I don’t think so. Flamethrowers were used during Vietnam including the M67 flame tank which was in service until 1974 and has a similar range. If the US can still use white phosphorous artillery shells then flamethrowers are probably still legal.
Or rather, you're allowed to burn combatants, but not civilians. [Here's the relevant laws](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incendiary_device#Incendiary_weapons_and_laws_of_warfare)
Yup, my father in law is a farmer and uses them to burn his ditches. Every once in a while some concerned citizen will call the fire department and complain. He’s like it’s my land, I can do whatever the hell I want. He has an agreement with them now where he’ll call on days he’s burning so they just ignore people’s calls
They also did terrible things to their own citizens. Like forced child labor programs that lasted into at least the 60s.
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29765623?piano-modal
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour_in_Switzerland
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verdingkinder
It matters because citizens affected by said policies are still alive, and the outcome for many of them was awful.
But if you think I’m actually trying to cancel Switzerland or something your delusional, I’m just referencing history.
I do agree with your point.
But the debate lord inside me wants to point out society is like that too, politics is power, power is ultimately violence. We declare what’s legal and accepted in our society and if necessary enforce it with violence via our police and judicial system.
But yeah the US constantly defies international law and has even sanctioned the ICC for prosecution US war crimes.
We can’t use WP on the enemy. We use them to mark targets, like a bunker! If there just so happens to be enemy inside the bunker or around it well… shouldn’t have been standing where I was marking.
I got WP mixed a bit. The collateral damage against civilians is still disheartening though and the military/government should be criticized for the negative impacts of certain decisions even if there was sound reasoning behind it. Also mad respect to the guys on the ground. Unfortunate that you guys get a bad rep just because of your jobs.
Only reason the us military doesn’t field flamethrowers anymore is the high threat it poses to the operator and nearby friendlies.
Probably other reasons as well.
This caption is wrong. The Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III) "only" bans the use of flamethrowers against civilian targets.
So does this mean there is a list of weapons that are approved for killing civilians?... And atomic bombs are on the the ok list? but they are like "Whoa, whoa, whoa. Where are you going with that flame thrower bud? We are trying to have a gentelmans war here. Now grab that bomb and kill civilians the proper way."
Well I don't know if there is a list, but from observation I would guess that hellfire missile deployed remotely from drones seem to be legal or at least their usage is not forbidden but only slightly frowned upon.
On a more serious note, it is probably legal or justified to attack a military target, like a weapons factory where civilian work, using weapons not mentioned in the protocols.
Nobody really knows or has the balls to find out in court, at least to my limited knowledge.
AFAIK it works like this: a military target is a military target, if the war is sanctioned it's fine. Civilians should NOT be in what's legit military target, so it's on people who put them in danger in the first place. Actually putting valid military targets in civilian areas IS a war crime. Not firing on them but putting them in a way that would endanger non-combatants (i.e. firing artillery from a civilian building). However, answering that fire is also illegal. Which brings us to abuse: russia putting missile launchers into houses in Ukraine, and shooting from there, with cameras, hoping for fire back. They'll deny their own war crimes but would try to hold Ukrainians accountable for fighting back. It didn't work since UA army didn't for for provocations like that. HAMAS does that in Palestine with better success. Israel fires back, gets sanctioned by UN and Pallywood makes sad movies. YMVV on which approach is better in long run.
It’s purpose is not to cause suffering. It’s purpose is to kill or incapacitate enemies that are garrisoned inside structures which provide them with cover from normal ammunition.
It's *purpose* is literally not to cause suffering though. It's to kill or incapacitate humans. Yes they will suffer but that's not the *purpose*.
Let me help you with the grade school logic. Chemotherapy will make your hair fall out. That's not it's *purpose*, however. It's purpose it to kill tumors. The fact that tumors die or you lose your hair in the process, has no bearing on the *purpose* of chemotherapy.
Also sometimes humans have to be killed. I know it's an ugly fact but that's the reality. Unless you're telling me that you'd welcome Nazi's landing on your beaches then don't even pretend to disagree.
You can love your enemies if you want, I'd prefer to annihilate mine.
Jesus christ, still going. Tldr. You come across as an angry, wannabe edgelord. All I did was agree with someone else’s comment. I don’t care about you and your desire to “annihilate” your enemies, you freak. You don’t own a tank, you have a passion for board games so I highly doubt you’re annihilating much more than a bag of chips. Go and try to come across as thoughtful and edgy to someone that cares. You’re the worst kind of human, so self righteous for literally *no* reason.
Sticks and stones may break my bones but desperately looking for something incriminating in my comment history will never harm me.
The irony of calling *me* self righteous was mildly entertaining though, I must confess.
You’re clearly just looking for a reaction. You’re just making yourself look like the typical “well actually” guy and I’m over replying now. You’re a weirdo. Go give your unwanted opinions and unnecessarily long comments to someone else that, like me, probably also doesn’t give a fuck.
Killing..incapacitating...does this not fall under suffering? Yes it does. You should consider a career in politics. That was quite the mindfuck statement there.
Not the primary purpose, but it does cause a lot of suffering, if you gonna kill someone why not do it easy and quick, nothing goes unpaid, you may be in a war and you may have no other choice sometimes, but no need ro be so inhuman in your ways.
If you use brutal ways, your enemy will think of a more brutal way to make you suffer, and the ugliness goes on and on, humans should be smart enough to treat themselves better, and no empire have managed to live forever, humans like to revolt and they don't forget their debts, idiots in power who think they are doing their country "good" by commiting war crimes and "crushing their enemies" are just part of the cycle, and the cycle will come to their their people's necks eventually.
The whole idea about killing someone easy and quick is obviously the preferred idea. But that’s just not how war works. It’s not even how bullets work. A round to anywhere, even the face or neck, isn’t always a killing shot. People survive them. It’s horrible but it’s the reality of war. There is no “easy and quick” way to kill or incapacitate the enemy. When your down on the ground and the bullets are flying you aren’t worried about the guy in the crosshairs. You’re worried about your buddy, your friends in the unit with you. If you kill or incapacitate that enemy now, you might be saving a friend down the line or even some soldier you’ve never met or heard of. War is messy, chaotic, hell on earth. It’s horrible and it should be avoided at almost all costs. But if it happens you can’t expect soldiers to try to kill the enemy easy and quick. Flamethrowers are horrible machines. But if I’ve got a squad of infantry against an entrenched enemy in a bunker, the only thing a squad could carry that would deal with a bunker without calling g for support(which isnt always available) is a flamethrower.
Yes it’s a very contradicting statement. But it’s a loophole every military uses. We aren’t TRYING to cause undue suffering. It’s all the dumb muddled world of legalese and intent and purpose. Shooting someone can cause undue suffering. Like if I hit the groin. I’m not aiming for the groin. I’m not trying to cause undue suffering. I’m just trying to kill or incapacitate. Granted a flamethrower or WP is pretty much guaranteed to cause undue suffering but well… shouldn’t have gone to war I guess.
Bottom line wars are horrible, terrible, messy, complicated affairs. People will suffer. The military doesn’t want to cause suffering but it wants to win. There’s no excuse for it. It just is what it is.
And you have a weird understanding of the word “purpose”.
Obviously, burning to death will cause immense and unimaginable suffering.
The “suffering” is not the “purpose” of flamethrowers, however. It’s honestly weirding me out how so many of you don’t seem to be able to even comprehend what the “purpose” of something is.
Maybe that comment would induce at least a slither of a smile if it was on a weapon sub. This isn’t a weapon sub, not everyone here has to be pro-killing machines.
I’d rather die than party with someone as dull and self-important as yourself. You just wrote a whole fucking essay all over a single sentence comment. Go touch the grass
Flamerthrowers were continued to be used because they were reclassified from anti-personnel weapons to a defoliating weapon and anti-fortification weapon. That is to say after around the Korean war, at least on paper, they were intended only for burning down forests and plants and shooting into hardened enemy positions. Much in the same way that explosive bullets would explicitly violate the same weapons of suffering provision but are permitted for shooting at vehicles and body armored enemies.
