M2 flamethrower banned from warfare forever

[@Taskandpurpose]

Should the flame tosser really be #canceled ?! bit.ly/3fttFhs -- use code TASK to get 15% off your Woobie Hoodie.

[@DragonMRA]

technically elon musks flamethrower is not a flamethrower. its just a giant lighter.

[@HanSolo__]

Flame Yeeter

[@AlifSgBuloh92]

Well.. since it is banned in international convention..

[@Crappy-1441]

hey man, is it possible to talk about White Phosphorus? From early uses and modern use in warfare.

[@Blondie-Actual]

Cappy, can you do a video on operation eldest son, (i think that's the name) where Mac v Sog would sabatage ammunition that was on it's way to the veit cong fighters?

[@matthewdavies986]

“Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.” ― Terry Pratchett

[@sgtmayhem7567]

Rest of his short life.

[@john.rc.3274]

There's some truth and logic to that statement.

[@kriegscommissarmccraw4205]

Sounds like something Sir Terry Pratchett would say "The rooster knew deep down, that he was going to have to learn what the strange man wanted, real quick.

[@bk-bx2mi]

-the rest of his life will only be 3 seconds long

[@drakoinx]

God damn that's fucking great. Random but is disk world worth it? I was working on the dark tower series while my buddy was working on Terry's shit. But it seemed so goofy. That's coming from a huge fan of Robert asprin and piers anthony.

[@HO-bndk]

British flamethrower tank crews in Europe said they'd usually only have to squirt near a position for the Jerries inside to surrender. They preferred not to actually have to flame anyone if they didn't really have to.

[@likeaboss860]

It was war, I don't believe you can speak for an entire Army. The US Marines didn't want to flame anyone either lol.

[@DynamicDurge]

@@likeaboss860 maybe not at first. As the war progressed, i dont think many marines cared if they burned or not.

[@BellicTaxi]

It is Cool that the fuel alone could cause soldiers to surrender that is beneficial as-well.

[@visassess8607]

@@likeaboss860 Then again the Marines were fighting in the Pacific against a much more fanatical enemy

[@jamiesachtleben2946]

S.L.A. Marshall did research into the idea that a certain percentage of soldiers (ww2) were not shooting to kill, but rather near the target or not at all. There are numerous factors as to why this occurred, but main arguments have pointed to soldiers struggling with the emotional end of taking a life, as well as the training targets not being humanoid which would have otherwise exposed the soldiers to killing a human. If the first theory is true, where soldiers struggle with either the guilt of taking a life or the sympathy for the person being killed, your thoughts make sense. Amount of suffering and agony of a weapon could directly influence how willing a person in this category would be to actually "take the shot". A bullet could certainly cause a massive amount of suffering, but in general suffering is shorter lived with either a quick death, or an injury that takes the enemy out of the fight and doesn't kill, softening the emotional blow. But, flamethrowers don't offer such a luxury. It is assured suffering on a scale nearly unimaginable, melting away skin, muscle, eyes and other gruesome mechanics of death. It isn't hard to see why someone who already fits into that doctrine would at least lament carrying out their duty. however, it does open the inverse of the question, with a more gruesome weapon comes those who are both willing to use them and able to apply themselves to be effective with it. Those who aren't able to stomach it in their core would likely not have the motivation necessary to wield the weapon effectively. It's also what makes certain types of propaganda effective. While some depict an incompetent enemy or a strong allied army, others dehumanize the foe which, in turn helps lessen the psychological effect of killing. The less human you see in the enemy the less humanity it costs to take their life. The deeper you go into the question, the more it becomes theory rather than fact, but it is an interesting question nonetheless.

[@Lucas-sp4vq]

The very existence of flamethrowers proves that sometime, somewhere, someone said to themselves, “You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done.” -George Carlin

[@sgtmayhem7567]

The 7 weapons you can’t use in combat. 1) Gas: Its just rude. 2) Biological: Nobody likes being sick. Whoops CoVid19 China. 3) Land Mines: Nobody who even matters signed and Claymores were still ok. 4) Incendiary Weapons: Only prohibits burning civilians. 11B’s are still OK. 5) Poison Bullets: Lead poisoning doesn’t count. 6) Lasers Designed to Cause Permanent Blindness: If your laser just happens too, that’s OK. 7) Expanding Bullets (Hollow Points): IN WAR dummy. Cops shooting dirtbags is still OK. Banned in 1899, they were developed by Britain in India.

[@rickyredbeard8274]

@@sgtmayhem7567 Your forgetting quite a few.

[@paulcassidy4559]

What a guy, lol.

