WW2 Flame Thrower

[CGNoodlePot (DayZ) 149]

You will need to sacrifice your back pack to equip one and needs a fuel can to fill up.

Perfect when base building comes to the game.

Then also the fire extinguisher should be able to operate to stop the fires!

[Warhoax 63]

Let me start with ... I like the idea.

But wouldn't this be a little bit overpowered?
Basically you have unlimited ammo, whenever you're near a fuelpump.
 

[foolee 43]

Im not against the idea,  but keep in mind the following.

 

Flamethrowers pose many risks to the operator.

• The first disadvantage was the weapon's weight, which impairs the soldier's mobility.
• The weapon is limited to only a few seconds of burn time since it uses fuel very quickly, requiring the operator to be precise and conservative.
• The weapon was very visible on the battlefield, which caused operators to become immediately singled out as prominent targets, especially for snipers.
• Flamethrower operators were rarely taken prisoner, especially when their target survived an attack by the weapon; captured flamethrower users were in some cases summarily executed.^[1]
• Finally, the flamethrower's effective range was short in comparison with that of other battlefield weapons of similar size. To be effective, flamethrower soldiers must approach their target, risking exposure to enemy fire. Vehicular flamethrowers also have this problem; they may have considerably greater range than a man-portable flamethrower, but their range is still short compared with that of other infantry weapons.

 

A Soviet, ROKS–2 flamethrower in the Mikkeli Infantry museum, Mikkeli Finland (2011)

Some Soviet Army flamethrowers had three backpack fuel tanks side by side. Its user could fire three shots, each emptying one of the tanks. The mechanism used to empty the tank was not a pressurized gas cylinder but a black powder cartridge on each fuel cylinder. This type is used in two versions, the "Light Infantry Flamethrower" (Легкий Пехотный Огнемёт) LPO-50 (ЛПО-50), and the "Heavy Infantry Flamethrower" (Тяжёлый Пехотный Огнемёт) TPO-70 (ТПО-70); a heavier, wheeled version was remotely triggered.

The ROKS-1 (РОКС-1) flamethrower was a stationary device used in defense. It could also be categorized as a projecting incendiary mine. Different from the LPO and TPO flamethrowers, the ROKS had only one cylinder of fuel.^{[citation needed]} The November 1944 issue of the US War Department Intelligence Bulletin refers to 'Fougasse flame throwers' used in the Soviet defense of Stalingrad.

Unlike the flamethrowers of the other powers during World War II, the Soviets were the only ones to consciously attempt to camouflage their flamethrowers. With the ROKS-2 flamethrower this was done by disguising the "gun" as a standard issue rifle, such as the Mosin Nagant, and the fuel tanks as a standard infantryman's rucksack, to try to stop snipers from specifically targeting flamethrower operators.[citation needed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamethrower

 

[Conrad_The_Comrade 577]

Ehhhh, I like it and I don't. Basically, fire, I just... in DayZ? I mean yeah, fires are cool, but... in DayZ? I just don't see how this is going to be managed, especially if I want to see a forest burn cx

 

On the other hand... fire. Sounds awesome as fuck being able to burn someone alive. Maybe I'm just a little whacked.

[stielhandgranate 480]

On one hand most militaries have abandoned the concept of a flamethrower for ordinance that delivers thermobarics like bomb dispensed napalm, and as far as small arms goes, the M202 FLASH and RPO-A Shimel. However, Backpack style flamethrowers see civilian use for industrial purposes and in various works of fiction are used to dispose of mass amounts of dead like the ones would form in a zombie scenario. I'd say the ladder would make good civilian loot while the former M70A1 and RPO-A being military loot worthy of being rare crash site pick ups, unlike the current "rare" loot of small arms like the M4 and AUG. As far as flamethrowers being overpowered, their prevention of equipping a normal backpack,short range and limited fuel would balance it, metagamers would find small arms already found in civilian areas to be more adaptable. It would be nice to see flame zombies.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Dale Gribble

[Evil Minion 943]

I like the idea but I think the downsides should be well represented. I do not want a "action movie flamethrower" so I would say yes under the following conditions:

Flamethrowers pose many risks to the operator.

• The first disadvantage was the weapon's weight, which impairs the soldier's mobility.
• The weapon is limited to only a few seconds of burn time since it uses fuel very quickly, requiring the operator to be precise and conservative.
• The weapon was very visible on the battlefield, which caused operators to become immediately singled out as prominent targets, especially for snipers.
• Flamethrower operators were rarely taken prisoner, especially when their target survived an attack by the weapon; captured flamethrower users were in some cases summarily executed.^%5B1%5D
• Finally, the flamethrower's effective range was short in comparison with that of other battlefield weapons of similar size. To be effective, flamethrower soldiers must approach their target, risking exposure to enemy fire. Vehicular flamethrowers also have this problem; they may have considerably greater range than a man-portable flamethrower, but their range is still short compared with that of other infantry weapons.

Now one thing that I deem critical is rarity or where to find it. You would not find an operational flamethrower in military areas let alone civilian ones so it would be down to crafting alone. I hightly doubt you would be able to find a functional WW2 flamethrower.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Evil Minion

[liquidcactus 719]

There is no way it would happen but one can fantasize and thas bout it  :lol:

Hell, I'm wondering if we will ever see molotov cocktails let alone a flame thrower 

[foolee 43]

I like the idea but I think the downsides should be well represented. I do not want a "action movie flamethrower" so I would say yes under the following conditions:

Now one thing that I deem critical is rarity or where to find it. You would not find an operational flamethrower in military areas let alone civilian ones so it would be down to crafting alone. I hightly doubt you would be able to find a functional WW2 flamethrower.

pretty much my though, I don't know about Russia but in the US most were permanently disabled leaving them inoperable. You do see collectors that have them every now and then. I think molotov cocktails are much more likely.

[stielhandgranate 480]

Going on youtube finds you a lot of examples of home built flame throwers.

 

 

 

[Draco122 412]

Well in industrial areas I can see players possibly coming across a backpack mounted propane flamethrower. Also called a Vapor torch, they're often used to melt ice quickly and can be used to kill off weeds when pesticides are ill advisable as well as heating of certain materials in construction.

 

[BanditsNoMoreZombiesGalore 10]

please add to the game. it will save me time because i wont have to build a fire to cook people.

[Geckofrog7 1168]

Basically you have unlimited ammo, whenever you're near a fuelpump.

 

!?@#$%^&*!!!!

 

why does everyone think flamethrowers run on gaseoline!? (Most of them run on a sort of kerosene + tar compound basically.)

 

In any case, I love flamethrowers and would want nothing more than to put them into the game. But it's just not plausible for a WW2 flamethrower. How many ROKS 3's were leftover from the war in operable condition, and what are the chances that they'd end up in Chernarus? Why would they even be stored if no one is using them?

 

On the other hand, the RPO-Z incendiary launcher would be very plausible, as much as any AK variant or RPG.

 

An improvised flamethrower, much like that seen in Metro 2033/Last Light, would be excellent, especially one mounted on a vehicle.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Geckofrog7

[Sirwarriant12 94]

Good luck finding a functional one and good luck getting the right fuel mixture. Seriously, i'm heavily against any from ww2 etc being added simply because of how rare they are however if we could rig some crappy one together that had a chance of exploding on use or something then sure I guess. I just don't see it as something we need and theres a hell of alot of other, easier ways to clear out a building/ bunker then running up to it with a bomb strapped to your back. Not to mention some civilian one rigged from a propane tank or gas tank or whatever isnt going to have the power or range to clear much of anything.

[stielhandgranate 480]

Bumping this thread after seeing this, the LPO-50:

 

 

Heavy, COMBLOC, Shoots fire.

[DURRHUNTER 597]

cool looking flamethrower picture

so its a Russian Flamer?

Edited April 2, 2015 by DURRHUNTER

[stielhandgranate 480]

so its a Russian Flamer?

 

Yes. It was put in use after WW2 and used until the deployment of the RPO-A Shmel in the 1980s.

[gibonez 3633]

Theres absolutely no need for backpack mounted flame throwers or Rocket propeled thermobaric weapons.

 

 

There however exists something that the Russians use to the same effect and actually use quite often.

 

 

There are plenty of vog nades that could do the exact same thing and would work with the grenade launchers planned in the future.

 

No need for Rocket launchers or obscure backpack flame throwers.

 

Better yet molotovs would dot he same thing.

[Chaingunfighter 917]

Theres absolutely no need for backpack mounted flame throwers or Rocket propeled thermobaric weapons.

 

 

There however exists something that the Russians use to the same effect and actually use quite often.

 

 

There are plenty of vog nades that could do the exact same thing and would work with the grenade launchers planned in the future.

 

No need for Rocket launchers or obscure backpack flame throwers.

 

Better yet molotovs would dot he same thing.

The GM-94 would make a good interesting grenade launcher platform, although it'd need to be incredibly rare because it holds four (3+1, but still) rounds internally and can fire pretty fast with the pump-action. I'd probably put it in as Eastern crashsite loot, alongside the AK101, SVD, and VSS.

 

Another decent choice would be this baby;

 

Would be the Western equivalent at their crashsites, and is different enough because it's a single shot one. Plus, it could be sawed-off to create the icon 'pirate gun' variant seen in Vietnam.

 

These two, alongside the GP-30 and M203 for AKs, ARs, and other accepted rifle platforms would probably be good in the grenade area. The M203 and M79 do use different grenades to the GM-94 and GP-30, but I'm pretty sure one 40mm grenade type would be fine for both.

 

I don't really understand what the problem with these would be, though;

 

They're setting appropriate (RPG-7 as East gear of some sort, M72 as West crashsite loot) and would be useful as anti-vehicular and infantry weapons. RPG-7s are unwieldy, heavy, inaccurate, and have very large ammunition, so you'd be sacrificing a lot by carrying one. M72s are lighter, more accurate, and don't take up as much room (in fact could be carried in a backpack), but are single shot and non-reusable, so you'd be making a big gamble to carry one and if you screw up a shot you're out of a nice weapon and room that could've been used for other useful items.

 

I'll agree that rocket launchers, and even grenade launchers, aren't 'necessary' by any means, but I don't there's anything wrong with including the aforementioned ones. They have a niche, aren't unrealistic (The RPG-7 is a staple weapon of the East and M72s are very popular with Western special forces), and would bring quite a bit to the table on both sides of combat, while also including their obvious risks and detriments.

[gibonez 3633]

Well I wa snot necessarily suggesting the Gm94 it would probably be problematic due to its proprietary ammo.

 

What I was demonstrating was how thermometric nades that do exist and are quite common with Russian troops would accomplish everything op wants while being more sensible.

 

These nades are also available for in the form of VOG grenades that will be used maybe in the future with the gp nade launchers.

 

40mm western thermobaric nades are not as common though.

[ASTINvlogs 44]

You can carry that bomb on your back. I'll stick to my 101 thanks lol. Enjoy cooking other people just do t forget that the wearer is on the top of the menu for a well placed shooter.

RvR

[stielhandgranate 480]

You can carry that bomb on your back. I'll stick to my 101 thanks lol. Enjoy cooking other people just do t forget that the wearer is on the top of the menu for a well placed shooter.

RvR

 

Flamethrower packs blowing up after being shot is Hollywood nonsense.

 

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FlamethrowerBackfire

 

 

A Sub-Trope of Man on Fire, for when the person carrying the flamethrower (and its fuel tank backpack) burns to death (or simply disappears in a fireball) when his/her pack is hit, or for when a bullet strikes a Molotov cocktail or incendiary grenade before the person carrying it has a chance to throw it. Would also count if the soldier manages to ditch the burning equipment before they themselves ignite (i.e. for a smoldering grenade attached to their web gear). Not actually Truth in Television. While shooting or otherwise damaging the tank of a flamethrower will make it leak, the fuel won't ignite immediately (even a tracer bullet isn't guaranteed to so, since there's no oxygen inside the tank) unless something else ignites it. The fuel used by flamethrowers is also actually somewhat difficult to ignite and slow burning, which is what allows it to be fired in a targeted stream without igniting the backflow. Put simply, flamethrowers do not explode because this scenario occurred to the designers. That is not to say, however, that the experience is likely to be pleasant for the operator or anyone standing nearby. For starters, anyone who has seen a ruptured aerosol can or air tank knows that it would be very bad to have one strapped to your back. As the punch from your metal backpack knocks you down, a caustic, slippery, noxious, and potentially flammable substance is now spraying at high pressure onto you, your comrades, and your surroundings. Given that one is holding an ignition source designed to ignite said substance, all it takes is a clench of the hand on the trigger to take things from bad to Nightmare Fuel. While not a recipe for an explosion, it is a great way to ruin someone's day.

 

 

The idea of a weapon that is flawed with a pack that takes your backpack slot and has limited range while being balanced out with a easy to find fuel source compared to ammo would be great in my opinion.

[ASTINvlogs 44]

Flamethrower packs blowing up after being shot is Hollywood nonsense.

 

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FlamethrowerBackfire

 

 

 

The idea of a weapon that is flawed with a pack that takes your backpack slot and has limited range while being balanced out with a easy to find fuel source compared to ammo would be great in my opinion.

Learn something new everyday.

Still don't like the idea of wearing it,

I'm all for having it in game but I'll pass that stuff off to another person lol

[stielhandgranate 480]

 

 

Another decent choice would be this baby;

 

Would be the Western equivalent at their crashsites, and is different enough because it's a single shot one. Plus, it could be sawed-off to create the icon 'pirate gun' variant seen in Vietnam.

 

 

 

*Cough cough: http://forums.dayzga...ble-weapon-m79/

[stielhandgranate 480]

Learn something new everyday.

Still don't like the idea of wearing it,

I'm all for having it in game but I'll pass that stuff off to another person lol

 

Theres nothing wrong with not wanting over a rifle. However the community should welcome items and equipment that are not meta at all or even bad at what their applied purpose is in game. I would love to see items that are picked due to rule of cool, and put their owners in a disadvantage.