Flamethrowers vs. Armor

[jBrereton]

From what I've seen, they're pretty bloody effective.

The best things to kill off Shermans in BB, infantry wise, seem to be Finnish FL44 teams.

They've only got 3 shots, but they're as fast as TH teams, and much more effective, too.

[JasonC]

JK - so find the evidence. Get me the AARs of tanks full KOed by flamethrower teams. Any side, any era, any front, any tank, any reputable source (does not include sergeant rock comic books or after the fact "just-so" fiction etc).

Here is what I notice. There isn't a single CMH for such a feat, while there are dozens for KOing tanks with bazookas and the like. The only mention of FTs on CMH awards are (1) a single FT operator on Iwo Jima, for actual use of it, against bunkers naturally (2) an engineer LT on Tawara, for use of DCs not an FT, mentions organizing his FT teams in his award and (3) one infantry fight in Italy, US defending a mountain, the enemy uses FTs among other things - award nothing to do with it, no tanks anywhere, etc.

Next I looked through the full volumes on Anzio, the Bulge, Bastogne in particular, and the Lorraine camapaign. Anzio not a peep.

Bulge, Germans use FTs and assault guns to attack infantry in a village. On another occasion, a US company in a village runs when facing 2-3 flame tanks. On another, 2 companies surrender when attacked by tanks and foot FT teams, in woods. Late in the battle, some German infantry in a chateau are cleaned out by Churchill Crocs.

There are a few reports of German AFVs immobilized by bazooka fire, finished off at night by pouring whole jerry cans of gasoline over their engine decks and igniting them with thermite grenades.

In the Lorraine campaign, FTs are used on pillboxes. They try against some forts but are picked off by snipers. FTs and DCs are used in a city fight against enemy infantry. US infantry is forced out of buildings taken, by a German counterattack using FTs. FTs and DCs mop up hold outs in forts after the line moves miles east. Germans inside a fort fight back with FTs of their own, against Americans who make it inside. US infantry clears cellars in a town with FTs and grenades. Germans counterattack in woods with FTs and SMGs - against infantry. Germans infiltrate small FT and SMG groups into areas of a town already cleared, and have to be rooted out again.

Not a smoking tank in the bunch. Those are not cherry picked, those comprise every mention of FTs in several monographs hundreds of pages long, combined.

Then I looked at the Russian battlefield survey of Panther and Elephant wrecks, south and north face of Kursk. None of the Panthers has flame damage. Many of the Elephants do, but as follows - M-killed by a mine and finished off with molotov cocktails, 4. Hit by AP shell and finished off by molotov cocktails, 3. Burnt out by molotov cocktail alone, no other mechanism cited, 1. Which is the upshot of what may be the most famous infantry AT success of the war.

Other causes of enemy tank loss are frequently cited in all of the above sources, and FT use is regarded as noteworthy when it happens for the routine uses.

Which are bunkers, buildings, cellars, and occasionally infantry fighting in dense woods.

A US FT weighed 70 lbs full and carried all of 5 gallons of fuel. As an AT weapon, it is unbelievable cumbersome and limited, compared to e.g. an ordinary bazooka. Wargames make them uberweapons. In the real deal, they were specialist bunker finishers, and had morale effects on otherwise beaten infantry forces, especially when the side with the FTs had tanks against none, too - that is about it.

[NameUsedBefore]

I heard flame throwers suck the oxygen not only out of the air, but also out of the lungs of anyone around the burst.

I've also seen pictures of those directly hit by flamethrowers, suffice to say it isn't pretty and there are comments about death being "instant" (which I don't doubt, given the surprised and stiff posture of the victims).

Jason, does that log include half-tracks and other lighter-vehicles?

[Shmavis]

I doubt instant death as well. I saw a video on the History Channel of some Commonwealth forces(a New Zealander squad, I think) accompanied by a combat cameraman that encountered what they thought was an enemy position in a small cave off to their side. A flamethrower was brought forward and the hole was bathed in flame. A lone Japanese soldier staggered out of the flame, crumpled to the ground, and just sat there, burning and staring at the camera.

[jtsjc1]

The only real success I've had with FTs are on OT vehicles. Unless you can ambush a tank, its unlikely the FT will last even one turn. I've actually ignited a fire on an AFV and still it took me out! Fun to use but I'd rather inf. assault an AFV. Joe

[slysniper]

I just need to add my best remembered results with flame vs armour.

A section of Forest road with a ambush set, I had a platoon and a Half of infantry, one bazooka, a couple of mg's and 2 Flame throwers.

My enemy was rolling smoothly with a light armor column over my earlier contact post, so maybe he thought I was on the run from that sector, but he pushed the hole group into the area, thinking he would overwelm me with firepower. To his dismay and my utter glee, 12 or 13 Halftracks, Armour Cars and a couple of light tanks were destroyed. The road was blazing for 60 meters and thus became a permanent roadblock and stop his assault in that sector. I have that turn saved in my files, not one to forget.

Needless to say, the two flames counted for about 8 kills, plus some infantry trying to excape from them halftracks. The joy of war.

[DavidFields]

Originally posted by slysniper:

I just need to add my best remembered results with flame vs armour.

A section of Forest road with a ambush set, I had a platoon and a Half of infantry, one bazooka, a couple of mg's and 2 Flame throwers.

My enemy was rolling smoothly with a light armor column over my earlier contact post, so maybe he thought I was on the run from that sector, but he pushed the hole group into the area, thinking he would overwelm me with firepower. To his dismay and my utter glee, 12 or 13 Halftracks, Armour Cars and a couple of light tanks were destroyed. The road was blazing for 60 meters and thus became a permanent roadblock and stop his assault in that sector. I have that turn saved in my files, not one to forget.

Needless to say, the two flames counted for about 8 kills, plus some infantry trying to excape from them halftracks. The joy of war.

Stop...stop...you are giving me heart palpitations with the excitement of thinking about the film.

But, unfortunately, this excitement factor is probably why they are used so unrealistically in most game simulations. In reality, I can't imagine carrying around this flame-bomb anywhere where there could be any stray bullets, cigarettes, or even falling debris. Or wanting to be around someone who was carrying the thing. Realistically, there should probably be a dip in morale (at least...I would be alerted, if not cautious--accidental friendly fire could suddenly mean more than just saying "sorry") for any unit around the flamethrower? And then one could program in a small chance of the FT spontaneously blowing up each turn?

Then watch people develop the more, I would guess, realistic tactics: keeping FT off the front lines, bringing them in only for fixed-suppressed positions--and away from masses of friendly units.

[Southernrebel]

On a realistic note I think Jason is right BUT what I believe you are side stepping jason is the fact that YES, if you are in a AFV and a flamethrower would blast the tank, breathing would be impossible, if not VERY VERY terrible. So maybe they were not used in such a manner BUT if they COULD, the effects would be decent. Just the danger, speed, weight, ect ect of carrying one limits it from being used as a pure assault weapon.

[realest]

I've known several tankers. They had concerns of flame throwers in real life. Pretty much, the concerns were that if they could get close enough to the tank then the infantry had abandoned them. At that point they are generally at the mercy of grunts on the ground. Should they be able to get a hatch open, then yep, they are in for a terrible few seconds. Concerns were also about the ability of the hatches to seal. Flame will melt and eat through any exposed rubberized gaskets.

I would say the reality of the situation would depend upon the way the hatches were sealed. Hastily made AFV's with inadequate ability to give itself a contained atmosphere would be at risk to flame throwers. However, i would have to say the tank would need to be disabled first. So long as it can drive away it's a very risky assualt, not to mention very unnerving for the poor sap with the FT, it that tank has a working co-ax he may be toast if the vehicle backs away quickly. You may set off some crewman with asthema but i'd say the majority of the crews will just leave unharmed and angry that you tried to bar-b-que them then lob HE at you in the next few minutes.

[JasonC]

No breathing would not be impossible or very very terrible. The FT has fuel for a few seconds. You hold your breath for a few seconds. No it isn't going to suck all the oxygen out, the cracks are way too small to remove all the air the tank contains in a few seconds, and there isn't going to be a huge pressure differential sucking anything out anyway. If the crew is CE sure they could be hurt same as normal.

We know tolerably exactly what it took for a flame based weapon to KO a buttoned tank. It has to ignite a continuing fire in the engine compartment. Usually the oil. If the oil lights, it can burn long enough and generate enough smoke, that some of it getting into the crew compartment, will smoke the crew out. Because that can last for half an hour, not 5 seconds, and you can't hold your breath for half an hour, or breath smoke without smoke inhalation and choking etc.

