Flamethrower explosions

[Crash-Neptune]

I was wondering if flamethrowers, like the portable one or maybe the wasp could explode when hit, or would the tanks be hard to ignite? They could cause a small (large?) explosion. I've read that one of the major downsides to manning a flamethrower was the risk of it catching fire or exploding on you back (Yikes.) :eek:

[ 12-01-2001: Message edited by: Crash-Neptune ]</p>

[SuperTed]

C-N,

A vehicle-based FT is more likely to go BOOM! but a two-footed version is not.

[Panzer Leader]

I always heard that soldiers tried to shy away from standing too near the flame-thrower guy. Surely there was a reason for this?

In fact, wasn't there a FT scene in SPR? Or maybe I'm imagining it - Bridge too Far?

[The Commissar]

When I asked this same question over a year ago, some guys told me that the main reason the man portable FT's didn't explode was because the FT fueld had two components. Each liquid was in one of the two cylinders, and only came together and ignited in the FT tube to be propelled outwards.

Thus, the only way the FT would explode was if by some freak accident a bullet (or serious of bullets/shrapnel) actually pierced both tanks, somehow managed to mix the liquids together, and then ignited them. If this was truly the way it was done, as you can well imagine the risk of an explosion for almost none existent.

However, maybe the old timers were just pulling my leg cause I was an SSN at the time

[MrSpkr]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

In fact, wasn't there a FT scene in SPR? Or maybe I'm imagining it - Bridge too Far?<hr></blockquote>

Yes, one of the FT guys on the beach in SPR turned into Mr. Ronson. Break out the wire hangers and marshmallows.

[Brian]

Explosions with backpack throwers were less of a danger than just being burned. Most thrower crews consisted of several men. One to use the thing, the others to cover and to rescue him if his backpack was hit and he started to burn. If you look closely at most photos of flamethrowers being used, you'll usually see somewhere close by a couple of blokes with blankets - to smother the flames ASAP.

I do wish though, it was possible, depending upon the operation of course, to leave the flamethrower behind on the unit transport and have an extra Sapper/Pioneer for use on other tasks, rather than having to carry the bloody thing all over the place.

[Pak40]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Crash-Neptune:

I was wondering if flamethrowers, like the portable one or maybe the wasp could explode when hit, or would the tanks be hard to ignite? They could cause a small (large?) explosion. I've read that one of the major downsides to manning a flamethrower was the risk of it catching fire or exploding on you back (Yikes[ 12-01-2001: Message edited by: Crash-Neptune ]<hr></blockquote>

Hmm, not so sound like a smart ass, but...

Duh, a tank with compressed fuel being hit by a bullet? You bet your @#$@# it's going to ignite.

I do know that the trailer tank for the Crocodile and maybe the wasp were armored, but not very thick. A bullet wouldn't penetrate it but a light AA gun might. Maybe someone can give some armor thickness for these fuel tanks.

[Wendigo]

If I'm not completely mistaken the flamethrower used fuel (not under pressure) and compressed gas in the other cylinder to press it out. So that means that hit in the other cylinder would spread the fuel around and possibly ignite it but wouldn't cause an explosion. The other cylinder would probably at least *pop* but wouldn't cause much damage (the gas being nitrogen(?) or some other inert thing)

-Lasse

-

It's all in your head

[Swift]

Look at http://www.howstuffworks.com/flamethrower.htm for an interesting article about flamethrowers AND a working model (how cool is that )

Their model has oily fuel in both tanks and a burnable compressed in a third. I would imagine that if a tracer was fired in any of the tanks they most likely would blow up (or at least spill burning fuel around, not that the person carrying the flamethrower would care witch...)

[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: Swift ]</p>

[Splinty]

I just read the article Swift was talking about and it stated that the typical flamethrower uses Butane as the propellent. That being the case I have no doubt that if the tank was hit by enemy (or friendly)rounds it would at the very least burst into flames,and since it uses compressed Butane it would probably explode with catastrophic consequenses for the operator and anyone near by.

[Lars]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

I always heard that soldiers tried to shy away from standing too near the flame-thrower guy. Surely there was a reason for this?

<hr></blockquote>

If you are the only guy walking around the battlefield with a lit blowtorch, you tend to attract a lot of unfriendly attention.

Especially at night.

[Wendigo]

Ok. Found this:

"Contrary to what we had thought, flamethrowers were introduced fairly early on. They were first employed by the Germans at the battle of Hooge on July 30, 1915. Flamethrowers consisted of a backpack with a resevoir of compressed nitrogen and a tank containing about ten pints of "liquid flame", usually a mixture of coal tar and benzine. A hose ran from the fuel tank to a nozzle, on which was an ignition device; on pressing the trigger, gas forced the liquid through the nozzle and at the same time the ignition device fired the liquid. The result was a stream of burning liquid with an effective range of about 45 meters."

I, for one, wouldn't carry a tank of butane on my back. It probably makes the thrower more effective and easier to use, but is way more dangerous to the user. Although you tend to draw fire anyway carrying that thing on your back..

Nice info about modern use of flame weapons:

http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/3-11/toc.htm