 | Flamethrowers| WW2 General Discuss Flamethrowers in the World War II - General forums; Flamethrowers- probably one of the most inhumane weapons ever produced-but where they actually effective in combat? Sure, they where ... |
|
04-19-2007, 01:03 PM
|
#1 | | Banned
Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Land of hope and Glory
Posts: 297
Country:  | Flamethrowers
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 | 
|  | |
04-19-2007, 01:26 PM
|
#2 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 13,004
Country:  | 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 ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT"  | 
| | |
04-19-2007, 01:31 PM
|
#3 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London
Posts: 2,798
| 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. | |
| | |
04-19-2007, 02:59 PM
|
#5 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: UK
Posts: 3,502
Country:  | 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 | |
| | |
04-19-2007, 03:13 PM
|
#6 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Limburg
Posts: 871
Country:  | Another question, was it still widely used post-war?
I suppose that answer will give us an insight in how effective during WW2 it was considered...
Kris
__________________   | |
| | |
04-19-2007, 03:18 PM
|
#7 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: UK
Posts: 3,502
Country: | I believe it was still in use in Vietnam. | |
| | |
04-19-2007, 05:18 PM
|
#8 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Limburg
Posts: 871
Country: | 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
__________________ | |
| | |
04-19-2007, 05:55 PM
|
#9 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London
Posts: 2,798
| 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. | |
| | |
04-20-2007, 01:22 AM
|
#10 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Sydney
Posts: 210
Country:  | I love your Avitar trackend 
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.
Last edited by Maharg : 04-20-2007 at 01:26 AM.
| |
| | |
04-20-2007, 03:34 AM
|
#11 | | Banned
Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Land of hope and Glory
Posts: 297
Country: | Although I'd say Naplam is alot more inhumane...I heard about one woman who had her nipples burnt off....ouch | |
| | |
04-20-2007, 07:16 AM
|
#12 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Limburg
Posts: 871
Country: | 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
__________________ | |
| | |
04-20-2007, 07:51 AM
|
#13 | | Banned
Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Land of hope and Glory
Posts: 297
Country: | Actually it was ouch for her baby who starved to death | |
| | |
04-20-2007, 12:03 PM
|
#14 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Limburg
Posts: 871
Country: | Yeah, I was thinking about that too but chose not to mention that. Going a bit too far... But if it really happened then it's another thing...
Kris
__________________ | |
| | |
04-20-2007, 01:22 PM
|
#15 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London
Posts: 2,798
| 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. | |
| | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:12 AM. | | |
