Posted: 3/14/2009 4:36:34 PM EDT
|
Those guys in WWII who carried flamethrowers––-how did the "reload" process go? They only had enough fuel for a few seconds of torching something, so did they run back and pick up another tank? Did someone else carry an extra setup (kinda like other folks carry SAW ammo or MG belts)?
Also, how heavy was the backback? |
|
I've never thought of this before, but it's a good question. I'd imagine that after the flamethrower operator finished his business, he'd ditch the tank and become a rifleman if there was no way to refuel.
I'm not sure what the exact mixture of fuel was, but a gallon of gasoline or kerosene weigh about 6 pounds, give or take depending on the purity. |
As fortune would have it, a couple of years ago I did a little bit of Internet research on the wholesome and thoroughly entertaining topic of flame throwers and bookmarked a few sites.  Here are a couple of links:
FLAME THROWER LINKY 1 FLAME THROWER LINKY 2 |
Below: U.S. Army's 713th Armored Flame Thrower Bn, Okinawa
Below: Another pic of the 713th in action 
Below: U.S. Army, 7th Infantry Division, Kwajalein island 
Below: Patch worn by German flame thrower troops, First World War 
Below: Marine Corps flame thrower operator, Okinawa 
Below: Marine flame thrower operators after re-filling tanks, Iwo Jima 
Below: Marine flame thrower operator, Iwo Jima 
Below: Marine AmphTrac mounted flamethrower, Peleliu 
Below: Color photo of flame thrower demonstration. Ain't it purty?
Below: One variant of Sherman mounted flame thrower 
Below: Artist's rendering of Sherman mounted flame thrower 
|
|
Quoted:
IIRC they shot napalm. Jellied gas flies farther than plain gas. They would also shoot a stream of unlit napalm and then a quick blast of fire to set it off. It goes farther as a liquid than a flame. That's what I've heard also, that it was a two stage process––-release fuel, ignite it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
IIRC they shot napalm. Jellied gas flies farther than plain gas. They would also shoot a stream of unlit napalm and then a quick blast of fire to set it off. It goes farther as a liquid than a flame. That's what I've heard also, that it was a two stage process––-release fuel, ignite it. Read years ago about a grunt who picked up a flamethrower from a KIA. He figured he'd step up and carry on. He didn't know how to use it so when he released the fuel it has a sort of "kick" and it surprised him and it flipped backward and doused him with fuel. Not fatal until he triggered the second stage of ignition...... |
|
Quoted:
Tag!
I've wondered about that too. By the time I came along the only one I was aware of (And got to fire) at the individual level was the M202 "Flash". http://world.guns.ru/grenade/m202a1_1.jpg That thing is cool! What is it? When did we use it? |
|
Quoted:
I'll let you know when I build one 
Little OT, what do you think I should use for pressure? Some kind of inert gas I think would be best. I have a nice little CO2 tank, I think a 20lber that should work. My brothers and I use to conduct air strikes on fire ant beds with a can of Lysol and a Zippo. 
|
|
I handled one a couple days ago. It takes time to recharge that weapon. Lots of time.
Without a dedicated recharge unit, I cannot imagine it was anything but fire-and-forget. I think they had M1 carbines mounted on the regulator in Vietnam for just that reason. They are really very simple devices. Run like gas pumps with an igniter on the end - allbeit at much higher preasure (280lbs I think). |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll let you know when I build one
Little OT, what do you think I should use for pressure? Some kind of inert gas I think would be best. I have a nice little CO2 tank, I think a 20lber that should work. Why not use propane? I am 99% certain they used Nitrogen. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll let you know when I build one
Little OT, what do you think I should use for pressure? Some kind of inert gas I think would be best. I have a nice little CO2 tank, I think a 20lber that should work. Why not use propane? I am 99% certain they used Nitrogen. Go big or go home! Don't be a pussy either.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Tag!
I've wondered about that too. By the time I came along the only one I was aware of (And got to fire) at the individual level was the M202 "Flash". http://world.guns.ru/grenade/m202a1_1.jpg That thing is cool! What is it? When did we use it? I don't know when it was adopted or when we stopped using it (Or if we even have...?) but, it was in the inventory of Cav' units back in the early 80's. It was a 4 shot launcher that shot WP rounds (And I "Heard" but never saw, HEAT rounds). When we shot it at FT Hood we were always given an "Area" target (A bunch of "E-Targets" in a cluster) and a point target (Old M-59 hulk or blown-to-shit M-41). "Naturally", everyone always went for the point target ( ).
That system made one of my funniest ever memories from my 1ST CD days. We're on a range with the '202. Everyone's all lined-up waitin' their turn to fire the thing and the first guy up (Full load of 4 in the weapon) misses the point target and then TURNS (While the '202 is still on his shoulder) towards the line with a..."Whoops, I missed" look on his face!!! lol! Dude's were diving left and right!
|
|
Quoted:
I handled one a couple days ago. It takes time to recharge that weapon. Lots of time. Without a dedicated recharge unit, I cannot imagine it was anything but fire-and-forget. I think they had M1 carbines mounted on the regulator in Vietnam for just that reason. They are really very simple devices. Run like gas pumps with an igniter on the end - allbeit at much higher preasure (280lbs I think). And that higher pressure is what apparently cursed the guy I mentioned above who tried to use it but hadn't been trained on it. The high pressure kinda threw it back in his hands and he got doused and then inadvertently ignited it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Tag!
I've wondered about that too. By the time I came along the only one I was aware of (And got to fire) at the individual level was the M202 "Flash". http://world.guns.ru/grenade/m202a1_1.jpg That thing is cool! What is it? When did we use it? I don't know when it was adopted or when we stopped using it (Or if we even have...?) but, it was in the inventory of Cav' units back in the early 80's. It was a 4 shot launcher that shot WP rounds (And I "Heard" but never saw, HEAT rounds). When we shot it at FT Hood we were always given an "Area" target (A bunch of "E-Targets" in a cluster) and a point target (Old M-59 hulk or blown-to-shit M-41). "Naturally", everyone always went for the point target ( ).
That system made one of my funniest ever memories from my 1ST CD days. We're on a range with the '202. Everyone's all lined-up waitin' their turn to fire the thing and the first guy up (Full load of 4 in the weapon) misses the point target and then TURNS (While the '202 is still on his shoulder) towards the line with a..."Whoops, I missed" look on his face!!! lol! Dude's were diving left and right! At least he didn't have it turned around backwards like Rae dawn Chong in Commando. IIRC the only time a M202 has appeared in a movie. |
|
There were two types of flamethrower IIRC in WWII in the US inventory. They both basically consisted of two fuel tanks, a small propellant tank, the wand, and then the ignition device. I think the total weight was like 40 pounds, nominal.
An A-gunner type or two carried extra cans of fuel (gelled gas) in Jerry cans. Extra propellant tanks were carried, along with a wrench to open the tanks and carry the propellant. This allowed the user to recharge the flamethrower in the field and not have to return to a rear area. The capacity was fairly limited, something like 20 or 30 seconds. There were two methods of employment. First was spraying the fuel mixture out unlit. The target are was hosed down, and it was a little easier at times without the flame and smoke to see where you were putting it. As posted, it could knock you over if you weren't ready for it. Once the fuel was in place, it could then be ignited with another lit burst. The other method was to spray the fuel out and igniting it at the same time. There was one type of ignition that used small pyro charges (looked like pistol blanks) that were loaded into the nozzle. I think it held something like 9 of them. The other type was a piezo-electric or pilot-light type, I can't remember which. ETA: hydrogen primer with spark plug and electric ignition. |
|
Quoted:
There were two types of flamethrower IIRC in WWII in the US inventory. They both basically consisted of two fuel tanks, a small propellant tank, the wand, and then the ignition device. I think the total weight was like 40 pounds, nominal. An A-gunner type or two carried extra cans of fuel (gelled gas) in Jerry cans. Extra propellant tanks were carried, along with a wrench to open the tanks and carry the propellant. This allowed the user to recharge the flamethrower in the field and not have to return to a rear area. The capacity was fairly limited, something like 20 or 30 seconds. There were two methods of employment. First was spraying the fuel mixture out unlit. The target are was hosed down, and it was a little easier at times without the flame and smoke to see where you were putting it. As posted, it could knock you over if you weren't ready for it. Once the fuel was in place, it could then be ignited with another lit burst. The other method was to spray the fuel out and igniting it at the same time. There was one type of ignition that used small pyro charges (looked like pistol blanks) that were loaded into the nozzle. I think it held something like 9 of them. The other type was a piezo-electric or pilot-light type, I can't remember which. ETA: hydrogen primer with spark plug and electric ignition. Awesome post dude! Certainly more than I knew about it. Could a single round blow up a flamethrower if he got hit in the tank? I'd imagine if it was a tracer it might (?). Can you imagine being the guy assigned to carry the extra fuel? How about a "combat refill" under fire! Shitzkies! |
|
depending upon country they often weighed around 60-70 pounds ready to go......
they were heavy and did very nasty things to the team if the tank caught a round or fragment..... during the fighting for Fort Vaux during the Battle of Verdun in 1916 the Germans brought flamethrower teams in to root the French defenders out from the tunnels and block houses. The French did not go quietly. In one instance in an underground tunnel point the French had a Hotchkiss machine gun set up and were holding the Germans at bay. The position was right on the corner of the tunnel. When the French heard the sound of the flame thrower they retreated around the corner. Their officer realized the Germans would advance under cover of the flames and take their position, which was key. He ran back around the corner and hammered the gun despite the flames. He not only drove the Germans back, but detonated the flamethrower. Horribly burned he died a short time later, but his position held. The Germans eventually withdrew all their flame thrower units from the battle for Fort Vaux as they said they were causing more damage to their troops then to the French......... |
|
Quoted:
Awesome post dude! Certainly more than I knew about it. Could a single round blow up a flamethrower if he got hit in the tank? I'd imagine if it was a tracer it might (?). Can you imagine being the guy assigned to carry the extra fuel? How about a "combat refill" under fire! Shitzkies! A single round certainly wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility. Those things were under pressure, and it was extremely volatile. Add in there are often flames/sparks in that setting, or simply a spark from the round puncturing the tank. That thing had a huge "Hey here I am" to it, so you drew a lot of attention. The AG also carried the FT's rifle/carbine in case a refuel wasn't possible or the thing went TU. They could be erratic at times, and it wasn't uncommon for incendiaries to be carried to help light the fuel if needed. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll let you know when I build one
Little OT, what do you think I should use for pressure? Some kind of inert gas I think would be best. I have a nice little CO2 tank, I think a 20lber that should work. Why not use propane? I am 99% certain they used Nitrogen. Much higher pressure than propane. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Awesome post dude! Certainly more than I knew about it. Could a single round blow up a flamethrower if he got hit in the tank? I'd imagine if it was a tracer it might (?). Can you imagine being the guy assigned to carry the extra fuel? How about a "combat refill" under fire! Shitzkies! A single round certainly wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility. Those things were under pressure, and it was extremely volatile. Add in there are often flames/sparks in that setting, or simply a spark from the round puncturing the tank. That thing had a huge "Hey here I am" to it, so you drew a lot of attention. The AG also carried the FT's rifle/carbine in case a refuel wasn't possible or the thing went TU. They could be erratic at times, and it wasn't uncommon for incendiaries to be carried to help light the fuel if needed. The WWII Soviet ROKS-2 flamethrower had a wand that looked somewhat like a Mosin carbine & the tanks semi disguised to look like a normal footsoldier's pack to avoid the "Hey! Shoot me first!" problem. Once Ivan lit off the zippo-ski it was no good but until then he didn't draw any extra attention. |
|
Quoted:
Good thread. I've been researching flamethrowers quite extensively in the last couple of months. The psychological effects of fire on an enemy are amazing, beyond actual mortality rates. I believe there was a battle in WWI in which the Germans brought some, lit them up, and didn't even have to do anything else and the French vacated the lines in front of them. No casualties. If you're doing this and need documentation I might be able to find where I got that. |
|
Quoted:
The WWII Soviet ROKS-2 flamethrower had a wand that looked somewhat like a Mosin carbine & the tanks semi disguised to look like a normal footsoldier's pack to avoid the "Hey! Shoot me first!" problem. Once Ivan lit off the zippo-ski it was no good but until then he didn't draw any extra attention. The Germans had one that was basically an inner tube, filled with fuel. The user slung it over one shoulder and around the body like a blanket roll. It was disposable IIRC. Fallschirmjaegers used them at Eben Emael. I'd hate to have whoopy cushion full of napalm wrapped around myself in battle. |
| I was at Ft. McClellan in 72. As part of the Chemical School we used flame throwers every couple of months. I don't remember them being very heavy, they came preloaded and ready to use. You had to be very careful with fully charged tanks because of the "push back" factor. Had to lean into it. We did combat assaults where we fired up bunkers, old tanks, and trenches. They fired a napalm that was thick and sticky. It was yellow orange colored My preferred method was to spray target with fuel, then ignite a short bust to set it off. They also dripped and would set the grass on fire around your feet. At ANCOC we had two weeks of field flame expedients. This included all types of really nasty ways to fire it up. You can put a real fast stop to idiocy with that stuff. All you need is reliable ignition and the rest is easy. |
| Its times like this I wish I would have asked more questiond when my Grandfather would speak of his service. He was a tunnel rat and when he wasnt feeling for the enemy in a dark hole he was burning folks up with a flame thrower. He never got over it. As I recall it was mainly used by his platoon for torching villages and other things the enemy could use against them. I recall him talking about the horrible smell he would never forget and how he would wake up in the middle of the night hearing screams. GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS. THEYmake the ultimate sacrifices. |
