They were discontinued in the late 1970s.
And banned at Geneva in 1980.
And yet still perfectly legal to have in the U.S. (See the same Wiki article.)
What, you disagree with the Second Amendment?? Commie!!
Yes, I’m kidding.
See also Molotov cocktail. It doesn’t throw fire, but can do the job in the right circumstances. The article describes several recipes, as well as some interesting history.
I’ve heard stories that an enemy sharpshooter could hit the flamethrower tank on the soldiers back, causing it to ignite/explode, thus taking out him & his weapon (and all the other soldiers in the near vicinity). Is this possible, or just a wild tale?
I don’t think this is a good enough analogy. In the absence of the wax, a candle is only a piece of string. The wax is the fuel. The wick is there to concentrate the flame and provide a method for the evaporating wax to be consumed at a controlled rate.
The British deployed a series of gigantic flamethrowers at the Somme in WW1, needing 300 men to build them and operated by a team of eight. The contraptions were built underground in a chamber, with the nozzle being pushed up through the earth to destroy whatever was in its path with a pneumatic ram. The fuel was propelled by compressed gas stored in a series of large tanks.
Time Team, a British archaeological documentary TV series, uncovered the remains of one still buried on the battlefield and had the Royal Engineers build a replica. Here it is in action.
Nope, but those rounds certainly have visual appeal. What I was referring to was the charges that were inserted at the top of the tanks to provide the pressure.
The photos that they use for advertising are taken with a relatively low shutter speed to foster the “make your shotgun into a flamethrower” idea. In practice, what you get is a burst of burning particles i.e. a cloud of sparks. Never tore one apart to see what was in one, as they are expensive, but I’d guess they have powdered magnesium or something similar as a primary component.
It’s a statistical certainty that flamethrower operator’s tanks got hit by bullets now and again. And some of those tank sets may have burst. Some of which then caught fire.
Whether anybody ever specifically sniped a flamethrower operator’s tanks and caused a fire/explosion gets into the wartime equivalent of urban legend.
All IMO no cite.
I’m also without cite but I fall on the side of it may very well be true. More so for sides that had/issued incendiary rounds or even tracers. Like a machine gun, tank or whatever the flamethrower was a “weapon of greater value” making the operator a prime target and the tanks being as large as they were on most models ----- merde occurs. The chances of the usual ball round causing a flame-over? Maybe not as great. But since some of the Japanese snipers were known to tie themselves in place for stability, having a few special/optional rounds available for value targets makes some sense.
To be honest, mostly we used it for burning out larger stumps. Digging or yanking them was a lot of work so when one was in the way it became a “camp fire” of sorts for a day or two until it was well below ground level.
OK – there was Cousin Andy’s 1960 Caddy we put about 5 jerry-cans in and peppered with .303 British “blue band rounds”. But that was a little bit of an exception. OK – and the RC airplane we had firebomb some GI Joes. And that model train village. Alright, there were plenty of exceptions. But our original intent was honest need.
(I am sometimes amazed that all of us are unscarred. This, making our own black powder including kernaling, accidentally reinventing smokeless powder, untrained operation of heavy equipment (and I’m talking D9s and Gradealls) ------- God either really liked us or just wasn’t interested in having our company.)
…except that protocol doesn’t completely ban them. It governs use against civilians and use in civilian areas. It says nothing about usage against conventional military targets where the risk of civilian collateral damage is low/nonexistent. Something similar to the US usage against Japanese fortifications on remote islands during WWII looks like a pretty clear example of usage that would still not be prohibited.