Poll: Flamethrowers...

[Nouw]

Last time I checked flame throwers weren't really used in urban warfare. Last time I also checked, urban warfare is the most dominant type of warfare today.

Flamethrowers should only be used on ants, the bastards.

Sorry pal but the ants are the flamethrowers. Giant, near invulnerable ants.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Intentionally burning the enemy to death? Sounds inhumane to me.

There really isn't a polite way to violently end someone's life. Even with all the weapons outlawed by the various Laws of Land Warfare, there are still a lot of terribly unpleasant ways to die on the battlefield.

That said, modern wars do not really develop the sort of scenario where the flamethrower is inherently useful and, until someone wants to have an honest knock down drag out conventional war there is little reason to bother with the issue.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Basically it shoots an explosive round into the bunker, killing or wounding all inside.

That particular weapon is not nearly as effective as a flamethrower for the purposes of clearing a bunker. The caliber of the round simply means any explosive charge is going to be incredibly light (a few ounces) meaning your lethal radius is only going to be a few feet. By contrast, a single m67 grenade has a lethal radius of 5 meters thanks to a much larger charge and a particular 40mm munition has a lethal radius of 3. All told that weapon is only slightly more powerful than the M2HB

And the M2HB can maintain a far higher rate of fire at a similar range. In fact, the record for longest distance confirmed kill was held for decades by the M2.

 

[Ondoran]

Try explosives

 

[ToastiestZombie]

No (especially after seeing the ending of L.A. Noire) I dont think so, they give people an extremely inhumane death whereas bullets are pretty much instant.

 

[xMelior]

If it's a tactically good solution, yes. War is war.

 

[ChocoFace]

They have been and always will be legal for one sole purpose:
Ant genocide.

 

[rddj623]

There will always be mission specific situations where they will save lives. Check our WWII Pacific campaign instances of island hopping into dense jungle where the enemy was literally hiding right there in the grass in bunkers made to look like the terrain. The flamethrower was a huge asset in displacing an heavily entrenched enemy.

In general though they are needlessly cruel, and in all honesty underpowered and severely limited in scope. So though I voted yes in the poll, that was more for mission specific situations where they really will do more good then harm.

 

[Ryuu Akamatsu]

Killing is killing. If somebody gets shot in the head with a bullet or burned to a crisp by a flamethrower, they're both going to end up dead either way.

There's nothing humane about war. Countless lives are lost no matter how you pretty it up.

"Oh they suffer longer!" "This method kills them twice as quickly!" "We shouldn't use this weapon since we can hear them scream longer than usual if we do!"

It's hypocritical. You're still taking lives. They're gone for good. Suffering has no meaning after death. You want to use a grenade launcher to clear out bunkers? It rips their flesh and breaks their bones. They can still survive too if they're unlucky, just like with a flamethrower. It's no better than killing them with fire.

Killing is killing people. No such thing as humane when you take another persons life.

 

[Vonnis]

If there is a need for it, sure. I doubt it'd be necessary though as trench/bunker warfare isn't really of this day and age anymore, and that's where it's most useful. As for the weapon being inhumane... it's a goddamn weapon used on the battlefield. War is not happy fun time. People suffer, people die. It's not like using guns automatically cancels out all human pain and suffering due to every single hit being instantly fatal.

 

[Grospoliner]

Reading up on the Battle of Sedan (1940) led me to wonder...

Question: are you in support of the illegality of the use of flamethrowers in the context of war (even asymmetrical war)?

Flamethrowers are not banned in any treaty we've signed.

 

[Treblaine]

Reading up on the Battle of Sedan (1940) led me to wonder...

Question: are you in support of the illegality of the use of flamethrowers in the context of war (even asymmetrical war)?

Uhhh, by what code are they illegal?

And regarding that code, what countries are even signatories of it.

While I am not against all incendiary weapons, I don't see the point in Flamethrowers beyond their psychological effect - and even that is probably TOO effective.

See people in a warzone are scared - quite literally scared shitless - now the idea of being burnt alive so poignantly demonstrated by a flaming tongue of flame really gets to people. But the problem is it draws TOO MUCH attention. The huge bright flame and resulting black smoke you can see for quite literally miles away, that draws attention of snipers, machine gunners, mortars and every infantryman with a rifle to spray the area. And what worry do they have? The flame-trooper can't possibly fire back at such a range, the focus is on going to unreasonable lengths to kill them before they get close enough to torch themselves!

That's the main reason Flame-throws have gone out of use, range. Absolutely pitiful. And at the very edge of its range it isn't particularly good at actually igniting things.

Not to mention other problems:
-so cumbersome to move in prone/in&out of vehicles
-vulnerability to shrapnel = fuel leak
-limited "suppressing time"*
-value of fuel better for other uses
-blinding effect
-starting fires as much a threat to your own side once out of control

And beyond the psychological effect, what about their actual "unique" capability of clearing out enclosed spaces? A White-phosphorus or tear-gas grenade would do just as well weighing a fraction as much.

Ban em, don't ban em. Doesn't matter.

They are obsolete weapons since the wide introduction of light automatic weapons.

 

[Vindestructable]

I find it funny how the "unnecessary suffering" thing comes up all the time. Watch the part in Black Hawk Down where the guy gets shot in the leg and dies hours later in horrendous pain. War causes unnecessary suffering by it's very nature. In my opinion flamethrowers should be used in situations where they would be effective, end of story.

 

[Zantos]

No, there's a fine line between killing the enemy and making them suffer horrendously. Guns and bombs have the capability to do that, flamethrowers were pretty much designed to.

So are you one of those people that think it is barbaric that Americans still haven't signed the treaty that bans Napalm and other incendiary weapons?

I happen to think Napalm and Fuel-Air Explosives are great. The only thing about this discussion, I can't see flamethrowers having much use in a modern battlefield. Flamethrowers have a limited range compared to anything bigger than pistols. I just don't see how we would really be able to use them... Plus, yeah, they are kind of inhumane...

I wouldn't say barbaric, there's just no reason to use them other than to cause unnecessary suffering. I totally agree with your point that if you want shit done there are considerably easier, more effective and probably cheaper ways to do it. Plus a gun has considerably less chance of backfiring and blowing up in your face.

They have been and always will be legal for one sole purpose:
Ant genocide.

Genius. That and retarring a roof.

 

[ChocoFace]

They have been and always will be legal for one sole purpose:
Ant genocide.

Genius. That and retarring a roof.

Actually flamethrowers are used to control the ant population.
http://www.cracked.com/article_17016_7-items-you-wont-believe-are-actually-legal.html

Those ants do deserve to die.