FLAMETHROWERS!!!

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Kollega:

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.

Perhaps I wasn't clear with my wording. I was refering to the radio operator who wears the radio on his back to allow for better communication out in the field. The radio pack is roughly the same size as a flamethrower if not bigger.

I think the correct explanation is a combination of the following words and a few verbs: "Vietnam, airstrikes, napalm, unarmed civilians, media outrage, BBQ"
Although it is a very common misconception that flamethrowers are cruel; you would be dead within a matter of seconds, which is less horrific than taking a bullet in the gut (or so I'm told)

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?

Horribly inefficient, inexorably dangerous and unnecessary cruel.

Thats why we stopped using them... and by 'we' I mean they and by 'they' I mean the American's because no one else really used them all that much.

Scolar Visari:
Perhaps I wasn't clear with my wording. I was refering to the radio operator who wears the radio on his back to allow for better communication out in the field. The radio pack is roughly the same size as a flamethrower if not bigger.

Well, they may be comparable when just carried around - but i still hold that an active flamethrower is a bit more conspicuous than an active radio, good sir.

TheTim:

if one fuel tank takes a bullet it explodes and kills everyone within 5 meters.

This is not true.

They have been illegal to use for a few decades now and given modern style of combat they would be ineffective anyway. They are too heavy and have a short range and make the user vulnerable to gunfire. They are, however, very useful for dealing with insects and arachnids when they inevitably rise up against us.

IrirshTerrorist:
Thats why we stopped using them... and by 'we' I mean they and by 'they' I mean the American's because no one else really used them all that much.

Modern flamethrowers were invented in Germany and used during WWI.

They were also popular with kids:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvmZ9SPcTzU

The IRA still uses them. The American Military are trying to develop the best kind of weapons that kill quickly and painlessly and also the non-lethal type to capture and incarcerate war criminals. Using a flamethrower is a one way ticket to dying nowadays with getting shot and blown up and your platoon burnt alive at the same time by enemies.

The flamethrower is an impractical weapon, that is why.

It is much easier to pull out a pistol and put a round in between the guy's eyes.

They were too dangerous for the soldiers I think.

Z of the Na'vi:
It is much easier to pull out a pistol and put a round in between the guy's eyes.

That requires expert marksmanship, actually. Pistols are more difficult to fire accurately than long guns, due to their limited range and lack of a shoulder stock.

SlowShootinPete:

IrirshTerrorist:
Thats why we stopped using them... and by 'we' I mean they and by 'they' I mean the American's because no one else really used them all that much.

Modern flamethrowers were invented in Germany and used during WWI.

They were also popular with kids:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvmZ9SPcTzU

Thanks for the factual input and greater thanks for the humorous input :D

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

Was it ecause it kept coming back to bite them in the ass-nerves?... [tumble weed rolls by, someone coughs].. sorry that was bad.

SlowShootinPete:

Z of the Na'vi:
It is much easier to pull out a pistol and put a round in between the guy's eyes.

That requires expert marksmanship, actually. Pistols are more difficult to fire accurately than long guns, due to their limited range and lack of a shoulder stock.

Still, it has to be easier than lugging around a clunky flamethrower to kill somebody

IrirshTerrorist:
Thanks for the factual input and greater thanks for the humorous input :D

No thanks are necessary. My life for Aiur!

Z of the Na'vi:

SlowShootinPete:

Z of the Na'vi:
It is much easier to pull out a pistol and put a round in between the guy's eyes.

That requires expert marksmanship, actually. Pistols are more difficult to fire accurately than long guns, due to their limited range and lack of a shoulder stock.

Still, it has to be easier than lugging around a clunky flamethrower to kill somebody

A clunky flamethrower does not require years of training and perfect on-demand accuracy. Not that it's easy, but I would say it's significantly less difficult.

SlowShootinPete:

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

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

head shots? a couple through the chest. i.e. heart, pretty sure that will stop you from living pretty quickly.

Leave it for the video games, flamethrowers in game are just lovely. That or casting caracthers using fire spells.

TheComedown:

SlowShootinPete:

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

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

head shots? a couple through the chest. i.e. heart, pretty sure that will stop you from living pretty quickly.

Head shots aren't worth going for in a real battle, which is why soldiers are trained to instinctively aim for center mass. Which means that, yes, body shots are much more reliable, but even then it isn't a guarantee. I believe that it's actually fairly common for people shooting at each other at close range to empty their weapons and never land a single hit.

If you've ever heard of a show called Special Ops Mission, there was one episode where the host (Wil Willis, a guy with 15 years of Army Ranger and Combat Rescue experience) was sneaking around on a ship that had been taken over by four US military people posing as terrorists (wargames, they used special ammunition that were basically paintballs for real guns). There was a part where he ran into one of the terrorists and they started shooting at each other from about ten feet away, and both of them fired like 30 rounds from their rifles. Willis even pulled out his pistol after his M4 was empty and still couldn't hit the guy. They ran away from each other and afterward they were both like "Man, that was unbelievable."

And when you do hit, unless you hit the heart there's a good chance it won't be instantly lethal, even if it's a mortal wound. It's the adrenalin. You might not even notice you've been shot until you look down and see the blood.

Also, in a lot of combat situations people have cover.

A flamethrower hardly requires aiming, because you can just sweep it in the general direction of whatever you want to burn.

Most civilized nations find any method of killing that causes unnecessary and overwhelming pain to be unsavory and choose not to use them. As such, flamethrowers are discarded. Of course, there's also the weight, inaccuracy, range, danger to friendly forces (Fire tends to spread), and the fact that even soldier don;t really like being monsters. Killing someone who is, in turn, trying to kill you is one thing; catching them on fire and watching them cook alive has a psychological effect on both the enemy and friendlies alike.

I have to post in this forum because of my new avatar.

Flamethrowers are awesome
but I think they stopped it because it is better to shoot someone then to burn someone to death.

Flame throwers are awful weapons.

Burning to death is a horrifying way to die, they don't have much range, so they're only useful in very close quarters, where they're often a danger to your own men, they require tanks of fuel to use for any length of time, which can be ruptured or broken, sometimes they just break down because they need to be handled fairly carefully, they don't have a simple procedure to make them ready to use, if you were going to use them you'd need specially trained troops.

I could go on, but I think that's enough.

its a shame we stopped they were probly one hell of an intimadator. and with the next cod set in vietnam im hopeing we will see it make the weapon roster

i actually know this one: it was deemed a cruel and torturous weapon and the development and use of said weapon was discontinued by Harry s. Truman. that is why we no longer use it, also nowadays its a really inefficient weapon

Have anyone here ever read World War Z by Max Brooks? If you haven't, do it. It's an amazing read about a worldwide zombie infection. It also brings a surprising insight into warfare. When two countries go to war, they are rarely fighting to destroy the other side. They are really fighting to make the other side give up and give them what they want. You don't win wars by killing enemy soldiers, you win wars by breaking your enemy's will to fight. Lighting your enemy on fire with a jellied form of gasoline breaks their will over your knee. War is horrible, we can all agree on that, right? War can only be made more humane by shortening its duration. Any weapon that shortens the duration of war is necessary.
-Also, I wanted to know why flamethrowers aren't used MUCH in war today. I don't like the idea of foreign powers dictating U.S. policy(like any other country rejects the U.S. dictating their policy). I will accept that if they are considered obsolete and only used in rare situations and sparingly there; but I will not accept that anyone no longer used them because the U.N. says so.

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?

We stopped using them before anyone could mention 'Geneva Convention'.

Blindswordmaster:
War is horrible, we can all agree on that, right? War can only be made more humane by shortening its duration. Any weapon that shortens the duration of war is necessary.

That's why we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

steampunk42:
i actually know this one: it was deemed a cruel and torturous weapon and the development and use of said weapon was discontinued by Harry s. Truman. that is why we no longer use it, also nowadays its a really inefficient weapon

But it's great for an instant BBQ!

Kollega:
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.

Me55enger:
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?

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

Laxman9292:
Yes, because being riddled with around 15 hollow point or armor piercing bullets is so much better.

omega 616:
But dying from a gun shot wound is perfectly expectable? All is fair in love and war.

My point was that it's typically a lot more painful to die from being burnt alive.

But does taking a round to your cannister actually cause it to explode? Wasnt it just a hollywood myth?

Duskwaith:
But does taking a round to your cannister actually cause it to explode? Wasnt it just a hollywood myth?

Yes. For the fuel inside the canisters to explode, there would need to be an ignition source, and it takes either a tracer round or a phosphorus-coated bullet to spark an ignition. That, or perhaps a spark, but I don't know if that would be enough, and bullets don't always create sparks when they hit things.

Plus, some of the posters earlier said that the fuel was several liquids stored in separate tanks, and they had to be mixed to become flammable, or something.

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.

Well..... if you are gonna kill all caves in Afghanistan than a thermo-nuke is more efficient and it would send a clear "IF YOU FIGHT US YOU WILL DIE" message.

For this topic let's get a Voice-to-text response from the Pyro, Pyro?

Pyro: Hunk yau, An Hudda Hudda, Mmmhphh Mppphhh Mmmph, AN Arruhuhuaaa, Ananan AHAHAHAHA, Aree onn abbua, Huhuhuh Huunaah, Hudda Hudda Hudda Hudda, Anahu, Huur Huur Uhhh HUR!

Thank you Pyro.

OT: Becuase they were belived to be inhumane, mainly since they killed people slowly and painfully.

Pyro: HURHAHHUDDA!

Duskwaith:
But does taking a round to your cannister actually cause it to explode? Wasnt it just a hollywood myth?

Sorry for double post, but yes, Flamethrower's don't actually explode, what it would do is spray the conent's of the flamethrower everywhere.

Sir Kemper:
Pyro: HURHAHHUDDA!

image

Don't forget how everyone thinks Pyros are a noob class. I'm sure that's part of the reason flamethrowers went out of style.

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?

You do not die immediately when on fire, you die slowly in unbearable pain.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here