Flamethrowers vs. Armor

[z-warfare]

The plot thickens... along with the naptha...

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by 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

There's nothing there that even suggests that this was the result of a hit on an FT fuel tank, and the Japanese fielded at least two patterns of manpack flamethrower.

All the best,

John.

[realest]

Well, no doubts someone somewhere likely got toasted by a hit to the tank or hose perhaps. It may not have been as easy who knows. I'll get something throw some Diesel in it and shoot it for my own curiousity.

According to what is provided, it appears the Axis FT's would have been more likely to ignite by penetration later in the war if they had Gasoline mixes. We all know it goes POOF fairly easily.

And i suppose to the FT operator, it really wouldn't matter. Soon as he was identified, everyone shot at the poor fellow. He would likely be dead before the penetrating hit.

[z-warfare]

Deep Thought:

Maybe we'll see some kind of ultra-detailed FT damage model in CMx2, partly based on the volatility of different fuel mixes.

[Darkmath]

Yeah, and incorporate fluid mechanics modelling with their partial differential equations EXACTLY solved.

[John Kettler]

John D. Salt,

Quoting from the relevant passage in A LONG ROAD TO WAR (fair use)

"On one occasion, as we fought inch by inch through that rugged terrain, we crossed a little knob and came upon the remains of a bunch of Seventh Marine bodies, blackened and swollen from flame throwers cooking them. The flies and the birds and maggots were working on them. It looked to be what was left of a platoon of good, young Marine Corps riflemen and machine gunners.

It was repulsive beyond imagination."

The flamethrower sections of the Marine combat histories are available online, and nowhere in them did I see ANY mention of Japanese flamethrower attacks against the Marines. This does NOT prove no such attacks occurred, of course, but it seems to me fair to argue that if this wasn't from Japanese flame attacks, then the next logical explanation would be that a shell, shell fragment or bullet hit a Marine assault party's flamethrower/flamethrowers, exploding same and torching the closely bunched men. There are plenty of stills and film clips showing precisely that kind of "herding" in the PTO.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

The flamethrower sections of the Marine combat histories are available online, and nowhere in them did I see ANY mention of Japanese flamethrower attacks against the Marines.

Look harder.

Three minutes with Google gave me this, from page 325 at http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/okinawa/chapter13.htm

"Capture of Dakeshi Ridge, 10-13 May

[...]

When one marine was set on fire by a Japanese flame thrower, several of his comrades tried to cross open ground to put out the flames,..."

All the best,

John.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by z-warfare:

Deep Thought:

Maybe we'll see some kind of ultra-detailed FT damage model in CMx2, partly based on the volatility of different fuel mixes.

I think it would be interesting to model at least the difference in effects between thin and thick fuels. Thin fuels give better flash-burn, and produce billowing flame that gave considerable obscuration (so protecting the operator in the case of man-packs) and, the Russians at least considered, better morale effect. Thick fuels give a clean flame rod, and better continued burning on the ground.

All the best,

John.

[John Kettler]

John D Salt,

While I research this further, I thought I'd share a situation in which almost everyone but the flamethrower guy got hit. From your source, page 314:

"A company commander of the 1st Battalion, 22d Marines, led a squad up to the summit of a strongly defended hill 800 yards south of Asa, but all his troops were killed or wounded in the assault except the flame-thrower man."

These, BTW, are the 6th Marines, not the 7th I mentioned. The writer, though may mean the 7th regiment of the 6th MarDiv.

More flamethrower grog goodness, with a pic of the Japanese flamethrower. It, BTW, per the CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE BOOK, was better than ours in terms of design. Aussie flamethrower fuels are discussed, too.

http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-weapons/flamethrowers.htm

U.S. WW II info on Japanese flamethrowers

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt/japanese-flamethrower-type-93.html

According to this AHF thread, there have been documented instances in both WW I and WW II in which the flamethrower tank exploded under normal or deliberate aimed fire. This same thread records only a handful of Japanese flame attacks, and none with the lethality described in A LONG ROAD TO WAR.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=95312&sid=eb6c1577ecec5cf4cf212f531eb8abd6

Pic of one here that was used in the Solomons and happily for the captain shown, failed to ignite!

http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=182935

All in all, most Japanese flamethrower use seems to be early war, and even the one you cite doesn't come close to the havoc described in the book. I looked specifically for Japanese flamethrower and Japanese flamethrower attacks, found what I present here, found nothing on par with what the Marine veteran describes, and therefore stand by my originally stated view. Hostile fire + exploding flamethrower tank = scene described.

Fortunately, it appears no GIs ever were fired on by one of these.

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/jp_fttank/index.html

Regards,

John Kettler

[z-warfare]

Surely you don't just assume it was a lucky tank hit from that scene... your quote from A LONG ROAD TO WAR says "flame throwers" - plural!

There must be better examples of exploding FTs out there, and in the meantime a mysterious pile of burned bodies isn't positive proof of anything...

[z-warfare]

Wait a minute, this wasn't even about exploding FTs. I give up.

[John Kettler]

z-warfare,

Yes, it was. Why? A lot of Google digging found only the Dakeshi flame attack for late war Japanese use. Hardly the same as what the Marine described. Therefore, the probability that the platoon's horrific end was from a Japanese flame attack seems to me to be very low. If it wasn't a Japanese flame attack, then logic would suggest that it was a result of some disaster befalling our own flamethrower armed troops.

As for flamethrowers, both the Army and the Marines learned the hard way that sending a single flamethrower into a given assault was just plain stupid. Standard practice was to use several, covered by infantry and MG teams. If such an assault formation got caught in a crossfire while all bunched up, I can see how one flamethrower explosion could easily lead to grenade and ammo detonations, in turn triggering nearby flamethrower detonations, incinerating and blowing apart the poor platoon and its specially trained assault element. The result in such a case would indeed be "repulsive beyond imagination" and worse with broiling tropical sun thrown in.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Shaderach]

Hi everyone. This is my first post in this forum, I began lurking today to try and decide whether I want to dive into the CM series or not.

Regarding the likelihood of a flamepack exploding when hit with a bullet/high speed fragment, I would like to add the following:

On an episode of Mythbusters(bear with me here) they examined the "Hollywood Myth" of the exploding vehicle gastank.

Their process was to fill a gas tank mostly full and proceed to shoot it with various caliber weapons. Both with the gas tank inside the car, and removed and alone against a backstop, they were wholly unable to get it to so much as flicker. I vividly recall them resorting to high-caliber law enforcement/military rifles that would be unavailable to the general public as well.

Ultimately they decided to go with tracer rounds, in a desperate attempt to get the tank to do *anything* -- and succeeded in getting a small fire lit on the gasoline slowly leaking out the numerous holes they had by this time shot into the tank.

No explosion, even with tracer rounds and very large caliber rifles. A small, easily extinguishable fire at best.

I'm not trying to backup or refute any of the above posters' claims/opinions/facts, but the episode seemed relevant and no one previously had mentioned it so I wanted to share.

I look forward to getting to know more of you in the future, CM seems like my dream wargame, although I readily admit I'm slightly intimidated by the detail... I'm new to the strategic war simulation genre.

Take care all,

Shaderach

[John Kettler]

Shaderach,

Welcome aboard! Of course you want to dive in!

Moving now to the ostensible thread topic, while I think Mythbusters does some good work, there are also methodology flaws which drive me insane. See, for example, the great cell phone fire hazard dismissal in which after the second show of tests, in which again, no tests were done with dropped or damaged units, cell phone batteries started exploding out in the real world.

Regarding the gas tank tests, the more vulnerable case would be a less than full tank on a hot day, with gasoline in vapor form postured to better receive a spark or flame. Engine should be fully up to temperature and running, meaning a hot catalytic converter to provide a lovely ignition source. How credible is that notion? Catalytic converters have started fires simply by being driven through tall dry grass, never mind the exhaust manifold. You can cook food on it!

