Jump to content
Pete

British WW2 Flamethrower Deactivation.

Recommended Posts

Hi, does anyone know the required spec's for deactivating a flamethrower?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi, does anyone know the required spec's for deactivating a flamethrower?

 

And Mortars ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear All,

 

I doubt that a flamethrower is a firearm but I think that it would be a good idea to have some vital component missing or completely and obviously inoperative.

 

A motor is clearly a firearm although easy to deactivate (and make a brand new one which I could do this afternoon in my workshop).

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the vets I work with use either a gas rifle or a blowgun to dart large animals. These are considered Class 5 as they discharge a dart , often loaded with a stuff called Immobilon. Get it on your skin you might have time for 'Oh Sh..':-D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Any Item which discharges a Noxious Substance'...................Section 5 Weapon.

This was MEANT to cover Flamethrowers, but.....................

 

When I was in the Police, if a perp was arrested for attempted/actual robbery.

We used to charge them for being in possession of a Prohibited weapon. If they has an old Squeegy Bottle of Amonia.

Because the sentence was greater upon conviction, than for an attempted Robbery!

 

IE: An 'Item which discharged a Noxious Substance'!.........;)

 

As Mortars have not been included in the unworkable new legislation. I wouldn't shout too loudly about them!

The specs are sufficient & perfectly fit for purpose as they are!.....You DONT ant attention drawn to that category as well.

We are Potentially going to suffer enough!

 

There is MUCH to be legally challenged over these stupid, Ill thought out. & Unworkable, Discriiminatory Regulations.......

As there are VAST sums of money involved in Deactivation, to name but one section of this nonsense.

I feel it will be enevitable that a 'Major Player/Stakeholder' with the funds to do so. WILL Challenge this by taking the EU Government to the Euro Court of human Rights.

Billions are Potentially involved here!....................

 

Deacts when Certed, are NO LONGER CLASSFIED AS FIREARMS!!! They are HARMLESS Lumps of Metal then!

They actually have MORE value when destroyed as a Firearm & are from then on, HARMLESS! (Brit Spec, & done CORRECTLY to GOVERNMENT APPROVED ORIGINAL SPECS!)

 

if the EU feel 'Threatened' by Harmless lumps of metal. There is no hope for the Human race, is there?....

 

If enacted, all this Nonsense Legislation, will do absolutely NOTHING, to protect us from Criminal's & Terrorists!!!!!

I feel more threatened by The EU & our OWN Government to be perfectly Honest!..............................:(

Edited by ferretfixer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your right mate, the legislation exists, and is very workable. Says him after recent experience! BUT it was not the Boys and Girls on the ground, it is the morons in the offices who stop Policing by Consent , and look to 'How to can I enforce my prejudice'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would be very surprised if they would not want a visible aperture cut out of the pressure vessel on the Tank.

 

Makes you wonder what happened to the war-time Lifebuoy ones they refurbished for the 1st Gulf War and then decided it was not very PC if indeed legal to use.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamethrower,_Portable,_No_2

 

 

We have always had them in War reserve stocks. They are not 'Generally' Talked about, instructed on. Or discussed in 'Normal' Warfare Training in the UK Forces.

 

A Flamethrower is a Horiffic Weapon in use. We considered them Barbaric & Too Viscious for 'General' use on the Battlefield after the last World War.

 

Russia & other countries of course. Continue to have them in the Armouries as the 'Norm'!........:embarrassed:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying from personal experience that you definitely know they are still in the system?

 

The story I was told from an official source was that when they decided to field them in the First Gulf War they found the rubber parts had deteriorated in storage past a point where they were safe to use and a lot of money was spent having fittings and hoses made up at short notice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you saying from personal experience that you definitely know they are still in the system?

 

The story I was told from an official source was that when they decided to field them in the First Gulf War they found the rubber parts had deteriorated in storage past a point where they were safe to use and a lot of money was spent having fittings and hoses made up at short notice.

 

 

Yes, When I was serving myself as an Armourer. :angel:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Yes , I think you would have to imagine it,:n00b: the Crocodile was based on a Churchill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes , I think you would have to imagine it,:n00b: the Crocodile was based on a Churchill.

 

:red:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I remember correctly, the Churchill Crocodile could fling flame 3-4 times the distance.

 

 

Very Good for doing toast then?...............:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very Good for doing toast then?...............:D

 

Very. Although you actually have to wonder how many people survived the war because of it. Many people surrendered when it lumbered into view against them, or later when they were covered in flammable liquid and facing a nasty end. The ignition trigger was separate for a very good reason, fed from a separate fuel source.

 

A horrific weapon when used to its conclusion, but combined with the AVRE it was a much safer way of taking out bunkers and fortified positions than an infantry assault alone. The AVRE would blow a hole in the fortification, then the Crocodile would squirt the jelly through the hole and wait. Net result a lot of people alive on both sides who wouldn't otherwise be.

 

Coming back to the thread topic, it would actually be interesting to see where that put the Crocodile in the eyes of the law. The main Crocodile equipment is only used to squirt jelly over large distance. The part that shoots flame is a separate tank next to the driver.

Edited by Lauren Child

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you fancy being covered in an inflamnable liquid? :D Therefore a 'Noxious Substance' See Section 5. Don't go planning a stink bomb thrower either! :nut: Be werrrry carful with your muck spreader as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎24‎/‎2015 at 11:18 AM, Pete said:

Hi, does anyone know the required spec's for deactivating a flamethrower?

Hi Pete,

Did you ever get a satisfactory answer to this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...