FLAMETHROWERS!!!

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5
 

Why use a flamethrower when a bullet is much more efficient and shoots a hell of a lot further. Also there highly unreliable and give you limited visibility of where the enemy actually is, let alone a stray grenade.

Blindswordmaster:
Why did we stop using flamethrowers?

Yes, I mean, the thing the world really needs right now is for more people to die in increasingly appalling and painful ways.

No srsly: Why do we need war? And why the fuck are you, little boy, questioning the US army? Believe me, they have high horses with a lot of money and knowledge on these subjects to make these decisions. Mr. Military might have actually been in some sort of war or close combat. Which beats you, your only experience on the subject is COD:WAW ("Flamethrowers were so awesome in that game, they must be awesome in real life too!").

Seriously? Do you realize how impractical that would be?

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.

Whoever named the Desert Eagle was a fucking genius, that's the only reason it's so well known, not only is the name awesome, it's short-version Deagle, rolls of the tongue and is awesome as well

SlowShootinPete:

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

Like this!

Dear god!

We must outlaw that before it gets out of control!

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

There's a law against it. Rules of war, made by some countries that met and said what you could and couldn't do during a war. You know, what methods were okay for obtaining information, weapons allowed, all that stuff. Which is all bullshit, you don't need laws for a war.

On topic, they are still in use, not that I need to re-iterate anything after everyone has said what I was going to.

Well its inhuman and come on, it has to be bloody impractical? I mean carrying a big gas container with you that is pretty swiftly drained? And what happens if someone shoots it? I doubt the army would make it bullet resistant. And then bam. Blaaamo. Sooblaam. Let the kindling begin. Nah there's just some weapons that shouldn't be used in warfare. Chemical and biological weapons, a-bomb, mines and flamethrowers are some of them.

Please people, why such obsession with destroying each other :S I just don't... well I do get it, people are dicks but still! Geneva Convention is a law that should apply to everyone on earth. If someone breaks it, a satilite from space fires a lazer which incenirates the person millimeter at a time. Now that should be a pretty slow death. Can't believe that there are actually some Western countries who still use mines in war, US being one of them :( Mines... Jesus Christ... What a horrid invention

Flamethrowers are still used for clearing annoying plants, but other than that, they're vulnerable to bullets and any soldier found using a flame thrower is normally killed on sight, so that's probably why, too.

Besides that, I think it might be better just to use bullets that set people on fire if you're going to go down that route.

For pete's sake here people, read up on you topic first. Use wikipedia I beg you ! Here i'll even add a link to make it that more easier. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamethrower. Like what Scolar Visari quite rightly said, FLAMETHROWERS DO NOT EXPLODE WHEN SHOT. If its a liquid flamethrower for instance, if it was shot all that would happen is that it would leak fuel. Rant over.

OT: One reason is they always meant certain death for the user if they were caught by the enemy. They would undergo horrific torture for using the weapon and so are slightly frowned upon.

I would NEVER want to be A:The soldier assigned to the flamethrower B:The soldier running near the guy with said flamethrower
sure it is a weapon that scares the crap out of the enemy and flushes them out, but it also scares the crap out of the user and the people around him

AxCx:

Blindswordmaster:
Why did we stop using flamethrowers?

Yes, I mean, the thing the world really needs right now is for more people to die in increasingly appalling and painful ways.

No srsly: Why do we need war? And why the fuck are you, little boy, questioning the US army? Believe me, they have high horses with a lot of money and knowledge on these subjects to make these decisions. Mr. Military might have actually been in some sort of war or close combat. Which beats you, your only experience on the subject is COD:WAW ("Flamethrowers were so awesome in that game, they must be awesome in real life too!").

What the fuck did you just call me? count to 10, count to 10. I'm not questioning U.S. military policy, I'm just trying to as a question. That's how you learn, you ask questions. Try it sometime.

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?

Both of those (I'm assuming) are quicker and less painful than being burned alive. A bullet to the head would kill you pretty quickly, and (from what I've seen in Deadliest Warrior) nails are either relatively easy to treat or instantly deadly. Being cooked isn't. Then again I'm no scientist or doctor, I'm sure I'm missing some facts.

Because slowly burning your enemy to death is a war crime. Do you think we would stop using Napalm if we could still use fire? Hell no. We would probably use it more now. It's the same way with mines, we can't use them anymore because of the harm it does to civilians.

danpascooch:

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.

Whoever named the Desert Eagle was a fucking genius, that's the only reason it's so well known, not only is the name awesome, it's short-version Deagle, rolls of the tongue and is awesome as well

No, the look has a lot to do with it too. It's quite a stylish weapon, and its stupidly impractical size is part of what makes it so badass.

all warfare is inhumane in someway or another, but theres always gonna be a battlefield.
so if we have to fight why not do it in the most effective ways as possible,
just not chemical warfare. what do you think fellow escapists

GL2814E:
" post="18.190067.5911005"]Why did we stop using flamethrowers?

Point 1- You would be immediately weighed down by a fuel tank, slowing you down in operations and getting caught in woods, jungles even tight buildings

Point 2- Said fuel tank is flammable, you have a bomb strapped to your back, no worries soldier!

Point 3- "you you get to use this weapon of horrifying, terrifying death that burns men to death in a horrific firey doom from which your greatest nightmares can only imagine the terribe pain and agony suffered, yeh get right on that"

Point 3- "Ok technically you can only use this weapon when its not windy and your within 15feet of the enemy. What do you mean you can't get that close!? That's loser talk soldier!"

Point 4- I am an enemy soldier, "OH FUCK THEY GOT FLAMETHROWERS I DON'T WANT TO DIE IN A FIERY BALL OF PAIN KILL THAT GUY FUCKING KILL THAT GUY FIRST!"

Point 5- Woops, burned down the house, forest, small orphanage, accidental child, these weapons are pesky when you don't want collaterol damage!

Point 6- "You know what, instead of a flamethrower why not have this 4 inch long round that penetrates tank armour and has a confirmed kill range of 2 and a half miles? Oh you wanna go with ol' flamey still? Well fair enough..."

Not terribly useful, flamethrowers in games are still fun. Its like the molotov cocktails in
GTA 4.

Because it's extremely inhumane.

I wouldn't be surprised if they were illegal to use in a war like tripwire mines.

probably said in several ways, but flamethrowers, even modern day once, don't have the range that is pretty much minimal for combat these days.

As far as I can see from documentaries and hear from people that apparantly know a little about it (are involved in the army in some way) you spend a lot of time shooting at guys moving behind cover hundreds of yards away or suspicious looking bushes, who are also far away, cause we all know the potential danger of getting to close to suspicious looking bushes.

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

Blindswordmaster:
Why did we stop using flamethrowers?

Nerve gas is an international crime (possibly war crime).

Flamethrowers are of questionable effectiveness as well as the interesting public relations thanks to the horrific death they inflict.

Eclectic Dreck:
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.

To paraphrase a mate of mine who was an Australian Army sniper AMRs are "way too fucking heavy to hump everywhere just to shoot some cunts that a 7.62 would kill just as dead but they're fucking awesome for turning battle taxis into blenders."

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked