What ever happened to disposable flamethrowers? Where did the WW2 stocks of these go

What ever happened to disposable flamethrowers?
Where did the WW2 stocks of these go

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >The disposable weapon fired a half-second burst of flame of up to 27 metres (89 ft).
    >issued to militias and paratroopers
    >required no training and cost very little
    But what was it actually loaded with?
    It seems very practical

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      fuel

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Are we talking about the gay Geneva conventions outlawing their use in urban conflict? The extreme danger to the operator? Or their obsolescence in modern war with the use of explosives and air support? Last war I can think of with flamethrowers was vietnam and its pretty obvious how that didn't help things there.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The way I see it one of the few remaining uses for combat infantry is forward operations and sapping. Explosives aren't suitable for all applications because of shrapnel and the way blast radius works in confined spaces.
        There are also certain things explosives don't tend to destroy. And things which ate specifically designed to be explosive resistant.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Are we talking about the gay Geneva conventions outlawing their use in urban conflict?
        There is nothing gay about the Geneva conventions and their rules for e.g treating POWs the wounded and civilians. Neither is the Geneva convention an issue. Conduct of Just war means you act in such a way as you can to avoid unnecessary killing of civilians and destruction. Flamethrowers may be used or not used but the incessant squeaking from dickheads like you who have never been near fighting trying to be edgy about war crimes of the Geneva conventions which you have no understanding of is very stale. War crimes need to be deterred, maybe if you had seen the outcome of them first hand instead of being a moronic lardass your opinion might be worth a shit.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Nobody follows the Geneva convention because the people who break it don't get punished, and it only applies to near peer conflict- in many of these cases they will mutually decide to ignore it because of their appraisal of field conditions.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Shut up you stupid child. All professional soldiers know correct conduct in war and all professional officers are instructed. Then there are stupid children like you.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              You've forgotten that you're on the internet, your professional tears mean nothing to us.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          so true!!!!

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            So you're gay? You're Chinese? You have a problem with the UN (who fought communist China in Korea). You're a war criminal? An idiot? Do you even fricking know what you are farting on about?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              well I'm not Chinese :03

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Or their obsolescence in modern war with the use of explosives and air support? Last war I can think of with flamethrowers was vietnam and its pretty obvious how that didn't help things there.
        Ukraine is experimenting with them

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >pretty obvious how that didn't help things there.
          The US won every conventional battle and militarily defeated the NVA.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I mean, a half second burst of flame doesn't sound particularly great. Not sure if it would have many advantages over just carrying a grenade or two instead

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Cost is noted as a factor, nobody cries about Molotovs being less effective than grenades.
        I also suspect the advantage relates to the risk of friendly fire, and the effect on armour

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >half second burst of flame
        That really doesn't do justice to how fricking nasty flamethrowers are. It's not a half-second burst of flame, it's a half-second burst of sticky hellfire that will happily burn up all of the oxygen and flammable material it can. A half second burst of the sticky-icky is enough to turn a troop transporter into a mobile crematorium.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Are we talking about the gay Geneva conventions outlawing their use in urban conflict? The extreme danger to the operator? Or their obsolescence in modern war with the use of explosives and air support? Last war I can think of with flamethrowers was vietnam and its pretty obvious how that didn't help things there.

        Flamethrowers never actually became obsolete. The only real reason they aren't used anymore is the danger to operator, since the cost of a soldier's life is vastly higher today than it was back in WW2.
        There never was an effective replacement to this weapon. Big fuel-air explosion warheads like the one on the Soviet RPO Shmel and its decendants can reproduce some of the effect. But. Literally no man-portable weapon can exactly reproduce a literal creek of burning napalm flooding the entire room, sticking to floor, walls and ceiling, as well as every moving and non-moving object, instantly setting all explosives and munitions on fire, completely destroying all weapons, supplies and materiel as the river of fire snakes deep within the structure. And the panic of being trapped indoors with THAT will make any man gladly rush out of the bunker and into machine gun fire. And they did. Even the brave Japs. Liquid fire will break anyone. The fire...

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous
        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Flamethrowers are obsolete, it's just that the kind of repeating-fire thermobaric weapons that do their job but better aren't actually in military use.

          What I'm saying is that we need thermobaric machine guns, and we need to give them to Ukraine for field-testing and refinement.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            theres already incendiary ammo for grenade machine guns
            to make the payloads any more effective, would then relegate the launchers to vehicles / dedicated emplacements out of an increased weight & size
            doing that, however, would be negligent, as mortars & autocanons already have that role with incendiary ammo anyways
            whats you're asking for has already been done

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >And the panic of being trapped indoors with THAT will make any man gladly rush out of the bunker and into machine gun fire.
          Sounds like an evening in with the mother in law

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      To me the best way a system like that is to substitute the use of CAS and expensive explosive weaponry in unconventional/guerilla warfare to destroy enemy buildings and strongholds. But for those guys a molotov is infinitely cheaper and easier to use

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Far from the truth, molotovs are difficult to transport, many operators don't have the coordination to actually hit a target with them, they don't work in open ground at all, the range is limited.

        Even the most moronic of recruits could use these point and shoot weapons, you didn't even have to be particularly accurate at least compared to a rifle.

        I can easily see the situation where you were setting fire to an enemy truck and the advantage of the flamethrower was the instant effect on enemies in and around the truck. Especially at night the flamethrower is going to blind everyone and I see no reason you couldn't rig one of these as a trap as if it were a grenade

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/4dmjSCq.jpg

          Yeah your absolutely right, molotovs suck to use and they're super dangerous, a disposable flamethrower would probably be better overall. Clearly people tried making stop gaps to substitute the issue like with Che Guevara molotov lauchers and other designs

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's actually way more effective than I imaged, though you'd be suicidal to use it in case the glass broke when you fired it- altogether foreseeable if not expected.

            Flamethrowers are obsolete, it's just that the kind of repeating-fire thermobaric weapons that do their job but better aren't actually in military use.

            What I'm saying is that we need thermobaric machine guns, and we need to give them to Ukraine for field-testing and refinement.

            The repeat fire weapons don't have the utility, and can't generally be reloaded. Reloading a flamethrower is feasible and so if you've got a lot of things to burn you'd still use a traditional m95 type arrangement.

            FLASH is vastly superior against fortifications but then again, you've got to compare it to other rocket launchers in terms of cost, training, service life, armoury. It would be your least used rocket launcher.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >It seems very practical
      no it doesn't, that shit's moronic

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Not when compared to explosives I would say

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >I would say
          that's because you're a moron

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            spit your shit custer

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's so foolproof a child could use it, and many probably did. Far easier to use than a Molotov, far easier to hit something, possible to hit everything. No sights, follow up shots, no reloading.
        You don't even have to worry about fragging yourself

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          explosives are much more useful than some half assed flamethrower, that's why nobody uses those stupid things anymore

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Explosives are certainly king in most categories, but again they have limits.
            Cost is a limit, trained operators are Limit, weight is a limit, and there are some limits arising from friendly fire and concussion.

            If you throw a grenade at someone in front of you, the frag may fly backwards and hit someone behind you. Rocks may fall down and hit someone, you might find the blast gives you a concussion, you might not be able to acutely their the grenade into say...a pillbox. A pillbox has a grenade sump.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    They got handed out to kids and old men to go burn commies with, so I'm assuming they got used up. Plus if you've ever actually handed sketchy incendiary devices, the cheaper and sketchy ones tend to get disposed of away from human hands because they're really not wanting to find out how the lowest bidder built the seals or pressure components.
    From memory Germany also had a later model the HAFLA-35 which was also made in the 1970's to burn communists but I dunno if its still in production

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The Russians have an even more modern one though little literature exists in English. Same deal, militias and paras.
      Possibly they were all dumped or being late war many were probably never issued.

      The halfa 35 is interesting, I'd be very interested to see training footage or get combat reports on its effectiveness.
      Seems it might have really useful area denial effects

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        It fired a red phosphorus cartridge a bit over a half kilogram or roughly pound and half and that's got to be quite the fricking mess if it gets shot into someone's living room or a bunker! Not the least of which is Red-P would burn hot enough to get secondary ignition on basically anything/anyone nearby that's flammable simply because of the immediate blast area's heat wave. From memory it's about 1200-1300C which is enough to forge weld steel and set iron on fire.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Given the handiness of the thing I can see a lot of application, specifically against auxiliary forces where the real objective is to sap supplies.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >From memory Germany also had a later model the HAFLA-35 which was also made in the 1970's to burn communists but I dunno if its still in production
      Nope, the follow up model has been retired in 2001. Because muh phosphorus and burning human beings "by accident" is a bad look.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Does anyone speak zuka blyat?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      you can turn captions to autotranslate the audio into english
      what exactly are you trying to find out?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Ideally training manuals and schematics, but general information about how they are deployed or testimony would be sufficient.

        Part of me thinks these were actually anti personnel weapons, given to civilians or of desperation. Given civilians couldn't shoot in any capacity and the close quarter power of one of these composted to say....a pistol. If you had irregulars these may well be you best mass casualty weapon to open up an ambush.

        But perhaps they were just utility items kept on hand to clear out awkward spaces or set fire to supplies.

        Outside chance these were specifically intended as anti armour weapons intended more to disable firing positions on the basis they would disable the gun and ignite munitions

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          seems like the first one is primarily an anti-structure weapon, and the second is both anti-structure & able to engage personnel

          >0:00
          [music]
          in the 70s of the last century in the USSR, a silent grenade launcher carbine Burya was developed to arm army special forces units, intended for the destruction of important enemy military installations and their protection, including operational-tactical complexes equipped with a nuclear warhead; for this purpose it was planned to use two carbine grenade launchers type of ammunition: 9mm special cartridges that ensured silent, flameless shooting and 30 mm grenades for firing which used an integrated mortar attachment in the muzzle of the weapon and a cartridge above me, while a bullet of a 9 mm cartridge at a distance of 100 meters could pierce a steel sheet 5 mm thick and with a grenade ir was possible to pierce a 10-mm sheet with guaranteed ignition of the flammable mixture behind the barrier; a massive magazine was located instead of a handle it influenced the specifics of the grip; when used for ease of shooting a bipod was used on the carbine; how effective this weapon turned out can be judged by the fact that it still consists of in the armament of some special forces of the mountain of the FSB of Russia
          >1:33
          try to guess what it is this strange device is a west german grenade launcher of 35 millimeters caliber have M34 frets and in fact is a less flamethrower that shoots phosphorus incendiary grenades weighing 240 grams at a distance of about 80 meters, having flown this distance the grenade explodes, scattering it over the area about ten meters of hot phosphorus, the tempature of which can reach 1000-300 degrees, it was envisaged that the grenade launcher would be used against armored vehicles and fortified objects but the grenade launcher would be most effective in the fight against infantry, against which it was forbidden to be used, however, if necessary, as they say in war, all means are fair

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            So the silent grenade launcher is a HTI weapon. Huh...
            >it was envisaged that the grenade launcher would be used against armored vehicles and fortified objects but the grenade launcher would be most effective in the fight against infantry
            Yea that's basically what I wanted to know, was it actually effective against armour or just so infantry didn't run away when they saw a tank.
            Ten meter radius doesn't sound very impressive in comparison to a grenade, but then I guess it's effective against fortifications, trenches, etc.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              its pretty much the same stuff thats still being used, like the GM-94 & RPO-A Shmel, merely their predecessors

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm trying to work out if you'd hold it while using it, stand on it like a knee mortar, or set it up like a fauglasse mine.

    I've read falisheirm records and nothing stands out, maybe it was just referred to as a flamethrower and I idly assumed that meant a 35

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >fauglasse
      Fouglasse

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        If only you were the klienflamewerf nazi instead of the grammar nazi

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Fougasse

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          [...]

          [...]

          >Fougasse
          Fartgas

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            gayis

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah your absolutely right, molotovs suck to use and they're super dangerous, a disposable flamethrower would probably be better overall. Clearly people tried making stop gaps to substitute the issue like with Che Guevara molotov lauchers and other designs

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The Molotov was truly a weapon of last resort often made in the field, I'm not sure you could even say molotovs were issued they were just made with junk that was lying around.

      I play with commies and so am no stranger to the Molotov, there are serious weaknesses.
      You basically can't use them against infantry, they could be caught, hit a person directly and not explode, hit the ground and not explode.
      The fireball is seriously dangerous but the burning fuel on the ground could be run over. The fuel needs to actually get onto people and if they blow up on the ground the fuel is at best going to burn their legs very badly as they run around.

      Molotovs break when being transported, which wouldn't hurt you except that you're intending to fight with incendiaries. Molotovs are heavy and can't be thrown far, it's hard to throw them accurately.i tried many times to put fins on them or av trailing ribbon to make them stable but the liquid moves around and the ribbon is far too likely to snag. Thankfully I trialed this with water.

