They were tough to lug around, expensive to produce and if one got shot and it exploded, it could kill more then just the person carrying it. They were a danger not only to the person that they were targeting, but also to their own men.
FLAMETHROWERS!!!
- Thread starter Blindswordmaster
- Start date
Its already been said but its partially due to the fact that strapping on a tank of napalm makes you one giant fireball waiting to happen. Also I vaguely remember how back in the world wars that captured flamethrower users were usually executed due to the terror of the weapon. Sorta like how snipers aren't usually captured. That and advancing technology made it an obsolete weapon.
Because they broke God knows how many NATO violations, such as "inhumane weaponry". Sure, tell me of a single weapon that can be described as "humane", but it still doesn't change the reason they stopped using them.Blindswordmaster said:
EDIT: Pretty much like white phosphorus grenades were also thought to be very controversial in the Iraq war.
DOUBLE EDIT: Here, found it:
"Flamethrowers have not been in the U.S. arsenal since 1978, when the Department of Defense unilaterally stopped using them. They have been deemed of questionable effectiveness in modern combat and the use of flame weapons is always a public relations issue due to the horrific death they inflict. They are not banned in any international treaty the U.S. has signed. Thus, the U.S. decision to remove flamethrowers from its arsenal is entirely voluntary."
Hope to have been of help!
As if someone on the Escapist would worry about that. No, we're too kewl and edgy, just shooting someone to death definetly isn't enough.Mad World said:
Ooooh my. Nobody listens, indeeed. But that dosen't cancel out "big fat target" problem anyway.Scolar Visari said:
Flamethrowers are still used for bush and ground cleariung, but as an ap weapon ..... well ... we have far better weapons to create mass casualties.
Why hasn't anyone listened to the intelligent man up top who seems to understand these weapons better than most? Scolar Visari, I've read your posts and have come up with a response that hopefully adds something new to this dissusion.
OT: I believe that flamethrowers are very, for lack of a better word, 'cool' weapons. When we see a group of men armed with these oversized barbeque lighters approaching soldiers in war films, terror seems to stretch aforementioned soldiers' faces into extremely horrific shapes. That is, until their faces are melted off. This makes it look like 'he who wields the flamethrower becomes the ultimate badass of the battlefield', and automatically sparks admiration. So, understanding this, I think I can see why people often bring up it's absence. To be honest, I believe that if we put some serious effort into it we could make a much more versatile 'thrower that could potentially light up dozens of yards and use only a moderate amount of fuel, thus making it actually useful again. To me though, they will always just be weapons of fear. The weapon didn't so much kill men as it did kill their spirit and will to fight. Fifteen seconds might feel like an awfully long time to have to dodge one of them mothers, and I have a feeling that if you watched a buddy get melted right beside your position you wouldn't be so quick to charge out next time. Just in case they came back again.
Not that it matters anyway. As a fellow above me pointed out, the Swiss made sure that serious kill counts were pretty hard to achieve in war. Particularly with *painful* weapons. Pansies. -F
OT: I believe that flamethrowers are very, for lack of a better word, 'cool' weapons. When we see a group of men armed with these oversized barbeque lighters approaching soldiers in war films, terror seems to stretch aforementioned soldiers' faces into extremely horrific shapes. That is, until their faces are melted off. This makes it look like 'he who wields the flamethrower becomes the ultimate badass of the battlefield', and automatically sparks admiration. So, understanding this, I think I can see why people often bring up it's absence. To be honest, I believe that if we put some serious effort into it we could make a much more versatile 'thrower that could potentially light up dozens of yards and use only a moderate amount of fuel, thus making it actually useful again. To me though, they will always just be weapons of fear. The weapon didn't so much kill men as it did kill their spirit and will to fight. Fifteen seconds might feel like an awfully long time to have to dodge one of them mothers, and I have a feeling that if you watched a buddy get melted right beside your position you wouldn't be so quick to charge out next time. Just in case they came back again.
Not that it matters anyway. As a fellow above me pointed out, the Swiss made sure that serious kill counts were pretty hard to achieve in war. Particularly with *painful* weapons. Pansies. -F
Because even if you were to create a more compact version, given an AK ahas a 30 count magazine, what are the chances that one or two bullets is going to find the guy running up to the cave mouth?Fingerlicking said:
Flamethrowers were useful in WW2 ... why? because alot of combat towards the end in both theatres was in jungle and urban environments where A soldier was just as likely to get into a ranged combat situation as he was going to find himself within close quarters of an enemy unit.
Giving Afghanistan is a whole lot of NOTHING what are the chances an enemy unit is going to put two bullets into the guy running towards them?
eh, cant think of anything to say, so il let George talk for me
[youtube=V4nknAzQPHE&hl=en_US&fs=1&>
[youtube=V4nknAzQPHE&hl=en_US&fs=1&>
Made this thread a long time ago.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.170877-Is-a-flamethrower-a-practical-weapon-these-days?page=1
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.170877-Is-a-flamethrower-a-practical-weapon-these-days?page=1
I asked the same question in Basic Training to a Drill Sergeant. (Without the tactical speculation, just asked why we stopped using flame-throwers.)Blindswordmaster said:
I was told that they weren't as effective video games made them appear to be, they are extremely heavy, and they aren't fuel efficient. Thats what I was told anyway. I gotta say I wouldn't have wanted to lug around a flame-thrower.
We have better suited weapons and the Flamethrower while awesome is obsolete in the real world. In videogames and books however they exist in abundant amounts.
I was being facetious.GL2814E said:
Most of the people who have their head blown off by a Barrett don't notice.Me55enger said:
