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?

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

Geneva Conventions and the UN out a stop to that. But they're still out there for people to use.

Napalm is another item that they banned.

SlowShootinPete:

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.

Pyro: HURAHUMPH A HURRA! Hmmph Hudda HmphHmph HMMMMERRR!

Pyro, Please control your language!

He/she is a master wordsmith, truly.

SlowShootinPete:
He/she is a master wordsmith, truly.

Truely so.

Pyro: Hurmph

Try lugging it around. In the desert. You also can't use it for too long, or else the fire snakes its way up into the main tank and blows up. It also might explode if shot. And if it doesn't explode, its probably going to start leaking.

Also they're real worried about civilian casualties. And they could set an entire town or city on fire if they used 1 flame thrower. Killing many civilians and destroying even MORE homes. This could probably only be countered by those planes that drop water onto forest fires or another marine lugging around a fire extinguisher, putting all the flames out (which would be highly dangerous).

All in all, that would be pretty expensive as well.

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?

Those deaths sure sound relatively painless. Imagine being set on fire and probably waiting a good minute before dying. And thats burning gas on you, not just fire. A shot to the head is going to kill you instantly and most likely a car-bomb is too.

Undead Warfare:
Imagine being set on fire and probably waiting a good minute before dying. And thats burning gas on you, not just fire. A shot to the head is going to kill you instantly and most likely a car-bomb is too.

Actually, how long would it take to suffocate because the fire is sucking up all the oxygen around you?

Scolar Visari:
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.

This is absolutely true people. Contrary to popular belief, flamethrowers do not explode when shot. The worst that can happen is the tank rupturing , and causing your ammo to shoot out with enough force to knock you over. Also, in terms of combat purposes, flamethrowers stopped being used because there are no other weapons (AA12 anyone?) that get the same job done faster, more easily, and cheaper.

IrirshTerrorist:

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.

Actually, during WWII, all of the major nations had a widely used flamethrower design.

Mad World:

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.

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

And i was supporting that point with my sarcastic remark, if you didn't notice.

***

Does anybody find it disturbing that here on the Escapist, sarcastic replies like "No, we're too kewl and edgy to just shoot someone to death" or "I still can't figure out why we stopped using nerve gas" are taken at face value in this kind of thread?

Ever watched Saving Private Ryan? The guy with the Flamethrower? Yeah...

Also, its a health risk. What with the fire and all.

Nouw:
Ever watched Saving Private Ryan? The guy with the Flamethrower? Yeah...

Also, its a health risk. What with the fire and all.

I was just thinking about linking this:

Okay, let me explain. I'll do ten whole reasons, just for you guys.

First, friendly fire. Flame-throwers have huge problems with this, especially when they catch fire to buildings and growth.

Second, if you care about civilian casualties, you won't use this in an urban area.

Third, the most recent wars have all had a lot of the fighting in urban areas.

Fourth, it's inhumane. The US signed the Geneva Convention and it at least has to pretend to be following it, even while it is fighting wars that break said convention. The reason it is inhumane, if you don't get it, is because of the slow, painful death it induces.

Fifth, it's a short range weapon that is designed to kill slowly. It is not efficient against insurgents whose primary weapon is the AK47, a highly flexible and accurate, if cheap, rifle.

Sixth, it is unwieldy to carry, especially considering the gas tank. It requires greater physical strength and endurance than many of the weapons used by the Coalition.

Seventh, it has a low range compared to bullet-based weapons.

Eighth, fuel is expensive and it costs extra for any military force to get it to the front lines, especially getting it through areas controlled by the enemy.

Ninth, destroying civilian property is a potential problem if you miss.

Tenth, it is an ancient weapon designed to terrify foes, but it is useless against a cold blooded enemy, especially one with a sniper rifle. People join extremist groups as a result of a sense of disconnection with humanity, psychologically connected to a sense of apathy and superiority towards all non-believers. Therefore, the extremists being fought against fit said description perfectly.

Surely ten reasons is enough?

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?

Comparatively it is more humane shoot a bullet and kill in one hit than to use a flame-thrower.

It kills slowly. It hurts. A lot.

Assuming you have to kill the opponent, quick death by a bullet is a lot better than the fire. Of course, if you were dying, maybe you'd choose the latter? Suit yourself.

Of course, you're right that in general war is not humane. There are levels of inhumanity, but war is definitely on the scale.

Cheveyo:

Nouw:
Ever watched Saving Private Ryan? The guy with the Flamethrower? Yeah...

Also, its a health risk. What with the fire and all.

I was just thinking about linking this:

I love that video. It made me crack up so hard.

SPR is on tomorrow. Going to watch it. Epic movie.

Because they're too badass for modern military to handle.

Firstly all the comments about how immumane it is are irrelevant because all is fair in love and war even if it means tbe UN will wag it's finger at you.

The reasons we don't use them include the fact that they are big and heavy, the fact that fuel is extremely limited, and if you start a fire in one building it can spread to others.

Xan Krieger:
Firstly all the comments about how immumane it is are irrelevant because all is fair in love and war even if it means tbe UN will wag it's finger at you.

This is true, and also why I propose that we stop making expensive precision bombs. Unguided bombs are cheaper and just as powerful, and since we'll be able to get more of them for less money, we could rape entire cities just like they did way back in Dresden.

Because modern science is busy perfecting the flame thrower to be used in future space battles

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/starcraft/images/3/3b/Firebat_SC2_Cncpt1.jpg

you'll be glad we didnt waste the fuel.

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?

The reason is quite simple - being burned alive is one of the WORST ways to die on the battlefield. The concept is terrifying to even a veteran soldier such that in the past hardened units were known to break ranks in the face of flame wielding troops. Make no mistake - even if the laws of land warfare are followed both in spirit and to the letter, the battlefield is a brutal, terrible place. People having limbs shot off by single rounds from a heavy machine gun (or literally turned into hamburger) is a hard enough sight to deal with. Take it from personal experience - there isn't anything quite so haunting as the shriek of a person burning to death and the smell is something you will never forget.

Xan Krieger:
Firstly all the comments about how immumane it is are irrelevant because all is fair in love and war even if it means tbe UN will wag it's finger at you.

The reasons we don't use them include the fact that they are big and heavy, the fact that fuel is extremely limited, and if you start a fire in one building it can spread to others.

Why risk dozens of bombers and destroy a huge swath of land when a single bomb on target is all you really want?

You want to know how the US annihilated a numerically superior force in both Desert Storm and the "Global War on Terror" operations? I'll give you a hint - guided weapons helped a LOT.

Eclectic Dreck:
Take it from personal experience - there isn't anything quite so haunting as the shriek of a person burning to death and the smell is something you will never forget.

One of my friends was doing a tour of duty in the Air Force or something once and he saw a tank that had been hit with some kind of missile. When the missile hit, it shot a stream of molten metal through the tank's armor and incinerated everything in the cabin, and then it kept going out the other side. Everyone inside it was blown through that tiny hole and sprayed across the sand.

He says he can't eat pork anymore. The smell makes him sick.

Eclectic Dreck:
Why risk dozens of bombers and destroy a huge swath of land when a single bomb on target is all you really want?

You want to know how the US annihilated a numerically superior force in both Desert Storm and the "Global War on Terror" operations? I'll give you a hint - guided weapons helped a LOT.

I was being sarcastic...

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?

It's called the Geneva Convention. The convention outlawed weapons like flamethrowers and mustard gas from use on the battlefield.

Not to mention anyone carrying a flamethrower may as well hold a sign over their head, with "PLEASE SHOOT ME, I WILL EXPLODE" written on it in big neon letters.

SlowShootinPete:

GL2814E:

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

[quote="Me55enger" post="18.190067.5911982"]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.

It doesn't take a Barrett to remove someone's capacity to perform high level thinking at 700 yards - an M24 will do the job just fine, and it's in a package that's far easier to maneuver and manage. The M95 is, in spite of the regular instance of video games to the contrary, an anti-material rifle. It's design, and common deployment profile does not have it placed on the battlefield to deal with infantry - there are better weapons for the job. It exists to destroy equipment. The simple fact that the round punches through an inch of steel at 200 meters means no armor a human can hope to carry will save a target, causing some to argue that said round must be excellent for killing troops (and make no mistake, it is fantastically lethal), but that doesn't stop it from being deployed almost exclusively in the anti-material role.

Eclectic Dreck:
TIt doesn't take a Barrett to remove someone's capacity to perform high level thinking at 700 yards - an M24 will do the job just fine, and it's in a package that's far easier to maneuver and manage. The M95 is, in spite of the regular instance of video games to the contrary, an anti-material rifle.

Yeah, it's probably second only to the Desert Eagle in how ridiculously inappropriate its reputation is.

I assumed he meant a Barret though because of the hamster-sized bullet comment.

SlowShootinPete:

Eclectic Dreck:
TIt doesn't take a Barrett to remove someone's capacity to perform high level thinking at 700 yards - an M24 will do the job just fine, and it's in a package that's far easier to maneuver and manage. The M95 is, in spite of the regular instance of video games to the contrary, an anti-material rifle.

Yeah, it's probably second only to the Desert Eagle in how ridiculously inappropriate its reputation is.

I assumed he meant a Barret though because of the hamster-sized bullet comment.

People who play (and often make) video games seem to have no idea how much the weight and size of a weapon play into how it's used. A modern US soldier is already guarnteed to be wearing 20 (or more) pounds of armor, and this rifle weighs in at another 30 on top of that. Combine that with the gear it takes to survive alone in the field for a few days and your combat load starts edging awfully close to 100 lbs. The weapon is HUGE, making it difficult to maneuver (and you can FORGET about firing it in any position save prone unless you affix it to a tripod or mounting system that hasn't been made yet). Worse still, the weapon has a terrible blowback from the muzzle brake (an attempt to offset the brutal recoil), which means the instant you fire, there is a VERY good chance people can figure out where the shot came from and start shooting back.

And, to be fair, I'd hardly consider a slug a few inches long and a mere half inch in diameter that weighs in at around 2 ounces hampster sized (maybe in terms of mass). To get to hamster size, you have to move in the 40 - 60 mm range, and the former is a common caliber for greande launchers (Both the M203 and the MK. 19 use 40mm HEDP rounds in combat (with a few other specialty rounds) and 60mm is generally relegated to light mortars. At this point you aren't just capable of killing one guy - you're working with a significant area of effect.

Eclectic Dreck:
People who play (and often make) video games seem to have no idea how much the weight and size of a weapon play into how it's used.

Especially how they think the weapon you're holding in your hands is the sole factor in how fast you can run. Once I put the monster gun on my back and pull out my knife, I'm as light and free as a bird.

SlowShootinPete:

Eclectic Dreck:
People who play (and often make) video games seem to have no idea how much the weight and size of a weapon play into how it's used.

Especially how they think the weapon you're holding in your hands is the sole factor in how fast you can run. Once I put the monster gun on my back and pull out my knife, I'm as light and free as a bird.

Having an M249 (which is half the size of the M95) on your back and trying to sprint is an invitation for rapid onset of deep tissue bruising and chipped bones.

Kollega:
And i was supporting that point with my sarcastic remark, if you didn't notice.

***

Does anybody find it disturbing that here on the Escapist, sarcastic replies like "No, we're too kewl and edgy to just shoot someone to death" or "I still can't figure out why we stopped using nerve gas" are taken at face value in this kind of thread?

Sorry - my mistake; at times, sarcasm is a bit more difficult to notice with text.

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.

Being shot trought the brains doens't necessarily kill you

wootsniper:

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.

Being shot trought the brains doens't necessarily kill you

Do you want to see if you'd survive a bullet to the head? Compare the number of cases where people survive to the millions that don't, for the purposes of this discussion we are ignoring the vastly insignificant amount of survivors and focusing on the millions that don't/wont survive a bullet through the head

Gas then Napalm the tunnels, that'll clear them out.

I think Flamethrowers have somewhat restrictive range, and are somewhat prone to combustion, not good when H&S wants to prevent every soldier from dieing on either side from anything.

umm aren't bullets good enough anymore?

It's a public relations issue.

Besides making them illegal, the US simply voluntarily stopped using them. They just aren't always that effective (unlike in CoD WaW XD).

you get 20 seconds of flame and it weighs 100+ pounds with a range of a little over 20 yards you can;t get close enough with it and you can use it for long enough to justify the weight and expense.

we need more fire in FPS's. Lots of fire.

I believe the Geneva convention has something to say about flamethrowers. And they are not very practical. Flamethrowers have no place in modern warfare, they are a throwback to a meaner more inhumane type of warfare.

Denamic:

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'.

It's a lot less painful than getting burned alive, I imagine.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked