Airborne Flamethrower!!
Airborne Flamethrower!!
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
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
s
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
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
x
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."
" 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 (117.36 KiB) Viewed 4311 times
- Robert Hurst
- Member
- Posts: 1192
- Joined: 04 Oct 2002, 16:11
- Location: Worksop, Notts, UK
From http://www.luftarchiv.de/ , follow bordausrustung and than have a look on bord waffen II.
Regards
Sander
Regards
Sander
- Attachments
-
- flammewerfer.jpg (32.77 KiB) Viewed 3999 times
-
- flammewerfer (1).jpg (20.88 KiB) Viewed 3999 times
- ChrisMAg2
- Member
- Posts: 641
- Joined: 04 Aug 2003, 09:26
- Location: Hannover, Germany or Manila, Philippines
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
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
- ChrisMAg2
- Member
- Posts: 641
- Joined: 04 Aug 2003, 09:26
- Location: Hannover, Germany or Manila, Philippines
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
Regards
Christian M. Aguilar
-
- Member
- Posts: 2102
- Joined: 01 Aug 2003, 09:43
- Location: Flagstaff,Arizona
Re: Airborne Flamethrower!!
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
Edward L. Hsiao
- Ironmachine
- Member
- Posts: 5821
- Joined: 07 Jul 2005, 11:50
- Location: Spain
Re: Airborne Flamethrower!!
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).Could it be that these three enemy aircraft were shot down by these rear two flamethrowers?