The Uselesness of Flamethrowers

DeathsHands

New member
Mar 22, 2010
263
0
0
They were used for clearing fortifications and to deal with armour. Although more modern munitions kinda put a stop to 'em.
 

firedfns13

New member
Jun 4, 2009
1,177
0
0
DeathsHands said:
They were used for clearing fortifications and to deal with armour. Although more modern munitions kinda put a stop to 'em.
How'd they stop tanks?
Wouldn't a tank just roll straight through the flames and run the guy over?
 

toastmaster2k8

New member
Jul 21, 2008
451
0
0
Machine guns are good. but Flamethrowers are awesome and useful for clearing out Holes and Trenches. And Napalm ( Depending if that is what your using) Sticks well to skin and during the Zombie apocalypses, it would be good for extermination as it will probably incinerate the brain in a few seconds if used right and evan if it didn't kill them right off the bat there Skin and Muscle will burn up and char rendering there arms and legs useless. and it is probably best to try to burn the bodies as it is unknown if animals feed on it will turn it into one of them. and thats the last thing we need, Zombie cats flying around eating our eyes out. but I would take an M14 any day.
 

firedfns13

New member
Jun 4, 2009
1,177
0
0
dathwampeer said:
firedfns13 said:
DeathsHands said:
They were used for clearing fortifications and to deal with armour. Although more modern munitions kinda put a stop to 'em.
How'd they stop tanks?
Wouldn't a tank just roll straight through the flames and run the guy over?
He didn't say tanks. He said fortifications and armour. Not sure what he meant by armour but I doubt it was tanks.
Oh... I guess I misunderstood... because in modern day "Armor" implies tanks or APCs/IFVs.
 

captaincabbage

New member
Apr 8, 2010
3,149
0
0
I always thought it was as much for psychological warfare as it was for clearing bunkers and trenches.
You're not gonna feel too many when you watch a tanky G.I run over the mound of your trench and incenerate all of your friends whilst grinning with a fat cigar in his mouth.

It's a lot easier to blast your shoe under a tap to get dog shit off than to scrape it off with your fingernails.
 

Blue_vision

New member
Mar 31, 2009
1,276
0
0
firedfns13 said:
DeathsHands said:
They were used for clearing fortifications and to deal with armour. Although more modern munitions kinda put a stop to 'em.
How'd they stop tanks?
Wouldn't a tank just roll straight through the flames and run the guy over?
Molotov cocktails were originally designed as anti-tank weapons. I assume that the heat from the flames could destroy the engine or other finnicky systems, or flames and smoke kill the occupants.
 

photog212

New member
Oct 27, 2008
619
0
0
Blue_vision said:
firedfns13 said:
DeathsHands said:
They were used for clearing fortifications and to deal with armour. Although more modern munitions kinda put a stop to 'em.
How'd they stop tanks?
Wouldn't a tank just roll straight through the flames and run the guy over?
Molotov cocktails were originally designed as anti-tank weapons. I assume that the heat from the flames could destroy the engine or other finnicky systems, or flames and smoke kill the occupants.
Fire sucks the air out of the tank.
 

era81

New member
Jun 11, 2009
410
0
0
Sticking an M1 Garand through the window of a pillbox doesn't do shit if it has walls to hide behind fill the fucker up with fire and walls don't mean shit.But you must be one crazy son of a ***** to wanna wear a bomb on your back.
 

Kuhkren

New member
Apr 22, 2009
152
0
0
If they were useless, why would the Geneva convention ban them for use in warfare? They most certainly have their uses as highlighted by the posts above. Really scary and terrible weapons, but very effective in their purposes.
 

TheTaco007

New member
Sep 10, 2009
1,339
0
0
It's not quite as effective nowadays, but it used to be for clearing bunkers and trenches and things. Nowadays I'd only use it just cause fire is awesome.
 

captaincabbage

New member
Apr 8, 2010
3,149
0
0
firedfns13 said:
dathwampeer said:
firedfns13 said:
DeathsHands said:
They were used for clearing fortifications and to deal with armour. Although more modern munitions kinda put a stop to 'em.
How'd they stop tanks?
Wouldn't a tank just roll straight through the flames and run the guy over?
He didn't say tanks. He said fortifications and armour. Not sure what he meant by armour but I doubt it was tanks.
Oh... I guess I misunderstood... because in modern day "Armor" implies tanks or APCs/IFVs.
Actually in WW2, it was common tactics to use flamethrowers against tanks, since they were a lot slower, less protected and usually had fair sized viewing ports. That, combined with the flamethrower of the time, which used a combination of gasoline and tar, would wash over and coat the entire tank and it's fairly easy to imagine it gushing through all the crevices and holes in a WW2 tank.
 

captaincabbage

New member
Apr 8, 2010
3,149
0
0
TheTaco007 said:
It's not quite as effective nowadays, but it used to be for clearing bunkers and trenches and things. Nowadays I'd only use it just cause fire is awesome.
I'm still waiting for a good flamethrower in a game ^^

sumthin' like this :D
 

Isaac The Grape

New member
Apr 27, 2010
738
0
0
Blue_vision said:
Skeleton Jelly said:
Robert632 said:
I think part of it was fear tactics. Think about it. There are already bullets flying everywhere and artillery going off, but now some guy is running about lighting people on fire.That just scares the shit out of me.
Exactly. Apart from all the other ideas mentioned, scare tactics could be a main one.

Some flame throwers even throw flaming tar at you. So not only are the flames burning away at your body, but there's a layer of intensely heated liquid all over you. Your eyes will literally explode from your sockets, and your scalp will burn off from your head as you simultaneously suffocate from the loss of oxygen.

And imagine hearing that on the battle-field. Hearing your fellow soldiers cry out as they suffer probably one of the most painful deaths imaginable.

This is why I never use any fire oriented weapons in video games. I fear I would cause the NPCs too much pain.
...Unless you're playing TF2, in which you don't use flamethrowers because it'll cause you too much pain.
Unless you can ambush and proceed to get five kills without dying over a span of 3 minutes. This may be the most mediocre brag ever but I'm proud of it. So fuck you.
 

garfoldsomeoneelse

Charming, But Stupid
Mar 22, 2009
2,908
0
0
I'm sure it's been said multiple times in this thread, but since I can't be bothered to check, here are the practical applications of a flamethrower, OP:

-Anti-fortification. A machine gun can put bullets on a target that it's aimed directly at, but a flamethrower can fill an entire structure with flame. Nothing is going to get out of there alive (unless you're the exception, in which case you'll wish you weren't).

-Defoliation. A jungle environment makes for innumerable hiding places for your enemy to set up ambushes. Removing the plants means removing the cover.

-Anti-armor. Ineffective against modern armored vehicles, naturally, but back when it was in service, a stream of liquid fire would do a hell of nasty number on vehicles. Now, to everyone questioning the anti-armor capabilities of a flamethrower, it's worth bringing up the fact that even modern anti-tank weapons are designed to kill the crew, not obliterate the vehicle itself. The Russian RPG-7 uses a shaped charge to pierce a tiny hole in the armor, so that it can deliver a jet of superheated plasma into the cabin and flash-fry the occupants. Now, go back to the days before NBC armor, and consider the fact that a single opening the diameter of a coke can would be the only thing necessary to ruin the day of everyone inside.

-Psychological impact. This one is pretty self-explanatory. I can imagine the prospect of having your flesh charred as you burn alive tends to do funny things to a man's psyche. Being shot seems like a merciful fate in comparison.