Flame thrower teams, Close combat

Moderators: Laffe, Vis Bellica

jdg
Posts: 179
Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2013 6:08 am
Location: Near Phoenix, Arizona

Re: Flame thrower teams, Close combat

Post by jdg »

"You do realise at least the US models also had a hydrogen cylinder on the back to pressurise the fuel tank?"

The US models did not use Hydrogen, they used nitrogen whish is inert, nobody used hydrogen.

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 7662
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: Flame thrower teams, Close combat

Post by Truscott Trotter »

PORTABLE FLAME THROWER OPERATIONS IN WORLD WAR 11 By LT COL LEONARD L. MoKINNEY, p 301
B. Hydrogen Cylinder 1. Only hydrogen will be used in the hydrogen cylinder.Other inflammable gases may cause an explosion or ruin the gas burner.
p 302
The charged pressure and hydrogen cylinders are detachable and may also be .carried by the units.

maybe it was used to ignite the fuel - nitrogen was used to pressurise the fuel?
As in p 312
This ' model ignites the oil stream by means of a slow burning flare cartridge in the nozzle instead of a stream of burning hydrogen.
and p 321
d. Hydrogen. In combat the hydrogen cylinder should be changed every time the flame thrower is refilled. For training purposes, however,it is quite possible to obtain satisfactory ignition for two fillings of the flame thrower with one hydrogen cylinder, and this economy is desirable wherever possible.

etc etc

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 7662
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: Flame thrower teams, Close combat

Post by Truscott Trotter »

The Brits used it too (same paper p 27)
2. British.The Lifebuoy. (Official nomenclature -Flame Thrower,Portable, No. 2, Marks I. and II). Development of this portable flamethrower commenced in 1941 and it was standardised as the Mark I in May 1942. The fuel system consisted of an annular fuel container of life-buoy shape, with a spherical pressure container, "holding hydrogen, in the central hole of the annular torus.

As did the Germans
A small hydrogen cylinder for ignition was mounted on the flame gun itself. This was known as "Model 41."

Now whats the odds of a bullet or grenade fragment hitting your Hydrogen cylinder?
Bout the same as the odds of hitting your WP grenade?
Wanna play close combat and find out?

jdg
Posts: 179
Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2013 6:08 am
Location: Near Phoenix, Arizona

Re: Flame thrower teams, Close combat

Post by jdg »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPQYK5ZMbWY&t=12s

Video on the US flamethrower with an expert on and collector of WWll flamethrowers

User avatar
Seret
Posts: 4118
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 7:45 pm
Location: Kent UK
Contact:

Re: Flame thrower teams, Close combat

Post by Seret »

Truscott Trotter wrote:
Mon Feb 25, 2019 12:36 am
Now whats the odds of a bullet or grenade fragment hitting your Hydrogen cylinder?
Hydrogen is flammable, but not to the degree that hitting it with bits of metal makes it ignite. Having said that rupturing any pressurised vessel while wearing it isn't going to be fun, whether it ignites or not.

siggian
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 3:22 am
Location: Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada
Contact:

Re: Flame thrower teams, Close combat

Post by siggian »

For me, Pioneers doing engineery things should be treated as engineers and Pioneers doing shooty things should be treated as ordinary soldiers. That basically goes for all engineers, sappers, etc. And there's no switching roles during a game so the wire cutting teams don't become rifle teams the moment their job is done.

Of course, scenario rules could overrule this.

Post Reply