Is still using flamethrowers in the modern wars?
>>30213635
The Chinese still use them
>>30213635
Yeah bro USMC here we baked the shit outta some brownies in Iraq.
>>30213635
Sort of.
>>30213646
Damm....
>>30213668
Yes i ser the news the police if i remember
![300px-M202A1[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/jDuxAvB.png "300px-M202A1[1].png")
yes
>>30213721
I thought these were all donated to our Azn allies, but apparently big Army still has some according to deployedfags
>>30213635
Funny how big of wehraboos the Argentinians used to be.
>>30214065
dude argentina is the fourth reich
>>30213747
So what's the explicit purpose of these on the battlefield?
>>30214126
Setting shit across the way on fire
>>30214126
Cooking Longpig
>>30214126
Attacking occupied structures, emplaced weapons, and vehicles by incendiary effect.
>>30214154
>>30214180
OK yeah, cool, but isn't incindiary on personnel a nono?
>>30214209
Only if you signed the article prohibiting them
>>30214209
Who says you use it on people? You shoot it at MG nests, bunkers, vehicles, etc. If people happen to be in there, whatever.
>>30213747
I have never seen any proof of those being used in combat outside one single mention of the M202 in a leaked military supply catalogue.
It wasn't when these were used in WW1 and WW2. It's main use is as a bunker busting tool. When fired into and enclosed space it has a tendency to kill via carbon monoxide poisoning whoever doesn't just straight up get barbecued.
>>30214209
>isn't incindiary on personnel a nono?
Only in inhabited areas. Incendiaries are still a-ok antipers weapons when used away from civvies and civvy property. I believe this is covered under the COCCW and one of the 1974(? maybe 1972?) addenda to the Geneva
