Why'd the Navy have flamethrowers?

Don't know about WWII, but in 'Nam, the Brown Water Navy had riverine monitors that had flame throwers mounted in turrets.

Reid

telsono

Tracy;

I wonder if that is the same person who would later come up with the ideal for the Ontos.

Wasn't the Ontos primarily a Marine weapon system?

Mike T.

No, it was developed for the Army to give airborne units anti-tank capability. It was one of several designs that competed for the contract. The Army chose the M56 Scorpion (aka SPAT for Self-propelled anti-tank) for their airborne anti-tank weapon. My understanding is that the SPAT faired better after being dropped from a C-130 than the Ontos.

Nine out of ten times, when the Army goes to develop a piece of equipment, the Marines are invited to the party and normally give their say into the development. The Army didn't want the Ontos, but the Marines did. The Marines were not as concerned with the airborne capabilites as the Army was and the Ontos met their criteria better than the M56. The reason why the Army includes the Marines in development is to get a bigger order to the manufacturer and reduce overall cost. It's economy of scale.

Every once in a while, the Marines want/need a piece of equipment that the Army doesn't have a need/requirement for. The Army isn't going to spend their R&D money on developing a weapon for the Marines, so it falls on their parent organization, the Department of the Navy, to develop it for them. That's probably why that flamethrower has a Mark vs. an M designation.

A flamethrower's primary function is not to burn the enemy. It is to consume the oxygen in the bunkers, caves, pillboxes and force the inhabitants out so they can be machine gunned down when they exit.

It is safer for a tank to roll up to a bunker or pillbox and aim the flamethrower at the openings and light them up than getting a manpacked flame thrower up to the opening. Of course, when getting to caves and such in areas inaccessible to a tank, a man has to do it.

There are lots of fallacies regarding the Geneva Convention. Setting enemy combatants on fire wasn't a factor until Protocol III. Remember, we fire bombed Japan, and the British fire bombed the Germans. Those were against the civilian population of strategically valuable cities.

Tracy;

I wonder if that is the same person who would later come up with the ideal for the Ontos.

Wasn't the Ontos primarily a Marine weapon system?

Mike T.

Maybe for the same reason they had Sextuple bazooka launchers?

I have a hard time believing they'd want a flame thrower on a wooden boat, but you never know.

Well, technically speaking,  isn't everything in the Marines Navy, so to speak. Department of the Navy,Marine Corps...

But going a step further down the OPM path, is it possible that any equipment sold to the Navy/Marine Corps at that time, that was developed lets say originally for the Army, could be given a new Navy Mk. nomenclature?  Especially considering the inter-service rivalry was far more rampant (Joint Forces was decades away) in that era. I do recall at times going thru manual for radios during my time as a Commo Sgt and seeing a separate section for Marine Corps usage, including some different nomenclatures, of those particular items. 

bondoman

Do Marines call in inside of a tank turret the overhead?

"The color of the box it came in"... I like that.

The overhead? Nope, not to my knowledge.

oddmanrush

just one of those silly military things I guess...

 

I think you probably nailed it, Jon...

bbrowniii

 

 

Jon

That does make sense. You seem to be following the same logic trail that Agent G walked down. But then, wouldn't every piece of equipment the Marines used technically be Navy. So, when I read that Marine tanks were armed with Navy flamethrowers, should it have identified them as Navy tanks?

Like I told G, I am definately overthinking this, but I just find it curious. I wonder what the Navy did with the flamethrowers that it had.

EDIT: Found this interesting article on mechanized flame-thrower development. Apparently they were mounted on LVT-4s as well.

http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/chemsincmbt/ch15.htm

I see what you're saying...in which case I don't really have an answer. From what I've read, they were interested in flamethrowers specifically to mount on landing craft and then on tanks...which they did. But I don't know why the throwers were designated Navy and not the tanks, rifles, and planes used by the Marines....just one of those silly military things I guess...

bbrowniii

 

bondoman:

 

I'm not really too knowledgeable about CW, but my understanding is that flamethrowers fall in the category of chemical weapons and therefore are either in violation of Geneva Convention regulations or so tightly controlled that their development and use was generally secret. Both the Navy and Army had Chemical Weapons Sections that developed this stuff.

I suppose it's a matter of context, but it's a pretty horrible weapon, not something that war planners would be prone to deploy and arm every squad with.

 

 

I'm not sure about that either, Bondo. However, by this point in the war (1945), flamethrowers had been in pretty wide usage by both the Army and the Marine Corps in both Europe and the Pacific.

oddmanrush

Hi Boyd, good question. If I'm not mistaken, the Office of Production Management officials would meet with manufacturers in order to acquire new weapons and contracts. Again, if I'm not mistaken, the officials included representatives from the Army, the Secretary of War, and the Secretary of the Navy. They would be responsible for securing the production and supply of arms and equipment for the nation. 

So, if I interpret that correctly, that would make those particular flamethrowers, acquired by the Navy, used by the Marines, never the less, a Navy piece of equipment. 

HERE is an article about the Office of Production Management.

Hope that helps a bit.

Jon

That does make sense. You seem to be following the same logic trail that Agent G walked down. But then, wouldn't every piece of equipment the Marines used technically be Navy. So, when I read that Marine tanks were armed with Navy flamethrowers, should it have identified them as Navy tanks?

Like I told G, I am definately overthinking this, but I just find it curious. I wonder what the Navy did with the flamethrowers that it had.

EDIT: Found this interesting article on mechanized flame-thrower development. Apparently they were mounted on LVT-4s as well.

http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/chemsincmbt/ch15.htm

smeagol the vile

Uh... maybe because Marines are not exclusively ship based combatants.  There used to take and capture land from amphibious assault.  It only makes sense that the navy would give them the tools they needed to do their job

Oi...

p38jl

seems... IIRC... somewhere.. they also used them on smaller ships to fight Japaneese small barges, sampans, etc that were hard to sink/destroy as they were wooden? so they set em on fire..

Ahh, back to the wooden ships thing. There is some logic to that.

bondoman

I'm not really too knowledgeable about CW, but my understanding is that flamethrowers fall in the category of chemical weapons and therefore are either in violation of Geneva Convention regulations or so tightly controlled that their development and use was generally secret. Both the Navy and Army had Chemical Weapons Sections that developed this stuff.

I suppose it's a matter of context, but it's a pretty horrible weapon, not something that war planners would be prone to deploy and arm every squad with.

I'm not sure about that either, Bondo. However, by this point in the war (1945), flamethrowers had been in pretty wide usage by both the Army and the Marine Corps in both Europe and the Pacific.

Pawel

Boyd, how about WOODEN ships? Don't they burn nicely? For fighting lighter craft, a heavy, turret mounted flamethrower - would really be something, wouldn't it?

Have a nice day everybody

Paweł

Aww, yeah... that'd be pretty cool, eh... torch those suckers.

smeagol the vile

Uh... maybe because Marines are not exclusively ship based combatants.  There used to take and capture land from amphibious assault.  It only makes sense that the navy would give them the tools they needed to do their job

I think his question was why the flamethrower was designated a Navy MK1, and not Marine Corp. 

Uh... maybe because Marines are not exclusively ship based combatants.  There used to take and capture land from amphibious assault.  It only makes sense that the navy would give them the tools they needed to do their job

Hi Boyd, good question. If I'm not mistaken, the Office of Production Management officials would meet with manufacturers in order to acquire new weapons and contracts. Again, if I'm not mistaken, the officials included representatives from the Army, the Secretary of War, and the Secretary of the Navy. They would be responsible for securing the production and supply of arms and equipment for the nation. 

So, if I interpret that correctly, that would make those particular flamethrowers, acquired by the Navy, used by the Marines, never the less, a Navy piece of equipment. 

HERE is an article about the Office of Production Management.

Hope that helps a bit.

seems... IIRC... somewhere.. they also used them on smaller ships to fight Japaneese small barges, sampans, etc that were hard to sink/destroy as they were wooden? so they set em on fire..

I'm not really too knowledgeable about CW, but my understanding is that flamethrowers fall in the category of chemical weapons and therefore are either in violation of Geneva Convention regulations or so tightly controlled that their development and use was generally secret. Both the Navy and Army had Chemical Weapons Sections that developed this stuff.

I suppose it's a matter of context, but it's a pretty horrible weapon, not something that war planners would be prone to deploy and arm every squad with.

Boyd, how about WOODEN ships? Don't they burn nicely? For fighting lighter craft, a heavy, turret mounted flamethrower - would really be something, wouldn't it?

Have a nice day everybody

Paweł

agentg

Because you shouldn't have to walk far to set someone on fire.

Well, yeah, there is that....

agentg

I believe that the flame throwers were developed and serialized by the Navy, which had the Marines firmly under their control back then. R&D in the Corps was strictly at the local level, and HQMC was then involved to sell the result to the Navy.

That makes a lot of sense, G. Except... (you expected that, right??) would that then have made all of the Corps gear really Navy gear? Soooo, then, not only were they Navy flamethrowers, but they were Navy tanks, too?

Probably overthinking this a bit, eh?

Damn that curiousity thing!

DoogsATX

Because who doesn't want flamethrowers?

Ain't that the truth!

40.mm

When a Jarheads zippo ran outta fluid trere was always a flamethrower around to light his smokes !

I just figured all those sailors enjoyed roasted hot dogs and s'mores on a weekly basis...

smeagol the vile

Because the Japanese and most of the people we ended up fighting in asia liked hiding in trees/brush/tunnel systems/caves/hidden bunkers?  All things that can be burnt out easily.  Also if you put it on a tank thats alot safer then putting it on a person's back

Thank you for assuming I'm an idiot, Smeagol. Gee, my 21 years in the Corps and I never learned that. Weird...

OK, let me do this Barney-style for ya: My question wasn't "Why were flamethrowers valuable in the Pacific?", nor was it "Why'd they mount them on tanks?"

I simply found it surprising that the flamethrowers that the Marines used came from the Navy, which, correct me if I'm wrong, Smeag, spent most of its time on SHIPS. Not exactly needing to deal with people hiding in "trees/brush/tunnel systems/caves/hidden in bunkers" all that often.

When a Jarheads zippo ran outta fluid trere was always a flamethrower around to light his smokes !

                                                                       The Original (permian high school ) Outcast !

                                                        End Transmission--Semper Fi

Because the Japanese and most of the people we ended up fighting in asia liked hiding in trees/brush/tunnel systems/caves/hidden bunkers?  All things that can be burnt out easily.  Also if you put it on a tank thats alot safer then putting it on a person's back

Because who doesn't want flamethrowers?