The Uselesness of Flamethrowers
- Thread starter PossiblyInsane
- Start date
Well there is an old saying, "When you really need something dead, kill it with fire!"
But in all seriousness what people have already said is true. With the trench warfare of WW1 the germans played around with ways to curve the war into there favor. Sure there was mustard gas but for that you needed a good windy day and many shells to form a large enough cloud to do any real damage. So then they tried ways to help clear the trenches, even with gernades and machine gun fire taking a trench was no easy task. So along came the flamethrower, it burned groups of enemies in seconds and if you didnt die right away you would be to busy burning to death to fight back. Thus the task of taking the trench became much easier, sadly for the germans the allied powers copied the concept quickly and turned it against them.
The flame thrower proved itself as an excellent weapon time and time again in many wars over the years, we'd probably still have it today if the geuniva convention didnt label it as an "inhumane weapon of war". Which is really kind of redudent when you think about it, but hey life goes on.
So to say that flamethrowers are useless is a bit foolish when one reviews its track record.
But in all seriousness what people have already said is true. With the trench warfare of WW1 the germans played around with ways to curve the war into there favor. Sure there was mustard gas but for that you needed a good windy day and many shells to form a large enough cloud to do any real damage. So then they tried ways to help clear the trenches, even with gernades and machine gun fire taking a trench was no easy task. So along came the flamethrower, it burned groups of enemies in seconds and if you didnt die right away you would be to busy burning to death to fight back. Thus the task of taking the trench became much easier, sadly for the germans the allied powers copied the concept quickly and turned it against them.
The flame thrower proved itself as an excellent weapon time and time again in many wars over the years, we'd probably still have it today if the geuniva convention didnt label it as an "inhumane weapon of war". Which is really kind of redudent when you think about it, but hey life goes on.
So to say that flamethrowers are useless is a bit foolish when one reviews its track record.
Meh, flamethrowers are outdated...
Thats why you want one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M202A1_FLASH
A four shot rocket launcher wich fire 66mm incendiary rockets!
Must say that seeing this makes me want to play serious sam again just to mess with the rocket launcher.
Thats why you want one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M202A1_FLASH
A four shot rocket launcher wich fire 66mm incendiary rockets!
Must say that seeing this makes me want to play serious sam again just to mess with the rocket launcher.
I think you misunderstood the quote. It's from the Robert Burns' poem "From Man was made to Mourn: A Dirge". The word 'Inhumanity' typically means "the state or quality of being inhuman or inhumane; cruelty."Billion Backs said:
Are you saying that it's okay for human beings to kill other human beings in your second sentence?
In close combat, the weapon is supremely lethal and able to clear entire bunkers and trench lines in mere seconds. More importantly, if you are like most living things, the idea of burning alive will terrify you meaning the use of flame weapons has a profound psychological impact upon the enemy.PossiblyInsane said:
And, just a note, zombies are not currently a problem that militaries around the world contend with.
Because being covered in third degree burns on one's arms, face and legs is not known to lead to death on occasion? Most people who are wounded in battle will inevitably survive, and in terms of lethality the machine gun is clearly king. More than half the people wounded by a machine gun will later die of their wounds compared to a fraction of that for artillery or rifle fire.Treblaine said:
The use of incendiary weapons was banned by the Geneva Convention. Specifically: Protocol 3 (Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons), Geneva 10 October 1980. It states:Treblaine said:
Incendiary weapon" means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. (a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances.
(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:
(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signaling systems;
(ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft
and installations or facilities.
Yeah, USA didn't sign that one. But it seems to abide by it anyway.Eclectic Dreck said:
"you can blow people's legs of with IEDs but toss a molotov cocktail... now that's a war crime"
War is insanity.
This also doesn't make clear if this can't be used against people or merely not ONLY against people. Like for example does this permit throwing a petrol bomb at a tank's radiator?
And what about a rioter in an occupied country, petrol bombs are common weapons but if they use them are they guilty of a war crime?
What's good about them? Well, imagine that a gang of criminals come up to you on the street at night and brandish knives and say they want your money and you take out your flamethrower and lets it rip and you say HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA and you'll get what's good about them.
Re-check what I was replying to:Eclectic Dreck said:
Gudrests: "if your hit with a flamethrower.... even an extremly small bit... that part of your body is forever ruined.
...
as soon as there touched, that's it. life is near over no matter what"
That's quite a hyperbole considering how well published the terrible injuries from IEDs are only how in the recent past they would NOT survive. It is only through the very most advanced modern medical technology that these people are surviving double and triple amputations.
People can survive extremely bad burns, I never said it it wasn't "known to lead to death on occasions", but we can't work in absolutes. Relatively, high-explosives are far worse than flame weapons on the battlefield and that's in terms of effectiveness, deadliness and how comparatively worse and painful/difficult to treat they are.
They are scary, gruesome and demoralizing weapons. They can suffocate you, set off unused munitions, clear out trenches, go around corners and are effective to about half the range of your standard SMG. They can eradicate anything you are upwind of without much effort and can destroy structures, electronics and vehicles very easily. Also less recoil, although I doubt that means much considering that you don't need to be accurate, guy above you, fire anywhere below him and watch him fry, guy below, fire over his head and wait for the suffocation. Also, treating burn wounds is not fun and receiving them even less so.