Flamethrowers

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Joe2

Joe2

Banned
294
2
Jul 3, 2006
Land of hope and Glory
Flamethrowers- probably one of the most inhumane weapons ever produced-but where they actually effective in combat? Sure, they where devistating phsycologicly (the sight of a flamethrower tank was eneugh to get Germans to surrender), but did they really prove efective, as a well placed bullet could send the guy (and any people unlucky enugh to be nearby) up in flames
 

Attachments

  • flame.bmp
    46.4 KB · Views: 99
  • flame 2.bmp
    24.9 KB · Views: 108
I just saw a special on this and Marines that used them on Saipan and Okinawa said they were very effective, especially against an enemy who was dug in and refused to surrender. On the program they did point out that the tank emptied in about 5 seconds so movie clips of soldiers spraying flames for 5 minutes is false....
 
If the sight of a flamethrower tank made an enemy surrender then that alone would count as being effective in my book.
However, everything that I have read would indicate that they were effective in destroying bunkers and buildings. If the occupant wasn't burned to death then the air would be used up. No one said it was pretty but it worked.
 
I think the British Crocodile, basically a Churchill tank with a flame thrower replacing the hull machine gun had about 60 to 100 seconds of fuel but then it was towed in an amoured trailer.where as I think the Sherman stored its fuel supply on board.
But for clearing a fox hole or pill box I would have thought it was a very effective weapon
 
For sure.
But was it still widely used and did it take a prominent place like in WW2.

From Wikipedia: The United States Marines used flamethrowers in the Korean and Vietnam wars. Flamethrowers have not been in the U.S. arsenal since 1978, when the Department of Defense unilaterally discontinued their use, because of public opinion concerns that found their use inhumane, although they are not banned in any international treaty the U.S. has signed. Thus, the US decision to remove flamethrowers from its arsenal is entirely voluntary.

Kris
 
I admit that I haven't heard about them being used in the British Army but these days its more common to destroy a bunker with an anti tank missile and a whole lot safer for the user.
 
I love your Avitar trackend :D

As for flamethrowers are concerned, in the pacific I think they were necessary for clearing bunkers caves etc with minimal casualties because of the fanatical attitude of the japanese.
In Vietnam the VC built water traps in their tunels which prevented any flames or gas from infiltrating the entire complex, so they weren't that effective.
 
I don't know if napalm is more inhume. That has more to do with the way it is used. Flamethrowers are used on the battlefield while napalm is usually dropped from the air thereby increasing the chance of collateral damage ... nipples for instance.

Ouch indeed.

And ouch for her husband.
Kris
 
Difressing a little. Body piercing is now banned in the RN. One chap went into the fire fighting school simulator where you fight real fires at close rangre and his nipple rings got far too hot. Not pretty but his mates found it hysterical and if anyone is wondering, it wasn't me.
 
By the way, it really happed. I cant remember where I heard it but it said," one mother who was caught up in a Naplam attack was unable to raise her child as her nipples got burnt off"
 
I think they were effective, but as to whether they get used ever again, that depends on the circumstances of their use... Certainly it seems less likely since targets are more likely to hole up amongst civilians. But again it is a case of never say never...
 
Resurrecting an ancient thread. After reading the two chapters linked above (still available), I have a better understanding of the subject, and, as you might expect, it's worse than I thought.

I was born in the late '50's, so I grew up during the Vietnam war. As I got old enough to understand what happens in war, and man's inhumanity to man, I became horrified by napalm and flamethrowers. Even as a pre-teen, I spent many sleepless nights unable to get this out of my mind.

As I got older, I learned how to face my fears, and I've done a fair amount of study of flame weapons. They're still horrifying, maybe more so.

The Brits were, in many ways, the kings of flame. Their man portable flamethrower, the lifebuoy looking thing, was apparently an effective weapon, and used a lot in the eastern theaters. But they developed and built numerous stationary flamethrowers for the expected invasion. They were able to bathe entire sections of road in flame, where they expected an invading force to have to pass. The British even had a Petroleum Warfare Department.

The Churchill Crocodile, mentioned above, was used quite a bit in Europe. Very effective against pillboxes and so on, with a much longer range than man-portable units. I read a book by a man who commanded one of these beasts, and it was quite a story. Apparently he only saw victims of his work once, as they would get a command of where to go, trundle into position, shoot flame as directed, and leave. He said he sometimes thought he heard screams.

Some of the early attempts by Americans to develop flame tanks used foreign equipment, such as the Canadian Ronson flamethrower, leading to the aptly named M3A1 "Satan". Of course the Americans developed their own flame tanks.

I watched an interview with a WWII vet who had been a flamethrower. It seemed incongruous to hear him tell about the horrific burns on survivors, when he had been the person who inflicted them. I'm not saying anything bad about the man himself, he's a hero in my book. It wasn't Woody Williams, I forget his name.

Anyway, I thought I'd resurrect this old thread rather than starting a new one, since there's already a lot of information here.
 
I could be wrong and await correction from anyone more learned on the subject -- but in my understanding flamethrowers are one of the more misunderstood weapons out there.

On the face of it, they hit us right in our caveman DNA (hell, our lizard DNA ...) death by fire, and so almost all focus is on that aspect.

But in reality, if that is what they were used for -- hitting people with jets of flame -- they would be very poor weapons.

Aside from the psychological effect mentioned by others above, the main benefit of the flamethrower was that is was a deadly poison gas weapon that was able to skirt under the radar, killing far more people in bunkers and tunnels with carbon monoxide than with horrible burns.

As with civilian fires, you'll see plenty of horrifically-burned victims in the aftermath ... but the vast majority of those were already dead from smoke inhalation.

A soldier stumbling around with half of his flesh burned off will capture almost 100% of the attention, and not the unblemished dead man lying down ten feet from the bunker rear exit.
 
Greyman said:
I could be wrong and await correction from anyone more learned on the subject -- but in my understanding flamethrowers are one of the more misunderstood weapons out there.

On the face of it, they hit us right in our caveman DNA (hell, our lizard DNA ...) death by fire, and so almost all focus is on that aspect.

But in reality, if that is what they were used for -- hitting people with jets of flame -- they would be very poor weapons.

Aside from the psychological effect mentioned by others above, the main benefit of the flamethrower was that is was a deadly poison gas weapon that was able to skirt under the radar, killing far more people in bunkers and tunnels with carbon monoxide than with horrible burns.

As with civilian fires, you'll see plenty of horrifically-burned victims in the aftermath ... but the vast majority of those were already dead from smoke inhalation.

A soldier stumbling around with half of his flesh burned off will capture almost 100% of the attention, and not the unblemished dead man lying down ten feet from the bunker rear exit.
Click to expand...
Depends. In caves and bunkers, plenty of people were killed by carbon monoxide. Probably several, or even many times as many as were killed by the flames and heat. Caves and bunkers aren't the only places they were used, although that as often where they were most useful.

Nonetheless, plenty of people were burned alive by these weapons. Of course, burning was not a particularly uncommon way to go in WWII. Many people died in burning tanks, trucks, and ships. The horror of flame weapons is that they are designed to do this. If you read the chapters linked in Amrit's post above (a pretty long read), you'll see that there is some discussion of the reduced effectiveness enemy troops will possess when they are suffering from burns.

The concentration of CO that was produced in enclosed spaces by flamethrowers doubtless provided a quick, painless, or nearly painless death for many Japanese troops. I am also aware of the countless US Marine lives saved by the use of flamethrowers. I'm not saying it was wrong to use them. I'm saying that they are horrifying.

Napalm was another American innovation from WWII. The Tokyo fire raids were mostly accomplished with napalm munitions. They were designed as efficient incendiaries to ignite flammable buildings. Of course, there were people in those buildings. Napalm was also used to give flamethrowers more range. Various other thickening agents were used as well.

Growing up in the US, I watched US war movies. So I kind of had the impression that flamethrowers were kind of an American thing, but the USA was actually a little late to the party, which was part of my point in my post above. I believe all of the major WWII belligerents used them.

Fire has been used as a weapon throughout history, but that doesn't make it less terrifying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back