Typically flamethrowers are mentioned in historical context, usually in WW1 or WW2. Are they still a viable military weapon ? If not when did they stop being one, and why ? What technological advance made them obsolete ? When was the last time they were used in “anger” by the US or anyone else ?
The have been superseded by Fuel Air Explosives.
Actually, in it’s primary role - that of clearing out bunkers - the flamethrower was already supeceded by the white phosphorus granade several decades ago.
Flamethrowers like those seen in movies - are heavy, cumbersome, dangerous and their efficiency was described during WWII as “90% psychological”. Nowadays we have weapons more effective in doing what flamethrowers do - that is in destroying things, setting them on fire and making people to leave fortified emplacements. Throatwarbler and Alessan given two examples of such weapons, but there is much more of them - like man-portable launchers with shaped charges or plastic explosives, tear gas, precise guided weapons launched from air and artillery, defoliant agents, thermite grenades - hand thrown or launched from man-portable grenade launchers etc.
Exact time when backpack flamethrower were phased out wary from military to military, but generally it was somewhere in the 1960’.
Look up “thermobaric” for another weapon type.
Basic design has additional fuel added to the warhead. Normally the explosive has all the fuel and oxidizer components needed. A thermobaric weapon will have additional fuel that will react with atmospheric oxygen expanding the initial overpressure and thermal impulse. Typically powdered aluminum or zirconium are used.
As mentioned, flamers went out (in the US military) after Vietnam. The Marines used to keep one platoon of flame tanks per battalion, but eventually lost interest. (Or perhaps lost institutional memory.)
The zippos were replaced (in the Army) by the M202 (Rae Dong Chong fired one backwards in Commando). I was a big fan of the weapon. Nobody listens to me. The thing went out of service in about 1990.
Yeah, but Flamethrowers keep showing up in Momnster Movies because they look so cool. They used one in Ray Harryhausen’s It Came From Beneath the Sea to toast the octopus tentacles. More recently, they were used in the remake of The Blob and in The Hidden.
Flamethrowers – your number one choice for clearing out Monsters.
Oh, yeah. They are cool. I have a plan to made my own flamethrower when I get more free time. Just in case of zombie outbreak.
I remember seeing a documentary about Iwo Jima and they were talking to a Marine who carried a flamethrower. Lets just say they weren’t very popular with those who carried them. After he saw his friend explode into a huge ball of flame he started dragging the unit behind him attached to his belt. And several other belts from dead marines. A large tank of Napalm can be a bit dangerous to carry around a battlefield.
Nitpick: tear gas cannot be used on the battlefield, as such a use is prohibited by the Chemical Weapons Convention. The only exception, IIRC, is for rear echelon defense, like if prisoners in a POW camp start a riot, or some such thing.
And how could I have forgotten – The John Carpenter version of The Thing
(Why would an Antarctic Research Station even have flamethrowers?)
Sounds pretty hypocritical, you can blow them up, burn them down, smoke them out with real nasty smoke, but can’t use lacrimator gas. Oh, well. In modern times division between policing and military get thin and I’ve seen guys practicing use of tear gas. They might be MPs training before some peace operation as a part of UN forces though.
ETA: it’s reply to **Ravenman **post, of course.
Probably not the best choice… do you really want flaming napalm covered mobile torches setting fire to everything they stumble into?
I’ve seen that argument before, but I don’t buy it. Thing is, flesh burned to the crisp gets stiff. Turn even half inch outer layer of the zombie flesh into charcoal and it will be rendered immobile. Plus, when I’m using flamethrower, I don’t care about things getting on fire. Actually, I intent them to do that 
Just to follow up, here’s the Executive Order (which is 23 years old) which describes the restrictions on use of riot control agents. As I said before, the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention more or less affirms this US policy and makes it a matter of international law.
Under the EO, only the President is allowed to waive those restrictions, but as I said, there is now a treaty that the US is bound to comply with as a matter of law, so it is likely that the President’s ability to waive these restrictions is a matter in question.
And now we can add Iron Man to the list of movies that use flamethrowers.
Charcoal layer would only work as a movement inhibitor if you have the Zed strapped down or otherwise immobile during the flaming.
As they would continue to move while on fire, I imagine the joint would remain pliable. Eventually, barring burn-through into the chest cavity, you’ve got a fireproof zombie stumbling around, with mild charred flesh armor to turn blades.
Bad idea.
I guess we got kinda off-topic there, but since OP was answered, then why not.
Well, all depends on what makes zombies to move around. If it’s some kind of magic or demonic possession, then flaming wouldn’t work. But if we assume that some kind of metabolism is still going on and biomechanic is still working, then severe burns would seriously lessen their capacity of doing anything. Not only hard shell, but also burned tendons and muscles. Also, if zombies have some kind of still working sensor organs (do they see?), it would get burned too… At least, that’s what I think based on my (limited) knowledge. There are some doctors, paramedics and firefighters on board. Anybody care to share factual knowledge about effects of burning on human (not necessarily fresh) flesh? Would dousing human in gasoline and setting him on fire immobilize him? If so, how long would it take? These informations are crucial for planning our anti-zombie defenses.
Yeah, given the choice between a flame thrower and a good old cricket bat I’ll take the bat any day.
I’m sure that was just a Freudian typo. 