Flame Throwers

Discussion in 'The Corps' started by Nails, Dec 4, 2008.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. After playing Call of Duty 5 and Far Cry 2 it's evidant how useful and devastating the flame thrower is. So why do they not have flame throwers in the forces these days?

    Surely letting out a burst of flames into a building occupied by the Taliban would be better than running in and spraying bullets. They used Flame throwers in world war 2 and in nam so why don't we have a flame thrower platoon for today's wars??
  2. Wah

    This has to be a bite

  3. PMSL you maybe be fit but you have no intelligence especially comparing yesterdays warfare with modern warfare lol
  4. Against Human Rights!

  5. Fit yeah Wi Fit lol
  6. So your saying it's okay to shoot people in the stomach or ram a bayonet through their neck but burning them is too nasty?
  7. AFAIK, it's a partly a H&S problem, as a risk assessment would need to be undertaken before each house could be torched, and the contents of all the rooms would need to be taken into consideration to ensure that the operator of the flamethrower was not subjected to unneccessary risk. The other part of the problem arises from the 'Pressure Vessel Regulations', which includes the following;

  8. I'm not sure whether a flamethrower should be put into the hands of a bunch of hairy arsed bootnecks anyway TBH
  9. yeah but, well handy for a bbq
  10. A lot quicker apparently! Burning is far too painfull!
  11. And that just goes to show what this guy knows. I guess he would like our troops to be subjected to persons running about on fire and the associated trauma that arises from seeing it. Added to that there is a risk that civilians might get caught up in it.

    I dont know about you guys but i've seen burns victims both alive and dead and i couldn't live with myself if i took out a family or even another human being unless my life was absolutely 100% in danger

    Just a thought

  12. But they allowed it in WW2 and Nam tho. What's the difference?
  13. The difference is years! They are in the past times have changed!!!

  14. Ah for fcuks sake, you again?

    Theres about half a dozen reasons why we dont use them, none of which I or anybody else I know could be arsed to share with cnuts like you.

    Now run along back to your xbox like a good like mong.
  15. Fantastic reply and has made my afternoon. Thanks W&S. :)
  16. I aim to please mate!! :thumright:
  17. Re-arragne these letters - if you are intelligent enough.

    KUFCFOF, and go and do it.
  18. i have gone OFF FCUK clothing too :w00t: :dwarf:
  19. Fnarr fnarr

    However this has to be a bite hasn't it?? Surely nobody is that fcuking thinck??
  20. You saying should have swords and shields?

Share This Page