[@gabrielmatsunaga]

@@sgtmayhem7567 I’m amazed by our creativity to kill each other

[@zachprouty8595]

@@gabrielmatsunaga it's one hell of an art huh

[@robertcurry389]

Brother, get the flamer... *T h e H e a v y F l a m e r*

[@GaryHamad]

MY FACE IS MY SHIELD

[@unclesamuk8687]

Sisters of battle has entered the chat

[@julianjimenez8231]

BURN IN HOLY FIRE!

[@Madjo-qj2ge]

Is this Russian Badger Reference?

[@RolfHartmann]

Burn in holy fire!

[@mondaymotivator_]

Loophole: per the nfa and atf, flamethrowers are not considered destructive devices, as the only sort of dd’s that are regulated are in relation to explosives. Flamethrowers have no relation to such items, meaning you do not need to do nfa process and register it. Perfectly civilian legal, unless the area you live in restricts as fire hazards.

[@bullzebub]

yeah. in most places they arent firearms so no license required :-D

[@uppitywhiteman6797]

I own a flame thrower. Use it for weed and brush control. Most common use.

[@JonatasAdoM]

@@bullzebub The irony of not considering it a *fire* arm hahahah

[@gagida1829]

@@JonatasAdoM lmao

[@Madjo-qj2ge]

If my knowledge about American states law correct In some states, flamethrower consider gardening tool

[@zspud21]

Last time I was this early the flame thrower was not a war crime

[@joshuaespinoza8325]

yeah this is news to me

[@kolinmartz]

It’s still not a war crime. It’s only a war crime if civilians are caught in the flames.

[@HanSolo__]

@@kolinmartz I don't think there is a lot to investigate after the use of the tank/crocodile size of a flame thrower.

[@kolinmartz]

@@HanSolo__ as I was saying. It’s not that they can’t use them. It’s that they won’t use them.

[@blyatman7244]

@@kolinmartz although flamethrower is not banned by Geneva Convention, it was prohibit to be used to lit your enemies on fire. So you still can not use it to kill your enemies. It risk breaking the Convention (It would be a war crime if you do so) You can, however, use it to clear the foliage, and then says than you didn't know there are enemies hiding in there.

[@JonatasAdoM]

"We can't use flamethrowers anymore; we'll have to settle with napalm instead."

[@frankieM_]

well good thing we got our handy M2 napalm launcher with 65lb backpack configuration

[@THESLlCK]

@@frankieM_ fun fact, flamethrowers pretty much always used napalm. Chemically different substances, but they were pretty close. Flamethrowers just use a slightly more liquidy substance. To make napalm at home, which you totally shouldn’t and I won’t teach you how, it’s pretty simple. Historically speaking, not me and not me telling you how to make it, people could make it at home by dissolving chunks of styrofoam into gasoline until it stops dissolving OR they would put styrofoam in Orange skin oil. Either way, it burns identical to the military grade stuff from the land of Tree-AK’s, The Nam.

[@GreenBlueWalkthrough]

Then we got tried of that and moved on to terobarics the MOAB which just makes it so the enemy can''t breath then pop.

[@thunderbird1921]

America and Britain both used napalm in World War II and Korea though. The French witnessed it being on dropped on a German stronghold and though it was absolutely brutal (though probably necessary).

[@7Beanss]

Also banned

[@JoabeRuben]

USA: uses shotguns in world war one Germany: no, shotguns are too brutal for war also Germany: Hans get ze flamethower!

[@HO-bndk]

Jawohl, Fritz. Wait until the poison gas clears first, though.

[@nik0392]

(Backyard-War Flashback?

[@MosoKaiser]

* ze Flammenwerfer!

[@deltashot5608]

@@MosoKaiser this is the flamenwefer. It werfs flamen

[@karlmuller3690]

@@deltashot5608 - "Flammenwerfer" ... is much more satisfying a word to say, than "Flame Thrower". It sounds just, sooo dull ...

[@Kkakdugii]

I did not know about the Russian one or the modern uses of a flamethrower, very cool

[@stephennuttall5052]

M9 was last flamethrower used by US much lighter and new wand big improvement over earlier models and 50 lbs weight same equivalent of Russian model but probably better

[@dicecorporation]

Russia transitioned away from using flamethrowers because they invented the rpo to replace it

[@culturalliberator9425]

If our enemy aren't willing to do the same then you can't afford to do so.

[@eduardos8895]

Russia still has flamethrower companies. They use thermobaric rpgs now though

[@bendunn8976]

Fucked it now

[@mrmacguff1n]

"Camouflage isn't as effective when all the green has turned to ash" The Operator of a Hellfire YEET Cannon, probably

[@clxwncrxwn]

lol this is true, soldiers would stick out like a sore thumb for snipers.

[@FoulPet]

I'll be glad when all the people that use the term yeet are ash.

[@zeening]

-the guy spraying agent orange everywhere in vietnam, fixed. for real though shit was nasty my uncle had to handle that shit and when he was in his 60s-70s fibrous masses started growing in his lungs and obv didn't last long after that, docs said it was directly from agent orange exposure, ooooof

[@rrphantom8194]

"The original version of the american flamethrower was called the M1A" Of course it was

[@andyjacobs7010]

We got M1 Garands, M1 Carbines, M1A Flamethrowers, you name em. M2 Tanks M3 Grease Guns, M3 Tanks, Lees, Grants... Next up we got M4 Shermans, M4 Carbines, M(1)4 Rifles, we got more...

[@honkhonk8009]

@@andyjacobs7010 then we went to the M1 MBT

[@andyjacobs7010]

@@honkhonk8009 M2 Bradley... M3 Bradley...

[@rrphantom8194]

@@andyjacobs7010 And don't even start with the naming of all the different versions and updates of each gun and equipment (A1, A2, A3, etc...) And we have the balls to mock the chinese designation system, unreal

[@honkhonk8009]

@@rrphantom8194 Its a really efficient system imo. Gets to the point without unecessary bs. Name perfectly tells you which block/iteration of machine it is, and tells you its designation. A= attack aircraft B= bombers C= cargo E= electronic countermeasure F= fighter H= helicopter O= observaton P= patrol R= reconnaisance S= anti-submarine or special mission T= trainer U= utility V= vertical/short take-off X= experimental Y= prototype For missiles, its even better. Really good organization, arguably better than the german system.

[@MovieUniversity]

I took the photos at 5:00 5:07 and 5:13. They were taken in 2013 in Redding, Penn during World War 2 weekend with the Parris Island Living History Detachment. Cool to see they’re still getting used all these years later.

[@kylephilipe8347]

They showed up on our last hike during the crucible

[@brightarmadillo2676]

Flamethrowers aren't actually banned in warfare. Neither are incendiary weapons. Though there are limitations, such as you can't use them near a civilian target, flamethrowers are still able to be used on the battlefield. It's more a matter of them no longer being as effective as they were due to the modern battlefield and the risks associated with such weapons.

[@STWLandO]

Did you even watch the entire video? He talk about this, but hey I guess some people just like to be right and prove other people wrong

[@att7364]

@@STWLandO hey he saved me 10 min of this guy bullcrap!

[@antthegord9411]

This, the clickbait title made me come here just to say this lol.

[@BlurbFish]

0:53 "Using flamethrowers on the enemy is a big no-go today". It is saddening to see this blatantly false statement (or variants thereof) being perpetuated, and especially in this case when the specific protocol on incendiary weapons is cited by name. Protocol 3 of the CCW is a plainly written (as far as legal texts go) document spanning less than three pages, and it does in no way or form restrict the usage of incendiary weapons against combatants, it only restricts the usage of incendiary weapons on or near *civilian populations*. Don't believe me? Read the document yourself.

[@MichaelDavis-mk4me]

Flamethrowers were abandoned because they are obsolete and napalm bombs haven't been used since Iraq because that would kill way too many civilians. The US didn't sign the Geneva convention after all, it only follows the rules when it's convenient to do so, like everyone else that did sign it actually.

[@BlurbFish]

@@MichaelDavis-mk4me I fail to see what any of that has to do with what I wrote. Note also that the Geneva Convention makes no mention of which weapons are acceptable to use, but that's a common mistake. Further note that US *is* signatory to all four Geneva Conventions plus protocol 3.

[@MichaelDavis-mk4me]

@@BlurbFish Chemical and biological weapons are banned in the Geneva Convention. And the US did not ratify the last Geneva Protocols I and II. But regardless, I was mentioning how countries use weapons when it's effective to do so, there is no place for morals in weapons of war. Being burned is bad, but is it any worst than a grenade blowing up your leg and blinding you for life? Is choking on your own lungs because of mustard gas truly worst than choking on your blood because of a bullet through the lungs? In the end, countries use what works because no death is nice and killing the enemy saves your own men's lives.

[@asadini]

@@MichaelDavis-mk4me might I say being burnt alive and not dying instantly is the worst way to go? Being Burnt alive and drowning are still considered the worst ways to die. Dying by hypothermia would be 3rd. A question. Cluster bombs are banned weapons? Since 2003 post Gulf War 2?

[@MichaelDavis-mk4me]

​@@asadini I would take hypothermia over all else. I've went into hypothermia once by falling into water during winter. It hurts a bit at first, so cold it burns, but then, you strangely feel warm and sleepy (that's when it becomes dangerous). You assume dying by gunshot is instant, but it is not most of the time. And, as I said, being shot in the lungs or the throat results in you effectively drowning, probably not a fun experience, yet it's allowed.

[@TheRealLuumy]

its called flammenwerfer becouse it werfs ze flammen.

[@cossacktwofive4974]

Hans...

[@erzherzogalbrecht8504]

Hans...... What happened here?

[@michaeltheundeadmariachi4494]

Otto

[@KillaIn556]

@@cossacktwofive4974 get ze luger

[@a.bodhichenevey1601]

My uncle manned the flame thrower during the Pacific Theater against the Japanese. He was extremely changed (not positively) from what he did and saw.

[@harrykuheim6107]

What's your "Uncles" name?...and how old is he?..... Didn't think so... you are one of those "End Shitter" Guys aren't you Comrade?

[@zero0512ar]

My grandpa killed a guy with a knife on a boat lol Idk when I was told by his step son and he told me I shouldn't ask about things like that

[@panthera6750]

@@harrykuheim6107man, you didn’t even give him a chance to speak before making assumptions, shut your damn mouth and give home chance before calling BS.

[@CK-yv6nw]

1:42 you showed the wrong picture of Richard Fiedler. This R. Fiedler was an SS officer and politican during WW2, and was born in 1908. The real Richard Fiedler can be found on google images wearing a uniform of Imperial Germany.

[@WesleyKwong]

Yes I thought the same How he build something that's when he invented he was already dead

[@texasranger24]

Do you know what the M-97 Flamethrower sounds like? It roars like a dragon, a fiery god purging everything in it's path. Hold down the trigger and the "woosh" drowns out everything else, focus on the noise and you almost convince yourself you don't hear the screams. By the time the tank is empty, everything is over, even the men are quiet. There's nothing but the crackling of burning thatch. You see, it's not the noise that keeps me awake at night, it's the silence.

[@Slava_Ukraini1991]

who is that quote from?

[@pimpslapization]

@@Slava_Ukraini1991 not from him.

[@darkblood626]

This is going to hurt you more than it hurts me... I hope- The creed of the flamethrowers. Probobly.

[@jimhenry9936]

The flame thrower and I have a strange history. In 1968 and 1969 I was in high school. My U.S. History teacher and my Modern Problems teacher had both been Marines in the South Pacific during WWII. They both described the horrific results of witnessing the after effects of this gizmo on Japanese soldiers and dug in fortifications. A professor from Harvard developed the actual petroleum/saponified soap formula the U.S. used. I just learned recently that my deceased uncle was a flame thrower operator in WWII as well. I owned defense company some years ago and in process of developing a life saving defense system for fuel tankers in Iraq,the Army informed me that quite by accident I had also invented the best Napalm they had ever seen.lol. I have numerous formulas for napalm, being a formulation chemist by profession,but not inclined to see them used for that purpose anytime soon.

[@voster77hh]

I guess Napalm quality jokes have fallen a bit out of time. Ever seen a white phosphorous flame tube? It is the size of a large spray can. Shoots a stream of white phosphorous flame 60 feet. Rest assured we won't see any return of Napalm to carpet bomb any jungle warfare soon. Especially when Russian use hypobaric munitions and you can precision bomb or artillery strike any bunker. Or use a bunker buster manpad missile from a mile away on them. Incendiary munitions is mostly inefficiemt apart from the WP cluster munitions. These are predominately banned for unburned WP residiue left behind for kids to play with years after the sad brutal conflict has been resolved. Basically anyone with basic understandig of kitchen chemistry can mix soap and gasoline into efficient Molotov cocktails. That is the most common use.of such mixtures today. Recipes are all over the internet. For professional military the psychology, training and logistics of Napalm it is just a cumbersome burden.

[@Undertaker93]

Sounds too good to be true sorry boss no hate but you're talking out your ass

[@wittwittwer1043]

The flame-thrower range at Camp Geiger was a circle, and the target in the center was the turret from an M-4 Sherman tank. The range was circular, because you fired the flame-thrower from up-wind. The first statement from the instructor was, "You never fire one of these into the wind." During my time in the USMC I fired the flame-thrower twice: The first time at Geiger "for familiarization," and the second time on Vieques, PR, for practice.

[@B-and-O-Operator-Fairmont]

It probably saved a lot of U.S. Army and U.S. Marine lives on Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and other islands. Great for deactivating enemy pillboxes.

[@stankygeorge]

During NBC training, I had the dubious honor of being certified as a M2 flamethrower operator! Life expectancy of a M2 operator; not to long, or, the shortest life expectancy on the battle field! The fuel for the M2 flamethrower is; mogas (low octane army gas) + fuel thickener, which is basically, napalm. The fuel thickener is what causes the flame to come out in a controllable stream, plus, stick to the target like crazy glue, which will be long enough, for him/them to quit kicking and screaming!

[@tieroneactual2228]

I never had any exposure to one of these, however I had the honor & privilege of meeting & spending some time with a former Marine who used one on Iwo Jima during WWII. He is now actually the last living recipient of the CMH for his actions during the battle on Iwo, his name is Hershel “Woody” Williams, and he was 94 years old at that time. He was very articulate & capable for a fellow of that age, & actually spoke for a bit about his experiences, which was just astonishing to say the least.

[@simpletruth9977]

My Grandfather operated a flamethrower. He lost left arm but survived the Battle of Siapan. Man I miss that old Marine. 🇺🇲

[@travisadams4470]

Attaching a grenade launcher would make it a modular, force multiplier.

[@bennichols561]

Bayonet lug?

[@alexmiller1175]

@@bennichols561 To be fair, if I saw an 19 year old hopped up on nicotine, caffeine, and hate charging me with a bayonet attached to what is essentially a bomb, wouldn't you run? Lol

[@bennichols561]

@@alexmiller1175 I would certainly consider running.

[@MrRezillo]

My dad was in the South Pacific in WW II, but he didn't see combat. My mom was home carrying me. She was definitely not anti-war, but whenever the subject came up, she would exclaim "Oh, God those flame throwers!" They were horrible, used extensively against the Japanese on Iwo Jima and other islands. I hope they are never, ever used again in warfare.

[@wolf8077]

I said “Oh hell yes.” As soon as I saw flamethrower.

[@chickenman3829]

Fun fact: Shotguns used to be called ‘Trench guns’ because they cleared out small groups of enemies in trenches with ease

[@slkjvlkfsvnlsdfhgdght5447]

I'm pretty sure that they were called shotguns long before that

[@ohhKilla]

@@slkjvlkfsvnlsdfhgdght5447 trench gun was a nickname

[@chickenman3829]

@@_DeadEnd_ bro I commented this 2 years ago. I now realise how stupid I was a couple years ago

[@fanta4897]

I refuse to believe that this weapon is no longer neccessary. Every time someone says that about something which has been effective in previous war, it's premature (like with snipers in WWI). The conditions for this weapon will still be present (enemy hiding in dense vegetation, enemy in fortification) and therefore this weapon will most likely be useful if put to practice.

[@votecthulhu9378]

@RogerwilcoFoxtrot enjoy toasting civlians

[@silentknight2329]

"hanz, get ze flamme threawa"

[@garandaddy3006]

The pressure in the air tank was like 300psi too, and the tank was paper thin. If a round hit the tank it would explode from the air pressure. Kills were also attributed to the carbon monoxide byproduct of the burning fuel. Marines would find untouched dead enemy deep in bunkers.

[@Maria_Erias]

It wasn't the carbon monoxide. It was the fact that the fire would consume the oxygen, just like happens in normal house and apartment fires. Carbon monoxide has nothing to do with it.

[@raghul0078]

Thanks for high quality videos at this time, Chris Cappy!

[@Player_Review]

My uncle operated one in the Pacific theater and managed to come back home in one piece after the grueling nasty task of clearing Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Pretty grotesque, but back in the day, winning was all that mattered.

[@tamasgyorffy1]

my cats were extremely anxious at 4:40 something when the feral cat sound has been launched! now they sit around and watch the video, waiting for more... good trick to get extrahuman audience

[@foxtrotdelta225]

Arguably the most effective conventional weapon (in this case anything short of a nuke) was the crocodile Churchill. Basically just a normal Churchill tank with the bow gun replaces with a massive flamethrower. There’s a really good Lindybeige video on it, go watch it!

[@Weirdude777]

Seems like Cappy was just thrown some flames, because dude's smoking hot.

[@danielthompson6207]

He looks like he could be the younger brother of Rudy from _Generation Kill._ Cappy is a stud.

[@bepolite6961]

The Brits used a flame throwing tank, the CROCODILE. Just it's appearance on a battlefield was often enough to make the enemy surrender. If you were a member of a crocodile crew, you could expect no mercy if you were captured.

[@MonotoneCreeper]

All major armies in actually WW2 had flame tanks. My favourite is the Stuart flamethrower tank, aka the M3A1 “Satan”

[@thesuperdupercoolsebassapl4426]

The flamethrowers seriously needed to come back in the modern warfare honestly along with the m202a1 as well

[@demonprinces17]

Need to do what the Russian's done make a disposable one

[@thesuperdupercoolsebassapl4426]

@@demonprinces17 awesome idea honestly

[@spartiate567]

No worries, it almost certainly will. In wartime people tend to be a lot more interested in living another day than in being polite.

[@accountname9506]

@@demonprinces17 Germans made one as well.

[@No-timeforimbeciles]

You obviously have never served in the military & just play video games

[@oldgoat1890]

I was still repairing them and maintaining the compressors as late as 1976. My buddy was a tanker and fitted with a flame thrower.

