Lindy needs a second channel simply entitled "Digressions:" and it's just his tangents cut completely out of context , on each topic he's digressed upon. I'd watch it every day .
A flamethrower and a bazooka were probably the only types of weapons missing from his collection considering he had a vast collection of pistols, hunting rifles and shotguns, sten guns and Thompson submachine gun and later on in life he had a fn fal
@@psilvakimo Yeah but which was developed first? Also, it was the first flamethrowing tank that also had a main gun, the Sherman has its main gun converted.
The Lindybeige version of the Anthropic Principle: If the title of the video presents a question, the answer is almost certainly someone or something British, since if it wasn't, the video wouldn't have gotten made in the first place.
@@letsseepaulallenscard.6604 the question is what was the most effective weapon in ww2. The answer is of course, something British because if it were anything else, a jingoist like lindy wouldn't make a video on it
Red Baron It might not be a direct question, but I would classify it as an indirect question. I didn't say that the title is a question, I said that it presents a question.
I'd imagine driving up and hosing the enemy down with sticky petrol, but no fire yet, then stopping to give them a moment to think about their options, would be a rather powerful motivation to surrender quickly.
@@stuartmenziesfarrant Well in to the 80's, perhaps a little bit into the 90's. I'm a product of '78 and we were still all obsessed with WWII. Of course, most of our living grandparents were veterans back then.
I've heard more detailed accounts by veterans, they (and I) believe most non-injurious casualties of flamethrowers were due to carbon oxide poisoning, as well as poisoning from the fumes of long-chain hydrocarbons
Now I imagine Monty Python dressing up a 88mm with a fake mustache hat and Trenchcoat passing it as a fellow mate: „Oh no this isn’t a gun, where do you see a gun here, that’s our mate, good ol Johnson here”
@dustisdeadbodies85 they thought there was no way we had more than one. Weird idea but sometimes you gotta drop something twice before people get the message 😂
@@dachemist8810 they didn't really *have* to fire it. Perhaps the rebels wouldn't have put so much effort into destroying it if it hadn't shown clear intent to fire
Even if you invite it to a family cookout where it spends all night drinking, offends your elderly grandmother with sexually disturbing pro necrophile fecal fetish conversations, sleeps with your fifteen year old niece and shows up late for work the next day with needle marks from speed balling heroin with meth having traded all the cocaine to your thirteen year old son for a sloppy wet hummer in the toolshed? I'd at least suggest a paid suspension.
Fair point, Lindy is technically accurate (which is the best form of accurate), but I'll agree 'not as heavy' and 'not as slow' may have been a more realistic summation.
8:10 It was my understanding that they didn’t “use up all the oxygen”, so much as they suffocated people with toxic fumes; notably carbon monoxide. I think Ian from Forgotten Weapons mentions it in one of his flamethrower videos.
i think that was meant for caves where theres usually only one way in/out, if and when u blast said only entrance with flames long enoughyou will asphyxiate
It was my understanding that they didn’t “use up all the oxygen”, so much as they drove people inside out into the open on fire and screaming where they could be easily gunned down.
"If anyone's looking out the front of their tank and they see a man coming towards them with a Panzerfaust they are bound to object." - Lindybeige 2019
Got to speak to a crocodile crewman once. Served from Normandy right into Germany. Now after the war he worked for a construction company whose CEO was General Sir Brian Horrocks, his old commander. He once had to drive the general around various building projects and at one point Horrocks asked him what he did in the war. “Churchill crocodiles” he replied. “Oh, I don’t know how you could have used that weapon” says Horrocks. “Well sir, It’s because you ordered me to!” “Oh! I suppose I did!”
SvenTviking my grandfather was a radio operator in them, they were all given the option to move to a different unit few did. Brave blokes who unfortunately had to deal with dug in forces usually SS they would fire the liquid first & warn the opposing forces the next fire would be the flame element. He won the military medal in Lingen in 45, still have his campaign map from D Day to Germany brave men as if captured they would be shot.
There was a number I wish you had included. Given that 90% of victories involving attacks with crocodiles were victories, how often were attacks without crocodiles victories?
If im understanding what you mean, attacks without crocodiles would differ from where, when and what units were used to attack. This would also depend on strategies of various commanders.
I would say the 10% of them where the Crocodile couldn't get close enough or was disabled before it got within range. Like Lloyd said, even the most fanatic SS Deathtrooper would tend to split or surrender after being soaked in Kerosene jelly. And just witnessing a 120 yard stream of flame would make anyone wonder how important to the big picture defending the current position really is. A Crocodile at night would be awesome and terrifying to see. Fire is a primal fear, even creatures that have never seen fire or cannot comprehend fire are inherently frightened by it.
@@lord_narnia359I think his point is that when crocodiles were in use most battles ended in victories anyway. The statistic isn't very informative because It might be that 95% of battles not involving crocodiles were victories.
I came here thinking Lloyd was going to try be clever and talk about the effectiveness of propaganda or radar and used the term 'weapon' as a sort of misdirection. Nope. B I G S H O O T Y S H O O T Y F I R E T A N K
A late war weapon, at that, when the war was already basically won, and German soldiers wanted to surrender to the first Allies they could on the Western front so they wouldn't get sent to the Eastern front to get slaughtered.
I have to admit, I'm intrigued by your creative thinking ability of not only making valid points and then defending them but generally doing so in a single video... and most of the time in a single clip... You'd defiantly be someone I'd love to drink a beer (or few) at a bar with!
My Grandfather was a Croc radio operator in "A"SQUADRON 141 ROYAL ARMOURED CORPS He won a military medal for bravery under fire in Lingen in 1945. Under fire the Flame thrower gunner behind behind him somehow triggered his weapon lighting up the fuel container behind my grandfather’s Churchill. The officer was overwhelmed by the smoke so he got out the Croc still under fire and managed to somehow sever the flamethrower fuel connection between the carrier unit & the main tank. He managed to press home the assault get the officer to medics, taking control of squadron. For years we could find nothing other than his mention in dispatch’s about how he won his medal. I am glad the dangerous role of croc crews is finally being shared he fought a lot of SS units who would not surrender & the war changed him greatly, I am very proud of his service record & he volunteered for a very dangerous role with croc crew often executed if caught,
John King Really John, the Germans viewed it as an execution as the crew’s used weapons they deemed illegal in the west, in all the sources I have read the term used is executed. Allied soldiers used the same term when killing caught snipers, It was a common term in the war. forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=134806 tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/gb/churchill-crocodile www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php/5530-Execution-of-Crocodile-Tank-Crews
John King My GrandFather fought the Nazi’s & was award a the Military Medal for Bravery. He served alongside crews which were captured then executed, it was still murder. My point was that I used the correct terminology for what happened to the captured croc tank crews. Germans executing them is the correct terminology, as they where murdered in the style of an execution. wikidiff.com/execution/murder The Nazi’s did this to many different combatants Snipers, Comando’s, Russian Political officers. By saying factual events happened I am not defending the Nazi’s in anyway who my Grandfather fought & my Grandmother brother died fighting in Greece.
Recruit: "They have a Bob Semple tank!!" Sarge: "Steady, lads. Stand your ground. Lads...?? Where did everyone go?!?" Recruits: "We´ll be right back, sarge! Need to grab a selfie with that thing, before our line turns it into swiss cheese!" Sarge: "Wait!! I´m coming! I want to give my condolences to the crew!" Plot twist: Bob Semple tank has a flame thrower. It´s barbecue time.
@@Biden_is_demented plot twist twist. Not only does it have a flame thrower but it has a rear extension similar to a crocodile's bowzer that allows it to perform to the same effect. And just to make things worse a modified vision port disguises a 6 pounder anti tank gun somehow
I work for East Midlands Ambulance Service and a few years ago I took an old chap into hospital who was on a Crocadile. He claimed that his tank was very old and they always had problems getting the pressure right in order to fire the flame thrower. They captured a German engineer called Gunthar who couldn't speak English but he knew how to get the pressure right. They captured him in Paris and kept him with the tank from that point on until the end of the war.
Okay, this 90% statistic is being a bit misrepresented here. This statistic is very much tied to the phase of the battle in which crocodile tanks were used. Flamethrowers were (and are) used to attack infantry in heavily dug-in positions. These sorts of infantry positions are generally the very last to be destroyed, after all the anti-tank guns, tanks, etc, which were simply easier/bigger targets. In other words, by the time flamethrowers entered the field, the fight was generally already won and it was simply a matter of clearing out the last pockets of resistance which logically will center around those places which were most heavily fortified. This also explains why the crocodile urged many soldiers to surrender; the battle was already lost. This doesn't detract from the crocodile's effectiveness (though, I hesitate to call it "the most effective weapon of WWII), but it does put the statistics you shared in a different light.
Also, although the attacker is at a disadvantage with equal forces, he has the advantage of choosing his engagement. You would usually only attack a fortified position when you are confident you can win.
I cannot agree with you here. The 79th Armoured's Crocs were at the very tip of the spear. They were called in specifically to crack the German strong points (by this stage usually fortified villages) so the main advance could then push through relatively unhindered. So by no means mopping up fortified positions after the fight was all but won but instead taking out the most formidable positions early in the fight.
@@Elmarby "At the tip of the spear" in this context does not mean that such units were the first to enter combat. It means they were supporting the main drive. The idea that a tank could close to within a hundred meters of the 'most formidable positions' to take them out early in the fight, is an oxymoron.
27 to 1 surrender to casualty ratio! It is essentially a “humanitarian” weapon. So terrifyingly effective it causes the enemy to immediately surrender. “It pays to advertise” Brilliant!
@Gerald Miller Yes. That is an exceptional, grave, and awesome deviation from the norm. One still worth morning over for both sides. A history worth remembering.
Is the lesson on war winning tools here a sufficient rational to develop giant robot fighting machines alla anime mecha? Perhaps one with an equally giant flaming sword, lazer fingernails, and rocket boobs? If we must be warlike, I urge consideration for the sake of saving lives.
@Succubus Chan Weird thing is that when the americans tried to "convince" Japanese soldiers into surrendering by threatening them with flamethrowers alla "we know your on those caves, we know you're running out of amo, surrender or we will send in the flamethrowers" nearly no one surrendered. When they told other Japanese soldiers in similar situations that they clearly did everything that could be expected of them and that their emperor couldn't reasonably blame them if they gave up now, many more soldiers surrendered. Still a minority of the soldiers over all but appealing to their pride worked a lot better than appealing to their will to live.
Fire protection engineer on the “asphyxiation” thing: Reports of enemy soldiers “suffocating” after a flame attack are likely true, but misdiagnosed. In a confined space (bunker, pillbox, etc), a fire of that magnitude will not drop the oxygen supply so low as to be lethal. Liquid petroleum stops burning at around 15%O2 in the air, while human life is technically sustainable at around 10-12%. However, it will raise the air temperature to the point where it will cause rapid burns, blisters, and swelling to the upper respiratory tract. These soldiers, who may not have been directly exposed to the flame, were still dead/dying because their windpipes were sufficiently damaged that they couldn’t breathe. They may not even have shown much physical damage externally (and of course very few autopsies were performed), leading to the common misconception.
Any truth to the rumor of thermobaric weapons (fuel-air explosives) pulling the air from the lungs and that causes death? Or would that be related to the damage of upper respiratory tract and confused by cause if death?
bockmaker Probably not. In any event, simply expelling air from the lungs doesn’t usually cause injury (eg brief exposure to vacuum). More likely, it’s the pressure wave which causes overpressure/blast injury, and that may have the appearance of “knocking the wind out.”
My immediate thought on the topic, though I'll default to your expertise, was that it could have been asphyxiation due to the high smoke volume in the air. I can't imagine the ventilation in the bunkers would have been effective at dispersing smoke, and because it likely happened very quickly, there could have been very little time to react before passing out. My father works with some harsh chemicals (mainly very concentrated chlorine) and has been knocked out a few times by a single puff to the face of the stuff.
I'm a retired military physician and I can tell you with near certainty that you are correct. The hot air badly scorched the upper airways causing them to immediately spasm. The burns immediately caused blistering and sloughing of the airway linings, the airways couldn't work, and the unfortunate soldiers suffocated because they couldn't inhale. The fact that they suffocated probably gave rise to the myth that they died because the air was "sucked out" of the environment, which admittedly sounds plausible to people with little medical training.
“Advertising”: we had a particular threat of Russian AT grenades wielded by Iraqi insurgents when I was deployed. The OG grenade had a parachute to point the shaped charge downwards into the thinly armored turret tops of American tanks. The insurgents removed the parachute and, in urban areas, would just huck the thing straight into the sides of passing MRAPs (at close range from behind jersey barriers) hoping the angle would be right for the charge to penetrate. Our countermeasure was advertising. We’d tighten up convoys for more density in cities, for concentration of fire. The gunners would wield an M4 and, instead of wheeling the turret around, would be sweeping their rifle around to imply that they were covering a wide range. This had the effect of putting opportunists at bay by seemingly being able to turn and fire quicker. And it worked. We had a kid chuck one that landed short and blew out the tires on a vic, but that was it. The irony is, that even at 6’3”, I could not actually aim my rifle over the top of a turret shield. It was just too high. But, I could point the barrel, and I guess that was enough. Incidentally, some enemies thought that our dark Oakley eye protection had x-ray vision. Perception certainly matters. Shame we wasted all that in the end.
@@EmergencyChannel Is it Bidens? “I started the process, all the troops are coming home, they (Biden) couldn’t stop the process. 21 years is enough. They (Biden) couldn’t stop the process, they (Biden) wanted to but couldn’t stop the process.” D.Trump Get a memory
@@zulubeatz1 and even after all that it was still joe biden who botched the withdrawal according to almost everyone left or right. Get over your cult... Its embarrassing.
@@jboss119 What cults that? Im not even from your culted up part of the world but i could see Trump cosing up to Putin a mile away. Treacherous shit. Like bresking up Nato. This is America first btw. This is what that means.
Normal flamethrowers tended to turn the user into a dead person. They were very popular targets, the churchill just adds that little bit of protection against small arms fire.
@@falcovg2 Of course, but I didn't know flamethrower tanks were actually a used weapon of the time. Besides, outside of the tank variant, flamethrowers were arguably the best weapon, albeit also the most dangerous to even just carry.
@@RandyKalff no they are very situational weapons, a flamethrower is great for clearing fortifications, but the range is very limited, so anyone with just a pistol is going to outrange you, nevermind proper infantry equipment.
The change to nitrogen from air was probably to ensure that any potential ignition source didn't turn the trailer on your tank into a very excitable thermobaric bomb.
That, and potentially to aid in pressure stabilization. Nitrogen is significantly more stable with varying temperature than normal air (which has moisture in it), so it could help with maintaining normal operation in situations when the tanks get hot (for example through the sun warming them up).
All gasses follow the same rules. Air is mostly nitrogen anyway. Not that matters. O2 will expand the same amount nitrogen will in a closed system when heat is applies. All gasses work this way.
@@collateralpigeon2151 To a degree that is true. But not exactly. Water and carbon dioxide are definitely less than ideal gases. Both of them do funny things when pressurized and decompressed. Another issue with water vapor being compressed and used to propel the fuel is that it requires more energy to change temperature/pressure. So as it decompresses during expansion, it cools off a lot. This leaves you with two problems, forming ice and cooling limited expansion. To address both problems, you have to reduce the rate of fire to allow the system to warm up again. If you have ever used one of those air duster cans for a couple of seconds and felt the can cool or even begin icing on the outside, you can start to get an idea of the problems involved. Even a relatively small amount of water in the compressed air would be meaningful pain in the backside, just having it rob heat as it expanded would cool off the propellant gas a lot and reduce the rate of expansion. Basically, if you fired too much too fast, you'd end up with an enforced "cool down" period as the system warmed up again.
The solution to fighting the Churchill crocodile is obviously the big thing on the back that. Clearly any Germans with a brain would go “Hey look the ammo for the flame thrower” and if they where even in a tiny 3.7 cm German tank gun FROM THE START OF THE WAR could penetrate the boiler from 500 meters MORE than enough to stay out of its firing range, even if it didn’t explode the ammo would soon leak, but if the gunner knew what they where doing they could use AP-HE and could pen the boiler and cause an explosion destroying the entire thing!!! (Actually maybe not the Churchill might survive the explosion emphasis on “might”) the modern gun the Germans had at the time the pak 40 could also do the same thing and might be able to pen the Churchill it’s self... yea ignoring most of what the Germans had sure it’s is the most effective weapon in the war that’s why they use them so mu- NOT... if the flaws I mentioned didn’t exist (like say adding an inch more armor on the boiler increasing it from 25 mm to 50mm an alright amount of armor) than maybe it would have seen combat more...
Just Soviet thing apparently. My coworker told me story from his village in current day Ukraine, about very short battle between Soviet tanks and Polish border defense. Apparently upon realising Poles have no anti-tank ordinance, Soviet commander drove right into their positions, expecting them to surrender. They didn't, and spearhead was wiped out in resulting melee.
You don't even have to go back to 1939. That is still very common today in the middle east, that's how Turkey gets their nice german tanks blown up. The Saudis also lost a bunch of lone Abrams out in the nowhere without any support.
@@villehammar7858 Ofcourse Operation Crusader made that horrible mistake (but you only have to have make a few less mistakes pull out a win from the enemy, you know, so it evens out). But could you really say it was common misconception?
Gunfire is also literally fire (it just happens to include a projectile). That's why we say 'open fire' in the first place, and why it's incorrect to say that you are 'firing' an arrow unless you are literally using fire arrows.
I would argue for the 155mm radar fused artillery shell. Artillery is the great killer of the battle field, and above ground burst made it much more effective.
Not more dead than the German's would've been had they declared war against the Japanese. America just got lucky that all the Samurai and Ninja were away at war in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Otherwise they would've sliced those Nukes in half.
@@nedisahonkey isnt that how Little Boy and Fat Man worked? By splitting their atoms? The Katana would add to the kinetic energy of the blast exponentially.
@@nedisahonkey The only thing worse is if you tried to end the bombs rightly with an unscrewed pommel. If you think about it, Fat Man was an upscaled unscrewed pommel. If you whip out a katana, you may instead unravel the strands of space-time and un-make the world.
@@davidtuttle7556 I was going to make a joke about that but technically the fact that the Manhattan project was a cover story for Japanese American Samurais training for years to hone their craft is still technically a government secret. Well that and I thought about joking about how the US treated Japanese Americans during the war is in bad taste. Especially where I'm from.
@@wierdalien1 not a lie perhaps, but perhaps a not fully accurate one. The Crocodile is a heavily specialized tank that saw relatively little combat when compared to it's own non-flame churchill brethren. Even the AVRE version saw more action. Flamer tanks seem cool but they dont serve much of purpose, the Americans used them quite heavily in the pacific, burning the Japanese jungle emplacements, and even then, the infantry STILL had to go in later. The Crocodile also ran out of fuel very quickly, and then it was just an undergunned churchill dragging a trailer. The crocodile would not be part of a main assault, it was basically a cleanup vehicle, sent in when the only enemies left were dug in infantry. Flames are bad for enemy morale, sure, but so is a normal churchill when they have nothing left to kill it.
@@98765zach yeah but when it was used it was extremely effective. Whereas most tools will have failure rates. (I mean so does this) you arent wrong it didnt see much service. But is more effective? Amoxillin or imipenam? Amoxcillin is the frontline penicillin of choice these days and used by millions of people everyday. Imipenam is reserved for severe resistant bacteria and so doesnt see anywhere near the use.
@@wierdalien1 maybe sure but the most effective tools of war from the era still exist. Nuclear weapons from the atom bomb, fighter jets from the early ones, mbts from the medium heavy hybrid tanks, even assault rifles. If the flame tank was the most effective tool of ww2, shouldn5 we still use them?
@@98765zach tools can be context dependant and be highly effective indeed most are. (Plus he mentioned all those options as contenders). What is a more effective tool? A torque wrench or a straight spanner? When do you see battles with pillboxes occuring now? And to some degree we do still use fire, napalm and thermobaric devices doing most of the role of a flamethrower (with flame (ok i know thermobarics don't rely on their flame front))
i like how the flaming tank was so cool it scared combatants into surrendering, thus the whole gimmick was just showing how cool the flaming tank was and that was it lol
... When it comes to the Taliban, you have to kill them because of thier willingness to die for thier cause (bringing about the 'End Times' and for going judgment for thier sins in this world, Paradise here on earth for the 'believer' and judgment for the Kafir and Tafir) He's logic has limitations...
@@remalm3670 I think you're confusing the Salafi Groups in the Middle East and North Africa with the Taliban. There is some overlap but the Taliban are mostly motivated by an interest in resisting foreign occupation. They have a similar veiw of Sharia but not identical. And it's important to note that most Taliban fighters are illiterate in Dari or Pashto, let alone Arabic so they tend to take whatever their Tribe leaders and Madrassa teachers say at face value. Whereas a group like Isis is composed of comparatively well educated urbanites (including most famously Mujahideen from countries outside their heartland) who at least have a passing knowledge of other less extreme views of Islam but have gravitated to the extreme Salafi form. Both groups have objectivley bad stated goals and ruthless killers in leadership positions along with devoted rank and file that are willing to die for the promise of paradise, but in my opinon (and most Islamic studies authorities) Isis and other Salafi groups represent a much more insidious threat. That being said i think its important to note that fundamentally most soldiers are fighting for the man next to them and a perceived defense of nation or culture more than any sense of malice or inherent wickedness. Not to mention these insidious Salafi groups are largely patronized by our own alleged ally Saudia Arabia, much as the Taliban are supported by Pakistan. America is fighting itself in a way with these wars and they're certainly not cut and dry good vs. Evil. Anyways not really sure why you posted this in this comment thread to begin with.
@@nedisahonkey ... The composition of the Taliban has changed over the decades. When we went to war in Aphganistan, they were referred to as Arab-Aphgans. They were the foreign muslims that came to fight the Russian and then establish the next Caliphate. They were able to subdue most of the Aphgan tribes and implement strict Sharia law and harbor jihadist that were going to overthrow secular muslim governments and replace them with Sharia compliant ones allied to thier established Caliphate. Then resuming the muslim crusades to bring about thier 'End Times' and having Paradise established on earth. When Bin Laden kicked this crusade off, the rest is history. We defeated the Arab-Aphgan Taliban; however, Bush made the fatal error of trying to centralize power in a Aphgan centralized government instead of letting the War Lords run things, we became 'invaders' at that point. The Aphgans wanted the Arab-Aphgan out. We and the Aphgans killed a lot of Arab-Aphgans; however, we unified them with our one world nation buildig program. Obama came a long and protected this arrangement (protecting the new alliance and hamstringing US forces while supporting the one world government of Bush 43, to unify and strengthen the new Taliban). So things have changed some ... just not the end game ...
Lindy aught to be paid more by his sponsors, his adverts for them are longer than the adverts they pay for before videos, and I'd reckon Lindy is significantly more convincing.
Thank you for the battlefield history of Tank flame throwers. As a young boy, I watched 8mm film taken by my father Lt.Col. Phillip Denton RE responsible for developing the weapon of Tank flame throwers under trial and development in Canada. What you say about the capable distance of flaming is interesting. In the trials on film, it is clear they were capable of flaming to a distance in excess of 200yeards, possibly up to 300yards. One thing I understand was another strategy of putting down an intense smokescreen for advancing troops. The trials did this by laying down a wet blast and then lighting it up. As a boy I became aware of the terror of this weapon of burning men to death. I am therefore heartened at what you said about , "advertising" thus encouraging soldiers to surrender rather than face a terrible death. Robert Paul Denton
As soon as I saw the title in my sub box I thought: "This is going to be some british Invention and Lindy is going to hype the "sh*t out of it." Well, I was right. Your bias is strong Lindy. But I can't fault you as long as the videos are so entertaining.
One of my favorite Lindy things is the opportunity to be exposed to a different point of view about..well....everything. Lloyd is funny, witty, and painfully straightforward. It's more fun than any philosophy class I ever attended.
Ah, it was a more innocent age, when you could explain to children how a flamethrower killed men. Try that today and you'd probably be put away. LOVE the content as always.
"The weapon I'm going to suggest it was... is the crocodile" He is going to talk about the battle of Ramree! Oh boy oh boy! "No, flamethrower tank lol" YOU'RE DEAD TO ME
Using up the oxygen in some room does not create vacuum. It just replaces O2 with Co2. If anything the heated up gas takes more volume... Also CO2 and CO toxicity is significantly less than 20% that is the usual O2 concentration.
Not a complete vaccum, a partial vacuum. The produced CO2 is less dense than the air. That's why the egg in a bottle trick works. You know the one, when they put an egg at the mouth of a bottle with a lit match inside, the egg gets sucked in. It would be like that with the dirt at the edge of the trench.
its all depends on the size of the flame/rate of combustion and size of the room but most importunity the amount of ventilation. if you have bad ventilation like say in a bunker or a ship then yes your going to die from suffocation, but good ventilation like a building with high ceiling and big double doors your going to die from the heat
Brodie Knight That's not how that trick works. The air inside the bottle is heated by the flame, when the egg is placed on top the flame is extinguished due to lack of oxygen, then the air cools and creates a vacuum.
@sbcontt YT Well, it has a higher density (e.g. higher molecule weight), but still contains the same amount molecules in a volume (assuming similar temperature and pressure). Within a bunker probably air is rushed in due to heated air is drawn out / raising out of the bunker.
You see this hat, do you know what hat it is? Yes sir, it's the captains hat. Indeed, so what does that make me? The captain sir. Exactly. So what's this tank called? A crocodile sir 😒
@@shaunbrender If you are serious, I think you've missed the most controversial thing Lloyd has ever ranted about. If not, you're sarcasm is to stealthy for me to detect. BRAVO!
More like 120 feet. That big tank of gas trailing the tank must have been a tempting target. I can't believe that a lot of them didn't go up in smoke. Any gun with tracer bullets would have blown it away.
@@psilvakimo Don't quote me on this, but I believe that it was taken into consideration that enemies would aim for the fuel trailer. Hence why it was put at just enough distance that an explosion from it might not kill the crew. Then again, we're talking the same military that wanted to use incendiary bats on japan, so...
@@iainballas Bat bomb were American. They were effective... At setting fire to the US base were they were being tested. FDR's lesson learned: Don't take military advice from your wife's dentist (yes, really)
I was so excited by the title and thinking to myself 'finally, the venerable battle taxi bren carrier get's it's turn In the spotlight as most effective weapon, not only of WW2, but perhaps of all time!' But no! A flame thrower... 😐 Next time, brave little carrier, next time.
Seriously this man is more like a marketing executive who talks about his own product... Cant believe he is talking about a armoured truck thats also a flame thrower... What a load of shit
@@taratiwadi1532 you missed the part where he specifically stated that the vehicle you are referring to was for airfield defense. He mentioned it to note that the Churchill crocodile was not the first flame thrower equipped vehicle.
A panzerfaust operator could easily get within effective range simply by deploying the Sir Lancelot Maneuver. Simply run over the nearest hill multiple times, seemingly never getting closer to the Churchill. This confuses the crew. They'll be especially perplexed when the panzerfaust operator suddenly pops up, yells, "Haha!" with extreme enthusiasm, and lets fly with his shaped charge.
@@eldorados_lost_searcher Apparently the Germans attempted to reverse engineer the Joke and create their own to use against us. Though of course, it failed miserably in practice due to Germans having little to no sense of humour of their own.
Honestly, I can think of few things more terrifying than being on the receiving end of a heavy assault and seeing flamethrower weapons coming for you. Terrible way to die.
This is definitely in the top 3 of things I've seen on You Tube. I really enjoyed the delving into the psychological aspect of combat in regards to encouraging surrended.
For the short time it actually has fuel for sure. The problem with flamers is that they absolutely annihilate fuel storages and they end up as a less effective machine gun nest after a short combat sprint. They are rarely deployed anyway and when they are it is usually only to dog out entrenched infantry after AT guns and such are destroyed. Otherwise why drag an already slow tank with a massive vulnerable fuel trailer into a battle?
@@98765zach that was kind of the point of sticking it on a tank, they could project it yards away and carry tens of minutes of fuel when the tank would only need a few seconds of flame at a time
@@AsbestosMuffins but it's not tens of minutes of fuel, it's not even five. Using flamethrowers requires longer pulls of the trigger to apply your firepower anyway, so it isnt 180 seconds of continuous death it's a few seconds each time to make sure the burning fuel actually gets there to do anything, especially from that 80 yard range.
@@98765zach Or a quick blast of fuel, flaming or not, to ask the question 'Do you want to burn to death in the next five minutes or not?' Fear of fire is a fairly fundamental thing to your average ape.
Ian, from the "forgotten weapons" TH-cam channel had an interview with a flamethrower specialist. That man did state "the Carbon monoxide" did the killing, not the lack of oxygen. It seems poisoning with carbon monoxide is fast & instant. It was a very interesting video, that interview.
@@handsomebrick Probably not. the intended use is for burning people and things. I doubt they even knew that carbon monoxide was doing some of the killing at the time. Plus, burning can also kill very quickly. if the fuel lands on your neck, your carotid arteries would be instantly cauterized and the blood would coagulate. There's no bloodflow even making it to your brain, so the fact that you are breathing in carbon monoxide (which kills because it prevents blood from absorbing oxygen) is irrelevant. It would be like worrying about tomorrow's supper when your leg is blown off.
Hi Lindybeige, I am from germany and I am really impressed by your german pronunciation. English speaking people often have problems especially with the umlaute and the e at the end of words. But your "Fallschirmjäger" was flawless!! :)
@@brownpcsuncedu Our chief weapon is surprise. surprise and 120 ft of flame. two weapons: surprise and flame. and an ability to make nearly everyone surrender. our three weapons are surpise, flame, and... I'll come back in
I can listen to this bloke all day - it's stopping me getting on with my work. The negative phycological effect of Apache helicopters and drones on insurgency conflicts that he discusses at the end was very interesting and not something many people would be aware of, I certainly wasn't and I have watched or read tons of this sort of content. Great stuff Lindybeige. Thanks.
I think the asphyxiation myth, which I also hear in my childhood, comes from the area bombings in WWII. After a bomb raid the rescue teams would find groups of dead people in cellars and makeshift shelters that weren't wounded in any way but were dead from asphyxiation due to the fires from the bombing.
In the video Lloyd says that burning the oxygen in a bunker would create a vacuum that would pull in more oxygen. But oxygen consumed through combustion doesn't just vanish, it is reorganised into the products of the chemical reaction, for example carbon dioxide gas.
Accounts of hardened SS troops being terrified of Allied artillery being unleashed on them in Normandy, accounts of men going mad, and remember, a lowly captain could call for Divisional arty at the call on the radio in 1944.
@Lindybeige 7:52 AFAIK You can die of asphyxiation bc of the smoke the fire produces in a small room like a bunker. not because there is absolutely no oxygen in the room.
DankyKang I believe there are reports of Japanese bunkers being cleared due to the CO2 or CO produced by the flamethrowers used by marines. I can’t recall the specific battles though.
You see CO and CO2 are both nice, but don't forget there are liquid flames everywhere and also there tends to be quite a lot of ammunition lying around.
When a person is scared, they breath harder. Imagine when the breath you take is several hundred degrees from a flamethrower, your lungs and throat no longer work... WALA, asphyxiation!
As soon as he said flame throwing tank I was like nahhhhh, disagree. But still sat here and listened to his opinion. Still very entertaining and informative like always. Well done👍
This video ignores all the tools the Russians used against the Nazis starting with the Battle of Stalingrad all the way to the Battle for Berlin. The US/Brits mostly did destruction from the air, the troops had little to fight compared to the huge, gigantic, epic battles raging like crazy on the Eastern Front.
8:08 The oxygen becomes carbon dioxide (or monoxide) keeping the air pressure constant. There is no vacuum. If anything the fumes from the fuel and splitting one 02 molecule into two CO molecules would create overpressure actively keeping oxygen out. There is no "back door" in tunnels and underground bunker complexes.
@@AThousandYoung think he means that if there's no back door then how do the people get in? to which I would say maybe the front door? or a top hatch or something?
Oh of course there is a "front door" but it's generally locked on a fortification...sometimes it's underground tunnel connected to some other fortification.
When Ike was asked about the top three things that won the war he said. Transport plane, Higgins boats and bulldozers... Logistics win wars apparently...
They do, but Lindy’s not arguing that the crocodile won the war, just that’s it’s the most combat effective weapon one group of soldiers could have to attack another.
@Pope Bentdick Cursory Google searching reveals that the only limit placed on incendiaries (including flamethrowers) by the Geneva Convention is against using them on civilians. Additionally, this protocol was not instituted until 1981. And why pick on the allies? The Axis powers all used flamethrowers as well.
@Pope Bentdick Germans used the Flammenwerfer 35 extensively in the early parts of the war to clear bunkers and trenches. Lindy even uses a picture of a German using one on the Russian Front. Their fuel shortage problems probably contributed to their falling out of favor as the war progressed. Italians used one during their war with Ethiopia. Italians had a light tank during the North African campaign, but it wasn't particularly effective. Are you some sort of Wehraboo? Because you are demonstrably wrong.
@@ObadiahtheSlim His google-fu is so weak he can't even find wikipedia. Incidentally, the article there on flamethrowers is very well referenced. That aside, I do wonder why he picked a comment about Space Marines as the best place to comment about warcrimes.
@18:10 "We'll just jettison the bowser now, it will make us lighter and faster" I had a good laugh about that. "Going faster" in a Churchill? I expect it's more a case of being more maneuverable over broken ground.
@ALSO-RAN ! I meant in the sense of "more maneuverability" = "less time spent maneuvering" = "reaching your destination quicker than you otherwise would have" = "being faster".
@ALSO-RAN ! The engine wouldn't notice. But maneuvering with a trailer will take longer than maneuvering without one, just by the simle fact that without it, the tank can turn on the spot. With the trailer, it can't do that. Crossing trenches would also become more complicated due to having several tons of weight hanging off the back. Which also shifts the overall center of gravity and thus may reduce the maximum angle at which the tank can climb an incline. And there are plenty of other ways the driving characteristics of a tank would be changed by having a trailer hanging off the back.
@ALSO-RAN ! The thing is, you never know what your battlefield is going to look like. There are plenty of weapons that have proven unnecessarily limited because the designers made too many assumptions about what kind of scenario they'd be used in. The difference would ultimately not be large, we can agree on that. But given that it was done shows that there were situations in which, at least by the crews assesment, it made a difference.
You've got a great enthusiastic way of presenting these things such that they feel kinda wholesome but then I think about it and oh God some of this stuff is horrifying.
youre the history teacher i never had, most of my history i learned from my own research, you make it interesting enough to listen to 45 minutes worth of the same subject
Crocodiles killed HUNDREDS of Japanese soldiers, I bet the most an alligator did during the war was eat some Vichy France sympathizing Cajun. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ramree_Island
The most effective weapon of World War Two was artillery. Singlehandedly caused over half of all military casualties and was a huge morale wrecker to the opposing force. PTSD was called shell shock back then for a reason.
Artillery doesn't stop the enemy fighting - they have artillery too. If you're taking casualties from artillery, you can move back a bit, or dig in a bit. Lots of Russians surrendered because they were encircled (they couldn't retreat), fired at from all sides and ran out of supplies. Lots of Italians surrendered because they had no way to retreat, and nowhere to retreat to, and conditions were dire where they were. Similarly for the Germans at Stalingrad, and Tunisia.
Artillery is not a single weapon like the Churchill Crocodile was. You would have to split it down to individual guns, and things start to get really messy then.
Pure brilliance! I could watch Lindybeige all day. In fact, he should be compulsory viewing at teacher training college, in the way that he brings he things alive. If every school had 10 x Lindybeige's, we would have more engaged kids.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 78 | คู่เอก "ปกรณ์ vs ฟาบิโอ"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LSOmgl0Th2c/mqdefault.jpg)
"...bit of a digression here..."
You're Lindybeige. Digression is what I subscribed for.
Well said, lad!
This is a very accurate comment 😂🤣😂
I just started watching Lindy and .....Boy Oh Boy can he Digress
Lindy needs a second channel simply entitled "Digressions:" and it's just his tangents cut completely out of context , on each topic he's digressed upon. I'd watch it every day .
@@hughgrection7246 I too, would watch a 5-45 minute "Digressions of the Day" video, _every_ day. But only because it is Lloyd doing the digressing...
Hear, hear!
When you said “it wasn’t even the first flame throwing Churchill” I hoped you were going to show a picture of Churchill wielding a flamethrower
what to light his cigar
Nor was it the only the first flame throwing tank. Many Shermans were converted to flame throwing tanks during island warfare in the Pacific.
"WHAT WAY IS DRESDEN?" He roared through a mouthful of cigar, with an unhinged glimmer in his eye.
A flamethrower and a bazooka were probably the only types of weapons missing from his collection considering he had a vast collection of pistols, hunting rifles and shotguns, sten guns and Thompson submachine gun and later on in life he had a fn fal
@@psilvakimo Yeah but which was developed first?
Also, it was the first flamethrowing tank that also had a main gun, the Sherman has its main gun converted.
The Lindybeige version of the Anthropic Principle:
If the title of the video presents a question, the answer is almost certainly someone or something British, since if it wasn't, the video wouldn't have gotten made in the first place.
FinRanomness very true
I don’t see how this video presents a question?
@@letsseepaulallenscard.6604 the question is what was the most effective weapon in ww2. The answer is of course, something British because if it were anything else, a jingoist like lindy wouldn't make a video on it
jb76489 that’s fine but the title isn’t a question
Red Baron It might not be a direct question, but I would classify it as an indirect question. I didn't say that the title is a question, I said that it presents a question.
I'd imagine driving up and hosing the enemy down with sticky petrol, but no fire yet, then stopping to give them a moment to think about their options, would be a rather powerful motivation to surrender quickly.
About that… it’s not just sticky petrol… it seems the unignited fuel is so deadly that it may have actually killed more folks than the fire.
Fun stuff
And a powerful motivation to not light up a cigarette while thinking it over.
The only scarier threat would be being buried alive.
Maybe the most effective weapon in WWII was the friends we made along the way
lol
Insert Lichtenstein marching off to war with 500 men and returning with 501
Including the Soviets, with whom we witnessed one of the top 10 anime betrayals in world history.
Que those 3 German soliders riding that bike
The most effective weapon was the atomic bomb, it vaporized over 100,000 people in a split second, it's like a thanos snap
I like how your childhood was filled with people informing you of how they thought men were actually killed by flamethrowers
It was like that up until the 1980s in 🇬🇧, for men and boys.
@@stuartmenziesfarrant Well in to the 80's, perhaps a little bit into the 90's. I'm a product of '78 and we were still all obsessed with WWII. Of course, most of our living grandparents were veterans back then.
I'm just thinking about every time in movies and shit when somebody drops a nade in the bunker chimney.
I've heard more detailed accounts by veterans, they (and I) believe most non-injurious casualties of flamethrowers were due to carbon oxide poisoning, as well as poisoning from the fumes of long-chain hydrocarbons
@@Grimpy970 I wanted to say the same thing. People most certainly died this way
"An 88mm gun is a _very difficult_ thing to hide" reads like a Monty Python skit
Oh ny god this needs to be a thing
“Sir, your 88mm is showing”
@@RaferJeffersonIII and i thought that pill said 4 hours or less
Now I imagine Monty Python dressing up a 88mm with a fake mustache hat and Trenchcoat passing it as a fellow mate:
„Oh no this isn’t a gun, where do you see a gun here, that’s our mate, good ol Johnson here”
th-cam.com/video/C-M2hs3sXGo/w-d-xo.html
“The best weapon is the one you never have to fire”
@dustisdeadbodies85 they thought there was no way we had more than one. Weird idea but sometimes you gotta drop something twice before people get the message 😂
@ALSO-RAN ! don’t laugh the only reason we never had ww3 was nuclear weapons...
@@dachemist8810 U build it but don't fire just threat with it
@@dachemist8810 they didn't really *have* to fire it. Perhaps the rebels wouldn't have put so much effort into destroying it if it hadn't shown clear intent to fire
Even if you invite it to a family cookout where it spends all night drinking, offends your elderly grandmother with sexually disturbing pro necrophile fecal fetish conversations, sleeps with your fifteen year old niece and shows up late for work the next day with needle marks from speed balling heroin with meth having traded all the cocaine to your thirteen year old son for a sloppy wet hummer in the toolshed? I'd at least suggest a paid suspension.
"Lighter and Faster" are not two adjectives that are normally attributed to the Churchill.
Fair point, Lindy is technically accurate (which is the best form of accurate), but I'll agree 'not as heavy' and 'not as slow' may have been a more realistic summation.
Time stamp required so we know in what context this statement was made. "Lighter and Faster" than a Maus? Definitely.
@@sunnyjim1355
Maybe "lighter and faster" than a Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte. :P
Am I the only one who thought this comment was more in reference to the mass of the prime minister more so than the weapon?
@@Jotari it said THE Churchill, though.
I believe the first flame throwing Churchill served as Prime Minister.
You made me chuckle.
I agree
He was also full of flammable material.
In the morning I'll be sober but you'll still be ugly
If you were my wife I would drink it...
Imagine my shock that it turned out to be a British weapon!
Yeah, quelle surprise.
Mattias Åkesson and here I thought the most effective weapon would be the rifle 😂
some body tell him Detoit and camerat Stalin won ww2. mortel 4 x 105 =
I was also quite shocked when I realized it is a British weapon, the second I saw the title
+
Mattias Åkesson
Yeeeesssssss, a proper BRrrrrritissssccchhh marrrrvaaloussss weapon. Yeeehheeeessss
8:10 It was my understanding that they didn’t “use up all the oxygen”, so much as they suffocated people with toxic fumes; notably carbon monoxide. I think Ian from Forgotten Weapons mentions it in one of his flamethrower videos.
i think that was meant for caves where theres usually only one way in/out, if and when u blast said only entrance with flames long enoughyou will asphyxiate
There is also no vacuum created after oxygen is "burned out", at least not necessarily. It depends on the fuel and, consequently, combustion products.
Ya I am pretty sure that Ian was talking about Vietnam also where their bunkers were dug into the dirt and didn't really have good ventilation.
It was my understanding that they didn’t “use up all the oxygen”, so much as they drove people inside out into the open on fire and screaming where they could be easily gunned down.
@@SirAntoniousBlock Jesis christ that’s grim
"If anyone's looking out the front of their tank and they see a man coming towards them with a Panzerfaust they are bound to object." - Lindybeige 2019
Read this as he said it, man was it strange
@Enclave Soldier :c
@Enclave Soldier or not
His understatements are delivered perfectly XD
Pheonix whrite, or whatever his name is just pops out the top, goes "OBJECTION", does the pointy thing, and fires the main gun
I swear, I could hear this man rant for hours and would still be entertained.
Zachary Reaper but u couldn’t watch this vid b4 u commented
@@volatile7129 so? What's wrong with that
Old lindy is pretty interesting . Ask him to read a shopping list , I would listen .
@@volatile7129 Eeeh I can do typing and watching at the same time. And I'm not even a woman.
This comment is overrated
Got to speak to a crocodile crewman once. Served from Normandy right into Germany. Now after the war he worked for a construction company whose CEO was General Sir Brian Horrocks, his old commander. He once had to drive the general around various building projects and at one point Horrocks asked him what he did in the war. “Churchill crocodiles” he replied. “Oh, I don’t know how you could have used that weapon” says Horrocks.
“Well sir, It’s because you ordered me to!” “Oh! I suppose I did!”
SvenTviking my grandfather was a radio operator in them, they were all given the option to move to a different unit few did.
Brave blokes who unfortunately had to deal with dug in forces usually SS they would fire the liquid first & warn the opposing forces the next fire would be the flame element.
He won the military medal in Lingen in 45, still have his campaign map from D Day to Germany brave men as if captured they would be shot.
What a British moment
Fucking halarious that the general forgot that he ordered people to use something then asked them how they could use it(implying it wasn’t good)
That’s hilarious
"And mightily bored they'll be"
th-cam.com/video/q3wnJqkYPpw/w-d-xo.html
General Sir Brian Horrocks
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Horrocks
.
There was a number I wish you had included. Given that 90% of victories involving attacks with crocodiles were victories, how often were attacks without crocodiles victories?
If im understanding what you mean, attacks without crocodiles would differ from where, when and what units were used to attack. This would also depend on strategies of various commanders.
Well that one is easy! The other 10% of course!
I jest
I would say the 10% of them where the Crocodile couldn't get close enough or was disabled before it got within range.
Like Lloyd said, even the most fanatic SS Deathtrooper would tend to split or surrender after being soaked in Kerosene jelly. And just witnessing a 120 yard stream of flame would make anyone wonder how important to the big picture defending the current position really is.
A Crocodile at night would be awesome and terrifying to see. Fire is a primal fear, even creatures that have never seen fire or cannot comprehend fire are inherently frightened by it.
@@lord_narnia359I think his point is that when crocodiles were in use most battles ended in victories anyway.
