How come mecha shows in general don't use flamethrowers?
The only mech I can think of that even has one is the Shenlong Gundam. And X-1 Alpha from Future Cop: L.A.P.D. but that's a vidya not an animu.
Aside from the obvious anti-personnel/anti-structure/terror applications, you'd think repeated application of flaming napalm to a pilot's cockpit would cook them alive inside their own mech. And if you're fighting biologics like the BETA, the flamer would be a good choice to torch away all dat flesh in a wide swath.
>>14013043
Armored Core had them and they sucked. Also it's too short ranged a weapon.
>>14013043
Most mecha can withstand fire and heat pretty well. The problem is keeping your aim on machines meant to be agile on the ground when shells or missiles could be doing much more damage. Metals and alloys take a long time to heat up to the point where the cockpit is an oven, especially so on environment-resistant cockpits that go into space or under water. Flames are slow and can be dodged. If the pilot doesn't cook then you wasted all that time doing little structural damage to the mecha.
That being said a technobable plasma-thrower used in exactly the same way could be cool, I love the concept of flame throwers.
Yo
>>14013065
Its only in video games that flamethrowers are short ranged weapons. In real life and military applications, they have insane range.
Besides, it's not like a beam saber or giant sword has that much greater range either.
>>14013079
>>14013079
>>14013088
That's still pretty short ranged to me.
>>14013079
flame thrower is a damage over time application has the same range as a beam saber or a sword with do instant damage
>>14013094
that doesn't appear to be a military grade flamethrower
in WWII the U.S. M2 Flamethrower could fire out to ~30 yards, not super far but farther than most game portrayals would lead you to believe. of course, it only had about 7 seconds of firing time which was a bigger issue.
flamethrower tanks (which i have to assume a mech is much more comparable to) are a bit more insane, most having around 100yds or more of range:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pRihxvk4YY
>>14013113
>that doesn't appear to be a military grade flamethrower
yeah, that's the one from Alien
>>14013109
>Thinking in game terms.
What is psychological damage?
>>14013113
There's always crocs
https://youtu.be/0rpEO3oiuos?t=117
>>14013113
I wouldn't doubt we could do better today but that's still very short ranged compared to what they could be firing. Hence their phasing out.
>>14013135
>What is psychological damage?
Irrelevant when you've been inside enemy sights for 900m trying to inch close enough to burn them.
>>14013152
everyone on a battlefield has to worry about being shot, anon. but given the choice everyone will take a bullet between the eyes over being burned to death.
>>14013165
I'd take a tank that has to literally charge up to me in order to fight while I'm firing ATGMs at him from >3000m away as opposed to a tank that can destroy me and anything I had hoped to use as cover right after spotting me.
>>14013043
Flamers in the anti-personnel role are very constrained. It's like saying that a knife is anti-personnel, yes, it is, but you're never going to get close enough to use it effectively if you don't have some advantage to get you into that position. A typical rifleman goes at, what, 150 meters engagement range?
It is also less anti-structure and more anti-"traps-in-the-structure" unless your opponents live in huts.
And most of the time you're supposed to be fighting the good side; unless your adversaries are hellbent on universal domination and you're attacking their territory, cleared of all potential non-combatants, terror by flamethrower is relatively indiscriminate on a level just below airstrikes, and will net you little other than bad press, and, factoring this era's trends into the equation, all but guarantees that your own soldiers captured by them are going to have their limbs chopped off and seared with an iron before being publicly executed via explosive necklace.
I'd imagine it's also kind of inefficient to burn a giant robot when you have so many other shooty options, unless typical engagements are hard to escape from, overheat phenomena is a major and quick-acting factor, or your opponents are armored like... well, Leos.
>And if you're fighting biologics like the BETA, the flamer would be a good choice to torch away all dat flesh in a wide swath.
To answer that aspect of your question, flame tanks are already in use to dispose of BETA corpses in regions that need to be cleaned up. If they were more effective at burning vacuum-sealed alien bodies in the hustle and bustle of combat, they'd already be widespread. That said, the BETA have no reaction to pain, so the flamers do nothing. Except set Tanks on fire who'd then jump your TSFs.
Unless your flamethrower is super space flamethrower than can convert bullets into fuel and kill battleplate-armored heavy troopers from behind over 3 meters of ship bulkheads, in which case, carry on.
