"British frightfulness"

[neverforget]

I came across this account, obviously referring to the Liven`s flame projector, in the Ox/Bucks Reg. Chron.

Has anyone else seen further accounts in other diaries etc relating to the use of this "Secret Weapon" ?

"On 11th August Colonel Crosse came over to see us from the 52nd, who were at Treux, on the other side of the Ancre, which flowed between us and them. He told us a lot about Delville Wood, which we had every reason to believe was our destination. One afternoon some of us went up to a wood to witness British forms of frightfulness for trench warfare, and saw a huge Flammenwerfer ejecting a flame nearly a hundred yards in length, and also flaming tubs being thrown from mortars."

[centurion]

The flaming tubs sound like the prototype Livens projectors and the long flame from the Liven Large Gallery Flame Thrower. Odd though as the first projectors are said to have been made from sawed up tanks from the Large Gallery and its difficult to see (unless Livens also invented a time machine) how both could operate at the same time. However Livens did also develop some two man portable flame throwers (which proved only to be semi portable) so perhaps it was these producing the long flame.

[bluebonnet]

The British produced only four top-secret Livens Large Gallery Flame Projectors to deploy at the Battle of the Somme. They were huge, complex flamethrowers that shot a 300-foot flame across the German lines. The aim wasn’t to kill so much as terrorize, to chase the enemy away from the front line and clear some space for the British troops to occupy German positions. It almost worked.

cunliffe

[Ron Clifton]

"A flame nearly a hundred yards in llength" looks much more like the product of the Large Gallery Projector.

When this weapon was re-created a year or two ago for a TV documentary, comment was made how hot it was even a short distance away to the side, with eyebrows being singed. I very much doubt that such a flame could be produced from a hand-held projector without grave, and probably fatal, effects on the men manipulating them. The possibility of some of the flame being blown back by the wind would have been too great.

Ron

[centurion]

24 Livens Medium 2 man projectors were produced. and taken to France by Livens. It went into action on a limited scale in July and September 1916. It had an absolute range of about 100 yards but its effective range was reckoned to be 55 yards. The prototype weighed 100 kilogrammes (220 pounds) and had a capacity of 70 litres (15 Imperial gallons) giving a flame life of 20 seconds. This was deemed too heavy so the version taken to France only had a 55 litre tank (and a proportionally reduced flame life. It was considered too heavy to be practical with too short a flame life.

The Large Gallery or Battery projector prototype had four 90 litre (20 Imperial gallon) tanks and a combined flame life of 50 seconds. It weighed a tonne and was the size of a small modern car. A flow interrupter device allowed up to 16 'flame balls' to be projected as much as 80 metres (88 yards) over a period of 5 minutes. 6 Battery Projectors with 12 tanks (1,100 litres [240 Imperial gallons] of four minutes duration were taken to France in 1916 for deployment the Somme Offensive. Two machines were dug into the Somme Front and were deployed just before the British troops went over the top. It was claimed that 40 German soldiers were killed by the liquid fire, whilst many others were demoralised. How and if the other four were used is not clear. With its 8 man crew and complete lack of portability the Battery projector was regarded as an inefficient use of resources. Liven had the tanks cut up to make his Oil Can Mortars (and the number of of such mortars first used accounts for all the Battery projectors.) The design of the Oil Can Mortar was adopted for the Livens Projector. Given the fact that the Battery Projectors had to be dug in, were only used once and the tanks used for Oil Can Projectors (which are described as being demonstrated in the account in post 1) I still think that the projector demonstrated was the Livens medium.

[centurion]

"A flame nearly a hundred yards in llength" looks much more like the product of the Large Gallery Projector.

When this weapon was re-created a year or two ago for a TV documentary, comment was made how hot it was even a short distance away to the side, with eyebrows being singed. I very much doubt that such a flame could be produced from a hand-held projector without grave, and probably fatal, effects on the men manipulating them. The possibility of some of the flame being blown back by the wind would have been too great.

Ron

And how do you know that the projector in the OP produced such a flame?

[Ron Clifton]

Because that's what the original post says!

In case you didn't see the TV programme, they reconstructed the original Livens using parts and specifications from the original. They tried different propellants until they found one which seemed to accord with the remaining photographic evidence. I don't think it was an attempt to produce a new, improved version which was hotter and more powerful than the original - that would destroy the point of it being a reconstruction which was as authentic as possible.

And, if you re-read the first sentence of my post #4, you will note that I said that it "lloks more like the product of the Large Flame Projector", NOT that is actually was from the LFP.

Ron

[phil andrade]

Flame was used as a weapon on the Somme, according to anecdote that I've heard or read.

There was a BBC Radio 4 interview about a generation ago in which a Welsh veteran of the fighting at Mametz Wood alluded to using flame in the softening up of the German defences. He also mentioned how Germans were seen to be bayoneting his wounded comrades, which, I suppose, suggested they were none too happy to be on the receiving end of this " frightfulness" and wanted their retribution.

I'm sure forumites will recognise the man I'm mentioning here.

John Keegan - in his FACE OF BATTLE, if I'm remembering correctly - writes about British wounded trapped on the wire being burnt to death by German flame- throwers.

Editing...and then, of course, there was a recent TV documentary about the Livens device.

Phil (PJA)

[centurion]

Because that's what the original post says!

No it doesn't nothing about how wide or hot it was it merely gives the length, plenty of different flamethrowers could do that including the French Schilt one man flame thrower which gave the operator the option of four bursts of 25 metres or one of 100 metres

Early model Schilt doing long bursts

I have so far found photos of all the various British, French, German, American, Italian, German and KuK flame throwers except the Liven Medium but from those descriptions I have it was bigger than all the 'portable' ones

[David Filsell]

British frightfulness is a good topic - I have always considered the continuation of the blockade of Germany, which included foodstuffs, until the Versailles treaty was signed - and the starvation and death amongst civilians it predicated - pretty frightful.

[centurion]

There was no such thing as a blockade. To declare a blockade under the international conventions conventions agreed in 1908 would have required Britain to be able to enforce such a blockade equally on all German coastlines. This could not be achieved in the Baltic. Instead various goods were agreed with neutral nations as contraband and any neutral ship approaching German waters could be stopped and searched to see if they were carrying any and if so this could be siezed (and the ship then allowed to proceed)

The goods that Britain and France wished to be classed as contraband (ie contributing to Germany's war effort) included mineral oils, petrol, copper, rubber, cotton, nitrates, rare metals (such as chrome, nickel, wolfram etc) and foods such as corn, flour and meat. Technically this is an embargo not a blockade and negotiations were lengthy especially as additional materials such as oil seed rape were later added. It was not until mid 1917 that the embargo became generally applied by which time most countries that supplied goods had either joined the Allied cause (and stopped dealing with Germany in any case) or had succumbed to diplomatic pressure and stopped selling to Germany (which was also short of negotiable foreign exchange with which to buy food stuffs - munitions material taking priority).

Official figures produced in 1914 show that Germany was capable of being self sufficient in basic food stuffs. A British embargo would hit mainly those foods consumed by the middle classes and Germany had stock piled enough to last through until 1916. The staple food for most was the potato and it was reckoned that production of potatoes could be increased sufficiently to substitute for any lack of other basics. As a bonus conquest of Polish territory from Russia would yield increased supplies. There were a number of problems with this 1] German agricultural productivity whilst about 60% of that of Britain (on an acre to acre basis) was highly dependant on substantial nitrate inputs and imports of natural nitrates were part of the embargo. The entire production of nitrates artificially was diverted to the production of explosives. 2] A lack of copper meant that all that was available was diverted to munitions manufacture and copper based fungicides became unavailable resulting in a serious outbreak of potato blight that drastically depleted protato production in Germany and the occupied lands. 3] A lack of man and horse power available for agriculture - being away at the front. As a result German food production had halved by the time of the armistice ( report of the Allied Commissioners). From 1918 it had been hoped that extra food could be purchased from Russia and the Ukraine but this was limited by the political chaos and fighting in those countries and worse by an inadequacy of German merchant shipping in the Baltic to carry bulk food imports. Some parts of Germany did have food surpluses but the distribution system had collapsed and also those parts with surpluses refused to share it with those in dire need. Even when all embargos were lifted Germany still could not feed herself at first and the Allied Commissioners had to go to major shifts to get food into the country

[centurion]

Given that two Livens Mediums were used in High Wood in September (see http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=173082#entry1681121) this increases the probability that the thrower in the OP was one of these.

