Is a flamethrower a practical weapon these days?

[NuclearPenguin]

They are practical
In daily life
In war
In games
In the bed
..Im a pyromaniac, im not even kidding, if I can start a fire, I will, no matter how many talks I have to have with the police.

 

[Katherine Kerensky]

It's sad that they got banned.
But they were incredibly dangerous to both sides. and vulnerable.
Maybe not practical, but they were excellent terror weapons.
I love Flamers... and Accelerators.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Back in WW2 and Vietnam, the US have frequently used flamethrowers. Nowadays, we use incedinary rockets and explosives to compensate for this. Since I personally think that's better than lugging around a 50 pound backpack of fuel and compressed air, I think it's an advantage. What do you think?

I think it was mainly used to kill enemies who were dug in or camping. Just like how in Saving Private Ryan they used a flamethrower to clear out the enemy bunkers instead of sending troopers in there who might run into an ambush.

 

[Woodsey]

When were they ever practical?

Back when Trench warfare was practical.

Nope, I don't see the practicality in carrying a propane tank on your back that could go up in a fire-ball with a few well placed shots (or random stray ones).

Thats actually a misconception, Flamethrowers don't expload when shot, more likely they'd simply spray fuel everywhere, although, if the fuel spewing out did come in contact with a flame is could be very bad all the same.

Fair enough - although like you said, fuel spraying in trenches with guns going off still doesn't show much practicality to me

 

[Daverson]

I think the U.N. has banned the use of flamethrowers. Don't quote me on that though.

I quoted you because you are right. UN banned it, along with Napalm.

And you read this where? Flamethrowers are available legally in the US and other countries for agricultural purposes. The UN banning them would be equivalent to them banning spoons. Which, I honestly would not put past the UN.

Even if this is true, neither the US or Russia adhere to this convention, as vehicle mounted flamethrowers are used by both of them, as well as thermobaric weapons (which are, in laymans terms, flamethrower bombs, the Russian's even call thermobaric missile launchers "flamethrowers")

 

[hamster mk 4]

They certainly make for some entertaining fiction though! "Say hello to Mr. Yellow."
[small]Wookie for the reference (not a typo).[/small]

Flame trooper Brostin says this a few times durring and after Traitor General when he indulges his pyromania. The best time is when he is asked to create a "distraction" so the misison team can cross the road.

I think flame throwers are still useful in urban combat which seems to be where combat is headed these days. Still it is bad press if you accidently BBQ some civilians. It is a potent threat, especialy for digging people out of caves.

"Come out with your hands up or we will fill your cave with liquid fire."

 

[Timberwolf0924]

As George Carlin said http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4nknAzQPHE (didnt' read these so I donno if this was posted)

 

[sirkai007]

I think that everyone is forgetting how limited their fuel reserve was. You had enough to make a 30 second burst of flame. Definitely a weapon with a narrow use spectrum but what it did do (light shit on fire and cause mayhem and destruction for those 30 seconds) it did well.

 

[soapyshooter]

I think the U.N. has banned the use of flamethrowers. Don't quote me on that though.

I quoted you because you are right. UN banned it, along with Napalm.

And you read this where? Flamethrowers are available legally in the US and other countries for agricultural purposes. The UN banning them would be equivalent to them banning spoons. Which, I honestly would not put past the UN.

Even if this is true, neither the US or Russia adhere to this convention, as vehicle mounted flamethrowers are used by both of them, as well as thermobaric weapons (which are, in laymans terms, flamethrower bombs, the Russian's even call thermobaric missile launchers "flamethrowers")

They also banned clusterbombs but the US doesnt adhere to that either. The UN can ban something but they cant make countries adhere to it.

 

[Gildan Bladeborn]

They certainly make for some entertaining fiction though! "Say hello to Mr. Yellow."
[small]Wookie for the reference (not a typo).[/small]

Flame trooper Brostin says this a few times durring and after Traitor General when he indulges his pyromania. The best time is when he is asked to create a "distraction" so the misison team can cross the road.

As promised,

Spoiler: here is your wookie.

 

[Stabby McRunfast]

Flamethrowers could be used in some urban settings when combatants have barricaded themselves in a room or in a basement and refuse to leave without killing those trying to enter.

But I find Knife Throwers to be totally practical and necessary in wars today. And you can quote Stabby on that.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

I think the U.N. has banned the use of flamethrowers. Don't quote me on that though.

I quoted you because you are right. UN banned it, along with Napalm.

And you read this where? Flamethrowers are available legally in the US and other countries for agricultural purposes. The UN banning them would be equivalent to them banning spoons. Which, I honestly would not put past the UN.

Even if this is true, neither the US or Russia adhere to this convention, as vehicle mounted flamethrowers are used by both of them, as well as thermobaric weapons (which are, in laymans terms, flamethrower bombs, the Russian's even call thermobaric missile launchers "flamethrowers")

Certain 'inhumane' weapons are prohibited, for example, hollow point bullets are not allowed because of the unnecessary suffering it causes. Bio weapons and flame based weaponary are other prohibited means.

 

[Discord]

Depends on the enemy

A while ago China used them to clear a VERY LARGE colony of hornets near a park city center. But against humans I don't think so because you must get in range to use them and anyone that can shoot badly will aim for you (or the napalm bombs on your back) and BOOM! you and your fellow soliders around or dead or badly injured.

Plus I thought flamethrowers were banned or something by the U.N.?

 

[Timberwolf0924]

But I find Knife Throwers to be totally practical and necessary in wars today. And you can quote Stabby on that.

you can't even put them into the same catagory as a flamethrower.. one.. a knife throwing is a hand.. and hits an area if about 1.6 square inches.. and thats if it hits right. Which requires percise training, distance and accuracy. Flame throwers can fire up to like 80feet hitting like 1000sqft and requires you to just aim it in the general direction of the person you want to catch on fire.

Flamethrowers 1

Knifethrowers 0

quoted!

Edit: Kitsune.. I think they were banned in the Geneva convention as well as triangle blades

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

They are against Triffids.

 

[Slycne]

But against humans I don't think so because you must get in range to use them and anyone that can shoot badly will aim for you (or the napalm bombs on your back) and BOOM! you and your fellow soliders around or dead or badly injured.

Don't believe everything you see on TV, movies or video games. Bullets, and sparks caused by them, are actually rather poor igniting implements.

 

[luvd1]

And zombies. wonder why it's never mentioned or used in the films? this is why. it will be a very short film that's why. zombie hord attack, zombie hord burn. Zombie hord are sucked up into a hoover bag. the end.

 

[Sir Kemper]

And zombies. wonder why it's never mentioned or used in the films? this is why. it will be a very short film that's why. zombie hord attack, zombie hord burn. Zombie hord are sucked up into a hoover bag. the end.

Actually, my relitivly new friend, let me ask you whats worse; a horde of zombie? or a Horde of slow burning zombie clawing away at your barricades, as well as setting them on fire!

Also welcome to the escapist.

 

[n00beffect]

absolutely