Project Reality Forums

This must be in theater, please!

Click here.

Most of the information I've been hearing indicates that flamethrowers were not commonly used by frontline troops in Vietnam. If you have any usage statistics that would be great but I do believe that this idea has been discussed quite a bit already.

flame throwers were mainly used on tanks such as the M67 Dragon an M48 Patton with a flamer instead of a 90mm gun (dummy gun) and on the front of PBR's

yeah clearing viet tunnels was left to the tunnel rats where they would take a service pistol and a torch....no mp7 no m16 and no flamethrower. but that does remind me of the m67 in charlie dont surf

hades198 wrote:yeah clearing viet tunnels was left to the tunnel rats where they would take a service pistol and a torch....no mp7 no m16 and no flamethrower. but that does remind me of the m67 in charlie dont surf

Yea,i dont see the Flamethrower ever being put in...

the M132 where shipped to vietnam but they didnt serve in a typical us army calvelry unit TOE( table of organization and equipment) but served in a flame troop seperate. i can find no reliable reference to the m67 used by the army as for the marines which have i no reliable information on their cavalry disposition other than they had m67s and where used in Hue.

the zippo in the mekong was not a pbr but a version of the river monitor which where the hulking destroyers of the mekong. you can tell becuase they sit very low in the water. they themselves where converted from LCM(6) Landing craft from world war 2. the zippos where mostly employed at clearing the vegetation on the banks of the rivers and canals forceing the VC to engage the boats far away from the banks.

i think the m132 was used alot for this job on the ground too especialy along the main roads and supply routes.

would i like to see it in PR? the answer is no I can see why peaple would. if you where to put a support vehicle then the M106 Mortar carrier would be a better addition as that was in a cavalry TOE and would be an interesting and a skillfull bit of kit to use.

stu

IF this is put it,its gonna be the new lonewolf kit

Infantry1242 wrote:IF this is put it,its gonna be the new lonewolf kit

and that will probably be the reason it wont be put in... XD

heres an good link to an article written by John Sandri on his experiances and information on the 1/4th cavalry 68 -69


Recollections of a 1/4 Cav Veteran in Vietnam - Submitted by John Sandri

Now a flamethrower might be impractical due to the range on it. However, napalm would be awesome. Just think about it, an A-6 Intruder or F-105D Thunderchief could burn the heck out of an entire village with a single pass and a few napalm canisters.

napalm bombs will be put in, what sort of a Vietnam mod would it be if it didn't have napalm bombs in

You can't burn anything but people on the bf2 engine. Plus the flamethrower would have to have too short of range

The Range of a flamethrower is much greater than hollywood or other games lends it.

The M132 in question had a range of up to 200m Source Indeed most vehicle mounted flamethrowers had about this range, if not more.

For the M2 Flamethrower of WW2, Range was about 70 feet Source.

Still in a game like Pr or arma 200m is a good cutoff

Useless, since guns can kill people much faster.

Dev1200 wrote:Useless, since guns can kill people much faster.

But guns don't BBQ people.

Biscuits wrote:But guns don't BBQ people.

because I kill people.

Dev1200 wrote:Useless, since guns can kill people much faster.

Fail......