Talk:Flamethrower

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.


Contents

[edit] Fiction

Don't we want to name instances in fiction instead of just uses in it? Like how it's a popular fire attack in Pokemon? Or gun video games? Brigid 03:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • No, not really...

[edit] Current usage

Does anyone know if flamethrowers are still used? --rmhermen

Good question, actually. I can't really think of a recent situation where flamethrowers have been used. I would guess that apart from maybe militias and perhaps terrorists, for the most part, no. --DrewT2

According to the Research section of the 24 website, this is the case: Although the basic idea for a flamethrower dates as far back as the 5th century B.C., it did not become a military weapon designed for portability until the Germans used it in World War I. It was also made larger and extended for use on tanks. By the second war, the weapon was in operation on both sides. Flamethrowers have not been part of the U.S. military since 1978 when the practice was deemed inhumane. International law still does not ban its usage as a weapon."

I bet Hollywood is the biggest consumer these days. Tempshill 20:22, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

www.janes.com produced 3 references on flamethrowers, one a 1992 article on a Hungarian infrantry unit, a 2002 article on a Taiwanese tracked armor vehicle, and a 2002 article about land mines but not sure how that relates. Without a subscription I was unable to read the content of the articles.

Oh, just buy a subscription you miser. :) It's only about US$25,000 a year. (!) Tannin

In US usage, flamethrowers were replaced by the M202 "Flash" incendiary rocket during the 80's. The warhead of this rocket was a sealed container of triethylaluminium (a pyrophoric fuel) with a small burster charge. The M202 was itself withdrawn from service in the mid-90's. TTBMK the US currently has no land forces flame weapons. In Australian service, flamethrowers were withdrawn from service in the mid-90's also, and not replaced. In Russian service, some time ago - probably in the eighties - flamethrowers were replaced by an incendiary round for the RPO (and later RPO-A) 93 mm rocket launchers. These weapons are still in service, and were used extensively in both Grozny campaigns. They have two types of warhead, a thermobaric one, and incendiary - apparently an "encapsulated flame round" similar to the M202. They also have a tracked armoured vehicle with a 30 round incendiary Multiple Launch Rocket System. I understand that Taiwan and Brazil are both still manufacturing and exporting actual backpack flamethrowers, though. --Roger 21:50 03 Nov 2003 (UTC)

See the recent photo of French combat engineers training with flame throwers. They were allegedly used to remove a AA-52 machine gun nest in the 1988 Ouvéa cave hostage taking. David.Monniaux 10:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Controller burning

I seem to recall reading about the use of flamethrowers in controlled burning (to prevent forest fires). I can't recall offhand whether these were special-purpose devices or "standard" military flamethrowers. [User:Mbessey|-mark]

The ones I have seen are just dripping cans of burning oil. Nothing I would realy call a flame "thrower". Not sure that such things don't exist though. Rmhermen 13:40 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Ronson system

Searching for the "ronson system" as a phrase basically only turns up this article. Checking around searching for it as seperate words, associated with tanks, including Sherman tanks, seems to indicate that tanks have been referred to as "Ronsons" either because of their precision and reliability (it seems Ronson had a trade phrase of "Fires right every time") or, particularly in earlier references, pejoratively to the tendency of tank crews to be trapped inside burning tanks and broiled alive. I've seen no references to Ronson having created the flamethrowing system, even on pages dedicated to talking about the mounted flame-thrower models used in the Pacific Islands. Perhaps this is a matter of people conflating information? -Fuzzy 19:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flamethrowers and the Geneva Convention?

I saw a very old documentary on the USMC in the Pacific theater. It showed the use of flamethrowers. The narrator made some very crude, vulgar, racist comments when burning Japanese soldiers emerged from a bunker. He then explained that the use of flamethrowers were prohibited under the Geneva Conventions -- so the USA didn't use them in Europe. But it was okay to use them against the Japanese, because they didn't sign the Geneva Conventions.

  • I don't remember them being banned. Also, both the Germans and the Americans used them in Europe in World War II.-LtNOWIS 02:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The Geneva conventions doesn't prohibit specific weapons. It simply uses the term "superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering" to describe weapons and tactics that it bans. Being coated in burning fuel would result in a fairly quick death and was probably not considered to cause unnecessary suffering at the time. I believe that they've been discontinued now, not because they're considered cruel, but because they're a very heavy weapon that's only useful in very specific circumstances. EvilCouch 09:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Fairly quick death? You'd be at least alive for a few minutes in absolute pain. Not what i'd call a quick death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.188.24 (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History

Im no 100% on the specifics, but there is evidence of the Greeks developing und using man portable flamethrowers aroun 700BC. Essentially and hand-pumped tube that pressurises and projects a natural oil. Can anyone confirm this, and possibly fleash out the specifics? -203.13.126.19

My guess would be that this might be a reference to the famed "Greek fire," but I remember no historical references to personal flamethrowers although I have this vague memory of them talking about ship-mounted ones, basically huge mounted syringes. *shrug* Then again, histories also talk about Archimedes building huge cranes that would lift and hurl away enemy ships, so take the documentation with a grain of salt. -Fuzzy 13:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I can't add anything beyond my own vague recollections, but I'm sure I read that the Persian army used to hollow out a tree, mount it in a long shed-on-wheels (exactly like a battering ram) to protect from arrows, then drive it up to the gates of a beseiged fortress next to the battering ram. The ram smashed open the doors, then they used the tube to spit Greek fire in through the hole, clearing away the defenders on the inside ready for a proper breaching of the gate. Tyrhinis 21:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Fuller in Military History of the Western World mentions their use in the American Civil War (p89). Trekphiler 07:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I deleted this:

"The British also experimented with large flamethrowing apparatus to defend landing beaches against the threat of German invasion in 1940."

It was intended to disperse oil on the ocean's surface and ignite it, so it wasn't a "flamethrower" in the accepted sense. Trekphiler 07:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

  • To me it is a type of flamethrower. Put it back. Anthony Appleyard 05:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Someone might want to alter the last paragraph prior to the 20th Century in the history section a little. As it stands now, it says that flamethrowers were not used, though Greek Fire was. While this is a true statement, it should be pointed out that flamethrowers were not used in combat. According to Francis A. Lord's Civil War Collector's Encyclopedia, published by Castle (not entirely sure on the date as I checked it out from my library and I'm not certain where to find the copyright date on the page with that info, it has ISBN 0-89009-585-X then 84 85 86 87 followed by 9 8 7 below the ISBN), on page 112 it says that in addition to demonstrating his incendiary sheels to Lincoln and the Secratary of War on May 9, 1863, he also demonstrated a flamethrower to them. Using a hand pump he shot a stream of fire onto a woodpile as well as showing off a stream of fire equivalent to a minutes worth thrown off by a steam pump. It does say there are no known uses of whether or not the it was actually used. I'd say it was used only for the demonstration though not in the field. It might make an intresting footnote. -72.71.219.230 (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC) annonymous 1/29/08

[edit] Use in fiction

I've deleted the following again;

It is suspected that movie makers also use flamethrowers as special effects tools to simulate things like fires and explosions and volcanic eruptions.
But in one UK-made fiction movie, a backpack one-man flamethrower was needed, but could not be got: they had to fake it with a backpack fire extinguisher and a hose run off a static propane source, and to carefully frame the shot so the viewers did not see that the flame hose was not connected to the backpack tank.

It's poorly written and vague. If someone REALLY wants to keep it, please clarify the phrase "It is suspected" and specify which "UK-made fiction movie" you mean, otherwise it's non-encyclopedic. Coyote-37 13:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

--210.87.17.22 03:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Since when was there a flame thrower in Halo?

[edit] Warsaw pictures

Is there any particular reason why there are not one, not two, but three pictures of flamethrowers used in Warsaw? One should be enough. 129.13.186.1 15:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps one of them could be replaced with an older picture? All the pictures currently in the article are WWII or later, despite the weapon first being notably used in WWI. (I'm of the opinion that the article, as is, is far too picture heavy, and could benefit from a light trimming of some pictures.) 156.34.238.73 09:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The reason for so many flamethrowers in Warsaw is that an enthusiastic Polish patriot stuck them there. --Carnildo 04:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. This is a topic that merits many pictures. -- Geo Swan 11:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

While I disagree with your opinion, at the very least it could benefit from some serious re-arranging of the pictures. (Actually, is your opinion on just the Warsaw pictures, which I feel are over-used for a flamethrower article -- that many more appropriate for an article on the Warsaw uprising -- or is it about all the pictures in general?) 156.34.221.174 22:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the fireman's pump image for the time being. Put it back if you want, but I've looked and looked and I can't figure out where exacty in the picture the flamethrower is located. As such, while the description may be interesting, I don't feel that the picture itself is very illuminating for this particular article. 156.34.221.174 22:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "recreational-entertainment use"

Who uses flamethrowers for "recreational-entertainment use"!!???

Is there an educational use for flamethrowers as well!?

But seriously.. this is sort of jarring. It seems like this is a pretty extreme suggestion of pyromania / a fetishism for destruction to be invoked as a norm in an encyclopedia article.

Hey, if you had the chance to use a flamethrower, wouldn't you take it? I would... 159.115.195.4 19:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction in the Wiki?

Well I noticed that there is a contradiction. Or maybe I am just noticing this. At the end of the third paragraph in ther first section it says "but real modern flamethrowers can kill 50-80 meters away." And then one paragraph later "flamethrowers have a very short range, meaning that soldiers wielding these weapons have to get very close to enemy positions to use them, exposing themselves to enemy fire."

I guess that I'm confused. Can someone tell me which is correct? 50 meters doesn't seem very close ranged.

Compared to what? 50 metres is extremely close ranged in comparison to, say, a pistol, a rifle, a carbine, a submachine gun, an assault rifle, a grenade launcher, a bazooka, a rocket launcher, an anti-aircraft gun, a light machine gun, a recoilless rifle, a heavy machine gun, a....Michael DoroshTalk 05:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move title to hyphenated spelling

The Canadian Oxford Dictionary only spells this with a hyphen: flame-thrower. Any objections to updating the article and moving it? —Michael Z. 2006-10-05 22:36 Z

  • If so, the Canadian Oxford Dictionary is very out of date and out of touch. I have seen the weapon called a flamethrower far more often than I have seen it called a flame-thrower. Check in several other big international dictionaries. I have seen many examples of dictionaries being out of step with current reality. Leave the page's name alone. Anthony Appleyard 05:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    The CanOD was published in 2004, based on the Oxford lexicographical database and recent study of Canadian publications. Which big international dictionaries did you look this word up in? —Michael Z. 2006-10-06 06:24 Z
  • I have seen flamethrowers mentioned hundreds of times, in books about flamethrowers, and in accounts of battles, and in miscellaneous publications, and nearly 100% of uses does not have the hyphen. Googling just now found "about 1,370,000" cases of "flamethrower" and "about 697,000" cases of "flame-thrower" or "flame thrower". Anthony Appleyard 07:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Disagree Flamethrower seems to be a more accepted form of spelling. EvilCouch 09:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Do English dictionaries say so? Honestly, I don't know if my dictionary agrees with others, but "I saw it spelt that way lots" isn't good enough justification. —Michael Z. 2006-10-06 16:50 Z

There does not appear to be a consensus from dictionary makers. However, "flamethrower" seems more widely accepted than "flame-thrower" in online dictionaries, at least. EvilCouch 07:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, what your links demonstrate is that flamethrower is used in two American dictionaries. The Oxford American also uses that. Why do you say there doesn't appear to be a consensus? Does anyone else here have a dictionary at home? —Michael Z. 2006-10-07 17:15 Z
The Oxford English Dictionary doesn't have the word under either spelling. --Carnildo 06:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hollywood explosions

I wanted to elaborate on the section I yanked recently.

    • The only way to make the fuel tank explode with small arms would be to use an incendiary bullet.

