Not napalm, I have a pretty good idea of what that was used for. (Yech.) But what about flamethrowers, the man-portable kind and the bigger ones? What are those actually used for? Have they ever actually been used? How are they preferable to regular guns or artillery?
Real answer: clearing buildings by setting them allight.
Trick answer: Killing flies, since flies are more common than foxes, and they don’t even look pretty when you shine a light through them.
Flamethrowers are quite handy for getting rid of pesky enemies holed up in caves and bunkers and such. The U.S. Marines made excellent use of them during the Pacific campaign during WWII. Beat satchel charges and the like by a mile. Fry 'em, then bulldoze over the hole. No sweat. The tanks are a bugger to hump around, though.
Yup. Storming bunkers, etc. Not only does the enemy fry, but they can’t even see to shoot back.
I hate war.
I think one thing you have to consider is that the range is much longer than Hollywood or video games would have you believe. I know absolutely nothing about them, but I believe I heard somewhere that modern flamethrowers have more than a 100ft range. That’s pretty far for a huge gout of flame. But then again, I pretty much pulled that number out of my ass, can someone give a more specific figure?
CaptBushido you pulled a 100 foot flame out of your ass!
I think that would even impress lieu
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica World War II man-portable flame throwers had a range of about 45 yards, so we’re actually talking about a 135-foot flame out of CaptainBushido’s ass. They had enough fuel for 10 seconds of continuous operation. Tank-mounted flame throwers had ranges of more than 100 yards, and carried enough fuel for 60 seconds of fire.
Man, burning must be a horrible way to die.
I remember seeing a video where there was a scared, half naked japanese hiding in a cave.
US soldiers had the flame thrower guy come in and literrally, burn him out. Sure enough, the guy came stumbling out, confused, and trying to smile (as he was probably scared to death).
You could see his flesh sizzling, and peeling off. The Us marines appeared to be laughing. I don’t know if they were or not for sure though, it may have just seemed that way.
Regardless it was pretty horrendous.
War IS terrible.
Yeah, even vampires aren’t too fond of it, and they generally don’t complain about anything.
Just chiming in to point out Geroge Carlin’s take on the invention of man-portable flamethrowers. Excerpt from an excerpt:
Quite a plausible explanation, IMHO.
At the recommended distance, does the flamethrower actually spray a flammable material on the unfortunate or do the flames just “lick” them?
Toasting the bride and groom?
I think the flamable material (napalm) is actually being sprayed on the target, Charlemagne.
Nasty stuff, that Napalm…it burns, sticks to whatever it touches, and, being oxygenated, can’t really be extinguished until it burns itself out.
And it smells like victory. 
Fuck.
Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck.
I very much doubt they were laughing it up, but thanks for putting that slant on the USMC, just in case people were beginning to think the “Devil Dogs” had lightened up or something. :rolleyes:
IIRC, the people weren’t across the road, they were outside the walls and out in the harbor of Constantinople where somebody came up with the neat idea of blasting them flaming fluids. The Greeks used it last in 1453 in their losing battle with the Turks. After the battle the body of the last Byzantine emperor was identified by his purple slippers, but the formula for Greek Fire was not recovered.
The modern flamethrower was invented for use in the trenches of World War One. It differed from its Byzantine ancestor in that it was now an offensive weapon, not defensive, due to its mobility. One of you lugged the tank while your buddy trained the nozzle on your victims. But you had to be sure and get back to your own lines before running out of fuel - Soldiers aren’t inclined to take flamethower operators alive as prisoners.
As for nasty ideas, Frank Zappa’s dad was on the team of chemist who came up with the idea to add nauseating skin agents to nerve gas, so soldiers would have to choose between drowning in ther own barf-filled gas masks, or taking them off and dying from the nerve agent itself.
Other rotten ways to die in battle include being killed by flying body parts, bone fragment, teeth, etc. of your buddy who took the direct hit. Or you can take a crippling hit in the leg, and your enemy will train fire on you as you try to limp to safety, since they’re as scared shitless as you are and easiest targets are always the first one chosen, and also because its easier to shoot someone in the back than when they’re facing you.
Maybe this is why I can’t give a shit about the swaggering psudo-warrors in the NFL or the WWF.
Flame-throwers are used to encourage the bad guys to stop fighting. Their use is so visible that everyone all around knows they are in the area.
They send a message, “come out or die this way.” As a result, many choose to surrender.
I know of no nation that currently fields a man-portable (or vehicle-mounted) flame-thrower. They were used (by the Americans) in Vietnam, but not since.
Did the flamethrowers help to suffocate a holed-up enemy?
-k
Oh, please come down.
I’m only reporting what I saw.
They certainly appeared to be laughing. Maybe it was nervous laughter, maybe just a nervous expression that looked like smiling/laughing.
I pointed out that I could be wrong.
It was a terrible scene, as are all scenes of war.
I wish I had a link to more info on the clip, but unfortunatley I don’t. It’s a well known clip, I’m certain of it, since I have seen it severla times usually in historical programs detailing the US - Japan conflict of WW2.
Sincerely, thanks for sharing. If people actually knew, they would not be so rash in their quick judgements.