WWII flamethrowers / viewed through PC vision

The AVRE (Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers) that the fellow is talking about was a Churchill tank variant armed with a large, low velocity demolition mortar used to demolish bunkers/roadblocks/etc.

There was a lot of debate about using flame as a weapon against the Germans in NW Europe. There was zero debate about using it against the Japanese in the Pacific. A very effective, if frightening, way of clearing/neutralizing trenches, bunkers, and pillboxes. Basically it was napalm owned by the army.
 
I was surprised at the 2 minute mark at how far the flames can shoot, with pretty good accuracy too. The operator of that flame thrower in the actual war must have had some pretty horrendous flashbacks from what he saw it do to the enemy... Can you imagine?
 
There is a book out there, written by one of the Crocodile tank commanders. He had to write it in the third person, using another name because of how his time in the war had affected him. I think the book is simply titled Flamethrower IIRC
 
Yes, the AVRE had a large mortar which fired bombs that were nicknamed: "flying dustbins". This habit of naming ordnance is an old thing with the Brits going back quite a ways. For example, the WWI - 2" spigot mortar rounds were called: "Toffee Apples".

Flashing forward to Vietnam, there was a well documented record of an incident where a North Vietnamese PT-76 Light Tank & crew got into a scrap with an an American M-60 Engineer Vehicle and it's crew. As the M-60 Engineer tank had a 165mm ***BRITISH*** :)demolition gun, and whereas the PT-76 had a 76mm gun, there is no need to specify who the victor of that engagement was. :D
 
Last edited:
Here's some pics of the business end of the AVRE's 290mm gun.

290mm_Petard_with_ammunition.jpg


Churchill_AVRE_Petard.jpg


More about the Churchill Avre's:

[youtube]ImV30KURF7I[/youtube]
 
Last edited:
purple said:
There was a lot of debate about using flame as a weapon against the Germans in NW Europe. There was zero debate about using it against the Japanese in the Pacific. A very effective, if frightening, way of clearing/neutralizing trenches, bunkers, and pillboxes. Basically it was napalm owned by the army.
Click to expand...

Why was this?


Mark
 
purple said:
There was a lot of debate about using flame as a weapon against the Germans in NW Europe.
Click to expand...
The Germans were using the flammenwerfer in 1939 (Flammpanzer I in the Spanish Civil War), why was there a debate?
The Russian had flamethrower tanks like the OT-26, OT-130, OT-133, OT-134 before the war.
 
Handwringing. I would say there were a lot more practicing Catholics in those days, you have heard of 'fire and brimstone' - maybe people had a psychological tendency to associate burning someone to death with napalm to the metaphysical fires of hell and eternal damnation. Also I would imagine the cries of those who had been splashed with napalm 100 yards away would be pretty shocking as opposed to dropping multiple napalm canisters on them from a Thunderbolt or what have you.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Adams said:
Think there was a bit of racism at play here. Yellow people and all that goes with it. I think the Americans would have been a lot more reluctant to nuke Germans, as well.

Grizz

Grizz
Click to expand...

I believe that was a big part of it. Among other things, the Japanese didn't sign the Geneva Accords on treatment of POWs and their treatment of allied POWs was well known. This hardened the attitudes towards them and compounded the already widespread perception of the Japanese as bestial, fanatical people who were demonized as being somewhat less than human. After that it becomes quite easy.

From a purely practical aspect when confronted with defenders who hole up in bunkers and caves and refuse to surrender, flame and explosives are a pretty effective way to deal with this.

Flame was used against the Germans to clear bunkers and emplacements, but on a lesser scale than in the Pacific. When the futility of carrying on became apparent the German troops, like ours, were more ameanable to surrender.

It is interesting that both sides scrupulously avoided the use of chemical warfare, even though both possessed a large CW capability. CW can be a double edged weapon in many cases, especially in mobile operations where it has limited value.
 
I say the ends justify the means... if Adolf had it his way, our grandparents would've all suffered an equally painful death or worse. Plus, last time I checked, the rest of the World DID NOT invade Germany for the purposes of 'world-wide ethnic cleansing'.

If they didn't want to get burnt, they should've stayed in the 'fatherland' all along. Feeling sorry for them is not something I'd feel if I had been one of the tank operators back in the 40's... not after what their great Reich has been been doing to civilians in most countries they've invaded.

Applicable quote from Saving Private Ryan: "Don't shoot! Let them burn!"

;)
 
762mm said:
I say the ends justify the means... if Adolf had it his way, our grandparents would've all suffered an equally painful death or worse. Plus, last time I checked, the rest of the World DID NOT invade Germany for the purposes of 'world-wide ethnic cleansing'.

If they didn't want to get burnt, they should've stayed in the 'fatherland' all along. Feeling sorry for them is not something I'd feel if I had been one of the tank operators back in the 40's... not after what their great Reich has been been doing to civilians in most countries they've invaded.

Applicable quote from Saving Private Ryan: "Don't shoot! Let them burn!"

;)
Click to expand...

Now we are getting political. Most of the soldiers fighting had no clue what hitler was doing cleansing wise. They fought for germany, not to kill the jews.

Stalin can be considered even worse than hitler, but he was on our side so we gave him half of Europe.



So... are flame throwers prohibited in canada too?
 
All flamethrowers should have a selective switch that says Rare, Medium and Well Done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom