User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 9:27:33 AM EDT
I think it is time to bring back the flame thrower.
It is vital to win the war on terror. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 9:32:33 AM EDT
[#1]
Oh hell yes!!! I think they should also bring back napalm.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 9:32:56 AM EDT
[#2]
eh
i don't know. they are great show weapons like during a parade or what not but in real life you just have to be so damn close. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 9:34:06 AM EDT
[#3]
And the tank version!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 9:38:38 AM EDT
[#4]
Are we fighting against spiders and wasps now?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 9:39:46 AM EDT
[#5]
I trained on this wonderful device at Fort McClellan, AL in 1971. My thought then was since you couldn't fire it very well from behind cover and had five gallons of gelled gasoline on your back, what could possibly go wrong. Tracked vehicle mounting made it a viable weapon at least back 45 years ago,
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 9:40:02 AM EDT
[#6]
0351 never went away
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 9:41:00 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are we fighting against spiders and wasps now? You never know. Be prepared for everything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 9:41:26 AM EDT
[#8]
Track or UGV mounted, I wouldn't want to hump that thing
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 9:42:58 AM EDT
[#9]
< CoC1 violation removed. -- BB >
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 9:47:48 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: < CoC1 violation removed. Please edit quotes that contain CoC violations. -- BB > Reported  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 9:53:04 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are we fighting against spiders and wasps now? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 9:55:25 AM EDT
[#12]
I don't want to stand next to the poor sob running it
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 9:59:13 AM EDT
[#13]
Fine with me. They should bring back napalm, land mines, and total war while they are at it. No more of this pussified, half ass, politically correct warfare.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 10:00:47 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
0351 never went away Tag even tried to get some for us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 10:17:44 AM EDT
[#15]
We had one in my Army Reserve Armory, gathering dust in the rack, when I joined in 1984. Had a stack of manuals for it in a huge wall locker, all sorts of manuals for crap that no-one had seen in years. (Also a manual for a 1873 trapdoor carbine converted to a line thrower. Manual was dated early 1970's. I asked the CW4 in my unit if we had one of those and he just cracked a grin.).
Is it true that flame-thrower use was ended via an executive order from Jimmy Carter, of all people, after the Viet Nam war ? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 10:21:35 AM EDT
[#16]
I say yes, it will save money on MRE and food, as we can eat the dead since they are cooked
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 10:27:47 AM EDT
[#17]
Everyone knows the flamethrower army man was the coolest.
You line him up against Bazooka Joe, or the stupidass radio guy, then melt them with magnifying glass flames. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 10:30:49 AM EDT
[#18]
Ah, something says "'Murica" when you see a Zippo tank named "Brisket" rolling through the 'hood whooshing out liquid flaming death.
Snackbars meet BBQ. Smells like pork? What irony. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 10:53:57 AM EDT
[#19]
Flamethrowers are the question, and yes is the answer
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 11:04:27 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Flamethrowers are the question, and yes is the answer I got a fever, and the cure is flamethrower. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 11:15:13 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I say yes, it will save money on MRE and food, as we can eat the dead since they are cooked Not to mention allow the cows, pigs, goats... It will be BBQ day everyday. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 11:18:36 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Everyone knows the flamethrower army man was the coolest. https://img0.etsystatic.com/000/0/5491764/il_570xN.244373636.jpg You line him up against Bazooka Joe, or the stupidass radio guy, then melt them with magnifying glass flames. yep. He always fucked up Bazooka Joe 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 11:19:57 AM EDT
[#23]
We should totally have flamethrower tanks.
That way, when we have an election and the next progressivist president pulls us out of a warzone and leaves a bunch of retards in charge of all our sweet gear and they get routed and all their gear stolen, the next ISIS will have really neat toys to burn people alive with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 11:27:23 AM EDT
[#24]
My poll choices sound like the girls I've had over.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 12:56:21 PM EDT
[#25]
The flame thrower: created in response to the need to set those guys way over there on fire!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 1:01:54 PM EDT
[#26]
Modernized, high-pressure flamethrower + CROWS = vehicle-borne awesome.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 1:23:50 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Tag even tried to get some for us. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
0351 never went away Tag even tried to get some for us. They asked for them during Fallujah to burn all the dead bodies laying in front of US lines. Too many flies and people getting upset about the dogs and cats eating the dead, but that was turned down because of the optics of using flame throwers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 1:34:55 PM EDT
[#28]
M202 Flash was supposed to replace the flamethrower. I saw it demonstrated one time and the demonstrator was scared shitless.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 1:42:18 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote Historythis put this on a Humvee & get it on 
napalm too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 3:47:12 PM EDT
[#30]
Remote controlled Flame tanks
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 3:52:56 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Remote controlled Flame tanks Yeah--you never know when a compound full of religious zealots will need to be taught a lesson. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 3:54:26 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Everyone knows the flamethrower army man was the coolest. https://img0.etsystatic.com/000/0/5491764/il_570xN.244373636.jpg You line him up against Bazooka Joe, or the stupidass radio guy, then melt them with magnifying glass flames. He was calling in an ass load of CAS and artillery. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 3:56:28 PM EDT
[#33]
We need a CAS plane that drops napalm and has a flamethrower on it.
Who cares if its faster then the flame and would catch itself on fire, it would be awesome 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 4:01:15 PM EDT
[#34]
One of our units burned a few bodies in '05. It was all over CNN. I can only imagine the shit storm that would arise from the inevitable video of PV1 Sixpack pouring fire into a building while the rest of his platoon 240'd and M4'd the flaming goataphiles that would come squirting out of the windows and doors.
That said I'm all for it and would totally keep one in the back of the truck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 4:03:55 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh hell yes!!! I think they should also bring back napalm. Napalm yes but I would not want to be the guy carrying a bunch of flamable gas on my back |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 4:41:14 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Napalm yes but I would not want to be the guy carrying a bunch of flamable gas on my back Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Oh hell yes!!! I think they should also bring back napalm. Napalm yes but I would not want to be the guy carrying a bunch of flamable gas on my back What's the matter, you Ape? Wanna live forever? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 4:49:02 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah--you never know when a compound full of religious zealots will need to be taught a lesson. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Remote controlled Flame tanks Yeah--you never know when a compound full of religious zealots will need to be taught a lesson. Indeed. There's plenty of them in the sandbox that could get a little toasty |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 4:54:04 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are we fighting against spiders and wasps now? Exactly the two things I want one for |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 4:57:08 PM EDT
[#39]
Casualty rates among WW2 flamethrower operators was very high.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 4:59:13 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Casualty rates among WW2 flamethrower operators was very high. Being the center of attention, I imagine so 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 5:00:57 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are we fighting against spiders and WASPS now? that's racist.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 5:02:30 PM EDT
[#42]
Does the technology exist to create a smaller and lighter flameflower but still have the same effects on target?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 5:03:16 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Casualty rates among WW2 flamethrower operators was very high. Which only makes sense given the nature of the fighting. Thankfully we haven't had any of those kinds of wars since. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 5:07:11 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does the technology exist to create a smaller and lighter flameflower but still have the same effects on target? Flame is mostly a psychological weapon except for when clearing people in bunkers via suffocation. One of the reasons NAPALM was done away with beyond the political was the fact that other than when hitting bunker its ECR was estimated to be around 5ms Thermobaric are the successor to the flame bombs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 5:16:24 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does the technology exist to create a smaller and lighter flameflower but still have the same effects on target? Sure, but would you want to carry one into combat? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 5:21:36 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Flame is mostly a psychological weapon except for when clearing people in bunkers via suffocation. One of the reasons NAPALM was done away with beyond the political was the fact that other than when hitting bunker its ECR was estimated to be around 5ms Thermobaric are the successor to the flame bombs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Does the technology exist to create a smaller and lighter flameflower but still have the same effects on target? Flame is mostly a psychological weapon except for when clearing people in bunkers via suffocation. One of the reasons NAPALM was done away with beyond the political was the fact that other than when hitting bunker its ECR was estimated to be around 5ms Thermobaric are the successor to the flame bombs. How are the effects of thermobaric munitions when used against reinforced bunkers? Does it need to be a shot to the firing port or entrance to take out everyone inside? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 5:32:43 PM EDT
[#47]
Naturally thermobaric are most effective if you get them inside the structure you are hitting, but you don't have to. They are significantly more effective than standard HE, and the RPG thermos warhead is best equated to the effect of a 155 HE round but with less fragments. If you get the round to impacts next to the loop holes/firing ports the effects will flow into the structure even if penetration did not occur
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 5:35:02 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sure, but would you want to carry one into combat? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Does the technology exist to create a smaller and lighter flameflower but still have the same effects on target? Sure, but would you want to carry one into combat? We stopped using gasoline years ago, the current Mk77 use Jet fuel so it does not have the same burst into flames if hit problem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 5:49:09 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We stopped using gasoline years ago, the current Mk77 use Jet fuel so it does not have the same burst into flames if hit problem. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Does the technology exist to create a smaller and lighter flameflower but still have the same effects on target? Sure, but would you want to carry one into combat? We stopped using gasoline years ago, the current Mk77 use Jet fuel so it does not have the same burst into flames if hit problem. But it's still a range-limited weapon. I don't doubt that they are much safer now. Just, why bother when you have thermobaric and pyrophoric options? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2015 5:49:18 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We stopped using gasoline years ago, the current Mk77 use Jet fuel so it does not have the same burst into flames if hit problem. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Does the technology exist to create a smaller and lighter flameflower but still have the same effects on target? Sure, but would you want to carry one into combat? We stopped using gasoline years ago, the current Mk77 use Jet fuel so it does not have the same burst into flames if hit problem. Wonder if that would work in the xm43?? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
