How were these puppers used in battles? Where they to spoop

>>1973791
>Where they to spoop the enemy? used to start enemies on fire? or used to deplete all the oxygen out of holes in which the enemy was hiding?

All of the above.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPQYK5ZMbWY

>>1973791
They were used to light Japanese cigarettes

>>1973791
To burn out bunkers and tunnels. Also, it's scary as shit. I remember reading about how in WWI, when a soldier is captured, they are (usually) taken alive as POWs. But when one side captured a flamethrower unit, they were immediately executed, no questions asked.

>>1973974
I've also heard the same things about MG crews

>>1973791
cleared out trenches and trench barracks like nothing else.

>>1973977
Really? I suppose that does make sense when I think about it. Goddamn, WWI was terrible.

>>1973980
Or we might just be getting memed on.

>>1973980
>>1973983
It's sort of true guys. WW1 was fucking shit.

>>1973974
>>1973977
>>1973980
>>1973983
>>1974010

Dunno how true it is, but besides MG and flamethrower crews, I've also heard the same thing happening to captured snipers and German soldiers captured with saw bayonets. I assume a lot of it is just urban myth.

>>1973791
My grandpa said they used them to roast enemy bunkers

>>1974423
>I assume a lot of it is just urban myth.
At least for snipers confirmed by gramps. His CO ordered him to throw away his scope before they went into captivity for better chances of surviving the initial situation.

File: flamenwerfer.jpg (34KB, 398x334px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 398x334px

>>1973791
They used it to werf flammen

>>1974451
snipers are cowards anyways...

>>1974565
Rather a coward for some time than dead a whole life

File: 1462791676769.jpg (25KB, 590x394px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 590x394px

>inb4 somebody says that they are banned because they are so horrible
Flamethrowers aren't banned. It's simply that we have so many superior weapons now that they are obsolete in every way.

>>1974423

It's true for snipers.

German snipers stopped recording their kills and threw away all their medals and documents in case of capture.

>>1973791
>blast it into bunker
>burns to death anyone close enough to the flame to be hit by it (almost instantaneously by the way)
>anyone else in the bunker who can't escape in time will be gassed with monoxide from the flame's reaction
They were shockingly effective, moreso than a lot of people believe.

>>1974612
>>1974956

Internet fight

>ITT
>irrelevant /k/ shit

File: CAT_M43U8AAFy-f.jpg (71KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 600x400px

>>1974612

China still uses them.

File: ShotgunPhotographers.jpg (69KB, 682x475px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 682x475px

The "this weapon was so bad it was banned!" meme applies to

crossbows (banned by pope)
shotguns (by geneva convention)
serrated bayonets ""
gas ""
flamethrowers ""

none of which are true

>>1975325
Serrated bayonets weren't banned but anyone caught with one was executed immediately

>>1975325
Forgot willie peter

>>1974956
>>1975290
Yes, they were effective at that time. But why bother with carrying around a huge flamethrower if incindieary or thermobaric weaponry does the same job better and with so much less risk. Hell, probably much more cost effective too. Why train several guys with the flamer and then hope they make it to the bunker/cave system in one piece when you can just collapse the bunker with a nice HE missile. Or a thermobaric bomb directly inside the cave, basically atomizing anyone in the blast zone, horribly burning anyone on the edges of it and explosively depriving almost the whole system of air itself.
Plus you have to consider your own troops. No matter how you hate the enemy, wading knee deep through burned sludge of human flesh and ocasionally stumbling on half recognizable human bones and whatever sad remains were only little affected by the sticky mixture will give pause to anyone. Not to mention the smell...

>>1975303
China also can't reliably expect to have all of the above be avalaible to each of their squads. Plus if you are only burning out muslim rebels in the jungle it is good enough.

>>1974565

Yeah nothing says "coward" like voluntarily entering a battlefield ONE YOUR OWN and try to hide yourself from the thousands of enemies who would love nothing more than to kill you for days at a time.

Snipers perform a vital function, by killing key enemy officers and technical crew they can save dozens of lives on their own side.

>>1974956

More effective than chucking a couple of grenades in?

>>1975325

But gas IS banned.

Fun fact: when they didn't have flamethrowers, GIs figured out that you could get stubborn Japanese out of a tunnel by flooding it with water and then pouring in gasoline and lighting it.

The water will get everywhere, and the gas floats on top of the water.

They'll either run out and get shot, or they'll be unable to hold themselves underwater, pop up for air, get burned, and then repeat the process until they die.

>>1975705
noice
o
i
c
e

>>1975698
only lethal gas
tear or knockout gas is fine

>>1973974
Well it was like that for British and American commandos in WW2 too. Normal soldiers were captured, the commandos were executed immediately because they were usually fucking up the Nazi's shit from behind their lines and they were pretty good at escaping prison camps.

>>1975715
That was because the Dieppe Raid pissed off Hitler so much he issued the Commando order.

>>1975690
Don't snipers usually have spotters?
Or is that a recent thing.

>>1975727

Nothing like that in ww1, idk about ww2 or modern snipers.

>>1975540

The US also had a dedicated chemical corps that didn't see action in WW2 (ie the chemical mortar battalions) but by Vietnam were the ones who were called in to fumigate the larger tunnels.