The Emerald Archer Sep 2 @ 10:52am
Type 93 and Type 100 Flamethrowers
The Japanese had flamethrowers in WW2 just like the Americans, so this made me wonder, why no flamethrower units for the japanese? Probably because a bonzai with a bunch of flamethrowers.....lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_93/Type_100_flamethrower
Last edited by The Emerald Archer; Sep 2 @ 10:54am
Showing 1-13 of 13 comments
< >
Bad Wolf [24pz] Sep 2 @ 11:02am 
Its not in the game because it was not used in the front that is featured in the game.As stated in the link you provided it was only used in the very first stages of the war when the japanize attacked the phillipines and china.When the american attack started the japs where on the defensive role and had no need for the flame throughers that were primarily an offencive weapon against bunkers and trenches.So it would make no sence for it to be in the game.
The Emerald Archer Sep 2 @ 11:06am 
Originally posted by Bad Wolf:
Its not in the game because it was not used in the front that is featured in the game.As stated in the link you provided it was only used in the very first stages of the war when the japanize attacked the phillipines and china.When the american attack started the japs where on the defensive role and had no need for the flame throughers that were primarily an offencive weapon against bunkers and trenches.So it would make no sence for it to be in the game.

well the majority of US troops in the pacific theater had springfields because the EU front needed more rapid fire weapons, but the majority use Garands in game.

So yeah. Also the FT troops run like they arent carrying anything but they have the heaviest weapon in the arsenal....

This game is realistic but it's not perfect in that category.
Bad Wolf [24pz] Sep 2 @ 11:51am 
Originally posted by |RRF| Rec. The Emerald Archer:
Originally posted by Bad Wolf:
Its not in the game because it was not used in the front that is featured in the game.As stated in the link you provided it was only used in the very first stages of the war when the japanize attacked the phillipines and china.When the american attack started the japs where on the defensive role and had no need for the flame throughers that were primarily an offencive weapon against bunkers and trenches.So it would make no sence for it to be in the game.

well the majority of US troops in the pacific theater had springfields because the EU front needed more rapid fire weapons, but the majority use Garands in game.

So yeah. Also the FT troops run like they arent carrying anything but they have the heaviest weapon in the arsenal....

This game is realistic but it's not perfect in that category.

Yes but including a weapon that would be completely out of place would make the game even more unrealistic
2nd Lt Bicardi [2-26] Sep 2 @ 2:41pm 
Plus, giving the Japs the Flamethrower, in addition to the Knee mortar would be a bit unfair....
Traffic Conez Sep 2 @ 3:03pm 
Originally posted by |RRF| Rec. The Emerald Archer:
This game is realistic but it's not perfect in that category.

Of course it must sacrifice realism for balance, otherwise the US team would always win because of its superior numbers...Iwo Jima would be incredibly stacked.
hippocampalKitten (j) Sep 2 @ 6:20pm 
Originally posted by The Emerald Archer:

well the majority of US troops in the pacific theater had springfields because the EU front needed more rapid fire weapons, but the majority use Garands in game.

Where are you getting this information? Almost no American troops in the Pacific had the M1 Garand in 1942 and early 1943, this is true, but for the remainder of the war the large majority of basic riflemen were issued the Garand. The U.S. Army was also fully equipped with the Garand as a standard-issue service rifle by 1940-41; the Marine Corps voluntarily wanted to stick with the Springfield since they had a long history with it, but conditions in the Pacific changed their views. Lastly, the European front didn't technically exist for the Americans until maybe mid-1943; beforehand the Americans were really only in Africa, and even then not nearly in the same force or dedication of war material as the Italian and Western fronts.

The vast majority of the battles in Rising Storm take place after the Marine Corps decided to switch to the Garand, which is why Guadalcanal is the only map with the Springfield as the main American rifle, as they did so during/ after the campaign ended in the beginning of 1943.
47 Sep 2 @ 6:27pm 
this thread has been done already, and it's been answered already, too.
no
The Emerald Archer Sep 2 @ 8:16pm 
Originally posted by hippocampalKitten (j):
Originally posted by The Emerald Archer:

well the majority of US troops in the pacific theater had springfields because the EU front needed more rapid fire weapons, but the majority use Garands in game.

Where are you getting this information? Almost no American troops in the Pacific had the M1 Garand in 1942 and early 1943, this is true, but for the remainder of the war the large majority of basic riflemen were issued the Garand. The U.S. Army was also fully equipped with the Garand as a standard-issue service rifle by 1940-41; the Marine Corps voluntarily wanted to stick with the Springfield since they had a long history with it, but conditions in the Pacific changed their views. Lastly, the European front didn't technically exist for the Americans until maybe mid-1943; beforehand the Americans were really only in Africa, and even then not nearly in the same force or dedication of war material as the Italian and Western fronts.

The vast majority of the battles in Rising Storm take place after the Marine Corps decided to switch to the Garand, which is why Guadalcanal is the only map with the Springfield as the main American rifle, as they did so during/ after the campaign ended in the beginning of 1943.

what I said wasn't false, I just accidently left out the "early-war" part. The majority of the pacific theater was fought with the springfield, at least in the beginning. And it was caused by a low supply of the garands entering the war. At least thats what my sources tell me (military channel and the like, they dont really go into that kind of detail in history classes anymore)
Last edited by The Emerald Archer; Sep 2 @ 8:18pm
The Emerald Archer Sep 2 @ 8:16pm 
Originally posted by 47:
this thread has been done already, and it's been answered already, too.
no
this was mainly a joke

"imagine a bonzai with a bunch of flamethrowers"
47 Sep 3 @ 12:34am 
Originally posted by The Emerald Archer:
Originally posted by 47:
this thread has been done already, and it's been answered already, too.
no
this was mainly a joke

"imagine a bonzai with a bunch of flamethrowers"
that would actually be kinda cool to see if the japanese were able to pick up dropped flamethrowers
Bad Wolf [24pz] Sep 3 @ 1:53am 
Originally posted by 47:
Originally posted by The Emerald Archer:
this was mainly a joke

"imagine a bonzai with a bunch of flamethrowers"
that would actually be kinda cool to see if the japanese were able to pick up dropped flamethrowers

But that would add to the buchering of realism as such a thing never happened.
Nequis Sep 3 @ 2:29am 
I deduct Japaneses didn't have hands to pick up weapons from the ground,LOL.
Bad Wolf [24pz] Sep 3 @ 2:44am 
Originally posted by Nequis:
I deduct Japaneses didn't have hands to pick up weapons from the ground,LOL.

As i said on my first post the flametrougher is a weapon that is mostly if not only effective while assaulting bunkers,trenches and generally locations where the enemy is dug up.The japs whre on the defencive rolebeing the one that where dug up in fortified positions.Even if the japanize took out a flamethrougher handler it would firstly take to long to equip it esspecially if one was not experienced with it and if they where in a bunker or a dug up position it would do no good to them as if they fired it whilst in the dug up position it would back fire on them.
Showing 1-13 of 13 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50
Date Posted: Sep 2 @ 10:52am
Posts: 13