>>14013146
I imagine flame throwers are heavy and make good sport for snipers.
In WW2 they were used to clear bunkers and caves but they'd be pretty useless in urban combat. Burning down buildings on top of your head would be bad- not to mention friendly fire or burning civilians.
>>14013079
The range still isn't that good compared to regular guns though.
Why use a flamethrower that's limited to a certain range as opposed to a normal gun that can shoot way further?
Its only really good against relatively stationary targets, and you need certain conditions to use them(Namely, being able to get them into range without getting killed by the enemy while you're moving in) effectively.
The lack of flamethrowers for protagonists could be due to the fact inflicting a horrible death on someone by burning them alive is generally not a very heroic thing to do.
![DSCN1657[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/TEII3te.jpg "DSCN1657[1].jpg")
Super Napalm Launchers are just better.
>>14013065
flamethrowers in AC3 and SL were broken AF. the heat damage and the DPS they put out were fucking crazy
Flamers in the head, you say?
Didn't the bad guy mechs use some flame throwers in Macross 7's opening? I don't recall them using them in the series itself, though.
>>14013616
What mecha has ever had a problem in getting into close range combat with an enemy machine?
You make your post as if 99.999999999% of all giant robot battles aren't fought at slap boxing range.
>>14013787
When would a flamethrower be better than a beam saber anyway?
>>14013065
>>14013079
AC Flamethrowers went a really far distance, they just had no aiming capabilities. If they made flame throwers lock-on weapons they would have been completely overpowered because Heat was such a big deal in those games.
Flamethrowers with targeting = better melee than blades
Flamethrowers without targeting = useless
>>14013065
>>14013079
By "far distance" I mean that they went like, 25m out (which is long for IRL) but in game the mechs were giant so it didn't seem like that far. Still could attack further than blades or other melee in the game.
>>14013165
your in a giant metal coffin anon either you get burnt instantly by a laser,get crushed,or explode and burn.Flame thrower is a weapon that will not help when the coffin is your defense yet your coffin at the same time
I think it just comes down to writing. If flamethrowers work against your mechs, you're writing yourself in a corner where people ask "Why doesn't the pilot die if the mech is hit by lasers? or is even in space in direct sunlight?"
Adding thermodynamics sort of removes the fictional element unless you want plot holes
>>14013043
Escaflowne
>>14013787
>What mecha has ever had a problem in getting into close range combat with an enemy machine?
Those that are shot up by their enemy?
If you are able to get in close enough to use the flamethrower, you can also just aim your regular gun that you use for longer ranges at the enemy and end him in an instant as opposed to trying to cook him.
>>14013744
It's from the heavy blaster on its left, but it's listed as a beam armament rather than a flamethrower.
For what it's worth, though, the animation is definitely one closer to a flamethrower.
I'd generally considered beam sabers to basically be a superior evolution of flame throwers.
If also be impressed if a flamethrower did jack shit to something designed to withstand re-entry.
>>14014112
Escaflowne had a good reason to include flamers though. The suits were not sealed units and the tech level of non-Zaibach Guymelef's forced close quarters melee combat (Not counting that one Balista guymelef used by the count)
>>14013203
They weren't as prone to blowing up when shot as you'd think.
>Using Flamethrowers in Front Mission
Was it just 3 where they're complete trash, or do they suck in all games?
>>14013043
Layzner has a flamethrower. I think there's at least one mech in VOTOMs and Galient that have them too, maybe Dougram too, but I can't perfectly remember so don't quote me there.
Your best bet is old Supers. Combattler, Voltes, Golion, and Mechander all had flamethrowers, and a lot of mechs didn't have the weapon but definitely threw flame (Pretty much every Mazinger, Daltanius, the Gundam that one time...)
I think they're in Valvrave and Cross Ange
But by infantry burning bodies
>>14013043
1.range. It's shitty. And when close enough for use, other options are available, mostly because of
2. Need to be applied onto target for long duration to have any practical effect. Unless it's some sort of super hugh temperature burning, sticky stuff but then, better delivery methods exist.
>>14013043
Why waste time trying to werf flammen when you can blow shit up with a hyper bazooka?
Flamethrowers were generally built to clear vegetation, bunkers, and caves with collateral damage. In the sense of pure killing power and destruction they're difficult to use and have the side effect of putting your allies in danger.
