RCU Forums

RCU Forums (https://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/)
-   RC Tanks (https://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/rc-tanks-369/)
-   -   Flamethrower??? (https://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/rc-tanks-369/10581867-flamethrower.html)

(RC)Tanker 06-19-2011 08:45 AM

Flamethrower???
 
Anyone ever put a LED infared light in a housing at the same IR frequency as the IR beams?
It could kind of simulate a light/ medium flamethrower unit.

pattoncommander 06-19-2011 09:55 AM

RE: Flamethrower???
 
Wouldn't be a very good flame gun. I built two...Russian OT-34 and a Pz III flammenpanzer, both worked very nice with a water gun. The OT-34 got out to 3 meters.

(RC)Tanker 06-19-2011 05:35 PM

RE: Flamethrower???
 
Would putting a stram of water and putting a laser through work well?

WhiteWolf McBride 06-19-2011 06:07 PM

RE: Flamethrower???
 
Hmmm...

Interesting idea Tanker.

How about a solid clear plastic rod that pops out when the light goes on to simulate the flame? Only issue is the 'reach' of the simulator-rod, and how to actuate it.

no12skyline 06-19-2011 10:46 PM

RE: Flamethrower???
 
The last I checked, flamethrowers were anti-personnel weapons, not anti-armor weapons. Tanks aren't as affected by flame throwers as emplacements and troop concentrations?

(RC)Tanker 06-20-2011 05:23 AM

RE: Flamethrower???
 


ORIGINAL: no12skyline

The last I checked, flamethrowers were anti-personnel weapons, not anti-armor weapons. Tanks aren't as affected by flame throwers as emplacements and troop concentrations?
Well modern tanks are enviormentally seperated but WW2, not so much. Maybe damage like machinegun on some RC IRs and makes it shake alot to disrupt the guy controlling it?
My reasoning is that it wouldnt do alot of damage to the tank(maybe blow up some HE rounds) but would seriously disrupt the crews operation of the vehicle.
<br type="_moz" />

sevoblast 06-20-2011 07:58 AM

RE: Flamethrower???
 
Really? And how would it 'blow up some HE rounds', which would of course be highly distressing to the crew, as ammo is carried inside the tank.

I'm beginning to agree with Rivetcounter, your questions and statements are resembling more an older lad, not a 12 year old. I already told you, many of us here are veterans, myself included. Don't play games with us. That is the surest way to get shunned here. As for me, you have ceased to be of interest. You are not interested in our hobby, you are simply verbally m///////////g.

(RC)Tanker 06-20-2011 09:20 AM

RE: Flamethrower???
 


ORIGINAL: sevoblast

Really? And how would it 'blow up some HE rounds', which would of course be highly distressing to the crew, as ammo is carried inside the tank.

I'm beginning to agree with Rivetcounter, your questions and statements are resembling more an older lad, not a 12 year old. I already told you, many of us here are veterans, myself included. Don't play games with us. That is the surest way to get shunned here. As for me, you have ceased to be of interest. You are not interested in our hobby, you are simply verbally m///////////g.
Dude, im not 40.
<br type="_moz" />

sevoblast 06-20-2011 10:46 AM

RE: Flamethrower???
 
To you, I am not 'Dude', I am Robert or Sevoblast. I am more than old enough to be your grandfather. Remember that. End of discussion, end of commo.

Perry S. 06-20-2011 11:24 AM

RE: Flamethrower???
 

ORIGINAL: sevoblast

To you, I am not 'Dude', I am Robert or Sevoblast. I am more than old enough to be your grandfather. Remember that. End of discussion, end of commo.
So if he is 40 like you say and you are old enough to be his grandfather, then that makes you how old? :D

So which is it? Your all over the place.


Perry

sevoblast 06-20-2011 11:28 AM

RE: Flamethrower???
 
Old as dirt. LOL.

Perry S. 06-20-2011 12:33 PM

RE: Flamethrower???
 


ORIGINAL: sevoblast

Old as dirt. LOL.
I think I used to babysit you :D:D:D

Panther G 06-20-2011 03:26 PM

RE: Flamethrower???
 
OK , i think this guy is done here. there is more than enough of this nonsense going on lately and I for one have grown tired of it.<div>This forum used to be fun, informative, friendly.</div><div>Now we get the now or me first generation demanding answers with little or no respect for anyone.</div>

pattoncommander 06-20-2011 03:54 PM

RE: Flamethrower???
 
Totally immaterial whether you are in a tank or cave...a flame thrower is a weapon which burns away all oxygen and sufficates the enemy...a tank will be equally effected by this alone....followed by searing heat and fire. Breathing when a flame thrower hits, will instantly burn out the lungs and armor and NBC gear is totally useless against a flame gun. Doing away with the human crew leaves the tank pretty useless. It's one of the most horrible weapons ever devised and the only defense is to take it out before before it gets close to you.

RCDude, your reasoning is very flawed and imature. What you need to see are photos of a tank that has been hit with napalm or a flame gun. NOT pretty at all.

sevoblast 06-20-2011 07:32 PM

RE: Flamethrower???
 
So YOU'RE the one who used to put that shot of whiskey in my bottle! Many thanks!

WhiteWolf McBride 06-20-2011 07:40 PM

RE: Flamethrower???
 
Commander:

Add into that 'burns' issue any stowage that was carried on the exterior, like spare ammo, fuel cans, duffel bags, tarpaulins and camo nets... and an engine intake sucking in burning-hot air would generally cause it to stall out, and the ventillators would do likewise, killing the crews from smoke inhalation.

Anyone who thinks it was a 'neat weapon, should watch Band Of Brothers (not sure if they used 'em) and Pacific (pretty sure they did) and especially 'Flags of Our Fathers' and 'Windtalkers'... where you see the video simulation of a flame-thrower up close and VERY personal... on the targets end, and when the operators' fuel tank went up... and at the beginning of " The Beast " when the Soviet tanks attack the Afghan village...

Thats why I'm pretty sure flamethrowers are amongst the list of banned weapons, just as Napalm is, in the class of 'inhumane'.

OH... and the napalm strike that hits too close in " We Were Soldiers... " (hope you have a stable stomach)

WhiteWolf

(RC)Tanker 06-21-2011 06:15 AM

RE: Flamethrower???
 
I'm not saying its a pretty weapon, but it could be a very useful one in IR combat for lighter, weaker tanks. Is there something morally wrong with mounting an infrared LED in a housing and aiming it at inaminate objects?
I'm not saying it as "cool" or "awesome" I'm just trying to replicate tank warefare as balanced as possible.If there is something morally questionable about simulated warefare with flamethrowers, you should go to avalon hill and talk to them about adding the churchill crocodile and panzer II flamingo to their board game. Sorry to offend you sevoblast by calling you "dude"

pattoncommander 06-21-2011 01:49 PM

RE: Flamethrower???
 
Why in Hxll would you want a flame thrower for tank combat [X(][:@][:-] In first instance, for a flame gun to be effective, it has to get on target...ie; within 150-300 yards. Effectiveness and range depends a great deal on temperature, humidity and wind direction, so what you do one day does not mean that you can do it again the next day. They are very hazardous to mix and reload fuel and pressure the mix, and after all that, you really never know what the damned thing is going to do. . I had an M-67 (M-48) flame tank in 1959 and my best range was around 400 yards with the wind in my favor and temperature ideal for a flame gun. At that range, a tank is an easy target and would be receieving fire from everybody and his brother. I would not like to be in a flame tank and be hit with anything that might penetrate. It's a nasty way to go. My preference was to stand off 900-1200 yards with 90mm and be out of the range of most of my adversaries. I got rid of my flame tank after one time on the range,,., the sgt that got stuck with it was not overly happy with it. :eek: Flame tanks are most definately not tank vs tank weapons....they are purely infantry support in certain...not all....situations. A good 90mm will be plenty to take out "lighter or weaker" tanks and a flame tanks has notjhing at all to do with tank combat. As for board "games"" tell another joke.[:'(]

AmishWarlord 06-21-2011 02:11 PM

RE: Flamethrower???
 
1 Attachment(s)
OK aircraft guy chiming in. Yes I don't know squat about tanks.


However just as a modeling aspect I know they do have flame throwers, I thought of a way to simulate this. It would have a water tank and retract air supply hooked up to a airbrush which has a front end and nozzle that looks like a flame thrower's. Have a red LED or laser mounted under the spay. Set the air and water to give a vaporous wispy spay that goes off in clouds.

RC jet guys do this with electric jets to simulate after burners.


Buckeye36 06-21-2011 06:06 PM

RE: Flamethrower???
 
Mist and an LED....... that's a cool effect.

Pah co chu puk 06-21-2011 06:27 PM

RE: Flamethrower???
 
It would be a way to make safe indoor "explosions" for a battle.  Not so much to fight tanks with but kind'a as active props around the battle field.  <div>
</div><div>Random buildings burning from time to time.  </div>

pattoncommander 06-22-2011 06:40 PM

RE: Flamethrower???
 
1 Attachment(s)
That wispy/misty effect would not look much like a flame gun. The flame thrower throws out a heavy stream and once the target is saturated, the ignition is hit and fries the target. Here's what an M-67 looks like., Ft Irwin, CA 1959. range about 300 yds. A LED would not carry through a water stream 6-8 feet.

AmishWarlord 06-23-2011 01:07 AM

RE: Flamethrower???
 
1 Attachment(s)
You could do that with a steam of water.

I have seen otherwise in movies. I think in movies they use a low viscosity mix to get a lot of billowy fire wile in real life they use a thick sticky mix for distance and so the fire will stick on target.


WhiteWolf McBride 06-23-2011 02:22 AM

RE: Flamethrower???
 
Amish:

In the beginning of the movie " A Bridge Too Far " they show the Allied Universal Carriers with flame throwers (aka Wasps) that were used in Normandy to clear a path to either side... in those pics you can see about how much range they had... and the 'format' of the stream as it went out.


" Researchers at Harvard (in 1942) found that mixing an aluminum soap powder of NAphthene and PALMitate (hence Napalm), also known as napthenic and palmitic acids, with gasoline produced a brownish sticky syrup that burned more slowly than raw gasoline. This new mixture of chemicals was widely used in the Second World War in flame throwers and fire bombs. On July 17, 1944, napalm incendiary bombs were dropped for the first time by 14 American P-38 Lightning aircraft of the 402d Fighter Squadron / 370th Fighter Group on a fuel depot at Coutances, near St. Lô, France. Napalm B is not actually the original form of napalm. Rather, it is usually a mixture of the plastic polystyrene and the hydrocarbon benzene. It was used in Korea, and in Vietnam. Napalm 877 was used in flamethrowers and bombs by American and Allied forces to increase the deadliness of its predecessors. This substance is formulated to burn close to a specified rate and also to adhere to surfaces. Napalm B is mixed with gasoline in various proportions to achieve this. "
(Wikipedia)

Bottom line: It'd be hard to replicate decently short of a something that shot thickened butane or naptha, and that would preclude its use on the battlefields, as it would endanger spectators, and almost anything else. These kind of things are left for those nutty Germans who are allowed to have 'live fire' events... with flamers, rockets, and the like.


I'd say... better left alone...

karel47 06-23-2011 03:01 AM

RE: Flamethrower???
 
am totaly agree with you serv


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:35 AM.


Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.