FLAMETHROWERS!!!

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

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?

I asked the same question in Basic Training to a Drill Sergeant. (Without the tactical speculation, just asked why we stopped using flame-throwers.)

I was told that they weren't as effective video games made them appear to be, they are extremely heavy, and they aren't fuel efficient. Thats what I was told anyway. I gotta say I wouldn't have wanted to lug around a flame-thrower.

Why dont we use nukes, that would be hard to miss with...

We have better suited weapons and the Flamethrower while awesome is obsolete in the real world. In videogames and books however they exist in abundant amounts.

GL2814E:

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...

I was being facetious.

Me55enger:
And blowing someone head off from 700 yards with a bullet the size of a hamster isn't?

Most of the people who have their head blown off by a Barrett don't notice.

Because flamethrowers have been relocated to fight man-kinds only natural predator.... KILLER BEES!!!! AAAAH!!! I can hear the buzzing!!! kill it with fire!!!!!

SlowShootinPete:

GL2814E:

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...

I was being facetious.

Me55enger:
And blowing someone head off from 700 yards with a bullet the size of a hamster isn't?

Most of the people who have their head blown off by a Barrett don't notice.

My mistake. Hopefully you can understand with some of the posters on some of the forums how I would be mistaken.

TheTim:
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.

Hasn't your third point been disproved time and time again on Mythbusters?

Also, Flamethrowers don't sound like they're very precice, so they would probably cause a media nightmare with the number of civilian deaths and 'friendly fire' incidents that they would cause it was probably considered more cost efficient not to have them.

That's a very good point, which is why I said we're probably *capable* of making a compact version. I didn't say we should use it. I also don't believe we should view them as murder weapons so much as weapons that severely decrease enemy morale. If we fought a conflict located in a mostly urban or plant infested area, perhaps we could use them again. If only in rare cases, and with a select few. Until that day comes, I'm not much bothered by it's continued absence or possible re-emergance. I'm content to relax at home knowing that there is currently no draft, which means that even if it did come back I probably wouldn't get melted personally. I like my skin un-toasted and supple, please and thanks. -F

FreelanceButler:

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.

This.

Seriously... There are so many people who don't read all the posts (or, apparently, even the first page) before posting, in almost every thread.

This can get kind of tiresome after a while. :S

FreelanceButler:

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.

This.

Seriously... There are so many people who don't read all the posts (or, apparently, even the first page) before posting, in almost every thread.

This can get kind of tiresome after a while. :S

OT: Basically, I agree with Scolar Visari.

Who fights up close these days?

There allways about half a mile away from each other.

Me55enger:

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?

First one isn't, as the person in question will never even know being shot. The second, of course, is. That's one of the biggest advantages insurgents have over 'us'; they're barely hampered by moral codes and wipe their ass with things like the Geneva Convention. That's what I always thought we didn't need an army over there, but small groups of Special Forces, CIA operatives and the likes to search them out and kick their asses.

Doesn't make flamethrowers any less retarded. They're great to clear bunkers and trenches with, but we're not not waging wars that require those tactics (as cave systems are way more complicated and bigger) plus it's been superseded by better weapons for clearing bunkers, like this baby:

GL2814E:
My mistake. Hopefully you can understand with some of the posters on some of the forums how I would be mistaken.

I intend to exploit this mistake to the fullest. >:D

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

Your avatar and that comment fit together perfectly.

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

Because perforating people with rounds that tears and shreds them from the inside is much more 'humane'.

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

I think there was some kind of human rights thing against it.

Flamethrowers on the other hand would be great for close quarter gun battles where soldiers need to clear out a house in double quick time

TimeLord:
Flamethrowers on the other hand would be great for close quarter gun battles where soldiers need to clear out a house in double quick time

That's what grenades are for.

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

Yes, because being riddled with around 15 hollow point or armor piercing bullets is so much better.

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

But dying from a gun shot wound is perfectly expectable? All is fair in love and war.

On topic. It has already been answered many times, would you like to be carrying a flamethrower in Iraq? ..... And neither would I.

No, but I demand that flamethrowers now be an optional weapon in all fantasy RPGs.

Fingerlicking:
That's a very good point, which is why I said we're probably *capable* of making a compact version. I didn't say we should use it. I also don't believe we should view them as murder weapons so much as weapons that severely decrease enemy morale. If we fought a conflict located in a mostly urban or plant infested area, perhaps we could use them again. If only in rare cases, and with a select few. Until that day comes, I'm not much bothered by it's continued absence or possible re-emergance. I'm content to relax at home knowing that there is currently no draft, which means that even if it did come back I probably wouldn't get melted personally. I like my skin un-toasted and supple, please and thanks. -F

Interestingly enough, flamethrowers are not illegal in the United States (for the most part). There are no federal laws regulating them and only about 10 state laws that regulate them. Just thought it would be a fun fact to share! =)

Yarggg:
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.

Clearly you haven't played TF2 before. The Pyro has a flamethrower, but every other person who's not a Pyro can still outmatch him. There's more to using a flamethrower and holding 'w' and left click, and there are many ways to counter it.

To Laxman9292

'Retard Point No.1 Refute'
I meant impractical in modern combat, where we have missiles that a rifleman can launch from any place that can level a building in one shot, or gunship support that can clear a whole street in seconds. Oh hell, flamethrowers and gas worked a charm in WW1 and WW2. But don't you think our society (not to mention technology) has developed just a bit further in respect to the esteem in which we hold life? We are supposed to be the most advanced species in the universe according to some. Being advanced mean more than having the best technology.

'Retard Point No.2 Refute'
I can tell you right now I know dozens of people who think war and guns are 'awesome' and there are quite a few examples right here in this thread.

'Retard Point No.3 Refute'
Yes, but as wealthy, intelligent and secure countries we can rest easy in the knowledge that our next paycheck will come from somewhere. We have the luxuries of laws, and the curse of being expected to follow them. These countries you are talking about are desolate, poor and desperate. Groups and organisations will do anything to tip the balance of power in their favour.

'Retard Point No.4 Refute'
It is an EXTREMELY common stereotype that Americans love their weapons. You can't deny it. I know Germany first invented the flamethrower, and yes, for the time, it was effective and necessary, unfortunately so.
I apologise for any national prejudices.

'Retard Point No.5 Refute'
Explosions and gunfire going everywhere in modern warfare? A few guys with AK47s holed up in a house together would hardly constitute this. Soldiers don't spray gunfire everywhere like maniacs, they wait for an ideal shot. Our soldiers, both American and Australian are trained to take their targets down with one or two shots. We are fighting militia who, even if they were shot in a non-vital organ, would most likely lose discipline and run for it.
Also, it's the rules of engagement that our soldiers are NOT allowed to shoot casualties.

Yes I got angry, but when I see people wondering why we don't still use weapons that bring horrific and unneeded agony I feel like I'm the only one with any sanity.

Short range, heavy, inhumane and if somebody shoots in the magical gas tank it magically explodes...

Because it's pretty cruel to set someone on fire and kill them like that, no matter what your opinion on your enemy. Fire is a horribly painful means of death, to inflict that en masse is a crime against humanity.

Digi7:
Are you people fucking stupid? Don't you realise the sheer horror and cruelty these weapons produce? THEY ARE COMPLETELY UN-NEEDED AND IMPRACTICAL.

You nerds are all stuck in your stupid Modern Warfare view of war, full of glory and action.
WAR IS FUCKING NOTHING LIKE THAT. We are god-damn lucky that the Geneva convention has banned those weapons. You americans are meant to be PEACE-KEEPERS for fucks sake!

You need ONE bullet to humanely kill someone. ONE bullet. NOT a whole stream of flame that chars their flesh to ashes. NOT a gas that burns skin and fills your pores with acid, or makes your lungs bleed so you throw up your guts.

Look up some photos of flamethrower wounds from Vietnam or WW2, try to imagine a soldier laying in some ditch in the Somme throwing up blood and his own lung tissue. Think about it.

While yes he could of worded it better he makes some excellent points, not even the people using them liked them, to watch someone melt just a few meters in front of you can't be pleasant, how many of you that think flamethrowers are "awesome" could stand there and melt someone a few meters in front of you and just watch their flesh burn and listen to their screams of agony as they die quite a slow painful death (opposed to a just a couple of quick bullets)

Kollega:

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.

No more a target than a radio operator. Especially when you consider about a half dozen men would be tasked with guarding the flamethrower operator. Add in the fact that we didn't send them out into the open like it was fucking W40K but brought them out when needed.

Scolar Visari:
No more a target than a radio operator. Especially when you consider about a half dozen men would be tasked with guarding the flamethrower operator. Add in the fact that we didn't send them out into the open like it was fucking W40K but brought them out when needed.

Does operating a radio creates a big burst of flame telling everyone "Here i am, shoot me"? I meant mostly that effect. Plus, flamethrower operators have to get in close to their targets... that's difficult however you put it.

Plus plus, setting someone on fire is not exactly most merciful way to kill them.

Kollega:

Scolar Visari:
No more a target than a radio operator. Especially when you consider about a half dozen men would be tasked with guarding the flamethrower operator. Add in the fact that we didn't send them out into the open like it was fucking W40K but brought them out when needed.

Does operating a radio creates a big burst of flame telling everyone "Here i am, shoot me"? I meant mostly that effect. Plus, flamethrower operators have to get in close to their targets... that's difficult however you put it.

Plus plus, setting someone on fire is not exactly most merciful way to kill them.

You don't understand what a target of value is do you? Radio operators, officers and weapon teams are high priority targets because their death will severely hamper the enemy. No, the flamethrower operator does not have to be close to the target either. They have an effective range of 165-270 feet and more when vehicle mounted.

Scolar Visari:
You don't understand what a target of value is do you?

I understand that perfectly well, i just say that a working radio is somewhat easier to camouflage than a working flamethrower. Or am i missing something?

Also: i saw some old footage of flamethrower tanks, but 200 feet?! Wow.

Blindswordmaster:
Why did we stop using flamethrowers?

I guess because American soldiers who SNAP would start using it on civilians incinerating them in a matter of milliseconds, burning away their own souls in the process. I guess flamethrowers should just stay in video games i reckon.

TimeLord:
Flamethrowers on the other hand would be great for close quarter gun battles where soldiers need to clear out a house in double quick time

Generally not a good idea to set fire to the building you're in.

Also, when people catch fire they tend to run around madly for a little while, which isn't a good thing when you're in CQB.

TheComedown:
(opposed to a just a couple of quick bullets)

Quick bullets are rare. People don't give the human body enough credit.

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?

Partly because the UN made them illegal.

Partly because they cause too much collateral damage.

Partly because they have no range, which sucks when everyone has assault rifles.

Partly because they can be used in high winds.

Mostly because the chances of a flamethrower equipped soldier actually surviving it's use were terrifyingly slim. Not only do flamethrowers (literally) light you up for all to see from thousands of yards away, everyone hates a guy with a flamethrower. Firing one on open ground usually resulted in swift death for it's operator as he became the enemy's priority target.

The US was experimenting with napalm rocket launchers before they were banned by the UN, but even before the end of Vietnam it was becoming clear that flamethrowers were no use in a world of assault rifles, grenade launchers and improvised explosives.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked