Military Review

Flamethrower LPO-50 in the USSR and abroad

57

General view of LPO-50. Photo War-time.ru


In the early fifties, the Soviet defense industry developed several new types of flamethrower weapons for the ground forces. One of them was the LPO-50 light infantry flamethrower. It entered service with the Soviet army, and was also supplied to foreign countries and produced under license.

New design


At the beginning of the fifties, a significant number of ROKS-2/3 knapsack jet flamethrowers from the times of the Great Patriotic War remained in our army. The combat and operational characteristics of this weapons no longer met the requirements of the military, which led to the appearance of a new product LPO-50. By the mid-fifties, this flamethrower went into large series and replaced outdated samples.

LPO-50 consisted of a knapsack with cylinders and other equipment, a cannon gun and a gas-resistant hose connecting them. Liquid "ammunition" was poured into three cylinders with a capacity of 3,5 liters. In the upper part of each cylinder there was a filler neck, into which the propellant charge was then placed, as well as a valve for relieving excess pressure. Under all three cylinders there was a common manifold through which the fire mixture was dispensed into a hose and a gun.


Flamethrower LPO-50 in the US Army handbook on Soviet weapons

The fire hose was made in the form factor of a rifle with a stock. On the muzzle of the barrel, three chamber chambers were placed for the PP-9 squibs - one for each cylinder. A battery for the electrical control system was placed in the butt. The shot was fired with a trigger: it supplied an electrical impulse to the propellant and squib ignitors. There was a switch for prioritizing the use of cylinders. An automatic fuse was also present.

In a combat position, the LPO-50 weighed 23 kg. The main units were not compact. So, the gun, excluding the hose, had a length of 850 mm. The use of fire mixtures of different types with different characteristics was envisaged. Without reloading, the flamethrower could fire three shots - one from each cylinder. The duration of one shot was 2-3 seconds. Depending on the viscosity of the mixture, the firing range reached 50-70 m. A tailwind could increase the range of the mixture.

For your own army


LPO-50 was developed to re-equip the Soviet army and, having passed all the checks, was put into service. Serial production was launched at several enterprises. According to various estimates, over the years of production, up to several tens of thousands of such flamethrowers were produced. With their help, it was possible to carry out a full replacement of outdated systems.


Chinese flamethrowers with Type 74. Photo Slide.mil.news.sina.com.cn

LPO-50 were the main weapons of individual companies of light infantry flamethrowers. In a combined-arms battle, platoons and squads of such a unit were to be attached to motorized rifle units. The flamethrowers were supposed to accompany the rifle platoon / squad, but move behind it. When a target was found that was resistant to attacks from other infantry weapons, flamethrowers were used. In this case, the flamethrowers, using camouflage, had to go out in front of the shooters to the line of using their weapons 40-50 m from the target.

With all its advantages, the LPO-50 product retained all the characteristic drawbacks of knapsack jet flamethrowers. In a real battle, such weapons were dangerous not only for the enemy, but also for their own crew and the surrounding soldiers. In this regard, from a certain time, there have been searches for alternative ways to increase the firepower of the infantry.

In 1975, the RPO "Rys" infantry rocket flamethrower was adopted. The advent of this weapon made the LPO-50 unnecessary. Soon it was removed from service, and the army switched to a modern model. The decommissioned LPO-50 were sent for storage. Often they were transferred to friendly states.


Shooting from "Type 74". Photo Slide.mil.news.sina.com.cn

Chinese copy


In the 50s, the USSR actively shared with the PRC weapons and technologies for their production. Together with other products of the People's Liberation Army of China, several thousand LPO-58 flamethrowers were handed over. Then they helped with the launch of production at local enterprises. Chinese flamethrowers received the designation "Type XNUMX".

The Type 58 light infantry flamethrower did not differ much from the Soviet product. At the same time, there could be some minor changes due to the specifics of local production. The architecture and principles of work did not change, but new compositions of fire mixtures were regularly developed and introduced.

