Poll: Flamethrowers...
- Thread starter SckizoBoy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I see nothing wrong with them. They have a very narrow role in clearing out bunkers, tunnels, and urban settings. WWII and Vietnam showed their use in all these functions, and they did their job with extreme prejudice. In a war, the only real morality is for your people to beat the other people as fast and efficiently as possible.
Depends on what enemy you're fighting. The kind of guys who rape and pillage, murdering innocent people? Yeah, burn em. But if it's a land grab situation where one country enters war with another, than I guess not? It's kind of a grey area for me and there are a lot of extenuating circumstances that would need to be taken into account.
War is already impossible to justify, no matter what the circumstances. Adding intentional human suffering to the mix in just even more wrong. Once a man is hit with burning fuel it is pretty much impossible to put it out, meaning he will be dead in a matter of several agonising minutes. I'm not saying that other weapons are any less lethal or awful as far as pain and suffering is concerned, but in all fairness there's really no need to intentionally make it worse.
Flamethowers are designed as shock-weapons. Heavy duty front line focal points which are often just as dangerous for the guy holding it as the poor bastard on the other end. Just all round a bad idea which doesn't need to be revived.
Flamethowers are designed as shock-weapons. Heavy duty front line focal points which are often just as dangerous for the guy holding it as the poor bastard on the other end. Just all round a bad idea which doesn't need to be revived.
Pretty much this. While the points about suffering are valid, the main reason they aren't used anymore is that they simply aren't very efficient weapons. Shotguns and fully automatic weapons are much better at stopping an enemy cold (as opposed to hot).MaxwellMurder said:
War is already inhumane enough.I don't understand what banning the flamethrower will do if it actually helps in a war situation (makes it end faster).A lot of people survive a bullet,shrapnel,mine,grenade(as previously mentioned tho you'll be likely maimed for life if you survive at all after the pains and horrors).I haven't heard of a lot of flamethrower survivors.
I think the banning of flamethrowers is stupid, just because they're not efficient doesn't mean they should be banned, just not used. If there is a way in which it's better then use it, so it hurts, that's part of war. If you go to war you risk getting hurt and banning a weapon just because it hurts more is stupid.
I don't think flamethrowers should be used again.
Not on any moral grounds, but because the fuel tank poses a risk to the user and there are much better contemporary weapons for close-to-mid range combat now.
Not on any moral grounds, but because the fuel tank poses a risk to the user and there are much better contemporary weapons for close-to-mid range combat now.
Curse you, Iron ruler! For saying alot of the stuff I wanted to say!TheIronRuler said:
Seriously, epic post.
Back to topic, if there is still a need for what flamethrowers could do, tactically speaking, that grenades and shotguns couldn't, then I'd be all for it in theory. However, I couldn't see it actually working for the following reasons:
First off, the tanks to carry the fuel for flamethrowers are pretty heavy. Maybe they could find a lighter source in this day and age though, so I guess it could be overcome.
Second, if your assault rifle gets damaged, or shot, the weapon could potentially cease to function. If a flamethrower is shot or damaged, it could potentially, you know, explode and stuff. I'm not exactly sure of the engineering involved, but I mean come on, it's an open flame and a tank of very flammable fuel on your back, do the math.
Third, a lot of our combat in this age seem to be air-strikes and the intelligence battle in tracking down terrorists. I'm sure the situation could change at any moment, and maybe the marines and Army rangers who made assaults on Taliban controlled towns would have a different view of that, but it is need and requirement that drive innovation. The psychological effect is probably the only thing the flamethrower could do that other weapons can't. Although, then we come to number 4...
Fourth: The media across the entire planet, and especially here in the United States, are such, big, crying, babies, about every tiny little thing the US military does. There was a storm of completely titanic proportions, about CIA agents slapping terrorists around a bit and pouring water on them a few years back. Could you imagine how inadequate the term "sh*t-storm" would be if these things were legalized?
I would say that flamethrowers ought to be used on cave hideouts and the like, but I'm stopped by two things:
1) Expanding Napalm would be a much better tool for the job.
2) The remote possibility that chemical weapons could be cached inside a given hideout.
I fully support the use of incendiaries. I say no to flamethrowers because they're less useful than other, similar tools.
1) Expanding Napalm would be a much better tool for the job.
2) The remote possibility that chemical weapons could be cached inside a given hideout.
I fully support the use of incendiaries. I say no to flamethrowers because they're less useful than other, similar tools.
Chlorine and phosphorous are a lot harder to direct, one change in the wind and your weapon can be a catastrophic liability.Exocet said:
I suppose it all depends on the kind of bunker we are talking about too. If we are talking the kind on the beaches of normandy (Trenches connecting hardened pillboxes) I would still take frag over fire as it would be immediately disruptive while a flamethrower would have to head in first and be vulnerable. If we're talking about something like an underground bunker an explosive is your friend again because of confined area trapping the concussive force while fire will have to be directed on a priority basis. If we're talking tunnels like a military complex I can see the benefits of flame units as a means of pushing forward but at medium range you're going to be hard pressed to over come cover fast enough to make progress.
Yeah I can really see flamethrower are more useful than bullets. Flamethrower lack the range when compare to a sniper. Well ok flamethrower are best suited indoor and in close range but it simply take a shot to the fuel tank to kill the person using the flamethrower?
I think it is cruel, but if I was clearing out a cave of Terrorist I would love to shoot a couple fire balls in the cave before I went in. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure it was a common occurrence of Japanese to surrender in WW2 because of the fear of getting burned alive.
They are a tool. Truth, a tool that can be horribly misused, but the only good alternative to flushing high-vegetation areas and enemy entrenchments would be to either use something like Agent Orange or something like mustard gas.
Like all things in war, it's more of picking over lesser evils in grayscale.
Like all things in war, it's more of picking over lesser evils in grayscale.