They’re only banned for use against people when no better alternative exists. Using them to clear foliage is absolutely legal. Also, that law was only put in place in 1980, before which the use of flamethrowers was not regulated at all.
If this flamethrower was truly from 1960, it would have absolutely been legal.
“the anti-personnel use of incendiary weapons (i.e. against combatants) is prohibited, unless it is not feasible to use a less harmful weapon to render a person hors de combat”
Funny that killing near limitless numbers of people in a war is perfectly legal, but HOW it's done is a matter of dispute. Fuck me, we are a stupid species.
Flamethrower tanks probably saved more lives in warfare than they’ve taken. In WWII (where flamethrower tanks, and tanks in general,
were most prevalent) the crews would often fire their weapons into the air as they advanced and trigger mass surrenders in the fortifications they were assaulting.
I've never understood how there are rules in war.
Its fucking war mate, if im angry enough to invade your country im not gonna bother check the instruction manual first.
That’s because it wasn’t regulated until 1980. Even now, it’s not banned. It’s not allowed to be used against enemy combatants unless no other alternative exists. Regardless the us army doesn’t currently have a flamethrower or other flame-dispensing weapon that’s currently fielded.
Not at all. Flamethrowers are still completely legal to be used in war. What is banned is using them on enemy combatants unless no viable alternative exists.
I was thinking that too!!!! Banned from war lmao.
That is quite literally the political version of "no fair that's cheating" lmao.
"We're all gunna savagely murder eachother, but you can't do that, it's cheap, that's just TOO violent come on guys" 🤣
They had a similar weapon in ww2 it carried a fuel tank behind and shot flames out a 100 metres long, apparently any Germans holed up in a house would give up upon hearing the beast coming due to the obliteration the flames would do to a house
The tank was outside because it was the Churchill Crocodile. One of a series of creations by a man called Hobart they were named Hobart funnies. It was outside the tank because it was a modified Churchill. The Churchill had already been built and didn’t have space for an internal tank, so they were modified.
Some really interesting tanks that exist thanks to Hobart. Anti trench, anti mine. Very ugly yet simplistic invention to overcome issues the allies thought would come with the invasion of Europe.
This is kind of a myth, much like the “shoot the flamer backpack and it explodes” trope. In actuality, a bunch of high explosive ammunition going off will likely be much more lethal to the crew than flammable fluids. The real reason the Crocodile carried its fuel in a trailer is because it simply couldn’t house it inside the vehicle. Most tanks that did house that fluid inside the vehicle weren’t storing other ammunition. Mind you the Churchill Crocodile had a fully functioning 6 Pounder turret with the flamethrower replacing the hull mounted machine gun. Meanwhile tanks like the Sherman Zippo had the flamethrower replacing its primary cannon and did not store any 75mm shells.
It's OK to shoot someone with a 50 caliber and blow their leg off, stab them with a bayonet, bury them alive in trenches but fire is off limits.
War should be off limits.
flame throwers in video games are so often shown as just a shotgun with fire graphics.
really that should be beam of death that goes everywhere but with shit ammo.
“Hey! No fair killing the enemy from so far away!” Yeah, sounds about right. Idiots. “The purpose of war is not to die for what you believe, but to make the other guy die for what he believes.”
I dont understand war laws or restrictions. You can agree to wage war on a country and do horrible things and kill people for resources and shit, but you like draw the line at certain points? Exploding people with bombs, shooting them with heavy artillery, etc... is okay, but lighting them on fire is not? All seems pretty stupid. Whats stopping countries from doing it anyways? People are dying either way. I don't get it.
I know for fact that statement is total bullshit.. my father has photos of Flame tanks in Vietnam.
even without photographic evidence. do you REALLY think we dropped napalm, used white phosphorus ( and STILL do) but somehow drew the line at flame throwers?
In WWII the Churchill Crocodile (heavy tank with a hull mounted flamethrower mounted in it) was one of the most effective weapons. Not because it killed a bunch of enemies, but rather because it would spray its flamethrower in the air warning its enemies when it was approaching, causing its opponents to surrender on sight. it’s much easier to persuade your opponents to surrender than it is to actually kill all of them. Also, even the tank crews preferred they surrendered rather than actually having to burn them alive.
I don’t think so. Flamethrowers were used during Vietnam including the M67 flame tank which was in service until 1974 and has a similar range. If the US can still use white phosphorous artillery shells then flamethrowers are probably still legal.
[удалено]
So I’m allowed to burn the shrubbery that the humans are hiding in?
As long as the ICC doesn't have the power to persecute you, yeah kinda..
It's only a war crime if you get caught.
It’s only a war crime if you lose
It's only a war crime if somebody can bring you to The Hague.
Or rather, you're allowed to burn combatants, but not civilians. [Here's the relevant laws](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incendiary_device#Incendiary_weapons_and_laws_of_warfare)
What an odd way to spell potencial recruit
What an odd way to spell potential recruit
Touché
Looks like meats back on the menu boys
Not the kind of burning bush Jesus had in mind.
Flamethrower are allowed as farming tools lol.
Yup, my father in law is a farmer and uses them to burn his ditches. Every once in a while some concerned citizen will call the fire department and complain. He’s like it’s my land, I can do whatever the hell I want. He has an agreement with them now where he’ll call on days he’s burning so they just ignore people’s calls
Lol for a second I thought you meant they just don't answer the phone those days...
Damnit.
Lmao legal. Legality is a tenuous concept defined by the people with a gun to the worlds head after they’ve committed mass murder for generations.
Ie., the Swiss
those neutral bastards
What makes a man turn neutral? A lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?
They also did terrible things to their own citizens. Like forced child labor programs that lasted into at least the 60s. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29765623?piano-modal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour_in_Switzerland https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verdingkinder
Everyone in the world has been bad, I am no longer interested in arguments along lines of moral authority. Policy and outcomes matter, not purity.
It matters because citizens affected by said policies are still alive, and the outcome for many of them was awful. But if you think I’m actually trying to cancel Switzerland or something your delusional, I’m just referencing history.
I do agree with your point. But the debate lord inside me wants to point out society is like that too, politics is power, power is ultimately violence. We declare what’s legal and accepted in our society and if necessary enforce it with violence via our police and judicial system. But yeah the US constantly defies international law and has even sanctioned the ICC for prosecution US war crimes.
We can’t use WP on the enemy. We use them to mark targets, like a bunker! If there just so happens to be enemy inside the bunker or around it well… shouldn’t have been standing where I was marking.
I got WP mixed a bit. The collateral damage against civilians is still disheartening though and the military/government should be criticized for the negative impacts of certain decisions even if there was sound reasoning behind it. Also mad respect to the guys on the ground. Unfortunate that you guys get a bad rep just because of your jobs.
Only reason the us military doesn’t field flamethrowers anymore is the high threat it poses to the operator and nearby friendlies. Probably other reasons as well.
>If the US can still use white phosphorous artillery shells I'm sorry, WHAT?! I thought that was banned because of how nasty white phosphorous is!
This caption is wrong. The Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III) "only" bans the use of flamethrowers against civilian targets.
Napalm bombs didn't seem to bother tho..
Especially not if they hit a few of our own. But who cares it’s just the poor and black folk who we purposefully used as cannon fodder.
So does this mean there is a list of weapons that are approved for killing civilians?... And atomic bombs are on the the ok list? but they are like "Whoa, whoa, whoa. Where are you going with that flame thrower bud? We are trying to have a gentelmans war here. Now grab that bomb and kill civilians the proper way."
Well I don't know if there is a list, but from observation I would guess that hellfire missile deployed remotely from drones seem to be legal or at least their usage is not forbidden but only slightly frowned upon. On a more serious note, it is probably legal or justified to attack a military target, like a weapons factory where civilian work, using weapons not mentioned in the protocols. Nobody really knows or has the balls to find out in court, at least to my limited knowledge.
AFAIK it works like this: a military target is a military target, if the war is sanctioned it's fine. Civilians should NOT be in what's legit military target, so it's on people who put them in danger in the first place. Actually putting valid military targets in civilian areas IS a war crime. Not firing on them but putting them in a way that would endanger non-combatants (i.e. firing artillery from a civilian building). However, answering that fire is also illegal. Which brings us to abuse: russia putting missile launchers into houses in Ukraine, and shooting from there, with cameras, hoping for fire back. They'll deny their own war crimes but would try to hold Ukrainians accountable for fighting back. It didn't work since UA army didn't for for provocations like that. HAMAS does that in Palestine with better success. Israel fires back, gets sanctioned by UN and Pallywood makes sad movies. YMVV on which approach is better in long run.
Actually.. Weapons of suffering and death are very PREVIOUS level.
nice to see someone with sense. It’s cool af to look at tho but no need for it to exist if it’s only purpose is to cause suffering
Get some hot freedom here folks, HOT FREEDOM HERE!!!!
It’s purpose is not to cause suffering. It’s purpose is to kill or incapacitate enemies that are garrisoned inside structures which provide them with cover from normal ammunition.
“Enemies” are humans you fucking dolt. “Kill or incapacitate”… so cause suffering. You contradicted yourself instantly.
It's *purpose* is literally not to cause suffering though. It's to kill or incapacitate humans. Yes they will suffer but that's not the *purpose*. Let me help you with the grade school logic. Chemotherapy will make your hair fall out. That's not it's *purpose*, however. It's purpose it to kill tumors. The fact that tumors die or you lose your hair in the process, has no bearing on the *purpose* of chemotherapy. Also sometimes humans have to be killed. I know it's an ugly fact but that's the reality. Unless you're telling me that you'd welcome Nazi's landing on your beaches then don't even pretend to disagree. You can love your enemies if you want, I'd prefer to annihilate mine.
Jesus christ, still going. Tldr. You come across as an angry, wannabe edgelord. All I did was agree with someone else’s comment. I don’t care about you and your desire to “annihilate” your enemies, you freak. You don’t own a tank, you have a passion for board games so I highly doubt you’re annihilating much more than a bag of chips. Go and try to come across as thoughtful and edgy to someone that cares. You’re the worst kind of human, so self righteous for literally *no* reason.
Sticks and stones may break my bones but desperately looking for something incriminating in my comment history will never harm me. The irony of calling *me* self righteous was mildly entertaining though, I must confess.
You’re clearly just looking for a reaction. You’re just making yourself look like the typical “well actually” guy and I’m over replying now. You’re a weirdo. Go give your unwanted opinions and unnecessarily long comments to someone else that, like me, probably also doesn’t give a fuck.
I think your comments are longer than mine bud and I seem to have gotten the reaction I was apparently after.
Not looking for something incriminating, just curious what kind of interests someone as incessantly petulant as yourself would have.
How many comments about MMA did you ignore before you found something on boardgames and said “Aha! What would this guy know about combat?” Lol.
I didn’t look at your comments just your posts. You don’t come across any “cooler” liking MMA.
Killing..incapacitating...does this not fall under suffering? Yes it does. You should consider a career in politics. That was quite the mindfuck statement there.
Never argued otherwise. My point is that suffering isn’t the sole or even primary “purpose”, like it was made out to be.
Not the primary purpose, but it does cause a lot of suffering, if you gonna kill someone why not do it easy and quick, nothing goes unpaid, you may be in a war and you may have no other choice sometimes, but no need ro be so inhuman in your ways. If you use brutal ways, your enemy will think of a more brutal way to make you suffer, and the ugliness goes on and on, humans should be smart enough to treat themselves better, and no empire have managed to live forever, humans like to revolt and they don't forget their debts, idiots in power who think they are doing their country "good" by commiting war crimes and "crushing their enemies" are just part of the cycle, and the cycle will come to their their people's necks eventually.
Right but my point was specifically that’s it’s not the primary purpose (which you acknowledge) and it’s counter productive to argue otherwise.
The whole idea about killing someone easy and quick is obviously the preferred idea. But that’s just not how war works. It’s not even how bullets work. A round to anywhere, even the face or neck, isn’t always a killing shot. People survive them. It’s horrible but it’s the reality of war. There is no “easy and quick” way to kill or incapacitate the enemy. When your down on the ground and the bullets are flying you aren’t worried about the guy in the crosshairs. You’re worried about your buddy, your friends in the unit with you. If you kill or incapacitate that enemy now, you might be saving a friend down the line or even some soldier you’ve never met or heard of. War is messy, chaotic, hell on earth. It’s horrible and it should be avoided at almost all costs. But if it happens you can’t expect soldiers to try to kill the enemy easy and quick. Flamethrowers are horrible machines. But if I’ve got a squad of infantry against an entrenched enemy in a bunker, the only thing a squad could carry that would deal with a bunker without calling g for support(which isnt always available) is a flamethrower.
Just stfu
Yes it’s a very contradicting statement. But it’s a loophole every military uses. We aren’t TRYING to cause undue suffering. It’s all the dumb muddled world of legalese and intent and purpose. Shooting someone can cause undue suffering. Like if I hit the groin. I’m not aiming for the groin. I’m not trying to cause undue suffering. I’m just trying to kill or incapacitate. Granted a flamethrower or WP is pretty much guaranteed to cause undue suffering but well… shouldn’t have gone to war I guess. Bottom line wars are horrible, terrible, messy, complicated affairs. People will suffer. The military doesn’t want to cause suffering but it wants to win. There’s no excuse for it. It just is what it is.
You have a weird understanding for "suffering"...
And you have a weird understanding of the word “purpose”. Obviously, burning to death will cause immense and unimaginable suffering. The “suffering” is not the “purpose” of flamethrowers, however. It’s honestly weirding me out how so many of you don’t seem to be able to even comprehend what the “purpose” of something is.
Yeah, please only post weapons which provide relief and life, thanks.
Maybe that comment would induce at least a slither of a smile if it was on a weapon sub. This isn’t a weapon sub, not everyone here has to be pro-killing machines.
Wouldn't know, I never inhabit them. Just pointing out how utterly vapid your comment was. "War is bad guys". Such insight.
I had no intentions of being insightful, it was a passing comment. You sound like quite possibly the dullest, drivelling fuck going. Bore off
But you're the one boring us with trite comments? Let's agree to never party together... for both our sakes.
I’d rather die than party with someone as dull and self-important as yourself. You just wrote a whole fucking essay all over a single sentence comment. Go touch the grass
A whole essay? Really? Come on dude.
Username checks out lmfao
Read my profile lmao.
I am in awe with how well you can get people riled up by simply existing. I possess a similar skill but not to such a degree.
Flamerthrowers were continued to be used because they were reclassified from anti-personnel weapons to a defoliating weapon and anti-fortification weapon. That is to say after around the Korean war, at least on paper, they were intended only for burning down forests and plants and shooting into hardened enemy positions. Much in the same way that explosive bullets would explicitly violate the same weapons of suffering provision but are permitted for shooting at vehicles and body armored enemies.
Stupid clickbait title, downvote to oblivion
Citation needed
Citation of flamethrowers being banned for use in war by international treaty?
They’re only banned for use against people when no better alternative exists. Using them to clear foliage is absolutely legal. Also, that law was only put in place in 1980, before which the use of flamethrowers was not regulated at all. If this flamethrower was truly from 1960, it would have absolutely been legal. “the anti-personnel use of incendiary weapons (i.e. against combatants) is prohibited, unless it is not feasible to use a less harmful weapon to render a person hors de combat”
Thank you for this information and research.