In the seventies, a deeply modernized Type 74 flamethrower was adopted. It was distinguished by the presence of only two cylinders of increased volume and an improved gun. The flamethrower has become a little lighter, the volume of the jet has grown to 4 liters, and the ammunition load has decreased to two shots. Fire characteristics depended on the type of mixture used.


LPO-50 troops of North Vietnam, repulsed by the enemy. Photo manhhai / flickr.com

"Type 74" is still in service with the PLA and the People's Armed Militia. Such weapons are regularly used at various exercises and demonstration events - and always attract attention. It is curious that the PRC eventually left in service with only light infantry flamethrowers. Together with LPO-50 in the fifties, heavy TPO-50s were supplied and produced under license, but they have long been written off.

Deliveries abroad


Since the fifties, LPO-50 flamethrowers have been actively supplied to friendly foreign countries. By the early to mid-sixties, such weapons appeared in all countries of the Warsaw Pact. Foreign armies were often transferred not only modern LPO-50, but also obsolete ROKS-2/3 products. In some cases, not only finished products were transferred, but also documentation for production. So, Romania produced its own flamethrowers.

There were also deliveries outside the ATS. For example, from the mid-sixties LPO-50 of Soviet and Chinese production, along with other infantry weapons, were actively supplied to North Vietnam. It is known from various sources about the use of such weapons in several operations with obtaining acceptable results. However, flamethrowers were not widely used due to the shortage of suitable flammable liquids.


A trophy exhibition in Saigon, 1972. In the background, an entire battery of flamethrowers. Photo manhhai / flickr.com

In the same period, the Soviet LPO-50 ended up in the armies of the Middle Eastern states. Arab countries have limited use of such weapons in battles with the Israeli army. The specifics of the conflict did not contribute to the widespread use of flamethrowers - this time due to the high risks and limited combat effectiveness.

An extremely interesting incident took place on December 13, 1989 in Northern Ireland. On this day, a group of fighters from the Irish Republican Army attacked a British checkpoint in Darriyard. The attacking side used machine guns, machine guns, grenades and an LPO-50 flamethrower. Having made their way to the territory of the checkpoint, the attackers used fire mixture against the command post.

Subsequently, it was established that the IRA had six LPO-50 flamethrowers at its disposal. How and where they came from is unknown. There are several versions, incl. on assistance from third countries interested in causing damage to the UK.


"Libyan" flamethrower LPO-50. Photo Twitter.com/ArmoryBazaar

Latest flamethrowers


As far as is known, most of the operators have long removed the LPO-50 flamethrowers from service and abandoned the very class of jet flamethrowers. However, several armies continue to operate these weapons. Appear regularly news on this score, and each time they arouse the interest of the press and the public.

China shows its "Type 74" flamethrowers, created on the basis of LPO-50, with enviable regularity. It is very likely that this weapon will make headlines for a long time to come. Nothing says about its imminent withdrawal from service, and we can expect new photo and video materials from exercises and other events.

In August of this year, a gun from an LPO-50 flamethrower without other units was unexpectedly found in Libya. Previously, there was no information on the supply of such weapons to the Libyan army. In addition, no other flamethrowers of this type were found in the country. It can be assumed that an incomplete (at the moment) product came to Libya from an unknown third country in recent years, against the background of general instability.

Flamethrower LPO-50 in the USSR and abroad

LPO-50 in Algeria, October 2020 Photo Twitter.com/kad_ghani

On October 12, a ceremony was held in the Algerian city of Tindouf to mark the start of the new year of military training. During this event, the command of the military district was shown the material part of the troops, incl. infantry weapons. Together with other samples, the LPO-50 flamethrower was used in the exhibition. Apparently, such weapons have long gone out of active use, but are still stored in arsenals, at least for participation in exhibitions.

The story continues


At one time, jet flamethrowers were widespread, but a few decades ago, the process of abandoning them began. First, developed countries switched to more successful weapons, and then their allies did the same. However, flamethrowers have not yet completely gone out of service and have even received limited development.

