 Flamethrower Stats |
  |
 Oct 3 2006, 08:32 PM
Post
#26
|
|
|
Great Dragon  Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222  |
Napalm-B and pyrogels were basically what I was after. The former apparently has 25% gasoline, 25% benzene, while the latter tend to have up to 60% gasoline per mass. The reason I was wondering about how much flammable vapors they give off is that in my own experience and according to most articles on them, these sorts of agents are rather difficult to ignite. If they gave off anywhere near as much fumes as straight gasoline, that should not be a problem. Hence why I was wondering whether large enough volumes of flammable gases would ever gather inside flamethrower fuel tanks to allow for an explosive ignition.
According to the Finnish DF NBC warfare field manual, a 250kg napalm bomb will reduce air oxygen levels to around 10% in a 50 x 50 meter area, enough to make you lose consciousness within a minute and, with the help of carbon monoxide, kill you within a few. The same source states that the temperature inside a covered foxhole that is in the middle of such a napalm attack will reach 500-600 degrees centigrade, which doesn't sound like much fun. |
 |
 
|
|
Oct 3 2006, 08:57 PM
Post
#27
|
|||||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
Reducing the vapour pressure via the gel is a big part of getting the burning rate down, and a Napalm-B bomb can burn for minutes. So I'd imagine it'd be very similar to puncturing a canister of diesel or jet fuel. About the only way it's going to start on fire is encountering a spark outside the canister somewhere. Say following up with another incenerary bullet or a grenade. Basically an improvised fuel-air bomb. Of course if the wielder didn't notice that the tank was punctured and then tried to fire it again, or was in the process of firing it when hit, then it's going to squirt a stream out the hole and soak the general area. That'll increase the chance of it igniting and putting the wielder in the middle of his own self-created hell. But the tanks themselves aren't likely to pop, especially considering they are using nitrogen gas to push. There'll be no oxygen in the tanks themselves. Now if they were using a pressurized flammable gas system instead, say propane, like is use for controlled grass fires and stuff it could be a very different situation as not only are you going to get the jetting out of the take but the chances of it reaching a spark to get it going are going to be a lot higher.
Indeed, falling unconcious from a lack of oxygen would be a blessing in that situation. :/ |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Oct 3 2006, 09:06 PM
Post
#28
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
So, to create one of those movie-fireballs, all you need to do is hit the fuel tank with a grenade launcher. I'm sure the dude in question will be sorry you hit the tanks instead of him.
Though it wouldn't quite make for a fuel-air explosion even then. Just a big splash of flaming goo. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 3 2006, 09:07 PM
Post
#29
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,556 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 98 |
The special effects guys for Reign of Fire (I know, I know...) used a device called a "propane cannon" to get the enormous blasts of fire when the bigass dragon did something like fill entire buildings with flame.
My girlfriend promptly turned towards me and said "NO." Rigging something like this up in SR shouldn't be all that hard... |
|
|
|
|
Oct 3 2006, 09:20 PM
Post
#30
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
If it was a Willy Pete and it managed to puncture the tank before detonating inside I'd imagine the result would be a lot like an actual napalm bomb that produces those rolling deep red balls tipped with black smoke. When the gobs of the fuel get tossed everywhere that inital large surface area should produce a large amount of oxygen-flammable mixture in the air. The white phosphorous is pretty much guaranteed to ignite that anywhere and everywhere. But for the wielder and anyone in his immediate vacitity it the result is likely similar whether the WP hit the tanks or not. :dead: |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 3 2006, 09:28 PM
Post
#31
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
That'd require getting the WP grenade to detonate inside the tank, which doesn't seem very likely. :) And no matter what you blow the tank up with, getting an actual fuel-air explosion from napalm or pyrogel must be one in a million.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 4 2006, 01:50 AM
Post
#32
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 28-September 06 Member No.: 9,486 |
The WW2 stuff I found indicated that the guy with the flamethrower wasa prime target for the enemy, not his tank. Basically they had to attach rifle squads as bodyguards to stop the enemy doing everything they could to kill the flamethrower person. Nothing about people trying to blow it up. It did note that WW1 was sufficient to install deadman switchs throughout the system so that if the user went down you didn't have flames go spouting everywhere. Basically when you take in the difficulty of shooting something protected by the weilders body, the resistant nature of steel tanks, and the unlikelyness of anything much happening if you did succeed, I'd suggest anyone trying it be told to stop pissing around and shoot the damned wielder.
As a sidenote. There was multiple mentions regarding no one taking Flamethrower wielders prisoner. If you were captured with a flamethrower pretty much anyside would shoot you on the spot. Stephen |
|
|
|
|
Oct 4 2006, 05:55 PM
Post
#33
|
|||||
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
I hope so. They've kept me waiting long enough for this book and if there's one thing I want from it, it's power creep and lots of it! :D |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Oct 4 2006, 06:14 PM
Post
#34
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,556 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 98 |
If they're gonna hand out "power creep" more intense than an RC6 LMG and an elephant gun, I want it. Give us our lasers back! Give us our flamethrowers! Where's my damn chainsword...
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 4 2006, 06:35 PM
Post
#35
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 64 Joined: 4-October 05 Member No.: 7,812 |
The aliens movie, like many movies, don't show a real flame thrower but a flame producer. Nice special effect, ain't gonna do shit beyound a few meters. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 4 2006, 07:18 PM
Post
#36
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 633 Joined: 23-February 06 Member No.: 8,301 |
That'd be because a gout of flame is just far more interesting to look at.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 4 2006, 07:32 PM
Post
#37
|
|||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,556 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 98 |
Which is why I want an "Aliens-style flamethrower," not a movie prop. 8) |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Oct 4 2006, 08:14 PM
Post
#38
|
|||||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
That's why I specifically mentioned it would have to penetrate the tank first. Perhaps it is over optimistic of me to think that the subsonic velocity of GL is going to have a chance of accomplishing that on the fuel tanks. Or my lack of knowledeg of their exact construction. I know there isn't a hope in hell it would on nitrogen tank where even a rifle round is going to have to score a fairly straight on strike to have even a chance there. But I had assumed there'd be a regulator for the nitrogen gas and that the fuel tanks would be operating a much lower pressure so they'd have somewhat thinner walls. Especially for weight considerations since you don't want to waste weight on tank walls when it could be used for carrying more fuel or other gear.
Soooo....you're saying there is a chance? ;) I'd peg the odds at much better than that. Surface area is your friend, especially when you it is basically the polystyrene dilluting and stopping convection currents bringing more benzene to the surface that is keeping the benzene evaporation rate low. So you get it into near mist and that'll greatly increase the benzene concentration in the air. Benzene's LEL is only around 1.2%. Then you just need a spark. Like a piece of ferrous metal from the grenade 'splosion striking gravel, or the still hot igniter coil on the flamethrower nozzle. Then it's autoignition time, baby! It isn't going to be a guaranteed lock, but I can't help but peg the odds higher than 1:1000000. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Oct 4 2006, 08:28 PM
Post
#39
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Well, for starters, there are no WP rounds for grenade launchers that I'm aware of (:P), and second, because of the applications for such munitions, they are given very light impact detonators. Even if such a grenade could penetrate the tank (and I'm betting it wouldn't, because GL projectiles are very lightly built), it wouldn't have time to since it would go off as soon as it came to contact with it. The burster charges in WP grenades are tiny, and if one were capable of crushing a hole in the tank, it certainly wouldn't spread the incendiary agent inside very far at all.
If you could choose exactly how the napalm or pyrogel is spread into the air around the tank following the hit, sure the probability would be much higher. Maybe that's just me being overly sceptical, but I'm thinking a random explosive device stuck at random inside a metallic tank containing a random amount of a random sticky incendiary agent causing said incendiary agent to separate and spread uniformly in vapour form at a particular concentration (between 1.2% and 7.8%) around the (former) container and only then being ignited in such a way as to induce an explosion is a text-book case of a million-to-one chance -- even if in testing you'd find it's more like 1:1000. :) I mean, actual thermobaric weapons fail at managing that all the time. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 4 2006, 08:43 PM
Post
#40
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,537 Joined: 27-August 06 From: Albuquerque NM Member No.: 9,234 |
Shoot him in the head with the grenade, it's the only way to be sure. ;) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 4 2006, 08:43 PM
Post
#41
|
|||||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
Well Arsenal isn't out for SR4 yet, but if it holds form of the CC (page 41) then they'll be there. Or in this mix of real and not real are you talking about that pesky Right Now In Real Life thing? ;) Good point about the sensitivity of the fuse. Given that SR4 grenades are field programmable by skilled techs (hackers) that could likely be somewhat overcome, especially using the Smartlink system. *shrug* It would require prepwork for it though.
Yah, once we start talking about using grenades to detonate flamethrower tanks I don't think we are talking about any meaningful increase in damage to the guy wearing the flamethrower. :cyber: |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Oct 4 2006, 09:05 PM
Post
#42
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
It was the pesky Never Even Been Attempted AFAIK In Real Life thing. :P
Though, again, even if you did something to the fuze, grenade launcher projectiles are (as you said) very slow and very lightly built, and I wouldn't give it very good odds (like, say, 1:1000000 ;)) of penetrating even a very thin layer of steel. It's a very thin aluminum shell filled with a blasting cap, some primitive sensors (ie. pressure, spin) and a few ounces of a powdered(?) chemical, none of which is conducive to great armor piercing properties. :) (I might be overdoing the smilies because I'm having a rather hostile argument on another forum at the same time. Apologies.) |
|
|
|
|
Oct 4 2006, 09:10 PM
Post
#43
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
No problems. Just, you know, keep on with your usual informative-while-not-being-a-dick here and it's all cool with me. 8) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 4 2006, 09:40 PM
Post
#44
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
I'm usually not-a-dick? That's news to me...
(The dude I'm being hostile to is, after days of going at it with other people, still insisting it's impossible to aim a weapon properly when it's fired on burst or fully automatic mode, this time because he thinks the recoil will push the sights into your skull. It's getting a bit comical now, so I'm mostly just implying that he ought to find himself a rifle and a trained shooter and try it some time.) |
|
|
|
|
Oct 4 2006, 09:46 PM
Post
#45
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
Make sure to point out to him to properly compensate for the massive amount of recoil he should use the time-tested technique of bracing the muzzle flat against the middle of his forehead. Now telling him THAT would fall clearly outside of "not-a-dick" territory. :D |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 4 2006, 10:43 PM
Post
#46
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 515 Joined: 19-January 04 Member No.: 5,992 |
Man, you gotta watch out for that BRUTAL FULL AUTO RECOIL.
Because, you know, guys like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBjUDCyDCuI and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HoiwR32wdk...related&search= are having such a difficult time with it. However, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBQrtzSdVDo does make me arch an eyebrow. FIREARMS ARE SILLY. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 4 2006, 11:47 PM
Post
#47
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
I don't think that Glock 17 makes such a good case. :cyber: Watch the slo-mo at the end of the second clip and you'll see he's all over the place. Of course that underscores exactly the type of weapon, and appropriate application for, a fully automatic pistol in traditional format. Which is, um, I guess emptying your clip at someone close to you in the hope you'll not need to fire another round before you can get another clip in. ;)
But I sure as hell wouldn't want to be downrange of that MP5. In the hands of someone with a decent amount of training I'd likely end up with all three rounds from a burst ripping through my sinus cavities. :dead: |
|
|
|
|
Oct 5 2006, 12:20 AM
Post
#48
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Lucky for me, this guy's saying you can't even aim the first shot, that if you hold the weapon on burst or full auto like you held it when firing single shots, you'd suffer injuries. Which is kinda funny, because the only injuries I suffered in the FDF were from PT, the guns never hurt me.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 5 2006, 12:25 AM
Post
#49
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,156 Joined: 15-March 03 From: Fresno, CalFree Member No.: 4,252 |
Have you posted videos of people firing automatic weapons and clearly aiming? What does he say to those?
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 5 2006, 12:43 AM
Post
#50
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
He has failed to address any visual evidence I've linked so far. I presume he'd say "He's totally not aiming there he just happens to look sort of through the sight. If the weapon were on semi, he'd be sticking his eyeball into the rear sight array."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 8th February 2026 - 02:58 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.