Whoever named the Desert Eagle was a fucking genius, that's the only reason it's so well known, not only is the name awesome, it's short-version Deagle, rolls of the tongue and is awesome as wellSlowShootinPete said:
FLAMETHROWERS!!!
- Thread starter Blindswordmaster
- Start date
There's a law against it. Rules of war, made by some countries that met and said what you could and couldn't do during a war. You know, what methods were okay for obtaining information, weapons allowed, all that stuff. Which is all bullshit, you don't need laws for a war.SlowShootinPete said:
On topic, they are still in use, not that I need to re-iterate anything after everyone has said what I was going to.
Flamethrowers are still used for clearing annoying plants, but other than that, they're vulnerable to bullets and any soldier found using a flame thrower is normally killed on sight, so that's probably why, too.
Besides that, I think it might be better just to use bullets that set people on fire if you're going to go down that route.
Besides that, I think it might be better just to use bullets that set people on fire if you're going to go down that route.
For pete's sake here people, read up on you topic first. Use wikipedia I beg you ! Here i'll even add a link to make it that more easier. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamethrower. Like what Scolar Visari quite rightly said, FLAMETHROWERS DO NOT EXPLODE WHEN SHOT. If its a liquid flamethrower for instance, if it was shot all that would happen is that it would leak fuel. Rant over.
OT: One reason is they always meant certain death for the user if they were caught by the enemy. They would undergo horrific torture for using the weapon and so are slightly frowned upon.
OT: One reason is they always meant certain death for the user if they were caught by the enemy. They would undergo horrific torture for using the weapon and so are slightly frowned upon.
I would NEVER want to be A:The soldier assigned to the flamethrower B:The soldier running near the guy with said flamethrower
sure it is a weapon that scares the crap out of the enemy and flushes them out, but it also scares the crap out of the user and the people around him
sure it is a weapon that scares the crap out of the enemy and flushes them out, but it also scares the crap out of the user and the people around him
What the fuck did you just call me? count to 10, count to 10. I'm not questioning U.S. military policy, I'm just trying to as a question. That's how you learn, you ask questions. Try it sometime.AxCx said:
Both of those (I'm assuming) are quicker and less painful than being burned alive. A bullet to the head would kill you pretty quickly, and (from what I've seen in Deadliest Warrior) nails are either relatively easy to treat or instantly deadly. Being cooked isn't. Then again I'm no scientist or doctor, I'm sure I'm missing some facts.Me55enger said:
Because slowly burning your enemy to death is a war crime. Do you think we would stop using Napalm if we could still use fire? Hell no. We would probably use it more now. It's the same way with mines, we can't use them anymore because of the harm it does to civilians.
No, the look has a lot to do with it too. It's quite a stylish weapon, and its stupidly impractical size is part of what makes it so badass.danpascooch said:
all warfare is inhumane in someway or another, but theres always gonna be a battlefield.
so if we have to fight why not do it in the most effective ways as possible,
just not chemical warfare. what do you think fellow escapists
so if we have to fight why not do it in the most effective ways as possible,
just not chemical warfare. what do you think fellow escapists
Point 1- You would be immediately weighed down by a fuel tank, slowing you down in operations and getting caught in woods, jungles even tight buildingsGL2814E said:
Point 2- Said fuel tank is flammable, you have a bomb strapped to your back, no worries soldier!
Point 3- "you you get to use this weapon of horrifying, terrifying death that burns men to death in a horrific firey doom from which your greatest nightmares can only imagine the terribe pain and agony suffered, yeh get right on that"
Point 3- "Ok technically you can only use this weapon when its not windy and your within 15feet of the enemy. What do you mean you can't get that close!? That's loser talk soldier!"
Point 4- I am an enemy soldier, "OH FUCK THEY GOT FLAMETHROWERS I DON'T WANT TO DIE IN A FIERY BALL OF PAIN KILL THAT GUY FUCKING KILL THAT GUY FIRST!"
Point 5- Woops, burned down the house, forest, small orphanage, accidental child, these weapons are pesky when you don't want collaterol damage!
Point 6- "You know what, instead of a flamethrower why not have this 4 inch long round that penetrates tank armour and has a confirmed kill range of 2 and a half miles? Oh you wanna go with ol' flamey still? Well fair enough..."
Not terribly useful, flamethrowers in games are still fun. Its like the molotov cocktails in
GTA 4.
GTA 4.
probably said in several ways, but flamethrowers, even modern day once, don't have the range that is pretty much minimal for combat these days.
As far as I can see from documentaries and hear from people that apparantly know a little about it (are involved in the army in some way) you spend a lot of time shooting at guys moving behind cover hundreds of yards away or suspicious looking bushes, who are also far away, cause we all know the potential danger of getting to close to suspicious looking bushes.
As far as I can see from documentaries and hear from people that apparantly know a little about it (are involved in the army in some way) you spend a lot of time shooting at guys moving behind cover hundreds of yards away or suspicious looking bushes, who are also far away, cause we all know the potential danger of getting to close to suspicious looking bushes.
To paraphrase a mate of mine who was an Australian Army sniper AMRs are "way too fucking heavy to hump everywhere just to shoot some cunts that a 7.62 would kill just as dead but they're fucking awesome for turning battle taxis into blenders."Eclectic Dreck said: