Poll: Flamethrowers...

[Midnight Crossroads]

Yes, flamethrowers should be legal for use in war. The psychological impact is far more useful than any practical application. Equip tanks -hell, even helicopters if it works- with them and paint them to look like dragons. If you can really stand your ground against an M1 Abrams painted to look like a demon from Hell shooting liquid fire, you're probably insane.

 

[Jakub324]

Only if they're both arseholes, like the Imperial Japanese army, and if they're dug in like the Japanese were in the Pacific theater.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

[quote="TheSaw" pos

 

[gunrunnerjr]

a frag grenade....

 

[Davey Woo]

Other than the obvious stuff that everyone else has mentioned, aren't they also REALLY impractical? I mean they can't exactly be very light, and also you'd have to carry around a fuel tank and one wayward bullet could make an unexpected fireworks party for the user.

 

[Aeshi]

It it's effective, use it.

What is it that makes being burnt alive so much worse than slowly bleeding to death or being blown into pieces?

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well with flamethrowers you essentially introduce torture till death, in a world where torture is not condoned at all...

Using it pretty much makes you one of the sickest bastards to have ever lived.

 

[PettingZOOPONY]

Other than the obvious stuff that everyone else has mentioned, aren't they also REALLY impractical? I mean they can't exactly be very light, and also you'd have to carry around a fuel tank and one wayward bullet could make an unexpected fireworks party for the user.

They do not explode when hit, the fuel leaks out thats it.

 

[zidine100]

Im quite sure it would be more cost effective not to, and then again have you seen the lethal weapon flame thrower scene, im not so sure on the practicality's of them, what do you think will happen if the user gets hit with armor piercing bullets in the fuel tank, i doubt that will be pretty and im sure there would be multiple casualty's. On a side note aren't flame throwers very limited on range, and of course very heavy.


And heres another question whats more expensive, fuel or bullets?

edit: alright i guess most of my points are false judging by the above.

note im just going on assumptions here i know jack all hard facts about weaponry.

 

[PettingZOOPONY]

Im quite sure it would be more cost effective not to, and then again have you seen the lethal weapon flame thrower scene, im not so sure on the practicality's of them, what do you think will happen if the user gets hit with armor piercing bullets in the fuel tank, i doubt that will be pretty and im sure there would be multiple casualty's. On a side note aren't flame throwers very limited on range, and of course very heavy.


And heres another question whats more expensive, fuel or bullets?

edit: alright i guess most of my points are false judging by the above.

note im just going on assumptions here i know jack all hard facts about weaponry.

Fuel is far cheaper, bullets are fairly expensive even bought in bulk. 5.56 ammo bought in bulk is about $.22 a round.

 

[Eisenfaust]

they're a little... unnecessarily dangerous to the people strapped into them...

if siphon filter 1 taught me anyway, it's that the only way to kill a guy with a flamethrower guy is to shoot him in the tank and make him EXPLODE... 1 skilled sniper and you flood a foxhole with napalm... joy

also sort of seems like notcing bayonets on the western front... both sides unanimously agreed not to do it because it's just too damn horrendous

besides, once the "good guy" army has flamethrowers, so will the "bad guy" army, except they'll be shoddier and blow up more (in the faces of the good guys who they've had to get close to so they could use the flamethrower in the first place)

 

[DirtyMagic]

I could only see it being used in guerilla/urban warfare.

And no, let's not use it. I know it's inhumane.
But I can't really get a discussion going about what's humane or not in WAR.

But this is a whole other end of the spectrum now is it.

 

[Psycho Cat Industries]

What's effective is effective.If it proves to be helpful to your armies and manages to give you the upper hand then lives of your men are saved.
Frankly,the only reason someone should consider against the flame is the danger of carrying a gas tank of sorts on hand.

 

[zidine100]

Im quite sure it would be more cost effective not to, and then again have you seen the lethal weapon flame thrower scene, im not so sure on the practicality's of them, what do you think will happen if the user gets hit with armor piercing bullets in the fuel tank, i doubt that will be pretty and im sure there would be multiple casualty's. On a side note aren't flame throwers very limited on range, and of course very heavy.


And heres another question whats more expensive, fuel or bullets?

edit: alright i guess most of my points are false judging by the above.

note im just going on assumptions here i know jack all hard facts about weaponry.

Fuel is far cheaper, bullets are fairly expensive even bought in bulk. 5.56 ammo bought in bulk is about $.22 a round.

im in the uk i dont really know the price of bullets, i just heard they were cheaper than fuel,. well thats what i get for relying on the news for information eh?

 

[Brandon237]

There are very few situations where a flamethrower is the most practical weapon. However, interrogating "insurgents" is apparently still legal, even if they were captured in their own home. At least on the battlefield you can be sure of who your enemy is. I'm not saying I think the flamethrower is a humane weapon of war...but then again, that's a contradiction in terms anyway. I think anything is fair game in war, because the only way we'll ever end war is by seeing how horrible it is.

but its these rules that stop us from nuking eachother just saying...

Rules have NOTHING to do with, Mutually Assured Destruction on the other hand...
Country X knows that if it sends 1 ICBM at country Y, Countries A-W will all fire off their nukes at the nations they are not happy with, at that point most likely country X. That generally leads to problems... And yes, I consider total Nuclear Annihilation of all First world nuke-holding states as a problem.

OT: While there are few situations at which a flame-thrower excels, it REALLY excels in said situations. Want to clear out a bunker? Want that outpost downwind to suffer an "Accidental grass fire"? Want to incite maximum fear in your enemies? Want to incinerate a fortified region? Few things will do the job as... efficiently. Besides, a few litres of napalm is cheaper than heavy ordinance, and in the right conditions, a liberal spraying will clear a region of anything you don't want to exist.

And while I am heavily opposed to war, I think that the rules for it are stupid. It should not be illegal to assassinate heads of state if they are evil bastards, it should actually be the first course of action if diplomacy fails.
And weapon restrictions mean nothing, in the end, war is not about who is right, but who is left. And if you are in a war, I guarantee that you are not going to hold back against a hated enemy because some convention made by nations that themselves do not always follow it says you must.

 

[English Stew]

When a flame thrower isn't completely impractical(as it would be in an urban scenario)it's needlessly cruel.

Besides, I remeber hearing somewhere that when flamethrowers were used, the operators were usually the first gunned down by the enemy due to the dangerousness of the weapon, so all that would be acomplished is making life even riskier for our troops overseas.

 

[Midnight Crossroads]

Guys, you realize that you can equip vehicles with flamethrowers right? They've been doing it since WW2, and in Vietnam they managed to squeeze out a range of 170 meters using napalm. We've advanced a bit since WW2.

 

[Anarchemitis]

"Think for a moment about flamethrowers. Flamethrowers- we have them. Well we don't have them, the army has them. That's right... the army has all the flamethrowers. I'd say we're fucked if we have to go up against the army, wouldn't you?
Well think about the fact that we have flamethrowers, the very fact that we have them meant that somebody somewhere said to himself "Gee, I'd sure like to set those people on fire over there, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done. If only I had something that would throw the flame on them!"
Well it might have ended right there, until he mentioned it to his friend. His friend, who was good with tools, and he comes back a month later "Hey, quite a concept!" *FLOOOOOOPH!!*
And of course the army hears about it and goes "We have some people we'd like to throw flame on. Give us about five hundred thousand of them please.""

 

[PneumaticSuicide]

At some stage somebody said to themselves "i'd really like to set those people over there on fire, i'm just not close enough to get the job done" and thus the flamethrower was created