Flamethrowers: what are they good for?

The Falklands war saw the use of Napalm by the Argentines and Phosphorus grenades by the British.

 

Did it? I was aware some Napalm was found on the airfield near Goose Green but AFAIK none was ever actually used.

WP grenades are used by practically every armed force, as well as their incendiary properties they can be used to give a useful smoke cover IIRC.

 

I remember dimmly remember a reference in The Battle for the Falklands by Max Hastings to napalm being used. Either it missed or failed to ignite. As I say dimmly remembered so I wouldn't bet my life that I'm right.

 

As a school student in the seventies I remember seeing some anti war/ why there was war movies. Some of these movies contained footage from the asian campaign where throwers were used apparently extensively. The effect it had on the victims was both lethal and absolutely terrifying. The main use was to winkle out japs from bunkers/caves. Apparently there would have been much greater loss of allied lives had they not been used. I think that, really there was no easy alternative to the methods used, as brutal as they were. I feel for the men who operated the units, as it was not an impersonal war, it was really up close and personal.

 

AFAIK the US has not had napalm bombs in the military inventory for quite some time (mid 80s?).

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030810-napalm-iraq01.htm

It looks like napalm to me...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4417024.stm

and i allso think that this is not much betther.

 

If it turns out that "firebombs" (no actual napalm for many years) were indeed used I don't have a problem with that. What is the difference between blowing up the enemy and burning them up? Anything that saves the lives of our soldiers/Marines and that is effective at killing the enemy, I'm for it.