Why disguise this Soviet flamethrower as a rifle? With firearms and weapon expert Jonathan Ferguson
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ค. 2024
- Since their introduction during the First World War, modern flamethrower operators have been a priority target for marksmen and snipers due to the deadly fuel the weapons unleashes.
This Soviet-made ROKS-2 flamethrower was likely designed to disguise it's true capabilities, resembling more of a rifle design and indeed having a similar buttstock to a Mosin Nagant rifle. Examples of fuel tanks hidden in knapsacks were also prevalent on this type of flamethrower.
Join Jonathan Ferguson as he takes a closer look at this fascinating weapon and even discovers that we've had it configured upside down for a number of years live on camera.
The object: collections.royalarmouries.or...
Subscribe to our channel for more videos about arms and armour
Help us bring history to life by supporting us here: royalarmouries.org/support-us...
Sign up to our museum membership scheme here: royalarmouries.org/support-us...
⚔Website: royalarmouries.org/home
⚔Blog: royalarmouries.org/stories/
⚔Facebook: / royalarmouriesmuseum
⚔Twitter: / royal_armouries
⚔ Instagram: / royalarmouriesmuseum
We are the Royal Armouries, the United Kingdom's national collection of arms and armour. Discover what goes on behind the scenes and watch our collection come to life. See combat demonstrations, experience jousting and meet our experts.
Have a question about arms and armour? Feel free to leave us a comment and we'll do our best to answer it.
1:45 Mikhail Petrovich Sergeev was a Russian CIvil War veteran,who was pretty much sent to university right from the trench. He was employed at Kompressor factory in Moscow (previously known as Dangauer & Kaiser, used to manufacture variety of mechanisms including Katyusha devices during WWII, currently defunct thanks to 90s deindustrialisation) as an engineer for chemical and special machinery, eventually becoming a chief of Design Bureau for special purposes (Специальное конструкторское бюро). During the war he has designed the ROKS. October 29, 1949, he recieved a reward for participation in soviet nuclear program - Stalin Prize, 3rd degree and an Order of the Red Banner of Labour. After that he was in charge of design bureau working on the reactor for Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant, first grid-connected nuclear power plant in the world. He retired in the 70s and died in 1989.
Слава герою социалистического труда!
I'm surprised he wasn't killed for a failed project....
@@kainhall yes, it is truly a surprise that something that never happened didn't happened here. What a relief
@@comradejet9373 Что там было, что за комментарий?
@@Andrey_Gysev Грил "удивительно", мол, "что его не убили за провальный проект". Я тоже удивляюсь, никогда не убивали и тут не убили, чудо не иначе.
I'll resist the urge to say, "Jonathan has finally got his hands on a firearm". 😉
I'll get my coat. 😳
Disguising a flamethrower as a rifle is a interesting way to make a flamethrower; though I think one of the reasons this was made to look like a rifle was perhaps it was easier to train the bearer of this unique weapon. Soviets had some really odd weaponry
I would argue opposite, as it's manual of arms is quite different (ie you don't shoulder the rifle with a flamethrower as you have to watch where the fire is shooting). It was probably legitimately to make the silhouette less obvious.
Let me elaborate on your point a bit further. I believe it was stated in one of Ian McCollum's videos on flamethrowers, that they have quite a bit of recoil, and ROKS-3 in particular throws forward about a litre of quite heavy fuel (maybe on par with water in density, so a kilo in weight) per shot at a bare minimum. So, to stock it would be a reasonable idea, and given that flamethrower troops were attached to the rifle regiments, this design would allow you to go through the same basic training as ordinary riflemen.
"it was easier to train the bearer.." which is why the t34 was modelled after a Tford , easier for drivers to learn how to drive the tank...and the Mig 3 was modelled after
a soap box cart for easier understanding of soviet young kids who aspired to be a pilot some day...
I think they had the fuel for it made to look like a backpack, so the point of the rifle looking flamethrower was to make the guy carrying it less of an obvious target
Yeah no as a marksman I would be so ready to pop the guy with the flame rig I can completely see the benefit in this.
Flamethrowers are horrific weapons, and I can only imagine that they are pretty terrifying for the operator as well.
Presumably the enemy would have targeted anyone with a flamethrower, so disguising it as a rifle made sense in respect of protecting the poor bugger who had to wield it
At least in situations like on the march when they were not trying to use it.
