Poll: Flamethrowers...
- Thread starter SckizoBoy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Other than the obvious stuff that everyone else has mentioned, aren't they also REALLY impractical? I mean they can't exactly be very light, and also you'd have to carry around a fuel tank and one wayward bullet could make an unexpected fireworks party for the user.
Well with flamethrowers you essentially introduce torture till death, in a world where torture is not condoned at all...
Using it pretty much makes you one of the sickest bastards to have ever lived.
Using it pretty much makes you one of the sickest bastards to have ever lived.
Im quite sure it would be more cost effective not to, and then again have you seen the lethal weapon flame thrower scene, im not so sure on the practicality's of them, what do you think will happen if the user gets hit with armor piercing bullets in the fuel tank, i doubt that will be pretty and im sure there would be multiple casualty's. On a side note aren't flame throwers very limited on range, and of course very heavy.
And heres another question whats more expensive, fuel or bullets?
edit: alright i guess most of my points are false judging by the above.
note im just going on assumptions here i know jack all hard facts about weaponry.
And heres another question whats more expensive, fuel or bullets?
edit: alright i guess most of my points are false judging by the above.
note im just going on assumptions here i know jack all hard facts about weaponry.
Fuel is far cheaper, bullets are fairly expensive even bought in bulk. 5.56 ammo bought in bulk is about $.22 a round.zidine100 said:
they're a little... unnecessarily dangerous to the people strapped into them...
if siphon filter 1 taught me anyway, it's that the only way to kill a guy with a flamethrower guy is to shoot him in the tank and make him EXPLODE... 1 skilled sniper and you flood a foxhole with napalm... joy
also sort of seems like notcing bayonets on the western front... both sides unanimously agreed not to do it because it's just too damn horrendous
besides, once the "good guy" army has flamethrowers, so will the "bad guy" army, except they'll be shoddier and blow up more (in the faces of the good guys who they've had to get close to so they could use the flamethrower in the first place)
if siphon filter 1 taught me anyway, it's that the only way to kill a guy with a flamethrower guy is to shoot him in the tank and make him EXPLODE... 1 skilled sniper and you flood a foxhole with napalm... joy
also sort of seems like notcing bayonets on the western front... both sides unanimously agreed not to do it because it's just too damn horrendous
besides, once the "good guy" army has flamethrowers, so will the "bad guy" army, except they'll be shoddier and blow up more (in the faces of the good guys who they've had to get close to so they could use the flamethrower in the first place)
I could only see it being used in guerilla/urban warfare.
And no, let's not use it. I know it's inhumane.
But I can't really get a discussion going about what's humane or not in WAR.
But this is a whole other end of the spectrum now is it.
And no, let's not use it. I know it's inhumane.
But I can't really get a discussion going about what's humane or not in WAR.
But this is a whole other end of the spectrum now is it.
What's effective is effective.If it proves to be helpful to your armies and manages to give you the upper hand then lives of your men are saved.
Frankly,the only reason someone should consider against the flame is the danger of carrying a gas tank of sorts on hand.
Frankly,the only reason someone should consider against the flame is the danger of carrying a gas tank of sorts on hand.
Rules have NOTHING to do with, Mutually Assured Destruction on the other hand...Eric Huntinton said:
Country X knows that if it sends 1 ICBM at country Y, Countries A-W will all fire off their nukes at the nations they are not happy with, at that point most likely country X. That generally leads to problems... And yes, I consider total Nuclear Annihilation of all First world nuke-holding states as a problem.
OT: While there are few situations at which a flame-thrower excels, it REALLY excels in said situations. Want to clear out a bunker? Want that outpost downwind to suffer an "Accidental grass fire"? Want to incite maximum fear in your enemies? Want to incinerate a fortified region? Few things will do the job as... efficiently. Besides, a few litres of napalm is cheaper than heavy ordinance, and in the right conditions, a liberal spraying will clear a region of anything you don't want to exist.
And while I am heavily opposed to war, I think that the rules for it are stupid. It should not be illegal to assassinate heads of state if they are evil bastards, it should actually be the first course of action if diplomacy fails.
And weapon restrictions mean nothing, in the end, war is not about who is right, but who is left. And if you are in a war, I guarantee that you are not going to hold back against a hated enemy because some convention made by nations that themselves do not always follow it says you must.
When a flame thrower isn't completely impractical(as it would be in an urban scenario)it's needlessly cruel.
Besides, I remeber hearing somewhere that when flamethrowers were used, the operators were usually the first gunned down by the enemy due to the dangerousness of the weapon, so all that would be acomplished is making life even riskier for our troops overseas.
Besides, I remeber hearing somewhere that when flamethrowers were used, the operators were usually the first gunned down by the enemy due to the dangerousness of the weapon, so all that would be acomplished is making life even riskier for our troops overseas.
Guys, you realize that you can equip vehicles with flamethrowers right? They've been doing it since WW2, and in Vietnam they managed to squeeze out a range of 170 meters using napalm. We've advanced a bit since WW2.
"Think for a moment about flamethrowers. Flamethrowers- we have them. Well we don't have them, the army has them. That's right... the army has all the flamethrowers. I'd say we're fucked if we have to go up against the army, wouldn't you?
Well think about the fact that we have flamethrowers, the very fact that we have them meant that somebody somewhere said to himself "Gee, I'd sure like to set those people on fire over there, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done. If only I had something that would throw the flame on them!"
Well it might have ended right there, until he mentioned it to his friend. His friend, who was good with tools, and he comes back a month later "Hey, quite a concept!" *FLOOOOOOPH!!*
And of course the army hears about it and goes "We have some people we'd like to throw flame on. Give us about five hundred thousand of them please.""
Well think about the fact that we have flamethrowers, the very fact that we have them meant that somebody somewhere said to himself "Gee, I'd sure like to set those people on fire over there, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done. If only I had something that would throw the flame on them!"
Well it might have ended right there, until he mentioned it to his friend. His friend, who was good with tools, and he comes back a month later "Hey, quite a concept!" *FLOOOOOOPH!!*
And of course the army hears about it and goes "We have some people we'd like to throw flame on. Give us about five hundred thousand of them please.""
At some stage somebody said to themselves "i'd really like to set those people over there on fire, i'm just not close enough to get the job done" and thus the flamethrower was created
Guess the main difference would be the cost per kill. Vietnam it was about 30,000 bullets per kill, but that includes probing by fire supressive fire stuff like that. But so far I cannot find any info on flamethrower casualties and gallons used.zidine100 said:
I think the thought of fighting dragons is what would get to them moreMidnight Crossroads said:
OT: I don't see a problem with their usage. It isn't like biological warfare when you cannot control it's use outside of a battlefield. Cruel, yes. But last I checked, war was.
EDIT: I wonder what the fantasy version of this would be?
No Evocation Wizards and blaster-caster Sorcerers?
No more Hellfire Warlocks?
Flamethrowers are one of the most inhumane weapons ever conceived, which is why I fully support their use.