Livens flame projector, death by the roadside and Sir Francis Drake! (1 Viewer)

[Rob]

Just watched Time team in which Tony Robinson (he of Black Adder Baldrick fame) and a team of Royal Engineers excavated and recreated one of the most Horrific weapons of World War 1, William Livens Large Gallery Flame projector. This was a huge underground flame thrower that was transported and set up in tunnels by 300 men and operated by eight, which could hurl burning fuel hundreds of feet into German Trenches. Born out of Livens desire to kill ' as many Germans as died on the Lusitania' it was only used a couple of times during the War, the first occasion being the first day of the Somme , 1st July 1916. When firing a mix of Diesel and Kerosene through a swivelling head this hideous weapons could incinerate hundreds of Germans in their Trenches and the mix of fuels ensured everything continued to burn for some time afterwards. It is now thought to be the reason the British had greater success at Mametz on the 1st of July than many other places.

It is thought that the terrible flames that engulfed the Germans in the Mametz Trenches drove the survivors back into their dugouts only emerging when the Trenches were full of British soldiers. A truly cruel weapon in a very cruel War.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...or-weapon-of-the-Somme-battle-discovered.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Howard_Livens

But Mr Livens did not stop there , he went onto invent the Livens projector and in WW2 the Fougasse which was a battery of oil drums filled with flammable liquid booby trapped and buried in English roadside verges awaiting German invasion.Thousands of these were buried along main roads and some were forgotten and lie there to this day awaiting the Nazi's.

Which brings me onto Sir Francis Drake, it appears his methods were still thought viable in 1940;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Lucid

Rob

 

[Rob]

So here's a moral question that should ignite a bit of fire, if you'll pardon the pun:wink2:. But with the Germans using Gas and sinking Allied ships with civvies on board...did that justify the British inventing this hideous flame thrower and incinerating whole Trenches in seconds???

Rob

 

[Peter Reuss]

Interesting question...

If someone had a bomb that could clear that area of trenchworks, I doubt anyone would have a problem with it.

Is the thought of burning to death that much more repulsive?

 

[trooper]

The Germans were the first to use flamethrowers so why is there any problem with the Livens version? The philosophy of war is to preserve your own men and kill the enemy, not nice but when was war ever nice? Trooper

 

[Martin Tabony]

You have to look after your mates first!

Martin

 

[Mitch]

it does not bother me. in war you kill the enemy with what you have at your disposal be that nuclear, depleted uranium, flamethrowers, mines, etc.

There all not nice ways to die. is being blown up by a mine worse than being fried by a flamethrower???

Suppose its all down to whether you are using it or, on the recieving end
Mitch

 

[Rob]

I personally think that once the Germans used Gas all bets were off as were the gloves. Tough I say, but I'm sure there will be some who think it barbaric.

It is an amazing coincidence that it was used at Mametz where we experienced gains on that day.

Rob

 

[Mitch]

How many could have died by gassing??? many more than flamethrowers could have killed. Its war why hold back use what you have and kill as many of the enemy as you can. Robs right the gloves were off. Total war means just that IMO
Mitch

 

[PanzerAce1944]

Being a retired soldier in combat arms with 20 years of service,I can agree with the comment below that if its war then it is total war. In combat "nice guys finish last If they are not careful". But again not in all cases. I think an excellent example of good clean fighting was between the German Africa Korps and Allied forces during WWII. Here the Germans showed respect to their enemy and treated prisoners well which in return resulted in their own well treatment.

 

[Scott]

It's not a matter of cruelty, it's a matter of ending a war as quick as possible. Even the threat of such a weapon, after an enemy has seen or heard about it, could end a war more quickly. The trouble is I can't think of a weapon other than the Atomic Bomb where this idea worked. Usually an opponent comes up with counter measures.

 

[Peter Reuss]

Yes there is total war, but societies have worked to declare some means of total war (i.e. certain gasses) to be crimes against humanity and illegal.

It's an interesting line to draw. What constitutes a weapon of mass destruction compared to a 'very effective weapon with great killing power'?