Brent Pollock Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 ?! That wasn't my experience when a Conscript FT team kept flaming their own building rather than the T-34 out in the street. Irritated the blazes out of everyone, including the FT team. But if you've got data...you've got data...do you "got" data :confused: Originally posted by The Colonel: Also, remember that you don't have to worry about friendly fire kills with flamethrowers. In this game your troops are not affected by your own flamethower bursts. So even if you have a bunch of friendlies in the area, fire away. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold12 Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 Just as an aside, are flamethrowers still used in modern armed forces? I would imagine it they were they make sure the 'embedded press' isn't around..... still if someone asked me to carry a large case of jellied gasoline on my back and run at that nice machine gun I might be forced to object rather strenuously.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 FTs aren't used as such. The industrial-military complex has devised much better ways of delivering fire onto their enemies, like napalm and shoulder launcher rockets, or both. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TylerF Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 I find that they have limited success against tanks, I've ko'ed a tiger when I ambushed the tank from the woods, and sometimes I use them against bunkers. Other than that I don't use them for very much else except cannon fodder. hehe 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 Engines for assault boats? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Colonel Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 That wasn't my experience when a Conscript FT team kept flaming their own building rather than the T-34 out in the street. Irritated the blazes out of everyone, including the FT team. Interesting. I did an experiment with 2 lines of Russian FTs and had them area target each other until the ammo was gone, with no effect. Maybe your conscript started the building he was in on fire and that fire was what effected him. So I guess there can be secondary friendly fire issues if you set the terrain on fire. Both flamethrowers and napalm were removed from the US inventory decades ago. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tar Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Actually napalm is still in the active inventory (Mk77). It was reported used in the 1991 Gulf war by the US Marine Corps. More details: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/mk77.htm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throwdjohn Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 when my father explained to me what our "industrial millitary complex" was i was both horrified and amzed. sure, now the us army can, lets face it, kick around any country it damned well chooses, and thats pretty cool if you ask me. yet we still spend way more money on this star wars crap than on schools. any thoughts on this from americans? or insults on this from europeans? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wisbech_lad Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 On the attack, I find that using something like a Kangaroo or Stuart Recce to quickly move FT teams around helps. But still, hardly worth the effort. Fun when it works though 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Originally posted by throwdjohn: when my father explained to me what our "industrial millitary complex" was i was both horrified and amzed. sure, now the us army can, lets face it, kick around any country it damned well chooses, and thats pretty cool if you ask me. yet we still spend way more money on this star wars crap than on schools. any thoughts on this from americans? or insults on this from europeans? Define "Star Wars Crap" In any case, I wasn't being specific to the US. For starters, I'm a Brit. At the simplest level, Military kit is expensive. Generally it is short-run items which must be extremely robust yet have performance far and away greater than a civilian item. The US has a shoulder launched rocket with a napalm payload (M202 Flash, IIRC) but the majority of infantry flame based weapons come from the Former Soviet Union. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GS_Guderian Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Germany used to have Handflammpatronen in service, unil 5-10 years ago. Small tube filled with phosphor. You fire it and it spreads small dashes of fire up to 90m or so. Maybe neat to fire over a trench or to "blind" tanks. Spreads out after 50m with about 15m width. Anyway, not in our arsenal anymore. for more info: http://members.fortunecity.com/sni_tb/flecktarn-infwaffen011.htm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Colonel Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Originally posted by throwdjohn: yet we still spend way more money on this star wars crap than on schools. Next time you play CM, try using only 1941 weapons against an experienced opponent using only 1945 weapons. Then you'll get a taste of why we spend money on star wars crap. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yuvuphys Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Yeah, but it makes me mad the star wars crap still requires 20/20 vision...now I'm stuck in acadamia instead of flying... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throwdjohn Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 oh yeah colnel, and the people we are fighting ar so close behind us in terms of weapons. honestly im all for arms races, but not against ourselves. maybe its because, while i love PAST wars, i hate the idea in general. something about all the poets, authors, artists, musicians, doctors, fathers, sons, and brothers that have a nasty habit of dying because of war. why cant we get along? and yes, i know the reason is that humans are by nature conflict lovers etc etc. but i can dream no? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yuvuphys Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Better an arms race against ourselves than against someone else. Can you imagine how quick WWII would have ended if someone had weapons from the late-50's when the war started? And how much less bloody it could have been? And we can't get along because some poor sap hates us for no logical reason, and tries to come over here kill people...so we have to take care of him. Not conflict by nature, but I'd say conflict by perversion...some extremist crackpot thinks he can remake the world in his own imagine through violence, so the free worlds has to stop him. Sound familiar? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold12 Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by throwdjohn: yet we still spend way more money on this star wars crap than on schools. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Star Wars project seems to be a technological solution to an out-dated strategic concept.... it's a great idea if you faced thermo-nuclear destruction from a rival force with largh numbers of ICBM's.... but in today's political climate, I think a nuclear pay-load is more likely to be delivered by a fanatic with a back pack rather then a missle. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Rosenrosen Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 We should spend at least as much on education as on direct military technology. If we don't have an educated population, we won't have the best researchers and technicians. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yuvuphys Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 DOD Research Budget, April 2005 Physics Today: $66 billion Homeland Security Research Budget, April 2005 Physics Today: $36 billion DOE Military Related Research Budget, April 2005 Physics Today: $10 billion Total Military Research Budget: $112 billion Total speding on elementary and secondary education, federal, state, and local, from US Census Bureau: $411 billion I figured I didn't need to look up federal and private support for Universities and Colleges... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Pollock Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Man-o-man! I've got try this out next time I get to use FTs! Area Fire the assault's target terrain and then have your own guys storm into it all in the same turn...jeepers, taht'll label me gamey for sure? I can't help thinking that this bug (it baffles me how it could be a "feature" rather than a bug) made it through because no tester ever dared flame close to his won men. Good work and thanks for the tip! You must be correct, either the terrain fire was the irritant or incoming small arms fire that I didn't track in the fray. Originally posted by The Colonel: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> That wasn't my experience when a Conscript FT team kept flaming their own building rather than the T-34 out in the street. Irritated the blazes out of everyone, including the FT team. Interesting. I did an experiment with 2 lines of Russian FTs and had them area target each other until the ammo was gone, with no effect. Maybe your conscript started the building he was in on fire and that fire was what effected him. So I guess there can be secondary friendly fire issues if you set the terrain on fire. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yuvuphys Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 My guess is that the area target means the FT will torch anything that isn't friendly in that area. He see his fellow FT, and decides not to flame him, lest someone else return the favor... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Colonel Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Brent - I say fire away! If someone calls you gamey, just pretend you didn't know. I doubt many have followed this meandering thread this far. yuvuphys - Good budget data, thanks for the covering fire! throwdjohn - No one knows the price of war more than those who've fought in it. And I agree that education is crucial to any country. But I'd be willing to wager that in the history of mankind more poets, artists and teachers have died at the hands of their own government, while men of free nations quietly look away in the name of peace, than have died in all wars put together. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walpurgis nacht Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 "Use for Flamethrowers?" Regurgitated discussion in the BF forum? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bannon DC Posted April 29, 2005 Share Posted April 29, 2005 Originally posted by Walpurgis Nacht: "Use for Flamethrowers?" Regurgitated discussion in the BF forum? Hey -- if you don't like the topic, then don't take part in the discussion. "Discussion" is when people have discourse... you know... conversation. Here is another tactic for effective use for FTs. Be sure to go back to the FAQ to see if this has already been covered in the last 5 years. When attacking with FTs, use the "move to contact" command and set your cover arc out about 30 to 35m (whatever the max range of the device.). This should allow you to move until you come into contact with something at the range of your cover arc. This will help you get a shot off as quickly as possible before you get gunned down. Also, a distraction -- like other friendly units moving to draw enemy fire -- will help. FT's are sighted easily. Try to have an HQ with good stealth. I think the most effective terrain for FTs is urban or heavily wooded. Night too. Any condition where visibility is limited since the FT has such low range and a slow movement rate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yuvuphys Posted April 29, 2005 Share Posted April 29, 2005 I think this has been mentioned before, but I've had great success with FT's in trenches next to my infantry. You really need crack or veteran troops who'll stay and fight, but with two FT's I took out about a platoon over several turns, and the FT's survived. And then my troops didn't have to worry about those pesky squads only 30ish meters away. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Colonel Posted April 29, 2005 Share Posted April 29, 2005 I like putting them in my trenches too. I also like to place them 25m or so behind my trenches and hide them. Then after the inevitable battle for the trench, when the enemy thinks he's won and moves his infantry into the trench, (let's face it, after we've killed all the units in a trench we all love to move all our men in there, just because we can) my FT's pop up and torch it. I've pulled this maneuver twice and it's quite satisfying. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.