Poll: Flamethrowers...

[Hristo Tzonkov]

War is already inhumane enough.I don't understand what banning the flamethrower will do if it actually helps in a war situation (makes it end faster).A lot of people survive a bullet,shrapnel,mine,grenade(as previously mentioned tho you'll be likely maimed for life if you survive at all after the pains and horrors).I haven't heard of a lot of flamethrower survivors.

 

[Xan Krieger]

I think the banning of flamethrowers is stupid, just because they're not efficient doesn't mean they should be banned, just not used. If there is a way in which it's better then use it, so it hurts, that's part of war. If you go to war you risk getting hurt and banning a weapon just because it hurts more is stupid.

 

[Harkonnen64]

I don't think flamethrowers should be used again.

Not on any moral grounds, but because the fuel tank poses a risk to the user and there are much better contemporary weapons for close-to-mid range combat now.

 

[Reishadowen]

Flamethrowers also pose as psychological warfare, since it is a fearsome weapon.
Nobody wants to be burned alive, but on the other hand losing a leg due to sharpnel isn't humane at all.
Most weapons in the modern age, whenever real armies might clash are designed to mame the enemy and not kill them, so that after the war is over the injured will be a burden to society.
Have you seen a landmine? I have. There are hundreds of them in the Golan heights, it was once a ground were armies clashed. There are many forgotten minefields, and a few months ago a child stepped on one when travelling with his family. He lost his leg, but continued to live. The fact that he will become a burden to society as a crippled person was the intention behind the design of the landmine. These casualties of war are also an open voice that will protest the war in the public and thus begin to eliminate the greatest resource a democratic country has - public support.
You can't ban a weapon. "All is fair in love and war".
When needed, weapons will be utilized, even if they're inhumane. The reasons behind it are many, psychological warfare or the things mentioned above, but you cannot expect a country in war to follow rules of conduct. if this was fought by two gentlemen, then perhaps such rules would apply, but in an age with black ops, infiltrating another country and sophisticated espionage, you cannot limit warfare because such limitation will be broken.

Curse you, Iron ruler! For saying alot of the stuff I wanted to say!

Seriously, epic post.

Back to topic, if there is still a need for what flamethrowers could do, tactically speaking, that grenades and shotguns couldn't, then I'd be all for it in theory. However, I couldn't see it actually working for the following reasons:

First off, the tanks to carry the fuel for flamethrowers are pretty heavy. Maybe they could find a lighter source in this day and age though, so I guess it could be overcome.

Second, if your assault rifle gets damaged, or shot, the weapon could potentially cease to function. If a flamethrower is shot or damaged, it could potentially, you know, explode and stuff. I'm not exactly sure of the engineering involved, but I mean come on, it's an open flame and a tank of very flammable fuel on your back, do the math.

Third, a lot of our combat in this age seem to be air-strikes and the intelligence battle in tracking down terrorists. I'm sure the situation could change at any moment, and maybe the marines and Army rangers who made assaults on Taliban controlled towns would have a different view of that, but it is need and requirement that drive innovation. The psychological effect is probably the only thing the flamethrower could do that other weapons can't. Although, then we come to number 4...

Fourth: The media across the entire planet, and especially here in the United States, are such, big, crying, babies, about every tiny little thing the US military does. There was a storm of completely titanic proportions, about CIA agents slapping terrorists around a bit and pouring water on them a few years back. Could you imagine how inadequate the term "sh*t-storm" would be if these things were legalized?

 

[Candidus]

I would say that flamethrowers ought to be used on cave hideouts and the like, but I'm stopped by two things:

1) Expanding Napalm would be a much better tool for the job.

2) The remote possibility that chemical weapons could be cached inside a given hideout.

I fully support the use of incendiaries. I say no to flamethrowers because they're less useful than other, similar tools.

 

[manythings]

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

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.

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.
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.

Chlorine and phosphorous are a lot harder to direct, one change in the wind and your weapon can be a catastrophic liability.

