"What Should a Flame Thrower Guy Do When the Fuel Is Gone?" Topic

Some FTs were designed to be disposable, some were used as disposable items, others weren't.

I woud suggest that in general they go back to get a fresh one from the platoon/company/battalion stockpile.

In the time scale of most wargames, I can't see a Flame thrower ever running out of fuel.

I would tend towards the withdraw for more fuel. It makes for an interesting tactical challenge to use them and keep them alive by withdrawal. I like the idea of that for AT weapons like Bazookas/Panzershrecks/PIATs as well, though perhaps instead of off the board, designate an ammo supply spot on the table in their force deployment zone they can withdraw to grab ammo.

At 1:1 scale skimrishing from squad up to platoon (per player), it could add an extra element that I think would be fun and balance their use. These weapons often tend to get used as a disposable crew that once the armor threats are gone they become an expendable infantry team.

From what I remember reading, handheld FTs only had a few seconds of fuel (enough for maybe up to six attacks or so). Usually that would be enough for a game, unless it was a really extended game. But then, yes, they should return to the rear for a fresh FT, while whoever is responsible would refuel the tank.

I would give the user only 3 or 4 "squirts" per game. In a skirmish type game there is probably not enough "time" for the user to get back to the staging area, reload and get back to the fight.

Depending on how "realistic" you want to be: when he runs out of gas 1) remove the figure (does not count as a casualty) or 2) have him make is was back to his end of the board (gives his opponent a chance to rack-up another kill).

The American flamethrowers had a "burn time" of only about 7 seconds.

The M1 and M1A1 had a battery operated "spark" ignition system the was prone to failure resulting in the user applying improvised methods (burning paper, cigarette lighters, etc.). The M1A1 also introduced the use of a thickening agent to extend the effective range to around 65 feet.

The M2 (1944) introduced a cartridge-based firing system. A six-shot revolver-type magazine was fitted to the nozzle allowing for 6 "shots" before reloading was needed.

The man-pack flamethrower saw little use in the ETO. Flame throwing tanks were more common. The M2 saw extensive use in the Pacific however.

Flamethrowers are intricate and heavy bits of kit. It would make no snese to me to do anything other than lug the thing back for a refill.

nnascati wrote:

In the time scale of most wargames, I can't see a Flame thrower ever running out of fuel.

The figures I have for WW2 manpack or trolley flamethrowers show that they only carry 6.5 to 30 litres of fuel, enough for 4 to 25 seconds of continuous fire:

Nationality     Model		Capacity (l)	Flow rate (l/s)
UK   		Lifebuoy	18		4.5
USSR 		ROKS-2	        12		2
Germany	        M Fm W	        30		1.2
		Fm W 35	        10		1
		Fm W 40-42	7		1	
US 		M2-2		10		1
Japan		Type 93 or 100	12		1
Italy		Modello 35	6.5	        0.5	
		Modello 41	9.5		0.5

The M Fm W is a trolley flamethrower, which explains its larger capacity than the others

It's pretty clear that all man-portable flamethrowers could easily be emptied within the time represented by a single turn in most wargames rules.

All the best,

John.

Flamethrower trivia re. the British Mk.II "Lifebuoy" – ignition was achieved by a 10-shot revolver-style mechanism firing cordite cartridges.

So you were only good for ten shots, whether you used up your fuel or not.

In wargaming flame throwers never run out of fuel, nor do vehicles. There is always an endless supply of ammo, horses and men move the same distance after 12 hours of combat, etc
regards
Russ Dunaway

Stop drop and roll!

use his .45?

The flame thrower was handled by a rifleman; his personal weapon was carried by the assistant flame gunner who operated the valves and, carried one refill tank.
link

link

Good intel there John, thanks … And yes, that is how you'd do it number4 … good information …

US infantry rarely had access to flamethrowers. They were issued for special circumstances. I've read that after the Normandy landings the ordnance clean-up crews recovered hundreds of flamethrowers off the beaches and most of them had never been fired. I imagine a lot of the GIs just got rid of them as soon as possible.

Yes, they were only issued as needed like to clear bunkers … Does not surprise me many of the GIs ditched them, they were ungainly and heavy and that alone could get you killed …

Guys, my flamethrower is out of gas. I'm headed back to San Diego to fill up. See you in a… while.

Keep going & bluff.

And if he was confronted by an enemy, say, " I know what you're thinking: "Did he fire six second bursts or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But being this is a M2-2, the most powerful flamethrower in the US, and would roast your head clean off to your shoulders, you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"

"The inclusion of a fuel carrier in the assault team was an innovation. Formerly, a flame thrower operator had to leave the forward area and return to a servicing point to refill his weapon. This extra man in the assault team made it possible to insure more rapid weapon refueling. Chemical officers in the Marshalls also adopted the system of supplying additional flame thrower fuel in 5-gallon cans, with an extra pressure cylinder attached, instead of the normal 55-gallon drums, thus expediting the handling of fuel from transports to refilling points and permitting the weapons to be serviced much nearer the front lines."

From:
link

A fun little video to watch.

youtu.be/UH6TY6Yz0SE

Charley who owns the throwers has a website on them.

link

US infantry rarely had access to flamethrowers.

US Marines seem to have been better supplied with them than Army. Late war marine company seems to have been provided with 9 flamethrowers, thus every squad could be issued one when needed.

Yes, the USMC had a lot of bunkers to clear in the conquests of many of the islands. And the IJF were very rarely going to surrender …

refeul

Drop the tanks, pull his knife and charge!
Or not…

Roll 2 D6 on the refueling table.

Light a cigarette?

For game terms, limit their use to hard, enclosed targets

Return to the rear and get more fuel?

Being practical our MG solution for this is bit un-inspiring but probably nearer the truth. Having lugged the kit around you will not have too much ammo for your personal weapon, so fighting at full rate without getting an infantry load of ammo seems unreasonable. We allow such folk to count in an assault where the fire is intense but brief, but not engage in fire fights where ammo supply is possibly more critical. Actual ammo and load carrying is too much detail for our models so this looked to be a balance of playability with credibility. As part of a campaign you would probably not want to lose a trained user and would give some benefit to those who survive being a priority target at close range.

Toast marshmallows.

Flame throwers are not sporting!

Just have the stand lose a random number of turns or actions to represent 'reloading'. If the player is smart, he'll move them into cover first so that they'll be less of a target in the meantime….

Tim, you do know that flamethrowers weren't terribly effective against bunkers? Buildings full of nice flammable materials, or open fieldworks, were what they worked best against. As far as I have been able to discover, thickened fuel made FTs a good deal more effective at setting fire to things, whereas thin fuel gave better flash burn, and probably better morale effect, but, in either case, the effect was mainly against morale.

All the best,

John.

Apologies for the length of this posting and the delay in replying, but I have just picked the following relevant gobbets from my collection of WW2 weapon effectiveness snippetry. The codes like "WO 232/35" are piece numbers in the National Archive, so people who don't want to believe me can go to Kew and read the originals, or order copies electronically. Items in quotation marks are the wording of the original document, the rest is my paraphrasing.

I always thought the US in the Pacific flamed out caves and bunkers with them.

You would seem to be right insofar as WO 232/35, "Reduction of Japanese bunkers", says that "At Tarawa M3 tank flame throwers reduced pill boxes when all other attempts had failed." However, those are very serious bunkers. I think it's not that flamethrowers are super-effective, so much as that everything else is useless:

"The strongest Japanese bunkers so far met were at TARAWA. They had an outer wall of coral concrete 4 ft thick, then ten to twelve rows of stout palm logs, lined with a further 5 ft of concrete. These bunkers or blockhouses proved impervious to 16 inch HE shells and to 2,000 lb bombs."

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)", confirms this, but this does not mean the Crocodile is ineffective: the report concludes that, as indicated by casualties sustained by the attacking infantry, the Crocodile was better than a standard tank in the support role by a factor of about 2 in day actions and about 2.5 in night actions.

Of the 175 actions analysed, in only 11 cases did the infantry fail to reach their objective. In about 50% of actions little or no opposition was encountered after flame was used. "This indicates the great morale effect of flame". In one instance, a German NCO ordered his men to surrender if they were attacked by flamethrowers.

For each trailer of fuel expended, about 6 enemy were killed and about 28 captured.

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

WO 291/1060, "The A45 flame gun versus the Panzerfaust", a post-war report, shows that fme isn't even that great against open slits. It 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 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.

WO 232/69, "Flame throwers tactical uses", offers some advice on the original question of what to do when the fuel runs out: it stresses the use of flamethrowers in mass, and the necessity to rally back to refuel immediately a flame attack is complete.

WO 291/308, "Effect of flamethrowers on military personnel", says that users believe from experience in action that flamethrowers have a strong morale effect.

It is estimated that a gallon of burning fuel in contact with the victim will kill.

Information from flame actions showed an average of 270 gallons per death, 9 gallons per prisoner.

Thickened fuel gives a clean flame rod, with little or no obscuration, and the fuel continues to burn on the ground.

Unthickened fuel produces a sheet of billowing flame, much obscuration, and little burning on the ground.

This obscuration effect could be used to blind pillbox slits at 20 yards or over with a manpack flamethrower, then approach to 10 yards, close enough to shoot through the aperture.

WO 232/70, "Flame throwers Exchange of information with Red Army", confirms the belief in using them mob-handed, and in the different charactersitics of thin and thick fuels:

"In battle, flame thrower platoons are generally split up; sections being attached to rifle companies, while within companies they are distributed in groups of 2 flame throwers amongst the rifle platoons."

"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 flame throwers are allotted per pillbox."

At a meeting on 19 Feb 43 Soviet officers stated that no special fuels were used in Soviet flame throwers, but were under development. Diesel oil is the usual fuel. A Colonel Sikorski stated that in his opinion and that of the Soviet general staff, thickened fuels would have more incendiary effect, but that the effect on morale is known to be reduced.

Finally, WO 208/2112 "Translation of German flamethrower manual", dated 17 Apr 1941, says that German flamethrower fuel is fuel oil. "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."

An additional option of what to do when out of fuel is offered by the existence of a recharger trolley (Fm. W. Fllung), crewed by 4 men, which holds enough to recharge the small flamethrower 10 times, or the medium (trolley) 3 times.

I think you now know more about the tactical characteristics of flamethrowers than I have ever seen represented in any set of wargames rules.

All the best,

John.

Awsome. That last bit gives some insight into the defuct but superb looking M202 flash that allowed the operator to fire some rockets without ignition.

Ditto the Abdominal Snowman wrote:

But I do have one question on our definition of "bunker". I'm getting the impression from your great information that when you are talking about bunkers you are talking about concrete pill box type fortifications? Is that right?

That's what I imagine the original source documents are referring to in the case of German bunkers, for the Japanese I think mostly palm logs, but as mentioned with coral concrete in the Tarawa examples.

When I talk about bunkers I'm a little more general and I should probably be more specific. "Bunkers" for me, includes both the concrete types as well as earthen bunkers.

"Bunker" is such an unsatisfactory word. I tend to use "bunker" and "pillbox" more or less interchangeably, although I suppose pillboxes are mostly above ground and bunkers mostly below. A bunker, in my mind, could be anything from a tiny little two-man thing, all the way up to something like the multi-storey nukeproof monstrosity at Kelvedon Hatch (with the roadsigns to it saying "TO THE SECRET NUCLEAR BUNKER").

If one wants to distinguish by construction type, I suppose the Russian terms of DOT for a concrete installation and DZOT for a wood and earth are more exact than the English. Russian also seems to be useful in distinguishing trenches with and without overhead cover, a tactically important distinction.

What do you think about the effects on earthen bunkers? There's information on open trenches which is very revealing.

I doubt that bunkers made of earth and wood are any more vulnerable to flamethrowers than those made of concrete, if all else is equal.

I know very little about fortification, but it seems to me that a position's vulnerability to flame will depend on how flammable its contents are, and how easy it is to introduce flame into the construction. No doubt it's quite easy to get flame into a house once a few windows have been knocked in, but even at that a house properly prepared for defence will have had flammable furnishings removed, and containers of water prepared for firefighting. Jary and "Carbuncle", writing in "The British Army Review", had a refreshingly non-PC view of how to conduct fighting in built-up areas, claiming that it was basically a business of knocking holes in buildings so that flame could be introduced.

At the other extreme, I expect that a properly-designed and professionally-built permament fortification would have tiny apertures to get the flame into, perhaps protective steel shutters, internal partition walls as mentioned for the defenders to hide behind, and, who knows, if there is a grenade sump perhaps that might also act as a trap for burning fuel. Of course, the jerry-built brick pillboxes flung up in Southern England such profusion during the invasion scare would be nothing like as resistant, to flame or to anything else.

I would imagine that most wood and earth fortifications would have begun life as slit trenches, been elaborated into proper revetted trenches, and given overhead cover. I also vaguely imagine that they would have larger apertures than "shop-bought" bunkers. This is, though, mere speculation on my part.

I think it's Andrew Wilson's splendid book "Flamethrower" (and it is's not it's John Foely's even more splendid "Mailed Fist") that mentions the drill used by the "funnies" of 21st Army Group to deal with a pillbox. The first movement was to punch a hole in the thing with a Petard mortar, which was often enough to persuade the surviving occupants that the war held no future for them. The second movement was to have a Crocodile flame into the hole; he says something like "There wasn't a third movement to the drill -- it wasn't really necessary".

The other obvious thing to mention is that vehicular flamethrowers are vastly more effective than manpacks, simply because they carry much more fuel. If they don't get flame into the aperture in the first two or three tries, they can just try again.

Figures I have for vehicle flamethrowers follow. Compare them with those for manpacks, and you'll see they have vastly greater capacities, although the OT-130 and Flamingo appear to have weirdly low flow-rates. The figures might also suggest why the British and Canadians seem to have got the most tactical value out of their flame weapons, which have flow rates two to three times those of their best contemporaries.

Nationality     Model           Capacity (l)    Flow rate (l/s)
UK              Wasp IIC         270            25
		Wasp		 360		25
		Crocodile	1800		21
		Frog		 545
USSR            OT-130, 133      360             1.5
                OT-34, KV-8	 100		 5
Germany         Sd Kfz 251/16    700             4.4
                Pz II Flamingo   320             1.6
                Pz III Flamm    1000             5.3
                Hetzer Flamm     700             8 
US              Navy Mk 1	 618             8.5
		Satan		 727		 6
		POA CWS H1      1091             7.5
Italy           CV/33 LF	 350

All the best,

John.

I watched an interesting episode of "sons of guns" this last week. They met a retired USMC soldier who served on IWO as a flame thrower operator. He said he had a non working unit and the show restored it for him and fired it. They asked him what he did when it was emptied. He said they were not refillable so he just dropped it and went back and got another, wow that's gutsy.

Interesting episode.

Chris P.

I saw that episode of "Sons of Guns" The USMC Marine in the show was Hershel "Woody" Williams. What made the show for me was when Woody got out of the truck to see his repaired flame thrower in action and he was wearing his Medal of Honor.

After that, this 88 year old man strapped the 70 pound weapon and got to fire it himself. Chiding the show regulars that they were "doing it wrong" by firing it while standing up.

link

But to answer the question. The flame thrower crews were specialists and not expected to fight as infantrymen. They had their rifles, but when the flame thrower was empty, they went back to the company depot for another one. Whether they brought back the empty or not, is not really relevant to the game mechanics.

I would set the game mechanic as removing the team and have a return roll. If they don't return before games end, it could be assumed they were killed in the process. The reason Woody got his medal was that he was the last flame thrower man in his battalion alive, and when he was asked to go in again, he was given an option not to go.

"I would set the game mechanic as removing the team and have a return roll. If they don't return before games end, it could be assumed they were killed in the process."

Or you could assume that the company depot was too far away for him to go and return in time to make a difference.