M132 Armored Flamethrower
The M132 was a United States built flamethrower armed variant of the M113 and M113A1 armored personnel carriers developed in the early 1960s. Approximately 350 were accepted into service. The first prototype of the vehicle was produced in August 1962 when a flamethrower was mounted on a M113. This prototype was only used in combat situations four times that year. In December 1964, the first armored Cavalry was sent two M132 flamethrower armored vehicles. The vehicle was based on an M113. The driver sits in the front left of the hull. A small cupola in the center of the hull mounts an M10-8 flame gun with a coaxial 7.62 mm calibre M73 machine gun. The weapons could be traversed though 360 degrees and elevated to +55 degrees and depressed to -15 degree. The passenger compartment was removed, and replaced with an M10 fuel and pressure unit and four spherical 50 gallon fuel tanks. The 200 gallon fuel capacity enabled it to fire for 32 seconds, and the pressure unit enabled it to reach targets at a range of 200 meters.
not hard to see why bunkers became entirely useless
Your done for if you see this coming your way thats just scary holy crap!!!
mmmmmmmm gonorrhea
whyd ont they use these cmon we know america isnt beeing humane anyway and thats coming from an irish person
pyro should try that
if you think that is bad wait till you see chuck norris piss
They should use this beauty in Iraq, and burn down this fuckin country!
Holy shit that flame was long!
@Kazuya720
Minutes? More like seconds.
┌∩┐(◕_◕)┌∩┐ tealcLOL so true
@Kazuya720 depends on how hot the flame is, I say bring back the flamethrower if it can completly burn a person in 10 seconds, reducing the death time
@Whisper95Productions :There is a huge different! Getting hit by the flames must rise in an very painful death, maybe for minutes
fucking scary weapon…
@soldier312 napalm. its gasoline with a gelling agent. designed to stick to whatever it lands on be it vegetation, personnel or vehicles. Nasty shit.
by shooting burning what?
@Whisper95Productions Hells yea!
@PyroMasterGENERAL i no but isnt just so fun to set something on fire?
@Whisper95Productions It’s considered inhumane because of the pain it causes. Blowing someone up takes about a split second of pain, where as being on fire takes a while. Nasty stuff that napalm. Still my favorite weapon!
its an easy to develop weapon,compared to other weapon systems.imagine these mounted on UAVs going inside afghan caves.could be actually better than lasers on frickin’ sharks!!!!!
lolz i really dont see wuts inhuman about burning ppl. I mean i dont see the difference between burning somebody and blowing sombody to bits
This would be pretty effective for blasting enemies out of caves or in heavily forested areas. Too bad they are no longer used
@cbassfishin Because they Kill people by sizzling their flesh which is painful and slow.
Is USA army seriously still using flamethrowers? That’s just inhuman.
@popcornkid76 Neither do bullets (all the time), but these are especially inhumane.
LOL