I feel the rate at which the flamethrowers expend fuel should be increased. I counted about 13 second to expend a full tank, to me that should be reduced to like 5 seconds that or reduce the amount of fuel by half. This would force flam troopers to conserve their fuel and use it strategically and not just W+M1 which is not fun to face and is extremely dangerous to friendly troops in close proximity to the flame trooper.
4 Likes
Well then we should be allowed to blow up the flame trooper Fueltank then as well
3 Likes
should be a chance thing not a %100 guarantee
should be from a pool of chances of
1- spurts a stream of fire in a random direction
2- fire drips on the ground
and then two more with a small chance
4- no effect
5- fireball
2 Likes
That’s not how flamethowers work.
They don’t explode when shot, They leak and that would make them pointless, Which enlisted does a great job of showing, As you can’t really pick up flamethowers (would be cool if you were downed they had a chance to leak making them unuseable.)
2 Likes
It’s not unlikely that the fuel could catch on fire when shot, But it was often reported that most of the time it just leaked fuel, Flamethowers mix together different “fuels/starters” together to shoot fire, Most of the time when shot fuel would just leak across the flame trooper which could start if something else light it, But often bullets would do nothing but make it leak. at that point a match is more likely to catch fire to the fuel then a bullet.
5 Likes
1 Like
the fuel would catch fire from the fire around them but in most cases yea its a fat chance of them blowing up in fire pedowood style
If we are going off realism.
Flamethowers don’t explode like you see in movies.
Let me ask you this: what army would be that fuckin stupid to put:
A: Gear
B: A team of soldiers
C: Machines (trucks ect)
in danger of exploding if they had flamethowers close to them? It would be too risky for most military’s.
It’s why every side used flamethowers as they were no less dangerous then carrying a rifle.
1 Like
At this point I don’t know if we aren’t overnerfing flamethrowers as just yesterday there was a topic about nerfing their movement / turn spreed.
So some buff would be welcomed before we discuss any other changes.
2 Likes
Or add overheating to flamers
To put it simple, The USA and GB flamethower’s used napalm.
Napalm isn’t easy to light, Someone who trained with flamethowers in the us army was told and I quote:“We were told that a bullet through the compressed air tank would knock us down. A bullet through the fuel tank would not ignite the napalm.”
1 Like
There is nothing to overheat (paradoxically).
1 Like
Well it could simulate how historically most flamers could only fire 7 or so seconds at a time.
im not saying they should i have fought on this issue before
but there is a small chance that they can
and they “did” but such things involved a mines/bombs IRL not bullets
Historically: yes.
Imo, Flamethowers should be a scary weapon that you push on a point with and afterwards you need to refuel them from an ammo box, Most of the time you push a point and still have fuel for 2 more.
It would make flamethowers a PRIME target just as they were in WW2, (Hints the ROKs mindset)
It’s caused by lack of fuel. So exactly what OP suggests.
M2 had fuel for about 4s of firing. (Rough estimate probably.)
A mine and bomb are way way different to a bullet, And yes, Hints why Napalm was turned into a bomb.
im aware
Perhaps they should just fire a single long burst, and then have to resupply, but being directly in the stream for enemies is an insta kill due to napalm being more deadly than normal/molotov/ground fires
Not really how flamethowers were used IRL
They were burst out unless they had much larger tanks (such as on boats)
Correct me if I’m wrong.
1 Like