The statistic isn't very informative because It might be that 95% of battles not involving crocodiles were victories.
How many surrendered for fear of reptiles?
A reasonably fast lorry with a flamethrower sounds terrifying
Put a snowplow on the front and you don't even need to use the flamethrower all that much.
Sounds like a Top Gear episode with The Stig
*Mad Max music intensifies*
@@dcbanacek2 Don't give the "migrants" ideas!
It actually is, think like a firefighter truck but instead of water you have flammable liquid.
The Bagpipe/Longbow combo had a perfect kill/death ratio. statistically that was the best. ironically, it was also a Churchhill that wielded it.
lol, i'll give you that.
Mad Jack reference forgot to mention Broadsword
Very good!
I'd make an argument that it was the Churchill wielding them who was the actual weapon.
The New Zealand Maori Haka and New Zealand bayonets.Mad Jack Churchill and Lord Lovat ,two top weapons too.
I came here thinking Lloyd was going to try be clever and talk about the effectiveness of propaganda or radar and used the term 'weapon' as a sort of misdirection. Nope.
B I G S H O O T Y S H O O T Y F I R E T A N K
A late war weapon, at that, when the war was already basically won, and German soldiers wanted to surrender to the first Allies they could on the Western front so they wouldn't get sent to the Eastern front to get slaughtered.
to be fair, he talks about its main advantage being a psychological one
@@fakecubed
Tell my uncles that.
@@fakecubed Well they should have thought about that when they started marching into foreign countries, now shouldn't they?
@@Flight_of_Icarus Just the same like every single Us-Soldier thought about his mission before Iraq? Ok, copy that. ..oh wait..
I have to admit, I'm intrigued by your creative thinking ability of not only making valid points and then defending them but generally doing so in a single video... and most of the time in a single clip... You'd defiantly be someone I'd love to drink a beer (or few) at a bar with!
I get the strong impression that Lindy isn't very pleasant to be around
My Grandfather was a Croc radio operator in "A"SQUADRON 141
ROYAL ARMOURED CORPS
He won a military medal for bravery under fire in Lingen in 1945.
Under fire the Flame thrower gunner behind behind him somehow triggered his weapon lighting up the fuel container behind my grandfather’s Churchill.
The officer was overwhelmed by the smoke so he got out the Croc still under fire and managed to somehow sever the flamethrower fuel connection between the carrier unit & the main tank.
He managed to press home the assault get the officer to medics, taking control of squadron.
For years we could find nothing other than his mention in dispatch’s about how he won his medal.
I am glad the dangerous role of croc crews is finally being shared he fought a lot of SS units who would not surrender & the war changed him greatly,
I am very proud of his service record & he volunteered for a very dangerous role with croc crew often executed if caught,
John King Really John, the Germans viewed it as an execution as the crew’s used weapons they deemed illegal in the west, in all the sources I have read the term used is executed.
Allied soldiers used the same term when killing caught snipers,
It was a common term in the war.
forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=134806
tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/gb/churchill-crocodile
www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php/5530-Execution-of-Crocodile-Tank-Crews
John King
My GrandFather fought the Nazi’s & was award a the Military Medal for Bravery.
He served alongside crews which were captured then executed, it was still murder.
My point was that I used the correct terminology for what happened to the captured croc tank crews.
Germans executing them is the correct terminology, as they where murdered in the style of an execution.
wikidiff.com/execution/murder
The Nazi’s did this to many different combatants Snipers, Comando’s, Russian Political officers.
By saying factual events happened I am not defending the Nazi’s in anyway who my Grandfather fought & my Grandmother brother died fighting in Greece.
Everyone would execute a captured Croc tanker. You would too. You just didn't smell one yet.
2:34 It's a firetruck... But the opposite
It's a watertruck!
It's a firetruck, but literally.
Firetrucks should be called watertrucks lol
451
@@mellon6804 Came here to say that
Recruit: "They have a flamethrower!" Sergeant: "Steady, Lads, stand your ground... Lads? where did everyone go?"
Recruit: "They have a Bob Semple tank!!"
Sarge: "Steady, lads. Stand your ground. Lads...?? Where did everyone go?!?"
Recruits: "We´ll be right back, sarge! Need to grab a selfie with that thing, before our line turns it into swiss cheese!"
Sarge: "Wait!! I´m coming! I want to give my condolences to the crew!"
Plot twist: Bob Semple tank has a flame thrower. It´s barbecue time.
@@Biden_is_demented plot twist twist. Not only does it have a flame thrower but it has a rear extension similar to a crocodile's bowzer that allows it to perform to the same effect. And just to make things worse a modified vision port disguises a 6 pounder anti tank gun somehow
I work for East Midlands Ambulance Service and a few years ago I took an old chap into hospital who was on a Crocadile. He claimed that his tank was very old and they always had problems getting the pressure right in order to fire the flame thrower. They captured a German engineer called Gunthar who couldn't speak English but he knew how to get the pressure right. They captured him in Paris and kept him with the tank from that point on until the end of the war.
german technology
It's scary, but I think and hope that he was more motivated on the British or American side.
That sounds like a plot from a WW2 tv series
Great story. Definitely knew what side his toast was buttered on.
Hmm
Okay, this 90% statistic is being a bit misrepresented here. This statistic is very much tied to the phase of the battle in which crocodile tanks were used. Flamethrowers were (and are) used to attack infantry in heavily dug-in positions. These sorts of infantry positions are generally the very last to be destroyed, after all the anti-tank guns, tanks, etc, which were simply easier/bigger targets. In other words, by the time flamethrowers entered the field, the fight was generally already won and it was simply a matter of clearing out the last pockets of resistance which logically will center around those places which were most heavily fortified. This also explains why the crocodile urged many soldiers to surrender; the battle was already lost.
This doesn't detract from the crocodile's effectiveness (though, I hesitate to call it "the most effective weapon of WWII), but it does put the statistics you shared in a different light.
"The most effective *cleanup crew weapon in WWII"
Fixed it, tank mod still good
Also, although the attacker is at a disadvantage with equal forces, he has the advantage of choosing his engagement. You would usually only attack a fortified position when you are confident you can win.
"The finest janetorial mobility device in WW2"
I cannot agree with you here. The 79th Armoured's Crocs were at the very tip of the spear. They were called in specifically to crack the German strong points (by this stage usually fortified villages) so the main advance could then push through relatively unhindered. So by no means mopping up fortified positions after the fight was all but won but instead taking out the most formidable positions early in the fight.
@@Elmarby "At the tip of the spear" in this context does not mean that such units were the first to enter combat. It means they were supporting the main drive.
The idea that a tank could close to within a hundred meters of the 'most formidable positions' to take them out early in the fight, is an oxymoron.
27 to 1 surrender to casualty ratio! It is essentially a “humanitarian” weapon. So terrifyingly effective it causes the enemy to immediately surrender.
“It pays to advertise” Brilliant!
@Gerald Miller Yes. That is an exceptional, grave, and awesome deviation from the norm. One still worth morning over for both sides. A history worth remembering.
Is the lesson on war winning tools here a sufficient rational to develop giant robot fighting machines alla anime mecha? Perhaps one with an equally giant flaming sword, lazer fingernails, and rocket boobs? If we must be warlike, I urge consideration for the sake of saving lives.
@Gerald Miller
Because they asked them to surrender in the wrong way.
@Succubus Chan
Weird thing is that when the americans tried to "convince" Japanese soldiers into surrendering by threatening them with flamethrowers alla "we know your on those caves, we know you're running out of amo, surrender or we will send in the flamethrowers" nearly no one surrendered.
When they told other Japanese soldiers in similar situations that they clearly did everything that could be expected of them and that their emperor couldn't reasonably blame them if they gave up now, many more soldiers surrendered. Still a minority of the soldiers over all but appealing to their pride worked a lot better than appealing to their will to live.
@Gerald Miller well, there weren't Crocodiles in the Pacific theatre either
Fire protection engineer on the “asphyxiation” thing:
Reports of enemy soldiers “suffocating” after a flame attack are likely true, but misdiagnosed. In a confined space (bunker, pillbox, etc), a fire of that magnitude will not drop the oxygen supply so low as to be lethal. Liquid petroleum stops burning at around 15%O2 in the air, while human life is technically sustainable at around 10-12%. However, it will raise the air temperature to the point where it will cause rapid burns, blisters, and swelling to the upper respiratory tract. These soldiers, who may not have been directly exposed to the flame, were still dead/dying because their windpipes were sufficiently damaged that they couldn’t breathe. They may not even have shown much physical damage externally (and of course very few autopsies were performed), leading to the common misconception.
Any truth to the rumor of thermobaric weapons (fuel-air explosives) pulling the air from the lungs and that causes death? Or would that be related to the damage of upper respiratory tract and confused by cause if death?
bockmaker Probably not. In any event, simply expelling air from the lungs doesn’t usually cause injury (eg brief exposure to vacuum). More likely, it’s the pressure wave which causes overpressure/blast injury, and that may have the appearance of “knocking the wind out.”
It's carbon monoxide poisoning. Same thing that kills you if you run an engine or have any other fire in an enclosed, poorly ventilated space.
My immediate thought on the topic, though I'll default to your expertise, was that it could have been asphyxiation due to the high smoke volume in the air. I can't imagine the ventilation in the bunkers would have been effective at dispersing smoke, and because it likely happened very quickly, there could have been very little time to react before passing out. My father works with some harsh chemicals (mainly very concentrated chlorine) and has been knocked out a few times by a single puff to the face of the stuff.
I'm a retired military physician and I can tell you with near certainty that you are correct. The hot air badly scorched the upper airways causing them to immediately spasm. The burns immediately caused blistering and sloughing of the airway linings, the airways couldn't work, and the unfortunate soldiers suffocated because they couldn't inhale. The fact that they suffocated probably gave rise to the myth that they died because the air was "sucked out" of the environment, which admittedly sounds plausible to people with little medical training.
“Advertising”: we had a particular threat of Russian AT grenades wielded by Iraqi insurgents when I was deployed.
The OG grenade had a parachute to point the shaped charge downwards into the thinly armored turret tops of American tanks.
The insurgents removed the parachute and, in urban areas, would just huck the thing straight into the sides of passing MRAPs (at close range from behind jersey barriers) hoping the angle would be right for the charge to penetrate.
Our countermeasure was advertising. We’d tighten up convoys for more density in cities, for concentration of fire. The gunners would wield an M4 and, instead of wheeling the turret around, would be sweeping their rifle around to imply that they were covering a wide range.
This had the effect of putting opportunists at bay by seemingly being able to turn and fire quicker. And it worked. We had a kid chuck one that landed short and blew out the tires on a vic, but that was it.
The irony is, that even at 6’3”, I could not actually aim my rifle over the top of a turret shield. It was just too high. But, I could point the barrel, and I guess that was enough.
Incidentally, some enemies thought that our dark Oakley eye protection had x-ray vision. Perception certainly matters. Shame we wasted all that in the end.
So True. Thank you anyway.
How do you feel about Afghanistan falling within a few weeks and Biden's botched withdrawal?
@@EmergencyChannel Is it Bidens?
“I started the process, all the troops are coming home, they (Biden) couldn’t stop the process. 21 years is enough. They (Biden) couldn’t stop the process, they (Biden) wanted to but couldn’t stop the process.”
D.Trump
Get a memory
@@zulubeatz1 and even after all that it was still joe biden who botched the withdrawal according to almost everyone left or right. Get over your cult... Its embarrassing.
@@jboss119 What cults that? Im not even from your culted up part of the world but i could see Trump cosing up to Putin a mile away. Treacherous shit. Like bresking up Nato. This is America first btw. This is what that means.
The longbow and claymore were the most effective ww2 weapons. They just needed the right man to use them.
A mad man.
This is your man: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Churchill
Go Mad Jack!!!
You're still wrong it was Mad Jacks bagpipes and yell that killed all axis troops that heard it.
chakatBombshell He’s the sole reason the brits didn’t build nukes, he was more powerful then a hydrogen bomb
"The most effective weapon of World War Two"
Me: "Flamethrower?"
Lloyd: "A tank flamethrower"
Well, that works, too.
Oh, the thumbnail gave it away.
@@fds7476
I thought "flamethrower" when I read just the title in my notifications.
Normal flamethrowers tended to turn the user into a dead person. They were very popular targets, the churchill just adds that little bit of protection against small arms fire.
@@falcovg2
Of course, but I didn't know flamethrower tanks were actually a used weapon of the time.
Besides, outside of the tank variant, flamethrowers were arguably the best weapon, albeit also the most dangerous to even just carry.
@@RandyKalff no they are very situational weapons, a flamethrower is great for clearing fortifications, but the range is very limited, so anyone with just a pistol is going to outrange you, nevermind proper infantry equipment.
The change to nitrogen from air was probably to ensure that any potential ignition source didn't turn the trailer on your tank into a very excitable thermobaric bomb.
That, and potentially to aid in pressure stabilization. Nitrogen is significantly more stable with varying temperature than normal air (which has moisture in it), so it could help with maintaining normal operation in situations when the tanks get hot (for example through the sun warming them up).
Should have been weaponized earlier.
All gasses follow the same rules. Air is mostly nitrogen anyway. Not that matters. O2 will expand the same amount nitrogen will in a closed system when heat is applies. All gasses work this way.
@@collateralpigeon2151 To a degree that is true. But not exactly. Water and carbon dioxide are definitely less than ideal gases. Both of them do funny things when pressurized and decompressed.
Another issue with water vapor being compressed and used to propel the fuel is that it requires more energy to change temperature/pressure. So as it decompresses during expansion, it cools off a lot. This leaves you with two problems, forming ice and cooling limited expansion. To address both problems, you have to reduce the rate of fire to allow the system to warm up again. If you have ever used one of those air duster cans for a couple of seconds and felt the can cool or even begin icing on the outside, you can start to get an idea of the problems involved. Even a relatively small amount of water in the compressed air would be meaningful pain in the backside, just having it rob heat as it expanded would cool off the propellant gas a lot and reduce the rate of expansion. Basically, if you fired too much too fast, you'd end up with an enforced "cool down" period as the system warmed up again.
The solution to fighting the Churchill crocodile is obviously the big thing on the back that. Clearly any Germans with a brain would go “Hey look the ammo for the flame thrower” and if they where even in a tiny 3.7 cm German tank gun FROM THE START OF THE WAR could penetrate the boiler from 500 meters MORE than enough to stay out of its firing range, even if it didn’t explode the ammo would soon leak, but if the gunner knew what they where doing they could use AP-HE and could pen the boiler and cause an explosion destroying the entire thing!!! (Actually maybe not the Churchill might survive the explosion emphasis on “might”) the modern gun the Germans had at the time the pak 40 could also do the same thing and might be able to pen the Churchill it’s self...
yea ignoring most of what the Germans had sure it’s is the most effective weapon in the war that’s why they use them so mu- NOT... if the flaws I mentioned didn’t exist (like say adding an inch more armor on the boiler increasing it from 25 mm to 50mm an alright amount of armor) than maybe it would have seen combat more...
The most effective weapon?
“My Dog has no nose.”
“Then How does he smell?”
For your own protection I cannot tell you any more.
10 Misteries scientists never gonna solve
hm i dont get it
corgidog th-cam.com/video/U4VjZKPjxnE/w-d-xo.html
Ich sprech, Ich sprech, Ich sprech.
Mein hund er hat nicht nasen...
One of the most effective M.P.F.C skits ever! I laughed so hard I split a gut. Nearly killed me!
Infantry escort? Why would the tanks need that?
- Kirill Meretskov 1939
Just Soviet thing apparently. My coworker told me story from his village in current day Ukraine, about very short battle between Soviet tanks and Polish border defense. Apparently upon realising Poles have no anti-tank ordinance, Soviet commander drove right into their positions, expecting them to surrender. They didn't, and spearhead was wiped out in resulting melee.
The British in North Africa thought the same way, until a few too many encounters with AT-guns.
You don't even have to go back to 1939. That is still very common today in the middle east, that's how Turkey gets their nice german tanks blown up. The Saudis also lost a bunch of lone Abrams out in the nowhere without any support.
oh you😉
@@villehammar7858 Ofcourse Operation Crusader made that horrible mistake (but you only have to have make a few less mistakes pull out a win from the enemy, you know, so it evens out). But could you really say it was common misconception?
"They would go up to 80 yards and then open fire. Quite literally in this case." favourite
Best laugh of the day
"more literaly than normal" amazing
Gunfire is also literally fire (it just happens to include a projectile). That's why we say 'open fire' in the first place, and why it's incorrect to say that you are 'firing' an arrow unless you are literally using fire arrows.
@@skepticalbadger No shit Sherlock.
Funny how the Churchill doesn't get mentioned much when these forums discuss allied armour. They were good solid pieces of equipment.
I would argue for the 155mm radar fused artillery shell. Artillery is the great killer of the battle field, and above ground burst made it much more effective.
called the VT fuze or proximity fuze
th-cam.com/video/6-D592VR4RU/w-d-xo.html
Most effective weapons not the munitions.
"You get it on the second squirt.. After zeroing in on the slit..."
surely it's the Katana, can slice a spandau in half. Or is that meme dead?
I used to resurrect long-dead memes like you, then I took an arrow to the knee...
Not more dead than the German's would've been had they declared war against the Japanese. America just got lucky that all the Samurai and Ninja were away at war in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Otherwise they would've sliced those Nukes in half.
@@nedisahonkey isnt that how Little Boy and Fat Man worked? By splitting their atoms? The Katana would add to the kinetic energy of the blast exponentially.
@@nedisahonkey The only thing worse is if you tried to end the bombs rightly with an unscrewed pommel. If you think about it, Fat Man was an upscaled unscrewed pommel. If you whip out a katana, you may instead unravel the strands of space-time and un-make the world.
@@davidtuttle7556 I was going to make a joke about that but technically the fact that the Manhattan project was a cover story for Japanese American Samurais training for years to hone their craft is still technically a government secret.
Well that and I thought about joking about how the US treated Japanese Americans during the war is in bad taste. Especially where I'm from.
The Unaware: “no one could make a 44 min video about historical weaponry riveting throughout!”
Lindybeige: “Hold my Lindyhop”
Wouldn't he do it while dancing if he had a suitable angle.
Hear! Hear!
*Ends up sidetracking 29 times*
This is a thinly disguised 45 minutes of british propaganda.
The ending took me by surprise. I could have kept listening for another 45 mins.
A 44 minute long video of unrelenting British bias? My day is made.
And yet where is the lie?
@@wierdalien1 not a lie perhaps, but perhaps a not fully accurate one. The Crocodile is a heavily specialized tank that saw relatively little combat when compared to it's own non-flame churchill brethren. Even the AVRE version saw more action. Flamer tanks seem cool but they dont serve much of purpose, the Americans used them quite heavily in the pacific, burning the Japanese jungle emplacements, and even then, the infantry STILL had to go in later. The Crocodile also ran out of fuel very quickly, and then it was just an undergunned churchill dragging a trailer. The crocodile would not be part of a main assault, it was basically a cleanup vehicle, sent in when the only enemies left were dug in infantry. Flames are bad for enemy morale, sure, but so is a normal churchill when they have nothing left to kill it.
@@98765zach yeah but when it was used it was extremely effective. Whereas most tools will have failure rates. (I mean so does this) you arent wrong it didnt see much service. But is more effective? Amoxillin or imipenam?
Amoxcillin is the frontline penicillin of choice these days and used by millions of people everyday. Imipenam is reserved for severe resistant bacteria and so doesnt see anywhere near the use.
@@wierdalien1 maybe sure but the most effective tools of war from the era still exist. Nuclear weapons from the atom bomb, fighter jets from the early ones, mbts from the medium heavy hybrid tanks, even assault rifles. If the flame tank was the most effective tool of ww2, shouldn5 we still use them?
@@98765zach tools can be context dependant and be highly effective indeed most are. (Plus he mentioned all those options as contenders). What is a more effective tool? A torque wrench or a straight spanner? When do you see battles with pillboxes occuring now?
And to some degree we do still use fire, napalm and thermobaric devices doing most of the role of a flamethrower (with flame (ok i know thermobarics don't rely on their flame front))
i like how the flaming tank was so cool it scared combatants into surrendering, thus the whole gimmick was just showing how cool the flaming tank was and that was it lol
Not watched yet but I somehow suspect that this weapon will be British.
*Edit: Well that was a short wait xD
I’m a simple man I see a lindybeige video, I *genuinely listen to his points and think about what he has to say*
Wow an actual clever variation on a meme I never found funny in the first place let alone upon its 1000th usage. Bravo.
... When it comes to the Taliban, you have to kill them because of thier willingness to die for thier cause (bringing about the 'End Times' and for going judgment for thier sins in this world, Paradise here on earth for the 'believer' and judgment for the Kafir and Tafir)
He's logic has limitations...
@@nedisahonkey Wow, somebody finally didn't reply with 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@remalm3670 I think you're confusing the Salafi Groups in the Middle East and North Africa with the Taliban. There is some overlap but the Taliban are mostly motivated by an interest in resisting foreign occupation. They have a similar veiw of Sharia but not identical. And it's important to note that most Taliban fighters are illiterate in Dari or Pashto, let alone Arabic so they tend to take whatever their Tribe leaders and Madrassa teachers say at face value. Whereas a group like Isis is composed of comparatively well educated urbanites (including most famously Mujahideen from countries outside their heartland) who at least have a passing knowledge of other less extreme views of Islam but have gravitated to the extreme Salafi form. Both groups have objectivley bad stated goals and ruthless killers in leadership positions along with devoted rank and file that are willing to die for the promise of paradise, but in my opinon (and most Islamic studies authorities) Isis and other Salafi groups represent a much more insidious threat. That being said i think its important to note that fundamentally most soldiers are fighting for the man next to them and a perceived defense of nation or culture more than any sense of malice or inherent wickedness. Not to mention these insidious Salafi groups are largely patronized by our own alleged ally Saudia Arabia, much as the Taliban are supported by Pakistan. America is fighting itself in a way with these wars and they're certainly not cut and dry good vs. Evil. Anyways not really sure why you posted this in this comment thread to begin with.
@@nedisahonkey ... The composition of the Taliban has changed over the decades. When we went to war in Aphganistan, they were referred to as Arab-Aphgans. They were the foreign muslims that came to fight the Russian and then establish the next Caliphate. They were able to subdue most of the Aphgan tribes and implement strict Sharia law and harbor jihadist that were going to overthrow secular muslim governments and replace them with Sharia compliant ones allied to thier established Caliphate. Then resuming the muslim crusades to bring about thier 'End Times' and having Paradise established on earth. When Bin Laden kicked this crusade off, the rest is history. We defeated the Arab-Aphgan Taliban; however, Bush made the fatal error of trying to centralize power in a Aphgan centralized government instead of letting the War Lords run things, we became 'invaders' at that point. The Aphgans wanted the Arab-Aphgan out. We and the Aphgans killed a lot of Arab-Aphgans; however, we unified them with our one world nation buildig program. Obama came a long and protected this arrangement (protecting the new alliance and hamstringing US forces while supporting the one world government of Bush 43, to unify and strengthen the new Taliban). So things have changed some ... just not the end game ...
Lindy aught to be paid more by his sponsors, his adverts for them are longer than the adverts they pay for before videos, and I'd reckon Lindy is significantly more convincing.
Thank you for the battlefield history of Tank flame throwers. As a young boy, I watched 8mm film taken by my father Lt.Col. Phillip Denton RE responsible for developing the weapon of Tank flame throwers under trial and development in Canada. What you say about the capable distance of flaming is interesting. In the trials on film, it is clear they were capable of flaming to a distance in excess of 200yeards, possibly up to 300yards. One thing I understand was another strategy of putting down an intense smokescreen for advancing troops. The trials did this by laying down a wet blast and then lighting it up. As a boy I became aware of the terror of this weapon of burning men to death. I am therefore heartened at what you said about , "advertising" thus encouraging soldiers to surrender rather than face a terrible death. Robert Paul Denton
"At which they'd open fire... more literally than normal." The WIT :P
As soon as I saw the title in my sub box I thought:
"This is going to be some british Invention and Lindy is going to hype the "sh*t out of it."
Well, I was right. Your bias is strong Lindy.
But I can't fault you as long as the videos are so entertaining.
But where here is the lie?
One of my favorite Lindy things is the opportunity to be exposed to a different point of view about..well....everything. Lloyd is funny, witty, and painfully straightforward. It's more fun than any philosophy class I ever attended.
@@wierdalien1 It's not a lie like his views on global warming. It's just a very subjective topic.
@@pingusbror Subjective true, but he argues the point well :-)
@@pingusbror his views on global warming?
Is this why "Bowser" in Mario breathes fire?
Nah, because if it were, the Italians would of stomped all over it.
Yes
Bowser was the inventor of the first fuel pump. So his brandname got associated with tanks for fuel and water.
rvannooij I didn’t know this, I guess you learn something everyday. Thank you!
I wouldn't be surprised
Ah, it was a more innocent age, when you could explain to children how a flamethrower killed men. Try that today and you'd probably be put away.
LOVE the content as always.
"At a 120 yards, that's when they started squirting at the enemy"
~LindyBeige, 2019
"The weapon I'm going to suggest it was... is the crocodile"
He is going to talk about the battle of Ramree! Oh boy oh boy!
"No, flamethrower tank lol"
YOU'RE DEAD TO ME
Haters think Ramree never happened. Or Jews did it.
Haha, wow, I'd never heard of that one, but now we need Lindy to make a video about it!
My dad fought at Ramree Island, but he never saw any crocodiles there (of either the tracked or 4-legged variety).
@@mercut1o The event has absolutely been exaggerated.
Even then, he wouldn't have seen them so much as the Japanese would have.
@@orangejoe204 the latter is what I would love to hear explained. I'm actually an anti-zionist who follows the channel TruNews though no joke wallah!
Using up the oxygen in some room does not create vacuum. It just replaces O2 with Co2. If anything the heated up gas takes more volume... Also CO2 and CO toxicity is significantly less than 20% that is the usual O2 concentration.
Not a complete vaccum, a partial vacuum. The produced CO2 is less dense than the air. That's why the egg in a bottle trick works. You know the one, when they put an egg at the mouth of a bottle with a lit match inside, the egg gets sucked in. It would be like that with the dirt at the edge of the trench.
Yes. Lol lindy...
its all depends on the size of the flame/rate of combustion and size of the room but most importunity the amount of ventilation. if you have bad ventilation like say in a bunker or a ship then yes your going to die from suffocation, but good ventilation like a building with high ceiling and big double doors your going to die from the heat
Brodie Knight
That's not how that trick works. The air inside the bottle is heated by the flame, when the egg is placed on top the flame is extinguished due to lack of oxygen, then the air cools and creates a vacuum.
@sbcontt YT Well, it has a higher density (e.g. higher molecule weight), but still contains the same amount molecules in a volume (assuming similar temperature and pressure).
Within a bunker probably air is rushed in due to heated air is drawn out / raising out of the bunker.
“Object with a Bren gun”
-Sir we've made a weapon that spits fire
-Cool! I shall name it The crocodile
-But sir...
-The crocodile, what a fantastic name
You see this hat, do you know what hat it is?
Yes sir, it's the captains hat.
Indeed, so what does that make me?
The captain sir.
Exactly. So what's this tank called?
A crocodile sir 😒
@Marry Christmas call it the cdragon then
At 0:30, I'm guessing a Spandau that fires flaming katana pommels.
EDIT: 0:40 OK, looks like I was wrong.
Didnt they make war-scythe bullets in .303 rifle for both the Bren and Sten?
@@davidtuttle7556 I might have seen a Bloke on the Range video on that subject, but I'm not sure.
Why does anyone call it a spandau? Those things were our ww1 machine guns, not the mg34 and mg42.
@@shaunbrender the same reason I accused katanas of having flammable pommels, of course
@@shaunbrender If you are serious, I think you've missed the most controversial thing Lloyd has ever ranted about. If not, you're sarcasm is to stealthy for me to detect. BRAVO!
We all know it was the funniest joke that won us the war. I believe Monty Python did a brilliant documatary on the development of this deadly weapon
Funniest joke mk 2, after the Chamberlain peace for our time mk1 joke was created.
"My dog has no nose." "How does it smell?" "awful."
That was all hushed up, when joke warfare was banned.
"Squad! Tell the...JOKE!"
"Fritz? That you?"
"Ja!"
Bang!
"Tommy?"
"Tommy's not here. That you, Fritz?"
"Ja!"
Bang!
120 yards of flame
"Hey, I don't like the guy on the other end of the stadium. Let's set him on fire."
T-O-A-S-T-Y
More like 120 feet. That big tank of gas trailing the tank must have been a tempting target. I can't believe that a lot of them didn't go up in smoke. Any gun with tracer bullets would have blown it away.
Except a lot of them didn't go up in smoke-
@@psilvakimo Don't quote me on this, but I believe that it was taken into consideration that enemies would aim for the fuel trailer. Hence why it was put at just enough distance that an explosion from it might not kill the crew.
Then again, we're talking the same military that wanted to use incendiary bats on japan, so...
@@iainballas Bat bomb were American. They were effective...
At setting fire to the US base were they were being tested.
FDR's lesson learned: Don't take military advice from your wife's dentist (yes, really)
"Every second of squirt was an awful lot more gallons"
bruh
I find it hard to believe that they had reliable electrical systems, they were undoubtedly supplied by Lucas......
I think Matt Easton might be rubbing off on him.
I was so excited by the title and thinking to myself 'finally, the venerable battle taxi bren carrier get's it's turn In the spotlight as most effective weapon, not only of WW2, but perhaps of all time!' But no! A flame thrower... 😐
Next time, brave little carrier, next time.
The Bren was ranked as the 2nd most effective weapon though! It's in his video "spandau vs bren part two"
I believe they did mount them on universal carriers, they were called wasps and very effective.
Seriously this man is more like a marketing executive who talks about his own product... Cant believe he is talking about a armoured truck thats also a flame thrower... What a load of shit
@@taratiwadi1532 you missed the part where he specifically stated that the vehicle you are referring to was for airfield defense. He mentioned it to note that the Churchill crocodile was not the first flame thrower equipped vehicle.
A panzerfaust operator could easily get within effective range simply by deploying the Sir Lancelot Maneuver.
Simply run over the nearest hill multiple times, seemingly never getting closer to the Churchill. This confuses the crew. They'll be especially perplexed when the panzerfaust operator suddenly pops up, yells, "Haha!" with extreme enthusiasm, and lets fly with his shaped charge.
A tactic easily stymied by deployment of the Killing Joke (which tank crew are typically immune to, since tank engines are so bloody loud).
@@patrickholt2270
Incorrect, sir! The Killing Joke is deployable by anyone, as long as the weilder doesn't understand it.
@@eldorados_lost_searcher Apparently the Germans attempted to reverse engineer the Joke and create their own to use against us. Though of course, it failed miserably in practice due to Germans having little to no sense of humour of their own.
Honestly, I can think of few things more terrifying than being on the receiving end of a heavy assault and seeing flamethrower weapons coming for you. Terrible way to die.
"This book is useful in hand-to-hand combat"-25:05 I almost spat out my tea.
Considering the quality of paper, it'll be bulletproof
The moment I saw the question in the title, I knew 100% that it will be something British made, and most likely something tank-related. :D
Pun intended, I have no doubt :-).
...those 2 bombs, *WE* dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki......^^
Haha love how there's just a random picture of Jeor 'fookin' Mormont on the wall amongst pictures of wildlife and nature. 😂
@i have an evil laugh well, I obviously didn't catch that video, mate!
Well, he IS known as "The Old Bear"
@@rickybindahoose6193 Video is like 5 years old though ^^
@@freaki0734 3 years old: th-cam.com/video/cAuCa1uSO5U/w-d-xo.html
This is definitely in the top 3 of things I've seen on You Tube. I really enjoyed the delving into the psychological aspect of combat in regards to encouraging surrended.
TLDR. People dislike being set on fire.
Imagine seeing a tank and being like
"Oh shit it's an enemy tank"
And then it soots a massive blast of flame at you
That would be terrifying
Fritz: Hans?
Hans: Ja?
Fritz: Zey have ze *Flamenwerferpanzerkampfwagen!*
Hans: Scheiße!
For the short time it actually has fuel for sure. The problem with flamers is that they absolutely annihilate fuel storages and they end up as a less effective machine gun nest after a short combat sprint. They are rarely deployed anyway and when they are it is usually only to dog out entrenched infantry after AT guns and such are destroyed. Otherwise why drag an already slow tank with a massive vulnerable fuel trailer into a battle?
@@98765zach that was kind of the point of sticking it on a tank, they could project it yards away and carry tens of minutes of fuel when the tank would only need a few seconds of flame at a time
@@AsbestosMuffins but it's not tens of minutes of fuel, it's not even five. Using flamethrowers requires longer pulls of the trigger to apply your firepower anyway, so it isnt 180 seconds of continuous death it's a few seconds each time to make sure the burning fuel actually gets there to do anything, especially from that 80 yard range.
@@98765zach Or a quick blast of fuel, flaming or not, to ask the question 'Do you want to burn to death in the next five minutes or not?' Fear of fire is a fairly fundamental thing to your average ape.
Ian, from the "forgotten weapons" TH-cam channel had an interview with a flamethrower specialist.
That man did state "the Carbon monoxide" did the killing, not the lack of oxygen.
It seems poisoning with carbon monoxide is fast & instant.
It was a very interesting video, that interview.
Here it is: th-cam.com/video/ts55TNp1Fq4/w-d-xo.html
Does that make it technically a chemical weapon?
@@handsomebrick Probably not. the intended use is for burning people and things. I doubt they even knew that carbon monoxide was doing some of the killing at the time. Plus, burning can also kill very quickly. if the fuel lands on your neck, your carotid arteries would be instantly cauterized and the blood would coagulate. There's no bloodflow even making it to your brain, so the fact that you are breathing in carbon monoxide (which kills because it prevents blood from absorbing oxygen) is irrelevant. It would be like worrying about tomorrow's supper when your leg is blown off.
Isnt carbon monoxide poisoning just suffocation without the panic caused by excess c02?
SOME of the killing - not all of it. I was actually a bit disappointed with that video, seemed some of it was sugar coated.
Hi Lindybeige, I am from germany and I am really impressed by your german pronunciation. English speaking people often have problems especially with the umlaute and the e at the end of words. But your "Fallschirmjäger" was flawless!! :)
He really made a 44 minute video in one shot?!?! Impressive
*Trademarked
What I learned from this: By properly defining "effective" any weapon can be declared to be the most effective....
I suggest the handgrenade for a new video.
A lot of people calling Lindy Beige predictable, because it's British, but did anyone expect the Crocodile?
No, because its so stupid to make a flamethrower(-tank!) even an effective weapon in general...
Nobody expects the Crocodile Inquisition! Or...something like that... :-)
@@brownpcsuncedu Our chief weapon is surprise. surprise and 120 ft of flame. two weapons: surprise and flame. and an ability to make nearly everyone surrender. our three weapons are surpise, flame, and...
I'll come back in
@@broyhan IF it's so stupid why didn't they all have them?
I can listen to this bloke all day - it's stopping me getting on with my work.
The negative phycological effect of Apache helicopters and drones on insurgency conflicts that he discusses at the end was very interesting and not something many people would be aware of, I certainly wasn't and I have watched or read tons of this sort of content.
Great stuff Lindybeige.
Thanks.
I think the asphyxiation myth, which I also hear in my childhood, comes from the area bombings in WWII. After a bomb raid the rescue teams would find groups of dead people in cellars and makeshift shelters that weren't wounded in any way but were dead from asphyxiation due to the fires from the bombing.
In the video Lloyd says that burning the oxygen in a bunker would create a vacuum that would pull in more oxygen. But oxygen consumed through combustion doesn't just vanish, it is reorganised into the products of the chemical reaction, for example carbon dioxide gas.
@@essenceofsuchness and carbon dioxide is far better at killing you than just lack of oxygen alone
"More literally than normal" - I'm keeping that
Without watching first: Artillery
I remember reading somewhere that artillery was responsible for over 80% of WWII casualties.
Artillery the King on the battlefield.
@sidgar1 you've read it about WW1, not WW2
Artillery was and is more effective when your enemy does not move.
Accounts of hardened SS troops being terrified of Allied artillery being unleashed on them in Normandy, accounts of men going mad, and remember, a lowly captain could call for Divisional arty at the call on the radio in 1944.
It's artillery in both wars. If you have no infantry left alive, then your shiny metal boxes look a bit less powerful.
Am I the ONLY one who was expecting/ hoping ol' Lindy woulda said "One-handed spear and shield!"
@Lindybeige 7:52
AFAIK You can die of asphyxiation bc of the smoke the fire produces in a small room like a bunker. not because there is absolutely no oxygen in the room.
What about in a trench?
DankyKang I believe there are reports of Japanese bunkers being cleared due to the CO2 or CO produced by the flamethrowers used by marines. I can’t recall the specific battles though.
You see CO and CO2 are both nice, but don't forget there are liquid flames everywhere and also there tends to be quite a lot of ammunition lying around.
When a person is scared, they breath harder. Imagine when the breath you take is several hundred degrees from a flamethrower, your lungs and throat no longer work... WALA, asphyxiation!
But probably the fire is gonna do the job first...
As soon as he said flame throwing tank I was like nahhhhh, disagree. But still sat here and listened to his opinion. Still very entertaining and informative like always.
Well done👍
Have to admit I was the same, Artillery was, and still is the King of the Battlefield, perhaps a little less these days, but certainly in WWII.
This video ignores all the tools the Russians used against the Nazis starting with the Battle of Stalingrad all the way to the Battle for Berlin. The US/Brits mostly did destruction from the air, the troops had little to fight compared to the huge, gigantic, epic battles raging like crazy on the Eastern Front.
Having a working Crocodile would be pretty cool. It would be an awesome 80 seconds, but 400 gallons of petrol? That's over £2k at the pump!
"Don't shoot a Crocodile in the Bowser."
I'm still not convinced, I'd rather be shooting at it than towing it if it exploded.
My first reaction to the title was, "This will start a flame war!"
"The second squirt would go accurately straight through the slit"
15:03 "One thing they sometimes did was a wet squirt"
They were very good at cracking particularly tough nuts
@@bluemountain4181 I guess I would, if faced by such a device.
Yeah baby !
It must have been an exceptionally terrifying weapon if it would cause the enemy to surrender knowing they would be eating ENGLISH cuisine! ;)
From what I've heard, German quisine was the wurst.
Fire or ? what the hell do they eat anyway? I'll go with fire, HOT! ok, ok, I'll try the shepherds pie something
@Marry Christmas They do if you start "Don't eat."
This stereotype is based on 1940s food anyway so fair enough
@@samtownend6744 Even if it is, it's still pretty bad food. I still don't know why you would ever overcook those peas.
8:08 The oxygen becomes carbon dioxide (or monoxide) keeping the air pressure constant. There is no vacuum. If anything the fumes from the fuel and splitting one 02 molecule into two CO molecules would create overpressure actively keeping oxygen out. There is no "back door" in tunnels and underground bunker complexes.
how do you get in the room
@@Impreza-bj5jh Squirt some flamethrower fuel into a gun slit then ignite it
@@AThousandYoung think he means that if there's no back door then how do the people get in? to which I would say maybe the front door? or a top hatch or something?
Oh of course there is a "front door" but it's generally locked on a fortification...sometimes it's underground tunnel connected to some other fortification.
@@zwenkwiel816 Then you would be wrong
Great , lindybeige talking about 2 out of my 3 biggest fears
1. Alligators
2. Crocodiles
3. Brain aneurysm
"First squirt they circled the area till they found their target, second squirt went into the slit" X3
@dustisdeadbodies85 thats what she said
Haven't watched the video yet. Is it the Bren by any chance? Or a Churchill. Or a spoon. (A British spoon).
Got pretty close there
That was great! Thank you. The replies are often the icing on the cake of a good video
Those British spoons won us back the Falklands!
An attractively engraved fish slice perchance?
Nukes?
When Ike was asked about the top three things that won the war he said.
Transport plane, Higgins boats and bulldozers...
Logistics win wars apparently...
They do, but Lindy’s not arguing that the crocodile won the war, just that’s it’s the most combat effective weapon one group of soldiers could have to attack another.
Seems like they fogot about Liberty ships and later in the war, Victory ships (to a lesser extent).
Germany: jumping from planes will allow us to take out these air fields.
UK: *laughs in Blood Angel*
Laughs in Salamander, surely :)
@Pope Bentdick Cursory Google searching reveals that the only limit placed on incendiaries (including flamethrowers) by the Geneva Convention is against using them on civilians. Additionally, this protocol was not instituted until 1981. And why pick on the allies? The Axis powers all used flamethrowers as well.
*STHEL RHEN*
@Pope Bentdick Germans used the Flammenwerfer 35 extensively in the early parts of the war to clear bunkers and trenches. Lindy even uses a picture of a German using one on the Russian Front. Their fuel shortage problems probably contributed to their falling out of favor as the war progressed.
Italians used one during their war with Ethiopia. Italians had a light tank during the North African campaign, but it wasn't particularly effective.
Are you some sort of Wehraboo? Because you are demonstrably wrong.
@@ObadiahtheSlim His google-fu is so weak he can't even find wikipedia. Incidentally, the article there on flamethrowers is very well referenced. That aside, I do wonder why he picked a comment about Space Marines as the best place to comment about warcrimes.
MAGNIFICENT! - I barely can listen to a musicvideo 5 minutes, but could listen to Lindybeige all day long! - Levi from Finland
The most effective weapon of war in general: mosquitos
Quite so. RAF people passed them around to kill the weeds in their new gardens. (Flamethrowers, that is).
Great fun.
Probably the most effective anti-human weapon of all time.
I submit that the most effective weapon of WW2 was the squad-level radio.
Intelligence won the war. It at least truncated it and saved lives, for sure.
@18:10 "We'll just jettison the bowser now, it will make us lighter and faster"
I had a good laugh about that. "Going faster" in a Churchill? I expect it's more a case of being more maneuverable over broken ground.
Which will, more broadly speaking, make you faster though.
@ALSO-RAN ! I meant in the sense of "more maneuverability" = "less time spent maneuvering" = "reaching your destination quicker than you otherwise would have" = "being faster".
@ALSO-RAN ! The engine wouldn't notice. But maneuvering with a trailer will take longer than maneuvering without one, just by the simle fact that without it, the tank can turn on the spot. With the trailer, it can't do that. Crossing trenches would also become more complicated due to having several tons of weight hanging off the back. Which also shifts the overall center of gravity and thus may reduce the maximum angle at which the tank can climb an incline. And there are plenty of other ways the driving characteristics of a tank would be changed by having a trailer hanging off the back.
@ALSO-RAN ! The thing is, you never know what your battlefield is going to look like. There are plenty of weapons that have proven unnecessarily limited because the designers made too many assumptions about what kind of scenario they'd be used in.
The difference would ultimately not be large, we can agree on that.
But given that it was done shows that there were situations in which, at least by the crews assesment, it made a difference.
Remember fellas, It's not the size of the turret that matters, it's your amount of squirt time
THICC Brit squirts on Germans
You've got a great enthusiastic way of presenting these things such that they feel kinda wholesome but then I think about it and oh God some of this stuff is horrifying.
Oddly enough...today, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are much nicer places than Detroit and Baltimore.
youre the history teacher i never had, most of my history i learned from my own research, you make it interesting enough to listen to 45 minutes worth of the same subject
Crocodiles aren't very good weapons, they're too slow. Alligators are superior.
Herbie Husker it's actually the other way around
“We found an alligator and powdered his behind; when we touched the powder off he really lost his mind”
@@theCodyReeder anti British lyrics on a Lindybeigh video, this will not be tolerated good sir! 🤣
Crocodiles killed HUNDREDS of Japanese soldiers, I bet the most an alligator did during the war was eat some Vichy France sympathizing Cajun. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ramree_Island
I'm Cajun...we eat those😆
The most effective weapon of World War Two was artillery. Singlehandedly caused over half of all military casualties and was a huge morale wrecker to the opposing force. PTSD was called shell shock back then for a reason.
Most consistently effective, or most reliable, fool proof, I think is what Lloyd was going for.
Artillery doesn't stop the enemy fighting - they have artillery too. If you're taking casualties from artillery, you can move back a bit, or dig in a bit.
Lots of Russians surrendered because they were encircled (they couldn't retreat), fired at from all sides and ran out of supplies.
Lots of Italians surrendered because they had no way to retreat, and nowhere to retreat to, and conditions were dire where they were. Similarly for the Germans at Stalingrad, and Tunisia.
28:00
I thought that's what this video would be about. Sadly artillery wasn't a purely British weapon and as such couldn't possibly be the most effective.
Artillery is not a single weapon like the Churchill Crocodile was. You would have to split it down to individual guns, and things start to get really messy then.
Pure brilliance! I could watch Lindybeige all day. In fact, he should be compulsory viewing at teacher training college, in the way that he brings he things alive. If every school had 10 x Lindybeige's, we would have more engaged kids.