Why disguise this Soviet flamethrower as a rifle? With firearms and weapon expert Jonathan Ferguson

[@SamuraiAkechi]

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.

[@comradejet9373]

Слава герою социалистического труда!

[@kainhall]

I'm surprised he wasn't killed for a failed project....

[@comradejet9373]

@@kainhall yes, it is truly a surprise that something that never happened didn't happened here. What a relief

[@Andrey_Gysev]

@@comradejet9373 Что там было, что за комментарий?

[@comradejet9373]

@@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.

[@patrikhjorth3291]

Flamethrowers are horrific weapons, and I can only imagine that they are pretty terrifying for the operator as well.

[@MrMortull]

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...

[@PyromaN93]

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

[@semi-useful5178]

Tend to catch Friendly fire too.

[@torgranael]

@@semi-useful5178 I'm sure it's unintentional but that pun is spot on.

[@semi-useful5178]

@@torgranael I intend my puns.

[@torgranael]

@@semi-useful5178 Excellent

[@edsutherland8266]

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.

[@stacksmalacks8826]

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.

[@megachimp2537]

At first glance I thought it was mas-36

[@zoiders]

Bitumen would adhere to every valve and nozzle.

[@edsutherland8266]

@@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…

[@zoiders]

@@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.

[@Moggster23]

I'll resist the urge to say, "Jonathan has finally got his hands on a firearm". 😉 I'll get my coat. 😳

[@L.tGears]

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

[@RazorsharpLT]

No backpack? No wonder it's overlooked. Is it a squirt gun, per chance? Italian design, folks.

[@bickyboo7789]

@@RazorsharpLT Italians make the finest gasoline squirt guns

[@sappho114]

​@@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.

[@RazorsharpLT]

@@sappho114 Oh, so it DID have a backpack? Oh, okay, might be good then. But his original statement makes no sense

[@RazorsharpLT]

@@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

[@zXPeterz14]

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!

[@AnimalStomper]

I love this guy, so enthusiastic, so educational.

[@timothywheeler9710]

The testicular fortitude of the guys carrying this must have been legendary.

[@F1ghteR41]

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.

[@Yuzral]

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.

[@F1ghteR41]

@@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.

[@jonathanferguson1211]

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.

[@F1ghteR41]

@@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.

[@jonathanferguson1211]

@@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 :)

[@ScottKenny1978]

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.

[@HadesCowboy]

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

[@quint3ssent1a]

You can say that this thing ROCKS.

[@kaschberle6948]

yooo that muzzle flash

[@Mr_T_Badger]

Johnathan has the best job in the world.

[@chriswilliams1944]

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! 🤣🤣

[@chriskildahl5263]

You inspire me to renew damaged and broken guns in the local ravines. Love your work. Keep up the good fight.

[@jonathan_60503]

Very interesting firearm; with a heavy emphasis on the fire!

[@SeanPat1001]

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)😂

[@jamespfp]

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.

[@blue2sco]

Kind of reminds me of a Martini-Henry rifle.

[@gordonormiston3233]

What a weird and fascinating weapon!

[@dancortes3062]

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.

[@DawidKov]

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).

[@HeVsuit]

Soviet chief: wee ned a flamer Soviet engineer : (hits blunt) lets make the nozzle with flammable materials

[@sabioarsenault5237]

For me, the biggest giveaway was not the actual design of the flamethrower but the title of the video (^_~)!

[@Foxelz]

You can see the exact moment Jonathan realizes the gun was configured incorrectly. It’s amazing!

[@patrickbo2045]

Now wouldn't we all love to know the story and journey this device has had before it ended in your hands!

[@SpaceMissile]

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. 🤔

[@JelMain]

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.

[@0neDoomedSpaceMarine]

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.

[@anuvisraa5786]

You are rigt

[@SamuraiAkechi]

How about 7,62 Nagant blank?

[@sternencolonel7328]

Hm finally I know what gun the little soldier in the Takom KV5 kit is carrying

[@sasasasa-lx6cl]

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.

[@stephenkissinger4434]

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.

[@GeorgHaeder]

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.

[@justsomehaatonpassingby4488]

ROKS-3: *brings fire to the firearm

[@richarddixon7276]

Thank You Jonathan , something New to Me , I knew that Russia had flame throwers but not that they took the form of a carbine.

[@jehoiakimelidoronila5450]

At first glance it looks like a Carbine version of a Remington rolling block rifle

[@Conserpov]

With a proper "barrel" attachment ROKS-3 looks a lot like a rifle equipped with a *rifle cup grenade launcher.*

[@PlebNC]

Like how the flamethrower has a wood foregrip and stock.

[@JinKee]

3:00 the world needs more Flamethrower David Bowie.

[@nickalmasy]

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

[@jasonjones8183]

A flame thrower is a horrible thing to face, it creates nightmares to anyone around. That's why the flame thrower is a priority target, every one will try to take it out, makes sense to camouflage it.

[@Khornecussion]

Why? Because any time you saw a flamethrower trying to approach you on the field you'd tap your buddy on the shoulder and go " Check this collat. "

[@Maraoder8]

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.

[@nippazhobbies]

11:00 Is it just an optical illusion or does the thrower's stock curve gently to the left?

[@RadManKiwi]

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

[@harrierrex3688]

may i suggest using white or grey background instead of rack of guns and dark background. i want to see the gun more clearly

[@MaGiCMushroomClouds]

When I was a kid we'd dissolve styrofoam in gasoline to make a flammable jelly that would stick to stuff like napalm when it was on fire. Or was it a flammable jam since we used whole pieces of styrofoam instead of just styrofoam juice? I always get jams and jellies mixed up.

[@RebelForce8]

Love the casio

[@hessex1899]

That opening music sounds a lot like Attack Ships on Fire by Revco. :)

[@nicewithacupoftea]

I was wondering do you do much restoration work and if so might you consider doing some videos on that?

[@CatsT.M]

It's flamegun science!

[@gsxrjeff]

so a tracer round might set it alight [a bit like the flame thrower scene early on in "saving private ryan"]

[@pluemas]

Probably not. You need a very specific mixture if oxygen within the tank to set it alight and you almost certainly would not have a situation that would cause that. That scene is probably inspired by people misremembering a soldier with a flamethrower being shot and squeezing the trigger as he fell, causing the weapon to fire and fling around seemingly at random as though the tank was ruptured.

[@88porpoise]

You would likely need to shoot up the tank to get it leaking and fuel evaporating and then use an incendiary to ignite it.

[@Matygos]

Isn't the disguise meant for charging at fortified positions (like in normandy) so the flamethrowers wouldn't get targeted primarily and have a bigger chance to get close to clear the bunkers?

[@danilonakazone386]

NIce of the Soviets to try to protect their flamethrower soldiers with a clever contraption like this! Very interesting. I am more curious on how this got there, must be a very fascninating history. I am imagining a SAS soldier finding this and bring it back home hahaha

[@tubewatcher77]

The flamethrower looks bent, is this intenional?

[@aceofthewest5884]

Hey I am looking for information on a Hopkins and Allen’s 912 shot gun because I am trying to fix one

[@deeeeeeeench1209]

They probably used soap flakes or powder to thicken and make it's sticky

[@stephenblunt3054]

Every other comment seems to be missing the obvious point to me. Use that and modify the look of the fuel tank and your flamethrower troop now just looks like a trooper with a rifle and a backpack or radio. Makes them less likely to be targeted

[@squidiz496]

Sorry to say but a radioman is probably a more appealing target then a flametrooper. I definitely wouldn't want to look like I was carrying a radio in ww2.

[@beachboy0505]

Excellent video 📹 A psychological weapon to supress the enemy.

[@TheArgieH]

@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.

[@beachboy0505]

@Kelly Harbeson I know they were easily targeted by enemy snipers.

[@TheArgieH]

@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.

[@TheArgieH]

@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.

[@Larken42]

I wonder if that cage is meant to have a soaked rag, rope, or some manner of wick wrapped around it

[@kommissarkillemall2848]

I now know i need one for "garden protection".. because F*ck You Spiders !! in a stylish wooden stocked way.

[@pepqcat3169]

5:37 kinda looks like a db when you hold it like that pals (:

[@tohkai1959]

It makes a lot of sense that it would look like a rifle, and has rifle parts. Co mm unists organize their industry, services, etc in bureaus, meaning that one single person in the govt would often be affected to an entire pan of the industry, meaning that many parts would be interchangeable/done in the same factory, with the same designers, same parts etc. If you look at anything from the s oviet union you can see things like this everywhere. parts of cockpits being all the same in all of their aircrafts, interchangeable g un parts, etc.

[@HeadsFullOfEyeballs]

The only actual interchangeable parts seem to be the butt plate and carrying sling, though. The rest is just made to _look_ similar to Soviet rifles. So I suspect the actual reason is that flamethrower troops are high-priority targets, so disguising the flamethrower as a regular rifle improves their odds of making it to the enemy.

[@HeHaBucTb.]

This weapon was designed in case of discovering predator's pyramid with xenomorphs in Arctica. Unfortunately soviet weapon technologies were not advanced enough to make pulse rifle in 40's.

[@Yuzral]

A note against the camouflage theory is that most carbines and rifles don't have a few feet of armoured hose sticking out the bottom. It's a shame we're not likely to get near Russian primary documentation any time soon thanks to Vlad because I think that's probably the only source that could resolve the argument.

[@BishopGantry]

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?

[@local_therapist8637]

Mom can we get forgotten weapons? We have forgotten weapons at home. Forgot weapons at home:

[@jehoiakimelidoronila5450]

Also, a joke here: Since it's dressed up as a rifle, enemy combatants would wonder why the heck is that one guy with a carbine charging at them & wearing a backpack/knapsack 🔥🔥🔥 🔫

[@Kabutoes]

The weapon that turns people into war criminals by capturing the user who killed their friends

[@samsonsoturian6013]

It probably resembles a rifle because it's faster and cheaper to use modified off the shelf parts than design from ground up.

[@bigdopamine9343]

It actually is rocket science.

[@inkulu]

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?

[@kongoubongo1114]

Meanwhile, The Finns attached a flamethrower to a working KP-31 SMG.

[@ZACKMAN2007]

This should be called the flames rifle

[@SpaceMissile]

I'm just starting the vid: my hypothesis is because people used to pick out flame-thrower guys and off them first. _nobody wants to be flame-throwed._ edit: 11:52 - yupp

[@samsonsoturian6013]

[Muffled hysterical laughter ensues]

[@parallel-knight]

For the blank cartridge was it a simple blank or was it more like the USA M2 flare system?

[@mrjamieson4741]

I want a zombie film set in this place or a John wick movie

[@ianbosso9105]

I have watched the video yet so Im gonna guess that it’s so they don’t get targeted as much because they look like a normal rifleman?

[@chinchin7878]

Why did 3 people find the need to answer the title of the video instead of actually watching the video.

[@anttieskelinen1]

After the ww2 Finland got 60 000 sten as change from GB for all kind of guns Finns got in their armory and I guess this is one of those.

[@Jurgen_Wulf]

It was air, not nitrogen to push the fluid. 10 blanks of pistol cases to fire the stream and simple cocking system. I have (and well everyone who can type in cyrillyc name of it) scanned manual in russian language

[@mfx1]

You could use air or nitrogen, it wouldn't make any difference and translations between the two aren't always great.

[@bread6811]

Wow I've never seen anything like that! I guess that's why I thought Soviets had no flamethrowers at all! You get it? Because they were well disguised!!...ok nvm

[@colchronic]

At 30 m there's no way you can tell that that's a client there unless you can see the hose

[@theronraam23]

This is Yuri's flamethrower throm S4 of Stranger Things.

[@detritiv0re144]

Imagine the screams! and the smell...

[@Sb_747]

See when I think of a Russian rifle used as flamethrower I think of an Obrez

[@petrtkac267]

tank for it looked like soup carrier with small tank on side, ususally camuflaged with other stuff you would fing on soup carrier like ladde so guy wearing it would look like snack boy in line of soldiers

[@mattthekiller9129]

POV 'Say hello to my little friend" but you are in soviet russia

[@mikeytee6821]

It werfs flammen.

[@coolstuffproductionsoffici5562]

My dad used to play football before he died LMAO

[@exuberance3973]

They put wooden furniture… on a flamethrower..

[@davetherave28]

Ahaaa !!! 😁

[@zizkazenit7885]

They should’ve designed all their rifles to look like flamethrowers 😁

[@AK-dw8jo]

He didn’t actually fire it. No pun intended! I wasted minutes of my oh so busy life!

[@Sirsethtaggart3505]

I guess it makes the user less of a prime target?

[@wert7773]

Damn I dont know alot about guns but why is part of a flamethrower made out of wood, that seems like a bad idea

[@kail4997]

Red alert flame trooper anyone?

[@vandabo]

It's a flammenwerfer, it werfs flammen.

[@EddietheBastard]

presumably the idea behind the 'disguising' was to reduce the ease with which enemy soldiers could identify and pick off those armed with it. I don't have 'proof' but I would be amazed if those likely to be attacked with flame weapons didn't make those carrying them priority targets in any theatre. It's not a nice way to go. Yes once the weapon gets close in it will be more identifiable and once it's used it will be obvious, however, by then the soldier armed with it has survived the first part of getting close. Presumably the uniqueness hints at the weapon not being great and not necessarily worth the hassle of disguising it.