FLAMETHROWERS!!!

[TheComedown]

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)

 

[Scolar Visari]

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.

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.

 

[Kollega]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Kollega]

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.

 

[C_sector]

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.

 

[SlowShootinPete]

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.

(opposed to a just a couple of quick bullets)

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

 

[fix-the-spade]

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.

 

[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.

 

[thethingthatlurks]

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)

 

[IrirshTerrorist]

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.

 

[Kollega]

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.

 

[Wadders]

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

This is not true.

 

[Toaster Hunter]

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.

 

[SlowShootinPete]

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. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamethrower#Early_20th_century]

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

 

[Cosplay Horatio]

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.

 

[Z of the Na'vi]

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.

 

[Crimsader]

They were too dangerous for the soldiers I think.

 

[SlowShootinPete]

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.

 

[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. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamethrower#Early_20th_century]

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