Wp

DWM|SgtSwabs · Post by **DWM|SgtSwabs** » 2005-11-11 20:30

I just thought to add even more realism it would be great to get White Phospurus grenades. I know they would need some seriously good particle effects too look good but i just think they would be awesome in game.

Beckwith · Post by **Beckwith** » 2005-11-11 20:35

o god you had to post this now

:d uh:

Brentos · Post by **Brentos** » 2005-11-11 20:55

This reminds me of when a kid ordered a smoke grenade and had it go off in a hallway of my high school and it burned the tiles

Post by **Happy** » 2005-11-11 21:06

This might end like the last WP post

Post by **NikovK** » 2005-11-12 00:30

WP is inhumane. We should stick to .50 caliber machine guns in antipersonel roles, suffocating fuel-air bombs, cluster munitions, self-healing minefields and toxic depleted uranium penetrators.

DAWG · Post by **DAWG** » 2005-11-12 00:42

If it's a realistic concept within the game and can be done I don't see why it shouldn't be implemented. Lets face it there is no good way to kill a man and once he's dead he is unlikely to feel bad because you vapourised him instead of shooting him.

" Damn I can't believe they used WP to kill me, I was really looking forward to getting shot today! "

Post by **NikovK** » 2005-11-12 00:45

I'd seriously prefer flamethrowers to white phosphorus grenades. Burning people alive with gasoline just seems more respectable than outright chemical agents, ya know? Besides. You don't -have- to light a flamethrower stream. You can hose a bunker down with gas and give them a few minutes to think about their situation.

Beckwith · Post by **Beckwith** » 2005-11-12 00:45

id rather see cluster bombs than WP

Post by **Happy** » 2005-11-12 01:17

No one uses WP grenades anymore because the average soldier can throw it 30 meters yet it shoots out WP 35 meters. See the problem?

Tacamo · Post by **Tacamo** » 2005-11-12 02:08

Yep as stated above it had the same problem the W54 warhead on Davey Crockett's had. It posed a great risk to anyone using the thing. Pure genius to develop a nuclear delivery system that barely clears the blast range.

Post by **NikovK** » 2005-11-12 08:23

The Davy Crockett was based on this idea; four volunteer grunts get the Medal of Honor and funny looking children, the Communists lose half a tank battalion, everyone is happy or just unable to complain. Really, its not such a bad idea. Three guys dig a trench, one sets up the missile, and you're just on the edge of the blast radius. Acceptable risk. Heck, I'd volunteer for it.

Artnez · Post by **Artnez** » 2005-11-12 17:58

Isn't fire a chemical agent too? As a matter of fact, anything that will produce chem. reactions could be considered a chemical agent.

Quite frankly, I dont see the difference. A weapon is a weapon.

The question is... is it practical for gameplay? I mean if we have phospherous grenades... EVERYONE will be chucking them like crazy. It's like throwing a 'long-lasting' grenade and being assured that no one will go through the cloud.

Post by **NikovK** » 2005-11-12 18:25

Obviously the United States Army and Marine Corps need an area-denial and close-assault weapon suitable for the built-up, close quarters battle and underground fortification used by the enemy. Might I suggest manpack flamethrowers as an engineer unlockable?

DWM|SgtSwabs · Post by **DWM|SgtSwabs** » 2005-11-12 20:43

Well the SAS managed to use it effectively although they usually just threw it over a piece of cover so they dont get melted away aswell.

Tacamo · Post by **Tacamo** » 2005-11-13 00:07

Flamethrowers are way to dangerous to the operator and nearby friendlies. Pretty much why it's been replaced by missle based systems. The closest thing to a CQB grenade will be is the military decides to use something like the V40 mini grenades used in Vietnam. I believe SOCOM were looking at some entries for supplementary grenade to the M67, since standard ones might pose too much of risk of fratricide. Mainly due to houses/appartments having thin walls and the grenades being too powerful.

DAWG · Post by **DAWG** » 2005-11-13 00:33

Modern versions of the flamethrower wouldn't be as dangerous as they used to be, due mainly to having more stable compounds used for the fuel, however they are not used these days as it is simpler and safer to fire a bunker buster rocket into a target from a much safer distance. Wind also makes fire very unpredictable, coupled with the relative short range of a flamethrower, could end up hurting buddies more than the enemy.

Mad Max · Post by **Mad Max** » 2005-11-13 01:21

RPO-A all the way baby! Who needs a flame thrower when you have one of those beasts to clear a bunker or mg nest?

Noetheinner · Post by **Noetheinner** » 2005-11-13 01:32

no no. We need a mini nuke! like in red alert!

Mad Max · Post by **Mad Max** » 2005-11-13 01:43

And Starship Troopers!

Post by **Happy** » 2005-11-13 01:50

NikovK wrote:The Davy Crockett was based on this idea; four volunteer grunts get the Medal of Honor and funny looking children, the Communists lose half a tank battalion, everyone is happy or just unable to complain. Really, its not such a bad idea. Three guys dig a trench, one sets up the missile, and you're just on the edge of the blast radius. Acceptable risk. Heck, I'd volunteer for it.

For me it would depend on if I could get a purple heart too.