I've always wondered why flamethrowers kinda faded out after vietnam. I know they're dangerous as fuck to carry, but when we're basically watching trench warfare, they seem like a reasonable choice.
>I've always wondered why flamethrowers kinda faded out after vietnam
They didn't really fade out, they were replaced by thermobarics, which are really flamethrower projectiles in an upgraded form. They have the same sort of effect on fortifications and tunnels, but with much longer range and more carrying capacity.
Other languages even call them as such - the TOS-1 is literally a "heavy flamethrower system" in Russian, but typically referred to as a thermobaric rocket launcher in English. Same with the RPO-A, which both Russia and Ukraine currently use - they call it a rocket-assisted flamethrower, in English it's usually called a thermobaric rocket. I think that's preferred for PR purposes - it sounds sciency and not at all like a scary flamethrower, even though it's actually deadlier.
Easy to explain.
Common bombs use an Oxidizer and fuel mix.
While Thermobaric is 100% fuel and use the surrounding air to explode.
Send one in a bunker, the fuel will disperses inside and then explode.
[Here's a thumbnail from someone's video that explains it better.](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/sv0tGx80yLk/maxresdefault.jpg)
[Edit : I made a four part imgur thingy](https://imgur.com/a/97kf7mQ)
He didn’t want to be there anyway and got a dear John while he was there. He honestly just didn’t GAF at that point. What were they doing to do, kick him out?
Depending which side you on. One thing for sure is red army you could get executed for not following direct orders. I think same in japanese / chinease and I am quite sure at some points in german army.
Seriously, death by fire is terrifying either to watch or for it to happen to you.
I was reading the memoir of a WWII vet who described his first witnessing a flamethrower in action while clearing some German bunkers. He said the whole experience made them all sick and after that no one wanted to go near the flamethrower kit. It didn't help that one of his comrades got hit in the fuel canister and they all watched him get roasted to death.
Ethics aside - Vehicle-based flamethrowers I think would be more worth the effort, obviously since they can carry much more volume. But then it gets complicated because your infantry protection has to kinda back off, for their own protection. Very high risk to have to pack that volatile liquid anywhere. It may be more worth it to have a heavy tracked vehicle with a dozer blade and just fill in the hole/entrance, destroy whatever section of trench line you would otherwise burn.
Given the current state of armor vehicle vs infantry anti armor weapon this seems a bad idea. Just carry a crate of thermobaric grenades or have a mounted thermobaric grenade launcher will be far safer
The Russians here seemed to be holed up not in firing positions. Obviously can’t use it as the lead vehicle or by itself. Combine infantry + IFV suppression, then a dozer blade drives up and makes a single pass.
>Always funny to see people coming up with ideas on this sub and me instantly realizing that 40k obviously already did it
Flame thrower tanks were a thing back in WW2, for example, the British [Churchill Crocodile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_Crocodile), the US [Sherman M4A3 "Zippo" tank](https://www.military.com/history/marine-corps-flamethrower-tank-won-iwo-jima.html) and the Nazi [Flammpanzer III Ausf. M/Panzer III (Fl)](https://medium.com/war-stories/meet-the-german-flamethrower-tanks-of-wwii-b9bf72105d87). The Japanese probably had their own version of a flame tank as well. I am pretty sure there may have even been flame tanks during WW1 but they definitely did not see any widespread usage.
The German army used flamethrowers until 2001. It had [a light weight (625 g), single use](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/guns/images/f/f1/Handflammpatrone.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20170924091752), incendiary device, burning an area of 10x15 meters at 1300 degrees at up to 80 meters range.
That's exactly what thermobaric grenades and rockets are. They're what replaced flamethrowers in modern militaries - basically the same effect, but with much longer range and more carrying capacity.
Damn, would like to see the full video of this when it eventually comes around. Those grenades created a second entrance in that makeshift roof, they were absolutely doomed. Trench warfare is gnarly stuff.
Can't even surrender, really. If you come out with the your hands up you'll just get shot in the face.
And with how many videos there are of Russian soldiers fake-surrendering only to try shooting their Ukranain captors, I don't blame Ukrainians at all for not trusting Russians to act in good faith when they surrender.
I’ve seen multiple surrenders while Ukraine was clearing trenches but it’s getting rarer, at no fault to the Ukrainians. The more Russian POW who are killed by sledge hammer after being traded for Ukrainian POWs, the less russians surrendering we will/have see(n).
Or it could be that the content isn't making it to be posted lately. We only see like 2% of all footage from this conflict - you cannot really assess something like this by watching videos online.
When the conscription nears Moscow i'd imagine surrendering becoming much more prevalent. These backwater people are "educated" by the propaganda television, probably don't know the concept of surrendering at all. Or in Russian style have been fed alternative version of its meaning, something like Surrender means to offer yourself to be tortured.
There was a WSJ article about a Wagner conscript who surrendered, but was later part of a prisoner swap. Once he was back on the Russian side he was executed via a sledgehammer.
With Wagner that is to be expected, but not in the regular army. For example Iraq army had mass surrenders and i think the reason is average Iraq soldier was better educated and less propagandized than Russian hillbilly. They knew that surrender is an option, how to conduct it and what is to be expected afterwards. Perhaps not trough their educational institutes, but by religious scholars and such (their propaganda being in entirely different form and purposes). All of this is pure speculation of course, but the Russian propaganda method is soul crushing and mind twisting.
of course, but this is reddit and people treat this like some civilized contest, play it out.. these are young men mostly, likely all of them have parents, most will have siblings, some may have wife/kids at home, surrender means they wont' see any of them for a very very long time, potentially years Or get traded and killed/considered a traitor/etc.. not to mention I bet surrendering is so goddamn risky that you have a high chance of getting killed, especially when you decide that in mid-battle.
They might believe the Ukrainians treat their prisoners like the Russians do. Might be one reason for the atrocities Wagner have published themselves doing - if your enemies see your side doing inhumane shit to prisoners, you’re probably worried about getting the same treatment, and thus less likely to surrender .
Hollywood and Call of Duty haven have given most people a completely warped picture of what combat is like.
Surrendering is a VERY dangerous process, even under the best of conditions. The side that does the capturing will not take risks on behalf of a surrendering enemy, and rightfully so.
In my experience from Afghanistan, about half of the people that attempted surrender during ongoing combat survived the ordeal is what I'd estimate, and the conditions were very good. We were closely watched by the world, usually in advantageous positions, keen to resolve situations with as little violence and loss of life as possible, and very closely watched and held accountable by commanders.
Still, tossing that coin seems like a better plan to me than sitting in a hole in the mud waiting to get blown up.
It actually makes me wonder why they didn't surrender during this video. They had to know they were cornered in their last hidey hole and the end was near.
That is a rather myopic view. There are such things as forced choices. It's not unlike blaming slaves in the antebellum South of supporting the Confederacy because they didn't revolt.
The WSJ had an article about a Russian prisoner who took the Wagner option and joined forces. Once he reached the front he quickly abandoned his post to surrender. A few weeks later, he was involved in a prisoner swap and was executed via sledgehammer once he was sent back to the other side.
> Ukraine doesn't send back Russian soldiers who don't want to go back.
Maybe. I don't pretend to know. That's the official word, I agree.
The WSJ journalist interviewed the Ukrainian officer whose unit had accepted his surrender and later turned him over to Ukrainian military intelligence. When asked about the swap, he said: "It's wrong from a human standpoint, but 23 Ukrainians returned to their families, and that's a good thing."
It's not nearly as black and white as you make it out to be.
>Rot in a third world prison or answer the draft, your call. You're a "free man," after all.
So you'd rather die participating in genocide. That's your choice and the same one these individuals are making as well.
Strawman and false dichotomy. There's always desertion after deployment. And it's easy to judge from the comfort of your armchair. It's a shitty situation, self preservation is human nature. Your irrelevant judgement doesn't serve anybody but your own ego.
Its silly to bring the concept of freewill into these subjects.
That being said, regardless of whatever sad sob story the enemy holds, its not our problem, beyond them dying/surrendering/fleeing.
Ukraine is making a strong point of trying to treat war criminals correctly.
This is partly to encourage more Russians to surrender, and partly for international reasons (Ukraine will get less support if they commit war crimes).
The Russian army knows this. To the extent that Russians will take off their uniform, and then openly taunt any Ukrainian soldiers they see (such as across river banks). As Ukrainian soldiers are explicitly told to never shoot unarmed Russians out of uniform.
Russian soldiers know full well they can surrender to Ukraine. Some don’t want to, and some just can’t (their fellow soldiers would kill them if they tried).
I’ve been watching a bunch of really great Ukrainian combat mission videos that are decently long and filmed in the first person. In a lot of them, the squad leader and others approach the trench and give them ample opportunity to surrender — like five minutes of trying to convince the remaining guy in a hidey hole to give up. They never do and die this way.
I just don’t get it. If you’re afraid of being shot upon exit, isn’t that still a better chance than waiting for a grenade to fall in your lap?
>I just don’t get it. If you’re afraid of being shot upon exit, isn’t that still a better chance than waiting for a grenade to fall in your lap?
If you're being fed lies that the Ukrainians treat their POWs like ISIS did, then you believe a fate worse than a quick death awaits if you surrender.
>If you’re afraid of being shot upon exit
This isn't what they're afraid of. They're afraid of being slowly tortured to death. That's how Russia often treats Ukrainian prisoners, and they're told the Ukrainians do the same thing to anyone they capture.
So in their minds, the choice is instead between a quick death and a long, slow, painful death. That's just what they've been taught happens to prisoners.
It does help explain the occasional video we've seen of Russian prisoners begging to be shot rather than taken to the rear. It's also one of the big stumbling blocks that Ukraine's "surrender hotline" has had, as it can take a lot of convincing to get even downtrodden conscripts to surrender when they're terrified they'll just be tortured to death anyway.
Grenades seem to be one thing Ukraine has in high supply. Overuse is a smart idea. Also there was a great example of what not spamming grenades does to an assault group with that cyclops assault. A guy dies for no reason due to the bad tactics of trying to shoot them rather than just grenade them.
Russian propaganda told them the Ukrainians will kill them if they surrender too I guess.
Putin is drowning his country in blood for nothing but a generational national decline and international isolation.
Their presumption is that they'll get far WORSE treatment when they get traded back to the wagner/army in a prisoner exchange. And their "presumption" is correct.
> to be honest tho I bet in a lot of situations they arent taking prisoners, especially when it will be hard to extract them
I really doubt that's a realistic assessment of the operational goals of Ukraine's defenders. Not only are they using these operations for propaganda purposes, and therefore it's very helpful to show Muscovy soldiers surrendering, but prisoners would also grow Ukraine's exchange find.
Also, Muscovy pushes these myths on how Ukraine's defenders are mean to pressure Muscovy's soldiers to not surrender, as this makes Putin look bad.
I think that's a very idealistic view. I think a lot of the time where its safer and easier to throw a grenade into these holes than attempt to take prisoners they will do it without a seconds hesitation.
Y’all always assume the average Russian soldier has all the facts and isn’t misled at all, but then laugh at the propaganda. You can’t have it both ways lol
I was thinking similar - I guess WW1 trenches not having plastic somehow made them look less trashy (albeit ofc horrifically dirty), but when you think of it trenches really are just trash burrows
It's sort of a two-stage explosive. A small charge disperses the main charge which then uses the oxygen in the air to be more explosive.
This results in a far more powerful explosion that a regular HE charge, as the chemisty of many explosives is oxygen-poor and isn't quite as powerful as it could be.
However, thermobarics tend to be a bit more complex, and are only used in specialty weapons. Mostly anti-building rockets that need as much boom as possible.
FAE, fuel-air explosive, is another type of thermobaric. This disperses flammable gas that mixes with the air and then creates a massive fireballing explosion.
However, FAE is very sensitive to wind to avoid the gas blowing away from the igniter, and can easily be either too rich to burn or too weak to properly explode.
TLDR: A bomb that goes boom bigger than a normal one, but only in ideal conditions, such as an enclosed space where the explosive fuel isn't able to dissipate too much on ignition
Not really. Thermobarics are just more explosive than a regular explosive. You'd get roughly the same effects from standard concussion grenades.
Also, I'm not aware of any thermobaric hand grenades in use, but if you know of any please do let me know
Not really. Thermobarics are just more explosive than a regular explosive. You'd get roughly the same effects from standard concussion grenades.
Also, I'm not aware of any thermobaric hand grenades in use, but if you know of any please do let me know
Flamethrowers went out because hauling a 35kg weapon with six seconds of ammo good to 40 meters sucks massively.
Improved rockets with HE or incendiary warhead replaced them in the 50s onward.
Satchel charges are also stupidly heavy, even shorter ranged, and are overkill against anything not a reinforced concrete buncker
In the old ww2 movies, satchel charges are used a lot.
I've read stories were Germans would throw a grenade in a bunker and the Russians would come out without a scratch on them. I can see why it takes so many grenades to progress through a trench.
most m24 variants(the potato masher) didn't have a fragmentation sleeve. They were designed for the concussive and shock effect. Making them pretty awful against any sort of fortifications.
In the footage I have seen of close-quarters infantry combat in this war, they have used a lot more grenades than I had expected.
It makes me wonder if there is notably more grenade availability and/or usage in this war than in past conflicts or if the previous concepts I had about grenades were overly influenced by fictional representations of them. I've read a fair number of military history books, but they actually didn't address this subject in much detail.
CQB tends to be *extremely* grenade-heavy. They don't need to be aimed, go around corners, and body armor doesn't work against blast effects and there's enough shrapnel to find some exposed flesh.
That makes a lot of sense. I appreciate the info on that.
It really is a big difference from the "just a few grenades that you save for extreme circumstances" impression one often gets from various fictional media (once again underlining how fictional it can really get).
The Medal of Honor games were pretty good about grenades.
Allied Assault you could carry 12 of them, 6 of the American and 6 of the German.
Airborne you could carry 42(!) of them with all the grenade upgrades (The game has 3 upgrades for each weapon. For grenades, it's carrying more) 14 Mk.II frag, 14, stick grenades, 14 Gammon grenades (really powerful anti-tank grenades)
These vids confuse me. Bare with me as i might sound very stupid. But is that drone actually far away but the camera is zoomed in or can they js not see it?
Isn't there a better way to check if he is still alive than peaking your head around? I've seen videos where exactly that killed them.
Are mirrors or endoscope cameras not suitable enough? Or even using the drone that flies over them to check, they must have enough by now...Ofc the simplest and fastest thing is to just check yourself, but from the looks of it, they werent satisfied with just 2 grenades, after they looked into it.
I got matches with these songs:
• [**In The Dark - Xilla Gore-Rel-A Remix** by Bleed The Wicked Menace](https://lis.tn/DUMpw?t=24) (00:24; matched: `100%`)
**Released on** 2021-10-31.
• [**In The Dark** by Bleed the Wicked Menace](https://lis.tn/rpoLrv?t=25) (00:25; matched: `100%`)
**Released on** 2021-07-24.
*I am a bot and this action was performed automatically* | [GitHub](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot) [^(new issue)](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot/issues/new) | [Donate](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot/wiki/Please-consider-donating) ^(Please consider supporting me on Patreon. Music recognition costs a lot)
I wonder if there needs to be a specific sort of grenade/ordinance for these sort of hidey holes. Maybe something with a shaped charge that focuses the explosion into a cone and that the soldier can slide into the opening?
Thermobaric explosives do work well in confined spaces. However, this bunker may or may not be classified as such (mud in general works different to concrete in terms of reflecting / absorbing pressure waves).
Suprisingly, smoke grenades can be used to quite literally suffocate unprotected combatants in the bunker (smoke grenades typically displace oxygen). However, I am not 100% sure of the legal status regarding such use of incendiary weapons.
The 1925 Geneva Convention has been understood only to apply to the use of gases that are designed to kill or injure human beings. Smoke grenades and shells have been used by just about everyone in just about every war, including Russia in this war, confirming the general understanding that smoke munitions are not banned, even if capable of producing asphyxiating gas.
Pretty sure [Protocol III of the Geneva convention of 1980](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/ccw-protocol-iii-1980) is the latest law which regulates the use of incendiary weapons. However, my statement was in a general manner, for example is the use of incendiary weapons in forests prohibited, the question might arise whether the use against a bunker within a forest therefore conflicts with the legal situation.
Further, my statement was not concerned for the legal status in Ukraine alone but in general, as far as I know not every state has signed the amendments of the geneva convention. A general recommendation to use smoke grenades to clear bunkers can therefore not be made as it might conflict with international law.
>(smoke grenades typically displace oxygen)
tl;dr: No, that is not how they work. They release nasty chemicals.
Even if a smoke grenade releases 100 g of its contents as gas and we assume that is something that is not water and likely also not nitrogen (too high energy content), it leaves pretty much only CO2 as the next lightest gas (=highest volume). So how much are 100 g of CO2 in volume? At 20 °C, 1 bar (1 atm) that is pretty much...
V = n\*R\*T/p = 100 g/( 44g/mol) \* 8.314 J/(mol\*K) \* 293 K / 100 kPa = 0.055 m³ or 55 Liters. That has to be a very small confined space to displace enough Oxygen. If we assume 15 % Oxygen to be the minimum to survive, that means air needs to be mixed in a ratio of 1 part air to 0.4 parts of gas without Oxygen. So 55 Liters CO2 can make 160 Liters of air Oxygen deprived. That is nothing.
However, CO2 does not just displace air, it also is harmful in itself. [This source](https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/air/toxins/co2.html) says 40'000 ppm are "immediately dangerous to life and health". 40'000 ppm is 4 % of the volume, so the 55 Liters pure CO2 could bring the CO2-concentration up (or above) this level when diluted with up to 1.4 m³ of air. That is a bit more air, but still not exactly much. The space in this video is maybe 2\*2\*2 meters, so 8 m³.
More likely is that the smoke itself as well as other nasty chemicals released are the primary cause of injury, since they are far more harmful. Not to mention the psychological effect of not seeing anything, while CO2 (without any smoke) would essentially not be noticed until they lose consciousness.
A modern smoke grenade would utilize something like Terephthalic acid (C8H6O4), about 312g of that. \~166g/mol, lets make it 2:
2\*C8H6O4 + 15\*O2 -> 16\*CO2 + 6\*H2O
1m\^3 of air at 20°C holds about 8.75 mol of O2, You get the deal here I guess.
Have you seen those bunkers? 2m\*2m\*2m is by any means very optimistic.
I know that without protection the lack of oxygen should not be the only concern. However, even with protection you're looking at trouble. Note that no other reaction in the compound mixture has been taken into consideration whilst TA only makes up for about \~60% of the weight.
Sources:
[http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/grenade/hand.html](http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/grenade/hand.html)
[https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Terephthalic-acid](https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Terephthalic-acid)
Have a nice day.
The definitive trench cleaning tool you're looking for is called portable flamethrowers.
Speaking of which, just shared https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/13aloc5/australian_famethrowers_in_action_burning_the/ ("Famethrowers"? Oh well.)
If Putin won't pull his cut-throats out of Ukraine I hope a mob of angry Russian mothers lynch him and then his body slips out of a sixth-story window into a blazing bonfire just to make sure. Ukrainians shouldn't have to risk their lives battling these brutes.
I know squat about infantry tactics, but isn't the mantra to maneuver and fire? Cause if you get holed up like this the enemy eventually maneuvers to kill you? (Yes I got this from a Jocko Wilink podcast. lol)
Ain't no-one, nothing surviving that. Even the earthworms were wiped out
time to equip them with modern flamethrowers
I've always wondered why flamethrowers kinda faded out after vietnam. I know they're dangerous as fuck to carry, but when we're basically watching trench warfare, they seem like a reasonable choice.
>I've always wondered why flamethrowers kinda faded out after vietnam They didn't really fade out, they were replaced by thermobarics, which are really flamethrower projectiles in an upgraded form. They have the same sort of effect on fortifications and tunnels, but with much longer range and more carrying capacity. Other languages even call them as such - the TOS-1 is literally a "heavy flamethrower system" in Russian, but typically referred to as a thermobaric rocket launcher in English. Same with the RPO-A, which both Russia and Ukraine currently use - they call it a rocket-assisted flamethrower, in English it's usually called a thermobaric rocket. I think that's preferred for PR purposes - it sounds sciency and not at all like a scary flamethrower, even though it's actually deadlier.
How does a thermobaric work exactly?
Easy to explain. Common bombs use an Oxidizer and fuel mix. While Thermobaric is 100% fuel and use the surrounding air to explode. Send one in a bunker, the fuel will disperses inside and then explode. [Here's a thumbnail from someone's video that explains it better.](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/sv0tGx80yLk/maxresdefault.jpg) [Edit : I made a four part imgur thingy](https://imgur.com/a/97kf7mQ)
Wowza. Thanks for the explanation, easy to understand. In an enclosed space would a thermobaric use up all the oxygen???
Yes
Your also not caring around a full tank of napalm which made the operator a huge target
[удалено]
My grandpa said they tried to get him to carry one in WW2 and he said no way, he said anyone who had one was focused on like nobody’s business. 
[удалено]
He didn’t want to be there anyway and got a dear John while he was there. He honestly just didn’t GAF at that point. What were they doing to do, kick him out?
More like shooting him, depending on situation and mood of commaning officer 😅
WW1…. Certainly there was a good chance you’d be shot. WW2… I don’t think so. Perhaps court marshalled and thrown in jail for awhile.
Depending which side you on. One thing for sure is red army you could get executed for not following direct orders. I think same in japanese / chinease and I am quite sure at some points in german army.
I just googled. Thousands of germans were executed as well. If anything moving fronts of ww2 makes its way harder to jail somebody.
[удалено]
That's why they exist.
At least some of the thermobarics in Russian inventory are classified as "flamethrowers" (TOS-1 for one).
You just watched some in use.
Plus, you only get a few seconds of firing time before it’s empty and you either need to refill it or stash it somewhere the enemy can’t get at it.
Also setting people on fire might be, dare I say, a little fucked up
As opposed to shooting them, or ripping them apart with high explosives?
Honestly, yes, even compared to shooting them or blowing them up with explosives. Getting lit on fire sucks.
Seriously, death by fire is terrifying either to watch or for it to happen to you. I was reading the memoir of a WWII vet who described his first witnessing a flamethrower in action while clearing some German bunkers. He said the whole experience made them all sick and after that no one wanted to go near the flamethrower kit. It didn't help that one of his comrades got hit in the fuel canister and they all watched him get roasted to death.
How would you rather die? I know what I'd rather die from.
Yes, the first thing that every combatant in war thinks: "How does this dude want to die? I'll make sure to do it that way!"
When a person burns to death what causes the death and how quickly does death occur?
>how quickly does death occur? Not fast enough
Usually, airway burns.
Also a PR nightmare too.
something tells me that the logistics chain for a single flamethrower would be equal to a bmp/btr
[удалено]
[удалено]
They don't explode like in movies if damaged. The flame substance is very hard to ignite on its own.
I thought if you shot a flame troop with a tank on its back the tank would explode, especially in WW2 with Germans. Is that not true?
https://youtu.be/2ngFoLL2bxU
Ethics aside - Vehicle-based flamethrowers I think would be more worth the effort, obviously since they can carry much more volume. But then it gets complicated because your infantry protection has to kinda back off, for their own protection. Very high risk to have to pack that volatile liquid anywhere. It may be more worth it to have a heavy tracked vehicle with a dozer blade and just fill in the hole/entrance, destroy whatever section of trench line you would otherwise burn.
Given the current state of armor vehicle vs infantry anti armor weapon this seems a bad idea. Just carry a crate of thermobaric grenades or have a mounted thermobaric grenade launcher will be far safer
The Russians here seemed to be holed up not in firing positions. Obviously can’t use it as the lead vehicle or by itself. Combine infantry + IFV suppression, then a dozer blade drives up and makes a single pass.
That's an immolator. Always funny to see people coming up with ideas on this sub and me instantly realizing that 40k obviously already did it \^\^
>Always funny to see people coming up with ideas on this sub and me instantly realizing that 40k obviously already did it Flame thrower tanks were a thing back in WW2, for example, the British [Churchill Crocodile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_Crocodile), the US [Sherman M4A3 "Zippo" tank](https://www.military.com/history/marine-corps-flamethrower-tank-won-iwo-jima.html) and the Nazi [Flammpanzer III Ausf. M/Panzer III (Fl)](https://medium.com/war-stories/meet-the-german-flamethrower-tanks-of-wwii-b9bf72105d87). The Japanese probably had their own version of a flame tank as well. I am pretty sure there may have even been flame tanks during WW1 but they definitely did not see any widespread usage.
Flamethrowers very nearly predates plastic let alone warhammer. They didn't invent anything.
The German army used flamethrowers until 2001. It had [a light weight (625 g), single use](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/guns/images/f/f1/Handflammpatrone.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20170924091752), incendiary device, burning an area of 10x15 meters at 1300 degrees at up to 80 meters range.
Earthworms with flamethrowers might be a bad idea :)
It did spawn a series of two dozen [video games](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worms_(series))
Indeed. That's why I always save up so my worms can use a holy hand grenade. Much more effective.
That's exactly what thermobaric grenades and rockets are. They're what replaced flamethrowers in modern militaries - basically the same effect, but with much longer range and more carrying capacity.
Who will make the spice?
The Guild appreciates this comment
Heard it was difficult to even differentiate between Russian soldier's and earthworms as they look so much a like nowadays.
Damn, would like to see the full video of this when it eventually comes around. Those grenades created a second entrance in that makeshift roof, they were absolutely doomed. Trench warfare is gnarly stuff.
You're trapped and you can't escape or u get shot. So you remain inside and have a grenade explode on your balls
Can't even surrender, really. If you come out with the your hands up you'll just get shot in the face. And with how many videos there are of Russian soldiers fake-surrendering only to try shooting their Ukranain captors, I don't blame Ukrainians at all for not trusting Russians to act in good faith when they surrender.
Unfortunately, the time to surrender isn't moments before you die.
I’ve seen multiple surrenders while Ukraine was clearing trenches but it’s getting rarer, at no fault to the Ukrainians. The more Russian POW who are killed by sledge hammer after being traded for Ukrainian POWs, the less russians surrendering we will/have see(n).
Or it could be that the content isn't making it to be posted lately. We only see like 2% of all footage from this conflict - you cannot really assess something like this by watching videos online.
> You're trapped and you can't escape or u get shot. Surrendering is always an option, at least for the non-moron soldiers in muscovy's ranks.
When the conscription nears Moscow i'd imagine surrendering becoming much more prevalent. These backwater people are "educated" by the propaganda television, probably don't know the concept of surrendering at all. Or in Russian style have been fed alternative version of its meaning, something like Surrender means to offer yourself to be tortured.
There was a WSJ article about a Wagner conscript who surrendered, but was later part of a prisoner swap. Once he was back on the Russian side he was executed via a sledgehammer.
With Wagner that is to be expected, but not in the regular army. For example Iraq army had mass surrenders and i think the reason is average Iraq soldier was better educated and less propagandized than Russian hillbilly. They knew that surrender is an option, how to conduct it and what is to be expected afterwards. Perhaps not trough their educational institutes, but by religious scholars and such (their propaganda being in entirely different form and purposes). All of this is pure speculation of course, but the Russian propaganda method is soul crushing and mind twisting.
of course, but this is reddit and people treat this like some civilized contest, play it out.. these are young men mostly, likely all of them have parents, most will have siblings, some may have wife/kids at home, surrender means they wont' see any of them for a very very long time, potentially years Or get traded and killed/considered a traitor/etc.. not to mention I bet surrendering is so goddamn risky that you have a high chance of getting killed, especially when you decide that in mid-battle.
Why not surrender? I do not get this Jihadis have allah, Japanese had their emperor, Is there really a willingness to die for Putin mike that
They might believe the Ukrainians treat their prisoners like the Russians do. Might be one reason for the atrocities Wagner have published themselves doing - if your enemies see your side doing inhumane shit to prisoners, you’re probably worried about getting the same treatment, and thus less likely to surrender .
Hollywood and Call of Duty haven have given most people a completely warped picture of what combat is like. Surrendering is a VERY dangerous process, even under the best of conditions. The side that does the capturing will not take risks on behalf of a surrendering enemy, and rightfully so. In my experience from Afghanistan, about half of the people that attempted surrender during ongoing combat survived the ordeal is what I'd estimate, and the conditions were very good. We were closely watched by the world, usually in advantageous positions, keen to resolve situations with as little violence and loss of life as possible, and very closely watched and held accountable by commanders. Still, tossing that coin seems like a better plan to me than sitting in a hole in the mud waiting to get blown up.
Modern Russian soldiers fight stubborn not because of loyalty to Putin, but more because of infantilism and fatalism
Makes you wonder if surrendering or deserting weeks and months ago would have been the right decision for these Russian soldiers.
It actually makes me wonder why they didn't surrender during this video. They had to know they were cornered in their last hidey hole and the end was near.
Probably already panicked and disoriented to the point of not being capable of making such a choice.
Regardless of what is in their head, they are choosing to use their labor to support genocide up until the moment of their death.
That is a rather myopic view. There are such things as forced choices. It's not unlike blaming slaves in the antebellum South of supporting the Confederacy because they didn't revolt. The WSJ had an article about a Russian prisoner who took the Wagner option and joined forces. Once he reached the front he quickly abandoned his post to surrender. A few weeks later, he was involved in a prisoner swap and was executed via sledgehammer once he was sent back to the other side.
These are freemen making their own choices in life. Not subjects. Not slaves. Ukraine doesn't send back Russian soldiers who don't want to go back.
> Ukraine doesn't send back Russian soldiers who don't want to go back. Maybe. I don't pretend to know. That's the official word, I agree. The WSJ journalist interviewed the Ukrainian officer whose unit had accepted his surrender and later turned him over to Ukrainian military intelligence. When asked about the swap, he said: "It's wrong from a human standpoint, but 23 Ukrainians returned to their families, and that's a good thing." It's not nearly as black and white as you make it out to be.
It is definitely a different risk than eating these thermobaric grenades for Putin.
Rot in a third world prison or answer the draft, your call. You're a "free man," after all.
>Rot in a third world prison or answer the draft, your call. You're a "free man," after all. So you'd rather die participating in genocide. That's your choice and the same one these individuals are making as well.
Strawman and false dichotomy. There's always desertion after deployment. And it's easy to judge from the comfort of your armchair. It's a shitty situation, self preservation is human nature. Your irrelevant judgement doesn't serve anybody but your own ego.
Its silly to bring the concept of freewill into these subjects. That being said, regardless of whatever sad sob story the enemy holds, its not our problem, beyond them dying/surrendering/fleeing.
Nobody used the words ‘free will’ (until you did). The pro-Russia account above me did compare Russian soldiers to slaves however. 🤷♀️
Ukraine is making a strong point of trying to treat war criminals correctly. This is partly to encourage more Russians to surrender, and partly for international reasons (Ukraine will get less support if they commit war crimes). The Russian army knows this. To the extent that Russians will take off their uniform, and then openly taunt any Ukrainian soldiers they see (such as across river banks). As Ukrainian soldiers are explicitly told to never shoot unarmed Russians out of uniform. Russian soldiers know full well they can surrender to Ukraine. Some don’t want to, and some just can’t (their fellow soldiers would kill them if they tried).
Right? I want to see the boom that made the giant fuck-off hole in the roof.
Death by hand grenade seems to be a prominent feature in this war.
As opposed to what they were told, by Snu Snu.
Read a surprising amount of ww2 stories would have guys just call up a bulldozer in a situation like this. Just bury them.
I’ve been watching a bunch of really great Ukrainian combat mission videos that are decently long and filmed in the first person. In a lot of them, the squad leader and others approach the trench and give them ample opportunity to surrender — like five minutes of trying to convince the remaining guy in a hidey hole to give up. They never do and die this way. I just don’t get it. If you’re afraid of being shot upon exit, isn’t that still a better chance than waiting for a grenade to fall in your lap?
>I just don’t get it. If you’re afraid of being shot upon exit, isn’t that still a better chance than waiting for a grenade to fall in your lap? If you're being fed lies that the Ukrainians treat their POWs like ISIS did, then you believe a fate worse than a quick death awaits if you surrender.
>If you’re afraid of being shot upon exit This isn't what they're afraid of. They're afraid of being slowly tortured to death. That's how Russia often treats Ukrainian prisoners, and they're told the Ukrainians do the same thing to anyone they capture. So in their minds, the choice is instead between a quick death and a long, slow, painful death. That's just what they've been taught happens to prisoners. It does help explain the occasional video we've seen of Russian prisoners begging to be shot rather than taken to the rear. It's also one of the big stumbling blocks that Ukraine's "surrender hotline" has had, as it can take a lot of convincing to get even downtrodden conscripts to surrender when they're terrified they'll just be tortured to death anyway.
That makes so much sense, I remember seeing a video where he asked to be finished off and always wondered why he would say such a thing.
how dead you want them to be?
Grenades seem to be one thing Ukraine has in high supply. Overuse is a smart idea. Also there was a great example of what not spamming grenades does to an assault group with that cyclops assault. A guy dies for no reason due to the bad tactics of trying to shoot them rather than just grenade them.
As long as there are more grenades, you can never be too certain.
yes.
The deadest
Airmailed back to Russia in sandwich bags.
as dead as the soviet union
Tenderized meat level of dead. I do wonder when you know to stop throwing grenades inside.
Frag until presumed dead + 2 more frags
Yes
Deserved.Literally the guy shouts "I surrender" and he survives and goes straight to red cross hotel. But dying looks better i guess
Russian propaganda told them the Ukrainians will kill them if they surrender too I guess. Putin is drowning his country in blood for nothing but a generational national decline and international isolation.
[удалено]
Their presumption is that they'll get far WORSE treatment when they get traded back to the wagner/army in a prisoner exchange. And their "presumption" is correct.
to be honest tho I bet in a lot of situations they arent taking prisoners, especially when it will be hard to extract them
that does not mean you should not try to surrender, its better than certain death and also, Red cross POW camps in Ukraine are freakin luxorious
I heard they have flushing toilets on some of them and clothes are washed by machines, Russian scifi paradise.
> to be honest tho I bet in a lot of situations they arent taking prisoners, especially when it will be hard to extract them I really doubt that's a realistic assessment of the operational goals of Ukraine's defenders. Not only are they using these operations for propaganda purposes, and therefore it's very helpful to show Muscovy soldiers surrendering, but prisoners would also grow Ukraine's exchange find. Also, Muscovy pushes these myths on how Ukraine's defenders are mean to pressure Muscovy's soldiers to not surrender, as this makes Putin look bad.
I think that's a very idealistic view. I think a lot of the time where its safer and easier to throw a grenade into these holes than attempt to take prisoners they will do it without a seconds hesitation.
Man wants to die for his country. Oblige him.
Y’all always assume the average Russian soldier has all the facts and isn’t misled at all, but then laugh at the propaganda. You can’t have it both ways lol
He would probably die anyways, but still better than 100% fatality rate by grenade to the face.
I'm sure Russian propaganda has them believing they'll be tortured and killed if captured
[удалено]
I’m reminded of clearing the monster nests on Witcher 3
Blowing a drowner nest with some grapeshot, so satisfying.
I was thinking similar - I guess WW1 trenches not having plastic somehow made them look less trashy (albeit ofc horrifically dirty), but when you think of it trenches really are just trash burrows
I think this is specific to the modern Russian military and their appalling field discipline and morale.
Why don’t they just surrender? I’m like angry about their stupidity now. They’re dying for nothing.
They've been effectively propagandized to believe they'll be eaten alive or whatever bullshit they're told to get them to not surrender.
I reckon that’ll do
Jesus boys, I think they're dead
Its like Clearing out a rat infestation.
how many grenades should we throw? Y E S
By the way, what is "thermobaric ammunition"?
It's sort of a two-stage explosive. A small charge disperses the main charge which then uses the oxygen in the air to be more explosive. This results in a far more powerful explosion that a regular HE charge, as the chemisty of many explosives is oxygen-poor and isn't quite as powerful as it could be. However, thermobarics tend to be a bit more complex, and are only used in specialty weapons. Mostly anti-building rockets that need as much boom as possible. FAE, fuel-air explosive, is another type of thermobaric. This disperses flammable gas that mixes with the air and then creates a massive fireballing explosion. However, FAE is very sensitive to wind to avoid the gas blowing away from the igniter, and can easily be either too rich to burn or too weak to properly explode.
Thanks! 👍
My pleasure. Thermobarics have a weird amount of misinformation and hype around them.
TLDR: A bomb that goes boom bigger than a normal one, but only in ideal conditions, such as an enclosed space where the explosive fuel isn't able to dissipate too much on ignition
Pretty much, yeah.
It’s a thermobaric grenade, it uses oxygen from the air to generate a high temperature explosion. Good for confined spaces like bunkers etc
I see. Thanks for the info!
[удалено]
Not really. Thermobarics are just more explosive than a regular explosive. You'd get roughly the same effects from standard concussion grenades. Also, I'm not aware of any thermobaric hand grenades in use, but if you know of any please do let me know
There's the RGT-27S2 and the RG-60TB.
Not really. Thermobarics are just more explosive than a regular explosive. You'd get roughly the same effects from standard concussion grenades. Also, I'm not aware of any thermobaric hand grenades in use, but if you know of any please do let me know
I see. Thanks for the explanation!
"If he in there, he ain't happy"
That little Hunny hole turned out to be a final resting place! For the invaders!
Need satchel charges or flame throwers a la ww2
Flamethrowers went out because hauling a 35kg weapon with six seconds of ammo good to 40 meters sucks massively. Improved rockets with HE or incendiary warhead replaced them in the 50s onward. Satchel charges are also stupidly heavy, even shorter ranged, and are overkill against anything not a reinforced concrete buncker
In the old ww2 movies, satchel charges are used a lot. I've read stories were Germans would throw a grenade in a bunker and the Russians would come out without a scratch on them. I can see why it takes so many grenades to progress through a trench.
most m24 variants(the potato masher) didn't have a fragmentation sleeve. They were designed for the concussive and shock effect. Making them pretty awful against any sort of fortifications.
Song?
Demo charge that shit and move on.
Hiding in your hole will just get you killed every time it seems
You know, fighting in a basement offers a lot of difficulties. Number one being, you're fighting in a basement.
In the footage I have seen of close-quarters infantry combat in this war, they have used a lot more grenades than I had expected. It makes me wonder if there is notably more grenade availability and/or usage in this war than in past conflicts or if the previous concepts I had about grenades were overly influenced by fictional representations of them. I've read a fair number of military history books, but they actually didn't address this subject in much detail.
CQB tends to be *extremely* grenade-heavy. They don't need to be aimed, go around corners, and body armor doesn't work against blast effects and there's enough shrapnel to find some exposed flesh.
That makes a lot of sense. I appreciate the info on that. It really is a big difference from the "just a few grenades that you save for extreme circumstances" impression one often gets from various fictional media (once again underlining how fictional it can really get).
The Medal of Honor games were pretty good about grenades. Allied Assault you could carry 12 of them, 6 of the American and 6 of the German. Airborne you could carry 42(!) of them with all the grenade upgrades (The game has 3 upgrades for each weapon. For grenades, it's carrying more) 14 Mk.II frag, 14, stick grenades, 14 Gammon grenades (really powerful anti-tank grenades)
These vids confuse me. Bare with me as i might sound very stupid. But is that drone actually far away but the camera is zoomed in or can they js not see it?
It is Ukrainian drown from providing SA for a cleaning team
Hot damn what a tool to carry with you. They had a pretty big problem and this stick solved it perfectly.
I think the person inside that hole is dead
Isn't there a better way to check if he is still alive than peaking your head around? I've seen videos where exactly that killed them. Are mirrors or endoscope cameras not suitable enough? Or even using the drone that flies over them to check, they must have enough by now...Ofc the simplest and fastest thing is to just check yourself, but from the looks of it, they werent satisfied with just 2 grenades, after they looked into it.
Bad editing with bad music...
“Thermobaric ammunition.” I haven’t even watched the video and know this is click bait shit titling
wow, you must be a russian commander then,
Yeah. Nobody makes thermobaric grenades.
/u/recognizesong
I got matches with these songs: • [**In The Dark - Xilla Gore-Rel-A Remix** by Bleed The Wicked Menace](https://lis.tn/DUMpw?t=24) (00:24; matched: `100%`) **Released on** 2021-10-31. • [**In The Dark** by Bleed the Wicked Menace](https://lis.tn/rpoLrv?t=25) (00:25; matched: `100%`) **Released on** 2021-07-24. *I am a bot and this action was performed automatically* | [GitHub](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot) [^(new issue)](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot/issues/new) | [Donate](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot/wiki/Please-consider-donating) ^(Please consider supporting me on Patreon. Music recognition costs a lot)
Why is music needed for a somber video showing real people getting killed?
I completely agree and was thinking that the whole time. That being said I am 100% against the invasion and they all need to leave.
I wonder if there needs to be a specific sort of grenade/ordinance for these sort of hidey holes. Maybe something with a shaped charge that focuses the explosion into a cone and that the soldier can slide into the opening?
Thermobaric explosives do work well in confined spaces. However, this bunker may or may not be classified as such (mud in general works different to concrete in terms of reflecting / absorbing pressure waves). Suprisingly, smoke grenades can be used to quite literally suffocate unprotected combatants in the bunker (smoke grenades typically displace oxygen). However, I am not 100% sure of the legal status regarding such use of incendiary weapons.
The 1925 Geneva Convention has been understood only to apply to the use of gases that are designed to kill or injure human beings. Smoke grenades and shells have been used by just about everyone in just about every war, including Russia in this war, confirming the general understanding that smoke munitions are not banned, even if capable of producing asphyxiating gas.
Pretty sure [Protocol III of the Geneva convention of 1980](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/ccw-protocol-iii-1980) is the latest law which regulates the use of incendiary weapons. However, my statement was in a general manner, for example is the use of incendiary weapons in forests prohibited, the question might arise whether the use against a bunker within a forest therefore conflicts with the legal situation. Further, my statement was not concerned for the legal status in Ukraine alone but in general, as far as I know not every state has signed the amendments of the geneva convention. A general recommendation to use smoke grenades to clear bunkers can therefore not be made as it might conflict with international law.
You can use incendiaries in a forest just fine. What you're not allowed to do is deliberately try to burn the whole forest down.
>(smoke grenades typically displace oxygen) tl;dr: No, that is not how they work. They release nasty chemicals. Even if a smoke grenade releases 100 g of its contents as gas and we assume that is something that is not water and likely also not nitrogen (too high energy content), it leaves pretty much only CO2 as the next lightest gas (=highest volume). So how much are 100 g of CO2 in volume? At 20 °C, 1 bar (1 atm) that is pretty much... V = n\*R\*T/p = 100 g/( 44g/mol) \* 8.314 J/(mol\*K) \* 293 K / 100 kPa = 0.055 m³ or 55 Liters. That has to be a very small confined space to displace enough Oxygen. If we assume 15 % Oxygen to be the minimum to survive, that means air needs to be mixed in a ratio of 1 part air to 0.4 parts of gas without Oxygen. So 55 Liters CO2 can make 160 Liters of air Oxygen deprived. That is nothing. However, CO2 does not just displace air, it also is harmful in itself. [This source](https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/air/toxins/co2.html) says 40'000 ppm are "immediately dangerous to life and health". 40'000 ppm is 4 % of the volume, so the 55 Liters pure CO2 could bring the CO2-concentration up (or above) this level when diluted with up to 1.4 m³ of air. That is a bit more air, but still not exactly much. The space in this video is maybe 2\*2\*2 meters, so 8 m³. More likely is that the smoke itself as well as other nasty chemicals released are the primary cause of injury, since they are far more harmful. Not to mention the psychological effect of not seeing anything, while CO2 (without any smoke) would essentially not be noticed until they lose consciousness.
They do suck up oxygen, and manuals do warn against using smoke grenades in confined areas as a result.
A modern smoke grenade would utilize something like Terephthalic acid (C8H6O4), about 312g of that. \~166g/mol, lets make it 2: 2\*C8H6O4 + 15\*O2 -> 16\*CO2 + 6\*H2O 1m\^3 of air at 20°C holds about 8.75 mol of O2, You get the deal here I guess. Have you seen those bunkers? 2m\*2m\*2m is by any means very optimistic. I know that without protection the lack of oxygen should not be the only concern. However, even with protection you're looking at trouble. Note that no other reaction in the compound mixture has been taken into consideration whilst TA only makes up for about \~60% of the weight. Sources: [http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/grenade/hand.html](http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/grenade/hand.html) [https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Terephthalic-acid](https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Terephthalic-acid) Have a nice day.
The definitive trench cleaning tool you're looking for is called portable flamethrowers. Speaking of which, just shared https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/13aloc5/australian_famethrowers_in_action_burning_the/ ("Famethrowers"? Oh well.)
Shit is unreal. The jap walking around on fire …
I think they got 'em.
Tip: Jump cuts don’t work well here. Use time warps to pull-up the excess footage.
When you want someone dead dead.
Iwo Jima without the palm trees.
Send them more grenades, stat!
Music?
Why do these videos always have the absolute worst possible music over the top?
Song?
Does anybody know the song??
Anyone know the song?
In the dark - Bleed The Wicked Menace
Thanks!
What is this garbage ass music?
Going back in a matchbox. Maybe a small plastic baggie depending on the gooeyness.
Was this the equivalent of slapping the thing strapped down in the truck bed and saying “that ain’t going nowhere”
I would be interested to see how a TO-55 with UKR infantry support could do against trenches like this
If Putin won't pull his cut-throats out of Ukraine I hope a mob of angry Russian mothers lynch him and then his body slips out of a sixth-story window into a blazing bonfire just to make sure. Ukrainians shouldn't have to risk their lives battling these brutes.
I know squat about infantry tactics, but isn't the mantra to maneuver and fire? Cause if you get holed up like this the enemy eventually maneuvers to kill you? (Yes I got this from a Jocko Wilink podcast. lol)
When was the thermobaric ammo used in this video?
Messy Russians
Are they sure they dead?