future flamethrowers

okay, so I am working on a Sci-fi tabletop RPG called wild spaces, set arounf 1000 years into the future. I was thinking about some of the tools and weapons, and how they would be updated for the future, and one that I keep coming back to is a flamethrower. Fire is a good way of temporarly releaving an area of its organic matter, but leaves it ready for new stuff to be put there, making it great for clearing places, or invading. Fire is also unpredictable, likely to spread, and can be blown around, not to mention dangerous to the user and the users allies.

In trying to come up with ideas, the only one that seems to have much ground is a nano-tech spewer that fires a cloud of nano-machines that take things apart on a molecular level, pretty cool, but far to powerful, there is no reason they couldnt cut through battleships , so I am stuck, anyone got any inspiration here? found a solution?

also I need to work out how the rules for them would work, but thats another problem all together.

Why not just use uncontained plasma instead of flames?

Flamethrowers have always had two major problems, which is part of the reason why they no longer see use in militaries today.

1. Range. Flamethrowers have short range even when attached to vehicles compared to any counterpart. For example the M2 Flamethrower from WW 2 and the early Cold War conflicts like Korea and Vietnam could only fire about 40 meters tops. By comparison the first generation AK-47 assault rifle could fire up to 400 meters or more. Even on vehicles like the M67 "Zippo" the range was pitiful compared to contemporary vehicle ordnance. (The Zippo could do maybe 200 meters on a good ranging shot. Typically it was 100 meters or less. Compare that to the 2000+ meter range of the M48 Patton medium tank's 90mm cannon.)

2. Capacity. An infantryman-carried flamethrower only carries enough fuel to fire for about 7 seconds. Yes 7 seconds. Compare that with 7 mags of 30 rounds of 5.56mm for the M4A1 automatic carbine which can in a firefight last upwards of several minutes or more depending on intensity of the battle.

What makes liquid-based flamethrowers so useful is that you can project a stream accurately over a surprising distance where it'll then behave as liquids do and run into any openings where it'll continue to burn.

Plasma would expand explosively the moment it leaves containment. You'd deliver a lot of heat up close, but you'd lose your long-distance projection ability...and you'd also lose much of your bunker-busting potential simply because plasma behaves much more like a gas than a liquid.

For future flamethrowers, I'd just look into better fuels and especially delivery systems. The weak point of any flamethrower has always been the bulk and weight of the device (flamethrowers exploding when shot at was a lot less common than videogames would make you think). A relatively lightweight, handheld device that provides a few flamethrower shots in a package that an infantryman can easily carry, a kind of flamethrowing equivalent to the LAW...that'd be a useful addition to any futuristic arsenal.

In fact, Shadowrun has just that in the Shiawase Blazer, a rifle-sized flamethrower with a tank that looks a bit super-soaker-ish but provices about a dozen flame bursts with decent range and accuracy. Underbarrel one-shot versions are also available.

edited 7th Jun '15 1:11:37 PM by MattStriker

Aren't flames a plasma, anyway ?

Extremely hot flames can have plasma characteristics, yes. Your average fire, not so much.

And in any case, the benefit would be that your burning fuel is still where the target is, regardless whether the flame is hot enough to be fully ionized or not.

You're talking the first flickers of plasma characteristics. Even then they only occur in fires like that of Thermite and that's to start.

I suppose you could shoot incendiaries out a gattling gun but that's not really a flamethrower, is it.

Random thought. Depending on your tech level, it might be an idea to completely eliminate the fuel from the equation entirely and have something that sucks in air, super-heats it and then fires the superheated air directly.

Edit to add a missed word.

edited 8th Jun '15 12:11:57 AM by KnightofLsama

My sci-fi setting has ferrothrowers, which shoots streams of molten metal heated to such ridiculous temperatures that even powered hardsuits can be immobilized. It's also capable of being packed into a precise missile with the intention of taking out the reactive armor and sensors of a military vehicle. I haven't worked out many of the details, but it's something.

While sending fiery death on your opponent is always fun, cathartic, and efficient, (current) flamethrower is limited by their limited range, need of protection for operators, and rather inherent dangerous in the tools (flammable fuel on backpacks/ easily seen containers).

In Mass Effect, while fire is useful, it's usually delivered via Incendiary Ammo/ Grenades. Flamethrowers are rarely used except when you don't mind much for operator's safety (geth) or just plain badass/ crazy/ stupid (others). Of course, this changed while husks appears.

In Star Craft, flamethrowers are used extensively by Terrans because those are the most effective way, cost-size, for dealing with Zerg (thank god for vespene gas).

Actually, consider that modern flamethrowers look and function very differently than the classic flamethrower.

The modern flamethrower is a capsule of incendiary device stuck onto a rocket engine and launched at the target, like a bazooka or other shoulder-launched rocket. The Russian RPO and RPO-M, and the US FLASH and SMAW-NE, are the examples here. They solve the range issue since the rocket can travel much further than the stream of pressurized napalm; it also helps immensely with the weight and bulk issues, since the rocket is substantially lighter than the tanks-and-hose rig.

With guidance and fusing options, future flamethrowers may well be similar.

In a thing I made, classic flamethrowers are occasionally fielded by powered infantry against unarmored troops, mostly for shock and awe effect than actual killing power. Given that an unarmored infantryman or even a squad would find it hard to take down a powered grenadier without grenades or rockets, the armored soldier can often get quite close with little risk to himself, especially if operating with his squad. A deployed powered battalion might carry around three or four in case they run into a situation like that.

That's against humans; there are some aliens who flamethrowers are more often used against.

So basically, you're looking at Turn A Gundam in Sentou Mecha Xabungle terms, and confusing fire with an accelerant.

Here, how about this: the nanomachines purify the oxygen in a given area, which makes it flammable. Then, you just throw a "match", essentially a starter timed to spark after a certain amount of time or upon impact.

It's tech that would be used in waste disposal (both air purification and to facilitate the disposal of trash), even on a spaceship, adapted towards a more warlike purpose.

Ah, but if you want really nasty burn, don't use oxygen. Use halogen. Wait, scratch that. Use fluor. The only thing that wouldn't react to fluor are Noble Gases, and even then, it's not always safe.

You mean Fluorine Gas. And yes, that is some scary stuff.

Keep in mind that mankind has yet to create a safe container for fluorine gas. It just eats right through it. Your best bet is to create the gas right on top of the target. You probably don't even need a match, fluorine is just that dangerous.

I was momentarily confused. Like, does flour go up like powdered coffee creamer? Anyway, I can see plasma justified for very-short range operations the requires killing things with fire without the collateral damage. Promethium sticks to kids, after all.

Flour do explode like most other powder. It's actually a risk in storage silos and mills.

</digression>

It's not easy to do so intentionally, though. Without a confined space it's harder than it seems to light off a quantity of flour/sawdust suspension and have it develop a proper detonation. It's not a weapon if it only works in ideal laboratory conditions; a weapon needs to work in all kinds of unfavorable conditions.

Various halogen compounds—including those terrifying fluorine compounds—are scary as fuck. They are also very difficult to properly weaponize. It's not a good weapon if it doesn't spread properly, or if it doesn't stick to targets, or if it detonates at the slightest provocation; a good weapon needs to be very safe until it's time for it to be very dangerous. (This is why you see insensitive compounds like various PBX mixtures for high explosives, even if scary things like metal azides or the dreaded hexanitrohexaazaisowurtzitane can theoretically develop more punch per gram. It's not a good thing to use for a weapon if it causes more friendly casualties than enemies.)

Really, given everything, I'm in firm favor of lobbing the container of nastiness towards the enemy and then lighting it off, instead of keeping the container with you and pointing it towards the opposition. The advantages far outweigh the disadvantages.

I have personally tried burning flour, and I will say dumping flour on a fire only smothers it.

Basically you need a confined space for an actual detonation (doing it out in the open lessens the effectiveness considerably), you need very fine flour, and you need a very thick, choking suspension of flour in the air for it to catch.

The resulting flame can be pretty impressive if you've done everything right, although it is not recommended that you set it on fire with a match. If you do, please be sure to have a blastproof camera, and pre-made arrangements to play the video at your funeral.

It should be noted, though, that these are thermobaric blast/pressure weapons, not incendiary. They're used for some of the same tasks, but they're not the same. If you have a hose set to spray pressurized propane gas towards an opponent and a torch to light it on the way there, you'd have a (very inefficient) flamethrower. If you douse the air in propane and then light a match, you'd have a (almost certainly fatal) fuel-air weapon.

It may be flour dust, rather than actual flour, that causes the accidents.

It's flour.

The key thing is that there's a lot of it suspended in the air; dumping it onto a fire wouldn't light it, but thoroughly saturating the air with floating flour and then striking a match means Bad Things Happen.

Similar to the rocket-based weapon described above, one thought that comes to mind is a contained plasma device: Essentially, this is a small capsule containing plasma under pressure—perhaps via a miniaturised magnetic bottle. The capsule is then fired (whether ballistically or via a rocket) at the target; on impact the device breaks (or opens vents), allowing the plasma to escape.

Others mentioned the flaws of the old style flame throwers but you still find some variations in various fictional settings. Star Wars and Warhammer 40k for example. One of the more interesting variations on a flame thrower is a miniaturized flame pistol. It either has a smaller back pack rig, some use pressurized fuel cells that load like a oversized magazine, or even something that makes it look like a nasty super soaker.

While not exactly all that different then using say an incendiary grenade in a grenade launcher or rocket there are a couple fictional examples where either burning ball or blob is lobbed instead and splats in a ball of fire at the target. Personally I would just use an incendiary grenade fired from a launcher if you want to lob incendiaries.