This required procedures like emptying a whole gas can on the engine deck and setting it alight, and didn't always work even then. With an FT, you could try firing it with the igniter in the off position to soak the engine deck with most of the fuel, then fire an ignited shot to light that fuel. Such methods were generally close assault methods of finishing off a tank immobilized by other means.

The other thing that could effectively KO a tank with flame is dropping a napalm canister within about 20 feet. Those had around 160 gallons each and were dropped 2 at a time, from 2-12 aircraft. It took a quite close hit that put the vehicle well in the middle of the splash to be effective, as OR surveys found in Korea. (It was the first useful air to ground AT weapon - useful because a direct hit was not necessary). For comparison, the total load of a US foot flamethrower - which weighed 70 lbs - was 4 gallons.

[Schmoly War]

Youre not REALLY that busy are ye Jason

olavroda@hotmail.com

[realest]

Ok, playing game now, i took out a BT-5 with a german FT. I'll try and figure out which scenario i'm in. He was hiding popped up hit him and BT5 went poof.

[John D Salt]

My collection of PRO-based snippetry includes a number of items on flamethrower effectiveness. These may perhaps dispel some of the sillier myths about this weapon. It is nothing like as fearsome as popular imagination and "Squad Leader" paint it. Jason's statements about its ineffectiveness against AFVs are entirely correct, and backed up here by WW2 operational research.

First of all, flamethrowers do not spontaneously combust in combat. WO 208/2112, "Translation of German flamethrower manual", says:

"In order to give the men a greater sense of security attention should be drawn to the fact that should the weapon be struck by an infantry bullet or shell splinter it will not explode."

Second, the main effect of flamethrowers is on enemy morale, rather than by any particularly destructive effect of flame. The disproportion between prisoners and casualties resulting from flame attacks is mentioned in WO 291/308, "Effect of flamethrowers on military personnel", which says that information from flame actions showed an average expenditure of 270 gallons per death, 9 gallons per prisoner.

Physical effects of flame against field fortifications are not as great as you might think. WO 231/32, "Notes on Wasp and Lifebuoy", says:

"An attack by flame depends largely on its terrifying effect for its success. Troops familiar with Flame Throwers will offer greater resistance than those inexperienced."

"It is difficult to get large quantities of burning fuel in through the slits in a pill box. Anti-ricochet slits and flaps afford additional protection."

"The occupants of a pill box are fairly safe if they retreat behind the partition wall."

The report advises that woollen blankets and greatcoats, especially if wet, give good protection against radiant heat, but should be easy to remove in case they do catch fire.

WO 291/986, "The operational effectiveness of the flamethrower tank (Crocodile)" says:

a) "Flame was most effective against houses and fortified buildings. There were invariably set on fire and gutted.

Open defences among woods, hedges and undergrowth provided good targets as the vegetation was easily set on fire.

c) As would be expected, flame was least effective against pillboxes and the like; only if it could be projected through apertures to the inside did the occupants suffer."

The difficulty of using flame against entenchments is commented on in WO 291/1060, "The A45 flame gun versus the Panzerfaust". This report refers to earlier research using the Wasp flamethrower, which it says shows that "a frontal shot of ignited fuel does negligible harm to men in a slit-trench providing they keep their heads down." The trench should either be enfiladed, or an unignited ("wet") shot fired first. Because of the different ballistics of ignited and unignited fuel, it is likely that two unignited shots may be needed. It is also stated that, if wind conditions are such as to affect shooting, the first shot will usually be wasted, used for indicating wind direction.

The number of manpack flamethrowers required to reduce a pillbox or bunker seems considerable. WO 232/70, "Flame throwers – Exchange of information with Red Army" says "The number of flame throwers allotted to an assault group formed to attack a pillbox depends on the number of embrasures. On an average 3–4 flame throwers are allotted per pillbox."

Nonetheless, WO 232/35 "Reduction of Japanese bunkers" says that "At Tarawa M3 tank flame throwers reduced pill boxes when all other attempts had failed."

Finally, on the main topic of the thread, effectiveness against AFVs was known to be poor. WO 291/1139, "Drop tank incendiary bombs used in the anti-tank role", mentions that trials of flamethrowers against AFVs showed that it was difficult to get fuel inside the AFV. An open driver's hatch would admit fuel; an open commander's hatch with more difficulty, as it was harder to "loft" the fuel to turret height. Hits on the (internal) mantlet area of the Churchill admitted fuel. Vehicles with engine louvres on the rear deck could be disabled by flaming from the rear, which ignites fan-belts and damages ignition wires. It is pointed out that attack from above, as with an air attack, seems to be the most favourable aspect when using flame.

All the best,

John.

[DavidFields]

Wonderful information John D Salt.

And I ask this as a real question: Do we believe the German Flamethrower maunals about their non-combustibility?

[realest]

I don't believe it. I'm sure it's there and published. Nothing to make a poor fellow feel better about strapping a bomb to his back than to give him something in print written by an engineer telling him he's safe.

I know this, i know when a full metal jacket bullet penetrates steel it throws sparks everywhere. If they put their fuel in a steel container it most likely went boom if penetrated. I've seen all sorts of rounds penetrate and throw sparks. If it were a tracer round then it had phosphorus blaring in it. That would likely ignite i'd imagine.

Now i do believe the psychological effects may be more dangerous than a hand carried unit. They do have limited range and endurance. I can see groups of individuals giving up quickly especially if they were shy of weapons.

[John Kettler]

realest,

I'm with you on this one. I've seen interviews with PTO combat veterans in which they describe a) the short combat life expectancy of FT operators and the spectacular flaming ends that FT operators they knew came to when hit in the fuel tank. A History Channel program on Iwo Jima even had an animated sequence showing this happening.

John D Salt,

There is a marked difference between the American views of defense against flame attack and the British ones. According to the Army Green volume

THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE: From Laboratory to Field under Toxicology of Flame Attack (p. 165 et. seq.) we find the following statement:

" In studying the toxicology of flame attack in poorly ventilated enclosed spaces like those found in Japanese bunkers and similar fortifications, researchers determined that three important changes occurred within them at the moment of flame attack, quite aside from the penetration of the flaming fuel itself: there was a sudden jump in temperature, lethal concentrations of carbon monoxide were built up in the bunker, and there was a dangerous lowering of oxygen content. They learned that 70 percent carbon monoxide in the blood resulted in death and that this accumulation was obtainable in flame attack within ten minutes. Furthermore, only one-tenth of one percent carbon monoxide in the air was sufficient to maintain this lethal blood level, and it was present in bunkers for seven to ten minutes after flame attack. They also learned that for intervals up to fifteen seconds there was almost complete absence of oxygen in a bunker under attack, and that unconsciousness would likely be almost instantaneous in such an event. Any one of these factors or any combination of them, therefore, meant certain death, quite aside from the effects of direct contact with the flame."

This same section also notes flame defense research by the Chemical Warfare Service came to this fundamental conclusion:

"...that no positive defense could be devised against flame attack."

The CWS tried flame hoods, water sprays, fire extinguishers, fireproof hoods, even sliding steel aperture covers for pillboxes before reaching this conclusion.

Taken in toto, this would seem to make a strong case that a buttoned tank crew would be at serious risk of dying if their vehicle took a solid hit on the bow and turret, at least with napalm type fuel

and its long burn time covering the ventilators and hatch openings. With the ventilators providing smoke, heat, no oxygen, and deadly invisible carbon monoxide, simultaneous with most of the oxygen in the tank itself having basically vanished within seconds, I certainly wouldn't want to be in that predicament. Of course, with no oxygen to breathe, I doubt I'd care much!

Regards,

John Kettler

[ November 02, 2006, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[DavidFields]

Napalm-type fuel sounds like a "maybe". But JasonC's request for a historical description of FT being used (in WW-2 Europe, I would like to see) to KO a tank still stands unchallanged. I don't think most soldiers were shy about claiming tank kills.

Interesting, to me, is that when I played a bunch of early war QBs as Italy, in East Africa, I believe there were these 3 FT units which were available (prominent, because not many units are available for the Italians at that time). I thought it very odd, because I would think the desert would be a particularly poor place for FT units.

Another thought: If I had a FT pack, and was on the second floor of a building, and a tank was rolling by me on the street, I think I would be tempted to strap a few hand grenades on the FT pack and throw it, rather than stand there and squirt the stuff from the window. Sort of a Grand Molotov Cocktail.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

[snips]

I'm with you on this one. I've seen interviews with PTO combat veterans in which they describe a) the short combat life expectancy of FT operators and the spectacular flaming ends that FT operators they knew came to when hit in the fuel tank. A History Channel program on Iwo Jima even had an animated sequence showing this happening.

Hmmm, an animated sequence. I think I would be more inclined to believe it if you could post a reference to a written combat account in which a flamethrower operator has met such a spectacular end. I cannot recall ever reading one. If you can find one, please post it.

Obviously this may depend somewhat on the fuel used. I believe that German and Russian flamethrowers normally used diesel or fuel oil, which are not that easy to start burning, and I would imagine are jolly difficult to persuaded to explode. Thickened petrol obviously represents a bit more of a hazard, but consider the account of flamethrower operation in the PTO given in:

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/chemsincmbt/ch14.htm

(which account, I notice, never mentions the danger of flamethrowers being exploded by enemy bullets).

If it so easy to persuade flamethrower fuel to ignite using, e.g., tracer bullets, then I would very much like to know

1. Why flamethrowers were so often out of action with defective ignition systems

and

2. Why flamethrower crews carried thermite grenades (is the substance familiar? It burns very, very hot indeed) to ignite unignited flamethrower fuel.

Of course, the fuel in this case is spread around in the open air, with plenty of available oxygen, whereas the stuff in manpack cylinders is sharing the tanks with nitrogen propellant, so it seems to me it should be harder still to ignite.

Originally posted by John Kettler:

There is a marked difference between the American views of defense against flame attack and the British ones. According to the Army Green volume

THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE: From Laboratory to Field under Toxicology of Flame Attack (p. 165 et. seq.) we find the following statement:

" In studying the toxicology of flame attack in poorly ventilated enclosed spaces like those found in Japanese bunkers and similar fortifications, researchers determined that three important changes occurred within them at the moment of flame attack, quite aside from the penetration of the flaming fule itself: there was a sudden jump in temperature, lethal concentrations of carbon monoxide were built up in the bunker, and there was a dangerous lowering of oxygen content. They learned that 70 percent carbon monoxide in the blood resulted in death and that this accumulation was obtainable in flame attack within ten minutes. Furthermore, only one-tenth of one percent carbon monoxide in the air was sufficient to maintain this lethal blood level, and it was present in bunkers for seven to ten minutes after flame attack. They also learned that for intervals up to fifteen seconds there was almost complete absence of oxygen in a bunker under attack, and that unconsciousness would likely be almost instantaneous in such an event. Any one of these factors or any combination of them, therefore, meant certain death, quite aside from the effects of direct contact with the flame."

This same section also notes flame defense research by the Chemical Warfare Service came to this fundamental conclusion:

"...that no positive defense could be devised against flame attack."

The CWS tried flame hoods, water sprays, fire extinguishers, fireproof hoods, even sliding steel aperture covers for pillboxes before reaching this conclusion.

Taken in toto, this would seem to make a strong case that a buttoned tank crew would be at serious risk of dying if their vehicle took a solid hit on the bow and turret, at least with napalm type fuel

and its long burn time covering the ventilators and hatch openings. With the ventilators providing smoke, heat, no oxygen, and deadly invisible carbon monoxide, simultaneous with most of the oxygen in the tank itself having basically vanished within seconds, I certainly wouldn't want to be in that predicament. Of course, with no oxygen to breathe, I doubt I'd care much!

Intriguing, but I rather suspect that the studies in question were of a theoretical and toxicological nature, rather than being based on operational experience. I would believe that there is no practicable defence against a high concentration of CO, but one has to doubt any source that claims that unconsciousness would be almost instantaneous when people are deprived of oxygen, or suggests that fifteen seconds without oxygen presents even the mildest kind of hazard. You can perform this simple experiment at home; first, hold your breath for fifteen seconds. Then check to see if you are dead (and if you are, write in to say so).

It would also seem that the official US view on protection against flamethrowers has at some time become much more like the one the British arrived at through operational experience. Consider

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/dod/fm8-9/3ch8.htm

which says, in para 829, on the subject of defence against flamethrower attack, "A wool blanket is excellent".

Still, if people have any evidence of flamethrowers exploding when hit by bullets or fragments, or flamethrowers destroying AFVs in combat, please, let's hear them.

All the best,

John.

