Author Topic: The Weapons Stereotype Thread  (Read 105197 times)

Even though I could look this up myself, I might as well bump this thread because it's too useful to let die.

What happened to flamethrowers? You'd see them in war documentaries about WWII, the Korean War, and Vietnam, but after that they just seemed to disappear. Was there a treaty that deemed them unethical or something or were they just not effective weapons?
Also, most games and media seem to depict flamethrowers as a short-range weapon that just burns everything nearby with a huge flame (like this), but then this image always comes to mind. What were the differences in how these kind of devices worked?
« Last Edit: June 29, 2011, 08:11:47 AM by Qwepir »

Taking a wild guess here, I'm thinking that they were both unethical and ineffective. In Vietnam with a flamethrower, you could come *this* close to starting a huge forest fire that might destroy your base.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2011, 08:29:04 AM by Dnitro »

The guy is totally right, Btw, I own one of


and one of

They're fun. Haven't shot the Beretta in a while though.

Also, This is my main rifle

That person in the backround is not me

Even though I could look this up myself, I might as well bump this thread because it's too useful to let die.

What happened to flamethrowers? You'd see them in war documentaries about WWII, the Korean War, and Vietnam, but after that they just seemed to disappear. Was there a treaty that deemed them unethical or something or were they just not effective weapons?
Also, most games and media seem to depict flamethrowers as a short-range weapon that just burns everything nearby with a huge flame (like this), but then this image always comes to mind. What were the differences in how these kind of devices worked?
The Geneva Law. It also says that bullets used in war Must have a full metal jacket to prevent lead poisoning.

The Geneva Law. It also says that bullets used in war Must have a full metal jacket to prevent lead poisoning.
Flamethrowers don't shoot bullets, gj.

Also, another question: What is the role of Jeeps/Humvees/etc.? I know they're classified as "Light Tactical Vehicles" or something like that, but what do they do?
Games seem to treat them as fast-moving anti infantry platforms (with the exception of Company of Heroes, which portrays the jeep as more of a flanking unit for taking down MG and mortar teams or snipers) but I remember reading that they typically aren't even armored.

The Geneva Law. It also says that bullets used in war Must have a full metal jacket to prevent lead poisoning.
That's the "Geneva Convention", and it doesn't say that, and that's not what an FMJ cartridge does.
Also, another question: What is the role of Jeeps/Humvees/etc.? I know they're classified as "Light Tactical Vehicles" or something like that, but what do they do?
Transporting soldiers and providing a platform for an LMG, I suppose. Mainly transport.

That has always pissed me off when people pull back the slide, you only pull it back when you fired until you were empty.

That has always pissed me off when people pull back the slide, you only pull it back when you fired until you were empty.
No, you pull the slide if there's no cartridge in the chamber and the slide isn't already locked back. It chambers the first round in a magazine.

No, you pull the slide if there's no cartridge in the chamber and the slide isn't already locked back. It chambers the first round in a magazine.
Or if it is jammed.

What happened to flamethrowers? You'd see them in war documentaries about WWII, the Korean War, and Vietnam, but after that they just seemed to disappear. Was there a treaty that deemed them unethical or something or were they just not effective weapons?
Also, most games and media seem to depict flamethrowers as a short-range weapon that just burns everything nearby with a huge flame (like this), but then this image always comes to mind. What were the differences in how these kind of devices worked?
They're not really that useful any more, they were used during the two world wars to empty bunkers and complex emplacements quickly, which was fine and dandy because there wouldn't be civilians about, and killing civilians is what today's forces try their best to avoid. This is a problem because a lot more conflicts are happening in areas where civilians are present, so you can't run in and immolate everyone.

Flamethrowers have crazy ranges when the fuel is viscous enough and propelled with enough force. A liquid fuel on it's own propelled by compressed gas was insufficient and would limit the range, if the liquid was made viscous enough, it would leave the barrel as a consistent stream rather than a spray. The original composition named 'Napalm' was composed of Naptha (a petroleum-derived fuel) and Palmitic acid/Palmates (a fatty acid). Oh, and streams of Napalm were capeable of bouncing off walls and causing further immolation.

They were an effective psychological weapon as well as room-clearing device, fire scares people, and 10+ seconds of literal firehose does a good job of making opponents stuff themselves.

Taking a wild guess here, I'm thinking that they were both unethical and ineffective. In Vietnam with a flamethrower, you could come *this* close to starting a huge forest fire that might destroy your base.
Both points are correct to some degree, burning everyone to death in unholy flames that would stick and cause 2nd degree burns at minimum is sort of frowned upon these days. That, and whilst 10 seconds of burning horror is more than enough for one emplacement, it's a lot of weight for a pretty small period of use. That, and the compressed contents would spray out and likely ignite if the flamethrower's tanks were shot.

Well, time to teach about throwing knifes :D


They're not really that useful any more, they were used during the two world wars to empty bunkers and complex emplacements quickly, which was fine and dandy because there wouldn't be civilians about, and killing civilians is what today's forces try their best to avoid. This is a problem because a lot more conflicts are happening in areas where civilians are present, so you can't run in and immolate everyone.
They were also used in Korea and Vietnam. In Vietnam they were used to burn forestry and empty foxholes and tunnels by exhausting the air supply, heating the tunnels, and filling them with smoke, killing all occupants unlucky enough to not get out in time.

Can anyone guess what is wrong with this picture?

It's not set upright?

Can anyone guess what is wrong with this picture?

It's not pointing downrange?