Is a flamethrower a practical weapon these days?
- Thread starter mrhappyface
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The rig weighs 60 pounds, the combustible element is cheap ass jellied ________(fill in the blank with whatever you can jelly and make burn)and the range depends on if its the backpack, the small vehicle mount or the modified tank that can shoot it 125+ yards(1945 modified Sherman Tank) and against bunkers/tunnels/trenches they kicked so much ass that they used modified flame tanks until Vietnam where they were worth their weight in gold routing out the commies in Hue and entrenched in hillsides around Khe Sahn.TheGreatCoolEnergy said:
why not burn the house out by bouncing the flame into his front door? you cant always run away far enough to get out of your own arty/bombing strikes and sometimes a flamethrower mounted in a tank can burn the building out so you can reoccupy it instead of leveling it.Mcface said:
Very useful
At time when the soldier is the last aluive,or wounded,and surrounded by enemy's,theres a pressure slip that you can oull that crates a spark,combining the flame making a massive esplosion,at least a football field sized.
At time when the soldier is the last aluive,or wounded,and surrounded by enemy's,theres a pressure slip that you can oull that crates a spark,combining the flame making a massive esplosion,at least a football field sized.
A frag through the window will do just that, though. And everyone carries those. Hell, toss an incendiary in if you just want to burn someone that badly. Point of the argument is that they (flamethrowers) are pretty obsolete in modern warfare. Could that change? Sure, if the theater changed.JWAN said:
But with the majority of combat taking place 100+ meters away, a flamethrower would be inadequate.
no, because even if they had practical range and accuracy IIRC something crazy like 80% of them ended up exploding anyways.
Okay. Fuel tanks DO NOT, I repeat, NOT usually explode if they are shot.
"The risk of a flamethrower operator being caught in the explosion of his weapon due to enemy hits on the tanks is exaggerated in Hollywood films.
It should be noted that flame thrower operators did not usually face a fiery death from the slightest spark or even from having their tank hit by a normal bullet as often depicted in modern war films. The Gas Container [i.e. the pressurizer] is filled with a non-flammable gas that is under high pressure. If this tank were ruptured, it might knock the operator forward as it was expended in the same way a pressurized aerosol can bursts outward when punctured. The fuel mixture in the Fuel Containers is difficult to light which is why magnesium filled igniters are required when the weapon is fired. Fire a bullet into a metal can filled with diesel or napalm and it will merely leak out the hole unless the round was an incendiary type that could possibly ignite the mixture inside. This also applies to the flame thrower Fuel Container."
Also, I am appalled by the number of gamers completely trivializing the lives of soldiers. Nobody here has any idea what it would be like to be in a war (obviously including myself). Burning people alive is not "awesome." Soldiers don't "camp" and it isn't "cheap." Come on, people, grow up.
"The risk of a flamethrower operator being caught in the explosion of his weapon due to enemy hits on the tanks is exaggerated in Hollywood films.
It should be noted that flame thrower operators did not usually face a fiery death from the slightest spark or even from having their tank hit by a normal bullet as often depicted in modern war films. The Gas Container [i.e. the pressurizer] is filled with a non-flammable gas that is under high pressure. If this tank were ruptured, it might knock the operator forward as it was expended in the same way a pressurized aerosol can bursts outward when punctured. The fuel mixture in the Fuel Containers is difficult to light which is why magnesium filled igniters are required when the weapon is fired. Fire a bullet into a metal can filled with diesel or napalm and it will merely leak out the hole unless the round was an incendiary type that could possibly ignite the mixture inside. This also applies to the flame thrower Fuel Container."
Also, I am appalled by the number of gamers completely trivializing the lives of soldiers. Nobody here has any idea what it would be like to be in a war (obviously including myself). Burning people alive is not "awesome." Soldiers don't "camp" and it isn't "cheap." Come on, people, grow up.
Personally I wouldn't want to be wondering around with a backpack filled with fuel. I rather a shotgun or a rocket launcher.
Practical? Perhaps.... Ethical? Questionable..... Effective?.....Kinda
Superseded? Definitely.... Thermobaric munitions are far more effective, and as 'terror weapons', (forgive me) more terrifying..... In the first Gulf War, (god this annoys me) Iraqi formations would surrender not by having 'daisy cutters' used against them, but simply by having them used 'near' them..... The 'Flame Thrower' is outdated, but incendiary weapons will always have their own little niche in EVERYBODY'S armed forces....
Superseded? Definitely.... Thermobaric munitions are far more effective, and as 'terror weapons', (forgive me) more terrifying..... In the first Gulf War, (god this annoys me) Iraqi formations would surrender not by having 'daisy cutters' used against them, but simply by having them used 'near' them..... The 'Flame Thrower' is outdated, but incendiary weapons will always have their own little niche in EVERYBODY'S armed forces....
