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.Duskwaith said:
FLAMETHROWERS!!!
- Thread starter Blindswordmaster
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Sir Kemper said:
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.
Blindswordmaster said:
Geneva Conventions and the UN out a stop to that. But they're still out there for people to use.SlowShootinPete said:
Napalm is another item that they banned.
Pyro: HURAHUMPH A HURRA! Hmmph Hudda HmphHmph HMMMMERRR!SlowShootinPete said:Sir Kemper said:
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, Please control your language!
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.
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.
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.Me55enger said:
Actually, how long would it take to suffocate because the fire is sucking up all the oxygen around you?Undead Warfare said:
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.Scolar Visari said:
Actually, during WWII, all of the major nations had a widely used flamethrower design.IrirshTerrorist said:
And i was supporting that point with my sarcastic remark, if you didn't notice.Mad World said:
***
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?
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?
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.
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?
Comparatively it is more humane shoot a bullet and kill in one hit than to use a flame-thrower.Me55enger said:
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.
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.
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.
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.Xan Krieger said:
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.Blindswordmaster said:
Why risk dozens of bombers and destroy a huge swath of land when a single bomb on target is all you really want?Xan Krieger said:
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.