The M2 flame thrower

[Netpackrat]

You miss the point. There's a limit to the number of corners you can make a single grenade go around, no matter how far or accurately you may be able to throw it. With the flamethrower, you hose down the entrance with fire, and in the process you end up filling the bunker or tunnel with CO, which is notably difficult to breathe for very long. That's not to say I would want to be the flamethrower man, or even near him, but the weapon's utility is in being able to neutralize all the rats in a given hole without necessarily having to specifically engage each of them.

[First Shirt]

Had a great uncle who was a Marine in the Pacific in WW II, who told me once that a flamethrower scared him more than any weapon in either inventory. As much as he hated the Japanese, he said, he felt sorry for the ones that were on the wrong end of a flamethrower.

This is the man who told me, once, "If you want sympathy, it's in the dictionary. Between "shit" and "syphilis"."

[D5CAV]

That's not to say I would want to be the flamethrower man, or even near him ...

That is exactly the gist of the problem.

No one will debate the efficacy of either of the two weapon systems I compared the flamethrower to - the M65 Atomic Cannon and the "Davey Crockett" would both have devastating effects on whoever was on the receiving end.

The problem is the risks to the soldiers on the shooting end.

I'm not saying that the flamethrower wouldn't be useful, I'm just saying that I wouldn't carry one, nor would I ask any of my troops to carry one.

Just to be clear, what I consider to be immoral is not the effect on the enemy, as First Shirt alluded, but the risks to my own men.

[randy]

You miss the point. There's a limit to the number of corners you can make a single grenade go around, no matter how far or accurately you may be able to throw it. ..., but the weapon's utility is in being able to neutralize all the rats in a given hole without necessarily having to specifically engage each of them.

That's why today's go-to for such a situation is a weapon with a thermobaric warhead, such as the SMAW.

[Netpackrat]

I'd guess you'd have to balance it against the risks inherent to sending men into the bunker/tunnel complexes with grenades and small arms, to dig out the Japanese. In relation to the sorts of overall losses that were taken in the Pacific, the flamethrower must have been seen as an acceptable risk.

[D5CAV]

True.

However, that goes back to a debate on the boards awhile ago about dealing the whole "Island Hopping" nonsense MacArthur put US soldiers through in the Pacific - which I also consider immoral.

Whether the problem is rats in a hole or rats on an island, a cheaper and easier way is just to cut off all supplies, open a few beers, grill a few burgers, and wait.

I wouldn't send my men in with guns and grenades, either. But then again, I would probably already be court-martialed and sitting in Leavenworth.

[Netpackrat]

MacArthur was pretty much a piece of shit.

[D5CAV]

True that!

I had a great-uncle who was one of the senior officers left behind by MacArthur on the Philippines. He told me that multiple times, so I lost the whole MacArthur myth in my youth.

[MarkD]

True that!

I had a great-uncle who was one of the senior officers left behind by MacArthur on the Philippines. He told me that multiple times, so I lost the whole MacArthur myth in my youth.

My Dad (himself a World War II Marine) was fond of saying "By the Grace of God, and a few Marines, MacArthur returned to the Philippines."

Given that grunts don't get to decide IF they attack a particular island (like, say, Iwo Jima), the flamethrower was the better of the available methods.

[MiddleAgedKen]

Ah, yes, the legendary Dugout Doug. The Bonus Army wants to know what deal they could have made to get him to leave his air force lined up wingtip to wingtip with twelve hours' warning of a possible attack.