The Best That Never Was 2 (Prototypes)

[CDAT]

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.

[rcaf_777]

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-incendiary-weapon-in-afghanistan-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]

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

[pmulcahy11b]

One thing about the article -- it states that the M202 uses a napalm-like filler. The Flash uses a combination of aluminum-derived powder and a WP initiator for the aluminum.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

As an interesting "what if", another round suggested for the M202 that did not get past the trials stage was the XM96 RCR (Riot Control Round) with a CS gas filling.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/m74rocket.html

[pmulcahy11b]

As an interesting "what if", another round suggested for the M202 that did not get past the trials stage was the XM96 RCR (Riot Control Round) with a CS gas filling.

http://www.designation-systems.net/d...m74rocket.html

Well, for huge riots it might be useful, it's definitely not a "less-than-lethal" round. Someone could die if they get hit by the rocket.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Well, for huge riots it might be useful, it's definitely not a "less-than-lethal" round. Someone could die if they get hit by the rocket.

Apparently it was developed for use in South-East Asia, Vietnam specifically.
Read into that what you will but I'll jump to the assumption that that implies use against rioters who are potential Viet Cong

[CDAT]

Well, for huge riots it might be useful, it's definitely not a "less-than-lethal" round. Someone could die if they get hit by the rocket.

There are a fair amount of "less lethal" rounds that have the possibility of killing.
For example there are flash bang grenades (not all types, but some) that when they go off can have some parts of them flay away with enough force to kill. Rubber and wood projectiles can kill if not used as designed (most need to be skipped into the target). So it could have still been labeled less lethal.

[Vespers War]

There are a fair amount of "less lethal" rounds that have the possibility of killing.
For example there are flash bang grenades (not all types, but some) that when they go off can have some parts of them flay away with enough force to kill. Rubber and wood projectiles can kill if not used as designed (most need to be skipped into the target). So it could have still been labeled less lethal.

Even if used as designed, the various baton rounds can be lethal because their irregular shapes mean they can't reliably be targeted when skipped. The BMJ published a study in 2017 looking at 25 years of incident results that calculated rubber bullets are lethal roughly 3% of the time. Another 15.5% suffered serious injuries such as ruptured organs or permanent blindness.

[swaghauler]

As an interesting "what if", another round suggested for the M202 that did not get past the trials stage was the XM96 RCR (Riot Control Round) with a CS gas filling.

http://www.designation-systems.net/d...m74rocket.html

According to what I learned during my Special Weapons training, the M202's CS rocket had a truly fatal flaw. In the right concentrations, CS gas can become flammable. The first rocket fired could effectively deliver its payload but follow-on rockets' exhaust had a habit of igniting a good spread of CS gas. Nobody in the Army wanted to be the guy who set a crowd of protestors on fire. Thus the rocket was never officially adopted.

[pmulcahy11b]

According to what I learned during my Special Weapons training, the M202's CS rocket had a truly fatal flaw. In the right concentrations, CS gas can become flammable. The first rocket fired could effectively deliver its payload but follow-on rockets' exhaust had a habit of igniting a good spread of CS gas. Nobody in the Army wanted to be the guy who set a crowd of protestors on fire. Thus the rocket was never officially adopted.

The incendiary round itself also had a fatal flaw. A clip had to be handled, let's say, carefully. the nose end had a tendency to crack if mishandled and cause the gunner to immolate himself. We always kept that in mind at the range. I can't see the Army fielding a weapon that fragile and I've seen a clip dropped and it didn't crack (though we put it in the dud pit).

[StainlessSteelCynic]

All of which makes me wonder about that article supposing that the M202 was used in Afghanistan.
Given the delicate nature of the rockets, I wonder if US forces were actually using 40mm thermobaric rounds (they started to be available from 2003) and the article writer not being familiar with military tech jumped on the M202 as the explanation