This statement isn't sourced in the reference citation that follows it. (which, in turn is a wiki, so I'm not sure if it quite counts as a valid reference). Additionally, anyone that believes that you cannot create a fire using ball ammunition has not fired enough of it. I've witnessed a fair amount of fires started at firing ranges that were caused by them. The block quote seems reasonable, though. EvilCouch 09:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe those fires were started by tracer ammunition? In the army the only fires we accidentally started were caused tracer ammunition. 15:07, 6 October 2006 User:84.231.94.22

Negative. While the most of the fires I've seen have been from tracers, I have seen range fires started by ammo that was nothing but ball. It should be noted that they were hot days and they were SAW and M-240B ranges. I have no idea about the physics behind it, but it happens. EvilCouch 07:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UK movie simulation of flamethrower

I inserted: "But in one UK-made fiction movie, a backpack one-man flamethrower was needed, but could not be got: they had to fake it with a backpack fire extinguisher and a hose run off a static propane source, and to carefully frame the shot so the viewers did not see that the flame hose was not connected to the backpack tank..

  • In fiction - You may have, but it could still use a cite (did you find out about it on a DVD extras disc? a review? and interview? a documentary?) User:GeeJo (copied from edit comment)
  • I saw the movie, in full, on TV. I recognized that the backpack device was a backpack fire extinguisher because within the previous few days I saw that same make of that same backpack fire extinguisher featured on a TV documentary. Anthony Appleyard 16:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
This paragraph is unencyclopedic and unnecessary. The fact that it is very poorly written and uncited is, frankly irrelevant, it has no place in an encyclopedia article. If you must put it back in, state your reasons clearly here. I suggest (as I would to any Wikipedia editor) that you read through the article and ask yourself what the paragraph you wish to include adds. Coyote-37 13:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it doesn't add any insight into the subject of flamethrowers—perhaps it belongs in an article on film special effects, but not here.
Even so, with zero specific information, it is completely unverifiable, so it's impossible to improve it (which movie, for crying out loud?). Without citing an actual source, like an SFX magazine or something, a Wikipedia editor's analysis of how the effect was accomplished constitutes original research (the movie itself is not a source about the movie effects). Please read WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:NOR: these are elemental precepts of contributing Wikipedia, and if you don't have a basic understanding of them, your contributions may be removed. —Michael Z. 2006-10-11 15:46 Z

[edit] Australia

I think someone might as well make the section out of the link given. It has loads of information, so it might be difficult to sift through for key info. HaLoGuY007 00:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Super Italian Flamethrowers?!

I have never heard that the Italian flamethrowers were "easily the best of the war." The Italians had a reputation for poor weapon-designs in World War II. Does anyone else here think a reference is needed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.225.72.234 (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I do, because most of that section seems like crap to me.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"The Italians started using flamethrowers in WWI against the Austro-Hungarians. Mussolini was a flamethrower operator in WWI, which explains why he was so determined to develop a flamethrower better than any other European power. The Italians used flamethrowers extensively against the Abyssanians. The flamethrowers were well used in the war, and the Italians produced them in large numbers for the war. The Italians used the flamethrowers incredibly well in France, East Africa, North Africa, Greece, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, and Italy. The Italian flamthrowers were easily the best in WW2. Description and images (somewhat mixed with wargame stuff). Italian troops used flamethrowers more extensively than any other nation. They used flamethrowers that shot flammable liquid from 20 meters. Italian flamethrowers had a range as good as infantry rifles. Italian flamethrowers were regarded as one of the best weapons of World War II. The Italians never used mountable flamethrowers. Their flamethrowers were so far superior to the Allies's flame throwers that they did not need flamethrowers on tanks.""

Removed until good refs can be provided. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

[edit] Fictional uses and WP:N

This entire section is complete fancruft. Almost none of the entries contained within pass WP:N; they are merely random sightings of the weapon in disparate pieces of fiction. Unless WP:TRIVIA and WP:N have been revoked recently, then there's no good reason for leaving any of these except for those which can be proven to have influenced public perception of the subject, a case which could be made for about two entries on the current list. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Any fictional use may influence readers' or viewers' perception of flamethrowers. Often none man's cruft is another man's important matter: e.g. to me most football matter in newspapers is footballcruft and I skip over it, but I do not delete it from Wikipedia. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:IPC presents a strong argument against such sections. Your response is the usual inclusionist line, i.e. "everything is useful to somebody". As-is, WP:TRIVIA (which is part of the MoS) discourages such sections. It should be stripped to only those instances which can be shown to have had an effect on public (or otherwise) perception of the subject. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)