

Flamethrowers, a weapon used for over a century, have been gradually phased out of modern military arsenals. This shift in strategy is driven by a combination of practical military considerations and ethical dilemmas, leading to the adoption of more sophisticated and effective weapons. In this article, we delve into the reasons why flamethrowers have been largely removed from the inventory of modern armies.

Why Did the Military Stop Using Flamethrowers?

Operational Limitations

In the past, flamethrowers were considered a heavy, unwieldy, and short-range weapon that left operators dangerously exposed. They required the user to approach within 20-30 meters of enemy emplacements, making them vulnerable to hostile fire. To increase the safety and effectiveness of such weapons, alternatives with longer ranges and reduced risk to the operator were developed.

Replacement Weapons

Modern military forces have replaced flamethrowers with more advanced weapons. For example, the RPO-A “Shmel” thermobaric rocket launcher and SMAW-D High Explosive Dual Purpose (HEDP) rocket launcher were introduced. These weapons offer longer range, higher accuracy, and more destructive power. Using rockets instead of flamethrowers significantly enhances the operator's safety by allowing engagements from a distance.

Military Strategy

Flamethrowers are primarily used against enemy fortifications and entrenched positions. They work by burning out the oxygen inside concrete shelters, forcing enemy troops to surrender. While effective, flamethrowers have limited uses and are best suited for specific scenarios. Modern handheld anti-tank and anti-bunker missiles, such as the NLAW (Nexter Light Anti Tank Weapon), offer superior versatility and efficacy in a broader range of combat situations.

Public Perception and Ethics

The use of flamethrowers, due to their inhumane nature and the danger they pose to users, can affect public opinion and political support for military actions. Images of flamethrowers in action can spark negative reactions and undermine the government's justification for the conflict. Therefore, a government's political will and public support play a significant role in deciding whether these weapons are utilized.

Modern Weapons: Industrial and Demolition Rockets

Alternative weapons like demolition flame rockets are designed to overcome the limitations of flamethrowers. Industrial rockets, such as the RPO-A “Shmel,” are thermobaric weapons that release a burst of oxygen-depleted gas, creating shock waves and suffocation, effectively neutralizing enemy positions. Demolition rockets, like the SMAW-D HEDP, are high-explosive missiles that can penetrate and destroy bunkers from a distance.

Specialized and Versatile Solutions

Flamethrowers are considered excessively heavy and cumbersome, making them a logistical burden for infantry. The average weight of a loaded flamethrower can surpass 30 kilograms, equating to about 70 pounds. This weight is a significant disadvantage in modern combat scenarios where rapid and mobile operations are critical. Specialized weapons like the NLAW, weighing around 4-5 kilograms, are more practical and adaptable.

The Handflammpatrone, despite its niche use, underscores the concept of compact, efficient incendiary devices. This weapon, while limited in range and impact, provides a symbolic alternative to traditional flamethrowers. It can be wielded as a portable incendiary device or launched like a missile with an incendiary warhead, offering versatility in its application.

In conclusion, the decision to abandon flamethrowers is influenced by a combination of practical military considerations, ethical concerns, and shifting public opinion. Modern military tactics and equipment have evolved to offer safer, more effective, and versatile alternatives, ensuring that the armed forces can engage in combat with greater precision and reduced risk.