Advertisement
by Gallia- » Tue Dec 29, 2015 11:45 pm
by Spirit of Hope » Tue Dec 29, 2015 11:53 pm
Vortukia wrote:Spirit of Hope wrote:
Flame throwers hayday is in the past.
Yes flamethrowers are scary, but not enough that well trained troops are going to just run away from them. To get close enough to use a flamethrower you have to be well within the enemies rifles and machineguns, and good troops will use that range advantage to make mincemeat of any flamethrowers. To use the flamethrower you must outmaneuver your opponents forces, and if you are doing that you would be able to push them back without it, it only makes your job a little easier.
Want to know what makes your job even easier? A LAW, or other rocket weapon. Trooper sees a bunker, pulls out his LAW and fires. Or calls for the platoon/company rocket/AT team who hit the bunker with their weapons.
Are LAW's potentially more expensive than a flamethrower? Only minimally, a flamethrower soldier requires completely different training from a regular rifleman, while the use of a LAW can be taught to every rifleman. Plus again, versatility. You probably want to issuing LAW's anyways because they can be used against armored vehicles, and helicopters. Where as a flamethrower can't really engage either of those.
You basically need to have the rocket weapons (LAW, AT-4, RPG-7) around anyways, and they will take out the bunker, or other fortified structure, more easily than the flamethrower. So why issue the flamethrower?
There are very few situations where a flamethrower is going to be able to provide capability some other weapons system you already have can't replace it.
Plenty, in a close quarters urban setting, a explosive device isn't always going to cut it. However a flamethrower not only solves it, but it's directional, to the point where you can comfortably roast a unit of soldiers through a window, where a LAW might propose damaging yourself.
Not to mention that a well trained soldier is taught to avoid perilous circumstances where the risk-strategic reward is against their interest or the mission interest. A flamethrower certainly would fall a HUMAN BEING back on fight of flight tactics. Soldiers again, as well trained as they are. They're still human, the inescapable truth is that we are weak willed in cases, a species is engraved to avoid fire. It's bad, you don't just walk towards a bonfire and stand in it, why? Because you die.
Seeing your buddy burned to a crisp in seconds, slowly dying and begging for mercy. That buddy that you have shared many battles with. Yeah, that'd take some PTSD on people, not to mention immediate emotional repercussions.
How about people hiding in shrubbery, or flora? You think a LAW is going to help get them out? Well sir I'd like to introduce you to the Japanese in WW2, and Viet-cong, it spreads, and does what fire does. It burns things, and it does it very well. Any good strategic thinker would pick a LAW, or a Flamethrower dependent on CIRCUMSTANCES, and recognize every tool has it's uses.
Imperializt Russia wrote:Support biblical marriage! One SoH and as many wives and sex slaves as he can afford!
by Gallia- » Tue Dec 29, 2015 11:56 pm
by Spirit of Hope » Tue Dec 29, 2015 11:59 pm
Gallia- wrote:how can you call yourself a member of the community-society gestalt and not be willing to throw yourself on a grenade?
Imperializt Russia wrote:Support biblical marriage! One SoH and as many wives and sex slaves as he can afford!
by Vortukia » Wed Dec 30, 2015 12:01 am
Spirit of Hope wrote:Vortukia wrote:
Plenty, in a close quarters urban setting, a explosive device isn't always going to cut it. However a flamethrower not only solves it, but it's directional, to the point where you can comfortably roast a unit of soldiers through a window, where a LAW might propose damaging yourself.
Again, you are unlikely to be fighting at such close ranges that you can not safely use the LAW, grenades, UBGL or other such weapons. Even in urban engagements.Not to mention that a well trained soldier is taught to avoid perilous circumstances where the risk-strategic reward is against their interest or the mission interest. A flamethrower certainly would fall a HUMAN BEING back on fight of flight tactics. Soldiers again, as well trained as they are. They're still human, the inescapable truth is that we are weak willed in cases, a species is engraved to avoid fire. It's bad, you don't just walk towards a bonfire and stand in it, why? Because you die.
You really need to look up how well flamethrowers worked in real life. The appearance of flamethrowers, and their use, never really made troops break like you seam to be suggesting. Against green and under trained troops they saw the best results, but even then they rarely caused them to fall apart. Flame throwers really only saw use against fortifications, and largely to drive the defenders out into the open where other small arms could kill them. With a grenade, or rocket, you could kill them in the bunker from farther away.
No I wouldn't walk into a bonfire, but I also wouldn't sit on top of a grenade.Seeing your buddy burned to a crisp in seconds, slowly dying and begging for mercy. That buddy that you have shared many battles with. Yeah, that'd take some PTSD on people, not to mention immediate emotional repercussions.
So would seeing that same buddy slowly bleed to death from multiple shrapnel injuries, or missing some limbs. And again flamethrowers mostly just drove troops out into the open. They didn't have the best record of killing opponents just by themselves.How about people hiding in shrubbery, or flora? You think a LAW is going to help get them out? Well sir I'd like to introduce you to the Japanese in WW2, and Viet-cong, it spreads, and does what fire does. It burns things, and it does it very well. Any good strategic thinker would pick a LAW, or a Flamethrower dependent on CIRCUMSTANCES, and recognize every tool has it's uses.
Funny I didn't know the LAW, or other rocket weapons, was really around in WWII, and in Vietnam you saw the US Army realizing that flamethrowers weren't doing much.
Again, flamethrowers were largely used to drive enemies out of fortifications. Enemies in shrubbery is the ideal target for a LAW, or rifle fire, or mortars and the worst target for flamethrowers. Little cover that will actually stop shrapnel or bullets, while affording the enemy good lines of sight and maneuverability.
See flamethrowers only work when you can advance close to the enemy, without them seeing you and either shooting at you or pulling back. Which is generally the situation with fortifications and not the situation with troops in the open.
Really the best gauge of the flamethrowers usefulness in MT is who is still issuing them. Basically no one. When was the last real flamethrower developed? The 1960's. Same goes for vehicle mounted flamethrowers. It would appear the people who actually get paid to do this have decided flamethrowers aren't worth the investment.
by Gallia- » Wed Dec 30, 2015 12:08 am
by Husseinarti » Wed Dec 30, 2015 12:13 am
Vortukia wrote:No the LAW wasn't around in WW2, but predecessors to man portable rocket launched weapons were. In a large area covered in shrubbery filled with fighters stashed inside, I will kill more guerrillas with a flame thrower, FAR faster then you will using the LAW. Only because I only have to hold down a igniting trigger, and do the left to right. Smooth sailing at that point.
Yes driving out of fortifications, but in situations where enemies like to hide in places, driving them out could be the difference between life and death. It's much cheaper and logistically plausible to burn a whole town, or a hills shrubbery to draw would-be ambushes or hiders out, rather than attack them with LAWS.
Flamethrowers actually have greater distance than you realize, honestly it surprised the hell out of me too so I can't get you there. Those puppies, I'd love to delve into the logistics of them, but they tended to reach more than enough distance you would need in CQC. I'm guessing just a pressure nozzel?
You're also more likely to kill more with a flamethrower shooting into a window, then with a LAW. Those troops may, and probably should be wearing vests and padding to protect against shrapnel. But fire does what fire does best, and spreads around the room, burning air, causing smoke, and catching people on fire, burning through their armor.
by Spirit of Hope » Wed Dec 30, 2015 12:17 am
Vortukia wrote:Spirit of Hope wrote:
Again, you are unlikely to be fighting at such close ranges that you can not safely use the LAW, grenades, UBGL or other such weapons. Even in urban engagements.
You really need to look up how well flamethrowers worked in real life. The appearance of flamethrowers, and their use, never really made troops break like you seam to be suggesting. Against green and under trained troops they saw the best results, but even then they rarely caused them to fall apart. Flame throwers really only saw use against fortifications, and largely to drive the defenders out into the open where other small arms could kill them. With a grenade, or rocket, you could kill them in the bunker from farther away.
No I wouldn't walk into a bonfire, but I also wouldn't sit on top of a grenade.
So would seeing that same buddy slowly bleed to death from multiple shrapnel injuries, or missing some limbs. And again flamethrowers mostly just drove troops out into the open. They didn't have the best record of killing opponents just by themselves.
Funny I didn't know the LAW, or other rocket weapons, was really around in WWII, and in Vietnam you saw the US Army realizing that flamethrowers weren't doing much.
Again, flamethrowers were largely used to drive enemies out of fortifications. Enemies in shrubbery is the ideal target for a LAW, or rifle fire, or mortars and the worst target for flamethrowers. Little cover that will actually stop shrapnel or bullets, while affording the enemy good lines of sight and maneuverability.
See flamethrowers only work when you can advance close to the enemy, without them seeing you and either shooting at you or pulling back. Which is generally the situation with fortifications and not the situation with troops in the open.
Really the best gauge of the flamethrowers usefulness in MT is who is still issuing them. Basically no one. When was the last real flamethrower developed? The 1960's. Same goes for vehicle mounted flamethrowers. It would appear the people who actually get paid to do this have decided flamethrowers aren't worth the investment.
No the LAW wasn't around in WW2, but predecessors to man portable rocket launched weapons were. In a large area covered in shrubbery filled with fighters stashed inside, I will kill more guerrillas with a flame thrower, FAR faster then you will using the LAW. Only because I only have to hold down a igniting trigger, and do the left to right. Smooth sailing at that point.
Yes driving out of fortifications, but in situations where enemies like to hide in places, driving them out could be the difference between life and death. It's much cheaper and logistically plausible to burn a whole town, or a hills shrubbery to draw would-be ambushes or hiders out, rather than attack them with LAWS.
Flamethrowers actually have greater distance than you realize, honestly it surprised the hell out of me too so I can't get you there. Those puppies, I'd love to delve into the logistics of them, but they tended to reach more than enough distance you would need in CQC. I'm guessing just a pressure nozzel?
You're also more likely to kill more with a flamethrower shooting into a window, then with a LAW. Those troops may, and probably should be wearing vests and padding to protect against shrapnel. But fire does what fire does best, and spreads around the room, burning air, causing smoke, and catching people on fire, burning through their armor.
Estovnia wrote:it's like thermobaurics aren't a thing
Imperializt Russia wrote:Support biblical marriage! One SoH and as many wives and sex slaves as he can afford!
by Gallia- » Wed Dec 30, 2015 12:18 am
by Puzikas » Wed Dec 30, 2015 12:34 am
Kazarogkai wrote:
That would probably be including support elements(driver, squad leader, APC crew, etc).
"The squad, 班, or section was the basic unit of the National Revolutionary Army (the Republic of China), and would usually be 14 men strong. An infantry squad from an elite German-trained division would ideally have one light machine gun and 10 rifles, but only one of the three squads in a non-elite Central Army division would have a light machine gun. Furthermore, the regular provincial army divisions had no machine guns at all.[5]"
Source
DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:Immoren wrote:
Someone once argued that carbines have already replaced rifles. Because he opined that all modern service assault rifles are too short to be called rifles.
The M16 is still 20"..
I'd reckon if GPC will be a thing someday you will see a stop to this miniaturization if not longer barrels..
Estovnia wrote:GPC would've been the thing in the 70s/80s, not present-day
now it's CTA and PCTA like san said
DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:Estovnia wrote:the nice thing about opinions is that, while everybody can have them, they can also be wrong
i know that. generally when your opinion of what should be done differs significantly from what is done IRL that's a good sign you may be wrong, I acknowledge this
edit: my fixation with a bigger intermediate leaning into GPC territory could, thinking about it, have something to do with my fetish for "battle rifles"
actually, i've remembered that a lot of folks here had a problem with the term "battle rifle" although I don't get the point behind this. language is supposed to serve us by making communication easier and more convenient. it is after all a easy way of differentiating between automatic rifles firing intermediate and full power cartridges, the former being commonly called "assault rifles". i don't get what the big fuss is all about, or why some have to be so anal about it. yes, the terms may not explain every little detail and cover every single nuance or borderline case, but that's not what individual terms are for, they're still useful in usual parlance.
*cue someone spelling out a long story about how the two referred to the same thing initially or started at the same point and thus weren't really different in the beginning or how one or another term was coined by the "media" or the average Joe and thus isn't worthy enough of being used or w/e bullshit*
Sevvania wrote:DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:actually, i've remembered that a lot of folks here had a problem with the term "battle rifle" although I don't get the point behind this. language is supposed to serve us by making communication easier and more convenient. it is after all a easy way of differentiating between automatic rifles firing intermediate and full power cartridges, the former being commonly called "assault rifles". i don't get what the big fuss is all about
I distinguish between "assault rifles" and "battle rifles," but terms like "full-power" and "intermediate" are ultimately relative terms. It's hard to get more specific than "you'll know the difference when you see it" when it comes to telling the two apart, and terms can vary based on doctrine and language.
Wikipedia defines an "intermediate cartridge" as one that is less powerful than a round like .30-06, but with a longer effective range than a pistol cartridge. With these vague specifications, you could make the argument that 7.62x51mm is an intermediate cartridge.
Husseinarti wrote:
You do this allot. You have a semi correct idea but then shit it up. LMG and GPMG aren't distinguished by rounds, they are typically distinguished by weight of the rifle and if its belt or magazine fed. An RPK is an LMG, but the M249 is an LMG. LMG and GPMG are void terms in allot of cases, as weapons apply and don't apply based on the operators choice at the time. The PKM, being in the same weight range as the M249 can be considered either an LMG (Because of its weight) or a GPMG (Because of its caliber and its ability to fire for longer-sustained bursts, but the M249 can do the same thing in terms of sustainment of fire.
Also the two major LMGs able to take belts and mags is an old Russian modification of an RPK/PKM hybrid which didn't go anywhere and the FN Minimi, this isn't 'many LMGs', its two. 2. Two. It isn't good for the FN Minimi either. You want to keep spent magazines to reload them later because disposable magazines aren't. The bolt of the FN Minimi crushes the feed lips of STANAG mags and I'm pretty sure it shatters the PMAG feed lips. You get the magazine and its 30 rounds once, then you have wasted a magazine. Automatic Riflemen carry thousands of rounds on them, they don't run out as fast a rifleman will though his ammo.
Gallia- wrote:
2. Splitting the squads is an Army of Excellence thing, TBH. I don't know of any other armies that have squads that can't fit inside their IFVs. Korea, maybe, but not since K21, and Stryker platoons are fine. It works. It might reduce maneuver to section level (a section is an organizational intermediary between the squad and platoon in the US Army), bute in practice since infantry platoons tend to operate in squares rather than triangles, so two-by-two maneuver (aka two-shooting-two-moving) is almost standard the (Western) world over.
Gallia- wrote:Since you've specified a weapon like MAG or M60 or PKM, you're going to need two men to use a weapon, which basically ties you to having an asymmetric layout. This isn't bad, but it's not very flexible. Barrier penetration is mostly overrated for a cartridge, like the mythical "stopping power", and the "range dilemma", so that's not a terribly convincing argument.
Gallia- wrote:That said, snipers tend to use the same rifles as the other riflemen, with heavier barrels and optics, or a sniperized variant of the automatic rifle like SDM-R or PSL. They aren't really necessary either, they're an artefact of police actions, like the "range dilemma", the oughties revival of outdated ideas like the GPC, and LWMMG.
Spirit of Hope wrote:Eclixia wrote:Are flamethrowers actually helpful on the battlefield or just there for awesomeness? (Modern Tech)
On the modern battlefeild they have basically no uses, they were a very niche weapon to begin with. The development of of reconciles rifles, man portable rockets, and missiles really got rid of their remaining utility. Especially with the development of thermobaric warheads.
Vortukia wrote:No the LAW wasn't around in WW2, but predecessors to man portable rocket launched weapons were.
Vortukia wrote:In a large area covered in shrubbery filled with fighters stashed inside, I will kill more guerrillas with a flame thrower, FAR faster then you will using the LAW. Only because I only have to hold down a igniting trigger, and do the left to right. Smooth sailing at that point.
Vortukia wrote:Yes driving out of fortifications, but in situations where enemies like to hide in places, driving them out could be the difference between life and death. It's much cheaper and logistically plausible to burn a whole town, or a hills shrubbery to draw would-be ambushes or hiders out, rather than attack them with LAWS.
Vortukia wrote:Flamethrowers actually have greater distance than you realize, honestly it surprised the hell out of me too so I can't get you there. Those puppies, I'd love to delve into the logistics of them, but they tended to reach more than enough distance you would need in CQC. I'm guessing just a pressure nozzel?
Vortukia wrote:You're also more likely to kill more with a flamethrower shooting into a window, then with a LAW. Those troops may, and probably should be wearing vests and padding to protect against shrapnel. But fire does what fire does best, and spreads around the room, burning air, causing smoke, and catching people on fire, burning through their armor.
Sevvania wrote:I don't post much, but I am always here.
Usually waiting for Puz ;-;
by Kazarogkai » Wed Dec 30, 2015 3:59 am
by Allanea » Wed Dec 30, 2015 5:37 am
Kazarogkai wrote:If I really want to set a bunch of guys on fire I would much rather make use of napalm dropped from some Attack/COIN Aircraft than dedicated slow moving flame thrower troops. Just my opinion.
by Allanea » Wed Dec 30, 2015 5:39 am
You're also more likely to kill more with a flamethrower shooting into a window, then with a LAW. Those troops may, and probably should be wearing vests and padding to protect against shrapnel. But fire does what fire does best, and spreads around the room, burning air, causing smoke, and catching people on fire, burning through their armor.
by Palmyrion » Wed Dec 30, 2015 8:12 am
by Fordorsia » Wed Dec 30, 2015 8:50 am
San-Silvacian wrote:Forgot to take off my Rhodie shorts when I went to sleep.
Woke up in bitches and enemy combatants.
Crookfur wrote:Speak for yourself, Crookfur infantry enjoy the sheer uber high speed low drag operator nature of their tactical woad
Spreewerke wrote:One of our employees ate a raw kidney and a raw liver and the only powers he gained was the ability to summon a massive hospital bill.
Premislyd wrote:This is probably the best thing somebody has ever spammed.
Puzikas wrote:That joke was so dark it has to smile to be seen at night.
by Rhodesialund » Wed Dec 30, 2015 9:03 am
Fordorsia wrote:Vortukia wrote:False misguided information? Sorry to say kiddo, but if you really want to call something misguided and false, actually put the effort to look into it first.
What is it with people calling others kiddo during internet arguments. It just makes you looks worse when you find out they're right and you're wrong.
by Sevvania » Wed Dec 30, 2015 10:11 am
by Fordorsia » Wed Dec 30, 2015 10:17 am
San-Silvacian wrote:Forgot to take off my Rhodie shorts when I went to sleep.
Woke up in bitches and enemy combatants.
Crookfur wrote:Speak for yourself, Crookfur infantry enjoy the sheer uber high speed low drag operator nature of their tactical woad
Spreewerke wrote:One of our employees ate a raw kidney and a raw liver and the only powers he gained was the ability to summon a massive hospital bill.
Premislyd wrote:This is probably the best thing somebody has ever spammed.
Puzikas wrote:That joke was so dark it has to smile to be seen at night.
by Crookfur » Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:20 am
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: British Georgia, Shahi Bengal
Advertisement