FLAMETHROWERS!!!

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Why did we stop using flamethrowers? They were developed to fight against opponents what were rooted in caves, it would seem to me that they would be perfectly suited for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fellow Escapists, do you have any explanations?

I think the last thing you need is to make it hotter than it already is in Iraq.

But seriously, its not like we know what cave these people are in. Going around and spraying fire into every cave would be almost a big a waste of time as writing that completely unfunny joke I just made.

I still can't figure out why we stopped using nerve gas.

We scrapped it do to health hazards (flammable gas strapped to your back) and short duration. The flamethrower had about 15 seconds of flame on a good day. Besides, we have thermobaric bombs now.

SlowShootinPete:
I still can't figure out why we stopped using nerve gas.

It was the Swiss. The Geneva Convention, limiting awesome weapons and tactics for over 50 years. That, and it made people's eyes melt.

'Cuse they weigh a lot, and they're dangerous.

Pimppeter2:
I think the last thing you need is to make it hotter than it already is in Iraq.

But seriously, its not like we know what cave these people are in. Going around and spraying fire into every cave would be almost a big a waste of time as writing that completely unfunny joke I just made.

...and miss out on fighting freaking flamboyant flaming bears? I don't think so.

crimson5pheonix:
We scrapped it do to health hazards (flammable gas strapped to your back) and short duration. The flamethrower had about 15 seconds of flame on a good day. Besides, we have thermobearic bombs now.

Burning alive from your own weapon is considered a health hazard? Who knew?

Flamethrowers are inefficient and unnecessary. We have much better weapons available to us these days.

Simple, they were large targets jutting from the backs of soldiers. If they had refined the flamethrower into a better weapon, then it could have been cool, but really, it is overkill. We have automatic shotguns that can be mounted onto vehicles like turrets. HOW AWESOME IS THAT? And we have machine guns that can shoot around corners! Those beat Flamethrowers by about two or three points.

A launcher that fires a potent napalm bomb inside a cave and completely toasts anything inside would be better in my opinion.

Pimppeter2:
I think the last thing you need is to make it hotter than it already is in Iraq.

But seriously, its not like we know what cave these people are in. Going around and spraying fire into every cave would be almost a big a waste of time as writing that completely unfunny joke I just made.

And continuing on with this here quote would add the that waste of time.

Flamethrowers did not ignite when shot. There are two tanks to keep the mixture separated before dispersion.

Also we never did stop. Flamethrowers are still in use today to clear out thick brush that may be used for concealment.

Pretty much what as already been said.

they became obsolete.
They were heavy, didn't last very long, made the user a target, and the fuel used in this death machine also made the user a walking napalm bomb.

We have more efficient ways of killing now a days.

Gigaguy64:
Pretty much what as already been said.

they became obsolete.
They were heavy, didn't last very long, made the user a target, and the fuel used in this death machine also made the user a walking napalm bomb.

We have more efferent ways of killing now a days.

I'm... I'm sorry, but "efferent"?

SniperWolf427:
Flamethrowers are inefficient and unnecessary. We have much better weapons available to us these days.

Like this!

crimson5pheonix:

Gigaguy64:
Pretty much what as already been said.

they became obsolete.
They were heavy, didn't last very long, made the user a target, and the fuel used in this death machine also made the user a walking napalm bomb.

We have more efferent ways of killing now a days.

I'm... I'm sorry, but "efferent"?

WTF!?

Thanks for pointing that out, i could of sworn i checked over every word.....
Spelling isn't my Forte so im trying to fix that.
:p

Gigaguy64:

crimson5pheonix:

Gigaguy64:
Pretty much what as already been said.

they became obsolete.
They were heavy, didn't last very long, made the user a target, and the fuel used in this death machine also made the user a walking napalm bomb.

We have more efferent ways of killing now a days.

I'm... I'm sorry, but "efferent"?

WTF!?

Thanks for pointing that out, i could of sworn i checked over every word.....
Spelling isn't my Forte so im trying to fix that.
:p

It's okay, I saw that it wasn't being corrected, and I had to look up what it meant.

well there is a few reasons,

they are inefficien, they do not last long and are very heavy.
they have a very short range.
if one fuel tank takes a bullet it explodes and kills everyone within 5 meters.
and we developed a thing called a thermoberic bomb. which is flamethrower heat x500.

crimson5pheonix:

Gigaguy64:

crimson5pheonix:

Gigaguy64:
Pretty much what as already been said.

they became obsolete.
They were heavy, didn't last very long, made the user a target, and the fuel used in this death machine also made the user a walking napalm bomb.

We have more efferent ways of killing now a days.

I'm... I'm sorry, but "efferent"?

WTF!?

Thanks for pointing that out, i could of sworn i checked over every word.....
Spelling isn't my Forte so im trying to fix that.
:p

It's okay, I saw that it wasn't being corrected, and I had to look up what it meant.

hahaha.
I just looked it up too and yes, its not a word used to describe something like this.

They're also so inhumane, so I'm glad that we no longer use them.

Wow, guess I have to fucking say it again since nobody listens.

Flamethrowers did not ignite when shot. There are two tanks to keep the mixture separated before dispersion.

Also we never did stop. Flamethrowers are still in use today to clear out thick brush that may be used for concealment.

They were tough to lug around, expensive to produce and if one got shot and it exploded, it could kill more then just the person carrying it. They were a danger not only to the person that they were targeting, but also to their own men.

Because we went ahead and invented the underbarrel grenade launcher. Plus Geneva.

Its already been said but its partially due to the fact that strapping on a tank of napalm makes you one giant fireball waiting to happen. Also I vaguely remember how back in the world wars that captured flamethrower users were usually executed due to the terror of the weapon. Sorta like how snipers aren't usually captured. That and advancing technology made it an obsolete weapon.

Blindswordmaster:
Why did we stop using flamethrowers? They were developed to fight against opponents what were rooted in caves, it would seem to me that they would be perfectly suited for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fellow Escapists, do you have any explanations?

Because they broke God knows how many NATO violations, such as "inhumane weaponry". Sure, tell me of a single weapon that can be described as "humane", but it still doesn't change the reason they stopped using them.

EDIT: Pretty much like white phosphorus grenades were also thought to be very controversial in the Iraq war.
DOUBLE EDIT: Here, found it:
"Flamethrowers have not been in the U.S. arsenal since 1978, when the Department of Defense unilaterally stopped using them. They have been deemed of questionable effectiveness in modern combat and the use of flame weapons is always a public relations issue due to the horrific death they inflict. They are not banned in any international treaty the U.S. has signed. Thus, the U.S. decision to remove flamethrowers from its arsenal is entirely voluntary."

Hope to have been of help!

Mad World:
They're also so inhumane, so I'm glad that we no longer use them.

As if someone on the Escapist would worry about that. No, we're too kewl and edgy, just shooting someone to death definetly isn't enough.

Scolar Visari:
Wow, guess I have to fucking say it again since nobody listens.

Flamethrowers did not ignite when shot. There are two tanks to keep the mixture separated before dispersion.

Also we never did stop. Flamethrowers are still in use today to clear out thick brush that may be used for concealment.

Ooooh my. Nobody listens, indeeed. But that dosen't cancel out "big fat target" problem anyway.

Flamethrowers are still used for bush and ground cleariung, but as an ap weapon ..... well ... we have far better weapons to create mass casualties.

Why hasn't anyone listened to the intelligent man up top who seems to understand these weapons better than most? Scolar Visari, I've read your posts and have come up with a response that hopefully adds something new to this dissusion.

OT: I believe that flamethrowers are very, for lack of a better word, 'cool' weapons. When we see a group of men armed with these oversized barbeque lighters approaching soldiers in war films, terror seems to stretch aforementioned soldiers' faces into extremely horrific shapes. That is, until their faces are melted off. This makes it look like 'he who wields the flamethrower becomes the ultimate badass of the battlefield', and automatically sparks admiration. So, understanding this, I think I can see why people often bring up it's absence. To be honest, I believe that if we put some serious effort into it we could make a much more versatile 'thrower that could potentially light up dozens of yards and use only a moderate amount of fuel, thus making it actually useful again. To me though, they will always just be weapons of fear. The weapon didn't so much kill men as it did kill their spirit and will to fight. Fifteen seconds might feel like an awfully long time to have to dodge one of them mothers, and I have a feeling that if you watched a buddy get melted right beside your position you wouldn't be so quick to charge out next time. Just in case they came back again.
Not that it matters anyway. As a fellow above me pointed out, the Swiss made sure that serious kill counts were pretty hard to achieve in war. Particularly with *painful* weapons. Pansies. -F

Scolar Visari:
Wow, guess I have to fucking say it again since nobody listens.

Flamethrowers did not ignite when shot. There are two tanks to keep the mixture separated before dispersion.

Also we never did stop. Flamethrowers are still in use today to clear out thick brush that may be used for concealment.

It's funny how this pretty much wraps up the thread and you've had to say it twice.

Fingerlicking:
Why hasn't anyone listened to the intelligent man up top who seems to understand these weapons better than most? Scolar Visari, I've read your posts and have come up with a response that hopefully adds something new to this dissusion.

OT: I believe that flamethrowers are very, for lack of a better word, 'cool' weapons. When we see a group of men armed with these oversized barbeque lighters approaching soldiers in war films, terror seems to stretch aforementioned soldiers' faces into extremely horrific shapes. That is, until their faces are melted off. This makes it look like 'he who wields the flamethrower becomes the ultimate badass of the battlefield', and automatically sparks admiration. So, understanding this, I think I can see why people often bring up it's absence. To be honest, I believe that if we put some serious effort into it we could make a much more versatile 'thrower that could potentially light up dozens of yards and use only a moderate amount of fuel, thus making it actually useful again. To me though, they will always just be weapons of fear. The weapon didn't so much kill men as it did kill their spirit and will to fight. Fifteen seconds might feel like an awfully long time to have to dodge one of them mothers, and I have a feeling that if you watched a buddy get melted right beside your position you wouldn't be so quick to charge out next time. Just in case they came back again.
Not that it matters anyway. As a fellow above me pointed out, the Swiss made sure that serious kill counts were pretty hard to achieve in war. Particularly with *painful* weapons. Pansies. -F

Because even if you were to create a more compact version, given an AK ahas a 30 count magazine, what are the chances that one or two bullets is going to find the guy running up to the cave mouth?

Flamethrowers were useful in WW2 ... why? because alot of combat towards the end in both theatres was in jungle and urban environments where A soldier was just as likely to get into a ranged combat situation as he was going to find himself within close quarters of an enemy unit.

Giving Afghanistan is a whole lot of NOTHING what are the chances an enemy unit is going to put two bullets into the guy running towards them?

eh, cant think of anything to say, so il let George talk for me

Pigeon_Grenade:
eh, cant think of anything to say, so il let George talk for me

You are the wisest of them all.

What I reckon is that they stopped using them in games is because they are just the awesome.
Modern Warfare 2 for instance; if you had a Flamethrower in that. it just wouldn't be fun anymore. everyone would have one and it would be a waste of time.

SlowShootinPete:
I still can't figure out why we stopped using nerve gas.

Because that shit had a nasty tendency of killing the people who we didn't mean to kill including our own. And oh yeah, its a lot more merciless than two rounds to the chest...

Mad World:
They're also so inhumane, so I'm glad that we no longer use them.

And blowing someone head off from 700 yards with a bullet the size of a hamster isn't?

And blowing a jeep up with a bomb laced in nails that's buried in the roadside isn't?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked