not mine. mine is made of lightning. REAL LIGHTNING!!
foodmaniac2003;4004300That'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...
The gas tank of your car is at the opposite end of your car, away from the ignition source, here the ignition source is about a foot to a yard away. The point is the spray of fuel will be ignited, triggering an explosion. No, normal bullets alone will not make gas explode, but add a lighter, and there will be a bon fire.
Almost everything is flammable; particularly in urban areas: wood floors, beams, steps, ladders, clothing, plastics, car engines.
As for a flame thrower killing in a quick and efficient fashion, there is no way that fire from a gas powered flame thrower will destroy enough tissue or cause enough heat exhaustion to kill within a few seconds. Maybe half a minute, a whole minute if the person can run very fast, and most people lit on fire, can! Albeit not in a useful way or in a particular direction, but they will MOVE.
A napalm base flame thrower uses gelatin mixed with gasoline (or was it nitro?), so basically, it's sticky, flaming, GOO! It will be more effective than a gas powered flame thrower, with more range and more staying power, but is much worse in an open area, and is capable of lasting for a long time without killing someone.
Heaven's gonna burn your eyes
16th April 2005
foodmaniac2003;4003757War is war.
War is no longer war.
If there was a Maginot Line that needed assaulting, then perhaps. But in an urban environment?
Snipes With Artillery
22nd March 2005
Flamethrowers are completely incapable of making any distinction between targets and basically guarantee collateral/property damage. They are dangerous, heavy, short ranged, and burn through ammo in no time flat. Not to mention, you know, killing people by setting them on fire or by burning all their oxygen. (burning away all the oxygen is a more effective and cleaner way to get rid of entrenched(en-caved?) people)
The one thing they have going for them is they look kinda cool. That ain't much.
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.
Actuallt, the flamethrower usefulness against tanks was actually quite limited. The first weapon weapon available to the infantry to have a limited effect against armor is the machine gun. In modern day warfare the flamethrower usefulness is rather questionable, though. Mostly because there are other weapons in modern warfare fulfilling the role of the flamethrower, such as the M202A1 Flame Assault Shoulder Weapon.
I totally agree with you! Since humans are having completely pathetic wars about...well, nothing, why not just give our selves an advantage, use a flamethrower, burn your enemies alive and see if that scares them off (probably wont, but oh well).
well heres something to think about, you are all thinking of WW2 flamethrowers now since we improve weapons technology rather quickly nowadays, could we not improve the flamethrower?
No, Flame throwers burn people... You cant change away it burns skin. Have you ever burned yourself? It hurts alot and causes long suffering untill they die from the smoke of their own burning flesh. I think I remember reading somewhere that it takes around someone 20 seconds to die if set on fire. Now that is a very long 20 seconds.
towards nano why bother? We have more effective weapons that cause less collateral damage and are less painful. Using terror to affect enemy morale is mostly effective only in conventional warfare. Fighting people willing to die for their cause makes them less effective, plus they aren't cohesive so they aren't likely to know or care about the pain other's have experienced.
Flamethrowers are kinda obsolete with the style of modern warfare, but they would be rather effective in the close quarters fighting of urban warfare.