Hey /k/. I was wondering, how effective are incendiary weapons

File: dear god.jpg (73KB, 1000x621px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1000x621px

>>31159459
Thermite grenades are attached to comms. If you are overrun, you pull the pin so they will melt through and destroy everything.

SOP

File: 1471649571970.jpg (293KB, 1016x568px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 1016x568px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY0dpyKiW34

bump with this video of a kid who apparently got hit by white phosphorus

>>31159478
I meant more in terms of use on the enemy, rather than to sabotage your own equipment.

File: Churchill_Crocodile_01.jpg (233KB, 800x559px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 800x559px

>>31159459
ammo is the problem. and it was best on bunkers and pillboxes. as an Antipersonel weapon it is pretty shit, but if you are against something that you can cook from the outside, then it has a use. As a man portable weapon in is shit, they need to have a large fuel supply and that is best from a tank.

>>31159459
>many forms of heat/fire based weapons have been outlawed.
False, that's a common myth.
Geneva just says you can't use them in an area where civilians could be near by.
We used napalm in Iraq, remember?
Flamethrowers were discontinued in nearly every nation (except china because they have brain problems) because they're fucking suicidal to use and we've developed better, safer ways to set shit on fire.

File: 1472506116996.gif (2MB, 800x697px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 800x697px

>>31159503
>>31159536
So, generally, they're effective, but only when vehicle mounted? What about incendiary grenades? Are they that effective?

Also, what about the environmental damage of lighting everything on fire? Surely that would demoralize the enemy/choke them with ash?

>>31159587
unless it is against a structure, infrastructure, or a crowd of refugees, then it is fucking useless.

>>31159536
They're not nearly as suicidal as Hollywood makes them out to be. The real reason no one uses them anymore is because they're only truly useful against fortifications, and those don't really exist in the modern world.

>>31159659

Yeah false. Flamethrower troops had the shortest lifespan in the Pacific.

They're bullet magnets.

>>31159699
I assumed you were talking about them exploding and killing the operator. I hadn't thought about it that way. I suppose that makes sense

>>31159659
>>31159746

Flamethrower troops at Iwo Jima had a 92% casualty rate, for a whopping average uptime of 4 minutes per soldier.

>>31159746
that wouldn't happen though, fuel tanks don't just blow up when shot like cars explode in movies. under very specific circumstances it could maybe happen but it's not like anyone would intentionally aim to blow up a fuel tank in real life

>>31159788

That's what he's saying. He was thinking it's not suicidal because they don't explode, but he didn't account for the fact that it makes someone a target.

>l2readingcomprehension

>>31159802
I actually remember reading up on this, but isn't it very hard for an average man to shoot to kill?

I imagine that if you're spewing flame and charging towards them in the open that it would tip the balance towards shooting to kill a bit.

>>31159788
Yeah they don't blow up, but it's still a very close range weapon that forces you to get within 50m of people who want to kill you, all while lugging a heavy ass pack of fuel on your back that makes you stand out as a high priority target.

And then even if you do manage to get in range without getting killed, the moment you start firing the thing you make yourself an even higher priority target, as your flame will draw the attention of just about every enemy soldier on the battlefield.

So yeah, not exactly the most practical of weapons.

>>31159821

See >>31159751

And that's just one battle. Life expectancy was less than 10 minutes for any flamethrower on the battlefield in the Pacific.

That's for a number of reasons though, not only were they targets and easier to hit because they were big and slow, they assaulted hardened positions and there weren't very many of them, so we're called in like support, which meant they had to sprint from bunker to bunker to clear them out.

Everyone that died meant less flamethrowers which meant more running and exposure for the remaining flamethrowers, which led to more dead flamethrowers. That's why the British ditched theirs and went to nothing but Crocodiles.

>>31159459
It would be cool to have a modern flamethrower.

I wonder if a lipo powered pump would be a safer way of projecting fuel.

>>31159788
> tanks dont blow up
Unless you happen to have an ignition source nearby. Like, you know, the column of flame coming out from the nozzle. Or the pilot light that has to be on constantly.

>>31159459
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b7TaLjdXMc

They brought this on themselves

>>31159536
Actually, China has them because of wasps and brush clearing. They treat them more as an engineering tool than a weapon, they have 35 mm incendiary launchers (well strictly just a 35 mm launcher that takes incendiary projectiles amongst others)

>>31159459
> Be falklands war 1982
> British Troops picking the shit they want to bring with.
> Have a choice between frag and Phosphorous grenades.
> Deplete all the supplies of phos grenades
> Frag is more effect than phos
> MoD sees this wonders why they're choosing the less effective grenades
> MoD gets a civil servant to ask the troops
> "So tell me why are you choosing this when the frag is better?"
> 90% of the responses were along the lines of:

> It looks pretty when you cook them off in the dark.

>>31161015
I didnt know so many /k/illers were in the falklands war.

>>31161067
The paras used to kneecap IRA scum when they were of duty in northern ireland.

>>31159788
This

The british had a hard enough time making zeppelins catch on fire, despite being huge bags of flammable gas, so a bullet through a fuel tank wouldn't do much.

>>31159659
And this. The last time we've seen them used was Vietnam, and that was most because of the Jungle. Modern warfare has little need for fortifications, because airpower and mechanized ground troops.

>>31159459
For air to surface munitions, incendiary as a damage mechanism isn't nearly as good as blast or frag (either of which is far superior in nearly every case, depending on target type for which is better in each case).

>>31160710
Oh man, the other day my friends did a playthrough of SOTL because I'd never heard of it before.

Man what a fucking ride that was.

>>31161106
Which ending did you get?

>>31161106
I met not-Kurtz and survived. Then I got picked up by the humvee patrol.

I looked up all the alternate endings. Kind of dissapointed in all of them. I get that it's a Heart of Darkness adaption but they could have turned up the mindfuckery a bit, if even a little.

Other than that though great game. 10/10 would probably not play again but would recommend.

>>31161165
whoops meant for
>>31161126

>>31161165
Me too. Even though Walker did terrible things, he never meant to and for that reason he should be able to go home.

>>31159459
Very effective. Defoliants, shock weapons... Just imagine the huge loss of morale when faced with a wall of fire and seeing your best Buddy burnt to a crisp.

>>31159459
>how effective are incendiary weapons in combat?

Definitely effective. We people have inherent respect towards sudden fire and flames in our psyche.

Large aggressive guys jump back instinctively if you introduce some flames at them with a lighter and a large spray can.

File: schmel.jpg (45KB, 599x400px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 599x400px

>>31159659
The bigger reason is that a rocket can do the same job from a much safer distance.

>>31159459
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n1G7HRnHjI

>>31159587
Incendiaries have the great ability of denying a position to the enemy, so in that way it is a fantastic tool when used against an environment

>>31163181
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n1G7HRnHjI [Embed]
>5th chemical weapon division, colored.
>el oh el

>>31161504
>>31161690
>hurrr my psychological effects
I bet you think the A-10's gun is a brilliant CAS weapon too.

>>31163567
No, they don't, because they burn up quickly and then the position is retaken.

Thermobaric weapons are very effective. They were invented by the Russians to clean out tunnels and bunkers during Afghanistan Invasion 1.0. The Marine Corps was apparently very happy with the SMAW-NE rounds used in Iraq. The Russians have a wide variety of these things.

In addition, some air-dropped thermobaric bombs have the blast effect of a small tactical nuke.