@@Ugly_German_Truths also if they're close enough to be imminently intending to use it, you're probably a bit distracted by all the other guys with him who are currently storming your position and firing on you to notice the slightly off-looking carbine in time
I was going to say the same thing.
When I first found out about this, what surprised me the most was how the Soviets seemed to be showing concern, however slight, for the well being of their troops.
@@embrikchloraker8186 Troops are resources after all, soviet weaponry is designed to be effective.
The US marines experimented with a tankless (or backpackless) flamethrower in the 50's. Designated the M8, it was a long horseshoe shaped tube that expelled the fuel via an explosive charge behind a huge ball bearing. It was single shot, single burst which meant that when you pulled the trigger it ran until it was dry
@Brennometer Actually the German Bundeswehr used a design based on the Einstossflammenwerfer 46 it was called Handflammpatrone DM34. It was phased out of service in 2001, IIRC.
'Flame Thrower: Memoir of a Crocodile Tank Commander, D-Day to the Rhine' describes not only the devastating effect this massive flamethrower had; abut also the fact that at least 1 captured crew were executed by the Germans as soon as they surrendered. Flamethrowers were such a terrifying weapon that seeing one would induce kill fury or terror. It was not like snipers or machine guns. A bloke with a flamethrower had to get close, and every Fritz within sight would have have been shooting at any Ivan obviously carrying a flamethrower as soon as they spotted him.
Why would you want to carry a weapon that made you a special target and required that you get in close? The disguise would make issuing it a little less confrontational.
@@MartinWillett this is also why I think they tried making it look like a rifle and backpack
@@MartinWillett Honestly, I don't think anyone really would want to carry one because of these exact reasons.
What the soldier wanted probably wasn't really taken into consideration though.
Main reason for disguising the weapon was probably to help increase the chance of applying the weapon in combat rather than ensuring the survival of the man carrying it.
@@kristianjensen5877 It's the other side of the same coin really. The flamethrower needs to be up near the front of the advance not cowering at the back out of range doing no good to anyone.
@@MartinWillett True, I was just addressing the question of "Why would you want to carry a weapon that made you a special target and required that you get in close"
The flamethrower has to be close to be effective - but that does't mean that the person carrying has to like any bit of it.
But that's generally what warfare is about - doing things nobody'd like to do if they had the option to avoid doing it.
It actually looks a lot like the French bolt actions (notably the MAS-36). The thickener used in the petrol mix is likely bitumen. It helped to make the mix flow well, and stick to whatever it hits.
Is it not usually some sort of gel thickener? In my mind bitumen would clog up every line and opening in the tool after use.
At first glance I thought it was mas-36
Bitumen would adhere to every valve and nozzle.
@@zoiders It’s used in tiny quantities, as part of the chemical process, you’re not tipping a bucket of tar into a barrel of petrol…
@@edsutherland8266 No its not. The thickening agent in British throwers was palmatic acid. Whale oil in short and I am fairly certain the Russian far east ports were harvesting whales as well. Lipstick being one thing they almost never rationed as there was no shortage of whale oil. Add aluminium salts and you have napalm. No Bitumen.
I love this guy, so enthusiastic, so educational.
They used not regular blank TT cartridges, but special ones with an igniter composition instead of gunpowder.
Likely added in some phosphorous or magnesium added in with the powder since they ignite easily and burn hot and longer than the powder in most cases.
@@SilvaDreams An empty cartridge case of a TT pistol cartridge with a capsule was taken, a "composition of lighting fire" was placed inside. A paper wad was laid on top of the composition, on top of which a waterproof mastic was poured. There was no gunpowder at all. The "lighting composition" probably consisted of barium nitrate and magnesium powder with additives.
This is correct information. I have the user manual for this flamethrower.
I can instantly understand the idea of disguising a flamethrower as a rifle or carbine, even if the disguise is kind of weak. NOBODY likes the flamethrower guy... it's a horrendous weapon that stands far beyond the pale for almost everyone (even soldiers, maybe even *especially* soldiers) and makes the bearer a massive target to be dispatched with extreme prejudice. If I was equipped with a flamethrower, I'd want it to look as little like a flamethrower as can be managed...
Yep. Guys with flamethrower in the Eastern Front had very little chance to be captured. They was primary targets and usually was shot if they try to surrender
Tend to catch Friendly fire too.
@@semi-useful5178 I'm sure it's unintentional but that pun is spot on.
@@torgranael
I intend my puns.
@@semi-useful5178 Excellent
I thought it was a Martini-Henry carbine at first glance lol.
But then, oh my days, a threaded inlet and cartridge cylinder!
If you are ever stuck for video ideas a series where the maintenance guys clean up or fix some of the collections guns would be pretty cool, keep it relaxed and unedited and it would be a pretty interesting video to chill out to!
another "rifle" flamethrower is the Italian Mod. 41 assault flamethrower, which often gets overlooked because its WW2 Italy, but its worth a look because it's all contained within the Rifle, with no backpack
No backpack?
No wonder it's overlooked. Is it a squirt gun, per chance? Italian design, folks.
@@RazorsharpLT Italians make the finest gasoline squirt guns
@@RazorsharpLT Most flamethrowers had to have batteries or other power and ignition systems attached to a separate backpack unit or even to the fuel tank itself. I believe what they meant is that the flamethrower unit's batteries and ignition are contained within the rifle. The Italian model 35 had an enormous backpack that attached to the fuel tank that made it cumbersome, but the 40 reduced that. I'm not aware of the 41 personally, supposedly it was designed for paratroopers, but it's likely they further refined it so it wasn't so heavy that a donkey or truck had to drive it into a theater of combat like with the 35. According to the U.S. Military's own reports, the 41 was just an overall improvement on the 35 and 40, so by all accounts it /was/ actually some good engineering.
@@sappho114 Oh, so it DID have a backpack? Oh, okay, might be good then. But his original statement makes no sense
@@bickyboo7789 lmao
I'll just buy a commercial plastic toy, fill it with gasoline and out a lighter to it
Actually will try that, seems like a fun self defense weapon lmao... or i guess using a spray can with a lighter would be more effective at this point
11:41 I'd personally imagine that another reason why it has a mosin-esque stock is that the stocks used could've been repurposed from damaged mosins or even stocks taken from the factories that had defects and would normally have to be thrown out
The testicular fortitude of the guys carrying this must have been legendary.
Doing the God's work here, Jonathan, I've never seen this piece covered in any detail in popular sources neither in Russian nor in English!
1:17 I've seen claims that ROKS-3 was only invented in early 1942 and further modified in 1943.
2:04 I believe this is how this abbreviation is pronounced in Russian.
3:16 As far as I'm aware, postwar Soviet manuals state that quite a few different fuels could be used aside form the one you've mentioned (creosote+coal tar+gasoline): diesel fuel, fuel oil alone (in summer months only) or mixed with gasoline and kerosene. Mixed fuels were the preferred alternative, judging by the general Russian term for flamethrower fuel (огнесмесь - lit. 'fire [i.e. flame] mix').
5:53 Given that you could only make up to 8 shots (as per the Central Museum of the Armed Forces description), presumably due to the fuel constraints (8.5 litres in total), I'm not sure whether you would load all 10 chambers.
5:56 Indeed, the ignition cartridge was using the 7.62×25 case and primer.
11:42 I would agree with that assumption, since ROKS-2 & ROKS-3 were produced on different factories and under the different authorities from Mosin rifles. Different logistical chains altogether.
12:37 Not only that, but you probably could reuse the storage racks designed for Mosin rifles & carbines, and, as the story of the Polish _Tantal_ project had shown, it's the ability that militaries value a lot. And, of course, a proper stock allows for greater recoil control, given that you throw about a litre of quite heavy fuel per trigger pull at the bare minimum.
13:21 The aforementioned Central Museum of the Armed Forces description claims that the maximum range is up to 40 m.
14:16 What a shame! I was hoping to see you covering this topic one day, I was always intrigued by the relative lack of information on the British infantry flamethrowers.
Perhaps something to be said for having a couple of spare blanks in case of duds? Not sure how reliable late 30s/early 40s Soviet powder was.
@@Yuzral I'm not aware of powder composition used in these ignition cartridges, and overall pistol powder quality was not a significant issue at that time, given the abundance of submachineguns, of which the most widespread, PPSh, boasted quite a high rate of fire. That being said, in this case you might potentially encounter misfires due to the trigger system. Although even if this was the case, given the fuel tank capacity, you'd just empty it out by somewhat longer trigger pulls. Indeed, the thing only had enough fuel for two somewhat long bursts.
Thank you - my quoted range with thickened fuel came from the two US sources - the North Korea Country Handbook and the 1965 DoD manual both say 35m. Wouldn't be the first time that western sources got something wrong :) Good point on storage racks - thank you for that and the other information. Prep for these videos varies between years of on and off research to dedicated research done for books and articles (less often) to a couple of hours spare for something like this, to entirely off the cuff, depending upon my workload. Not complaining, but some will be more comprehensive than others and some errors will slip through - I'm actually encouraged that I didn't drop any major balls with this one as it's quite outside my prior knowledge.
@@jonathanferguson1211 I greatly appreciate your effort with these videos, and what I find most interesting is that 'outside the box' perspective with which you look at both familiar and obscure pieces. Despite the constraints, your videos do not communicate that rush to document the fleeting moment in history that - sadly, a bit too often for my taste as of late - spoils Ian's work. I guess having a large museum collection at hand has its benefits after all, even if there's always something you don't posess. 😉 And an academic background in history & archaeology also helps to walk the fine line between what the sources say & what can be safely said relying on them with source criticism in mind.
In this particular case you almost outdid yourself, because not only were you hampered by the lack of data in English and bound to rely on secondary if not tertiary sources of questionable quality, but the topic in general seems to be severely underpublished. From my much more cursory look on the WW2 flamethrowers I got the understanding that besides the US M2/M9 family none of them is discussed to anything even remotely similar to the same extent as any other military firearm produced at the same scale at that time.
@@F1ghteR41 Thank you, that's very kind of you. It's definitely a different proposition to be able to take your time with things that are literally next door, not to mention only having to cover one per week (Gamespot is entirely off the cuff so much less prep required). We are probably somewhere between Ian and Othais in terms of research time vs output, which is fine company to be in :)
I've read that the reason for disguising the ROKS-3 as a rifle was to reduce the number of flamethrower users getting shot.
Many of the troops armed with a flamethrower were Assault Sappers, and as such had body armor that would stop pistol ammunition and artillery fragments.
Would be cool to replicate a working model and see it in use .
Here is Ian from Forgotten Weapons with the US version: th-cam.com/video/aPQYK5ZMbWY/w-d-xo.html
@@derekp2674 too bad that's an entirely different weapon.
@@derekp2674 US version?
so the SCAR-H is just the US version of the AK?
@@kyallokytty The AK was introduced in 1947 the SCAR much later, so not really.
You take a flanetrower and a a gunstock to it.
Done.
You can say that this thing ROCKS.
yooo that muzzle flash
I was just looking for something good to play in the background while I work.
Johnathan’s really entertaining. No matter the context.
That seems pretty obvious. Flamethrower troops are big targets and have to get in close so there's a very real risk of an enemy shooting the tank and turning them into a firebomb. If the flamethrower is harder to spot, they might just think you're another rifleman.
Thats not a thing that ever (provably) happened. That's a myth Similar to the myth of enemy combatants using the M1 ping to their advantage to catch soldiers while reloading
@@charlesklass4209 No but they definitely aim for the flamethrower (the person) first, and tend to shoot them if captured.
You need a fairly empty flamethrower fuel tank with the right mix of oxygen and fuel to detonate and even with tracer ammo it's really hard to do so. Of course once you put a hole in to the fuel tank and highly flammable liquid starts to pour out, you pretty much defeated it since most operators have this aversion of being on fire and tend to stop all flamethrowing activity for a while.
@@elitemook4234 The Heer were not in the habit of taking Russians prisoner by the time this thing was in service regardless of what they were armed with.
@@rotwang2000 all that said, I really wouldn't want to have a leaking tank of sticky fuel on my person, especially not if I might accidentally light it with the pilot light in my panic to escape
Johnathan has the best job in the world.
I correctly identified it was a flamethrower of some sort, so I'm taking that as a win
I always just figured the design was just an attempt to disguise Flamethrower operators since some militaries prioritized shooting Flamethrower users first.......
Because they tend to aim for the flamethrower guy first.
Very interesting firearm; with a heavy emphasis on the fire!
Thanks
You inspire me to renew damaged and broken guns in the local ravines.
Love your work. Keep up the good fight.
You can see the exact moment Jonathan realizes the gun was configured incorrectly. It’s amazing!
If you imagine a WW1 charge across no man’s land, if 100 people are charging at you, and 5 have this flame thrower, you can’t spot them out easily
What a weird and fascinating weapon!
I was a light role gpmg gunner for a while. From a distance the gpmg is similar in shape to the pre sa80 standard issue 7.62 slr rifle, this was by design so the enemy couldn't pick me out as a gunner and target me. Unfortunately the sa80 had become standard issue in my time so I stood out like a sore thumb. I believe the MOD had assumed we would dump the gpmg for the sa80 lsw variant, but hadn't taken into account how rubbish the lsw was.
Fair to say that if having a wooden stock for your flamethrower becomes an issue, it's likely to be the very least of your problems! 🤣🤣
Kind of reminds me of a Martini-Henry rifle.
I was wondering do you do much restoration work and if so might you consider doing some videos on that?
All of these rare and interesting pieces; sometimes i wonder the circumstances of how they got to be in your possesion..must be a story worth telling, i wager. Cheers for uploading these, really interesting stuff
Given he mentioned the German version of the manual i would think it likely was captured from the Osttrupen or SS units in Normandy.
@@genericdave8420 yeah, you're probably right :)
Is there no definitive fuel cutoff valve somewhere in the vicinity of the trigger mechanism? That seems to be a feature of similar weapons I've seen. I guess they were worried about the flame travelling back up the tube, but maybe using nitrogen in this type mitigated that risk.
I really appreciate your work in putting these videos out. In my opinion this is the future of museums, though of course there is no substitute for seeing the item in person, it's great to have the direct input and interaction with/of the curator. I'm thinking too of Dr.Capwell of the Wallace Collection who has similarly embraced TH-cam to grace us with his expertise and shown us many wonderful things otherwise inaccessible to those far away.
Can't wait for Ian to run a 2 gun match with it!
The safety makes sense: you can spray "something" with tar/gasoline and then set the whole thing on fire activating the ignition and a second trigger pull.
Nastier and scariest weapon ever conceived.
The issue is - you don't have that much in terms of fuel capacity in ROKS-3, 8.5 liters is all you get. A single trigger pull at the best of times will throw a litre or so of fuel, maybe more. You can only get one or two long sprays before you run out.
@@F1ghteR41 You generally didn't need that much since they were used on bunkers or parts of fox holes that where sheltered.... Once you unleashed a good burst into a bunker they are going to be cooking in there and not trying to do much in the way of firing back.
@@SilvaDreams Yes, but even a short trigger pull would take an eighth or even a sixth of your total fuel capacity, so you might quickly run out of fuel spraying it unignited first and ignited second.
May be a problem for a man-portable flamethrower, but spraying fuel was done by the Crocodile Churchills: splash the germans with petrol and tar and then let them think if is better to surrender or get the second ignited splash.
Need that flamer thrower collection going 😅👍
Concealing the guy carrying the flamethrower as just a guy with 'rifle' and 'backpack' reduces their chance of getting sniped as a HVT.
Now wouldn't we all love to know the story and journey this device has had before it ended in your hands!
i've never really thought about that before... modern guns are one thing, but holding an old war weapon like this has a lot of significance because you never really know whose life that may have taken.
...or whose life may have ended holding it.
it's a very intimate thing in that way. 🤔
Stop me if I am wrong here, but does the stock of the RKO have a curve to it as well? It reminds me of the "cripple" stock shotgun seen on Forgotten Weapons. Does anyone know anything about that in regards to this flamethrower? I'd love to get more information regarding that.
Is there any reason for the fairly hefty left-hand cast in the stock of the projector?
13:30 -- RE: Disguise and Effective Range; it seems to me that while this weapon's range is only 35 meters, it would not have mattered as much if it and its operator were singled out and identified at closer range. Getting the weapon into that position in the first place is more important, and so its "Confusion" factor is quite a bit higher at intermediate and longer ranges.
On the buttstock, these are produced by using a lathe-type apparatus that follows a master and use the set of levers and cams to produce that shape. They probably just used the machine to produce the buttstock, rather than all the furniture. Using an apparatus that’s already in use is a lot less costly than coming up with something new.
Of course, the initial idea was to make it look like a carbine, but I’m just explaining that they didn’t manufacture the entire furniture and then cut off the buttstock, rather than use the machinery to make the butttstock as a single operation.
(I am an industrial engineer, which is why I think of these things)😂
Yall should sell merchandise!
Ps I'm going to the armories tomorrow can't wait!
Might hopefully see Ferguson if I'm super lucky 🍀
Keep being cool 😎 and teaching awesome facts and interesting things about gun games
Love the casio
They have done flamethrower that don't require a backpack.
Hey I am looking for information on a Hopkins and Allen’s 912 shot gun because I am trying to fix one
Excellent video 📹
A psychological weapon to supress the enemy.
@Kelly Harbeson Burn the oxygen and the enemy is dead. If you are getting CO and not CO2 as the end product, then the combustion is incomplete indicating a shortage of oxygen. It's what happens if the air vent to a gas boiler or fire gets partially blocked.
@Kelly Harbeson I know they were easily targeted by enemy snipers.
@Kelly Harbeson Thanks, that's very interesting. I wonder how that happened. I have been down a coalmine and was issued with a "Self Rescuer" which consists of a nose clip and a can of catalyst with a mouth piece. Its job is to convert CO to CO2. CO will kill you by occupying the site on your haemoglobin that normally transports oxygen. No oxygen entering the blood, you die. CO2 will certainly asphyxiate you, but you can breathe it and still live if there's enough ambient oxygen. They probably didn't need much by way of autopsies, people killed by CO turn a characteristic pink. Well combustion in confined spaces does do strange things.
@Kelly Harbeson Yes, I am absolutely sure about those "Self Rescuer" things. I carried one each time I went down the pit and have listened carefully to the guide's instructions and explanations each time. Rebreather systems are totally different and are self contained with their own oxygen supply. That oxygen is either produced in situ chemically or from a compressed supply. I'll come to back to that later.
I tried to keep it simple and spelt out the basic principle earlier but here's a bit more detail. The coal mines were losing too many men by asphyxiation. The Government introduced a number of regulations to address the issue. The "Self Rescuer" was designed to be compact, stable for 10+years in storage, and once activated good for about an hour to give the miner time to proceed (if able) to the lift shaft (and way out). It is carried on the miner's belt and by regulation must be carried at all times when underground. The one I carried was in a metal container about the size of a water canteen. Inside is the can that I described earlier with its mouthpiece and nose clip. The can contains "Hopcolite" a matrix catalyst of copper and oxides of manganese. It contains no oxygen, or oxygen generator, and survival depends on breathing the oxygen in the surrounding air. The "Self Rescuer's" purpose is to allow you to breathe that air by converting carbon monoxide present (which would otherwise be fatal) to carbon dioxide which you can breathe provided there is sufficient oxygen present. There are other built in filters to prevent moisture or dust from killing the catalyst.
So the "Self Rescuer" carried on the belt until needed is compact and does not impede working, relatively simple, storable and robust. However, there is a fairly significant catch. The conversion of CO to CO2 is an exothermic reaction and the "Self Rescuer" heats up in use. The air gets hotter and hotter and training is needed to keep the nose clip in place and your lips tight around the mouthpiece as the air gets hot. The guide said never run or pant that just gets things hotter faster. The can and container are metal to help conduct some of the heat.
I am of course describing an element of the underground tour at the Museum of Wales "Big Pit", which really is underground. Despite no longer a working mine it is still bound by strict mining regulations which must be applied. The guides first relieve visitors of any contraband, which are any potential sources of ignition. Apart from the obvious that includes anything with a battery - watches, phones etc., an exception can be made for hearing aids. Visitors are then fitted out with a helmet, that's not for show, you will hit your head at some point. I've been down a number of times and always do no matter how careful. You get a belt with "Self Rescuer", that's regulation, and the insulated battery pack for your lamp. When I first took my children down, the guides were all miners who had worked in the pit. Some of the guides today are sons of those miners. They are uniformly excellent and know of what they speak.
In the 19th century whole families worked down the mines. Men hewed the coal, women manhandled and pulled the coal trams, children as young as five worked the ventilator doors. The children were given a candle (!) which blew out as soon as they operated the doors. They then sat in total darkness feeling the vibrations of the trams in the rails to know when to work the doors. Each time I've been down the guides asked us to stand a few minutes with all our lamps turned off. That's DARKNESS. The Victorians objected to women in the pits on grounds of potential immorality (well it gets hot down there). Women were replaced by horses.
I said I'd get back to the rebreather. The RN used the principle as far back as before WWII. You breathe air out of a bag or lung. The CO2 is filtered out (quicklime I think?) and the oxygen content content topped up from a pressurised bottle. It leaves no trail of give away bubbles so beloved of Hollywood. There are more sophisticated versions these days, some of which are indeed used for mine rescue, but in no way does it resemble the "Self Rescuer" system in operation - which has also improved in catalysts and set up.
Although different on closer inspection, it could easily be mistaken for a rifle in the heat of battle.
pun intended
Hm finally I know what gun the little soldier in the Takom KV5 kit is carrying
First heard of this weapon in the video game Company of Heroes 2 as something you could equip the Soviet Engineer squad with.
So you could max get 10 short bursts out of this or just a few longer bursts of flames by holding the trigger down longer, or did the muzzle catch on fire and keep burning for a while?
pretty clever idea. But the tank and hose would probably still be difficult to miss.
In the hubbub of combat, I think the hose would be difficult to spot unless within really close range or through a magnifying scope and the tank could be disguised as a backpack.
Effective firing range of the Roks-2 was allegedly around 25m, which is pretty far when it comes to distinguishing the flamethrower carrier from a regular soldier by normal eye sight alone.
For me, the biggest giveaway was not the actual design of the flamethrower but the title of the video (^_~)!
11:00 Is it just an optical illusion or does the thrower's stock curve gently to the left?
Soviet chief: wee ned a flamer
Soviet engineer : (hits blunt)
lets make the nozzle with flammable materials
That opening music sounds a lot like Attack Ships on Fire by Revco. :)
This is pretty smart. I don't know why the other countries didn't think of this. It reminds me of the special forces in the Vietnam war that would improvise ways to conceal their radios to make themselves less of a target.
For me the funniest thing about this flamethrower - there were testing done on its use from a motorcycle sidecar - the fastest Ghost Rider cosplay imaginable!
Some of the facts about it I managed to find through googling. Unfortunately not a lot of info on the weapon - they were not produced in sufficient quantities to leave a very noticeable trace, it would seem.
The names in the ROKS abbreviation, Klyuyev and Sergeyev. Mikhail Sergeyev was the head of ROKS development, originally a chemical engineer. He was assigned to work on special weapons during the war. After the war he was part of the Soviet nuclear program, and received the Stalin prize for his contributions.
Viktor Klyuyev, on the other hand, is a complete mystery. I couldn't even find his full name. All we know is that he worked on factory 846 to create the ROKS. It's possible there's records of him in archives, but online, I found nothing.
The info is conflicting regarding when initial development took place. Some sources say that ROKS-1, the prototype, was made in the early 30s. But others say that it was first made in 1940. Given Sergeyev's biography, I would guess the latter is more correct - before the war he worked in the civilian industry at the Kompressor factory (making refrigerators), and it seems odd for him to take a decade long break between ROKS-1 and ROKS-2.
The fuel is varied - diesel, crude oil, gasoline with various mixtures, such as creosote and coal tar, or kerosene and mazut (waste oil, typically refined into diesel in Western countries).
Cool barbecue maker! Where can i get one?
Is using the ignition of a blank cartridge to ignite the fuel a normal thing in old flamethrowers?
Like how the flamethrower has a wood foregrip and stock.
At first glance it looks like a Carbine version of a Remington rolling block rifle
ROKS-3: *brings fire to the firearm
And there I was hoping the cylinder on the front was the same as the garden hose for different sprinkler effects!
Funnily enough I've used those for SFX flames to achieve different spray patterns of fuel.
For the blank cartridge was it a simple blank or was it more like the USA M2 flare system?
So, its a gun, that can´t look like a gun, it´s need´s to look like a gun.
Best idea ever!
Please get more lights and show the parts up close in bright lighting
This is the closest thing to the TF2 front-drum mag pump shotgun we have seen yet, not quite so glamorous though....
The Mosin Sling is up side down... so you get less webbing for the web of your thumb when you hook it to stabilise it when it is slung.... a small point I know....... great video.
Wrong
I'm assuming that the revolving cylinder would get a little warm to the touch after a few goes on the trigger.
The "blanks" probably contained a pyrotechnic mixture as I doubt a standard smokeless blank would produce a hot enough flame.
I see two large guns (Lower left-hand corner next to a nagant) with what appear to be swivel mounts? I gotta know what those are!
7:00 can you X-ray this weapon to get a picture of the insides?
Thank You Jonathan , something New to Me , I knew that Russia had flame throwers but not that they took the form of a carbine.
Why is it bowed on the horizontal plane to the left? Is it just damaged? Bird's eye view made the metal fixings looking bent, not sure if that was just me?
The same team was experimenting with real Mosin rifles with intricate system of locks to hold the flamethrower tube. The rationale was to ignite the fluid with live Mosin round and after all fluid was used (less that 20 seconds) operator could unlatch the tube and have the rifle ready to use. And no need to manually revolve primer drum as in ROKS2 and ROKS3.
It was tested but not adopted because even tracer rounds were not able to ensure ignition of the liquid in 100% of cases, misfire rate was 50% or more. Special rounds with wooden bullets and modified powder charge were designed but switching to the rifle now required re-loading Mosin with live ammo under heavy fire. Also the Mosin rifle was longer and less convenient to use in city fights so the design was scrapped.
By the way, only in ROKS-2 tanks were camouflaged as backpack, ROKS 3 was using slightly larger uncamouflaged tanks.
In 1976, on attachment to GKN Sankey, who made both beer barrels and armoured cars, I had an enquiry from the sales force whether it would be possible to add a flamethrower alongside the water-cannon being fitted at the behest of a foreign police force. We obviously refused, on humanitarian grounds, but it did leave the question in my mind, which comes first, the flamethrower so the water cannon could put out the flames, or the water cannon, so the flamethrower could dry out the flood.
I wonder if anyone's ever tested these to see the distance at which you can always ID the flamethrower in a short glance
I would not expect the ignition to be using conventional 7.62mm Tokarev blanks, possibly loaded in such a case, but something like a miniaturized road flare seems much more sensible. Anyone else greatly familiar with this one is free to chime in.
You are rigt
How about 7,62 Nagant blank?
I seem to remember something about the fuel for flamethrowers needing to be thicker to make it go further before it all burns up rather than behaving like an aerosol which looks dramatic but not very effective at throwing flame.
I'd assume that the charge in the cartridge would be closer to some kind of flare than a blank to make sure there was ignition so the user wasn't just spraying fuel around.
Thickening it helps it project further and burn longer as the thickening agents tend to burn slower than the actual gasoline which readily vaporizes. It also helps controls where it goes since gasoline is essentially the same fluidity as water and most bunkers and the like which is what you'd be using these to clear are up hill so the last think you want is for all that liquid fuel rolling back down the hill at you.
Like he mentioned the Hollywood ones tend to just be glorified propane blowtorches on steroids
I'd guess they carved the butt end with the mosin machinery and pattern, just using a shorter blank.
Or, better yet, just repurposed a defective Mosin
At first glance I thought, MAS-36. Boy, was I wrong!
Translated Russian sources suggest the mixture with creosote was 50% creosote, 30% "green oil," and 20% gasoline. I know some crude oils have a greenish color, but crude oil is specifically called out in some other fuel mixes, so I'm not sure if that's what "green oil" is intended to refer to or if it had another meaning in the Soviet Union at that time.
Green oil is an oligomer waste product which forms in C2, C3 and C4 hydrogenation reactors of ethylene plants. Green oil polymer is formed by side reactions of the hydrogenation of acetylene to ethylene and ethane over the Palladium catalyst in said hydrogenation reactors.
I think it’s disguised as a rifle because people generally don’t like being burnt alive so they’d target the guy who’d do that
When Jonathan said, “especially if you are standing up on the battlefield and people think you are about to unleash…”, I thought he was about to say war crimes xD
It probably resembles a rifle because it's faster and cheaper to use modified off the shelf parts than design from ground up.
We've started going through my wife's family's storage and came across maybe 60% of a Colt 1849 Pocket. Missing plenty of parts and it's somewhat held together by a wooden rod nailed through the barrel wedge. We have what I assume was the holster. Part of me wants to buy parts and reassemble it as close as I can and gift it to a museum. Not sure where the effort is most useful.
Maybe contact some museums and ask if they're interested in it first? They will most likely have an easier time sourcing necessary parts and restoring it, even though it might make for a fun personal project too.
Before I watch here is my guess: it’s for the same reason videogames show flamethrower enemies in bright colors; shooting at them creates a big fun explosion (from the shooters’ perspective) and lots of unquenchable fire all over anyone standing nearby. Let’s see if I’m close.
With a proper "barrel" attachment ROKS-3 looks a lot like a rifle equipped with a *rifle cup grenade launcher.*
It's flamegun science!
Do you have one of those IRA "homemade" SMG's that were made out of square tubing and that used Sterling mags?
If one was a flamethrower operator, they absolutely wouldnt want anyone on the other side to know you were. Especially if you were captured
3:00 the world needs more Flamethrower David Bowie.