The Uselesness of Flamethrowers
- Thread starter PossiblyInsane
- Start date
It's a shock weapon. Seeing someone getting gunned to the ground is one thing...but to see someone roasted alive right in front of you is something else entirely. Not to mention if the enemy is holed up in a building, nothing gets them out again quite like a flamethrower to burn the place to the ground.
Forgive me for saying so, but you could probably have gotten your point across without resorting to an image of a destroyed cat.AWDMANOUT said:
I'd add a more on-topic response, but the original poster's question has been answered about 50 times already.
If this site had it, I would give you +rep for saying the gastank doesn't explode when shot. Too many people still think thatMidnight Crossroads said:
And I'll agree with what basically everybody else said around now: Flamers are used for scaring enemies and killing those entrenched positions.
Uh, no. As mentioned above several times, they have a range of about 80 meters, and are highly effective against infantry; especially infantry in fortifications of other confined spaces. And they used to be very effective against armor too. Flamethrowers in games are vasty underpowered, for the sake of balance.Jezzascmezza said:
Fear and close combat weaponry.
Basically, it was a weapon that you didn't need to stand and aim at someone to take them out, you could pump it through a doorway, in a window of even through a crack in the wall: thus spreading flame and heat through-out the building and removing oxygen from the air inside the structure.
Against Tanks or other enclosed metals it produced a furnace like effect... literally turning the Tank into a oven... and the crew inside would be cooked in their own juices (I know, gruesome, hence the reason they are prohibited now-a-days).
And they weren't dangerous to carry around.. the liquids inside the canister would NOT combust as soon as the outer guard was hit... they were two fluids in seperate tanks, that when mix and a heat source (i.e. the flame at the end of the weapon) was introduced it would create the stream of flame.
Newer weapon types provide a better effect, like White Phros. or AP (Armour Piercing) / HEAT (High Explosive Anti Tank rounds) which either tore straight through the armour and created a shrapnel spread inside the Tank, either destroying systems or killing crew... which negated the need for flamethrowers.. that and Bunker Buster Bombs.
The bonus of being a Combat Engineer... we get taught alot of crap
Basically, it was a weapon that you didn't need to stand and aim at someone to take them out, you could pump it through a doorway, in a window of even through a crack in the wall: thus spreading flame and heat through-out the building and removing oxygen from the air inside the structure.
Against Tanks or other enclosed metals it produced a furnace like effect... literally turning the Tank into a oven... and the crew inside would be cooked in their own juices (I know, gruesome, hence the reason they are prohibited now-a-days).
And they weren't dangerous to carry around.. the liquids inside the canister would NOT combust as soon as the outer guard was hit... they were two fluids in seperate tanks, that when mix and a heat source (i.e. the flame at the end of the weapon) was introduced it would create the stream of flame.
Newer weapon types provide a better effect, like White Phros. or AP (Armour Piercing) / HEAT (High Explosive Anti Tank rounds) which either tore straight through the armour and created a shrapnel spread inside the Tank, either destroying systems or killing crew... which negated the need for flamethrowers.. that and Bunker Buster Bombs.
The bonus of being a Combat Engineer... we get taught alot of crap
I recall a quote from the great George Carlin (RIP), as posted on the signature of a friend of mine on Deviant Art.
"The very existence of flame throwers proves that at some point, somewhere, someone said to themselves 'I really want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just too far away to do it...'."
And that's all I have to say on the matter. Flamethrowers can be very useful, anyway, especially when it comes to burning the evidence...
"The very existence of flame throwers proves that at some point, somewhere, someone said to themselves 'I really want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just too far away to do it...'."
And that's all I have to say on the matter. Flamethrowers can be very useful, anyway, especially when it comes to burning the evidence...
In fact, I love ising flamethrowers in WAW, it's just so satisfying to see them burn.Skeleton Jelly said:
....
What?
