Panther Ausf. G tank experimentally fitted with Einstossflammenwerfer 46 hand flamethrowers for close defence against approaching infantry; source: Flickr.com, edited

A Fiery Experiment

This article takes us slightly off topic for this section, as we will not be talking about a flame tank as such, but rather about the use of a flamethrower as a supplementary weapon on a standard tank (or assault gun). This appears to have been a one-off experiment about which virtually no written information survives. The photographs that do exist, however, suggest this was not some improvised field workshop job but rather a modification carried out to factory standards – even the backgrounds in the images evoke a factory yard. Since there is little to draw on, we will try to piece together what can be read from the surviving photographs themselves… and what common sense suggests. The basis for the experiment was a Panther Ausf. G tank and a StuG III Ausf. G assault gun. Onto the rear of each, single-shot hand flamethrowers Einstossflammenwerfer 46 were mounted using metal brackets.

The photographed StuG III carried ten of these flamethrowers, all pointing rearward. Along both sides of the engine deck ran tubes through which steel cables were routed from inside the fighting compartment to the triggers of the individual flamethrowers. The right-hand tube apparently carried six cables to the flamethrowers on the right side, while the left-hand tube carried only four cables to those on the left. The steel cables entered the fighting compartment through holes drilled in the rear wall where the radio antenna cables were fed through. The vehicle chosen for the experiment was therefore most likely a command variant of the StuG III, which had provision for two antennas on its rear wall – meaning two brackets and two cable glands already in place.

The Panther tank was also fitted with a total of ten single-shot flamethrowers, attached to the stowage bins on the rear hull wall – five on the left bin and five on the right. What is interesting, however, is that the flamethrowers were not arranged symmetrically on the two sides. It appears the designers were experimenting with different mounting positions and angles of fire. How else to explain that the flamethrowers on the right side are mounted nearly parallel to one another and all point directly rearward, while those on the left point both rearward and to the side, fanned out in a spread pattern? The steel cables used to fire the flamethrowers remotely are also visible in the photographs of the tank. In this case the cables appear to disappear somewhere beneath the engine deck and are then routed through the engine compartment and its firewall into the fighting compartment.

StuG III Ausf. G assault gun with Einstossflammenwerfer 46 single-shot flamethrowers fitted to the rear; source: Flickr.com, edited

What was the purpose of the experiment? The only reasonable explanation is that these were intended as close-defence weapons against enemy infantry approaching from behind – infantry that might attempt to climb onto the tank or throw a grenade or incendiary bottle at it. This may have been a measure specifically designed for urban combat, where an enemy infantryman can get close to a tank very quickly and without warning.

The Einstossflammenwerfer 46

As already noted, the experiment used small hand flamethrowers of the Einstossflammenwerfer 46 type. This was a very simple and inexpensive weapon that the Germans produced from October 1944 until the end of the war, with total production exceeding 30,000 units. It was primarily intended for paratroopers, but ultimately saw far wider use among members of the Volkssturm. Its actual combat value was debatable, but its simplicity meant it could be used without any training whatsoever – which in the context of the Volkssturm was almost the whole point.

The flamethrower consisted of a cylindrical pressure vessel with a capacity of 1.7 litres, filled with a petrol-based ignition mixture and pressurised with nitrogen. At the front end, two tubes emerged from the vessel: the upper one was the flamethrower nozzle, while the lower one contained the cartridge that ignited the fuel as it was expelled. The weapon had a simple grip with a trigger; pressing it simultaneously fired the ignition cartridge and released the pressurised mixture from the vessel into the nozzle. The complete flamethrower weighed approximately 3.6 kg and allowed the operator to deliver a single burst lasting roughly one second, with an effective range of around 27 metres (the theoretical maximum flame reach was perhaps as much as 40 metres).

the Panther tank again – note that the flamethrowers on the left and right sides of the vehicle are arranged differently from one another; source: Flickr.com, edited

Most sources describe it as a single-use weapon, much like the Panzerfaust. Some authors, however, dispute this. The prefix "Einstoss", they argue, does not mean single-use but rather single-shot – after which the flamethrower could be refilled and a new ignition cartridge inserted. When fitted to a tank, of course, this distinction was of virtually no practical relevance.

When and Where?

When and where did this experimental fitting of the Einstossflammenwerfer 46 to armoured vehicles actually take place? We can only speculate, based on the photographs. The image of the StuG III assault gun does not tell us much. The vehicle is coated in Zimmerit, the application of which to new vehicles was discontinued in September 1944. In this case, however, that is probably not relevant, since the StuG in the photograph does not look like a brand-new vehicle – it appears more like one already in service that had been brought into a factory for repair.

More informative in this respect is the Panther tank. This one may well have been a newly built vehicle, so it makes sense to look at specific details that can help narrow down its production period. The tank has no Zimmerit (meaning it was produced after September 1944). The raised cover over the left cooling fan is part of the fighting compartment heating system (Kampfraumheizung), which was introduced in October 1944. The tank is fitted with flame suppressors on the ends of its exhaust pipes (Flammenvernichter), which only began to be installed in practice from December 1944. And finally, the tank has a commander's cupola with a machine gun ring mount, which ceased to be fitted at the turn of January and February 1945.

a close-up view of the rear of the StuG III assault gun shows the protective tube through which the steel cables connected to the flamethrower triggers were routed; source: Flickr.com, edited

With a degree of uncertainty, it can therefore be said that the tank used in the experiment was produced sometime between December 1944 and January 1945. The photographs show no trace of snow, however, so the Panther need not have been brand new at the time – the images could quite easily have been taken in spring 1945. As for the location: one of the photographs shows part of a Panzer IV hull in the background. One might therefore expect the site to have been a factory with some connection to the production (and thus repair) of all three vehicle types involved – the StuG III, the Panther, and the Panzer IV. As it happens, however, each of these vehicles was manufactured at entirely different facilities (StuG III: Alkett and MIAG; Panther: MAN, Daimler-Benz, MNH and Henschel; Panzer IV: Krupp, VOMAG and Nibelungenwerke).

In any case, whenever and wherever this experiment was conducted, it is safe to assume it was rejected. Flamethrowers mounted unprotected on the rear of a tank would have posed a significant risk to the vehicle itself. A nearby explosion could easily rupture a flamethrower, ignite the fuel, and carry it into the engine compartment. One can also imagine that friendly infantry would have been rather reluctant to stay close to a tank "decorated" in this fashion.

ARTICLE
CONTENTS:

A FIERY EXPERIMENT

EINSTOSSFLAMMENWERFER

WHEN AND WHERE?