This just made my entire month. 
Executioner dies exactly the same way as his previous victims and the condemned prisoners were freed.
Doesn’t get any better than this.
The Daily Star reporting something is about 9 levels below the Daily Mail reporting something in terms of how likely the thing is to have actually happened as described.
I Didn’t know that. Hopefully other more respected papers will confirm the story.
It was in the NY Post and the Mirror. I’ve also seen it in several military sites. I have not seen a primary source yet. Snopes would say undetermined.
Shooting a fuel tank is unlikely to make it explode. Unless the sniper got lucky?
This book excerpt from WWII indicates flamethrower units had 92% casualties rates. The book indicates finding flamethrower men to interview is difficult because so many died in combat.
I was thinking that as well but we are talking about a device specifically designed to shoot fire and not just a simple gas tank. I don’t know enough about the flamethrower in question to say whether it really happened but it sounds at least remotely plausible. Most flamethrowers have an active ignition source ready to go so a breach of the fuel tank might still be able to trigger ignition even if the bullet doesn’t cause it directly.
The backpack fuel tanks are normally kept from spontaneous ignition by an inert gas but that fail-safe won’t work anymore if you breach the entire tank. If there was an open flame or spark anywhere near the shooter, it could also ignite all the way back to the tank that is pouring fuel. Flamethrowers are built to literally shoot fire long distances but they aren’t very bright. Any burning fuel will just follow the trail back.
Again, I don’t know if it is completely true as told but it isn’t impossible and I really hope it is true.
True, unless there was an open flame nearby, which depends on the type of “flamethrower.”
A military sniper is quite capable of hitting a man sized target at a mile.
I believe the current record is around a mile and a half.
Yes you do. As you are told this every time you post a clickbait OP from the Daily Mail/Daily Star/Post.
Serious question: do you EVER actually read, for comprehension, the links you post to this message board? Even when you provide a direct link to a citation, it’s often clear that you completely misrepresent your alleged source.
First, the book excerpt is NOT from WWII. It is a book written in 2010, 65 years after the Second World War ended.
Second, the book does NOT indicate that “flamethrower units had 92% casualties rates.” It says:
Third, the book appears to be a self-published work of moral instruction, and not an actual work of history. It contains no historical argument and almost no historical citations or references. The section on flamethrowers seems designed mainly as a comparison with the fiery wrath of God:
The chapter ends by telling fathers that they have a responsibility to preach the gospel to their sons.
Fourth, the book appears to be self-published with a small vanity press.
Great historical detective work there, Stephen Ambrose!
damn! I was hoping to see that someone had linked to a reputable primary source/eyewitness/firsthand account type of article.
The cite was the best that I could find to answer the question, “can a bullet ignite a flamethrower?”
I wasn’t vouching for the book’s overall content. I certainly didn’t read the entire book for one cite. It did answer that one question.
I have seen several history channel documentaries on the Pacific Campaign. Interviews with WWII veterans. The flamethrower units were very vulnerable to snipers. They moved slowly, had easily identifiable equipment. Unfortunately a documentary that I saw a few years ago is difficult to cite.
It was?
Where, IN YOUR CITE, does it talk about the question of whether a bullet can ignite a flamethrower? Please direct me to the specific page, paragraph, and sentence. Because that information is nowhere that i can find on the page you link to.
I didn’t ask you to read the whole book. But you even misrepresented the tiny portion of the book that you actually used, as i said above. The fact that one single Iwo Jima flamethrower unit had a 92% casualty rate does does not support your own claim that “flamethrower units had 92% casualties rates.”
And, more generally, if you’re going to use a source for what you believe to be accurate historical information, it would behoove you to take about a minute to verify whether or not that source might be reliable. A minute is literally all it took me to recognize that this is a book about religious morality and the bible, not a history book.
I have no trouble believing that “flamethrower units were very vulnerable to snipers.” If that were your only claim, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. But a significant portion of your existence on this message board seems to involve starting mountains of threads based on superficial or outright biased readings of mediocre or completely unreliable sources, and your alleged citation in this case is no exception. If you don’t want people to contest your evidence, then do a better job of finding, reading, analyzing, and explaining it.
Sigh,
The paragraph starts with “The short life expectancy was due to two facts.” Then further down, it says “making them marked men easy to hit and easy to blow up.”
Read that entire paragraph. It’s perfectly clear these guys were getting shot and blown up.
I got the impression it was a historical book. But I only read the one page that came up in the Google search.
Firstly, it doesn’t say that they were blown up by bullets hitting the gas tanks. They could have been blown up by any number of explosive things used in war - grenades, bombs, whatever.
Second, none of this alleviates the crappy source itself. Put simply, while i’m sure that some of the information in the book is reasonably accurate, it is not a reliable historical work.
I might have to cut you a bit more slack in the future, though: it appears that, even when you’re trying really hard, you literally don’t understand what good evidence is or how to interpret it. Don’t worry, with some application, maybe we can get you there over time, and with some patience.
This could quite easily be your signature.
Do you not see why this approach to evidence and analysis is a problem?
I am a avid reader of history. The key word is reader. I read books about history and watch historical documentaries for pleasure. I don’t formally study history. You are correct that I don’t always analyse it with academic standards. I’m not writing papers for grades in college.
I will be more careful with cites. That one page mislead me about the books focus. My error. Sorry for any confusion.
Some people are saying that flamethrower units had 92% casualty rates. And I’m hearing things about bullets igniting flamethrowers. Lots of people are talking about it! We’ve got to figure out what’s going on! Believe me. What the hell have you got to lose?