I suppose it all depends on the kind of bunker we are talking about too. If we are talking the kind on the beaches of normandy (Trenches connecting hardened pillboxes) I would still take frag over fire as it would be immediately disruptive while a flamethrower would have to head in first and be vulnerable. If we're talking about something like an underground bunker an explosive is your friend again because of confined area trapping the concussive force while fire will have to be directed on a priority basis. If we're talking tunnels like a military complex I can see the benefits of flame units as a means of pushing forward but at medium range you're going to be hard pressed to over come cover fast enough to make progress.

 

[Scarim Coral]

Yeah I can really see flamethrower are more useful than bullets. Flamethrower lack the range when compare to a sniper. Well ok flamethrower are best suited indoor and in close range but it simply take a shot to the fuel tank to kill the person using the flamethrower?

 

[commodore96]

I think it is cruel, but if I was clearing out a cave of Terrorist I would love to shoot a couple fire balls in the cave before I went in. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure it was a common occurrence of Japanese to surrender in WW2 because of the fear of getting burned alive.

 

[HerbertTheHamster]

It's easier to gas the enemy.

 

[Chimichanga]

They are a tool. Truth, a tool that can be horribly misused, but the only good alternative to flushing high-vegetation areas and enemy entrenchments would be to either use something like Agent Orange or something like mustard gas.

Like all things in war, it's more of picking over lesser evils in grayscale.

 

[LCP]

It's an old case of, "you should be able to, but why would you want to?"

Flamethrowers are impractical.

 

[Darknacht]

Not only do they make dieing incredibly painful, there are more effective weapons. Also who wants to carry a tank of pressurized fuel on their back when people are shooting at you.

 

[Wicky_42]

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

Why not combine the two?
OT, there are weapons better suited to the roles of the flamethrower out there that aren't so hazardous to the user or so indiscriminate. I'm all in favour of cleaner wars with less civilian collateral, and setting people on fire doesn't factor into that. Of course, no war is better, but it's not like that' a possibility in these times.

 

[JochemDude]

The field of battle isn't suited for them anymore. Back in the day, yes maybe. Today, why would we. On moral... When was the last time war in itself was humane.

 

[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. Look at this thread to see their effectiveness psychologically. Half the people here don't know shit about flamethrowers. And the average Afghan is no different. Make them think they're up against a Legion from Hell and they're far less likely to think fighting them is a good idea.

 

[Wolf-AUS]

If you've seen what WP or nerve gas does to people I don't understand why you would even be asking this question, 7.62mm has enough brutality that it can scar people for life after seeing the injuries these rounds can cause.

It's true war is not humane by the very definition, but why should you go out of your way to cause untold pain to other people, not to mention the mental health problems operators develop because of what they are forced to do to fellow men, it's a hideous weapon that creates monsters out of men.

 

[Brightzide]

Flamers can go one of two ways on the battlefield. Pure, unadulterated pwnage. I mean, there is nothing nice or pleasant about killing people with fire...or at all for that matter. But on the battlefield thats your prime directive...also if your house is infested with spiders. And the other way, is a catastrphic accident. Do those fuel tanks actually blow up if shot?...hmmm. Anyway, they're very heavy and can slow down the wearer in a hot spot. And in an open environment, its practically game over. If im honest, if they were made alot smaller but still as potent. Either as wrist attachments or rifle/smg sized, then they'd be quite practical for close quarters fighting...you know, like most of modern conflicts. But they're just way too conditional as weapons go. Stick to your rifles troops. You'll live alot longer. Also, there's alot less collateral damage.

 

[BGH122]

Intentionally burning the enemy to death? Sounds inhumane to me.

Sounds like fun times to me!

Jokes apart, I'd have to see a very, very good reason for something as seemingly barbaric as a flamethrower in order to approve it.

 

[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.

 

[wolas3214]

Im sorry but if your fighting my country and killing my people, be damned moral obligations. I just my side to live, win and move on. If a flamethrower would help with that be damned their fiery death. Its nothing personal, its just what happens. they wouldnt spare me from the same fate if we had switched situations