FLAMETHROWERS!!!

Blindswordmaster

New member
Dec 28, 2009
3,145
0
0
Why did we stop using flamethrowers? They were developed to fight against opponents what were rooted in caves, it would seem to me that they would be perfectly suited for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fellow Escapists, do you have any explanations?
 

Pimppeter2

New member
Dec 31, 2008
16,479
0
0
I think the last thing you need is to make it hotter than it already is in Iraq.

But seriously, its not like we know what cave these people are in. Going around and spraying fire into every cave would be almost a big a waste of time as writing that completely unfunny joke I just made.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
34,705
1,339
118
We scrapped it do to health hazards (flammable gas strapped to your back) and short duration. The flamethrower had about 15 seconds of flame on a good day. Besides, we have thermobaric bombs now.
 

Blindswordmaster

New member
Dec 28, 2009
3,145
0
0
SlowShootinPete said:
I still can't figure out why we stopped using nerve gas.
It was the Swiss. The Geneva Convention, limiting awesome weapons and tactics for over 50 years. That, and it made people's eyes melt.
 

feather240

New member
Jul 16, 2009
1,921
0
0
'Cuse they weigh a lot, and they're dangerous.

Pimppeter2 said:
I think the last thing you need is to make it hotter than it already is in Iraq.

But seriously, its not like we know what cave these people are in. Going around and spraying fire into every cave would be almost a big a waste of time as writing that completely unfunny joke I just made.
...and miss out on fighting freaking flamboyant flaming bears? I don't think so.
 

SniperWolf427

New member
Jun 27, 2008
974
0
0
crimson5pheonix said:
We scrapped it do to health hazards (flammable gas strapped to your back) and short duration. The flamethrower had about 15 seconds of flame on a good day. Besides, we have thermobearic bombs now.
Burning alive from your own weapon is considered a health hazard? Who knew?

Flamethrowers are inefficient and unnecessary. We have much better weapons available to us these days.
 

Angelcraft

New member
Apr 15, 2010
94
0
0
Simple, they were large targets jutting from the backs of soldiers. If they had refined the flamethrower into a better weapon, then it could have been cool, but really, it is overkill. We have automatic shotguns that can be mounted onto vehicles like turrets. HOW AWESOME IS THAT? And we have machine guns that can shoot around corners! Those beat Flamethrowers by about two or three points.
 

Blindswordmaster

New member
Dec 28, 2009
3,145
0
0
A launcher that fires a potent napalm bomb inside a cave and completely toasts anything inside would be better in my opinion.
 

ethaninja

New member
Oct 14, 2009
3,144
0
0
Pimppeter2 said:
I think the last thing you need is to make it hotter than it already is in Iraq.

But seriously, its not like we know what cave these people are in. Going around and spraying fire into every cave would be almost a big a waste of time as writing that completely unfunny joke I just made.
And continuing on with this here quote would add the that waste of time.
 

Scolar Visari

New member
Jan 8, 2008
791
0
0
Flamethrowers did not ignite when shot. There are two tanks to keep the mixture separated before dispersion.

Also we never did stop. Flamethrowers are still in use today to clear out thick brush that may be used for concealment.
 

Gigaguy64

Special Zero Unit
Apr 22, 2009
5,481
0
0
Pretty much what as already been said.

they became obsolete.
They were heavy, didn't last very long, made the user a target, and the fuel used in this death machine also made the user a walking napalm bomb.

We have more efficient ways of killing now a days.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
34,705
1,339
118
Gigaguy64 said:
Pretty much what as already been said.

they became obsolete.
They were heavy, didn't last very long, made the user a target, and the fuel used in this death machine also made the user a walking napalm bomb.

We have more efferent ways of killing now a days.
I'm... I'm sorry, but "efferent"?
 

SlowShootinPete

New member
Apr 21, 2010
404
0
0
SniperWolf427 said:
Flamethrowers are inefficient and unnecessary. We have much better weapons available to us these days.
Like this! [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXDSwRCWwP4&feature=related]
 

Gigaguy64

Special Zero Unit
Apr 22, 2009
5,481
0
0
crimson5pheonix said:
Gigaguy64 said:
Pretty much what as already been said.

they became obsolete.
They were heavy, didn't last very long, made the user a target, and the fuel used in this death machine also made the user a walking napalm bomb.

We have more efferent ways of killing now a days.
I'm... I'm sorry, but "efferent"?
WTF!?

Thanks for pointing that out, i could of sworn i checked over every word.....
Spelling isn't my Forte so im trying to fix that.
:p
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
34,705
1,339
118
Gigaguy64 said:
crimson5pheonix said:
Gigaguy64 said:
Pretty much what as already been said.

they became obsolete.
They were heavy, didn't last very long, made the user a target, and the fuel used in this death machine also made the user a walking napalm bomb.

We have more efferent ways of killing now a days.
I'm... I'm sorry, but "efferent"?
WTF!?

Thanks for pointing that out, i could of sworn i checked over every word.....
Spelling isn't my Forte so im trying to fix that.
:p
It's okay, I saw that it wasn't being corrected, and I had to look up what it meant.
 

TheTim

New member
Jan 23, 2010
1,739
0
0
well there is a few reasons,

they are inefficien, they do not last long and are very heavy.
they have a very short range.
if one fuel tank takes a bullet it explodes and kills everyone within 5 meters.
and we developed a thing called a thermoberic bomb. which is flamethrower heat x500.
 

Gigaguy64

Special Zero Unit
Apr 22, 2009
5,481
0
0
crimson5pheonix said:
Gigaguy64 said:
crimson5pheonix said:
Gigaguy64 said:
Pretty much what as already been said.

they became obsolete.
They were heavy, didn't last very long, made the user a target, and the fuel used in this death machine also made the user a walking napalm bomb.

We have more efferent ways of killing now a days.
I'm... I'm sorry, but "efferent"?
WTF!?

Thanks for pointing that out, i could of sworn i checked over every word.....
Spelling isn't my Forte so im trying to fix that.
:p
It's okay, I saw that it wasn't being corrected, and I had to look up what it meant.
hahaha.
I just looked it up too and yes, its not a word used to describe something like this.
 

Scolar Visari

New member
Jan 8, 2008
791
0
0
Wow, guess I have to fucking say it again since nobody listens.

Flamethrowers did not ignite when shot. There are two tanks to keep the mixture separated before dispersion.

Also we never did stop. Flamethrowers are still in use today to clear out thick brush that may be used for concealment.