"He-111/Ju-88 flamethrower" Topic

While researching for my Flamethrower thread I came upon this crazy idea for a defensive weapon from the Germans LOL.

"Already in late 1939, Lieutenant Steel, Technical officer made when KG 51, the proposal to fend off attacking fighters by the tail of the bomber and reconnaissance built flamethrower. The attacking hunters should push in the discharged oil soot cloud, leaving his cabin windows were suddenly blind. In February 1940, found corresponding experiments with He 111 and Ju 88 instead of in the test site Tarnewitz. The device was then used at the start of the trial at the Russian campaign KG 51, but appears to have not been successful with the troops. As an offensive weapon, the flamethrower "Gero, 11" A, B and C used in the Fw 190 for low-level attacks."
luftarchiv.de

A Heinkel 111 tests the defensive flamethrower. February 9, 1940 at Tarnewitz.

Ju88 in Romania, 1941, KG51.
link

link
link

Whoa! I had heard of this but hadn't seen photos of it. Whether it got the tailing plane or not he would probably break off thinking he had set it on fire.

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)."
link

This was the original reference I found for it. Robert

That's really neat!

Though, as a pilot, or aircrew member, I'd be really concerned about burning the tailfins off, or an errant bullet hitting a fuel storage tank.

I thought so too Mako. For some reason I just can't think of it being useful other then as a scare tactic. Robert

Nothing on a Me-110 version yet. Robert

I'm also looking into the Fw-190 Version too. Robert

More about the Fw-190 from the site,
"The last line of that paragraph addresses the second flamethrower developed by the Luftwaffe: "As an offensive weapon, the "Gero 11″ A, Block C was used by the FW190 for low-level attacks." ["Gero 11 A Block C" is a reference to a Luftwaffe nomenclature model that sorted modified weapons into "Bunds" or batches, so we've translated it as "Block" as the USAF uses such as "F-15C Block 52," it's also like the US Navy's Mark X Mod Y nomenclature system]"

From Squadron Signal'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. Although successfully tested, the oil fed flame thrower never reached operational status on the JU-88."

I wonder what it was successful in doing? Robert

Makes me wonder too is how the Luftwaffe thought to use the aircraft flamethrower offensively. Robert

That would be awesome! Forward Firing flamethrowers. They should have fitted them to Fb5 Gunbuses.

:)

That idea leaves me speechless.

Dangerous to the aircraft using it beyond belief, and about as effective as throwing paper tissues !

With them being forward firing I think there would be too much force made by the wind and thrust of the aircraft to be effective. Robert

Yeah. thats why I said the Gunbus! Standing up there with a flamethrower would be the best job ever!

I still would like to know more as to how it could be used offensively. Robert

I imagine they would just fly over a trench and blast it as it passed by.

Not really that effective I am sure. The top photo pretty much shows what would have happened. A spectacular sight but apart from a morale effect not something that would add to the attrition (apart from more shot down 88's)

"Foreign object damage is the scourge of aviation. Anything that can foul, collide, obscure or damage an aircraft can potentially bring it down. Whether its a bird strike or a bit of rock thrown up from an airfield into an engine, FOD can cripple or even destroy an aircraft.

During World War II, Germany aviation designers looked to something simple in order to halt the attack of Allied aircraft. Called a flamethrower, or more accurately soot thrower, the device known as the Gero II was first proposed in 1939. The idea was to have a pod mounted beneath an airplane that burned fuel into the face of pursuing aircraft.

The container Gero II, depending on the configuration, could release a sooty cloud in its wake, covering pursuing aircraft windows with a cloud of clinging soot and oil. The soot was generated by a small ignitor mounted on the pod, either at the nose or closer to the rear of the container.

By 1940 the Gero II came in three models and was continually tweaked, leading to a reported ground attack version. The latter Gero II projected a shaft of flame and smoke downward, ostensibly designed to strafe ground forces. As late as 1944 various different German aircraft were still being tested as possible candidates for the Gero II system.

The range of the flame and soot generated by the Gero II have been estimated at around 100 yards. It's actual use in combat remains in question, with most opinions leaning towards an experimental only weapon system."

link

Wow…

LOL. Gotta love those Germans and their kooky ideas. Robert