Even that, though, doesn't come close to the kind of pressure we're talking about in a flamethrower ready to fire. If I'm interpreting this correctly, we're talking 2000 psi pressure in the system, and combat accounts indicate that a Zippo, match, or burning paper was enough to light the American flamethrower fuel stream in case of igniter failure. Was probably more challenging for nations using other fuel mixes.

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

The closest analogy I can offer is for you to imagine having a fuel injector hose failure under the hood when the engine's hot and under load. Don't know about you, but I sure wouldn't want to be in the car if that happened! Now, imagine you're inside the engine compartment when this occurs!

Edit

Forgot to mention that every U.S. D-Day landing craft landing element was issued a flamethrower, but from what I've read most GIs left the weapon aboard when they debarked? Why? They didn't wish to become human torches if hit while wearing it!

Regards,

John Kettler

[realest]

The thread topic started about the ability of a flame thrower to disable / kill a tank. And the points of interest in that.

I do believe that it can be done and it certainly was done. However, the events and circumstances would dictate whether it was highly succesful. In a city fight like stalingrad where they lack mobility and can be cornered and ambushed, Flame attack (if lucky) has a chance at disabling. If the crew unbuttons for some unforseen reason most assuredly they are in trouble.

On the Steppe, the only way i can see it done is if the crew fell asleep and let all guard down.

I don't see it as a preferred method, but an attack in desperation. I'd say being in a burning tank even if undamaged likely unnerves the crew simply because someone got close enough to throw something on their vehicle. It's not a comforting feeling to be in a vehicle and realize your guys have abandoned you, been pushed back or you have outrun them.

[Sergei]

The excellent Jaeger Platoon site describes the Italian and Russian flamethrower types in use by Finnish army.

http://www.jaegerplatoon.net/FLAMETHROWER.htm

Nothing is revealed about anti-tank effectiveness, but at least this is what was used.

Finnish military used two kinds of flame-thrower fuel mixes with these flame-throwers:

Summer-mix:

# 66 % heavy fuel oil

# 33 % burning oil

Winter mix:

# 55 % heavy fuel oil

# 30 % burning oil

# 20 % gasoline

[JasonC]

"it certainly was done"

Dates, times, places, units, vehicles, names.

I don't believe it was. Prove me wrong.

[realest]

Originally posted by JasonC:

"it certainly was done"

Dates, times, places, units, vehicles, names.

I don't believe it was. Prove me wrong.

LOL, why did russia make all those molotovs??? Besides Jason, all rumors or stories started with some element of truth.

Jason, your request for proof of this nature is far beneath your intelligence. I have read your posts, and i can say that it appears to me that you indeed enjoy reading and researching these vehicles and are a wealth of information to inquire with. You can no more supply proof that it didn't happen than i can supply that it did, we simply have opposite views of the question at hand.

[realest]

Another question jason, what do you know of the steel that was used to make these vehicles? What do you know of heat and the effect on steel? These are factors that should be taken into account.

Keep in mind welding was a new technique at this time. They did not know how to identify weak welds or connections. Were any of these tanks welded, riveted, drop forged, what was the manufacturing process?

I have worked in the steel industry for some 15 years now in various roles and you can rest assured that heat and steel creates problems for finished products.

Somewhere in those tracks they are held together by pins or some sort of connection. If you can get lucky and find that weak point it's potentially possible to heat the connection. If a tank tries to traverse and exceeds the yield strength of that material making the connection then it breaks. I don't have an ASTM book for 1941 (if one was available then) but my point is steel can yield at strengths as low as 18000 PSI or lower (especially if made wrong). Structural Steels and the HSLA materials being produced today can yield anywhere from 50K to over 100K on tensile, yield.

I'm going to look around and ask and see what i can find out about steel made in that time.

[JasonC]

There is no chance in hell a mere backpack FT with 4 gallons of gas firing for less than 10 seconds in aggregate can heat any appreciable portion of a 30 ton tank. It is pure physics, the joules of heat energy just aren't there. Welding focuses a lot of energy on a tiny area, an FT billows it over an area larger than the tank itself. No comparison. Like the difference between shooting an AP round into a tank and banging on it with a broom.

