The Uselesness of Flamethrowers

[londelen]

I would like to roast marshmallows to a flamethrower someday.

 

[zolo357]

Are you perhaps only referin to videogame flamethrowers? The flamethrower, while admitidly a situational weapon, was used in the pacific theater of world war II on japanese pill boxes ( secure dugouts in hills that protected machine gun crews) with great success. Also the napalm fuel in flamethrowers burns with such heat that a human would be reduced to a charred mess within seconds. but in videogames flamethrowers usually suck

 

[johnman]

They were used for clearing fortifications and to deal with armour. Although more modern munitions kinda put a stop to 'em.

How'd they stop tanks?
Wouldn't a tank just roll straight through the flames and run the guy over?

IN WW2 tanks had open exhaust ports and engine grillwhich the fire could travel into and cause all sorts of havoc. Plus imagine theres 4 of you in a cramped steel tin, its already roasting hot and now some fool is coating the thing with a nice sticky layer of fire

 

[Audio]

Flamethrowers in games are usually weak. Players just have depleting health and carry on as normal. It's just a burn, shrug it off.

Real flamethrowers are extremely dangerous. In many cases, more deadly then a pistol.

 

[Wintermoot]

its good against spies and you can set your enemies on fire to light the way at night or in a dark building

 

[UtopiaV1]

There's no point, it's just more horrible ways to continue mans inhumanity to man.

 

[dragonslayer32]

I think the flamethrower is more effective than the machinegun. When someone is hiding in a hole or even in bushes/trees, you can just spray a flamethrower and clear the surroundings hiding them.

 

[The_ModeRazor]

"Don't fwoosh me bro!"
That's why. It is the perfect weapon of terror - aside from nukes, obviously.

 

[cmstewart87]

A Flamethrower has a very large attack spread so even if there is only a small hole for a sniper rifle and scope if the flamethrower is aimed through, it would fill most of the room. can't do that with a machine gun.

 

[Dark2003]

George Carlin even said,"there is a guy over there and i want him on fire, but i dont want to move from where i am

 

[Gaderael]

"The very existence of flamethrowers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, 'You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done.'"
-George Carlin

EDIT: Looks like I've ninja'd couple of times. Damn.

 

[ItsAChiaotzu]

They are great for mentally scarring the minds of hundreds of thousands of soldiers.

As opposed to mentally scarring their hands?

But yeah, the reasons they're used has already been said.

 

[Billion Backs]

They were used for clearing fortifications and to deal with armour. Although more modern munitions kinda put a stop to 'em.

How'd they stop tanks?
Wouldn't a tank just roll straight through the flames and run the guy over?

Well, I don't know how it is nowadays with modern tanks, but burning a WW2 era tank doesn't seem like such an impossibility... I mean, no matter how you put it, you are still sitting in a movable can made of metal, you're going to get cooked eventually.

I'm fairly sure that home-made molotovs were used against tanks during the WW2 when Germany invaded Russia, with some results, but I can't really back up that information without spending a while on wikipedia.

 

[Billion Backs]

There's no point, it's just more horrible ways to continue mans inhumanity to man.

No, it would be inhumanity if humans didn't do it.

Killing each other is one of the most perfectly human things to do.

 

[Gudrests]

What exactly is the point of flamethrowers? A machine gun will kill ordinary people much faster for less weight, and its not much good against zombies because the avereage human body will burn for at least an hour.

Several reasons flame-throwers were quite common in the early 20th century yet now virtually non-existent:

-cheap: they are quite simple in design, just a load of plumbing, any country could make one and the flammable fuel for it was usually cheaper than the expense of ammunition (precision casting each brass case, each lead bullet and each carefully measured gunpowder load).

-Range: not the biggest concern as back then weapons with poor sights and archaic marksmanship training practices (emphasis on prone shooting, useless in a stand-up fight) meant most soldiers would be lucky to hit a target beyond a flame-thrower's maximum range.

-Technological niche: before sub-machine gun and assault rifle technology matured in price and reliability, flame-throwers were ideal close range weapons, like storming a trench or tunnel system. It was also more versatile as you just have to shoot it down a hole and everyone in the hole dies, shoot at the entrance of a machine-gun nest and everyone dies.

-FEAR: this was a weapon that had great psychological threat, very effective against conscript forces that were more common in the EARLY 20th century, often with poor training they had no idea the range or how to counteract flame-throwers so they panic and suffer worse losses.

