 deadhead  | 18 Jun 2020 11:24 p.m. PST |
Latest from Gringos40. US Army, not Marines, I gather nicely painted up. No flak jacket I notice. I guess poor chap has enough to carry and may well be miles out in the jungle. Bet helicopter pilots did not welcome him as a passenger carrying that. There is also an NVA similar and I should soon have an image of him painted up to show.
|
jammy four  | 19 Jun 2020 2:28 a.m. PST |
|
| Legionarius | 19 Jun 2020 6:28 a.m. PST |
I have a good wargaming friend who was a "flamethrower guy" in Vietnam. I think I'll purchase this figure and paint it for him! |
| deadhead | 19 Jun 2020 6:44 a.m. PST |
To further encourage you then. The B&W pic does show the detailed work gone into the flamethrower itself and now we see the guy rear view painted;
|
 Legion 4 | 19 Jun 2020 2:07 p.m. PST |
|
| jammy four | 19 Jun 2020 3:03 p.m. PST |
|
| Hayes Wauford | 19 Jun 2020 7:08 p.m. PST |
|
| jammy four | 20 Jun 2020 12:55 a.m. PST |
|
| deadhead | 23 Jun 2020 4:07 a.m. PST |
and of course his NVA counterpart in an East German style helmet;
|
| jammy four | 23 Jun 2020 3:38 p.m. PST |
|
| deadhead | 24 Jun 2020 5:28 a.m. PST |
and a detail of the NVA apparatus itself;
|
| jammy four | 25 Jun 2020 4:37 a.m. PST |
|
| jammy four | 28 Jun 2020 7:45 a.m. PST |
|
| deadhead | 02 Jul 2020 1:39 a.m. PST |
|
| jammy four | 03 Jul 2020 9:19 a.m. PST |
|
| oldnorthstate | 16 Jul 2020 9:49 p.m. PST |
Nice figure but having read dozens of books detailing the tactical details of fighting in Vietnam from 1966 through 1972 I can't remember having read about the use of flamethrowers by infantry…several examples of flametanks but none deployed on grunts… |
| Skarper | 16 Jul 2020 11:27 p.m. PST |
The only use I have heard of is the US using them to burn villages and a report of a warcrime by PAVN forces. Man packed flamethrowers have gone out of favour since with most armies not having them in their arsenals. Even the vehicular versions mainly got used to burn vegetation as far as I have read. Nice figures still. |
| deadhead | 17 Jul 2020 8:56 a.m. PST |
Robert de Niro used one….but it did strike me as odd even then. The Zippos in Hue were certainly regarded as "out of the ordinary", so not that familiar as you both say. Must take incredible courage to use one in any battle. A close quarter weapon, that really draws the attention of every crackshot for a mile! |
| Legion 4 | 17 Jul 2020 9:04 a.m. PST |
Yes, by that time flame throwers were not widely used. But some were there, even mounted on M113s and M48s. They would do a Hell of a job on bunkers, massing infantry attacks, etc. As would Beehive rounds and of course Quad. 50s. Unlike we see in the movies in many cases the tanks would not explode if hit by SA or incoming. Regardless it is a heavy piece of equipment to hump and has limited fuel and range. But if you are taking on a bunker or cave … Burn Baby Burn … |
| jammy four | 17 Jul 2020 4:32 p.m. PST |
Legion 4…as you say they were used to clear the above and tunnels and fortified areas..suspect hooches..areas around bunkers ie forest bits. basically a psychological terror weapon used by both sides.
a few facts when fully loaded it weighed 68 pounds of flamable fuel…they had a lot of trouble getting volunteers.i read an account of an NCO convincing one of his more difficult troops that it was a piece of cake to be the designated flamethrower guy….they attacked one those hills a la hamburger hill..the NCO heard a ping from a VC Sniper hit the flamethrower guys tank..he went up like a christmas tree (not my words) he had lasted one minute in action! in fact the weapon had only 7-8 seconds of fuel and although 43 pounds when empty and even a range of 65 feet. no one wanted the job.. not a suprise really…Also read an account of a trapped Army platoon on another hill, facing a combined VC/NVA massed attack…the most scary thing was seeing the NVA Flamthrower "flaring " their weapons to fighten the Army guys….they were beaten off.just!! cheers Ged gringo40s.com |
| Legion 4 | 18 Jul 2020 3:42 p.m. PST |
Yes AFAIK everything you posted there is true/correct. As I said … Unlike we see in the movies in many cases the tanks would not explode if hit by SA or incoming. Regardless it is a heavy piece of equipment to hump and has limited fuel and range. In many cases it would not explode if by SA, etc. But there were times AFAIK that it did !!!  Besides weighing 68lbs … that it is "Frakk'n" heavy ! GIs don't want to hump anything more than they have to. Plus is it bulky and a bit ungainly to carry. Along with the limited fuel and range … add the fear of possibly being BBQ'd. Would not make it some many would volunteer for. But some guys like setting things on fire … so … And yes it was a terror weapon so to speak. No one generally wants to be burned to death[save for that one Vietnamese Buddhist monk that we all saw the footage of]. Or if in a bunker, cave, etc., all the air is sucked out by the flames. Both ways are not really a quick way to die … AFAIK … |
| oldnorthstate | 18 Jul 2020 5:15 p.m. PST |
No more of a "terror" weapon than napalm when you think about it…I'd like to see a figure with the rocket launcher, which seems to have been widely used. |
| deadhead | 19 Jul 2020 1:05 a.m. PST |
Do you mean the LAW or the bazooka? Both are in this range in practice. |
| oldnorthstate | 19 Jul 2020 7:48 a.m. PST |
Is that the M20 or an earlier version?…also need figures with the M203 which began to appear around the end of 1970. |
| Legion 4 | 19 Jul 2020 9:19 a.m. PST |
No more of a "terror" weapon than napalm when you think about it Very much so ! But again, the flamethrower was of limited use in SE Asia in both man-packed and even on a few AFVs, e.g. M113s and M48s. The only use I have heard of is the US using them to burn villages and a report of a warcrime by PAVN forces. Generally the US did not use the flamethrower to burn down villages. I've seen, heard, read where GIs would just use their lighter and start the thatched roofs, etc., burning. The US troops would generally use it to clear underground positions, fortified defenses, etc. Not saying it didn't happen, but I'd think it would be a "waste" of a limited asset. When a lighter would do … Is that the M20 or an earlier version? I believe it was the old M20 Rocket Launcher, i.e. the Bazooka was used in the early years of the war. Then later the M72 LAW became standard issue. Lighter & smaller than the older M20 AFAIK. Joined the Army in '79, no bazookas or M79 GLs by then. Just M72s and M203s … If you go here you can see the models he made of the M79, M72, etc. TMP link
As far as Flamethrower from link –
Flamethrowers pose many risks to the operator.The first disadvantage was the weapon's weight and length, which impairs the soldier's mobility. The weapon is limited to only a few seconds of burn time, since it uses fuel very quickly, requiring the operator to be precise and conservative. Flamethrowers using a fougasse-style explosive propellant system also have a limited number of shots. The weapon was very visible on the battlefield, which caused operators to become immediately singled out as prominent targets, especially for snipers and designated marksman. Flamethrower operators were rarely taken prisoner, especially when their target survived an attack by the weapon; captured flamethrower users were in some cases summarily executed.[1] The flamethrower's effective range is short in comparison with that of other battlefield weapons of similar size. To be effective, flamethrower soldiers must approach their target, risking exposure to enemy fire. Vehicular flamethrowers also have this problem; they may have considerably greater range than a man-portable flamethrower, but their range is still short compared with that of other infantry weapons.
The risk of a flamethrower operator being caught in the explosion of their weapon due to enemy hits on the tanks is exaggerated in films.[2] However, there are cases where the pressure tanks have exploded and killed the operator when hit by bullets or grenade shrapnel. In the documentary Vietnam in HD, platoon sergeant Charles Brown tells of how one of his men was killed when his flamethrower was hit by grenade shrapnel during the battle for Hill 875.
Flame thrower operators did not usually face a fiery death from the slightest spark or even from having their tank hit by a normal bullet as often depicted in modern war films. The Gas Container [i.e. the pressurizer] is filled with a non-flammable gas that is under high pressure. If this tank were ruptured, it might knock the operator forward as it was expended in the same way a pressurized aerosol can bursts outward when punctured. The fuel mixture in the Fuel Containers is difficult to light, which is why magnesium filled igniters are required when the weapon is fired. Fire a bullet into a metal can filled with diesel or napalm and it will merely leak out the hole unless the round was an incendiary type that could possibly ignite the mixture inside. This also applies to the flame thrower Fuel Container.[3] |
| Legion 4 | 19 Jul 2020 9:50 a.m. PST |
M20 Bazooka – en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bazooka Vietnam War
The M20 "Super Bazooka" was used in the early stages of the war in Vietnam by the US Marines before gradually being phased out by the mid-1960s in favor of the M67 recoilless rifle and later, the M72 LAW rocket. The US Army also used it in lesser quantity. While occasions to destroy enemy armored vehicles proved exceedingly rare, it was employed against enemy fortifications and emplacements with success.[56] The M20 remained in service with South Vietnamese and indigenous forces until the late 1960s.[57]The Vietnam People's Army also developed their own bazooka under the management of Tran Dai Nghia. It was successfully test-fired in 1947.[58][59] The anti-French Viet Minh received Chinese Type 51 Bazookas. They were used by the Viet Cong as late as 1964.[57] *** [Note : I look this stuff up as I too want to know and in many cases forgot  … or some cases didn't know the details, etc.] |
| deadhead | 19 Jul 2020 3:11 p.m. PST |
Nice bit of research though. You cannot do everything as primary source material, just most will do nicely! I will stick to my idea that a man-carrying flamethrower is a very poor assault weapon, if there is any active opposition (ie firing at the user). Close range only, line of sight only, marks out the user to anyone not in direct line of fire. Needs a hero to use. |
| oldnorthstate | 19 Jul 2020 3:21 p.m. PST |
My reading of several narratives of primarily Marine actions in 1967 and 1968 make reference to "rocket" launcher and do distinguish that from the LAW, so it appears to me that the M20 was used into that later part of the 1960's. |
| deadhead | 20 Jul 2020 1:42 a.m. PST |
Definitely was used, as it was so good when fighting in built up areas. It would punch a nice hole in any wall it seems. Many a photo shows the M20 in Hue for example
|
| jammy four | 20 Jul 2020 8:48 a.m. PST |
legion 4…………Great research!
Liam the M20 as you say saw extensive
use in Hue City …world war two vintage
at its best,
oldnorthsate thanks for your input! regards
Ged
gringo40s.com
gringo40s.blogspot.com |
| Legion 4 | 20 Jul 2020 10:30 a.m. PST |
I will stick to my idea that a man-carrying flamethrower is a very poor assault weapon, That is why it was phased out during Vietnam. It was old Tech and newer "better" tech, e.g. the M202 Flash Man-packed Quad incendiary rocket Launcher replaced it. But by the time I went to Basic Infantry Officers Training in '79 it was being phased out. Only saw it fired once on a training range, at Benning. linkBut let there be no doubt, if you are on the receiving end of a Flamethrower or M202 … You were probably in for a bad day … ☹ Great research! Thanks ! Like I said I like to do research as there are things I forgot or sometimes didn't know.
appears to me that the M20 was used into that later part of the 1960's. Yes as the link I quoted said, "The M20 "Super Bazooka" was used in the early stages of the war in Vietnam by the US Marines before gradually being phased out by the mid-1960s in favor of the M67 recoilless rifle and later, the M72 LAW rocket." So it would not surprise me if there were still some being used into the early '70s, with the USMC. E.g. In '88 the CE Co., in our Mech Hvy Bde at Benning were still using the old 90mm RR. We were still using M113s in that Mech Bde, when I was there,'86-'90. And before that in the 2ID, '84-'85. Where most other Army Mech units at that time had already started to bring on the M2/M3 in Europe, etc. IIRC even the 2 Tank Bns in the 2ID in the late '70s were still using M85A5s and had got the M60 MBTs a few years later. To replace them. Where again the Armor units in Europe already had the M60 MBTs, AFAIK. |
| deadhead | 20 Jul 2020 1:48 p.m. PST |
Just found this while idly browsing. Said to be from Saigon after Tet, suggesting the bad guys did use such;
|
| Legion 4 | 20 Jul 2020 3:35 p.m. PST |
There is no doubt in my mind the NVA used those. Why wouldn't they ? They are effective in certain situations as we discussed. |
| jammy four | 20 Jul 2020 5:48 p.m. PST |
they did indeed chaps……….Russian ww2 versions,,just read an account today of some used on an attack on a firebase.
will post.later.as per my above figure. cheers
Ged
gringo40s.com
gringo40s.blogspot.com |
| Legion 4 | 21 Jul 2020 9:02 a.m. PST |
Like I said, Flamethrowers are pretty useful when used against bunkers, trenches, etc. As you would find in a static fortified location like a Firebase. But newer tech & tactics have made them a bit "old-fashioned" … Hence are no longer used in most militaries, if any, AFAIK? |
| deadhead | 22 Jul 2020 9:41 a.m. PST |
and just imagine how that NLF flamethrower actually got to Saigon. Some poor devil probably carried it, or pushed it on a bike, all the way down the Ho Chi Minh Trail for months on end. I wonder if he/she was then sent back for the fuel contents, or told "Well thanks, but we really don't need it, not here anyway". |
| Skarper | 22 Jul 2020 10:47 a.m. PST |
The HCM trail was quite sophisticated. A network of roads, river transport and some paths only traversable on foot or with bicycles. It was also more than a single route. It's still an amazing triumph of logistics any way you look at it. Even at the height of US bombing/interdiction, sufficient supplies and reinforcements made it south. A bit like the biblical David and Goliath – Goliath never stood a chance. |
| Legion 4 | 22 Jul 2020 4:03 p.m. PST |
Of course it was not just a "trail", but a network/web of trails. Which only makes sense from a tactical standpoint. |
| oldnorthstate | 24 Jul 2020 6:38 a.m. PST |
Returning to the issue of the rocket launchers/bazookas for a moment, while the M20 clearly was used extensively I have stumbled upon several references to the M67 90mm recoiless rifle, which is a hand held weapon. Couple of references below… link link |
| deadhead | 24 Jul 2020 9:29 a.m. PST |
I had never imagined one could fire any kind of recoilless rifle from the shoulder. I thought you loaded and tried to move off as far as possible, into cover. A rocket out of a bazooka is bad enough, as it is still spewing out flame behind as it leaves the muzzle. OK, here the blast is all out the back,(141 feet the zone you do not want to be), this is still basically just a shell and propellant charge, with a wide open breech. But what does firing this next to your right ear do for your high frequency hearing? |
| oldnorthstate | 24 Jul 2020 1:38 p.m. PST |
Apparently that backblast was the main limitation of the weapon but it could fire a fleche round against enemy infantry, a big shotgun, so it could come in handy, despite that shortcoming. |
| oldnorthstate | 24 Jul 2020 1:43 p.m. PST |
If you find the earlier post on "Shooting Vietnam" click on the link and scroll down a little you will find a picture of a grunt carrying the M67 on his shoulders |
| Legion 4 | 24 Jul 2020 2:17 p.m. PST |
Yes just like the M72 LAW, the M20 Bazooka and M67, or any, RR has a pretty good backblast area. One of the first things we were taught about the M72 was to "Check Backblast Area", before firing. The Backblast Area must be clear, for obvious reasons. And yes the M67 RR was manpacked like the M20. The larger 106mm RR was many times mounted on a Jeep, Mule[the mechanical one, not biological one !], etc. IIRC, I've see photos of the 106mm mounted on an M113 too. Though I never saw that when I was on active duty. The M47 Dragon and TOW replaced it. I'm pretty darn sure, our CE Co. in our Mech Hvy Bde was still using the M67 into the late '80s. Don't think the Army had any other version of 90mm RR. But RRs could fire another type round than just HEAT like the M72. As noted Beehive/flechette … |