At best you might ignite some rubber road "shoes" on the treads. I've already explained the only way to actually KO a tank with flame weapons, and it is to ignite an oil fire in the engine compartment (sometimes started at connectors, belts, hoses, etc), and then smoke the crew out that way.

As for molotovs, they were not very effective by all accounts - I've describe what they actually managed to do to Elephants at Kursk, easily their most famous success of the war, and it amounted to finishing off turret-less and MG-less vehicles immobilized by mines or AP shot. The Russians issued smoke grenades to infantry as AT devices, because the thing that actually made the crews bail when it worked was smoke inhalation and the belief the tank was on fire.

If you had ever even read in any passage of an operational history of FTs being used with tactical effect on tanks, you could cite the elements I asked for. You therefore simply haven't. Closest I've come is one passage about Kursk that mentions FTs among weapons Russian pioneers had in the defense of a trench system. I gave the green book cases - I've text searched them and read every time they mention FTs, and not one refers to uses against armor. Other uses of FTs are mentioned regularly, as are other instances of infantry AT with bazookas and the like. Same is true of medal citations.

I therefore have definite evidence and reasons for my opinion. From you I see absolutely none. Of course you can have an opinion without evidence, but if you know you have no evidence it is something less than reasonable to be convinced about it.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Forgot to mention that every U.S. D-Day landing craft landing element was issued a flamethrower, but from what I've read most GIs left the weapon aboard when they debarked? Why? They didn't wish to become human torches if hit while wearing it!

Or maybe they did not want to have a heavy object strapped on their back while making it across the beach and through the water?

Or maybe they did not have their weeties and did not feel like it?

And how would these man have had evidence that it was likely that the FT would explode when fired at? IOW how can a belief that they might become human torches be evidence for your claim? These are the same soldiers who would have us believe that every German tank was a Tiger, and every gun an 88. So even if they believed something, it is as possible to be based on imaginary fears than a realistic appreciation of the situation.

All the best

Andreas

[JasonC]

Chest high water without the waves, 4 foot surf when 1 foot had been expected, 70 lb metal object strapped to your body that isn't a scuba tank, equals stark raving mad. And no, it wasn't the fire that was scary it was the water.

[John Kettler]

JasonC,

M. Hofbauer's Panzerfaust site seems to be well respected, and his take is that flamethrowers could and did kill tanks, as seen in the flamethrower section here.

http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust11.htm

Items 11 and 12 here might be useful to see whether any Germans got tank destruction badges

via flamethrower attacks on tanks and to see what was taught about flamethrower use.

http://www.aberdeenbookstore.com/german_weapons.htm

This book, FLAME ON! would no doubt make interesting reading.

http://www.amazon.com/Flame-U-S-Incendiary-Weapons-1918-1945/dp/1572491663

JasonC and Andreas,

And that load is worse than this one how, exactly?

40 lb. demo charge + bangalore torpedo + full field pack + rifle, as described here

http://www.6juin1944.com/veterans/farrell.php

If combat engineers aren't your thing, how about assault infantry with 75 pounds of gear? The guy weighed 170!

http://www.6juin1944.com/veterans/jordan.php

I think your argument, from a payload standpoint, is weak, especially since the flamethrower operator carried only a flamethrower.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ November 11, 2006, 12:58 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[John Kettler]

Items 3 and 4, taken from a 2000 vintage Russian historical study of the Korean War, provide considerable insight into napalm effects vs. SPs and tanks. Napalm is what our flamethrowers used, so is helpful from a comparison standpoint.

http://www.korean-war.com/Russia/KoreaPoligon691-720.html

Regards,

John Kettler

[Andreas]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

I think your argument, from a payload standpoint, is weak, especially since the flamethrower operator carried only a flamethrower.

Still better than yours, since you are not even pretending to take reality into account, but just make things up.

They did not want to take the FTs - so it is true that they exploded when shot at.

It's called 'non sequitur'.

All the best

Andreas