The Best That Never Was 2 (Prototypes)

[rcaf_777]

Good Watch


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHuD...JY19RA&index=1

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

Good Watch


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHuD...JY19RA&index=1

I actually got to go to the range with the Flash when I was in the National Guard, once in 1984, and then once in 1986. The Cowhouse IRL up in Ft Hood has an old concrete bunker filled with bats at the far end of the range, and it was fun seeing flaming bats flap their way out of the bunker.

Going to the range with the M202 gets you a qualification badge (Flamethrower, strangely enough) good for two years. When I went on active duty in 1987, everybody was like, "where do they still use flamethrowers?" But about the same time I got there, someone else augmented and he had a Flamethrower badge too, so we were able to let everyone know what it meant without repeated explanations.

While my unit in the National Guard had M202s, I never saw one on active duty. And when I was in the National Guard, we never took them to the field, even during Annual Training.

The Twilight 2000 Heavy Weapons Handbook says that there are HEAT clips for the M202. I've since discovered that in reality, while the Army experimented with using the same rockets as used in the LAW in the M202, the idea was never approved for issue or use.

Though I never saw one on active duty, I saw a photo the other day of an SF soldier using an M202 in Afghanistan. So they are at least in SOCOM's inventory, or were at that point.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Going to the range with the M202 gets you a qualification badge (Flamethrower, strangely enough) good for two years. When I went on active duty in 1987, everybody was like, "where do they still use flamethrowers?"

I was on the first Assault Pioneer course (1993) after Australia stopped teaching flame warfare (predominantly with the M2 but other expedients such as fougasse too). I at least got to do all the theory, etc but the hands on practical never happened. #Absolutelygutted.

A mate in the same platoon had been able to play with M2's a couple of years before and he wasn't even on a proper qualification course. I believe although instruction had ceased, the M2's themselves were put into storage for possible latter use "just in case". 27 years later I wonder if they're still there and even if they'd still be serviceable without a major overhaul.

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

I was on the first Assault Pioneer course (1993) after Australia stopped teaching flame warfare (predominantly with the M2 but other expedients such as fougasse too). I at least got to do all the theory, etc but the hands on practical never happened. #Absolutelygutted.

A mate in the same platoon had been able to play with M2's a couple of years before and he wasn't even on a proper qualification course. I believe although instruction had ceased, the M2's themselves were put into storage for possible latter use "just in case". 27 years later I wonder if they're still there and even if they'd still be serviceable without a major overhaul.

I can not say about Australia, but for the US Army they were still in the inventory as of 2004, with two MOS's listed as being able to draw them Combat Engineer and NBC, found this out when I was the NBC NCO for a Combat Engineer unit in Iraq and told my supply sergeant to order us one to clear brush with.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by CDAT

...told my supply sergeant to order us one to clear brush with.

Hmm, bulldozer or copious amounts of flame.....
The choice is clear!

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Hmm, bulldozer or copious amounts of flame.....
The choice is clear!

Both, the justification for the flame thrower was to clear the brush so we could see any obstacles that we might run into with the dozers before we leveled the bunkers and such.

[Vespers War]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I actually got to go to the range with the Flash when I was in the National Guard, once in 1984, and then once in 1986. The Cowhouse IRL up in Ft Hood has an old concrete bunker filled with bats at the far end of the range, and it was fun seeing flaming bats flap their way out of the bunker.

Going to the range with the M202 gets you a qualification badge (Flamethrower, strangely enough) good for two years. When I went on active duty in 1987, everybody was like, "where do they still use flamethrowers?" But about the same time I got there, someone else augmented and he had a Flamethrower badge too, so we were able to let everyone know what it meant without repeated explanations.

While my unit in the National Guard had M202s, I never saw one on active duty. And when I was in the National Guard, we never took them to the field, even during Annual Training.

The Twilight 2000 Heavy Weapons Handbook says that there are HEAT clips for the M202. I've since discovered that in reality, while the Army experimented with using the same rockets as used in the LAW in the M202, the idea was never approved for issue or use.

Though I never saw one on active duty, I saw a photo the other day of an SF soldier using an M202 in Afghanistan. So they are at least in SOCOM's inventory, or were at that point.

There was also a CS gas rocket trialed for use with the M202, but it wasn't approved either.

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Though I never saw one on active duty, I saw a photo the other day of an SF soldier using an M202 in Afghanistan. So they are at least in SOCOM's inventory, or were at that point.

U.S. Denies Incendiary Weapon Use in Afghanistan

https://www.wired.com/2009/05/us-inc...stan-revealed/

If you look at the video and read this article you see a weapon that may or may exist. Mentioned in a lot of publications and plenty of info on its development but the weapon is never seen. So draw your own conclusions.

[Legbreaker]

That article (from 11 years ago) reads like the author didn't know anything about the subject and just referred to Wikipedia and their pacifist friends for their info.

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

That article (from 11 years ago) reads like the author didn't know anything about the subject and just referred to Wikipedia and their pacifist friends for their info.

ok this is info draw your own conclusions

[Legbreaker]

Yes it is. Credible, unbiased info though it is not.

[rcaf_777]

again draw your own conclusions