Flamethrowers 47 replies

Please wait...

Badha1rday

Nature's best screw up.

132,255 XP

27th July 2005

0 Uploads

12,663 Posts

0 Threads

#11 12 years ago

Inhumane, unless the fire kills them in a matter of miliseconds.

And, our soldiers would have to get too close to the enemy. WE can't use that in Iraq. It could be used for clearing rooms, but that what grenades are for. Also, too much collatoral damage. It'll burn everything down.

No from me. Stick to bombs.




silian

40 years of the Ford Escort!

50 XP

10th October 2004

0 Uploads

1,678 Posts

0 Threads

#12 12 years ago

Flamethrowers are, on the whole obsolete. Most modern armies have replaced them with napalm armed weapons such as the US M202 Flash rocket launcher and thermobaric weapons such as the Soviet/Russian RPO-A Shmel and US SMAW-NE rocket launchers and the XM1040 40mm Grenade which are far less cumbersome and have a greater range than a flamethrower, the latter fact considerably reduces the vulnerability of the operator, they also require less maintainance.




elevatormusic

slouching toward nirvana

50 XP

19th July 2006

0 Uploads

736 Posts

0 Threads

#13 12 years ago
MrFancypants;4003826Depends what you are using them for. In WWI they were one of the first weapons that could be effectively used against tanks, in WWII they were the best thing available for taking out bunkers and the like.

Correction then, they are no longer as effective in modern warfare. I doubt they would be much use against a modern tank. I'm assuming it would cause fuel lines to burst and possibly ignite(if enough air is present) or to heat the munitions to combustion, and that both those areas would be sufficiently protected in modern vehicles. As for the bunkers, entrenched positions, how much of that is actually occurring in conflict zones right now? Most of the insurgents, if they're smart, don't dig in and don't hole themselves up in bunkers. In an urban setting with a focus on guerrilla tactics I can't see them being that effective.

Also, as a means of comparison, consider which of the two is more effective: an AK-47 or a flamethrower.




Huffardo

Arrrr!

48,770 XP

29th November 2003

0 Uploads

4,632 Posts

0 Threads

#14 12 years ago

The introduction of the rain jacket made flamethrowers essentially useless, this napalm, gas, acid and radiation proof clothing stops anything short of a bullet, and I am confident they are working on fixing that limitation.

That said same flamethrowers are cruel, exposing and cumbersome weapons, not that one could say anything good about e.g. napalm either, anyone who sees it appropriate to use such weapons should themselves feel the burn they are causing others. Would you want the US to join the list of backward nations that use illegal procedures like torture and these most cruel weapons of war?

:lookaround:




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,684 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,026 Posts

9 Threads

#15 12 years ago

elevatormusic;4003963Correction then, they are no longer as effective in modern warfare. I doubt they would be much use against a modern tank. I'm assuming it would cause fuel lines to burst and possibly ignite(if enough air is present) or to heat the munitions to combustion, and that both those areas would be sufficiently protected in modern vehicles. As for the bunkers, entrenched positions, how much of that is actually occurring in conflict zones right now? Most of the insurgents, if they're smart, don't dig in and don't hole themselves up in bunkers. In an urban setting with a focus on guerrilla tactics I can't see them being that effective.

Also, as a means of comparison, consider which of the two is more effective: an AK-47 or a flamethrower.

Yes, sure, in general it's more efficient to equip your troops with rifles.

Today there are different weapons that use the similar effects to deal with fortified positions. Fuel-bombs, for example, can be dropped on the entrance of a cave, the resulting fireball sends a shockwave down the cave and then sucks most of the oxygen out of it.




Chemix2

Paladin: The Holy Knight

50 XP

16th March 2005

0 Uploads

3,789 Posts

0 Threads

#16 12 years ago

and looks awesome while doing it, even moreso than a flamethrower




Cap'n Rommel

The Good

50 XP

7th August 2004

0 Uploads

8,766 Posts

0 Threads

#17 12 years ago

Chemix2;4003712So to hell with the Geneva convention and lets get back to hot irons and fiery coals to interrogate people...

Best thing to do to explain this is, put a protective coating on your skin, and then expose yourself to the heat and power of a flamethrower. After that, you'll understand why we don't use it anymore. In modern warfare, a pyro (or proper military equivalent) isn't useful because weapons fire more bullets at farther ranges with higher accuracy and anyone flame throwing around the battlefield is a bright, flaming, target. Back in WWII or Korea, a pyro would be useful because most weapons were non-automatic, and thus you'd have better chances at getting past a rifle armed foot-soldier and getting a machine gunner from an angle they couldn't attain with their gun. Today we're dealing with urban warfare more and more and a flamer poses a hazard to everyone. Burning enemies out of a building, works, but it could spread, or fuel could be inside which would ensure a massive building-to-building fire which could hurt friendlies, offer cover to escaping enemies, or even kill the pyro.

Though pyros are fun to play in team fortress 2, people also die relatively quickly and there are no permanent scars, whereas in real life, burning takes a while, is excruciatingly painful, and survivors live scarred forever.

With the exception that when a allied soldier get the same treatment, its an act of terror and the ones who did it shall be called war criminals. and hang..

Huzzar for hypocrats!




The Body Popper

KHAN!

50 XP

14th February 2006

0 Uploads

2,275 Posts

0 Threads

#18 12 years ago

they are cumbersome weapons, one shot to the fuel tank would engulf the user in flames, possibly harming his battle buddies. its a bright becon to fire upon. not to mention it would be incredibly useless in the urban/open desert warfare we are currently engaged in. but as for all you saying its inhuman, it kills in a matter of seconds. but that still doesnt outway the risks and detractions. it is no longer effective.




foodmaniac2003

Gelato pwns all

50 XP

11th March 2006

0 Uploads

2,875 Posts

0 Threads

#19 12 years ago
rabid midgit;4004234they are cumbersome weapons, one shot to the fuel tank would engulf the user in flames, possibly harming his battle buddies. its a bright becon to fire upon. not to mention it would be incredibly useless in the urban/open desert warfare we are currently engaged in.

That's a myth, exploding in flames. They don't do that.

I actually think that they might be relatively useful in urban warfare, provided the houses aren't the flammable type...




Cap'n Rommel

The Good

50 XP

7th August 2004

0 Uploads

8,766 Posts

0 Threads

#20 12 years ago

well.. I dont think anyone would appriciate a street on fire.. you see.. houses has this bad habbit of burning...