Flamethrowers in ACW

plenka

Banned
I am wondering are flamethrowers possible in the scope of American Civil War. Could they be made, and if they could, how would they be used? Would they be useful in the sieges such as Vicksburg and Petersburg?

Are they even technically feasible for the 1860ies US?
 
I am wondering are flamethrowers possible in the scope of American Civil War. Could they be made, and if they could, how would they be used? Would they be useful in the sieges such as Vicksburg and Petersburg?

Are they even technically feasible for the 1860ies US?
Well,maybe in the sense of Medival Byzantine technology? I don't know how feasable mid 19th century technology and chemical expertise was for a theoretical developement of primitive flamethrowers but I suspect that any inovation by engeneers would be largely blocked by traditional Napoleonic war tactic schooled generals.
 
Last edited:
Flamethrowers?

Well, as thei Byzantion said, Byzantine technology adapted to the XIX century is possible, but... Might be impractical.
 
IIRC, many developments were scooted through by the South to offset the North's industrial advantages. The North's logistics folk refused a lot of potentially good stuff for the extra complexity it would cause-- And the lead time !!

The South held to a similar logic when they could...

So, you often had locally-raised regiments etc equipped privately, while the main armies were mostly standardised...

IMHO, submarines, iron-clads, armoured trains etc were usually a response to local problems. As a recent thread established, engine tech was not quite up to the power/weight required for 'land-ships'. Had ACW begun but a decade or so later, though...
 
The Byzantine flame technology was bulky and required a ship. Once you have naval cannon which well outranges the Greek Fire, it loses utility. The technology of 1860 will not allow man portable flame throwers - you need the right fuel, and tanks you can pressurize that won't burst and are light enough to carry. Something that needs a wagon simply won't work, no flamethrower tanks here.
 
On a related note, how about some sort of molotov cocktail? Would they be feasible, more or less useful than grenades?
 
About the only way to do it was rocketry, with 'Congreves' per 'The Rockets' Red Glare'...

Snag was the tech was heavy and clumsy. As a shore-bombardment system, it complemented the RN's Bomb ketches, famous from a Hornblower tale.

IIRC, the British Army did make use of such in Afghanistan etc as lugging rockets up the Himalayan foothills on mule-back was *much* easier than dragging the components of a pack-howitzer or similar. Then there were the non-trivial problems of assembly, positioning and aiming a pack-howitzer on mountainous terrain, especially under fire...

Sadly, as Sloreck says, 'No flame-thrower tanks here'. First of those was a steam-powered US design, arrived on Western Front just too late...
 
With 1860s technology a flamethrower would definitely be feasible since it's just a pump or high pressure vessel. But with 1860s technology you couldn't pay me enough money to stand near that thing while it was operating. It would be big-ish, unreliable, and probably incredibly dangerous not to mention fairly useless on the battlefield.
 
The Byzantine flame technology was bulky and required a ship. Once you have naval cannon which well outranges the Greek Fire, it loses utility. The technology of 1860 will not allow man portable flame throwers - you need the right fuel, and tanks you can pressurize that won't burst and are light enough to carry. Something that needs a wagon simply won't work, no flamethrower tanks here.
Molotov cocktails were apparently quite effective at forcing tank crews to bail out due to the heat.
Apply that same principle to ironclad combat, with an admiral who gets a flash of inspiration while reading about Greek fire and is frustrated at cannonballs bouncing off armour without effect...
 
With 1860s technology a flamethrower would definitely be feasible since it's just a pump or high pressure vessel. But with 1860s technology you couldn't pay me enough money to stand near that thing while it was operating. It would be big-ish, unreliable, and probably incredibly dangerous not to mention fairly useless on the battlefield.

Why not use it as a bunker of sorts? Lure the Union into the trenches, then set them on fire. It wouldn't be the craziest idea from the war. *cough*Cold Harbor*cough*
 
Um, given the Merrimack & Monitor famously beat upon each other until the light failed and a draw ensued, I don't think flame-bombs would make much of a difference.

But, given the results when any iron-clad tackled a *wooden* warship on river or coast, you didn't need flame-bombs...

{ Hasty re-Google for some stuff I noticed last night...}

Paixhans developed a delaying mechanism which, for the first time, allowed shells to be fired safely in high-powered flat-trajectory guns. The effect of explosive shells hitting wooden hulls and setting them aflame was devastating, and was demonstrated in trials against the two-decker Pacificateur in 1824.

The shells which produced those very extensive ravages upon the Pacificator hulk in the experiments made at Brest, in 1821 and 1824, upon the evidences of which the French naval shell system was founded, were loaded shells, having fuzes attached, which, ignited by the explosion of the discharge in the gun, continued to burn for a time somewhat greater than that of the estimated flight, and then exploded; thus producing the maximum effect which any shell is capable of producing on a ship.

— A treatise on naval gunnery by Sir Howard Douglas.[4]

Dahlgren guns aka 'soda bottles' were better made than Paixhan's and, remarkably, never exploded in service...
==
A modern version of the incendiary shell was developed in 1857 by the British and was known as Martin's shell after its inventor. The shell was filled with molten iron and was intended to break up on impact with an enemy ship, splashing molten iron on the target. It was used by the Royal Navy between 1860 and 1869, replacing Heated shot as an anti-ship, incendiary projectile.[32]
==
 
Molotov cocktails do work, but how would you use them. They are good if you have nothing else against armored vehicles or trucks (none here) where you are in a n environment where you can get close - such as urban warfare (not happening here). If you get close enough to another ship to throw Molotov cocktails, why? Except around Petersburg you did not have much trench warfare, so... Bottles full of fuel are a nuisance to lug around over distances, and dangerous and have no role in the sorts of battles of the ACW. Also, in 1860 the supply of kerosene or gasoline is very limited.

No way for flame weapons to be practical in the ACW. Could you make a few probably, but who would use them and where.
 
Top