The main operators of jet backpack flamethrowers remain the army and internal troops of China. They have their own views on the development of infantry weapons, in which there is a place for similar outdated systems. At the same time, it should be noted that Soviet developments are at the heart of the current models and tactics of use. All this shows that the LPO-50 light infantry flamethrower was a successful and effective model - despite all the limitations and problems of its class.
Author:
57 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Gnefredov
    Gnefredov 24 October 2020 05: 16
    -9
    This is not a weapon, this is sadism. As well as weapons with phosphorus ammunition ("lighters" with white phosphorus). Not kill, but cripple!

    Soldiers with flamethrowers
    On the eastern front, two types of flamethrowers were used - knapsack and heavy. Both weapons are arranged, the same and differ only in the volume of the tank and the range of the fiery stream. All flamethrowers were used to destroy enemy manpower and brought terrible death to the soldiers. Even if a person survived after contact with fire, he received terrible wounds that crippled him. Therefore, once in captivity, the flamethrower could not count on leniency. All Germans who carried tanks with a combustible mixture behind their backs were killed on the spot according to an unspoken rule.
    Source: https://x-true.info/

    IN. Nice article about nasty weapons.
    1. Oleg123219307
      Oleg123219307 25 October 2020 18: 16
      +7
      Quote: Gnefredov
      This is not a weapon, this is sadism.

      Quote: Gnefredov
      IN. Nice article about nasty weapons.

      Well, then almost all weapons fit this definition if you think about it. Since childhood, after Remarque, with his "on the western front" I somehow do not divide weapons into humane and not very. Is an ordinary machine gun a humane thing? If in the forehead or heart - yes. If in the ass ... er ... the gluteus muscle is tolerable. And if on the knee? Elbow? Any other joint? And into the lung? And in the intestines? And bend over a week from peritonitis ... Are the mines humane? And the MLRS cassette? When shrapnel can cover the whole block. Or do you think a person who burns alive after a flamethrower is much worse than choking on his own blood slowly with a penetrating lung injury? Or burned from a nuclear outbreak? Or inhaled gas? Or burning in a damaged tank? War is such a thing, on it the very concept of humanism is very conditional. I do not urge, of course, to abandon all restrictions and wet each other with everything that comes to hand, I just want to convey the idea that real life is very different from such ostentatious cleanliness.
      1. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. Oleg123219307
        Oleg123219307 26 October 2020 07: 38
        0
        Quote: Gnefredov
        Sofas, you haven't actually seen a flamethrower.
        ))))
        I assure you that SPBZ activated half kilometers above your head will be a better solution than @ Molotov Cocktail @.

        In reality, I worked in the hospital for 6 years, although I was not a doctor, but I saw a lot and everyone. And believe me, burn patients, it is far from the worst thing that is there. That is why I say - the theory can be diluted with "humane weapons" for a long time. Probably before the first bum he saw with a belly pierced with reinforcement, who was brought in on the 3rd day from the moment his friends stuck it there ... It seems much more humane, just a piece of reinforcement. And it was heard throughout the hospital for half a day, under any painkillers, until they entered someone ...
        1. Gnefredov
          Gnefredov 27 October 2020 04: 18
          0
          +5! Even without talking.
          Hug, buddy.
  2. Coward
    Coward 24 October 2020 05: 29
    -7
    I wonder if the use of such flamethrowers would be fair against the protesters throwing bottles with "Molotov cocktails" at law enforcement officers?
    1. Gnefredov
      Gnefredov 24 October 2020 05: 32
      -3
      If they (with Molotov cocktails) are isolated from the crowd and placed against the wall. Why not? An eye for an eye.
      1. Coward
        Coward 24 October 2020 05: 33
        +1
        What about "loaders" and "carriers"?
        1. Gnefredov
          Gnefredov 24 October 2020 05: 41
          -2
          I do not know. Let the humanities deal with this issue.
      2. aleksejkabanets
        aleksejkabanets 24 October 2020 08: 43
        +5
        Quote: Gnefredov
        If they (with Molotov cocktails) are isolated from the crowd and placed against the wall. Why not?

        Because there must be a judgment.
        Quote: Gnefredov
        An eye for an eye.

        The talion principle, of course, is a good thing, but why not start with the country's leadership, for the collapse of the USSR, the collapse and squandering of industry, etc. And what to do with those who write explicit nonsense?
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 24 October 2020 14: 30
          0
          Quote: aleksejkabanets
          Because there must be a judgment.

          Not necessarily.
          They have every right to prescribe "smack on the forehead."
          To prevent.
    2. aleksejkabanets
      aleksejkabanets 24 October 2020 08: 35
      +4
      Quote: Coward
      I wonder if the use of such flamethrowers would be fair against the protesters throwing bottles with "Molotov cocktails" at law enforcement officers?

      Throw off a nuclear bomb on them at once, why should there be almond.
      1. Coward
        Coward 24 October 2020 10: 31
        -2
        I suppose you are one of those protesters who dream of burning law enforcement officers with impunity! And now a chilling fear crept in: "Well, how the answer will arrive!"
        1. aleksejkabanets
          aleksejkabanets 24 October 2020 10: 59
          +2
          Quote: Coward
          I think you are one of those protesters who dream of burning law enforcement officers with impunity!

          Do not think correctly, I am one of those who believe that everyone is equal before the law. And I suppose you are one of those who are ready to shoot rallies with machine guns? Was it someone like you who shot peaceful workers rallies on January 9, 1905? I really don't understand what potanins and Chubais are for you? Why do you defend their interests so much that you are ready to kill your people for them?
          Quote: Coward
          And now a chilling fear crept in: "Well, how the answer will arrive!"

          Chilling fear has long crept into the souls of Putin, Chubais, Potanins and other successors of the Vlasov cause. It is not for nothing that today the "power structures" (police, National Guard and others) outnumber the armed forces. This means that they fear the "internal enemy" more than the "external enemy". And the "otvetka", she will definitely arrive.
        2. aleksejkabanets
          aleksejkabanets 24 October 2020 11: 00
          0
          And your nickname is appropriate.
          1. Coward
            Coward 24 October 2020 12: 20
            -2
            No fear crept into our souls, Putin and other statesmen, and will not creep in, because: "Our cause is just, the enemy will be defeated!"
            And my nickname is a kind of "litmus test", it immediately shows that the opponent's arguments are over.
            1. aleksejkabanets
              aleksejkabanets 24 October 2020 12: 38
              +2
              Quote: Coward
              because: "Our cause is just, the enemy will be defeated!"

              What is your business? Land with weavers with mirotorgami, factories with Potanins with Rotenbergs, and the people into eternal slavery? Sell ​​our country to foreign corporations? Is it your business? Under these slogans, do you propose to shoot your people?
              1. Coward
                Coward 24 October 2020 12: 57
                -4
                "shoot your people?"
                Just don't hide behind the people. A bunch of traitors, marginalized people preferring to go to school, a minority striving for statistical error, wanting to surrender my country to the delight of the enemies and dreaming of snatching a little for themselves. That's who you are!
                How "technically" you try to absolve yourself of responsibility by transferring the conversation to "beating", although I clearly wrote: "The use of flamethrowers in ANSWER to incendiary bottles." And no need to talk about "Land with weavers with mirotorgami, potanin factories with Rotenbergs, and the people in eternal slavery?" thanks to you "the land will be at monsanto, the factory at Biden."
                Well, to the heap, even if we have a lot of "slaves" in our city, you will park your horseradish car and this is in a new building, in which all apartments were sold out at the construction stage. And please do not need me here about the mortgage, tk. in your beloved 90s not much "free" people took a mortgage.
                1. aleksejkabanets
                  aleksejkabanets 24 October 2020 14: 16
                  +3
                  Quote: Coward
                  Just don't hide behind the people.

                  I, the same part of the people.
                  Quote: Coward
                  A bunch of traitors, marginalized people preferring to get out of school, a minority striving for statistical error, wanting to surrender my country to the delight of enemies and dreaming of snatching a little for themselves. That's who you are!

                  A minority striving for statistical error, as a result of criminal privatization, gained power and drags my country to collapse and degradation, and you are serving them faithfully. Do you even get paid? Or are you carrying on all this nonsense out of your own stupidity?
                  Quote: Coward
                  "The use of flamethrowers in the answer to incendiary bottles."

                  Are you out of your mind? People went out to a rally in, Khabarovsk, for example, a provocateur from the roof shot at the security forces, why should they shoot the rally with machine guns? So in your opinion?
                  Quote: Coward
                  thanks to you "the land will be at monsanto, the factory at Biden

                  Tell me, but for me, as a part of the people, what is the difference between the land and factories of Biden with monsanto or with spirit-strengthened weavers with Rotenberg? In neither case, nor in the other case, I, as a part of the people, benefit from them. They don't build roads, don't build schools, don't build hospitals again. And a bunch of oligarchs are getting rich.
                  Quote: Coward
                  your favorite 90s

                  Stop scaring us with the 90s. I remember the nineties. Then the salaries were not paid, but today there is no work, what difference does it make to me. For that, all the same people are in power.
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 24 October 2020 14: 53
                    +2
                    Quote: aleksejkabanets
                    I, the same part of the people.

                    laughing laughing laughing laughing laughing

                    Vlasov was also "part of the people." Like Tonka the machine gunner
                    1. aleksejkabanets
                      aleksejkabanets 24 October 2020 15: 07
                      +3
                      Quote: Spade
                      Vlasov was also "part of the people." Like Tonka the machine gunner

                      And why did you write this? Just because there is nothing to object?
                      1. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 24 October 2020 15: 33
                        0
                        Quote: aleksejkabanets
                        Just because there is nothing to object?

                        For what?
                        Your confidence that you are "the people"
                        I do not mind.
                        Tonka the machine gunner was also a "people". And fought for his happiness as best she could ... Working as an executioner for the auxiliary police created by the Nazis "Lokot autonomy".
                2. Gnefredov
                  Gnefredov 26 October 2020 00: 11
                  +1
                  what did you say
                  -
                  I read it twice
                  Fucked up twice.
            2. Gnefredov
              Gnefredov 26 October 2020 00: 06
              0
              Clearly, you have no grandchildren.
  3. Svetlana
    Svetlana 24 October 2020 07: 54
    +3
    As far as I remember, this is the only type of weapon that chemists fought. That is, that separate company which is mentioned in the text, this company of chemical protection.
    .
    PS: so the purpose of chemists is degassing and decontamination.
    1. Vitaly Tsymbal
      Vitaly Tsymbal 24 October 2020 08: 42
      +1
      At one time in the USSR there were also companies of flamethrower tanks ...
      1. Andrey77
        Andrey77 24 October 2020 09: 09
        +1
        Based on the T-62. The T-72 in the flamethrower version was already abandoned in favor of the TOS on the T-72 chassis.
    2. Andrey77
      Andrey77 24 October 2020 09: 12
      -1
      All incendiary weapons were, as it were, prohibited. We gave it to the chemists so that ... you get the idea. This has been the case for a long time.
      1. Svetlana
        Svetlana 24 October 2020 09: 41
        +5
        No, it was not prohibited and is not prohibited today. And chemists are dealing with them, but these knapsacks are filled with incendiary mixtures and not with pure gasoline (kerosene, diesel fuel). Compilation and calculation of mixtures is one of the tasks that chemists are engaged in in life.
      2. Lopatov
        Lopatov 24 October 2020 14: 45
        +3
        Quote: Andrey77
        All incendiary weapons were, as it were, prohibited.

        No.
        Its use is simply limited. Cannot be used "in an area where civilians are concentrated."
  4. Vitaly Tsymbal
    Vitaly Tsymbal 24 October 2020 08: 50
    0
    Jet flamethrowers are already history, perhaps only for China they are weapons. Yesterday I was holding a flamethrower which is in service with the Airborne Forces ... this is already a reusable weapon, safer, more mobile than not only a jet flamethrower, but also RPO "Bumblebee" ...
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 24 October 2020 09: 04
      0
      RPO-M / PDM-A "Shmel-M"?
  5. infantryman2020
    infantryman2020 24 October 2020 09: 41
    +4
    1) a jet infantry flamethrower will not replace the jet flame thrower in performing some tasks, until now;
    2) an infantry rocket flamethrower is no different from an anti-tank rocket grenade (RPG-18 type, .....). Only his warhead is different. They should have been handed over to motorized riflemen for supply;
    3) RPO "Lynx" - crap (tested). Set fire to a DRY haystack, no more. But you still have to get there, yes;
    4) in terms of psychological impact on enemy infantry, the jet flamethrower is not comparable to anything.
    1. Vitaly Tsymbal
      Vitaly Tsymbal 24 October 2020 10: 21
      0
      1) a jet infantry flamethrower will not replace the jet flame thrower in performing some tasks, until now;

      Which ones? Please clarify.
      1. infantryman2020
        infantryman2020 24 October 2020 15: 05
        +2
        For example, to burn out a room (bunker, basement, etc.) by sticking a hose into an air vent or embrasure. Very different situations are possible in combat.
        Well, see item 4 - to lower the level of the enemy infantry ministry and / or force him to leave the position.
        1. cat Rusich
          cat Rusich 25 October 2020 22: 07
          0
          Quote: infantryman2020
          For example, to burn out a room (bunker, basement, etc.) by sticking a hose into an air vent or embrasure. Very different situations are possible in combat.
          Well, see item 4 - to lower the level of the enemy infantry ministry and / or force him to leave the position.

          "Problem" Type 74 - in "double-charge", 23 kg for two shots, then either run to reload, or change the flamethrower to a "new" one with unused ammunition. If you need to "smoke" the enemy from the "crack" or "basement" - RGD-2 (smoke grenade). If necessary, destruction - RGD-5, RGD-60TB
          rgd-2b
          RGD-2B (B - white smoke, H - black smoke)
          rgd-60tb
          RGD-60TB - thermobaric
          RGT-27 Ukraine
          RGT-27S - Ukrainian thermobaric grenade.
          1. infantryman2020
            infantryman2020 28 October 2020 06: 35
            +1
            Thank you.
            If this is advice from combat experience, then unnecessarily, there is.
            If you review the available funds, then you know. But, the RDG-2 is inconvenient in operation, and I have not seen the rest in the troops.
            It is clear that we are speculating here, no one really used jet flamethrowers in our time.
            Less categorical, situations in battle are very good. various.
    2. bk0010
      bk0010 24 October 2020 12: 18
      +1
      Quote: infantryman2020
      Only his warhead is different. They should have been handed over to motorized riflemen for supply;
      They say that a shot there is very expensive, so they only give it to those who have trained a lot with RPO - chemists.
    3. garri-lin
      garri-lin 24 October 2020 12: 31
      +1
      Psychological impact from what distance? As far as I know 80 meters for the jet knapsack limit. Or a 15 liter single-shooter. The enemy soldier simply won't let you at such a distance.
      1. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 24 October 2020 19: 37
        +1
        Quote: garri-lin
        Psychological impact from what distance? As far as I know 80 meters for the jet knapsack limit.

        For a battle in the city and 30-50 meters is quite a distance. A jet flamethrower in contact combat in ruins and rat holes is a terrible thing!
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin 24 October 2020 19: 54
          +1
          Will you personally approach the enemy within 30 meters? With a tank of napalm on your shoulders? To straighten a grenade throw?
          1. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 24 October 2020 20: 23
            0
            Syrian videos look at how sometimes the battle in the city looks like there. Two are hammering a hole in the basement with sledgehammers, and three more are standing next to a machine gun and grenades in their hands to immediately throw it into the hole ..
            1. garri-lin
              garri-lin 24 October 2020 22: 26
              0
              And those who also have grenades in the hole? Or just sticks? And then if they manage to throw out their grenade to the flamethrower and others will seem a little.
              1. mat-vey
                mat-vey 25 October 2020 08: 55
                +3
                In ShISBr, flamethrowers were mandatory ..
                "When the attack aircraft managed to get close to the object of the assault or the firing point at a distance of a shot from the flamethrower, the success of the assault was ensured - the enemy left the defended object."
                1. garri-lin
                  garri-lin 25 October 2020 09: 44
                  0
                  Well, more precisely, not When and If.
                  1. mat-vey
                    mat-vey 25 October 2020 09: 45
                    0
                    Quote: garri-lin
                    Well, more precisely, not When and If.

                    Have you tried to get acquainted with the history of the Great Patriotic War?
                    1. garri-lin
                      garri-lin 25 October 2020 13: 22
                      0
                      What are you talking about? I do not dispute what was used. I just want to say that the application was fraught with a lot of difficulties and dangers. And in our time there are things that have the advantages of jet flamethrowers, but at the same time are devoid of disadvantages.
                      1. mat-vey
                        mat-vey 25 October 2020 13: 29
                        +2
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        that the application was fraught with difficulties and dangers

                        Sorry for the banality, but the war is continuous difficulties and dangers. And in the ShISBr flamethrowers have shown their effectiveness in the assault on cities and fortified areas and LPO-50 and was created just taking into account that experience.
                      2. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 25 October 2020 20: 06
                        0
                        And then "capsule" flamethrowers were created. Bumblebee is the best example. All the advantages of inkjet plus range. Here below Varna was cited as an example. The range is double that of the jet. This is called the development of technology. So people from the tibia of the antelope gradually came to the "Warlords" and the Tridens.
                      3. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 25 October 2020 21: 26
                        +1
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        And then "capsule" flamethrowers were created. Bumblebee is the best example. All the advantages of inkjet plus range.

                        This is another weapon created for other purposes. Try to shove a Bumblebee into the hopper vent. wink
                      4. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 25 October 2020 22: 34
                        -2
                        In order to use the Bumblebee it is not necessary to approach the bunker risking their lives. You can throw a fire mixture into the embrasure from a distance of a couple of moten meters. Or at the same vent.
  6. 72jora72
    72jora72 26 October 2020 05: 20
    0
    For a battle in the city and 30-50 meters is quite a distance. A jet flamethrower in contact combat in ruins and rat holes is a terrible thing!
    By the way, it would be very useful when cleaning Donetsk airport.
  • Lopatov
    Lopatov 24 October 2020 14: 38
    +2
    Quote: infantryman2020
    the jet infantry flamethrower will not replace the jet flamethrower in performing some tasks, until now;

    SPO "Varna" - jet infantry flamethrower





    Adopted on December 30.07.2005, XNUMX
    Developer - KB Instrument Engineering (Tula).

    Designed to create fires at sites and locations.
    Single-use hand-held rocket weapon loaded with an incendiary mixture.

    Wearable ammunition - two flamethrowers in a pack. Ammunition mass - 16,2 kg.
    Firing range: maximum - 120 m, sighting range - 70 m.
    The amount of fire mixture delivered to the target is at least 85%.
    Weight: flamethrower - 8,1 kg, shot - kg., Equipment - 2,5 kg.
    Caliber - 93 mm. Flamethrower length - 920 mm.
    The time to transfer the device from the traveling position to the combat position is no more than 30 seconds.
    Sight - diopter (similar to RPO-A).
    The guaranteed shelf life is 9 years.

    It consists of an ejection jet engine and a cylinder with a fire mixture, placed in the cavity of a sealed barrel-container.
    It can be used when fighting inside buildings and structures, because allows you to shoot from small-sized rooms with elevation angles up to 60 ° and in the presence of an obstacle behind at a distance of up to 1 m.


    http://www.russianarms.ru/forum/index.php/topic,7575.0.html
    1. garri-lin
      garri-lin 24 October 2020 19: 57
      +1
      Why is it called inkjet? There is no jet. In fact, a spit of fire mixture is flying. Point. The jet can "fill" a certain area.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 24 October 2020 19: 59
        0
        Quote: garri-lin
        Why is it called inkjet?

        To distinguish from capsule
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin 24 October 2020 20: 03
          0
          Clear. Thank you
  • Constanty
    Constanty 24 October 2020 22: 22
    0
    Exhibition of trophies in Saigon, 1972


    A very interesting photo. Here and MG-42 and 3 MG-34
  • Mister X
    Mister X 26 October 2020 09: 10
    +1
    An extremely interesting incident took place on December 13, 1989 in Northern Ireland.

    And how did it end?