[realest]

Well, get yourself a fairly thick steel container and fill it with deisel fuel and shoot it.

Test will be over then. LOL

[z-warfare]

It's really hard to imagine diesel as FT fuel... it's so hard to light! As a diesel-related aside, a bit off-topic, back when i was in the reserves doing basic training we had a workplace safety lesson about using fire extinguishers... an instructor thought it would be a good idea to pour diesel fuel into an oil drip pan, light it, then have us put the fire out with different types of extinguishers... but because it was diesel not gas, it wouldn't light no matter what he tried. It was pathetic training.

[realest]

Z, i too have been in all that who-maraz LOL. Gas chambers were always a ton of fun.

But, in relation to diesel, you can ignite it with a cigarette lighter but it takes some time and you definately don't want wind blowing. It can be tough, but generally you add an accelerant to generate that needed heat. Diesel is explosive if under pressure though, my mechanic tells me that's basically how a diesel motor works. The compression ratios in the motors are far higher than gas motors. I'm told the reason is to combust the diesel. I don't fully understand how that works, just what i'm told. But, it's obvious that if Diesel is indeed used in the FT, then it's going to be pressurized, so perhaps that in conjunction with an accelerant adds to the ignition. Don't know, only thoughts though.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by z-warfare:

[snips]

an instructor thought it would be a good idea to pour diesel fuel into an oil drip pan, light it, then have us put the fire out with different types of extinguishers... but because it was diesel not gas, it wouldn't light no matter what he tried. It was pathetic training.

Think how much more fun the training would have been if you got to chuck a thermite grenade at it.

All the best,

John.

[z-warfare]

Training could be fun enough without thermite - we ran out of subcalibre training rounds for the Carl Gustavs so fired the real thing... I got to blow the bejeesus out of what looked like some ancient Centurion hulk... aaaand I digress.

As for FTs, and as previously mentioned, my wikipedia-researched understanding is that the fuel is not constantly under pressure in the tank on a soldier's back, but rather that limited amounts of the fuel are compressed burst by burst from a high-pressure, smaller tank of inert gas as the weapon fires... so that a (ball) round into the fuel tank would only cause a leak rather than an explosion. On the basis of that sort of FT design, i'd agree with John D Salt that the things were not nearly as hazardous as myths hold. At first I was very surprised to read diesel was used as FT fuel, because of its need to be compressed, but I suppose it would indeed make for a quite safe device, as per WO 208/2112.

Having sorted the explosion angle, I guess the main downsides of being an FT operator are (1) you're lugging a very heavy tank, and (2) everyone hates you.

I have nothing to add about FT effectiveness versus tanks, other than being slathered in fire can't actually be GOOD for them.

[realest]

Having sorted the explosion angle, I guess the main downsides of being an FT operator are (1) you're lugging a very heavy tank, and (2) everyone hates you.

[/QB]

ROFLMAO

[John Kettler]

Unless the Japanese themselves did this, the excerpt for THE LONG ROAD OF WAR would appear to provide an example of what happens when the flamethrower takes a fuel tank hit.

http://stonebooks.com/archives/981108.shtml

According to Michael Dorosh's site, ball ammo penetration of the fuel tank would be unlikely to cause the tank to explode.

http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/mediawiki-1.5.5/index.php?title=Flamethrower

AllExperts draws the same basic conclusion.

http://experts.about.com/e/f/fl/flamethrower.htm

Tracer, typically one in seven rounds from MGs, and red-white hot shell splinters would likely be far more dangerous, especially on partly empty fuel tanks.

My understanding is that the WW II U.S. flamethrower, once brought into action by opening the valve to the propellant tank, generally done by the FT operator's assistant, was indeed a fully pressurized system. A single burst, provided the trigger was held down continuously, could empty the entire fuel load within seconds. Also worth noting is that tracer or a hot shell fragment through the hose wouldn't be good, either.

According to THE CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE, Axis flamethrowers used variously, fuel oil, and fuel oil and gasoline mixtures. (p. 146). The only reference to diesel fuel I could find was on page 140, and that was in reference to one of several fuels used in ours before we got napalm.

Tactical And Technical Trends No. 3, Item # 12531

(Vulnerability of Mark IV Tank to Flamethrower Attack) may be of interest.

http://www.military-info.com/Aphoto/Ttt1.htm

Regards,

John Kettler