[Old Tom]

I don't suppose that anyone considers that war is not frightful. From Agincourt to Dresden, including WW1, huge numbers have been killed. The historian takes a detached view but should never forget those that were involved. End of homily for today.

Old Tom

[David Filsell]

OK Embargo smarty pants - I accept that my terminology was too imprecise for you. But certainly the Navy used the term blockade and it was equally certainly not the benign operation you suggest. It stopped much needed foodstuffs reaching Germany after the Armistice In 1918 there are accounts of Germans in the front line sending food home, short of rations as they were at the front. To continue the Embargo/Blockade at time when that nation was certainly short of food, contributed to much unnecessary misery. It continued far too long. It was an inglorious moment by the victors.

[centurion]

No need to insult An embargo is very different from a blockade as the latter allows one to stop and if necessary sink without warning any ship approaching the blockaded coast. And no it did not stop much needed food stuffs reaching Germany after the armistice which was in winter when there would be none to purchase - assuming that Germany actually had the means to do so (which she didn't). Yes Germany was desperately short of food because her agriculture had collapsed. The troops at the front were able to send food home because Hindenburg had an Army First policy so they got much more than the people at home. Britain actually had to provide shipping to get food into Germany as the infra structure had collapsed. Much of the tale of the Allies deliberately starving the Germans actually originate from a certain political party - need I define which one?

[centurion]

Under the terms of the armistice the Allied and Associated Powers declared that although the embargo would remain Germany would be allowed to import supplies of food "so far as might be considered necessary" In conjunction with Colonel Koeth "Chief of the Imperial Department of War Supplies of Raw Materials" and as early as Nov 13th 1918 the Allied commissioners began to estimate how much that would be if an adult standard of 2,700 calories per day per head minimum was to be maintained. The shortfall over what was available was considerable (over 50% in some parts of the country) Plans were drawn up to acquire the necessary extra food and redistribute more fairly what was already available. Unfortunately, as I have already indicated, such was the chaotic nature of Germany (with rebellions, riots, collapse of infrastructure etc ) at the time that most of these failed and the Allies had to take more direct measures.

The German high command continued to ensure that the Army remained as well fed as possible whilst the agricultural heartlands tended to keep and consume locally what food was produced. It was the large industrial cities that suffered the brunt of the shortages. I have seen reports of imported food rotting in the ports because the means of distribution had failed.

[Fattyowls]

Centurion

Lots to take in here; thank you very very much. On the basis of #11 above would the declaration of unrestricted submarine warfare by Germany be deemed a blockade?

Pete.

[David Filsell]

Pointless to dispute further with,as usual

[scottmarchand]

Why is it pointless David? It seems to me that simple emotionalism has been buried under a weight of reasoned factual argument. War is nasty business, people suffer. The suffering of the Germans was brought upon them by themselves. Do you believe they were blessed with a surfeit of compassion for people in the territories they occupied, let alone their colonies? If they could have embargo'd/blockaded Britain the surely would have, and they made serious effort with unrestricted submarine warfare. The Europeans in this era were very much shades of the same cloth. Note that in the 1919 onward era the Germans were quick to blame the Jews for their travails, and not the British. That ended all so well for everyone didn't it?

I don't always agree with Centurion, but I respect his knowledge and I'll concede that his old academic style of prose does seem to aggravate some types here for reasons that escape me, but his posts are always reasoned, detailed and have a clear and cogent point to them, typically anchored by good research and evidence. Too often many posters who take umbrage with him have no equally reasoned objection, just emotion falling in the 'I feel - therefore I know' type of response. Now, before you flame me, I am not accusing you of anything except perhaps being sore about loosing a pint of argument that undermines a rightfully held (perhaps slightly lopsided )distaste for human suffering as a consequence of war, which I also share.

[David Filsell]

Ok. My very own 'Last Post' lest others be taken by Centurion's exposition of facts which ignore the issue that whatever the other facts of food shortages - that the Embargo/Blockade worsened the situation and was immoral after the Armistice.

“Indeed it is hard to realise that kind hearted folk, who are to be found in every English Government, should have deliberately allowed the starvation of women and children by the blockade to continue for seven months after the signing of the Armistice. This meant widespread suffering to women and children who could in no sense be considered to have any share in the responsibility of the Armistice ....”

“There were, doubtless, political for continuing it, but from a moral and religious point of view surely it was quite indefensible...”

“Protests against the cruelty of the blockade came not only from civilians but even more strongly from the Army of Occupation. The Manchester Guardian of May 17th 1999 reported from Paris that British officers telling of the pitiful story of what they had seen ‘say they did not fight for 5 years in combat in order to watch German children dying of hunger 6 months after the war was over’ while British Tommies on Cologne to the practical and Christian means of sharing their own rations with hungry children.”

A Quaker Adventure The story of Friends Relief Work in Europe during the War and after.”

A Ruth Fry, Nisbet and Co ltd, London 1926.

Not least the piece proves that the term blockade was, as I stated in common use, and that what happened was not regarded as merely embargo by those who witnessed or suffered from it .

One must judge ones sources carefully - but the Quakers were objectors at home, campaigners for compassion, who had to struggle even for the approval to assist starving Germans after the war. Honesty is a watchword of Quakerism. I simply objected to centurion's usual dogmatism in this case and I think justifiably so. He has merely offered a barrage of correct facts whilst missing the obvious. Starvation was real, the Embargo/Blockade was a contributory factor in it and highly immoral once the war had ended.

Stumps pulled. Bat taken home.

[centurion]

Sorry but the words dash and balder come to mind. 1. Germany was allowed to import food from the Armistice onwards, the fact that she made little or no use of this was not Britain's fault. There was no stoppage of food imports from 13th Nov onwards. As I've quoted the Allies specifically stated that food imports were allowed. 2. The Armistice did not end the war and there was a worry that Germany might renege on it, The Allies would have been mad to remove the overall embargo until peace was finalised in case Germany took the opportunity to build up her stock piles. Allowing food imports was a humanitarian gesture. 3. Hunger in Germany was the result of the exhaustion of the country's agricultural productive resources and the chaotic state of affairs that did not allow it to distribute food internally. Getting food to a port in a famine situation is less than half the battle, distributing it is the real problem. With the railways barely functioning, fighting in many major cities, government not functioning in many places this was next to impossible. 4. Germany had no foreign exchange with which to buy food. Their line of credit was through the Swiss banking system and this was withdrawn with the armistice and not renewed until after the peace treaty was signed..

[Ron Clifton]

Centurion, I think you are being a little too pedantic in insisting that the embargo on the transport of goods into Germany was not a blockade. Blockade is a word capable of shades of meaning and the one set out in the various international conventions is only one of them.

After all, is not the restricted-circulation volume of the British Official History entitled "The Blockade of the Central Powers"?

Ron

[David Filsell]

ScotM

That's why it's pointless. The witnesses were obviously all wrong!

[Gareth Davies]

There was no such thing as a blockade.

An embargo is very different from a blockade as the latter allows one to stop and if necessary sink without warning any ship approaching the blockaded coast. And no it did not stop much needed food stuffs reaching Germany after the armistice which was in winter when there would be none to purchase - assuming that Germany actually had the means to do so (which she didn't). Yes Germany was desperately short of food because her agriculture had collapsed. The troops at the front were able to send food home because Hindenburg had an Army First policy so they got much more than the people at home. Britain actually had to provide shipping to get food into Germany as the infra structure had collapsed. Much of the tale of the Allies deliberately starving the Germans actually originate from a certain political party - need I define which one?

Didn't Churchill refer to it as a blockade in his March 1919 speech in the house?

[centurion]

From "The Conduct of the Naval Economic War"

"If a blockade is to conform with the requirement of international law it must be effective and bear with equal severity upon all neutrals; the Allies however were unable to command the Baltic and could not prevent Sweden and Denmark communicating freely with German ports. On the other hand it was impossible from a military point of view to blockade one portion only of the German coast. Such a proceeding moreover would not have given the Allies the results they required. The Central Empires, therefore, were never blockaded in the legal sense of the word and if I should use the term in he course of this work it will be in its ordinary acceptance of "economic encirclement" "