Flamethrowers - Aircraft of World War II

Joe2 · 04-19-2007, 01:03 PM

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

FLYBOYJ · 04-19-2007, 01:26 PM

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....

Glider · 04-19-2007, 01:31 PM

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.

amrit · 04-19-2007, 01:42 PM

There's a couple of interesting chapters in "United States Army in World War II: The Technical Services -The Chemical Warfare Service:Chemicals in Combat"

Unfortunately, only some of the chapters have been digitised:

Chapter 14: The Flame Thrower in the Pacific: Guadalcanal to the Marshall Islands

Chapter 15: The Flame Thrower in the Pacific: Marianas to Okinawa

trackend · 04-19-2007, 02:59 PM

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

Civettone · 04-19-2007, 03:13 PM

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

trackend · 04-19-2007, 03:18 PM

I believe it was still in use in Vietnam.

Civettone · 04-19-2007, 05:18 PM

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

Glider · 04-19-2007, 05:55 PM

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.

Maharg · 04-20-2007, 01:22 AM

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.

Joe2 · 04-20-2007, 03:34 AM

Although I'd say Naplam is alot more inhumane...I heard about one woman who had her nipples burnt off....ouch

Civettone · 04-20-2007, 07:16 AM

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

Joe2 · 04-20-2007, 07:51 AM

Actually it was ouch for her baby who starved to death

Civettone · 04-20-2007, 12:03 PM

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

Glider · 04-20-2007, 01:22 PM

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.

04-19-2007, 01:26 PM	#2
FLYBOYJ IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA Posts: 16,867	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.... __________________ > I Support Doug Gillis <

04-19-2007, 03:13 PM	#6
Civettone Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Limburg Posts: 1,299	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, 05:18 PM	#8
Civettone Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Limburg Posts: 1,299	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 __________________

04-20-2007, 01:22 AM	#10
Maharg Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Sydney Posts: 208	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, 07:16 AM	#12
Civettone Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Limburg Posts: 1,299	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 __________________

04-19-2007, 01:31 PM	#3
Glider Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London Posts: 3,915	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, 01:42 PM	#4
amrit Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 194	There's a couple of interesting chapters in "United States Army in World War II: The Technical Services -The Chemical Warfare Service:Chemicals in Combat" Unfortunately, only some of the chapters have been digitised: Chapter 14: The Flame Thrower in the Pacific: Guadalcanal to the Marshall Islands Chapter 15: The Flame Thrower in the Pacific: Marianas to Okinawa

04-19-2007, 02:59 PM	#5
trackend Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Canvey Island, Essex Posts: 4,030	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, 03:18 PM	#7
trackend Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Canvey Island, Essex Posts: 4,030	I believe it was still in use in Vietnam.

04-19-2007, 05:55 PM	#9
Glider Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London Posts: 3,915	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, 03:34 AM	#11
Joe2 Banned Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Land of hope and Glory Posts: 295	Although I'd say Naplam is alot more inhumane...I heard about one woman who had her nipples burnt off....ouch

04-20-2007, 07:51 AM	#13
Joe2 Banned Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Land of hope and Glory Posts: 295	Actually it was ouch for her baby who starved to death

04-20-2007, 12:03 PM	#14
Civettone Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Limburg Posts: 1,299	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
Glider Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London Posts: 3,915	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
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode