"Ever wondered how a US M2/M2A1 Flamethrower works?" Topic

Don't think this site (Forgotten Weapons) has been posted here before. I've cross posted this to the WW1 board as it may be of interest there too.

I've seen several videos from this site and they are all fascinating, but these on the US WW2 flamethrower are of such an unusual weapon I'd thought they'd be worth sharing.

Introduction to Military Flamethrowers with Charlie Hobson
YouTube link

US M2/M2A1 Flamethrower (the live firing is spectacular)
YouTube link

Flamethrower Q&A
YouTube link

Japanese Type 100 Flamethrower
YouTube link

Check out the other videos too. He's done the usual WW1 and WW2 weapons and some more unusual like a Pak 40 many include a live firing section.

YouTube link

Now where are my USMC figures….

I have too say it hasn't been high on my liast of things to find out. ;)

Fatman

I do not use flamethrowers or napalm in any game

Aside from schoolyard pranks in my misspent youth at the Convent, I've never used flames near accelerants!

I was impressed. Cool slo mo shot at the end.

Do not forget if you want to use one (and many other interesting weapons) there is the Knob Creek shoot
link

Good for clearing bunkers, caves, enclosed areas, etc. …

also good for land grooming if are in the country

Would love to see similar information on the Russian ROKS-2 flame thrower. It was designed to be less obvious on the battlefield … the fuel tank being shaped like a regular backpack, and the nozzle unit shaped like a normal rifle (except for the hose out the back and the big muzzle-brake looking thing on the front.

I've never seen good info on whether the look-alike approach actually made a difference. I understand that there is no real way to hide a flamethrower's firing signature, but I would think that at least the approach of an ROKS-2 was less conspicuous until it fired.

Flame throwers are pretty effective in some specific roles, but in all cases they are very short-ranged weapons. With man-pack models, about 30-35 yards/meters is all you're going to get. But whoe be the poor enemy who lets you get to within that range.

Reading or listening to the accounts of US Army and USMC vets of the Pacific, including the links above, it seems that being assigned the role as the "flame thrower guy" was not viewed as a path to a healthy retirement. While the US M2A2 flame thrower seems to be as good as or better than other designs on all performance metrics you might look at, it was a big and obvious item, and the poor schnook carrying it forward into action was the target of every enemy weapon in sight. You had to get within throwing distance just to use the thing, you were the highest priority target on the battlefield, and a single bullet or fragment puncturing the compression tanks was enough to ruin your day, and the day of anyone close to you.

So I would think that an inconspicuous flame thrower, that could provide 8 or 9 one-second spurts of flaming liquid/gel once you did get to within 30-35 meters of the enemy, would be a vastly more productive weapon. But did actual combat experience with the ROKS-2 not live up to the promise? Even the Soviets moved to a more conventional design for their late-war ROKS-3.

I've never read an overtly critical account of the performance of the ROKS-2. So I wonder why the Soviets moved away from the design. Some sources claim it was just for cost savings, but a weapon that is less likely to make it into range to be used effectively is not a savings, even if it costs less. The Soviets were, if nothing else, quite focused on combat effectiveness. So I suspect that the ROKS-2 approach just didn't deliver on the promise. But I have no real information to support the thinking either way.

Anyone have more on this interesting weapon?

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

I have my doubts about how often in the excitement & stress of combat that it was noticed that somebody was carrying a flamethrower before it was used.

Having talked to a number of WWII soldiers(mostly British ,French and German ,but a few Americans – All ETO) that carried flamethrowers- the prime thing they worried about was an accidental explosion (whether caused by enemy of not ) ,then followed by the fact that they all felt that if captured with a Flamethrower they would be shot . Just like snipers .
This was research for a book my cousin was writing in the early 1980's

Deliberate targeting by the enemy didn't come up -but I don't remember that I specifically asked that either.

I remember reading an ordnance report that hundreds and hundreds of abandoned flamethrowers were salvaged off Omaha and Utah Beaches after the landings and nearly all of them were unfired. :)

Having talked to a number of WWII soldiers … the prime thing they worried about was an accidental explosion (whether caused by enemy of not ) ,then followed by the fact that they all felt that if captured with a Flamethrower they would be shot . …

Deliberate targeting by the enemy didn't come up -but I don't remember that I specifically asked that either.

Interesting. But the issue seems to have figured prominently in several places.

For example, from the U.S. Intelligence Bulletin of April, 1944, an assessment of German flame throwers concludes with this statement:

The effect of the flame thrower is chiefly psychological. Moreover, the men carrying the equipment are good targets, once they have been spotted. Experience has shown that casualties in German flame thrower detachments are high.
link

Looking at Italian flame thrower development in the WW2 timeframe, the issue of reducing how conspicuous the poor schnook carrying it forward is seems to figure prominently, at least to my reading.

The Italian Mod.35 flame thrower had a long-burning pyrotechnic at the end of the nozzle as an ignition device. This was roundly criticized for alerting the enemy to the approach of a flame thrower and providing a target for pre-emptive shooting. (It was in fact the back-up ignition, there also being a battery-powered ignition system.)

The Mod.40 flame thrower moved to a fairly clever rotor/magneto sparking system as it's back-up, with the flow of the high-pressure fluid from the flame thrower spinning a rotor to generate sparks in the nozzle.

The Mod.41 lanciafiamme d'assaulto (assault flame thrower) was perhaps even more inconspicuous than the Russian ROKS-2, being entirely self-contained in a hand-held rifle-sized device. Here the fuel and compressed gas tanks were long and thin, lying along the length of a rifle-sized device with shoulder stock at the back and nozzle protruding from the front. It severely reduced the quantity of fuel (about 4 or 5 seconds' of fire, vs. 20 seconds of continuous flow for the Mod.35), but was evidently very well received, staying in active service through the 1980s IIRC.

All just readings, recollections of readings, and speculation on my part. Closest I've ever gotten to a flame thrower or an experienced user of flame throwers are readings and YouTube videos.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Saw this video couple of months ago, facinating stuff.
In video game Russian Front use to use flamethrowers often as they were good at ambushes at tanks. Especially if you didn't have many build up points.

"The effect of the flame thrower is chiefly psychological. Moreover, the men carrying the equipment are good targets, once they have been spotted. Experience has shown that casualties in German flame thrower detachments are high."

I'm sure that once they fired and were spotted they were targeted. My doubt is how often were they spotted before they were used.

No.