      The Molotov can be a problem because it blocks your access as well as the enemies, the glass usually isn't fume tight so you can light a Molotov with a naked flame. I've seen virtually every commie related frick up

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        yeah they have a mass plethora of issues with real world use, they're are some improvements that can be made to them but they're the bottom of the barrel in any aspiring insurgent looking for coup d'état. I've only focused on them because to me, the main use of flame dispersing weaponry is to dispense weaponry is to substitute a plethora of explosive devices, like in

        Far from the truth, molotovs are difficult to transport, many operators don't have the coordination to actually hit a target with them, they don't work in open ground at all, the range is limited.

        Even the most moronic of recruits could use these point and shoot weapons, you didn't even have to be particularly accurate at least compared to a rifle.

        I can easily see the situation where you were setting fire to an enemy truck and the advantage of the flamethrower was the instant effect on enemies in and around the truck. Especially at night the flamethrower is going to blind everyone and I see no reason you couldn't rig one of these as a trap as if it were a grenade

        would you rather have a disposable flamethrower or like three claymores you could carry on a bandolier, or even a grenade launcher. Not saying that the abilities of the flamethrowers lingering flame and lethality are useless but amongst real military's and competent insurgents explosives are far more capable weapons

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        germans had the "Handflammpatrone" until 2001 - can't find info on other countries using this kind of stuff but would be surprised if they didn't

        afaik at least the Germans, British and the Finnish produced molotovs in plants or workshops (look up "Brandflasche" and "No. 76 special incendiary grenade" )

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          How the frick did they use this thing? Zero videos of it in action on youtube

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I found

            ?si=yYY_CdKgcqCCwao2&t=294
            and

            ?si=Sd0Yk9-gHAGANmCR&t=294 (might be older version)

            I'm sure I had another one in color, but I can't find it anymore

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous
            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              https://i.imgur.com/pozjb0E.jpg

              TY!!! :03

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    They all got used up. And they we realized that incendiary rocket launchers were safer and more effective than flamethrowers

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Safer and more effective yes; but quantity is a quality of its own. These were cheap, really cheap. And they were also very light, not as light as explosives but infinitely simpler to use.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I bet people tied those things to the front of their rifles like an undrslung grenade launcher. They don't weight that much, much better than a bayonet.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >They don't weight that much
      The one in the OP weighed 32 pounds

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        no it didn't

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          This board gets dumber every day.
          https://archive.org/details/FlameSpecialBulletinNo9/page/n7/
          >E15 weighs 32 1/2 pounds complete with fuel, and fires a single 3 1/2 second burst to a maximum effective range of 40 yards.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Another flamethrower operator wiped out a three-pillbox position on Wakde that had resisted a large combat patrol and tank fire. The tanks had sprayed the targets with both machine gun and 75mm fire, but withdrew after a sniper killed one of the tank commanders.
            >While the patrol pointed out the camouflaged targets with tracers, the flameman crawled through dense underbrush and sent a two-second burst through a side port. It fell silent. He crawled to the center position and put a four-second burst into the front embrasure; it, too, was silenced.
            >Although he had but a little fuel left, he crawled to within 10 yards of the remaining pillbox and pulled the trigger. His flame sputtered and fell short - but the single Jap machinegunner had not waited; he killed himself.
            >“No Further Resistance Encountered from the Position”
            Groovy

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              https://i.imgur.com/SP0dUv3.png

              germans had the "Handflammpatrone" until 2001 - can't find info on other countries using this kind of stuff but would be surprised if they didn't

              afaik at least the Germans, British and the Finnish produced molotovs in plants or workshops (look up "Brandflasche" and "No. 76 special incendiary grenade" )

              just imagine - flamethrowers attached to a drone

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Boy do I have news for you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07rtBip9ixk

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >disposable flamethrowers?
    Do you save empty Bics, too?

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Did they even make very many to begin with?

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    this is the most friendly and heart warming. thank you all.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Put it on a stick for safety and it'd probably still be viable today. Flamethrowers are the primo supremo when it comes to clearing bunkers and entrenched positions up close and without air support. Yeah, you COULD get a rifle grenade in there, but the spread of a flamethrower is both foolproof and causes immediate blindness and terror. The downside was what a massive target a flamethrower made a soldier into, but small and quick to deploy cans alleviate most of that risk. Just angle it in the dirt, pull the pin, and run away

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *