Guess the main difference would be the cost per kill. Vietnam it was about 30,000 bullets per kill, but that includes probing by fire supressive fire stuff like that. But so far I cannot find any info on flamethrower casualties and gallons used.zidine100 said:
Poll: Flamethrowers...
- Thread starter SckizoBoy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think the thought of fighting dragons is what would get to them moreMidnight Crossroads said:
OT: I don't see a problem with their usage. It isn't like biological warfare when you cannot control it's use outside of a battlefield. Cruel, yes. But last I checked, war was.
EDIT: I wonder what the fantasy version of this would be?
No Evocation Wizards and blaster-caster Sorcerers?
No more Hellfire Warlocks?
Flamethrowers are one of the most inhumane weapons ever conceived, which is why I fully support their use.
World wars 1 and 2, vietnam, beauh pigs invasion (or however you say it), the current iraq/iran/afganistan, hiroshima and nagasaki... were these REALLY not horrible enough?Avaholic03 said:
There's not a lot more atrocities you can commit after dropping a nuclear bomb, and destroying not just a city, but more lives than you could possibly imagine, both directly and indirectly.
No, if it was as simple as seeing horror and deciding "never again" we wouldn't still be fighting. like i said, if what has happened so far hasn't done the trick, then you can bet your life that we wont be stopping any time soon.
There is a huge difference between killing the enemy, and burning them alive...Agayek said:
Two shots to the chest or one shot to the head may not be a particularly pleasant way to go, but then imagine being literally burned to death; imagine the agony of being engulfed by flames, and not dieing... being alive through that sort of pain is a fate that shouldn't be endured by anyone, for purely moralistic reasons.
Does this actually happen? I've always wondered, because apparently cars don't actually explode in real life if you shoot them, so would the fuel for a flame thrower? I supose it would...JUGGERNAUTBITCH said:
For war I say no, but they have other uses.
This for example:
This for example:
MacGyver agrees. Skip to 1:16.TheDarkEricDraven said:
Flamethrowers are completely legal for use in warfare... the Hague conventions don't mention them, and the Geneva conventions only forbid the use of incendiaries on or near civilians. Flamethrowers are only restricted in the same way incendiary grenades are.
...but they're not very useful in warfare anymore (and they're a huge liability to anyone using one), so we don't use them. Incendiary grenades and machine guns do their job better than they can.
...but they're not very useful in warfare anymore (and they're a huge liability to anyone using one), so we don't use them. Incendiary grenades and machine guns do their job better than they can.
for someone who's pic is Pinkie Pie you seem rather anti-horrific-violence (i know two of her fanfics and she brutally kills in both).TheSaw said:
anyway, no, no, no and a last time no. no flamethrowers! i study history and i've been to the battlefield where they were first used in WW1. there is no memorial on the actual battlefield because they couldnt find the ashes of the victims.
Well flame throwers are definatly a horrible weapon to use but they make complete and total sense for getting people out of fortified positions. Personally I hope they arent ever necessary again but if some soldier was told your buddies can either die trying to storm that pillbox or you can flame whoevers inside and they'll either die or surrender. the choice is obvious.
They were made for a purpose, one which they do rather well I might add, the fact that they are one of the horrific weapons ever made is beside the point. If it came down to me either flaming a bunker or trying to take it with grenades and bayonets I'd burn the bunker and whoever is inide it.
They were made for a purpose, one which they do rather well I might add, the fact that they are one of the horrific weapons ever made is beside the point. If it came down to me either flaming a bunker or trying to take it with grenades and bayonets I'd burn the bunker and whoever is inide it.
Actually, no. A hole in an old-fashioned steel flamethrower fuel tank will most likely cause a slow release of pressure, and what it releases can catch fire, burning the weapon's user and his comrades.Jacob Haggarty said:
Being covered in burning napalm is no more fun if you're the one carrying the stuff than if you're his target... if one actually exploded (which is possible, however unlikely), those killed in the blast would be luckier than your run-of-the-mill flamethrower user whose tank is shot.
I think you missed my point.Jacob Haggarty said:
Morals have no place in war. The entire purpose of war is to kill the other guy. That is it. Moralizing is for those who do not have to fight and die. There should not, and cannot, be a place for morality in war, for if there is, the moral side has already lost. It is cruel, vicious, petty and indifferent.
That's why war should be avoided at almost all costs.
First off,I'd like to address the point of exploding tanks.Just no.They'll leak unless you actually manage to make the entire tank rupture like a balloon,and that's considering any fail-safes/safeties have failed.
Ok,now that this little point has been cleared,let's talk ethics.
In the interest of modern day discussion,I'll talk about incendiary weapons in general.
they're horrible weapons,there's no denying it.There are multiple stories about flamethrower operators hearing blood curling screams and hideous stench,after which the operator would generally puke.
However,they remain probably some of the most efficient weapons ever made.An incendiary weapons can engage a plethora of targets thanks to the multiple ways of doing damage.It can burn and deprive entire buildings of oxygen in mere seconds.There aren't any other portable weapon capable of doing something like that,expecially considering that the crew deploying the incendiary are safe outside the building.
So,it is my opinion that incendiary weapons should be part of the taboo weapon list that are only used when the situation is grim(ie:biochemical weapons,incendiaries,canister rounds on tanks,etc...).
Ok,now that this little point has been cleared,let's talk ethics.
In the interest of modern day discussion,I'll talk about incendiary weapons in general.
they're horrible weapons,there's no denying it.There are multiple stories about flamethrower operators hearing blood curling screams and hideous stench,after which the operator would generally puke.
However,they remain probably some of the most efficient weapons ever made.An incendiary weapons can engage a plethora of targets thanks to the multiple ways of doing damage.It can burn and deprive entire buildings of oxygen in mere seconds.There aren't any other portable weapon capable of doing something like that,expecially considering that the crew deploying the incendiary are safe outside the building.
So,it is my opinion that incendiary weapons should be part of the taboo weapon list that are only used when the situation is grim(ie:biochemical weapons,incendiaries,canister rounds on tanks,etc...).
Well, the US army does intentionally burn people to death by using WP illumination shells as weapons (shake and bake). Do a google search for 'white phosphorous casualties' if you have a strong stomach.
Flamethrowers make no sense though. They're extremely heavy, not very tactically viable, dangerous to the person carrying them, indiscriminate and only really useful at clearing confined spaces. They're too specific to compensate for the drawbacks.
Flamethrowers make no sense though. They're extremely heavy, not very tactically viable, dangerous to the person carrying them, indiscriminate and only really useful at clearing confined spaces. They're too specific to compensate for the drawbacks.
Full auto or semi auto shotguns, PDWs combined with flashbangs, with the added perk of being able to discriminate between combatants and non-combatants if it comes to that.Top Hat said:
Your average flamethrower, real flamethrower, not in games, has a range of upwards of fifty feet, in a tight environment like a bunker, it's actually more humane to toss grenades around.
While I agree that moralizing war is quite stupid, and we should work to avoid war... well, George Santayana said it best: "Only the dead have seen the end of war." (Not a Plato quote. Serious. Look it up)Agayek said:
...so we do moralize humanity's favorite pastime. That's what the Hague convention is all about. No fragmenting or expanding rounds (that's right, hollow-points are a war crime), et cetera, et cetera. We've created so many loopholes it's pathetic... but every first-world nation makes the appearance of "fighting humanely". It's all bullshit, but media companies gobble bullshit up like a fat kid with a bag of chocolate.
Flamethrowers are a near perfect tool if engaging in a total war, mainly because they're just so destructive. However, I'm not a proponent of going balls-out and labeling everything a target, so I guess I'm against their use in war.