Flamers vs Meltas

[Chaotic Neutral]

I'm just wondering, what possible benefits could a flamer ever have over a melta? They seem almost identical except that meltas kill tanks, thus also instagibing infantry. They also seems to have the same spray like effect.

[Ford Prefect]

Different range, different ammo capacity, different difficulty of construction and maintenance.

[Chaotic Neutral]

I believe meltas have a greater range (multis at least).

So are flamers just easier to get, maintain and refuel?

[Ford Prefect]

So are flamers just easier to get, maintain and refuel?

One's a flamethrower, the other is a fusion powered atomic heat ray. Res ipsa loquitor.

[Samuel]

Yeah, I imagine holding flamable liquids requires lower tolerances than being able to cope with miniture nuclear blasts. Plus, I think you can arc the flames from a flamer while a melta is direct fire.

[Chaotic Neutral]

I'm pretty sure you can arc meltas too, or at least it looks that way in DOW.

[Meest]

Thought meltas were more of a tight cone or just a cylindrical beam that burns through with less range than a flamer. Less of an area effect etc.

[The Yosemite Bear]

meltas are super heat rays
flamers ignore cover saves

[Simon_Jester]

For reference: he is talking about Warhammer 40000, comparing "flamers" (flamethrowers) to "meltas" (handheld antitank energy weapons of relatively short range but excellent armor penetration).

A flamethrower is going to be way simpler than an antitank energy weapon, for utterly obvious reasons. For example, we already know how a flamethrower works, but we do not know how a meltagun works. This suggests that a meltagun takes more advanced technology to design and maintain. For the 40k Imperium, this is undesirable: their high-tech infrastructure is limited in size compared to their low-tech infrastructure and manpower. Low-tech weapons that can be easily maintained in the field are to the advantage of the Imperium.

Also, a flamethrower has advantages at short range in tight spaces. You can splash burning liquid around corners even a melta would be hard-pressed to drill through quickly. It's a more energy-efficient way of burning out dangerous substances, a common problem on the 40k battlefield where flamers are routinely used to 'purge' sites infested by Chaos, or to dispose of ork bodies so they don't spawn spores and produce more orks.

[Jaevric]

I'd also mention that there are situations where shooting a meltagun is a profoundly bad idea, such as boarding operations; turning a section of corridor occupied by people you don't like very much into a raging inferno is good, blowing a hole in the hull and exposing yourself and your squad buddies to space is not. Even Astartes may find themselves in situations where they really don't want to be vaporizing chunks of whatever environment they find themselves in.

[Uraniun235]

I actually had no idea meltas were some sort of atomic heat ray, I was under the impression they were just some kind of super-napalm or something.

[Ford Prefect]

Even regular flamers have had effects that range up to 'small crowd of dudes gets cremated'. That said, exactly what meltas are has never exactly been clear and there's been lots of variants, though I'm pretty sure the invisible heat ray is in vogue at the moment.

[Cykeisme]

Mweh, when there's no contradiction with other fiction, or with common sense, I think we can go with game mechanics.

Flamers spew burning fluid, and can thus attack entire groups of poorly armored infantry, even if they're dug in behind cover. Bunkers and trenches may actually make the effects more pronounced, as Simon_Jester pointed it out.
Enemy squad ahead? Just pretend you're watering the rosebushes.

Meltas aren't used against infantry for the same reason we don't use shoulder-fired rockets with armor-piercing shaped-charge warheads against infantry in real life. The rate of fire is too low, it's too cumbersome, and there isn't much appreciable area of effect. Even worse, meltas have limited range before the beam disperses.
You can only kill one enemy dude at a time with a melta (maybe two if they're lined up), but you have to hit him square-on, and you have a long recharge time on the meltagun. If he's got a lot of cover to hide behind, it's worse.


Aside from that, already stated, a flamer is no doubt much simpler and cheaper to construct. It's likely just about any manufactorum, even those on hiveworlds, can manufacture flamers. Meltagun production is probably limited to proper forgeworlds.

[IvanTih]

Not to mention that flames cling on the affected so the fleeing enemy will suffer wounds either way.

[Serafina]

Actually, Meltas CAN be used against infantry. We don't use shoulder-fired rockets with armor-piercing shaped-charged warheads because they are A) overkill B) impractical due to aiming method C) the ammo is too precious
That's not true for a Melta - you have targets that justifiy all that power (Space Marines, Deamons, Orks etc.), are normal rifle-like guns and can thus be viably used in infantry-combat, and the ammo is more plentiful than with rocket launchers.
The recharge time is not actually that high - i know of no source that implies extraordinary recharge time. Their RoF is not high, but you don't have to wait half a minute or the like before you can fire it again.


But this question is really simple to answer:
Flamers are similar to real-world flamers and can easily kill multiple foes at once, but they lack penetration power and are mostly useless against vehicles. They are cheap and issued for close-quarter anti-infantry fighting.
Meltas are not really similar to anything in the real world. They have no notable area of effect and a RoF roughly comparable to a bolt-action rifle. They have excellent penetration and man-stopping power and can rip nearly all vehicles to shred - but they suffer from very short ranges (about 50m, less than 20 for maximum power). They are expensive and used to take out heavily armored vehicles in close-quarter situations.

The flamer has the benefits of being cheap and taking out multiple enemies, the melta has the benefit of having way more power and penetration.

[Kythnos]

I do have a question about something along this topic and instead of making a new one I thought I would sidetrack this one a little bit.

Do either of these weapons have an side-effects from the books, not in game effect. How dangerous is it to hold these weapons for someone not in Armor or who can get uber-tech medical help after the battle? (I have not read any of the books but I did play the game awhile back.)

[Chaotic Neutral]

I though the only dangerous weapons were plasma, because they might blow up when you use them.

[Serafina]

I do have a question about something along this topic and instead of making a new one I thought I would sidetrack this one a little bit.

Do either of these weapons have an side-effects from the books, not in game effect. How dangerous is it to hold these weapons for someone not in Armor or who can get uber-tech medical help after the battle? (I have not read any of the books but I did play the game awhile back.)

Well, shoddily constructed flamers/meltas can suffer from overheating-problems with the barrel. Both of their ammo is explosive, tough melta-cartridges are quite hard to ignite. Flamer fuel is obviously flammable, too.

However, even underhive-gangers with barely any armor and little training can use both weapons, even if poorly build. So no, these weapons do not constitute a considerable risk to their wearers, as long as they stay away from the end of the barrel and the fuel tank of the flamer is not hit.