Flamethrowers

Discussion in 'WW2 General' started by Joe2, Apr 19, 2007.

  1. Joe2

    Joe2 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2006
    Messages:
    295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    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
     

    Attached Files:

  2. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,207
    Likes Received:
    790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    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....
     
  3. Glider

    Glider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Consellor
    Location:
    Lincolnshire
    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.
     
  4. amrit

    amrit Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    194
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
  5. trackend

    trackend Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    4,039
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Retired tech support railway engineer
    Location:
    Ipswich, Suffolk
    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
     
  6. Civettone

    Civettone Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    London, UK
    Home Page:
    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
     
  7. trackend

    trackend Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    4,039
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Retired tech support railway engineer
    Location:
    Ipswich, Suffolk
    I believe it was still in use in Vietnam.
     
  8. Civettone

    Civettone Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    London, UK
    Home Page:
    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
     
  9. Glider

    Glider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Consellor
    Location:
    Lincolnshire
    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.
     
  10. Maharg

    Maharg Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Boilermaker
    Location:
    Sydney
    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.
     
  11. Joe2

    Joe2 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2006
    Messages:
    295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Land of hope and Glory
    Although I'd say Naplam is alot more inhumane...I heard about one woman who had her nipples burnt off....ouch
     
  12. Civettone

    Civettone Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    London, UK
    Home Page:
    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
     
  13. Joe2

    Joe2 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2006
    Messages:
    295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Land of hope and Glory
    Actually it was ouch for her baby who starved to death
     
  14. Civettone

    Civettone Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    London, UK
    Home Page:
    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
     
  15. Glider

    Glider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Consellor
    Location:
    Lincolnshire
    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.
     
  16. Joe2

    Joe2 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2006
    Messages:
    295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Land of hope and Glory
    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"
     
  17. HealzDevo

    HealzDevo Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2004
    Messages:
    1,345
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Self-Employed
    Location:
    Queensland
    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...
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. Hobilar
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    4,892

Share This Page