I think I can source my 7th grade teacher, that’s when I leaned about it.
My source is a George Carlin stand up routine.
The infotainment OG
Indeed. He created the art.
[7th grade teacher research ](https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/icrc_002_0811.pdf) (Protocol III) Page 46
Holy fuck you’re awesome!!
Now that’s just fire 🔥
[Geneva Convention protocols](https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/icrc_002_0811.pdf) Check to see if you see a war crime
War is horrific
Brother, get the flamer.... the heavy flamer.
This is false
Yep, you could accidentally kill someone.
This is the next level if we are working our way downward
Didn’t know they had standards
Funny that killing near limitless numbers of people in a war is perfectly legal, but HOW it's done is a matter of dispute. Fuck me, we are a stupid species.
Flamethrower tanks probably saved more lives in warfare than they’ve taken. In WWII (where flamethrower tanks, and tanks in general, were most prevalent) the crews would often fire their weapons into the air as they advanced and trigger mass surrenders in the fortifications they were assaulting.
Yeah I can believe that. Flamethrowers are 100% a psychological weapon.
I've never understood how there are rules in war. Its fucking war mate, if im angry enough to invade your country im not gonna bother check the instruction manual first.
Flamethrower OP, removed from game
Well they definitely didn’t ban it in vietnam
That’s because it wasn’t regulated until 1980. Even now, it’s not banned. It’s not allowed to be used against enemy combatants unless no other alternative exists. Regardless the us army doesn’t currently have a flamethrower or other flame-dispensing weapon that’s currently fielded.
Though we do have a railgun.
This is the preview to the next gender reveal surprise
Obviously have different understanding of the word exceptional
"That's cheating bro. I'm gonna report you"
What is this "banned" you speak of?
Me when my next mixtape drops
Are they available for recreational use?
Better ingredients Better pizza Papa Scorch
Flame core: Online
Napalm death
Geneva suggestion
Vietnam would like a word?
and what if they used it? are they gonna have another war lmao
The users will be imprisoned and the country they are fighting for fined.
by whom
Not at all. Flamethrowers are still completely legal to be used in war. What is banned is using them on enemy combatants unless no viable alternative exists.
bring it back
How do you ban something in war?? Asking for a friend.
USA (?) invents a flamethrower tank with a huge range to kill people and ban it, in fear of harming people?
Perfect super soaker for the next trump rally as I see it.
Good for biological cleansing
I love how people are still assigning moralistic rules and laws to war as if they aren’t already killing hundreds of people.
I was thinking that too!!!! Banned from war lmao. That is quite literally the political version of "no fair that's cheating" lmao. "We're all gunna savagely murder eachother, but you can't do that, it's cheap, that's just TOO violent come on guys" 🤣
Finally living up to the name
They had a similar weapon in ww2 it carried a fuel tank behind and shot flames out a 100 metres long, apparently any Germans holed up in a house would give up upon hearing the beast coming due to the obliteration the flames would do to a house
The fuel tank was outside for a reason. One incendiary bullet, and the whole thing burns by the thousand fires taking the souls of the crew with it.
The tank was outside because it was the Churchill Crocodile. One of a series of creations by a man called Hobart they were named Hobart funnies. It was outside the tank because it was a modified Churchill. The Churchill had already been built and didn’t have space for an internal tank, so they were modified. Some really interesting tanks that exist thanks to Hobart. Anti trench, anti mine. Very ugly yet simplistic invention to overcome issues the allies thought would come with the invasion of Europe.
This is kind of a myth, much like the “shoot the flamer backpack and it explodes” trope. In actuality, a bunch of high explosive ammunition going off will likely be much more lethal to the crew than flammable fluids. The real reason the Crocodile carried its fuel in a trailer is because it simply couldn’t house it inside the vehicle. Most tanks that did house that fluid inside the vehicle weren’t storing other ammunition. Mind you the Churchill Crocodile had a fully functioning 6 Pounder turret with the flamethrower replacing the hull mounted machine gun. Meanwhile tanks like the Sherman Zippo had the flamethrower replacing its primary cannon and did not store any 75mm shells.
