Poll: Flamethrowers...
- Thread starter SckizoBoy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Why not combine the two?MaxwellMurder said:
OT, there are weapons better suited to the roles of the flamethrower out there that aren't so hazardous to the user or so indiscriminate. I'm all in favour of cleaner wars with less civilian collateral, and setting people on fire doesn't factor into that. Of course, no war is better, but it's not like that' a possibility in these times.
The field of battle isn't suited for them anymore. Back in the day, yes maybe. Today, why would we. On moral... When was the last time war in itself was humane.
Yeah, that's kind of the point. Scaring civilians and lower class soldiers to not fight in the first place. The only practical use it would have is sucking all the oxygen out of caves. The real use would be giving anyone thinking of taking up arms against the US nightmarish images of them burning to death. Or their family getting those images and convincing them to not to fight. Let them think fighting is hopeless.Ultratwinkie said:
It's far better to win by not fighting than having to fight the battle in the first place. And if all that's left are veterans, their numbers will dwindle. Look at this thread to see their effectiveness psychologically. Half the people here don't know shit about flamethrowers. And the average Afghan is no different. Make them think they're up against a Legion from Hell and they're far less likely to think fighting them is a good idea.
If you've seen what WP or nerve gas does to people I don't understand why you would even be asking this question, 7.62mm has enough brutality that it can scar people for life after seeing the injuries these rounds can cause.
It's true war is not humane by the very definition, but why should you go out of your way to cause untold pain to other people, not to mention the mental health problems operators develop because of what they are forced to do to fellow men, it's a hideous weapon that creates monsters out of men.
It's true war is not humane by the very definition, but why should you go out of your way to cause untold pain to other people, not to mention the mental health problems operators develop because of what they are forced to do to fellow men, it's a hideous weapon that creates monsters out of men.
Flamers can go one of two ways on the battlefield. Pure, unadulterated pwnage. I mean, there is nothing nice or pleasant about killing people with fire...or at all for that matter. But on the battlefield thats your prime directive...also if your house is infested with spiders. And the other way, is a catastrphic accident. Do those fuel tanks actually blow up if shot?...hmmm. Anyway, they're very heavy and can slow down the wearer in a hot spot. And in an open environment, its practically game over. If im honest, if they were made alot smaller but still as potent. Either as wrist attachments or rifle/smg sized, then they'd be quite practical for close quarters fighting...you know, like most of modern conflicts. But they're just way too conditional as weapons go. Stick to your rifles troops. You'll live alot longer. Also, there's alot less collateral damage.
Yeah, new recruits. What I just said. And where did I say equip everyone with flamethrowers? Nowhere. There are dozens of ways to break people's resolve to fight. Flamethrowers are one, and the subject of this topic.Ultratwinkie said:
Im sorry but if your fighting my country and killing my people, be damned moral obligations. I just my side to live, win and move on. If a flamethrower would help with that be damned their fiery death. Its nothing personal, its just what happens. they wouldnt spare me from the same fate if we had switched situations
Well... it is war, so I say whatever gets the job done. And if that means I'm going to blacken someone to a crisp so scare the living shit out of the rest of the army so they say we give up, then by all means, lets get those tanks filled and start the walk of death.
I never understood about being "humane" in war. It seems tht if you're avidly going out to kill someone you odnt know just cause someone in charge of you said "DO IT" then you're already being inhumane. And its not like that shit matters, you dont see people like the Taliban or the Viet Cong caring about being "humane" until they actually get caught and start shouting Geneva.
I never understood about being "humane" in war. It seems tht if you're avidly going out to kill someone you odnt know just cause someone in charge of you said "DO IT" then you're already being inhumane. And its not like that shit matters, you dont see people like the Taliban or the Viet Cong caring about being "humane" until they actually get caught and start shouting Geneva.
Flamethrowers decimate pill boxes if you are able to get close enough, and in WWII we could and did. Shooting a flamethrower into a bunker led to the entire bunker running out screaming because they were on fire, bunker done, on to the next target. Unless you can throw a grenade directly into the bunker, nothing else will even come close ("bunker buster" not included).
Side note: Water boarding is not "pouring water". It is an attempt to drown the person in a controlled manner and leads to rather poor intelligence. People will say anything to get you to stop. Even Khalid Sheikh Mohammed didn't give up his most valuable intelligence under torture, but did under standard interrogation techniques.
Side note: Water boarding is not "pouring water". It is an attempt to drown the person in a controlled manner and leads to rather poor intelligence. People will say anything to get you to stop. Even Khalid Sheikh Mohammed didn't give up his most valuable intelligence under torture, but did under standard interrogation techniques.
If you're talking about the old "whumphf" and then a huge fireball comes out the barrel, like were used back in WW2, then, no. Since the advent of the man-portable rocket launchers they're obsolete. Why bother getting within spitting distance of an enemy fortification to fill it up with fire when you can get an RPG in from a few hundred meters away, the end result's going to be pretty much the same anyway. Add in that most shoulder mounted launchers are a hell of a lot lighter than conventional flamethrowers (the M2 flamethrower used by the US army in Korea was about 30kilos fueled up, whereas the M9 Bazooka only weighed about 7kilos).
That said, there are plenty of modern derivatives of flame throwers in use by armed forces today, the most famous probably being the MOAB [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOAB] (and I still maintain that "Massive Ordinance Air Blast" is the real backronym here =p ), but there are plenty of other thermobaric weapons used, as well as Napalm based weapons such as the M202 FLASH [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M202A1_FLASH].
That said, there are plenty of modern derivatives of flame throwers in use by armed forces today, the most famous probably being the MOAB [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOAB] (and I still maintain that "Massive Ordinance Air Blast" is the real backronym here =p ), but there are plenty of other thermobaric weapons used, as well as Napalm based weapons such as the M202 FLASH [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M202A1_FLASH].
Only in video games.
I'm still waiting to see a "Perfect" flamethrower. One that simulates liquid and fire, projecting it over long range and blanketing everything you vaguely aim at in fire.
Probably the closest to my vision if Killzone 2 and 3's flamethrower. It was pretty freakin' badass.
I'm still waiting to see a "Perfect" flamethrower. One that simulates liquid and fire, projecting it over long range and blanketing everything you vaguely aim at in fire.
Probably the closest to my vision if Killzone 2 and 3's flamethrower. It was pretty freakin' badass.
Being the devils advocate here, the flamethrower is effective because they're dirt cheap to maintain. And a flamethrower is incredibly effective when going for a scorched earth kind of battle plan.
Not only that, not everyone that gets shot dies instantly, in fact a lot of people have to suffer for a long time before they die if they get shot. Like the Jackal said in Far Cry 2, there is no right way of killing someone.
Not only that, not everyone that gets shot dies instantly, in fact a lot of people have to suffer for a long time before they die if they get shot. Like the Jackal said in Far Cry 2, there is no right way of killing someone.
If memory serves me well part of the reason flame throwers existed in the first place was to attack your enemy's morale, not efficiency on the battlefield. Although they were used effectively for clearing tunnels in the Pacific. Even so they are an incredibly obsolete weapon by modern standards. I cannot remember how far they can... um... throw fire, but I guarantee you it won't go as far as any projectile. We have much better ways of delivering fire to our enemies feet anyway.
So no I suppose, I would not want them in use again, if only to keep a better weapon in the hands of armed forces everywhere and not because it's inhumane.
So no I suppose, I would not want them in use again, if only to keep a better weapon in the hands of armed forces everywhere and not because it's inhumane.
Depends on the type of war you are fighting.
If you are fighting a "Hearts and Minds" campaign that depends on the good will of the people in a nation to defeat their opressive and dangerous leaders.. no, definately not. This sort of campaign you need to be exempliary. Every aspect of every soldier's behavior and your battle plans need to uphold the ideals you are claiming to represent.. you must be fair, just, honorable and obey the laws of war.
If you are fighting a more traditional campaign.. one where you are attempting to defeat the enemy by force of arms, there is only one way to fight it. You win, they lose, everyone and anyone who stands before you dies using whatever means needed. Along with your battleplans you must also include the most fearsome, humilitating and painful deaths possible to further your cause. There are no rules, and nothing out of bounds, defeat your enemy and scourge them from the earth.
If you are fighting a "Hearts and Minds" campaign that depends on the good will of the people in a nation to defeat their opressive and dangerous leaders.. no, definately not. This sort of campaign you need to be exempliary. Every aspect of every soldier's behavior and your battle plans need to uphold the ideals you are claiming to represent.. you must be fair, just, honorable and obey the laws of war.
If you are fighting a more traditional campaign.. one where you are attempting to defeat the enemy by force of arms, there is only one way to fight it. You win, they lose, everyone and anyone who stands before you dies using whatever means needed. Along with your battleplans you must also include the most fearsome, humilitating and painful deaths possible to further your cause. There are no rules, and nothing out of bounds, defeat your enemy and scourge them from the earth.
Yeah, and this is a thread about flamethrowers. It's in the title. So we talk about flamethrowers. Yeah, tanks and helicopters. They both operate closely with infantry where it would be most useful. In Vietnam they went so far as to put them on boats. And as for someone not being frightening because they're easily killed, tell that to the Japanese or Germans.Ultratwinkie said: