Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Flamethrowers

Discussion in 'Land Warfare in the Pacific' started by Hummel, Feb 28, 2012.

  1. Hummel

    Hummel Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    34
    So, many years ago -- somewhere around 40 or so -- my older brother told me that the Japanese had the most effective flamethrowers in the whole of WW2, but were reluctant to use them because of the inherent fear of fire so many Japanese have, what with them living in paper houses and all. Now, I don't know how true this is, but it seems sort of . . . lame? lol I can't imagine ANY armed force being reluctant to use a weapon for a reason like that. My question then is this -- who DID have the best flamethrowers in the war? I guess by best I mean most reliable, largest fuel capacity, longest range . . . and I am talking man portable here, no Crocodiles or Flame Shermans please. Thank you in advance.
    Hummel
     
  2. LRusso216

    LRusso216 Graybeard Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    14,288
    Likes Received:
    2,605
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
  3. ArcticWolf

    ArcticWolf Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2010
    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    27
    *sorry my bad*
     
  4. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    10,103
    Likes Received:
    2,574
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Maybe a little simplistic, but I'd say that if there was a Japanese reluctance to use flamethrowers, it would be because the flamethrower if basically an 'offensive' weapon, and that by late 1942, the Japanese spent very little time on the "offensive."

    Just my opinion on the matter.
     
  5. Hummel

    Hummel Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    34
    I do have one amusing story, factual as a matter of fact, about flamethrowers. My uncle Giovanni was in the US Marine Corps during WW2 (as were my Uncles Tomaso (a fleet marine who survived the Astoria sinking) and Augustus (a USMC fighter pilot who started on Wildcats? Hellcats? and ended up on Corsairs) who shot down 2? 3? 4? planes. Anyhow, Uncle Gio (or ZioGio as we called him) was a big burly guy, and the Corps picked him out early on as a flamethrower lugger. ZG was WAY too smart to get stuck wearing a big ol' bullseye, so the first time he put it on in training, he checked the wind and fired a wild and uncontrolled jet of flame right into the wind! LOL His instructor yanked the nozzle out of his hands and swore that he would NEVER use a flame thrower in this man's Marine Corps! ZG was more than happy. He was later promoted to corporal and demoted to private a total of three rotations because he kept on beating up guys to take their Thompson SMG (he didn't want a Garand either, lol). He later landed on Saipan and Tinian (where he caught some grenade fragments -- just enough to get home, not even a limp when I got to know him). My mom said it was the only time she ever heard her mother swear; when she got the telegram about him being wounded, my grandmother said, "Quei Giapponesi maledetti! Quei bastardi!"
     
    Thumpalumpacus likes this.
  6. TiredOldSoldier

    TiredOldSoldier Ace

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    452
    Don't know exactly why but that attitude sounds familiar :D

    Takao the IJA, that would be the main user of flamethrowers, was still very much on the offensive in 1942/43 in China and Burma that were it's main areas of commitment. BTW due to the interservice rivalry I wouldn't be on the SNLF and otherr IJN troops having the same flamethrowers the army did (but I have no info about that).
    IMO that sort of story could be attributed to the mindset of the times (allied propaganda mixed to the fact the average US citizens knew zip of Japanese culture).
     
  7. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,753
    Likes Received:
    328
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    ...I never read much about the Japanese and flamers
    ..but, maybe someone can help me out...I ''thought'' I remember reading of civilians or troops in a trench or holes near a village and they were burned--I thought by flamers ...I thought it was the Japanese doing the flaming....my memory remembers people in trenches/holes and maybe mid war.....my memory also ''says'' something about a scouting unit..Alamo Scouts?
     
  8. Carronade

    Carronade Ace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    3,278
    Likes Received:
    846
    Might you be recalling the incident on one of the Philippine islands when the Japanese incinerated a bunch of POWs in a bunker? There were a few survivors, word got back to the Americans, and it helped to motivate the "Great Raid" on the POW camp at Cabanatuan. That was carried out by troops from the 6th Ranger Battalion and IIRC some Alamo Scouts did advance recon. Filipino guerillas also played an important role.
     
  9. Class of '42

    Class of '42 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2020
    Messages:
    492
    Likes Received:
    217
    Thought the Japanese faked like some air raid and the POW's headed for the bunker...then regular gasoline was poured in and then ignited..but I could be wrong...which has happened from time-to-time.
     
  10. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,753
    Likes Received:
    328
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    thanks for the reply
    ...possibly....I thought it was in a book on the Alamo Scouts and the victims were alive in trenches or holes...of course my memory is wacko....that could have been what it was and then I read another story in the same book about trenches and holes ....maybe I'll get that book again-but the libraries are closed now
     
  11. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,753
    Likes Received:
    328
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    ..that sounds familiar.....yes---where did you see that?
    ... I thought it was in the book Silent Warriors..but I could be wrong
     
  12. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,753
    Likes Received:
    328
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    ..that sounds very close/etc to what I remember, now that you mention that ...so what I thought was a village was a POW camp....and maybe the Scouts had nothing to do with it.....
     
  13. tom!

    tom! recruit

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    278
    Likes Received:
    38
    Hi.

    Some pics regarding japanese flamethrowers etc.:


    Type 93 Flamethrower:
    [​IMG]

    Type 93 Large Flamethrower:
    [​IMG]

    Type 100 Flamethrower:
    [​IMG]

    preparing Molotows:
    [​IMG]

    Type SS Armored Working Vehicle, version Tei, with two flamethrowers:
    [​IMG]

    Type SS Armored Working Vehicle using a flamethrower:
    [​IMG]

    Experimental Flamethrowing Tank based on Type 1 Medium Tank Chi-He:
    [​IMG]

    Yours

    tom! ;)
     
    Thumpalumpacus and bronk7 like this.
  14. roysclockgun

    roysclockgun New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Off the original question a bit. That said I am always turned off by hearing that weapons such as the flame thrower have been outlawed in warfare, when used against personnel.IMO anything at hand, that takes the enemy out, is fine with me. Spending a lot of time forward on OPs for three years, even though I was not in combat, I saw just about every way available to use Arty to kill people. From my perch above the impact area, viewing through a BC scope, the scariest was the White Phosphorus impacts at night. No one would ever want to be near those impacts, as burning chunks of Willie Pete spread over the impact area. Anyone hit with WP, if not dead, may wish that they were dead.
    So, okay, taking out the enemy is the aim. War is brutal and deadly. Why pretend that we are more humane, by outlawing flame throwers?
     
  15. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    26,461
    Likes Received:
    2,207
    The Phosphorus is quite nasty. You get it on your skin/wound, you can put the leg into water and the phosphorus flame stops. Once back in contact with air the tissue burning starts again. I can only think of cutting the phosphorus area off to save yourself.

    With bunkers the flame sucked the air out and the bunker crew started syffocating.

    I recall reading that during the Siegfrid line battle 1944 the US troops preferred to use the panzerfaust against the bunkers.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2021
  16. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    26,461
    Likes Received:
    2,207
    The flamethrowers would suck the breathing air from the bunkers. So the bunkers would not protect you.
     
  17. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,753
    Likes Received:
    328
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    ..yes, correct...I wonder what the duration of not being able to breathe was? how long would that last? I wonder.....or, if it was a good blast of flame, would they usually succumb/pass out/etc?
     
  18. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    26,461
    Likes Received:
    2,207
    I would guess if all the oxygen is burned in the whole breathing area you at least lose your consciousnesss??
     
  19. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    10,103
    Likes Received:
    2,574
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    You will pass out & die from CO2 long before the Oxygen runs out. CO2 concentrations can be fatal as low as 14.1%.
     
  20. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,753
    Likes Received:
    328
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    ....it must be a great shock all put together = heat and/or burns plus no oxygen/etc = very disoriented/etc.....
     

Share This Page