Poll: Flamethrowers...

[emeraldrafael]

Well... it is war, so I say whatever gets the job done. And if that means I'm going to blacken someone to a crisp so scare the living shit out of the rest of the army so they say we give up, then by all means, lets get those tanks filled and start the walk of death.

I never understood about being "humane" in war. It seems tht if you're avidly going out to kill someone you odnt know just cause someone in charge of you said "DO IT" then you're already being inhumane. And its not like that shit matters, you dont see people like the Taliban or the Viet Cong caring about being "humane" until they actually get caught and start shouting Geneva.

 

[Sean951]

Flamethrowers decimate pill boxes if you are able to get close enough, and in WWII we could and did. Shooting a flamethrower into a bunker led to the entire bunker running out screaming because they were on fire, bunker done, on to the next target. Unless you can throw a grenade directly into the bunker, nothing else will even come close ("bunker buster" not included).

Side note: Water boarding is not "pouring water". It is an attempt to drown the person in a controlled manner and leads to rather poor intelligence. People will say anything to get you to stop. Even Khalid Sheikh Mohammed didn't give up his most valuable intelligence under torture, but did under standard interrogation techniques.

 

[Daverson]

If you're talking about the old "whumphf" and then a huge fireball comes out the barrel, like were used back in WW2, then, no. Since the advent of the man-portable rocket launchers they're obsolete. Why bother getting within spitting distance of an enemy fortification to fill it up with fire when you can get an RPG in from a few hundred meters away, the end result's going to be pretty much the same anyway. Add in that most shoulder mounted launchers are a hell of a lot lighter than conventional flamethrowers (the M2 flamethrower used by the US army in Korea was about 30kilos fueled up, whereas the M9 Bazooka only weighed about 7kilos).

That said, there are plenty of modern derivatives of flame throwers in use by armed forces today, the most famous probably being the MOAB [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOAB] (and I still maintain that "Massive Ordinance Air Blast" is the real backronym here =p ), but there are plenty of other thermobaric weapons used, as well as Napalm based weapons such as the M202 FLASH [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M202A1_FLASH].

 

[captaincabbage]

Only in video games.

I'm still waiting to see a "Perfect" flamethrower. One that simulates liquid and fire, projecting it over long range and blanketing everything you vaguely aim at in fire.
Probably the closest to my vision if Killzone 2 and 3's flamethrower. It was pretty freakin' badass.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

Being the devils advocate here, the flamethrower is effective because they're dirt cheap to maintain. And a flamethrower is incredibly effective when going for a scorched earth kind of battle plan.

Not only that, not everyone that gets shot dies instantly, in fact a lot of people have to suffer for a long time before they die if they get shot. Like the Jackal said in Far Cry 2, there is no right way of killing someone.

 

[EPolleys]

If memory serves me well part of the reason flame throwers existed in the first place was to attack your enemy's morale, not efficiency on the battlefield. Although they were used effectively for clearing tunnels in the Pacific. Even so they are an incredibly obsolete weapon by modern standards. I cannot remember how far they can... um... throw fire, but I guarantee you it won't go as far as any projectile. We have much better ways of delivering fire to our enemies feet anyway.
So no I suppose, I would not want them in use again, if only to keep a better weapon in the hands of armed forces everywhere and not because it's inhumane.

 

[Craorach]

Depends on the type of war you are fighting.

If you are fighting a "Hearts and Minds" campaign that depends on the good will of the people in a nation to defeat their opressive and dangerous leaders.. no, definately not. This sort of campaign you need to be exempliary. Every aspect of every soldier's behavior and your battle plans need to uphold the ideals you are claiming to represent.. you must be fair, just, honorable and obey the laws of war.

If you are fighting a more traditional campaign.. one where you are attempting to defeat the enemy by force of arms, there is only one way to fight it. You win, they lose, everyone and anyone who stands before you dies using whatever means needed. Along with your battleplans you must also include the most fearsome, humilitating and painful deaths possible to further your cause. There are no rules, and nothing out of bounds, defeat your enemy and scourge them from the earth.

