Were flamethrowers actually an effective tool for warfare?

Were flamethrowers actually an effective tool for warfare?

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    War
    War never changes.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    yes.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes. Their rockets and other shit were trash. Flame flower was the best shit for dealing with people hunkered down in shit.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    unbelievably effective. flame throwers are still the most effective way of clearing out bunkers. due to laws of war, they can't be used in that capacity anymore though so instead of suffocating and dying within minutes when a flamethrower hits your bunker, you get a JDAM or dozer that buries you alive in your fortified position

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      JDAMs are such a gemini thing.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >due to laws of war
      This is why we haven't won a war in 80 years

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I think I can spot your IQ somewhere in your fine sentence

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        edgy.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      flamethrowers aren't illegal
      they stopped being used because they're ineffective/got replaced by thermobarics

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        flamethrowers are illegal to be used against personnel. they have legitimate use as defoliant

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          wrong
          the most you could argue is that not being able to use them in urban areas greatly limits their use case, but they are in no way illegal otherwise

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Flamethrowers are effective not just because fire hot but also because any fire eats oxygen in enclosed spaces correct?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Sucks the air out of caves and bunkers pretty effectively. If the cave is still making noise just demo the entrance.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    So-so. We ended up loosing a lot of men getting into flamethrower range and it was useless against anything other than an occupied building.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >and it was useless against anything other than an occupied building.
      I mean, yeah but that's all it's supposed to be used for.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I think I'd prefer to try grenades first. Smoke to blind the gunner and then frag through the gunport.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Grenade netting and grenade wells are a thing.

          You have now gotten gotten yourself shot for nothing.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No more than I would have getting into flamethrower range. Grenade sumps are less effective with bunkers. The roof traps the overpressure so the inhabitants still get hurt. Besides, getting into flamethrower position means getting into line of sight. I'd get sprayed down by the MG before the flames hit them. With grenades I can stay mostly in cover.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Were flamethrowers actually an effective tool for warfare?
    no

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes. Anyone who says no is a kid whose only knowledge is first person shooter Vidya.

    Flamethrowers are the best at what they are made to do. Start fires. They clear out enclosed spaces, trenches, caves etc with lightning speed. There's a reason every side in WW2 used them and it wasn't because they thought they were cool. In actual wars when some gay wants to hide in cover and refuse to come out you can lob grenades at them and hope you get lucky, or you can set their general area on fire and give them a face full of flames and smoke to deal with. At best it will blind them and force them to relocate and at worst it will straight up immolate them and give their friends something to think about as they listen to their comrades shrieking in agony.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    vehicle flamethrowers, maybe
    but man portable ones? they were heavy as fuck, had short range and a full tank provided you with maybe like, what, 10-15 seconds of fun time?
    also good luck if you were a flamethrower operator and got captured

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Do you think flamethrower troops marched in alone or something? I've seen these same arguments before and it's always people who don't seem to grasp that it's a support weapon.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The problem is that the flamethrower is both up in front and a priority target. You can't hide him in back like a machine gunner or sniper and every defending soldier is going to shoot him first.

        Worse, if the fuel tank gets punctured then it'll soak everyone nearby in flamable oil and any tracer or grenade could set it off.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    the flamethrower in rtcw looked amazing

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What about "flamethrowers"? Seems like an incendiary rocket has all the benefits and none of the drawbacks of a flamethrower.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *