Airborne Flamethrower!!

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Luftwaffe air units and general discussions on the Luftwaffe.
Post Reply
User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

Airborne Flamethrower!!

#1

Post by Andy H » 05 Oct 2003, 20:41

In this months edition of Fly Past (http://www.flypast.com) it recounts the story of the shooting down of a Do17 of 8Staffel/III/KG76 which along with another 18 Do17'S launched a raid against London on September 15th 1940.

The particular palane 'F1+FS' was being flown by Feldwebel Rolf Heitsch, with 3 crew mates (Schmid,Pfeiffer & Sauter). This plane was fitted with a rear facing Infantry Flamethrower in the fuselage.

In the forthcoming melle that developed several Allied pilots noted flames coming from the rear of the plane, many believing that they had given the plane it's final kiss of death so to speak. One pilot from 504Sqn had his Hurricane covered in oil, when the Flamethrower malfuntioned at 16,000ft. When it did work it's flame was only some 100yds long, far to short to be effective against fighters attacking from 400yds (365mtrs).

Can anyone shed any light on this "Secret Weapon"

Andy H

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

#2

Post by Andy H » 07 Oct 2003, 11:33

Anyone, before this falls from the front page so to speak!

Andy H


User avatar
Xavier
Member
Posts: 3259
Joined: 12 Nov 2002, 03:01
Location: South of the Texas Border.. :)

s

#3

Post by Xavier » 07 Oct 2003, 15:43

Andy:

In squadron signals "me110 in action" there is a picture of a plane fitted with the flamethropwer, but says only experimental, it is of a dual tube type, if you can hold a couple days, I will scan it.

regards

Xavier
the link scrounger

User avatar
Xavier
Member
Posts: 3259
Joined: 12 Nov 2002, 03:01
Location: South of the Texas Border.. :)

x

#4

Post by Xavier » 11 Oct 2003, 20:33

From Squadron signals's "Junkers Ju 88 in action pt I "

" a highly unusual modification was carried by this Ju 88A-4 (9K+FB) werk-nr 1050 of II/KG 51 in rumania during 1941, the bomber was field modified with two flame thrower tubes mounted under the rudder. Altough successfully tested, the oil fed flame thrower never reached operational status on the ju88."
Attachments
flamm reduced.jpg
flamm reduced.jpg (117.36 KiB) Viewed 4311 times

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

#5

Post by Andy H » 11 Oct 2003, 23:50

Xavier

What a star, thanks for the pic.

The werk number on the Do17 was 2555 by the way, I'm not sure if thios has ant relavence, but it seems that this Do17 was a forerunner to the Me110 experiment?

Andy H

User avatar
Robert Hurst
Member
Posts: 1192
Joined: 04 Oct 2002, 16:11
Location: Worksop, Notts, UK

#6

Post by Robert Hurst » 20 Mar 2004, 12:06

Hi Andy

The only reference to an airborne flamethrower that I've every come across is in regard to an Henschel Hs 129B be ing experimentally fitted and tested with a GERO flame thrower.

Regards

Bob

User avatar
Sander D
Member
Posts: 1600
Joined: 14 Apr 2003, 16:09
Location: The Netherlands

#7

Post by Sander D » 20 Mar 2004, 17:39

From http://www.luftarchiv.de/ , follow bordausrustung and than have a look on bord waffen II.

Regards

Sander
Attachments
flammewerfer.jpg
flammewerfer.jpg (32.77 KiB) Viewed 3999 times
flammewerfer (1).jpg
flammewerfer (1).jpg (20.88 KiB) Viewed 3999 times

User avatar
ChrisMAg2
Member
Posts: 641
Joined: 04 Aug 2003, 09:26
Location: Hannover, Germany or Manila, Philippines

#8

Post by ChrisMAg2 » 21 Mar 2004, 10:13

Hi Bob,
the difference between "Gero" and those quoted here is their purpose:
The ones on the Do 17, Ju 88 and Me 110 were a defensive armoury against attacking fighters, Gero was intended for ground attack puposes also on different a/c, like Me 109, Fw 190, Ju 87, Hs 129. As you said Gero was only an evaluation-experiment, but already had different variants.
Regards
Christian M. Aguilar

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

#9

Post by Andy H » 23 Mar 2004, 03:54

Thanks to all that have continued to answer this thread.

I'm interested in how a weapon with only a 100yd range could be counted as an effective weapon against a fighter, which needn't get so close to deliver the killer blow

Andy

User avatar
ChrisMAg2
Member
Posts: 641
Joined: 04 Aug 2003, 09:26
Location: Hannover, Germany or Manila, Philippines

#10

Post by ChrisMAg2 » 23 Mar 2004, 07:20

IMO, this weapon was developed in the early war years (IIRC 1940/41). the main offensive fighter armament was a MG upto .50 cal. for those guns the effective range was about 100 - 150 yards. The use of the flame thrower was only effective if a fighter could be caught by suprise. Later the angel or direction of attack would just needed to be slightly modified and the flamethrower would be worthless. And also: this weapon is not literary a flamethrower. The effective parts are (unburned) oil and grease and russ? that blocks the view (and/ or sophocates the engine) of the the attacking fighter.
Regards
Christian M. Aguilar

Edward L. Hsiao
Member
Posts: 2102
Joined: 01 Aug 2003, 09:43
Location: Flagstaff,Arizona

Re: Airborne Flamethrower!!

#11

Post by Edward L. Hsiao » 27 Jun 2019, 07:42

That picture of that Ju 88 A-4 rudder sure had plenty of ship kills. I wonder who flew that German plane. That Ju 88 had flew many missions and I have a hunch that it was field tested with rear flamethrowers against enemy fighters that tried to sneak and attack the German plane. I also noticed three kill stripes on the rudder that means enemy aircraft shot down. Could it be that these three enemy aircraft were shot down by these rear two flamethrowers? Just a thought.

Edward L. Hsiao

User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5821
Joined: 07 Jul 2005, 11:50
Location: Spain

Re: Airborne Flamethrower!!

#12

Post by Ironmachine » 28 Jun 2019, 07:59

Could it be that these three enemy aircraft were shot down by these rear two flamethrowers?
I think not. It would have been extremely difficult to shot down a plane with those flamethrowers. They were probably intended as a kind of "psychological weapon", as it could have been scary for unwarned enemy pilots and they could have let the bomber fly away, but the actual, physical effect of the flamethrowers would have been negligible (as shown by the British trials of their own anti-aircraft flamethrowers).

Post Reply

Return to “Luftwaffe air units and Luftwaffe in general”