I have a fascination with flamethrowers. I’m lazy and I love fire, so anything that can let me burn things without having to stand up will get two thumbs up from me. One of the nice things about World War II is that they actually used flamethrowers on the battlefield.
Remember, back in the 1940s. Guns were scary because you knew they could kill you. Your brain is telling you that people die because of guns, so you’re scared. Artillery and mines are about the same, except for the russian roulette aspect: you know you can be blown to shreds, but that’s your brain talking.
But a flamethrower? You’re scared because you see that it can kill you. It’s your animal instincts. Animals are not afraid of guns, but they are afraid of flamethrowers. Nothing spells death like a fiery orange cloud.
“Yes, you love flamethrowers. Now get to the point”
The point. Right. What did flamethrowers actually not do in World War II ?
Work.
They didn’t work. They’re big, scary, macho killing machines, shinier than an iPhone 4 on your birthday, and they just didn’t work.
Turns out, they have a shorter range than almost every single gun in existence, and they look like giant flashing “shoot me from a distance” signs whenever you use them.
Has this every happened to you? To have that great idea, the one that looks like a real winner, the one that’s sure to work and make you millions? And a short while later, you find out that reality disagrees with your analysis?
Do you have any tips or techniques to avoid spending too much time on a flamethrower idea? Or how to recycle it once it goes bad, so that all the time you spent on it will not be wasted? Or how to actually distort reality into accepting your idea as the great world-changing concept you believe it should be?
Please tell me.
Hi. I'm Victor Nicollet,
Technically, flamethrowers worked for a specific purpose: the US found them tremendously useful at clearing closed and burrowed spaces (such as bunkers & trenches) on the Pacific front.
If you have guaranteed access to, well, basically everyone (helloo, Internet !), ‘making reality agree with your analysis’ is often just about finding your niche.
Hi huitseeker,
They do work for that purpose, but it’s a little bit… anti-climactic. When you first hear the idea of a *flame* *thrower* it really brings up notions of terror and the smell of napalm in the morning. And then, you find out it’s only useful for clearing out bunkers and clipping toenails. I felt the same way when the Half-Life 2 gravity gun failed to pick up headcrabs. Or when I understood that 20-meter giant mutant ants couldn’t exist on earth.
As for the niche part, I agree. Rule 35 states that if you can think of something, then there’s a business doing it on the internet. Except those businesses that need to sell to people who are so scared of computers that they ask their secretaries to print out web pages for them.
I honestly hope that you are being sarcastic on “One of the nice things about World War II is that they actually used flamethrowers on the battlefield.”.
Don’t forget that victims of flamethrowers might be in your very own family.
Anyway: To my knowledge, flamethrowers have always been in use when bunkers had to be “cleared” out, may it be at the pacific- or the european-front. Soldiers would try to get out the bunkers, and depending on the mood of the attackers, they would then receive a coup de grâce, or die horribly painful and slowly, or survive into a non worthwile life.
Hello phresnel,
It’s against my religion to use sarcasm
seriously, I do not condone setting people on fire for any reason, no matter how cool it looks in movies and video games.
Either way, a flamethrower remains a heavy piece of equipment that’s more prone to kill its bearer than the average gun. It does have its uses in specific bunker-clearing situations, but the less-cool-but-easily-carried hand grenades are a possible replacement.