[@maxwill6408]

The flamethrower was kind of banned in the 82nd Abn when I was there back in the early 70s. In our infantry battalion we had two men from our weapons platoon burned severely while training with it. One died from his burns. We had several more similar incidents throughout the Division (thankfully no additional deaths) so they were pulled from the arms rooms, well our battalion anyway.

[@rwdyeriii]

Harbor Freight sells a propane flame tosser if you really have got to have a flame tosser

[@darylcheshire1618]

I read that whilst soldiers may be decently treated if captured by the enemy, flame thrower operators were shot out of hand.

[@arbrummage]

Hey Cappy, check out the citation for Woody Williams who won the Medal of Honor using a flamethrower during the Pacific campaign.

[@treshmiranda699]

"great, now where the hell do you mount the bayonet ?" -Chesty Puller

[@davmatt74]

Herschel Woody Williams gave a speech at my son's preschool graduation in Ona, WV. He has a bridge named after him in Barboursville WV. He was a flamethrower operator on Iwo Jima and earned the CMH for his actions there.

[@77bustoff]

Seen the video on here about him . True hero .

[@donttakemeseriouslystudios4660]

The human toaster, yum.

[@clonescope2433]

The m202 flash rocket launch was technically the last weapon developed to fill the flamethrower a roll in the US military. It only had incendiary rockets.

[@dodoDodo-of6pu]

You should do a video on the new tactic Canada used in the battle of Vimy Ridge in World war 1. From my understanding, it was the first time Canada was lead by Canadians as well as the first time soldiers used artillery as cover to walk up onto the enemy. I believe it was the first time small squads acted with some Individual freedoms as well. This victory was what gave Canada the respect from other countries. Before the battle we were just part of the British military; after we were looked at as the Canadian military. When the battle ended Canada did what the British & French failed to do. We did in 24hrs what they failed to do in years. It was the most land taken in a single battle up to that point of the war.

[@cheese6039]

6:45 I was always wondering what Far Cry’s flamethrower was based off of..

[@Madjo-qj2ge]

Far cry flamethrower have much more shorter since they using methane instead gasoline if i am correct

[@NenekAtuk89]

You don't need flamethrower to burn your enemy. Just a MOLOTOV COCKTAIL. Unlike the former, the later are quite concealable, cheap, easy to make, effective, low to moderate risk for the thrower from being an enemy's target. Example, the Finnish forces used molotov cocktail a lot against the Soviet tanks during Winter War '39/'40, especially in close encounter where the tanks got separated from the infantry, making the tanks an easy target for the Finns.

[@mosterchife6045]

I read the title as ‘M2 Flamethrower: Based Weapons of War’

[@tomkratman4415]

The protocol doesn't ban the use of incendiary weapons. It bans their use on or around civilians. Incendiary weapons are perfectly permissible to use on military personnel. We don't, routinely, not because it's illegal but because it's only useful in certain circumstances. In other words, if the enemy is in the open, it's cheaper and easier to use rifle and machine gun fire, or artillery or mortars, to do away with him. Where flame weapons come in is in two particular ways. One is if the enemy is dug in in such a way that direct and indirect fire are not effective, In this case, we may resort to incendiaries not to burn him, but to suffocate him by having the flame use up all the oxygen. The other way is via aerial delivery. It may be a little counterintuitive, but Napalm or it successor, which is just napalm hiding behind a different number, can be used closer to your own troops than any other aerially delivered ordnance but 20mm. This is because it flows from the point of impact in a very narrow and predictable pattern (with, of course, the occasional miscalculation).

[@SlickCookie]

“I’m totally using my flamethrower for a barbecue!”

[@kolinmartz]

No. Incendiary weapons is prohibited against civilian populations. It can still be used on enemy personnel if there isn’t any risk of civilian collateral damage. The biggest consideration here is *Military Necessity*. It’s why you technically can’t use a .50cal with explosive ammunition that explodes inside a combatant as your standard heavy machine gun. But if you do have it and you have to engage the enemy, you can use it and you don’t have to switch belts. The same with flame throwers. It was intended to clear foliage and clear bunker, tunnel, and cave systems by flushing out entrenched enemies. But you can use it to roast someone out in the open if that was your only weapon at the time. Nowadays however, we don’t need that. Advances in military tech negates it’s need. We now have thermobaric weapons to used against bunker, tunnel, and cave systems. These weapons have delivery methods that has more standoff capabilities. This is why the US’s proposed replacement for the m2 flame thrower was the m303 flash.

[@theimmortal4718]

Thank you! Someone who knows. Nowadays, we also have thermobaric rounds for the Gustav

[@crash8051]

Blah blah blah geneva suggestion blah blah try not to use it

[@KillaIn556]

Geneva convention more like Geneva suggestion

[@user-ns3vs3bp3e]

Can’t say I’m sad they’re banned there are few worse ways to die in combat than being burnt to death by a flamethrower

[@nekomakhea9440]

"you cant use flamethrowers in combat, that's a war crime" sounds like loser talk to me

[@theimmortal4718]

It's not even illegal. We don't use them because they're dangerous to the operator. Nowadays, we use incendiary rockets

[@Morrigi192]

I love international law sometimes. "We're trying to set them on fire, not gas them!" is basically the US defense to the use of white phosphorus, and it's a perfectly reasonable argument in-context.

[@michaeltheundeadmariachi4494]

@@Morrigi192 don't forget the loop hole we did during the cold war by using the Dragon's Breath ammunition and napalm bombs

[@No-timeforimbeciles]

Guess you are American then, war crimes don't bother them !

[@Morrigi192]

@@No-timeforimbeciles They don't count as war crimes when we never ratified the treaty calling them war crimes. The UN is not a global government, and international law cannot be practically imposed on nuclear-armed great powers of any description.

[@GM-vt6is]

In war, there is no such thing as a 'banned' weapon. Especially since the winning side usually retroactively sets the rules.

[@deangullberry5148]

Flamethrower: banned from warfare, legal in 48 states..... God Bless America!

[@Folkmjolk]

not banned, only restricted near plants and civilians

[@theblondesiouxsiesioux]

Same with hollow point bullets. Not complaining though. Actually, I think H.p.'s are legal in fewer than 48 states.

[@spartiate567]

Good video. Some corrections: The M2 was good for 6-7 seconds total, not 70 seconds. The preferred fuel was a mix of gasoline and diesel fuel with a jellying agent added. Napalm, in other words. Gasoline alone was far less effective; it evaporated too quickly. The life expectancy of flamethrower operators was low. On Iwo Jima, something like 3/4 of the American flamethrower operators were KIA. One unpleasant aspect of the job was that one bullet or shell fragment in the wrong place and your flamethrower barbecues you. Thanks, Jay Maupin

[@HanSolo__]

Guys, guys, you are doing it all wrong! You have to mix the kerosene with diesel so it could form a sticky burning glue on the enemy's body. Also lots of appreciation for the ingenuine Ukrainian Euromaidan' evolution of the molotov cocktail with pieces of polystyrene flooded with gasoline. Now that's sticky like shit!

[@kekistanimememan170]

MrKansai1 teghe good luck igniteing kerosene and diesel

[@Sk0lzky]

We played with such things after school in an abandoned factory, those guys just decided it was a good idea to use it practically lmao

[@snakeplissken2148]

polystyrene in gasoline. what a new thing! Dude you revealed a long kept secret. or are you a scientist?

[@henkvermeer8652]

and hot too.

[@Thesavagesouls]

They banned it because it was too fun to use.

[@nottooobvious4890]

Like Garand Thumb said... the same nation that criticized the US for the use of shotguns in WWI also used flame throwers

[@loumencken9644]

And also were the first to use poison gas.

[@tomsoki5738]

@@loumencken9644 The french used a variant of tear gas first

[@beowulf9878]

@@tomsoki5738 poison gas. As in lethal gas.

[@edl617]

As my Uncles who were in the infantry in WW2 . They loved the Flamethrower was great at bunker clearing.

[@mylife8584]

I love your videos Makes me realize how advanced in technology we have gotten And I love your jokes🔥

[@ALRIGHTYTHEN.]

It's not a big "no go" today. You just can't use them on civilians. They're still good for installations that contain combatants if they are near civilians if precautions are taken not to hit civilians. It doesn't prohibit their use against individual combatants. Protocol III - Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons

[@kataban1763]

"Wet shot" come on man u could of done alot of things with that one

[@K37-h1z]

Snow removal you say? That is the most metal way to shovel the walk ever

[@erzherzogalbrecht8504]

Realtalk, Flamethrowers are gruesome, like realy, I mean you are litteraly burned alive, it must be absolute Agony

[@oddfellowfloyd]

Indeed it is the absolute most inhumane and horrifying way to die. I would say agony is putting it lightly. :(

[@very2.0]

I think the reason way it’s banned it’s because, snipers could shoot this tank and the tank will explode and would kill the holle squad.

[@engineco.1494]

Great vid of a terrifying weapon all around ! The flamethrower making white flags appear since 1901.

[@Danzel_Gaming]

WHEN I GROW UP I WANT TO TURN GENEVA CONVENTION INTO THAT GENEVA SUGGESTION

[@ph11p3540]

Back then, warfare was about how much collateral damage and terror you can inflict on your enemy as a main objective. You were not worried about winning the hearts of your enemy, it was about wiping out entire populations out of vengeance.

[@wasd____]

That's not even remotely true. There was immense hang-wringing and controversy over acts like firebombing cities, war crimes were a thing, and after WWII the strategy was not wiping people out or taking revenge, but rebuilding the areas and societies that had been damaged.

[@josephclemons4308]

@@wasd____ you are right war is not for the weak at heart you want last long trying to save the enemy

[@imperialguardsman5929]

1:12 Before he explained how it worked, I thought the flame thrower used farts as it fuel XD

[@916medic]

You mispronounced "Ignition system" at 4:45 . You said ing-ni-tion. Its all good your still awesome.

[@monteanthony1022]

You forgot to add that the first flamethrower units in modern warfare were used by firefighters. Cause we weren't afraid of the flames and knew how to light shit on fire :)

[@williamgriffin330]

How many picatinny rails would be add if it was still in service?

[@MScotty90]

Chesty Puller wanted to put a bayonet on it.

[@eridon910]

Fun fact: The M2 flamethrower was mainly based from captured models of the Japanese Type 100 flamethrower, so the M2 is actually more of a Japanese design not American!

[@Voiceovertehe]

I didn’t get my hello spare parts army? 🥺😭

[@arandomguy8352]

Germany: uses flamethrower Murica: uses shotgun Germany: wait that's illegal

[@thermobaric]

4:49 Cartridge ig-nigh-tion system? Odd pronunciation...

[@seanwieland9763]

“Hey Homer, you’re missing out on some fun!” - Hank Scorpio

[@SloanElectricLLC]

Chris where's the only fans?

[@Gerardi07]

Love your videos

[@gibson9516]

I asked for a flamethrower to use in return I would have re-enlisted indefinitely. But my company commander said no.

[@michaelharman9421]

A giant flame thrower was designed by Livens . Two were produced. One was destroyed . The one used was used on the first day of the Battle of the Somme. It operated from a tunnel dug under no mans and and at the designated time was pushed up and the flame flooded the German front line trenches. A copy of it was made and if interested ypu can google it. Absolutely awesome.

[@olivialambert4124]

My favourite rendition has to be the M202 - the quad napalm rocket launcher. The weapon is exactly as it sounds, a rocket launcher firing 4 independent rockets at once filled with napalm. Russia's cold war flamethrower might be great, but America's answer is still the world's coolest flamethrower! Built in 1978. Russia built their own (single shot) napalm rocket launcher too. Probably more effective, probably less cool.

[@dasfreshyo]

"Spaceballs the flamethrower!!! The kids love this one."- Yogurt

[@lambastepirate]

A big thing he neglected to mention is that most of the soldiers killed by flame throwers where not burnt to death they where suffocated from the fuel consuming the oxygen in the bunker/spider holes/tunnels!!!

[@ramikuvaja]

Only good enough weapon against Australian spiders... next to newspaper Sunday edition

[@kenparnell4297]

It's only banned until we need it again then it'll be okie-dokie to use.

[@fludblud]

The Chinese army still uses flamethrowers, the Type-74 flamethrower is an upgraded version of the LPO-50, weighs just 20kg fully loaded and has a maximum range of 70 metres depending on the fuel mixture. They remain widely employed particularly by their marines for assaulting fortified positions and are issued to the paramilitary People's Armed Police for use in domestic counter-terrorism. In fact, a PAP flamethrower squadron was actually on standby as part of the security preparations for the 2008 Beijing Olympics, fuck knows what kind of situation would've warranted their deployment but they were there!

[@SnoopReddogg]

Internal dissent has always been a burning issue in China....

[@GCJT1949]

I fired an M-2 flame thrower as part of NBC training in the 1970s. Pure gasoline is ineffective, the weapon uses a napalm mix. Pure gasoline is spectacular for Hollywood. The M-202 replaced the flame thrower, it was a flame weapon the user didn't get the blame for. Geoff Who has been around awhile.

[@hmmmintresting3770]

Enemy: *hides in a bunker Me and bois : its war crime time

[@edm240b9]

Interesting, but horrific fact: in the Pacific theater, a good number of soldiers that died from the flamethrower weren’t actually burned by it. Since the Japanese built their defenses in underground cave networks, the fire would suck all the oxygen away, which resulted in those around the area to die from carbon monoxide poisoning. The Canadians after the war found in one instance, a flamethrower operator ended up killing 70 men in one burst, but most of them not even touched by the fire.

[@ApollyonTheBasher]

The Australian armed forces are in a bit of a weapons boogaloo at the moment one one hand, the special forces use HK416s but the regs on the ground use a bullpup rifle. You should make a video on the Australia Defence Force rifle of choice the EF88 (F90 Atrax).

[@lilspicytuna]

Saying something is banned in war makes it seem like it’s a game and there’s rules… it’s war people kill other people for a purpose bigger than them.

[@SportZFan4L1fe]

Flame thrower: Banned. Nuclear Warheads: those are ok.