When was the heyday of flamethrowers? Because I can't recall ever reading about them actually being used in war.
Flamethrowers are legal and more abundant than ever. The time is now.
WWI they would mass flamethrowers to attack trenches, or which ever war they used the pump ones on ships with Greek fire. One of those I’d say
>>65186568Nigger you're posting an image of a flamethrower being used in war.Their heyday was the two world wars with some hangover into the cold war until it was roundly considered more trouble than it's worth with advancements in military technology.It's still perfectly legal to use fire in war, with flamethrowers actually facing less restriction than the already loose rules that air dropped incendiary weapons follow under The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.It's just that no one really wants to use them these days for more than TV propaganda and internal security terror like the chinks do.
>>65186617>real flamethrowers that spew napalm are not legal>real flamethrowers are bannedYou can quite literally buy surplus flamethrowers, they're not even NFA items or considered firearms at all.They're exorbitantly expensive to purchase and maintain true but federally completely legalhttps://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/4094/1320/wwii-era-us-m22-portable-flame-thrower-pack-with-accessories
>>65186617
>>65186617Kek I agree, there's a lot of those small 25ft gas sprayers like the XM42, i think those are gimmicks. I don't have one of those.
>>65186568the decade son. you think we're gonna go into the pedo rat rape dungeons when we can just set the whole thing on fire? if the flames don't get e'm to monoxide will.
>>65186586I think WW2 had some and I actually saw a former one in person at a parade and his name was Woody Williams with woody being a nickname
>>65186568Germany produced 70,000 flamethrowers during WW2. America produced 39,000. The Soviet Union produced 15-20,000 I think.
>>65186883yes WW2 did in fact have flamethrowers. I can't believe we have a /k/ poster who didn't learn this after having played OG Call of Duty as a kid, but here we are.
>>65186568>Because I can't recall ever reading about them actually being used in war.Well, maybe you should read more.
>>65186568Byzantium
>>65186568WW1. Flamethrowers were pretty good against bunkers and fortifications since they could eat up the oxygen and set fire to any wooden parts. It would also scare the piss out of any infantry that was too close. Then WW2 came around, there was a lot less bunkers, and the average tank's reply was...explosive. We still had a lot of flamethrowers because SOME PEOPLE thought it would be just like WW1 but flamethrowers just weren't as effective in the second world war.
>>65188022They did good work in the pacific theater but yeah advances in weapons and warfare were making life increasingly hazardous for flamethrower operators and their role less in demand.Interesting to see how disposable flamethrowers were tried by pretty much everyone to hopefully address some of these shortcomings and stuck around a while but you barely hear about them at all
>>65188707They did pave the way for more convenient incendiaries. M202 FLASH needs more love.
>>65188707The germans issued a ton of these things
>>65186586>you know, that thing I don't know what I'm talking about
>>65189095Italy made one too and allegedly kept some around until 1998 for inscrutable italian reasons.
>>65186568WW1 had quite a few due to the trench warfare aspect and WW2 had some notable ones
>>65186883Hi chat.
>>65186903soviet flamethrowers were shaped like mosins so the enemy wouldn't be able to tell (from the front) who the flamethrower operator was.