 

[Midnight Crossroads]

Yes, flamethrowers should be legal for use in war. The psychological impact is far more useful than any practical application. Equip tanks -hell, even helicopters if it works- with them and paint them to look like dragons. If you can really stand your ground against an M1 Abrams painted to look like a demon from Hell shooting liquid fire, you're probably insane.

Except its bulky, and has a shitty range. A machine gun is far more deadly. Psychological warfare only works if the targets are low class civilians. If the target has reason, it will see right through scare tactics and you'll be dead. Hell, put the soldiers in a fight or die situation and fear will be irrelevant.

Actual tactics cannot be substituted for fear. Fear is an easily defeated weapon. It only works on lower class soldiers but if you meet a veteran or someone with sense then you're fucked.

A flamethrower tank? Talk about a free kill. A flamethrower helicopter? Talk about a wasted helicopter. Once you're up against vehicles, they won't stand a damn chance.

Yeah, that's kind of the point. Scaring civilians and lower class soldiers to not fight in the first place. The only practical use it would have is sucking all the oxygen out of caves. The real use would be giving anyone thinking of taking up arms against the US nightmarish images of them burning to death. Or their family getting those images and convincing them to not to fight. Let them think fighting is hopeless.

It's far better to win by not fighting than having to fight the battle in the first place. And if all that's left are veterans, their numbers will dwindle.

You are not scaring the whole army, just the cowards of the military which are the new recruits. You are using so much resources to effect only PART of the military while the rest of the military gun down your troops. Once they see your "fearsome flamethrowers" get their ass handed to them tenfold by soldiers, that fear is gone.

Fear is an easily broken weapon. Diversity of weapons is not. Hell the US military itself proved that fear can be broken in a variety of ways in WWII. All you need to have is to not panic and have reason. Smart soldiers are 10x more dangerous than anything else.

Yeah, new recruits. What I just said. And where did I say equip everyone with flamethrowers? Nowhere. There are dozens of ways to break people's resolve to fight. Flamethrowers are one, and the subject of this topic.

Anything can break the new recruits. You went far enough to eq1uip tanks and helicopters with flamethrowers. Making them useless. You actually went far enough to only effect the new recruits while making yourself vulnerable by wasting resources. If the only ones to fear are the ones with the flamers, and they are easily killed, then your army becomes a joke.

Yeah, and this is a thread about flamethrowers. It's in the title. So we talk about flamethrowers. Yeah, tanks and helicopters. They both operate closely with infantry where it would be most useful. In Vietnam they went so far as to put them on boats. And as for someone not being frightening because they're easily killed, tell that to the Japanese or Germans.

 

[Spade Lead]

No, there's a fine line between killing the enemy and making them suffer horrendously. Guns and bombs have the capability to do that, flamethrowers were pretty much designed to.

So are you one of those people that think it is barbaric that Americans still haven't signed the treaty that bans Napalm and other incendiary weapons?

I happen to think Napalm and Fuel-Air Explosives are great. The only thing about this discussion, I can't see flamethrowers having much use in a modern battlefield. Flamethrowers have a limited range compared to anything bigger than pistols. I just don't see how we would really be able to use them... Plus, yeah, they are kind of inhumane...

 

[Leemaster777]

the only reason we stop using these things is they suck at killing people. Shotguns have the same ability and are lighter.

From a purely practical standpoint, this.

Flamethrowers are bulky, unweildy, short-range only weapons. Besides the obvious danger to the user and everyone around them (as already stated, one stray bullet and kaboom), they're simply not effective weapons in combat.

They can't be quickly reloaded, they REQUIRE special protection to use, collateral damage is high, the list goes on, people.

Hell, the damn things aren't even good for taking out zombies. You set a zombie on fire, and then all you've got is a FLAMING zombie to run from now. That's SOOO much better.

 

[Ghengis John]

Reading up on the Battle of Sedan (1940) led me to wonder...

Question: are you in support of the illegality of the use of flamethrowers in the context of war (even asymmetrical war)?

Uh for the most part nobody uses a flame thrower for the sake of fun. People claiming it's inefficient have no idea how a flamethrower is supposed to be used. Do they really think an army is going to equip it's soldiers with weapons that have no purpose? It's a horrible way to kill somebody and the fuel provides the person carrying the flame (or the vehicle) with a lot of risk. That said, when an enemy is entrenched in a fortification, like a pillbox, there is nothing humane about the hundreds of soldiers they can kill. The flamethrower's chief purpose is knocking out entrenched foes. No army in the world is going to play nice during a war and not using a flamethrower is a fine way to see a lot of boys' lives ended needlessly for the sake of sparing the enemy "undue" suffering.

My uncle Albert was a flame specialist in WWII. He rode around on a flametank and from time to time hopped off to use a flamethrower. Which he once used on two Germans to save forty Canadians. I hate to reduce everything to math but the end result is still going to be a corpse. If you have a modern bunker busting weapon, more power to you but you're still getting a corpse.

War is in it's nature cruel and any attempt to make it more humane only prolongs it. There is an ethical line and a practical line, and while it's fine and certainly commendable to hold on to your ethics there comes a point where you have to be practical. Usually, when it's your life on the line you find the place to cross. My cousin Carlos is in the marines. We were discussing the Geneva convention and he was citing how little influence it would have in another world war. "You know, it's illegal to fire on paratroopers" I told him, "When there's 5 million Chinese dropping down from the sky, see if you don't point your gun up and start shooting." While I'd like to hope that situation is unlikely I also had to admit he made a pretty good point.

 

[Savvz]

Nothing better for clearing a house door to door. Very useful for urban warfare, humanity be damned.

And self sealing fuel tanks have been in use for a very long time. They don't spontaneously combust like in movies whenever they're punctured.

 

[Johnny Reb]

Call me sadistic, but i'd LOVE to see flamethrowers back in action...although a more compact advanced version. :/

that doesn't explode when shot at lol.

 

[Midnight Crossroads]

Yes, flamethrowers should be legal for use in war. The psychological impact is far more useful than any practical application. Equip tanks -hell, even helicopters if it works- with them and paint them to look like dragons. If you can really stand your ground against an M1 Abrams painted to look like a demon from Hell shooting liquid fire, you're probably insane.

Except its bulky, and has a shitty range. A machine gun is far more deadly. Psychological warfare only works if the targets are low class civilians. If the target has reason, it will see right through scare tactics and you'll be dead. Hell, put the soldiers in a fight or die situation and fear will be irrelevant.

Actual tactics cannot be substituted for fear. Fear is an easily defeated weapon. It only works on lower class soldiers but if you meet a veteran or someone with sense then you're fucked.

A flamethrower tank? Talk about a free kill. A flamethrower helicopter? Talk about a wasted helicopter. Once you're up against vehicles, they won't stand a damn chance.

Yeah, that's kind of the point. Scaring civilians and lower class soldiers to not fight in the first place. The only practical use it would have is sucking all the oxygen out of caves. The real use would be giving anyone thinking of taking up arms against the US nightmarish images of them burning to death. Or their family getting those images and convincing them to not to fight. Let them think fighting is hopeless.

It's far better to win by not fighting than having to fight the battle in the first place. And if all that's left are veterans, their numbers will dwindle.

You are not scaring the whole army, just the cowards of the military which are the new recruits. You are using so much resources to effect only PART of the military while the rest of the military gun down your troops. Once they see your "fearsome flamethrowers" get their ass handed to them tenfold by soldiers, that fear is gone.

Fear is an easily broken weapon. Diversity of weapons is not. Hell the US military itself proved that fear can be broken in a variety of ways in WWII. All you need to have is to not panic and have reason. Smart soldiers are 10x more dangerous than anything else.

Yeah, new recruits. What I just said. And where did I say equip everyone with flamethrowers? Nowhere. There are dozens of ways to break people's resolve to fight. Flamethrowers are one, and the subject of this topic.

Anything can break the new recruits. You went far enough to eq1uip tanks and helicopters with flamethrowers. Making them useless. You actually went far enough to only effect the new recruits while making yourself vulnerable by wasting resources. If the only ones to fear are the ones with the flamers, and they are easily killed, then your army becomes a joke.

Yeah, and this is a thread about flamethrowers. It's in the title. So we talk about flamethrowers. Yeah, tanks and helicopters. They both operate closely with infantry where it would be most useful. In Vietnam they went so far as to put them on boats. And as for someone not being frightening because they're easily killed, tell that to the Japanese or Germans.

You keep going on about flamethrowers on this topic but we are no longer discussing that. Flamethrowers are the worst weapons invented. All it takes is a single tank or helicopter without a flamethrower to be around and that vehicle is done for. A new tank or helicopter is not something you could waste by slapping such a shitty weapon onto it. The Germans used flamethrowers, and the Japanese had suicide attacks. Both fear tactics and both failed in a fight or die situation.

Fear is a shitty weapon that does more damage to you then to your enemy. All it takes is one slip up and your entire momentum goes to shit. Once your momentum is gone, you might as well give up.

Flamethrowers are useless.

Yeah, I keep going on about flamethrowers because that's the topic at hand. If you're not discussing it, I see that's where the breakdown in communication is coming from.

I never said the tank would be used against another tank, did I? They weren't used that way historically, although flamethrowers have proven effective against vehicles as they tended to cook the crews inside. Many Germans reported that the weapon they feared the most was the flamethrower. The Japanese were slaughtered by it when they hid in deep caves and bunkers, just like the terrain of Afghanistan.

I'm not talking about a fight or die situation. I'm talking about creating a feeling of a no-win situation. If you think fear is a useless weapon, I'd like to point out the Invasion of Iraq where Iraqi soldiers were deserting by the thousands. An army nearly measuring a million strong gave up. They realized very quickly that a war against the Americans and her allies was hopeless. The fact is, if you lose momentum period, you're doing badly. I've had that drilled into my head from officers. At that point you switch tactics to gain it back. Implying I'm saying we should rely entirely on fear is ludicrous. But it does work wonders to break an opponent and scatter them. And it keeps any person sitting on the fence of the issue from tipping. One person afraid to join the cause of the insurgency in Afghanistan is a victory we don't have to earn at the risk of losing a soldier. I'm getting the feeling you seem to think all wars on won on battlefields.

Flamethrowers as psychological weapons are useful.

 

[MikailCaboose]

I dont like the idea of torturing someone by burning them to death. The death is slow and painful and it is not an efficient way of dispatching an enemy. Not to mention, if there is a flammable environment, the collateral damage would be high, not to mention the person wielding the flamethrower could be badly injured as well. So no. It's a bad idea to use a flamethrower in warfare, at least in my opinion.

The flamethrowers were very effective for the bunkers in the Japanese isles. Plus, the flames could be gotten farther than a hand-thrown grenade could be gotten, and was effective around bunker corners. It was actually one of the safer routes, so long as you didn't come under fire. Then you were pretty much screwed.

 

[alandavidson]

They are very useful for clearing out bunkers. Is there anything more effective at this task?

This:


Basically it shoots an explosive round into the bunker, killing or wounding all inside.

 

[Timedraven 117]

Being the devils advocate here, the flamethrower is effective because they're dirt cheap to maintain. And a flamethrower is incredibly effective when going for a scorched earth kind of battle plan.

Not only that, not everyone that gets shot dies instantly, in fact a lot of people have to suffer for a long time before they die if they get shot. Like the Jackal said in Far Cry 2, there is no right way of killing someone.

A Red V. Blue quote from sarge "there is just not enough time to in this world to everybody the curtisy of a good strangling."
besides in a bunker there is ammo and explosives so ya and in the jungle or anywhere else they will just shoot you

 

[Sean951]

Yes, flamethrowers should be legal for use in war. The psychological impact is far more useful than any practical application. Equip tanks -hell, even helicopters if it works- with them and paint them to look like dragons. If you can really stand your ground against an M1 Abrams painted to look like a demon from Hell shooting liquid fire, you're probably insane.

Except its bulky, and has a shitty range. A machine gun is far more deadly. Psychological warfare only works if the targets are low class civilians. If the target has reason, it will see right through scare tactics and you'll be dead. Hell, put the soldiers in a fight or die situation and fear will be irrelevant.

Actual tactics cannot be substituted for fear. Fear is an easily defeated weapon. It only works on lower class soldiers but if you meet a veteran or someone with sense then you're fucked.

A flamethrower tank? Talk about a free kill. A flamethrower helicopter? Talk about a wasted helicopter. Once you're up against vehicles, they won't stand a damn chance.

Yeah, that's kind of the point. Scaring civilians and lower class soldiers to not fight in the first place. The only practical use it would have is sucking all the oxygen out of caves. The real use would be giving anyone thinking of taking up arms against the US nightmarish images of them burning to death. Or their family getting those images and convincing them to not to fight. Let them think fighting is hopeless.

It's far better to win by not fighting than having to fight the battle in the first place. And if all that's left are veterans, their numbers will dwindle.

You are not scaring the whole army, just the cowards of the military which are the new recruits. You are using so much resources to effect only PART of the military while the rest of the military gun down your troops. Once they see your "fearsome flamethrowers" get their ass handed to them tenfold by soldiers, that fear is gone.

Fear is an easily broken weapon. Diversity of weapons is not. Hell the US military itself proved that fear can be broken in a variety of ways in WWII. All you need to have is to not panic and have reason. Smart soldiers are 10x more dangerous than anything else.

Yeah, new recruits. What I just said. And where did I say equip everyone with flamethrowers? Nowhere. There are dozens of ways to break people's resolve to fight. Flamethrowers are one, and the subject of this topic.

Anything can break the new recruits. You went far enough to eq1uip tanks and helicopters with flamethrowers. Making them useless. You actually went far enough to only effect the new recruits while making yourself vulnerable by wasting resources. If the only ones to fear are the ones with the flamers, and they are easily killed, then your army becomes a joke.

Yeah, and this is a thread about flamethrowers. It's in the title. So we talk about flamethrowers. Yeah, tanks and helicopters. They both operate closely with infantry where it would be most useful. In Vietnam they went so far as to put them on boats. And as for someone not being frightening because they're easily killed, tell that to the Japanese or Germans.

You keep going on about flamethrowers on this topic but we are no longer discussing that. Flamethrowers are the worst weapons invented. All it takes is a single tank or helicopter without a flamethrower to be around and that vehicle is done for. A new tank or helicopter is not something you could waste by slapping such a shitty weapon onto it. The Germans used flamethrowers, and the Japanese had suicide attacks. Both fear tactics and both failed in a fight or die situation.

Fear is a shitty weapon that does more damage to you then to your enemy. All it takes is one slip up and your entire momentum goes to shit. Once your momentum is gone, you might as well give up.

Flamethrowers are useless.

The Russians HATED the German flamethrowers during the Battle of Stalingrad. If you were behind a wall being hit by one, it found the cracks and got you anyways. The Japanese had a similar reaction to them in the Pacific. Fear as weapon can work quite well if you know how to use it. Vietnam is a perfect example of this. America won that war in almost every sense of the word, we caused more casualties and destruction than the North could handle, but the VC instilled a fear in the American public, and we wound up withdrawing. Not to say that we should have stayed, we shouldn't have been there in the first place.

 

[Aur0ra145]

Whatever kills the enemy and protects fellow countrymen and soldiers is alright with me.

 

[ScreamingNinja]

War. War never changes. Kill the enemy, no matter what.