Talk:Flamethrower/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Current usage

Does anyone know if flamethrowers are still used? --rmhermen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmhermen (talk • contribs) 22:39, 8 January 2003

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.229.115.84 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 28 January 2003
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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vic (talk • contribs) 22:57, 28 January 2003
Oh, just buy a subscription you miser. :) It's only about US$25,000 a year. (!) Tannin
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." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.142.90 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 5 April 2006

Replacement

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 The M202 was itself withdrawn from service in the mid-90's. TTBMK the US currently has no land forces flame weapons. In Australian service, flamethrowers were withdrawn from service in the mid-90's also, and not replaced.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)

I suppose it's because modern warfare is fought differently so the tactical value of flamethrowers have diminished, and the thing is probably not a great idea in urban areas. Even if you find a bunker, it's probably easier to just fire a bazooka on it. --Mizst (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

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] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbessey (talk • contribs) 00:03, 29 January 2003

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)
I've read something about this also. They also use them on farms to burn old grasses and stalks of plants that are left behind in the fields. http://www.flameengineering.com/Agricultural_Flaming_Guide.html 21:34, 3 December 2008 User:24.222.180.37

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)

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)

and you know this exactly how? Compared to the lengthy death of a gut-shot soldier from the black-powder era, that's a quick death. Total oxygen deprivation and massive shock also going on... Edwin Tunis, in Weapons: A Pictorial History (World, 1954, reprinted by Johns Hopkins in 1999 as ISBN 0-8018-6229-9) says, "It is to be hoped that it is less frightfully inhuman than it seems. It is said to kill its quarry almost instantly. ... will instantly consume all the oxygen inside" "a tank or a concrete pillbox." Maybe that's just jingoistic propaganda, but maybe not; I don't know. 66.189.112.248 (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

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 10:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

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


Actually, the Soviet WWII flamethrowers are depicted incorrectly in this article. It is shown that ROKS family of flamethrowers is solely defensive, mounted weapons. Whereas Soviet army (RKKA) used FOG family of flamethrowers in that role. They were deployed extensively, yes, and to tremendous success. That awaits further explanation by me or someone more articulate on that matter. Bt ROKS famlily of FT were portable "backpack" FT! it can be easily grounded just by abbreviations: FOG stands for fougasse flame thrower (Фугасный ОГнемет), and ROKS stands for "Ранцевый огнемет, кошкина смесь", "backpack flamethrower Koshkin's compund" (or some such, isn't agreed on completely on Russian forums). ALL ROKS flamethrowers were man-portable, compressed-air backpack flamethrowers of various complexity.

Essentially, the FOG flamethrowers were extensively deployed in defensive and counter-offensive roles, deeply integrated with general infantry operations (such as deflection of armored infantry offensive by Germans) and all sorts of ambushes. The tactics of their deployment included defense barriers called "the burning bushes", deeply distributed in defensive positions and accounting for many succsessful counterattacks against German armored and motorized infantry units.

And ROKS flamethrowers were deployed to great effect in joint infantry assault operations, especially in urban warfare scenarios, such as battle for Stalingrad. According to post-op reports, they proved to be a decisive factor in many urban offensive operations, causing a great deal of panic in the ranks of troops defending the reinforced urban positions, acting in close cooperation with the Russian infantry detachments. The strategic distribution and tactics for these flamethrower detachments was closely evaluated and constantly changed, ultimately ending in the practice of flamethrower companies, batallions, platoons, even individual flamethrower specialists assigned to army detachments performing the major assaults, placed at the gaps between the army groups in defensive ranks, or supporting the attacks on defensive installations in urban settings.

ROKS flamethrowers were indeed portable (contrary to what the article says or implies) and were perfected during the course of the war, changing the type of igniter and delivery system several times. In the end, the ROKS-3 system used compressed-air delivery system with reducer valve and 10-round drum pyro igniter.

Sources: [http://www.himvoiska.narod.ru/ognemet41-45.html]

[http://sec4u.ru/text/4-new-com/435/index.shtml]

AyeBraine (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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?

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)

"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)

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)

Btw, effective range of wwII rifles are around 100-400 meters. --Mizst (talk) 12:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

I just want to point out that I worked at a US Marine rifle range (in dry Southern California) for well over a year and never saw a fire start from ball ammunition. However, it is entirely possible that a fire started while firing SAW and M240 ammunition because every fifth round on the ammunition belt is indeed a tracer round. Defiancy (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a guess here but wouldn't a bullet penetrating a fuel tank produce a flash of heat. When you see bright sparks from a bullet hitting metal they are super hot vaporised metal or plasma - either could definitely ignite fuel. Though maybe the lack of oxygen in the fuel tank - or its local heat capacity might be enough to stop it actually exploding. Lucien86 (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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)

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...
  • I think it would be a good idea. 12:46, 26 September 2009 User:88.108.168.58

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)

Vandalism

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)
As there's been no reply to indicate why WP:IPC isn't a good guideline, I'm going to cut out the most egrecious references again, leaving some more notable ones. The remaining list still needs to be better-sourced, and is still a little inclusive, so I've re-tagged it using the more appropriate {{fictionrefs}}. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


please add one wiki link

      [[wuu:火焰喷射器]]      Thx !!       每日飞龙 (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Quote in Military Section

That large block of quote about flamethrower's explosion risk in the military section, from David Gordon's book ... Is it open license? Are we cleared to use it? Or is it fair use? I have a feeling it might not be allowed because normally we'd have to write the information in our own words and just cite the reference. --Mizst (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

M202A1?

I noticed there is no mention of the M202A1 that replaced flamethrowers in US service. It may be something to add to the section in which said discontinuance is mentioned. 66.191.19.68 (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

RPO is not flamer

nor a napalm weapon, there are 3 versions of it, one with fuel-air-explosive warhead, one with just smoke and last is "incendiary" however, this is NOT NAPALM, but THERMITE or something similar, but definetly NOT NAPALM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.156.138.236 (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Use by Soviets in WW2

Please move the mentions of LPO-50 and TPO-50 to the "After 1945" section, as both are post-war designs, number "50" being the year of adoption. Only ROKS portable flamethrowers were used in WW2, as well as FOG stationary "fougasse flamethrowers" (mostly dug in in front of trenches and used in defence for single discharge on the closing attackers). Flamer tanks with ATO (automatic tank flamethrowers) were also used, notably KV-8 (modification of KV-1 with triple turret mounting of ATO-41, 45 mm cannon and DT machine gun. 45 mm gun had elongated barrel cover to resemble 76 mm gun of original KV-1, so flamer tank would not be easily identified) and OT-34 (bow machine gun of T-34 replaced by ATO-42, crew reduced to three with the exception of machine gunner/radio operator, whose place was occupied by fuel tanks. Main cannon remained in place, both 76-mm and 85-mm versions produced during the war). 81.88.211.39 (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The use of flamethrowers by skilled soldiers

A highly skilled soldier in using flamethrowers could make his jet of burning liquid land with great accuracy a hidden target like a machine gun post. this is how the germans used the flame throwers at the verudn, and it caused a great hysterical panic amongst the french troops. Amberellaplague (talk • contribs) 11:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

CGI man!

Totally unrelated, but has anyone else noticed how CGI man keeps cropping up in wikipedia? Seriously, he's on loads of pages. Although the only one I can think of right now is blowlamp, but I've seen him around for months, flying helicopters, opening parachutes... damn the guy really has his hands full! Captain deathbeard (talk) 10:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} There's a typo. Please change "rucksackack" to "rucksack". 201.231.173.108 (talk)

 Done Thanks! Jeffrey Mall (talk • Happy New Year) - 23:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Missing citations!

Example this; "Contemporary flamethrowers can incinerate a target some 50–80 meters" Where this data is from?

--anon 62.134.199.5 (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sprotection

  • It appears that this article has been sprotected since December 2008.[1]. I was going to correct an obvious error, but now see that I can't.24.22.141.61 (talk) 09:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • What is the error and what is the desired new text there? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

UK Civilian use

  • In the article it says that flamethrowers were made illegal in the UK in 1968. In the early 1980's I remember my Dad using one for heavy weeding work, and I'm pretty sure it was legitimate - I had the impression they weren't that uncommon in agricultural use. The type he used was a long metal arm with a small kerosene tank on one end and the flame head on the other, you held it in the middle. The thing was pressurized by a hand pump so it only worked for thirty seconds then you had to recharge it, but I remember it being very effective at clearing a large very overgrown garden. I don't know if it needed a special license - though he also had a firearms certificate. Lucien86 (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I think that sort is called a flame gun. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Soviet Union not an Axis power

The Soviet Union is listed below Japan as an "Axis" user of flamethrowers. This is incorrect. It should be listed as one of the Allies, or at least in its own subsection. Currently the article makes it seem as if the Soviet Union was one of the Axis powers. 190.17.55.83 (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

supersoaker flame throwers

  • these should be mentioned. if you do not know what they are, there are some videos on youtube. they are basically a water gun filled with flammable fluid which is ignited when it is "squirted". they are used primarily for fun, have never seen a case where they have been used as weapons, but i don't actively look. Adasdad (talk • contribs) 22:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Livens Projector

"British forces in the Battle of the Somme used experimental weapons called Livens Large Gallery Flame Projectors, named for their inventor, a Royal Engineers officer William Howard Livens.[12]"

Although the Livens Projector was indeed used to deliver inflammable liquids on occasion, I suspect that mention of it does not really fit in with the topic.

Consider the article's first line, the definition of a flamethrower: "A flamethrower is a mechanical device designed to project a long controllable stream of fire."

The Livens Projector did not project a stream of fire, but rather a projectile containing an imflammable liquid. Nor was it 'controllable' - you could not aim it in anything more than a general direction. It was far more akin to an crude artillery piece or mortar firing incendiary rounds. Hilde27 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


Livens projector and Livens Large Gallery Flame Projector are not the same weapons. "Livens was soon put in charge of Z company, a special unit that was given the responsibility of developing a British version of the German flamethrower that had recently been deployed on the Western Front.[19] Four of Livens' massive fixed flame projector - the "Livens Large Gallery Flame Projector" - were to be used on 1 July 1916 at the start of the Battle of the Somme ..." Yvanfrance (talk • contribs) 13:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

There's an image of the Livens Large Gallery Flame Projector (a giant flamethrower):

Livens Large Gallery Flame Projector

Yvanfrance (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC) Yves

Edit request from Ainaväärässä, 30 August 2011

Finnish army was ordered in 1939 from Italy 176 Lanciaflamme Spalleggiabile Model 35 flamethrower, but only 28 of them sent during the Winter War, and they reportedly ehditty deliver front-line use. The remaining 148 in Finland as a model named M/40 projector arrived during the armistice.

During the Continuation War the Finns were the spoils of war the Soviets ROKS-2 flamethrowers, which were introduced as M/41-R.

The Army experimented with during the Continuation War in Finland, the machine gun and a flamethrower combination. Its use was limited, apparently only in the summer of 1944, the Battle of the U-drive. http://www.pkymasehist.fi/sotam_17.jpg Ainaväärässä (talk) 01:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but the content you want to add is barely intelligible and unsourced--Jac16888 Talk 01:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Discrepancy in the description of the propellant gas

The propellant gas of liquid flamethrowers is described as a inert gas in the paragraph "military flamethrowers" while the paragraph "operation" talks about propane as a propellant. This should be corrected or explained, if both are used. 91.65.192.89 (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Missing citation

A citation would be nice on that bit that says "Typically, popular visual media depict the flamethrower as short-ranged and only effective for a few meters (due to the common use of propane gas as the fuel in flamethrowers in movies, for the safety of the actors)."

--Troacctid (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Strict vrs. Loose Constructionist definitions

A reference I wrote was removed, because it did not meet the article's definition of a flame thrower. However, the definition has no citation and doesn't reflect the utilitarian advances in delivery of the same chemicals. If a loose constructionist interpretation of the definition is employed for the article, all unit level methods of deployment of incendiary chemicals can be addressed in the article. If a strict definition is used, then the article must be limited to one specific delivery method.

To recap the points.

Loose constructionist definition.

  • More modes of delivery can be addressed.
  • The article would need to be updated periodically to reflect developments.

Strict constructionist definition.

  • Only specific modes of delivery can be addressed.
  • The article could mention what makes a flamethrower distinct from other incendiary weapons.

Below, I included what I wanted to reference in the article.

Flamethrowers have not been in the U.S. arsenal since 1978 until the War in Afghanistan[1]

--OrbitOne 02:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

A flamethrower is generally understood to be a device that projects burning fluid in a controlled fashion - I am sure we can agree on some such definition.
Now, I think the guiding principle should be that anything that is notable should have a place in Wikipedia. If something is sufficiently significant and there is enough information about it then it can have its own article and should be linked in the usual way. Where something is notable but a separate article is not justified, a place can be found for it under a more general heading. This should be done even if that means a little juggling of existing texts. Sometimes this will mean that the scope of an article needs to be streched beyond its usual bounds, this is still OK provided it is clear to the reader that this is what is happening. I would only caution that anything requiring extensive edits needs to be done with great care!
Flame fougasse or Abwehrflammenwerfer 42 for example are notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. They are not flamethrowers in the conventional sense, but they are clearly close relations. If there was only a small amount of information availabe, subsections in the flamethrower article would probably be justified. As it is, they get their own articles.
Having looked at the reference given by OrbitOne, I would say that this information is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. However, this weapon would - it seems to me - sit more comfortalbly in the more general article on Incendiary devices and therefore a paragraph or subsection should be added there rather than here - with suitable cross links, redirects etc.
The Incendiary device article looks rather underdeveloped at the moment, but that is incidental.
--Gaius Cornelius (talk) 10:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
The paragraph discussing the US decision to stop using flamethrowers is badly off target. The Army merely adopted a better method of delivering flame effects and fielded a replacement for the obsolete flamethrowers: The M202 FLASH. That should be included in the article. The M202 came into the inventory in 1976, so the withdrawal of the older flamethrowers 2 years later is clearly a result of the fielding of the M202 - as correctly noted in the Wiki page concerning the M202. (Note: The Wiki article on the M202 claims the M202s were produced starting 1978, but my unit was issued them in 1976 so there is a small error there.) Further, the following paragraph in this article is horribly confused. It states that thermobaric weapons have been deployed to Afghanistan, yet the cited article does not discuss thermobaric weapons at all. In fact, it centers on the M202 FLASH . . . which is NOT a thermobaric weapon. Nor are the other munitions discussed in that reference thermobaric, either. Further, while your paragraph flatly assets that thermobaric weapons have been deployed to Afghanistan, the cited reference - merely alleges certain types of incendiary munitions (not thermobaric) were deployed, with one of the regional commands denying the M202 was deployed or in use. (Why only one of several regional commands was queried, rather than the senior US command is a whole other question.) Whoever wrote this latter paragraph clearly does not understand the topic. Or has intentionally mis-quote the citation.

98.255.85.245 (talk) 06:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ Hambling, David (May 15, 2009). "U.S. Denies Incendiary Weapon Use in Afghanistan". Wired.com. Accessed 27 May 2010.

Spelling Error

Hello!

I can't edit it. In "Military Flamethrowers" section, in the quote about the ignition of cans, the "incendiary" has two "i"s in it. Could someone address this?

Thanks.

Funny that over a month later no one has bothered to fix it.

It is fixed now. Why could you not change it? Gaius Cornelius (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The article's semi-protected, and has been since 2008 - that's four years. It must have been vandalised to buggery... 31.185.193.247 (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 March 2013

Under the "After 1945" heading, please replace "They are not banned in any international treaty the U.S. has signed, thus the U.S. decision to remove flamethrowers from its arsenal is entirely voluntary." with "They are banned under the Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons(Protocol III), which the United States ratified on December 23, 2008." The supporting document can be found on the U.S. Department of State website at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/190579.pdf

[1]

Thank you. Minfar (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/190579.pdf

The last edit is incorrect

The last edit which included the Convention on the Prohibition or Restriction of Incendiary Weapons is incorrect. It states that flamethrowers are illegal due to this convention, but if one actually reads the text of the convention, it states that it is prohibited to use incendiary weapons against civilians, civilian infrastructure or to use it against legitimate military objectives located in close proximity to civilian infrastructure or forests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.113.146 (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


Edit request on 4 October 2012

In the section "World War II", Allies, United States", there is no reference to US Army use of flamethrower tanks in the Pacific Theater. Please insert the following below the first paragraph, as follows: "The U.S. Army used flamethrower tanks during the campaign on Luzon. For example, the 13th Armored Group Flamethrower Detachment (consisting of three flamethrower tanks) supported the 38th Division attack on Woodpecker Ridge east of Manila. These tanks reduced numerous Japanese cave positions unassailable by the infantry. They were also used to drive Japanese riflemen out into the open, exposing them to fire from conventional weapons. The Flamethrower Detachment was attached to the 38th Division from 21 May through 20 June 1945." Source: 38th Division Historical Report on the M-7 Operation. [1]

Thanks. Kfgrijr (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

 On hold cannot see the citation. Please remove any <ref> tags that are around it. Then I will take a look at the reference. gwickwire | Leave a message 21:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The ref is http://www.scribd.com/doc/34179175/WWII-38th-Infantry-Division . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 Done. Thanks! gwickwire | Leave a message 00:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi- Just noticed, my requested insertion (above) did not end up in the correct section of the article. It ended up in section "Military flamethrowers" but should be further down , under "World War 2 - Allies - United States", as the last para in that section. Can we move it to there, as it fits the topic organization much better? Thanks. Kfgrijr (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.scribd.com/doc/34179175/WWII-38th-Infantry-Bataan-Report

Electric Flamethrower

  • The White House uses an electric flamethrower to silence critics. But when the president does it, that means that it is illegal. Can Congress act and impeach? According to one Congressman, "Somebody has to go to Washington and knock the hell out of the place." The electric flamethrower must be stopped. 95.102.90.132 (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
    This makes no sense at all. Could you please re-phrase, explain and possibly add some citations? 62.196.17.197 (talk) 10:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I suppose that a device to blow a jet of air electrically heated to flame heat, may be possible.
    • A ordinary flamethrower with electric ignition and/or the fuel is propelled by electric power.
    • Likeliest here, a metaphor for some political action.

A zombie entry? Really?

How is this sub topic relevant for this article? Why not add a section on what happens when you use a flamethrower on werewolves, vampires or ghosts too? I realize that zombies are currently very popular in the public zeitgeist, but I question the relevance within this article. My suggestion is to remove the zombie entry entirely for reasons of relevance. Codymr (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant and unencyclopedic, it's gone now. Just plain Bill (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, Ok, I was bored. Codymr, I may add that, maybe a section on Flamethrowers in science-fiction in fantasy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Football1607 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to ask "why" and "is it relevant to the overall article?" My opinion is no, but others may disagree. I don't think it's relevant to the information presented here. Do articles about cars, planes, tanks, knives, potato peelers or crayons have a section about zombies or SF/fantasy? Also, a good test is to reverse your idea to see if it works: should a flamethrower subsection be included in an article about SF/fantasy? Probably not. If no, then the connection is probably not strong enough for an encyclopaedic entry. If this was an article about laser guns, which were first theorized about in SF stories, then a section about their portrayal in fiction would be relevant. Codymr (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Flamethrower. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

First use

Thucydides (4.100) describes a flamethrower-like device used to set the ramparts on fire in Battle of Delium. That would shift the first documented use of flamethrower to 424 BC. --Jvs (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flamethrower. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2016

mikey 208.108.133.105 (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC) wiki is not a good source for any type of info

We are only as good as our sources, but your post is not a Semi-protected edit request - Arjayay (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2017

The first section (Military flamethrowers) claims Once targeted (or even exposed to random fire), carrying a thin metal tank of highly flammable fuel on your back is extremely hazardous, as any projectile or fragment can easily puncture the tank and release the fuel, which can be ignited either by the projectile or other open flame, which will invariably incinerate or severely burn the operator and any other troops in his vicinity, but the next two paragraphs after this list directly contradict this, providing sources that say it simply isn't true.

Since the bit I quoted doesn't cite anything and runs contrary to those sources, it should probably just be deleted. 2001:48F8:4026:5E:89E2:BAFE:771D:441 (talk) 06:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. The sentence was so poorly constructed that it was close to meaningless. If someone would like to rewrite it, and reconcile it per the contradictions noted above, that might be helpful. In the meantime, I have removed it as unsourced and unencyclopedic. (I note for the record that the adjacent bulleted entries appear also to be unsourced.) RivertorchFIREWATER 16:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Flamethrower. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flamethrower/Archive_1&oldid=1136729849"