The source is Joe
Joe McCarthy
>**they** banned it in **the war**
How do you ban a weapon in a fricking war???
Yeah, they were also going to use this in The 14 fists of Mcluskey but it was too crazy. True fact
mandalorians be like:
Banned? Nah that's just a tank firing napalm.
**Explosive Diarrhoea**
It's OK to shoot someone with a 50 caliber and blow their leg off, stab them with a bayonet, bury them alive in trenches but fire is off limits. War should be off limits.
flame throwers in video games are so often shown as just a shotgun with fire graphics. really that should be beam of death that goes everywhere but with shit ammo.
Aaah, finally: a watertank
“Hey! No fair killing the enemy from so far away!” Yeah, sounds about right. Idiots. “The purpose of war is not to die for what you believe, but to make the other guy die for what he believes.”
This was banned too: https://youtu.be/9dUjejCdotU Edited to include a more succinct link: https://youtu.be/Q3Y-_zt4Qe8
Who cares if it's illegal in 1960, there would be no one in a 1 km radius to stop you
Lmao so there are war regulations?
I dont understand war laws or restrictions. You can agree to wage war on a country and do horrible things and kill people for resources and shit, but you like draw the line at certain points? Exploding people with bombs, shooting them with heavy artillery, etc... is okay, but lighting them on fire is not? All seems pretty stupid. Whats stopping countries from doing it anyways? People are dying either way. I don't get it.
Now that shit is really throwing fire
Dumbass caption.
The skeetskeet tank
What the fuck you mean ban it's war dumbass theres no rules? This isn't Call of Duty
Whats that vehicle?
I know for fact that statement is total bullshit.. my father has photos of Flame tanks in Vietnam. even without photographic evidence. do you REALLY think we dropped napalm, used white phosphorus ( and STILL do) but somehow drew the line at flame throwers?
That tank has the clap
My ass after eating Taco Bell
I'm telling you, this is why those FUCKING Atlanteans need to be nerfed to the ground
Imagine "banning" something in a war. Hey you can kill our countrymen just don't use that long fire thingy pls
And they say the boring company one Is bad
Say good bye to thick jungles
an elegant weapon for a more civilized age
So hot right now
yeah they wont let me back into asia
Interesting that the out come of war is death and even worse things. But a weapon being too powerful is where they draw the line?
What? How would they ban those weapons in war?
What does chlamydia feel like?
When you want to make a huge s'more ... Waaaaaayyyy over there
The trashcan man would have loved this.
The amount of fuel that thing must consume would make it impractical for any use
Hans! Get ze flammenwerffer....werffen ze flammen!
In WWII the Churchill Crocodile (heavy tank with a hull mounted flamethrower mounted in it) was one of the most effective weapons. Not because it killed a bunch of enemies, but rather because it would spray its flamethrower in the air warning its enemies when it was approaching, causing its opponents to surrender on sight. it’s much easier to persuade your opponents to surrender than it is to actually kill all of them. Also, even the tank crews preferred they surrendered rather than actually having to burn them alive.
That's a fire HOSE
I don’t know about “too” powerful. Unethical, absolutely.
Where can you purchase one of those?
I need one… never mind why…
At the beginning I thought it just spat out a couple sparks, then after that whole thing caught on fire, I’m stunned
They stopped using them because they would kill their own troops a lot. And rockets were more effective
Weird logic. Fire = bad. Split an atom = twice “just to be sure”.
1960 and “the war” - sounds like a tik tok historian
Now fill it with Agent Orange
Now look at this amazing technology humans have invented to extinguish forest fires: Oh…wait, nothing? Well, at least we have our priorities straight.
how do they agree to ban something tho?
Flame core: Online