The phycological effect of possibly dying in a horrific way was a reason. It was also used against the "not one step back" system the japaniese used, where small pockets of hardened resistance would hold out until they died regardless of anything else, the flamethrow was pointed down the air vent for these bunkers and blasted. Source was the videos i watched in history class.PossiblyInsane said:
Second reason, people use the environment. This is veitnemiese and japanese here and as such where used in both wars. Guy hides in a bush/trees. There are a million bushes in pretty much every direction. Shoot every bush? Or burn the bushes to the ground with a good sweep of the thrower.
Would you mind editing your post to remove the shock images please?, I've done the original but thought I'd let you do your own for the community!-Drifter- said:
Adorable kittens!
OT The point of gas flamethrowers was for the fire to go round corners, good in the Vietnam war for those tunnels and for WW2 bunkers, I think the Germans preferred liquid based flamethrowers because they had a farther reach.
Napalm was invented because the higher ups wanted something that effective without putting troops dangerously close to getting hurt.
I think flamethrowers spewed forth flamable liquid which would stick to the tank whilst on fire increasing the temperature inside the tank to ungodly levels forcing them to evacuate or roast.firedfns13 said:
PossiblyInsane said:
Several reasons flame-throwers were quite common in the early 20th century yet now virtually non-existent:
-cheap: they are quite simple in design, just a load of plumbing, any country could make one and the flammable fuel for it was usually cheaper than the expense of ammunition (precision casting each brass case, each lead bullet and each carefully measured gunpowder load).
-Range: not the biggest concern as back then weapons with poor sights and archaic marksmanship training practices (emphasis on prone shooting, useless in a stand-up fight) meant most soldiers would be lucky to hit a target beyond a flame-thrower's maximum range.
-Technological niche: before sub-machine gun and assault rifle technology matured in price and reliability, flame-throwers were ideal close range weapons, like storming a trench or tunnel system. It was also more versatile as you just have to shoot it down a hole and everyone in the hole dies, shoot at the entrance of a machine-gun nest and everyone dies.
-FEAR: this was a weapon that had great psychological threat, very effective against conscript forces that were more common in the EARLY 20th century, often with poor training they had no idea the range or how to counteract flame-throwers so they panic and suffer worse losses.
-intention: in the early 20th century, property destruction was almost as important as killing the enemy. People holed up in buildings it was considered acceptable to burn the entire building down and the up-side was the enemy couldn't occupy it again.
Why flame-throwers died:
-too visible: This was noticed by the US marines in Iwo Jima, the second a flame-trooper lights up everyone within 2000 meters knows EXACTLY where a flame-trooper is. That draws sniper fire, machine gun fire but most deadly was mortar fire. That's why flame-troopers suffered the highest casualties, everyone was shooting at them! And everyone hated flame-troopers.
-New Weapons: the invention of compact and lightweight rocket launchers negated the flame-thrower's last niche, as they could launch a bomb right onto or into a foxhole or bunker from a much safe distance rather than in the past where a flame-trooper would have to implausibly sneak extremely close to channel the flame through the opening. Also, personal weapons now had huge capacities, fast fire rates and sights+training to be very accurate at long range, and flame-throwers could not be improved to match that.
-Weight: there is no getting around the fact that flame-throwers are very heavy as the fuel itself cannot be lightened. But as trooper are burdened with more and more equipment from body armour to personal radios to specialist weapons as well as their personal weapon... flame-thrower became impossible
-too much collateral damage: both against the enemy and if the tank ever gets hit incinerating anyone around or near it. It was a big, heavy liability. In the latter half of the 20th century when it became expected that conquering armies pay to clean up their mess, weapons that create that much destruction were discouraged.
-loss of edge: flame-thrower has lost it's psychological edge, it is no longer new and there are scarier things on the battlefield. Most armies now are volunteer (yes, even the Taliban are volunteer, though motivated by insanity, lies and extremism) which are harder to scare as they are not fighting against their own will.
-Propaganda: I think the biggest reason most flame weapons have gone is propaganda, it serves invading armies to not seem too brutal, and death by incineration can't seem like anything other than the worst possible way to die. Not like being shot. So it goes and other sides do the same as even the enemy are fighting a propaganda war. In this connected and democratised world it doesn't matter so much what you do, but what your are perceived to do.
Psychological warfare. As weapons go, death by flamethrower is a pretty fuckin' terrifying thought.