Gas and Flamethrowers

[bob lembke]

I can see what is meant by it would be frightening. I think I would prefer to face guns than this.

Kim

Hi, Kim;

Interesting picture. I looked at the AWM site and looked at the two other FW pictures found in a search of their photo archive.

I am not that sure as to what it actually is, however. The German FW troops had at least five different flame oil mixtures for different purposes, but the one usually used for attacks produced a really thick black smoke useful to conceal the attacking troops. Another burned much hotter and produced much less smoke, to provide more surprise, and less of a target for the enemy artillery; there was also a mid-way blend. I have not seen a photo of these hotter oils in use, I think, but I think they did not produce much smoke, not the considerable amount of white smoke in the photo.

It is possible that the trench line in the foreground was the French / British (?) second line, and the "fire event" was taking place in the front line, as the far-right smoke stream seems oriented along the length of the trench, a few FW teams may be trying to "roll up" the first line.

There was a fourth flame oil mix which was cheaper but caused some maintenence problems, and was used for training. I do not know the color of its smoke. Most photos that seem to show flame attacks are actually photos of the realistic training exercises the Germans conducted; a lot safer for photographers and their cameras. Possibly this is a picture of a training exercise with the training flame oil. The trenches in the foreground seem excessively neat and unshelled to me. However, the training photos that I have seen also all showed a lot of thick, black smoke.

Or I could be all wet. The above was written not while looking at the picture, but from my memory of having seen it recently. But the warning is useful; a great deal of FW-related photos have misleading captions.

Bob Lembke

[Ozzie]

Title of photo is

Title: Beau Sejour, France. The German Army trench system north of the town with a flame thrower attack in progress. (Donor Imperial War Museum Q45350)

Maker: Deutsche Reichsarchiv

[Robert Dunlop]

I have seen Allied verbage aimed at telling their troops not to panic, just to bend down and let the flame and smoke to blow over you, that you would be safe. Nonsense! Anyone want to try it?

Bob, I think you are right. This type of response was not uncommon. It is somewhat akin to Ludendorff's comment about not being afraid of tanks. For isolated tank attacks, yes. For the massed tank attacks, such as the first day of Cambrai, Amiens and le Hamel, I doubt many German soldiers would have taken heart from Ludendorff's view.

Robert

[Robert Dunlop]

Kim, an interesting photo. I agree with Bob. It does not look a German flammenwerfer attack. The trench systems look like a training ground. The smoke would be consistent with a demonstration of a phosphorus smoke screen. Which is not to detract from your point. Here is a photograph illustrating the colour of the smoke.

Robert

[Robert Dunlop]

Kim, just to illustrate your point further, a really nasty looking example of French flamethrower teams in action. This photograph is purported to be an attack in Flanders. French flamethrower teams did support the American 1st Division in their attack on Cantigny in 1918.

Robert

[Ozzie]

I'll take the guns anyday!!

The psychological effect would be devastating. Man can think he is immune to bullets or at worst a bullet is a flesh wound, but fire and the damage it causes, would make the bravest quiver.

I have read accounts of men burnt, especially the facial burnt, and they are some of the most saddest cases.

Regards

Kim

[Chris Boonzaier]

Here is something rare, to warm Bobs heart ;-)

[Ozzie]

Can you transcribe into English, please?

Ta

Kim

[truthergw]

Sorry, a buddy was at the door and I had to run.

................................

Bob Lembke

Hi Bob, Thanks very much for the detailed reply. I think I'll take a rain check on the offer to experiment. I think everyone has a mortal dread of burning. The psychological effect of an advancing wall of flame must have been overwhelming. I've seen demonstrations of post WW2 flamethrowers and that scared the **** out of me just watching. I asked about means of defence as who would know better than the operator how to defend against him. Run like hell, preferably the day before, seems to be the optimum response.

[gporta]

In previous posts, it is often mentioned that one of the chief factors in the effectiveness of Flamethrowers as a weapon lies in its psycological effect (i.e. the primal fear of being burned)... However, since Flamethrowers had been in use since 1916, and were used by both sides in conflict, I wonder... Was an strategy/tactic of defense against Flamethrowers ever devised or put in practice? or the common practice was "run away like H***"?

From the bird's eye point of view, a Flamethrower attack could have weak points, i.e. it could be counterattacked by accurate artillery fire and indeed, enemy planes.

As usual, just curiouser and curiouser

Gloria

[bob lembke]

Kim, an interesting photo. I agree with Bob. It does not look a German flammenwerfer attack. The trench systems look like a training ground. The smoke would be consistent with a demonstration of a phosphorus smoke screen. Which is not to detract from your point. Here is a photograph illustrating the colour of the smoke.

Robert

Robert;

The trench system is too perfectly manecured, with no shell craters at all. Also, note that if this is a German FW attack and the trench system is German, the attack is on the Germans' own first line of trenches. Note that there seems to be only two men in sight, in the second line, and they are watching whatever is happening with a lot of head and shoulder exposed. Not a combat situation.

The two French FW pictures show a dark smoke, but I assure you that the German smoke, at least for the normal combat mix, based on dozens of photos that I possess or have seen, was fuller and darker. (Each mix had a color code, and was referred to as "red oil", etc.) The French used a naphta-based fuel that, I believe, burned hotter and cleaner than the standard German combat mix.

I had not thought of white phosphorus, which is surprising, as I have actually been shelled with the nasty stuff. I was on the rifle range at Ft. Devins, MA, and we came under WP mortar fire. Some dumb fellow cadets were laying WP fire down on us. We had radar to make sure that we did not shoot down airliners gliding into Boston's airport, but I guess it was not calibrated to see if there were men on the rifle range. The fire was ceased before anyone got toasted. In the picture, I would guess that the right cloud is a WP hit a minute or two before, the one on the right one say 30 or 60 seconds before. Maybe longer times.

Bob Lembke

[bob lembke]

Kim, just to illustrate your point further, a really nasty looking example of French flamethrower teams in action. This photograph is purported to be an attack in Flanders. French flamethrower teams did support the American 1st Division in their attack on Cantigny in 1918.

Robert

This is a good example of the possible impact of a FW attack. Keep in mind that this pic only seems to show the effect of four (I think) FW, and with the thinner French fuel. Can you imagine, 30, 60, or more? You can imagine both the shock, and the cover. Not conducive to carefully sniping off the operator, as the literature suggests.

I have seen this photo, and the version that I saw had been heavily retouched. Perhaps only a poor negative, possibly low contrast. Again, so few FW captions seem to be completely Kosher. I am not a Flanders expert, but was it populated with thick coniferous woods? Looks like the Vosges to me.

The French were extremely secretive about their FW effort, which was about half the size of the German effort, based on establishment size. I have bought a secret French Army FW document of 70 pages on WW I FW, and some day I will translate it, and perhaps privately publish it in a facing pages edition, with a facsimile of the original on one side and the English translation on the other. (The guy who sold it to me has an operational-quality FW, legally, I stress; he is foreign professional military, and expects the cooperation of his country's air force in actually trying it out. A fellow officer fired one, and reported a surprising amount of recoil.)

Any one with any info on the French effort? I don't even know the first name of the CO of their effort, a Capitaine Schilt of the Paris Fire Department.

The American Army documents controlling the attack on Cantigny illustrate their secrecy. All French units, including tanks, were specifically listed, but the French FW unit only stated "section of flame throwers".

Bob Lembke

[bob lembke]

Here is something rare, to warm Bobs heart ;-)

Chris;

Many, many thanks. He is not in my roster of about 1200 Flamm=Pioniere. He will be added. These is useful info on this document, aside from his name and company. It will be popped into the draft of my emerging book, and I will PM it to Chris. (Sorry about the furtive stuff, quite not my style, but there are peculiar factors at work here.) When I am properly published I plan to make a lot of info accessible, such as my roster of flame troops. However, if anyone has a name I will be happy to do a look-up, and provide whatever additional info I have on the particular soldier.

Bob Lembke

[Robert Dunlop]

I am not a Flanders expert, but was it populated with thick coniferous woods? Looks like the Vosges to me.

Bob, that was my thought too. Hence 'purported'.

Robert

[PhilB]

A few more questions, Bob, if you`d be so kind!

What was optimum/effective range? You mention multiple FW - was this the FW equivalent of area bombing or would individuals/groups be targeted? Could the attackers move quickly onto the roasted ground or was it untenable for a time? Was it also seen as a defensive weapon for breaking up attacking infantry lines? Could it double as a smoke screen generator? Phil B

[Robert Dunlop]

From the bird's eye point of view, a Flamethrower attack could have weak points, i.e. it could be counterattacked by accurate artillery fire and indeed, enemy planes.

Gloria, Bob has pointed to the potential vulnerability of flammenwerfer teams, and their potential for success. Essentially, the factors for success or failure are little different from those pertaining to any infantry-based attack. Flammenwerfer are basically short-distance close combat weapons. Flammenwerfer cannot provide the same distance of suppressing/killing fire as rifles, machine guns and artillery for example. Provided you can get close enough, either through stealth and or suppressing fire from other quarters eg artillery barrage, then you can engage the enemy. The same factors pertain to any close combat situation, for example infantry attacking their counterparts in trenches. The suppressing fire (or smoke screen or breadth of attack) must prevent enfilade fire from reaching the flammenwerfer teams (ie prevent them from being shot down from the side rather than from in front) and must suppress the enemy's artillery through counter-battery fire while the teams are crossing no-mans land. Once in a close combat situation, artillery was very unlikely to be used as it would hit infantry from their own side as well as the enemy.

Given that the flammenwerfer teams were masters of their own destinies, then they could ensure that all the factors for success were covered before the attack began. Hard to defend against this, just as it was hard to defend against any well-coordinated combined arms attack without flammenwerfer.

Robert

[gporta]

(...) Given that the flammenwerfer teams were masters of their own destinies, then they could ensure that all the factors for success were covered before the attack began. Hard to defend against this, just as it was hard to defend against any well-coordinated combined arms attack without flammenwerfer.

Robert,

I should gather from this that any attack (whether very limited in scope or not) which was properly planned, and properly carried out would meet with success? Sounds like a well planned FW attack would be fine to achieve an effective breakthrough.

(then I would ponder about the many attacks -of any kind- of WW1 which failed, whether because of not being well-planned or not properly carried out... but then this would lead to an endless debate and to wander off-topic)

Thank you very much for the clarification. All this is fascinating and worth a book (hinting Bob to write it )

Gloria

[Robert Dunlop]

I should gather from this that any attack (whether very limited in scope or not) which was properly planned, and properly carried out would meet with success? Sounds like a well planned FW attack would be fine to achieve an effective breakthrough.

Gloria, you could never guarantee success but yes, there were features of successful attacks that were often missing in attacks that failed. You have to be slightly careful with the definition of 'success' and 'breakthrough'. FW attacks might be successful against specific well-circumscribed targets, for example a section of trench that was too close. This would be like an infantry raid. They could also be used to facilitate a break-in, attacking the front line or likely strongpoints that would hold-up the attack. To achieve a breakthrough, you have to penetrate all the way through several trench systems that are several miles wide, in total. It is extremely unlikely that any one unit or type of weapons system could have achieved this. It needed combined arms forces, with waves of attackers, including infantry, machine guns and other supporting weapons, both close- (eg grenadiers) and medium-quarters (eg mortars), as well as continued assistance from artillery.

Robert

[bob lembke]

A few more questions, Bob, if you`d be so kind!

What was optimum/effective range? You mention multiple FW - was this the FW equivalent of area bombing or would individuals/groups be targeted? Could the attackers move quickly onto the roasted ground or was it untenable for a time? Was it also seen as a defensive weapon for breaking up attacking infantry lines? Could it double as a smoke screen generator? Phil B

Hi. Phil;

The FW carrier had a pouch on his belt with a selection of nozzles that, when replaced, adjusted the range and rate of flow, plus a wrench for changing them. With the right nozzle, the light Wex probably would project about 90-100 feet. The larger Gros units probably projected 110-120 feet, and sometimes multiple oil and nitrogen tanks were ganged up on a single hose and nozzle for greater duration. The giant British FW had a greater range, but burned a astonishing amount of fuel, 90% of which burned in the air on the way to the target.

It was hard to target individuals for the same reason that the defenders usually could not shoot the operator; you had a lot of smoke and flame in your face. Fortunately, it was going the other way. The streams were laid down on pre-planned sectors. Once the light FW men got upon the enemy, if any, they could fire a burst at an individual or weapon. Multiple bursts could be fired for about 90 seconds, at which time the ignitor should be replaced. The carrier usually carried three extra, and the set-up allowed the ingnitor to be immediately exchanged in seconds, safely, although the ignitor's metal case was at hundreds of degrees temperature after use.

The flame stream arched up and should not touch the ground much for much of the distance to the enemy. The FW men were to plunge quickly into the burned area. While other countries, like the Austrians, wore clumsy protective gear, I never heard of Germans doing so. This enterprise required daring, good equipment, and skill, not extensive precautions and hesitancy. This is probably why Foulkes' technicians, not storm troopers by nature, were not successful with man-carried FW, and took to burrowing toward the enemy with impossible equipment.

The Highest Army Command directive, mentioned previously, prohibited all but the occasional use on the defensive. Due to the desperate situation, Reddemann ordered his men into defensive actions on the Somme. If you can believe it, they strapped blocks of TNT to their fuel tanks, fought defensively with streams of fire, ran out of oil, blew up the equipment, and then were overrun and, I have evidence, were often killed out of hand by the enraged attacking forces. It was not the service for the faint of heart. My father loved it, told me it was the best time of his life, but I do not think that he ever fought defensively, except possibly the last time he fought, when his whole troop was blinded by a German gas shell in no-man's-land.

Major Dr. Reddemann regretted, to the end of his life, having to order his men to fight defensively on the Somme.

Yes, the device was, when used with the standard flame oil, a great producer of screening smoke and flame; this was key to its effectiveness. The stream was sometimes pulsed high into the air in a pre-arrained fashion to signal to lift the barrage or that the objective had been taken.

Bob Lembke

[bob lembke]

Gloria, Bob has pointed to the potential vulnerability of flammenwerfer teams, and their potential for success. Essentially, the factors for success or failure are little different from those pertaining to any infantry-based attack. Flammenwerfer are basically short-distance close combat weapons. Flammenwerfer cannot provide the same distance of suppressing/killing fire as rifles, machine guns and artillery for example. Provided you can get close enough, either through stealth and or suppressing fire from other quarters eg artillery barrage, then you can engage the enemy. The same factors pertain to any close combat situation, for example infantry attacking their counterparts in trenches. The suppressing fire (or smoke screen or breadth of attack) must prevent enfilade fire from reaching the flammenwerfer teams (ie prevent them from being shot down from the side rather than from in front) and must suppress the enemy's artillery through counter-battery fire while the teams are crossing no-mans land. Once in a close combat situation, artillery was very unlikely to be used as it would hit infantry from their own side as well as the enemy.

Given that the flammenwerfer teams were masters of their own destinies, then they could ensure that all the factors for success were covered before the attack began. Hard to defend against this, just as it was hard to defend against any well-coordinated combined arms attack without flammenwerfer.

Robert

Robert is on 100% here.

Bob

[bob lembke]

Robert,

I should gather from this that any attack (whether very limited in scope or not) which was properly planned, and properly carried out would meet with success? Sounds like a well planned FW attack would be fine to achieve an effective breakthrough.

(then I would ponder about the many attacks -of any kind- of WW1 which failed, whether because of not being well-planned or not properly carried out... but then this would lead to an endless debate and to wander off-topic)

Thank you very much for the clarification. All this is fascinating and worth a book (hinting Bob to write it )

Gloria

Gloria;

Careful planning, good and well-trained men, good equipment, and probably above all generally only using the weapon in carefully selected situations (remember the flame CO's right to veto the attack plan, even if he was a NCO) raised the probability of success; Reddemann, a scientist, who edited two German scientific journals thruough the war, I believe, evaluated every attack for success or failure for the OHL. He rated 82% of his attacks "successful". I do not have his criteria, unfortunately. But one never knows what might happen on the battlefield. Thune, an important FW CO, was decorated for pulling victory from the teeth of defeat in a Verdun attack; shortly before the assault, German 42 cm shorts (probably weighing over 2500 lbs!) fell on the assault troops in their assembly position, and they were literally paralyzed with shock. He crawled back to rally the men, but the only men he could get to attack were his few brave FW men and a small number of shock troops from the Storm Battalion Rohr. When the barrage lifted, the infantry was still frozen. Thune decided to attack with a few hundred men against the thousands of French defenders, rather than waste a good barrage. But when they did, and the frozen infantry saw the storm troops attack against odds of over 10 to 1, saw the streams of smoke and fire enter the enemy trenches, (Thune's company used 24 FW) they finally rallied and rushed forward to help.

The result? The assault took 2300 POWs, 24 MGs, and three guns, plus lots of front terrain. How many Flamm=Pioniere fell? Two. This attack is well documented from multiple sources. I believe Thune got a EK I; he did not get the PlM, I have ascertained. He earned his medal.

This also illustrates the effect that the FW often had on the morale of the attacking troops, another benefit..

The book is mostly written.

Bob Lembke

[manchester terrier]

What were the different oil mixes used and how did these get round the British problem of the fuel burning up in the air before reaching the target? I've read that flame warfare only became useful to the Brits and Yanks with the development of napalm for flame throwers in WW2.

I take it that the nitrogen propellent bottle had a regulator to reduce it from bottle pressure to equipment working pressure. What was the working pressure?

[gporta]

Robert & Bob,

Thank you very much for your further and very informative responses.

(and I suppose Bob willlet us know when the book is finished and comes out of the print )

Gloria

[bob lembke]

What were the different oil mixes used and how did these get round the British problem of the fuel burning up in the air before reaching the target? I've read that flame warfare only became useful to the Brits and Yanks with the development of napalm for flame throwers in WW2.

I take it that the nitrogen propellent bottle had a regulator to reduce it from bottle pressure to equipment working pressure. What was the working pressure?

The Germans had at least five mixes; one only for training, as it fouled the device. I do not know the exact mixes. I have discussed this with my e-friend who has a German WW II FW (legally, ye minders of the Internet!), and it seems that the thicker the better, at least as far as safety went. The French used a mix based on naphta. I don't know what the Brits used, but they sometimes used compressed air and even oxygen as a propellant, in comparison with the German nitrogen, which was inert and might even suppress a fire. This, especially the oxygen, might even explode a device spontaneously, which once happened in front of Foulkes at a demo. (He put the burning inventor out, but was careful to use the burning chap's greatcoat, declining to use his own.)

The British approach of using a giant FW, hose thru enormous amounts of fuel, reach out a great distance, and sometimes use compressed air, an accelerant, obviously led to burning up the bulk of the fuel before it reached the target. The Germans used thick oil, attempted reasonable distances (using tactics to get within range), and used inert nitrogen as a propellant, minimizing the "air burn" and using modest amounts of scarce oil. Napalm is, I believe, gasoline thickened with chemicals; the German mixes were thicker mixes of oils. Same end effect, I think.

I have seen lots of diagrams of German FW, read a lot, and have seen no suggestion or mention of a regulator. (I am a mechanical engineer and a former SCUBA diver.) Most German FW had a working pressure, initially, of 23 athmospheres (338 psi). The entire device up to the release valve, including the propellant and oil tanks, were at this static pressure, if you discount the minor factor of dynamic pressure. This moderate pressure simplified the design and provided safety in several ways, while the necessarily larger propellant tank was still reasonably small. Such a system would necessarily decrease the propellant pressure as discharge continued; I do not know the end pressure.

Bob Lembke

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

G'day, Bill;

I am guessing that you are an Aussie.

Bob

G'day mate

Correct guess.

Thanks for all the additional information mate. It is absolutely fascinating - the information has enabled me to gain an insight into this part of the German weaponry. So thanks for generously sharing your knowledge. It is a real tonic.

I have reason to think that my father was engaged in that fun mining warfare activity there. Do you know of a particular source of info on mining warfare at ANZAC?

Unfortunatly, I know next to nothing about mining activity. That was one of thos infantry jobs. My field of study is the light horse and as such have not had a need to come into contact with this activity.

Cheers mate

Bill