Poll: Flamethrowers...
- Thread starter SckizoBoy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Probably not, as they're pretty unsafe, unwieldy, and inhumane. You'd be better off with an RPG or something for explosive value, and the risk of harming friendlies or innocents is too great. You'd never get me to go near one of them.
And i think you missed MY point.Agayek said:
Although war is entirely nasty etc etc, there is a difference between killing and burning. Burning is inhumane, and before you say war is inhuman, yes, war IS inhumane (arguably). But that doesn't excuse using a weapon that doesnt just KILL, but tortures and draws out that death for much longer than it needs to be.
Clearly you don't see this the way i do, so i think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
Properly designed bunkers and pillboxes have been designed to defeat explosives since their introduction on the battlefield. The interior walls near fight positions are sharply angular to defeat the explosion caused by grenades and such. As for flashbangs and shotguns...this isn't the swat team busting in on a drug dealer, you would be risking heavy causalities every time you used this on a bunker. The fact is, sustained fire (as in flames) is still one of the most effective ways of eliminating an enemy is a enclosed fortified area, not just by burning but also by eliminating the air available to them.Starke said:
It's a weapon of war. Who cares about being humane when the goal is to route the enemy? There's no way the U.S. attacks on Iwo Jima and Normandy would have been a success without flamethrower teams to clear out bunkers.
Here's something else to think about. The UN banned the use of Incendiary bombs, but you don't see the U.S. complying with that. Should we keep a weapon proven to be effective time and time again, or dismantle it and cripple our air superiority?
Here's something else to think about. The UN banned the use of Incendiary bombs, but you don't see the U.S. complying with that. Should we keep a weapon proven to be effective time and time again, or dismantle it and cripple our air superiority?
This. There is worse stuff then flamethrowers being used in far greater abundance in todays modern warfare. I don't imagine they are actually even used that much anymore anyway, given they are really inefficient weapons unless your in super close quarters, given total lack of range.Avaholic03 said:
What about land mines? They are far more inhumane, given that they are indiscrimenent (spelled sooo wrong) killers that still kill years after the war is over. there are 10000 land mines still in vietnam, still killing and maiming kids. get rid of those bastards!
As an infantry weapon I definitely don't think they warrant a squad level resource. That said, depending on who and where we where fighting I definitely think they have applications where they could do quite well, especially when mounted on a vehicle.
In my opinion this is another case of video games destroying people's understanding of weapons. While flamethrowers do have a limited range, its not like Gears.
In my opinion this is another case of video games destroying people's understanding of weapons. While flamethrowers do have a limited range, its not like Gears.
No, I got your point. Flamethrowers and the like are terrible, inhumane ways to die, and I 100% fully agree with you. Napalm, flamethrowers, and most explosives are terrible ways to die, and no one should ever have to go through with it.Jacob Haggarty said:
That does not change the fact that moralizing has no place on the battlefield. When you're in a fight, you do anything and everything you need to to win. If that means torching the enemy, so be it. Morality simply has no place in war, because as soon as you introduce it, the side that ignores it is the one that will win, every time.
I really wish that wasn't the case, but it is, and nothing anyone can do is going to change that.
That's one of the reasons why I firmly believe there shouldn't be any wars in the first place. There are very few legitimate reasons for war, and those are: 1) If you are attacked 2) If your people are endangered and 3) The subjects of a foreign government request your aid in toppling it. That is it. Any war fought for any other purpose is inherently invalid.
The only situation I can think of where a flamethrower might be useful in battle is for flushing an enemy out of an entrenched position or some kind of subterranean tunnel, and in that case you could probably get the same effect by using tear gas.
So yeah, I think we can afford to pass on the flamethrower.
So yeah, I think we can afford to pass on the flamethrower.
Explosives, which also have the advantage of you not standing in the line of fire. Smaller, lighter, more effective. Flamethrowers are just not cost effective or efficient, that fuel could go in a vehicle.Top Hat said:
Only if we're invaded by a giant spider army. Then I'd be more than happy to burn them all to the ground.
No. Flamethrowers have extremely limited range, cause horrible suffering for those hit by it, and on average it is less effective than a .22 calibur.
And bees. One of the reasons flamethrowers are legal in the states.TheDarkEricDraven said:
Actually, I don't think Geneva specifically banned flamethrowers.GeorgW said:
I'm guessing you're not a fan of Dexter? But in all seriousness, how does doing harm to innocents= doing less harm to guilty people?Mechsoap said:
But explosives are much more dangerous to the user.In the case of a bunker,you would need to put enough explosives to kill the enemy inside with pressure.You would need more than a simple grenade to do so.If you use more explosives,you need to requisition some,strap a detonator to it throw it into the bunker,get far enough to be safe from the blast,and you can finally make it blow.During that time,the enemy in the bunker is shooting at you and your guys.manythings said:
All that could be avoided by a simple incendiary weapon.It doesn't have to be a flamethrower,those things are outdated,but another type of weapon that can use chemicals like phosporous or chlorine.
The way things work these days, the majority of people are sitting here with their noses in the air talking about humane weaponry... The wars these days are fought with countries who will pull any and every dirty trick in the book to kill our soldiers.
If a situation could use a flamethrower or flame based weaponry, fair game I say.
Obviously there isn't many situations where it is appropriate and the actual practicalities of using them are iffy at best, but if any troops want them, train 'em up and give them some I say.
If a situation could use a flamethrower or flame based weaponry, fair game I say.
Obviously there isn't many situations where it is appropriate and the actual practicalities of using them are iffy at best, but if any troops want them, train 'em up and give them some I say.