You are afraid.
Amber lash of searing flame, lungs filled with acrid smoke.
You ought to be afraid. You’re made out of meat.
The Flamethrower.
A terrifying weapon capable of fiery devastation, and one so excessive it barely seems real.
So, what practical purpose does such a weapon serve?
Why is such a fearsome weapon so fascinating?
And what sort of maniac would wield one?
Fire has a long history – it’s been used as a weapon since ancient times. And it’s
easy to see why – it’s a destructive force that consumes all in its path, and all it
needs is ignition.
‘Greek fire’ is the first weapon that could be described as a flamethrower: a secret
sauce of volatile compounds projected from ships in naval combat.
It was used by the Byzantine empire from the 7th century and could set the sea ablaze,
as well as enemy ships. It was a terrifying and effective weapon with a profound impact.
The modern flamethrower, as we know it today, was a German invention – the name ‘flamethrower’
is a literal translation of ‘Flammenwerfer’.
The invention is generally attributed to Richard Fiedler, a mechanical engineer from Berlin.
While working on nozzle designs, he was struck by the prospect of spraying a flammable liquid
– then igniting it to project a gout of flame.
His first flamethrower patent was granted in 1901, and by 1905 a working prototype was
presented to the Prussian Engineering Committee for assessment.
In 1908 Fiedler’s flamethrower was assigned to the Pioneer Experimental Company in two
forms: the ‘Gross Flammenwerfer’ or ‘Grof’ – an emplaced weapon with large tank; And
the ‘kleine Flammenwerfer’ or ‘Kleif’, a smaller backpack variant that could be carried.
1914 saw the outbreak of the First World War, and it was the winter of that year, in the
Argonne against the French, that these flamethrowers were first fielded. However, they didn’t
prove particularly effective: the Kleif ‘was too fragile, too unwieldy, and did not maintain
pressure.’
The Germans saw their potential however, and established the Flammenwerfer-Abteilung Reddemann
– a unit armed exclusively with flamethrowers, commanded by Bernhard Reddeman, who had played
a key role in the technical development of the weapon. Their first attack was early in
1915, and they would see considerable subsequent deployment including at the Second Battle
of Ypres and the Battle of Verdun.
Some of the shortfalls of the Kleif were addressed in 1917 with the introduction of the Wechselapparat,
or ‘Wex’. It had a distinctive doughnut-shaped tank and was much lighter.
During the war, Reddeman’s flamethrower troops carried out 653 attacks. 82% were deemed
successful.
Flamethrower attacks were risky – but they could break through hardpoints and sap enemy
morale like nothing else.
So in the decades that followed, as the Second World War loomed, the flamethrower had not
been forgotten - with many nations preparing their own implementation.
The Germans replaced their earlier designs with the Flammenwerfer 41: yet lighter, more
reliable, and easier to operate.
The Brits had the Flamethrower Portable No. 2 – which was a copy of the German Wex:
The Italians had the Lanciafiamma M40;
The Japanese the Type 93 and Type 100;
And the Soviets had the ROKS-2.
The Americans introduced the M1 flamethrower in 1941, which used diesel oil or fuel oil
– and the revised M1A1 in 1943 operated at higher pressure to facilitate the use of
napalm instead. By 1944, the M1 was succeeded by the much superior M2, with improved regulation,
ergonomics and a new rotary cartridge ignition system.
The M2 design was successful, so much so that it saw use after World War 2, in Korea and
even Vietnam, although here it was supplanted by the more modern M9 design.
Flamethrowers remained decisive weapons during the Second World War, but combat was evolving:
armoured tanks; more precise artillery; and aerial bombardment.
In fact, by the latter part of the 20th century the man-portable flamethrower was largely
obsolete: Flame tanks offered a much safer way to clear out entrenched enemies, with
none of the capacity or range restrictions a man-portable device might impose.
Besides, these days it’s much safer to just call in an airstrike than it is to attempt
to burn ‘em out.
So most contemporary use of the flamethrower is either for non-combat purposes (such as
controlled burns, or clearing land) – or in cinema, television and games.
Here, the flamethrower has evolved into its own unique thing: terrifying and imposing
on screen, and rather than an infantryman you’re more likely to see it in the hands
of an action hero, or a fictional supervillain like Hank Scorpio or Elon Musk.
The flamethrower is rooted in its military origins, however – and most of its earliest
appearances are in the hands of American soldiers – think Porkchop Hill and Hell is for Heroes.
It’s not often shown in use during this era – immolation was a little too grisly
for 1950s Hollywood, so most shots are reverse angle, the heroes discharging flame towards
the camera – burning Nazis implied rather than shown.
By the 1970s there was a shift, when directors no longer shied from the horrors of war, showing
it centre frame. ‘The Deer Hunter’ is one of the more memorable depictions, focusing
on the psychological effects of the Vietnam war.
In games, wartime settings became popular with first person shooters towards the end
of the 90s, and although you won’t find flamethrowers in the earliest examples, the
weapon would soon become a staple part of their arsenal.
Amongst the first was WW2: GI, which was built on the Duke Nukem 3D engine and released in
1999.
Call of Duty was hot on its heels, with the United Offensive add on for the first game
featuring the German Flammenwerfer 35. Treyarch, it seems, and their precursor Gray Matter
Interactive, have a bit of an affinity for flamethrowers – The American campaign in
Call of Duty: World at War takes place in the Pacific theatre, where there is copious
deployment of the American M2 against Japanese fortifications. And the Black Ops series has
flamethrowers as well – either as a weapon attachment or as part of a specialist loadout.
Fair to say, military shooters are a bit of a hot spot for flamethrowers: If it’s a
game set in either of the World Wars – or even Vietnam – then there’s a fairly good
chance you’ll find one.
They’re not confined to military shooters, though - there is a considerable intersection
between the war and horror genres – they share a common psychological aspect. As terrible
as it is, the flamethrower fits this union perfectly – it’s a potent symbol of inhumanity,
the depths to which conflict can drive us.
I think for this reason we prefer to see such weapons used against inhuman enemies – something
for which we feel no empathy, something dangerous enough to drive us to extreme measure.
An early example is Them! – a 1954 science fiction film, where giant irradiated ants
terrorise the United States. With the threat of widespread infestation, the only hope is
to purge their nests, queen and all, with cleansing fire.
This is parallel to the Alien series in which Incinerator units play a prominent role, and
prove to be a reasonable effective weapon against the Xenomorph threat. Not as effective
as nuking the entire site from orbit, but it’ll do in a pinch.
The Alien franchise has exerted considerable influence on the sci-fi horror genre, and
there’s no shortage of games that take direct influence: prominent amongst them are Bungie’s.
The Marathon trilogy features a flamethrower, first found in a level named ‘Smells like
Napalm, Tastes Like Chicken’. It’s very satisfying to use against organic enemies
– the high-pitched screams of the Phthor as their scorched forms collapse is quite
memorable.
The Halo series features one too, of course – the Flood burn quite nicely.
Fire was used in a similar capacity in 1982’s The Thing, with an insidious alien parasite
masquerading as human – a flamethrower is the obvious solution.
It seems they’re are a natural fit for horror sci-fi: so while the Necromorphs from the
Dead Space trilogy are best dismembered, the hydrazine torch remains effective. The Warhammer
universe is no stranger to the flamer, either.
Where bullets fail, fire prevails – many of the scariest monsters in science fiction
are bulletproof, but fire? Fire consumes all.
It is an indiscriminate force, burning friend or foe – its alignment unarguably chaotic.
For that reason, the flamethrower is sometimes used to denote a character or setting as anarchistic:
Mad Max 2 serves as a good example of this; And a flamethrower-wielding maniac doesn’t
look out of place in any post-apocalyptic fiction.
I think this goes some way to explaining the popularity in video games, too – the sandbox
paradigm that seeks to give the player freedom: ‘You see that mountain? You can burn it.’
The nature of fire-based weapons is particularly apt for emergent gameplay. Some games let
you use fire as a tool of area denial, setting the environment alight.
The Far Cry series is an excellent example, notably Far Cry 2 which introduced the flamethrower.
A single spark can set swathes of savannah alight – whether you meant to or not!
This adds a chaotic element to encounters – one which can be mastered and used to
your advantage, but one that can easily get out of hand and place you into a difficult
situation.
I’m sad to say they toned it down slightly for the sequels, but fire propagation remains
present – and the flamethrower a major part of Far Cry’s charm.
One mission from Far Cry 3 is particularly memorable, in which you incinerate a drug
crop, progressively becoming more affected by the fumes – reminiscent of a similar
task in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.
Another unifying trait of flamethrowers in video games is their ability to deal damage
for a duration after the initial attack – the afterburn.
Setting enemies alight might not kill them immediately, but once they’re on fire they’ll
suffer continuous damage, which might be enough to finish them off.
This has significant tactical impact in games like Team Fortress 2 - with the pyro it’s
often best to hit and run than face your opponent to the bitter end – let the fire do the
work!
Even in more realistic military shooters, similar ambush tactics play to the strengths
of the weapon – the luminous plume of the flamethrower attracts a lot of attention,
so the less time you spend in the line of fire the better.
Once the novelty of the flamethrower wears off, however – it turns out that in many
games they are generally not very viable weapons. Sure, they’re usually immensely powerful
up close – but their range is always terrible, and ammunition very scarce. This is exacerbated
in multiplayer, where balance is key and the flamethrower often made puny.
This is sometimes addressed by having it as a killstreak reward, or as a strategic power
weapon that must be captured – but even so, they remain a difficult class of weapons
to use effectively. To be fair, this mirrors the real world – Flamethrowers
are only needed in niche roles, and carrying one makes you a priority target for the enemy.
And it’s hard to blame them – who wants to be burnt alive?
The flamethrower is a frightful weapon that plays to our most primal fear.
Born of a grim necessity, it is an illumination of horror.
Fire is a savage beast, yet we think ourselves its master.
But be warned: The barbecue’s hot; And you’re in season.
The Flamethrower.
Incendiary.
Intimidating.
Infernal.
Thankyou very much for watching – and until next time, farewell.