-intention: in the early 20th century, property destruction was almost as important as killing the enemy. People holed up in buildings it was considered acceptable to burn the entire building down and the up-side was the enemy couldn't occupy it again.


Why flame-throwers died:
-too visible: This was noticed by the US marines in Iwo Jima, the second a flame-trooper lights up everyone within 2000 meters knows EXACTLY where a flame-trooper is. That draws sniper fire, machine gun fire but most deadly was mortar fire. That's why flame-troopers suffered the highest casualties, everyone was shooting at them! And everyone hated flame-troopers.

-New Weapons: the invention of compact and lightweight rocket launchers negated the flame-thrower's last niche, as they could launch a bomb right onto or into a foxhole or bunker from a much safe distance rather than in the past where a flame-trooper would have to implausibly sneak extremely close to channel the flame through the opening. Also, personal weapons now had huge capacities, fast fire rates and sights+training to be very accurate at long range, and flame-throwers could not be improved to match that.

-Weight: there is no getting around the fact that flame-throwers are very heavy as the fuel itself cannot be lightened. But as trooper are burdened with more and more equipment from body armour to personal radios to specialist weapons as well as their personal weapon... flame-thrower became impossible

-too much collateral damage: both against the enemy and if the tank ever gets hit incinerating anyone around or near it. It was a big, heavy liability. In the latter half of the 20th century when it became expected that conquering armies pay to clean up their mess, weapons that create that much destruction were discouraged.

-loss of edge: flame-thrower has lost it's psychological edge, it is no longer new and there are scarier things on the battlefield. Most armies now are volunteer (yes, even the Taliban are volunteer, though motivated by insanity, lies and extremism) which are harder to scare as they are not fighting against their own will.

-Propaganda: I think the biggest reason most flame weapons have gone is propaganda, it serves invading armies to not seem too brutal, and death by incineration can't seem like anything other than the worst possible way to die. Not like being shot. So it goes and other sides do the same as even the enemy are fighting a propaganda war. In this connected and democratised world it doesn't matter so much what you do, but what your are perceived to do.

And now its a war crime...Stilla very efficent weapon

 

[DTWolfwood]

What exactly is the point of flamethrowers? A machine gun will kill ordinary people much faster for less weight, and its not much good against zombies because the avereage human body will burn for at least an hour.

Clearing a pillbox and other entrenchments/infantry emplacements. As was Originally designed to do.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

I am tempted to post George Carlins bit about flamthrowers but i'm not going to because I don't think it would contribute anything to the conversation. Or would it?

George Carlin is always welcome! Post away!

 

[willsham45]

In close quarters they are deadly , the flames can creep everywhere good for bunkers and trenches.
Good moral killing weapon watching a friend burn to death would be horrific.
Pure and simple burning to death is probably the worst way to go.

 

[Treblaine]

le snip

And now its a war crime...Still a very efficent weapon

May I ask what chapter of what agreement?

And it also depends on which countries actually signed that agreement. Remember, the definition of crime is breaking the law, and the law is not universal, even for war... no matter how some may act. Well, unless if one country is defeated and occupied and have another jurisdiction's laws imposed on it.

Though I understand if 80% of the countries sign a charter declaring something a war crime, the last 20% pretty much have to abide by that, even if they haven't signed it they need to keep fairly good relations with the other 80%. Though I think in the case of the USA at least, they voluntarily removed their stock of flame-throwers. This is good PR, makes it seem like it was their idea and legally they can bring back flame-throwers if they REALLY need them.

I'd still contend that flame-throwers in general are no longer used, not INITIALLY due to "legality", but practicality. It was probably when it became impractical, that is when it became a target for banning since no one saw the point in defending it.

Rationally they'd make using firearms a war crime and force people to fight with melee weapons, that would reduce suffering and death, but firearms are INCREDIBLY useful for wining wars, by ALL sides so none want them gone. Also, the one side who breaks the rules has an INCREDIBLE advantage.

Many arms control agreements are less to do with altruism and more with self interest. Countries with large foot mobile armies are in favour of banning land mines because hell it makes their invading places easier. That's why US opposed the universal land-mine ban. It is the massive amount of land mines in Korea's DMZ that is the main defence against invasion by North Korea's MUCH larger conscription army.