/k/ - Weapons

>I'm surprised there is no thread dedicated to molotovs, incendiary device, and the use of fire as a weapon.

Yeah cause fire's useless dumbass Ever heard that humans are 70% water?

The end all be all in incendiaries

>>591062

>and the use of fire as a weapon.

Because generally speaking, fire is a shitty weapon and its usage will ensure the propaganda train claims you're roasting babies to eat them. The only real use for fire is depriving oxygen and in sticky materials to be used against law enforcement.

>>591086

The fuck are you on about? Abbos wiped out a whole continent with fire. Fire has been used to burn down entire cities. The only thing that can do more damage than strategic fire bombing is a nuke

Speaking of molotovs. Would it be a good idea to bring a slingshot to a riot so if I catch some antifa cuntflap sparking up molotov I can shatter it in his hand and burn him?

>motor oil

Holy shit I never thought of that. Thanks fam

>>591088

It's not an effective weapon. It's effective for burning down infrastructure as you stated (I never denied that), but as a weapon it's shit. What, did you want me to specify personnel or something?

>>591089

I doubt you'd have enough time to actually do so, but a slingshot is considered a deadly weapon anyways in most blue states so you might as well bring a fucking gun (or at least an air rifle at that point).

>>591089

T. Noguns

Convert Alcohol into Flaming Jelly using Vinegar and Antacid

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E356hphckDQ

>>591062

Always remember that the molotov is called molotov, because it was used by the Finn to burn the Soviets when Molotov was the prime minister of the soviet union.

>>591089

Retarded idea. As >>591104 said, either take an air gun and shoot it in his hand or just take an AR.

Or take two more lads and make them your own massive slingshot and launch molotovs against commies and kikes.

>>591086

>>591065

Doesnt mean you cant use a sticky flamable substance, douse the subject in it, and light it up. Worked great on spergooks grandfather. :▲)

>>591103

The Branch Davidians may argue your claim about fire being a shitty weapon.

It's a very effective way to flush out a building filled with heavily armed people and possibly booby traps. I suppose you could starve them out but that could take months or years. You can plan your SHTF last stand condominium defense strategy but when Jamal comes creeping up at night and sets your place on fire you have two options: sit tight and die from the fire or leave.

>>591107

If I fired a gun everyone would lose their shit. I can get away with slinging a ball bearing during the chaos

>>591163

Fire is actually superior to nukes, firebombing of japan destroyed more property and killed more people than the nukes.

Also nukes are basically weaponized fire anyway, they kill mostly with the thermal portion of their blast.

>>591163

>You see gentlemen, fire is fueled by everything the enemy holds dear. His home, his people, his forests, his fields and even his oxygen.

One of the most beautiful, emotionally moving things I've ever read on /k/.

>>591228

>>591228

>Fire is actually superior to nukes, firebombing of japan destroyed more property and killed more people than the nukes.

Yes and no. It took thousands of fire bombs to do what one nuke did, plus Tokyo was had a lot more wooden building than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

>>591065

Because the water in your body would put out the napalm, or WP that's on you? Like I said use this >>591084 It makes water combust and forms hydrofluoric acid

>>591253

Also those atom bombs were very primitive compared to modern were firecrackers compared to modern thermonuclear devices

>>591163

>fire is terrible

Except it actually isn't that useful militarily - which is why it's only used in limited situation. And yes, part of that is the wanton destruction. Believe it or not, you generally want that city to still be there once you're done with it.

This may be a bit of a retarded question, but why did none of the napalm in 'nam start forest fires, or at least not one large enough to be rememerable?

>>591788

Too humid. Napalm can only do so much against mud and plants that don't burn too well.

>>591788

You're probably like me and come from a dry environment. In humid/wet environments where you're basically swimming in the humidity, nothing likes to catch on fire.

Also the oxygen probably ran out before it could really start a forest fire.

>>591746

>you generally want that city to still be there once you're done with it.

I don't want to live in disgusting Turkish houses. I want to level their entire shitty country and rebuild everything in superior Greek architecture.

>>591746

Also

>Macedonia

You fucking Albano-Bulgarian rape babies will get the rope. Alexander was Greek and Macedonia is Greek. Before genociding the Turks we'll start with you first.

>>591998

>armament that fires boolits

<firearm

>armament that shoots fire

<not a firearm lol

Memes aside, flamethrowers are actually commonly used for controlled prairie/forest fires and the like, so they might be pretty common in a SHTF situation

>>591978

You think this means that ARs, 1911s, Mossberg shotguns etc will be the slav shit of the distant future?

What's the goldilocks for molotovs? Like the right amount of gasoline, alcohol, etc. Cus I know there's like a million different variations.

>>592032

IIRC it's generally a 70/30 mix, by volume. 70% gasoline, 30% used motor oil for instance.

But if you're really spicing things up, try a 50/50 mix by weight of gasoline and styrofoam.

>>592032

My personal mix is 30% styrofoam, 15% dehydrated bar soap/paraffin wax flakes, 5% liquid dish soap, 40% Gasoline, 10% farm grade diesel.

>>592049

If you were actually doing that you'd make it clear if it was by weight or by volume. Pull your shit together.

>>591163

>Fire in weaponized form

When the fuck is fire *not* in weaponized form? It's destruction incarnate in the natural order.

>>593285

Yes but when you use napalm instead of just gasoline or oil to start said fire it sticks to the enemy.

>>592373

Well strelok, I honestly cant be assed to do those things when its a standard beer bottle or can.

>>593284

>>593280

>>591163

yeah except water lmao dumbass

People that think you use massive fires to cause massive casualties are wrong. You use fire to drain resources and man power. A large forest fire in a populated area will demand a national response, you will see the national guard deployed, wildland firefighters by the thousands, and a fuck load of money being poured into fighting the fire.

Its not a tactical weapon most of the time, but a strategic one. And considering you can cause millions of dollars of damage with a single lighter/match/magnifying glass and some basic wildland firefighting methodology, it's amazing we don't have lighter control.

>>593528

Very susceptible. The frame may be made of steel, and the outside walls may be made of concrete slabs, but nearly everything inside the building is flammable. Wall panels, furniture, carpets, curtains and drapes, and paper files are just some of the things inside modern buildings that can burn.

It might be harder for a fire to take hold, and a well designed building will have fire alarms, sprinkler systems, and (hopefully) a means for people to escape before the flames and/or smoke traps them. But modern buildings can burn just as well as one made completely from wood.

Also, remember that modern buildings are filled with furniture, carpets, and curtains/drapes made from synthetic materials. Some of those produce lethal fumes when burned - even if the flame don't reach those inside, they can still die from the fumes and smoke inhalation.

>>591746

>You generally want the city you're trying to capture to still be there t9 capture.

This is a big part of why weaponizing fire on a large scale isn't all that great of an idea, the other part is that fire isn't all that effective at killing people in comparison to its effectiveness in destroying infrastructure. Yes, the firebombing campaign against Japan was more effective than the nuclear campaign in terms of lives lost and infrastructure destroyed. The problem is that the ratio of deaths/destruction is heavily, heavily skewed towards destruction.

Not only do you generally want to preserve as much of a city or nation's infrastructure as you can while still winning the battle/war, you also want to keep the civilian population as self sufficient as possible to ensure a peaceful occupation. A total burndown of a city without killing its population in roughly equal measure just leaves you with an enormous number of displaced, hungry, and increasingly unruly refugees and no chance of restoring local self sufficiency, thus stability, in short order.

A firebombing campaign is great if you have no intention of invading or otherwise occupying the enemy city/nation after it surrenders. Unfortunately, wbatever burden thag displaced population places upon the enemy regime will inevitably fall upon your people once the day is won. The US could not have "won" against Japan by continuing the firebombing campaigns and avoiding the use of nuclear weapons. The end result would have been the complete and utter destruction of Japan to the point that Japanese "society" would revert to a fuedal, massively impoveriehed, completely deindustrialized state decades. Even if we ignore the number of American lives lost in the pursuit of such a total victory, the loss of everything Japan has contributed to post-war society wouldn't be worth it.

>>604757

>generally want to preserve as much of a city or nation's infrastructure as you can while still winning the battle/war, you also want to keep the civilian population as self sufficient as possible to ensure a peaceful occupation

What if you want to make the locals run away, like how the jews made the arabs scramble when they took over Mandatory Palestine?

>>592974

>The pages have been split and rearranged into numerical order. Filler pages have been removed.

Good work.

>>593417

They're not the same kind of mongol people that genghis khan lead, right?

>>604814

Imagine it like this:

>Mongolians=Spanish

>Turkic peoples=Portuguese

>modern Turkey=Brasil after an additional 500 years of racemixing

Expect that the cultural and genetic gap between Mongolians and Turkic peoples are incredibly greater than what is between Spain and Portugal. I mean, Mongolians seem to be East Asian, while Turkic peoples are usually Central Asian, so it looks like they belong to different races.

>>604814

Objection #1

"Altaic" is a family of languages.

Finns speak it, Mongolians speak it, Avars spoke it, and Turks speak it. None of these people have fuckall to do with one another.

It's like saying a Norwegian and a Pajeet are the same thing because they both speak a language in the indo-european group.

Objection #2

Seijuk Turks, the people modern Turks descend from, were not related to Mongolians in any way. In fact they were closer in relation to Persians and Afghans.

Objection #3

An army of something close to 40,000 Seijuk Turks invaded the Byzantine empire which had over 2 million people and no army at the time for a variety of reasons. The Byzantine empire was composed 50% North Africans and Semite (arab/kike), 25% Persian, and 25% Greek/Roman. The Seijuk Turk army interbred with Byzantines in a ~50:1 ratio, so the modern Turk is at best 2% Altaic and the rest a Byzantine hodgepodge.

Genetic studies say their heritage is about 10% Asiatic, which they also say about most Europeans, so I don't trust DNA. Pre-pozzed wiki page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetic_studies_on_Turkish_people&oldid=534150266

Objection #4

Albanians have very little relation to Turks, they are more related to Kurds (who are persian ancestry). Albanians are essentially the Kurds who collaborators who were resettled to "richer" areas in the Balkans as a stabilizing factor. You have to understand, to some retard from the middle east garbage climate/geography, the Balkans are basically a garden of Eden.

Albanians also have nothing to do with Thracians or Illyrians, which were genocided over 1500 years before Albanians showed up.

>>604853

DNA is irrefutable, but the people who decide categories are retarded. For example if a nigger moves to Sweden, he gets counted as Swedish, and his DNA is added to the set of data which corresponds to Swedish people.

Also they sometimes go into too much detail and end up calling an Eskimo a nigger because 0.001% of a niggers genome and 0.001% of an eskimos genome match…. that's down into "primate" levels of resolution.

>>604858

True, but to put a white category like brits in the same category as central asians is just wrong.

>>604853

British doesn't mean anything any more mate. It's probably "British Asians" i.e. paki rapists.

>>604858

>dna is irrefutable

Wrong again, leaf. All DNA testing companies add like 2% African to every test. DNA testing is a psuedoscience anyways; the best test for determining if someone is non-white is seeing if he rejects Christian Identity

>>605331

tips

>>605483

>100% european

Now that EU has redefined European to be whoever lives in Europe, that's not exactly encouraging.

>>605499

True but this isn't modern European.

>>591084

Synthesis is difficult and containing it requires a sealed and treated steel vessel. The Germans couldn't figure out a way to deploy it effectively without endangering their own people.

How does one practice throwing molotovs with a sling? Glass bottles tend to make broken glass which is a pain to clean up while plastic has wrong weight and balance.

>>605672

>wrap bottle in burlap

>????

>contained glass

>>591062

One of the issues with fire as a weapon is that it can be rather indiscriminate and grow beyond its intended target thus making it completely unsuitable for say home defense. Also its somewhat slow acting, sure a military grade flamethrower will stop anyone dead in their tracks but improvised incendiaries are hardly as potent.

>>605672

Fill plastic bottles with rocks and sand so they have similar weight. Or go to the thrift store and buy metal water bottles they always have a ton for like a couple dollars each.

>>605563

It's easy to synthesize, but hard to contain. With today's tech it can be done.

Can a potent homemade flamethrower be made?

If yes, how?

>>605680

>target thus making it completely unsuitable for say home defense.

Nonsense, homemade flamethrower is a perfect weapon to defend your home and your property in case of home invasion

Trust me

>>605690

>Buy a garden pump

>Modify it a little bit and stick a small gas fueled lighter in front of a hose

>Make some homemade napalm

>???

>Profit

>>605517

So it's future European?

>>615380

I'd like to see a drone with a Negative X Super Soaker. I wonder if you can mix Negative X with alcohol or turpentine kind of like sugar water? There's gotta be something you can add it to in order to make a gel or liquid negative X.

>>627475

>A6C77874-4D1E-4C0B-9489-A3….gif) (h) (u)

Reported.

>>604814

Turks are the original 56%. Armenians, Greeks, Persians, Anatolians, Mongols, Arabs, and Slavs rolled into one.

>>627475

This picture is everything that's wrong with Canada and America.

We can't permit our forest to grow bushes and deadwood and 9 feet of fallen leaves. We need to send high schoolers, college kids and volunteers to clear all forests of bushes, fallen branches, deadwood and litter.

We need to husband our forests!

Preventing just a single forest fire eliminates more CO2 than the entire human race produces in 5 years, if global warming cunts were serious about avoiding their shitty apocalypse theory, they would be all for this. But we all know they just want you to pay a carbon tax to Israel for every exhale until one day they decide to revoke your exhaling license and kill you.

>>591746

Your flag makes your comment extra ironic since the first time we used napalm in the field was in mt. Gramos against you and your fellow communist Greek traitors and it practically won us the "Civil" War.

How about fuel oil fire as a defense for big ships. Many hijacked cargo cruisers could have laid a blazing slick behind them, keeping any small boats away at night.

>>627513

You telling me that the people who only care about pollution when the first world does it and ignore SE Asia (despite it being the source of most of the world's pollution) aren't really here to help the world?

>>591065

>Ever heard that humans are 70% water?

Banks aren't.

Neither are police vehicals.

>>634525

banks are are made of jews therefore they are highly flammable.

>>615380

https://www.popsci.com/isis-is-dropping-bombs-with-drones-in-iraq

ISIS has drones that drop bombs and the US has anti drone technology. Measure-countermeasure.