Do flamethrowers work in rain?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bravo

Bravo

Socialitest
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
5,336
Reaction score
1,446
if any1 knows about flamethrowers used during WWII that would be even more helpful.

Thank you.
 
Bravo

Bravo

Socialitest
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
5,336
Reaction score
1,446
thanks guys.

i checked out those links but i dont think they actually answer if theyd work in rain or not.

i might've missed it there, though.

thank you
 
MacAllister

MacAllister

Tired and worried.
El Jefe
Administrator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
VPX
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
22,039
Reaction score
10,839
Location
Out on a limb
Website
macallisterstone.com
here's another, Bravo--waterproofing the guns was sort of An Issue, as a matter of fact--but more in terms of how to land 'em without shorting out the electronics:
In the South Pacific Area, for example, the commander of a tank battalion in New Caledonia installed a flame gun in the pistol port of a tank, and a chemical officer on New Georgia modified the flame gun so that it could be fitted into the aperture for the tank's bow machine gun. The 1st Marine Tank Battalion, serving in the Southwest Pacific, mounted several portable flame throwers on its tanks in preparation for the New Britain operation. None of these improvisions could have been called successful. The portable flame thrower was not constructed to withstand the vibrations and jarrings

559

of a moving tank, and its fuel capacity was much too limited.2 Word came from Washington pointing out the disadvantages of range and fire hazards from such modifications and counseling patience until the arrival of perfected mechanized flame throwers from the zone of interior.3

After the bloody battle of Tarawa, which opened Allied offensive operations in the Central Pacific Area, an even greater clamor arose for a mechanized flame weapon. The portable flame thrower had done its part in that battle, but new weapons and techniques were urgently needed to help prevent the repetition of such staggering casualties. In preparation for the Marshall Islands operation scheduled for February 1944 both the 4th Marine Division and the 7th Infantry Division installed M1A1 portable flame throwers, modified by the chemical section of the 7th Division, in light tanks and LVT's, an amphibious tractor. Included in the 7th Division's version were special fuel containers manufactured in Honolulu. But the attempts to waterproof the guns on the LVT's were unsuccessful, and the electrical systems of those flame weapons, drenched on landing, failed completely. The tank-mounted versions, plagued with the basic weaknesses of fragility and low fuel capacity, had but modest success.4

The poor results of flame thrower improvisation in the Pacific theaters was no cause for criticism of the responsible chemical officers and tank commanders; the portable flame thrower was basically unsuited for tank adaption. If nothing else, these efforts clearly indicated that improvisation was not the answer and underlined the real need for a mechanized flame thrower in the Pacific fighting.
Click to expand...
The whole chapter is about flamethrowers in the Pacific.
 
Bravo

Bravo

Socialitest
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
5,336
Reaction score
1,446
thanks!

they need a site full of these sorts of questions. a wiki for weirdos/screenwriters/novelists.

:)
 
rtilryarms

rtilryarms

Crossbows and Handgonnes
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
3,934
Reaction score
647
Age
69
Location
Fort Lauderdale
Sure it works. Just use it indoors on those days.
 
Histry Nerd

Histry Nerd

Moving Forward!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
294
Reaction score
84
Location
Texas. It's like a whole 'nother country.
Bravo -

Absent the electrical problems mentioned above, I would think a flamethrower would work in anything but a very heavy downpour. Since it fires its own fuel and its ignition source (at least on the World War II and later models) is largely weatherproof, the chief danger would be of the rain dissipating the fuel before it burns completely. And of course, firing it against a very wet target would limit secondary fires. But the Army used flamethrowers to clear snow before Kennedy's inauguration, so I think it's reasonable to expect them to work in the rain.

And remember, flamethrowers in WWII were most often used against fortified targets; the gunner would direct the stream at firing apertures or bunker entrances in order to burn the materiel and troops inside. In that case, the stuff you want to burn is covered and out of the weather, so I expect it would work fine. Like rtilryarms said, use it indoors on those days. And you thought he was joking....

And if you decide a flamethrower is too iffy, there were plenty of methods for starting fires that would have been available to a WWII infantryman. Magnesium signal flares and white phosphorus grenades are both very good at starting fires, and both will burn in heavy rain or even under water.

Hope this helps.
HN
 
Kentuk

Kentuk

I want to write what I want to write
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 24, 2006
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
213
Location
The mud hole in the middle of Margins
Treat as an issue. They should work in the rain. Weapon designers are very traditional, having forgotten the problem with matchlocks. You could have a problem when testing the weapon that made the outcome of using it less then certain. I always thought it was basically a suicide weapon and remember American tanks in WWII ran on gasoline so the odds of becoming a crispy critter didn't necessarily go down when using a tank. Gasoline fires were a huge issue in WWII tanks and aircraft. The more powerful the engine the better the odds it would catch fire.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.