Talk:Flame fougasse

Is it totally expedient to actually explain with diagrams how to make this terrible but simple weapon. Until 5 minutes ago I had no idea that with gasoline, pine oil and a few other ingredients I could create my own version of napalm! On perusing other pages such on IEDs or car bombs I see that the "how to" has not been included, albeit that would obviously add to the understanding of the subject (e.g. how they are wired up, where there detonator's are, the sequence of arming etc). However this page clearly gives instructions with images on how to build a Flame fougasse. This would not be such an issue except its components are easily available (as it was developed as weapon to be used if the UK was invaded by the Nazis in 1940). Considering the world's political climate and being an open website, is this article not presenting ideas to terrorists or how to set up and apply this technology? By placing a picture of the flame it creates on the main page could not be a better advert. What moral responsibility do the authors of this "how to build a flame bomb article" take if there are now a spate of attacks using such a device? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.111.80 (talk) 09:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

:I am sorry to hear that the harmony of your mind has been quite so upset. Yes, the flame fougasse is a terrible weapon, all weapons are terrible of course and the flame fougasse is simply a matter of history. Although this may be new to you, all the information in the article is a matter of public record, including the diagrams and the photograph. Before the end of the Second World War the British establishment expressed pride in the many achievements of the Petroleum Warfare Department (PWD) and the story of weapons of this sort was released to the press who printed lavishly illustrated, if somewhat fanciful, articles on the topic. Just after the war, the Imperial War Museum re-opened for the express purpose of holding an exhibition to extol the achievments the PWD and the following year Banks published Flame Over Britain. Since then, this has all mostly been forgoten by the British public and accounts of the invasion crisis period rather gloss over the flame fougasse and its ilk. But, as I hope this article demonstrates, they formed a signifcant part of British defences. Could this article be of help to terrorists? The article does not give instructions, but just a matter of fact description that is already in the public domain. Other articles in Wikipedia give similar levels of description of simple weapons, for example the Molotov cocktail, Napalm or the Explosive belt. Wikipedia does not censor material, nor should it and there is nothing here that even begins to compare with what is reputedly in The Anarchist Cookbook (available from Amazon) and other similar titles. Perhaps more to the point, though little known to the general public, the flame fougasse has remained in the Military Manuals of armies throughout the world and has been used in many conflicts. There are endless variants all of which are battlefield expedients extemporised from readily available (to one degree or another) components. No terrorist worthy of his AK47 would be entirely ignorant of weapons of this type. Sleep well. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

::I'm afraid I believe that 86.159.111.80 is correct. The question of how much engineering detail to give in articles on weapons (among other things) was controversial right from the beginning, so it was taken out of our hands and put in a policy: see WP:NOTAMANUAL. This is particularly germane to explosive weapons because in many countries, giving constructional details on such weapons is illegal, and not protected by free speech laws. Perhaps surprisingly countries where such an article is illegal include the USA, where WP is hosted; see Bomb-making instructions on the internet#Legislation. It is important to understand that it is not a defence to claim that the instructions were also available elsewhere.

::Your claim that "The article does not give instructions" might be defensible for the hedge-hopper and demigasse, if you had a good enough lawyer; but is clearly false for the safety fougasse, which not only includes a sequence of actions to construct the device but even describes details such as charge selection and masses of charge components.

::Don't get me wrong: I think this is otherwise an excellent article. I enjoyed reading it very much, and I thank you for all the work you have put into it. But at present the safety fougasse section is certainly a violation of WP policy and very probably actually illegal; some parts of demigasse and hedge hopper are sailing close to the wind. Because of my respect for the work you have put into it I would like to give you an opportunity to respond before doing anything myself. -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

:::The assertion that this is a terrorist manual is balderdash. Terrorists have the ability, means and wherewithall to manufacture and deploy weapons far more destructive than this, so why should they bother using this limited effect weapon?Petebutt (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I have never read before on Wikipedia such a obvious piece on how to create a dangerous weapon. Then when I go to complain on the talk page, what do I see but someone has already been here before me. Worse still the creator of the article, takes the overtly patronising tone to these concerns by saying:

:I am sorry to hear that the harmony of your mind has been quite so upset.

I wonder whether those above will be taking such a high-minded view when the next Anders Behring Breivik comes along and uses these instructions to produce a very simple but very deadly device. (Particularly as one suggests that it's use would be worthless as it's "limited effect weapon", I am sure they might be reluctant in the future to comfort any victims affected by third or fourth degrees burns to their bodies) How hard could it be to build such a weapon? There are clearly drawn diagrams and even instructions on the correct amounts of chemicals to use to make it effective!!! Does WP:NOTMANUAL not mean anything any more? Or what about this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nitroglycerin/Synthesis_discussion discussion] on the manufacture of Nitroglycerin? Seems if this website has guidelines then they should be adhered to? Or does the arrogance of one editor carry more weight than the common sense of an IP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.43.224 (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• {{YouTube|1wcE_4-UK-g|Foo Gas}}.
• {{YouTube|2pDpm0_MZ2s|Foo Gas on New Year's eve}}.
• [http://www.flickr.com/photos/crymemaster/sets/72157623787733863/with/4543991517/ Fougasse] on Flickr.
• [http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmclean2009/4540702014/ Flame fougasse in Vietnam] on Flickr.
• [http://www.flickr.com/photos/charliegrunts/3230876762/ AL Firman laying foo gas] on Flickr.
• [http://www.flickr.com/photos/charliegrunts/3230799132/ Foo gas] on Flickr.

I have read oral histories of the Korean War stating that when US troops improvised fougasse type devices for defensive fortifications, they often used the term "Martin flare" to describe the device. Has anyone else heard this terminology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.40.21 (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

{{Talk:Flame fougasse/GA1}}

The opening paragraph claims that:

later at 2,000 sites in Scotland.[5] Although never used in Britain

Since Britain could be either an abbreviation of great britain (island, containing most of Scotland), or the UK (including all of Scotland) this claim seems unlikely and either untrue or in need of further clarification ("Britain" -> "Mainland Britain" to differentiate Scottish islands). I have no access to the source to check the claims, which share a citation.

69.196.167.192 (talk) 05:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

:The difference is between being deployed first in southern England and later in Scotland, but not actually being used in Britain - that is "not fired at an enemy". Gaius Cornelius (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Flame fougasse. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=803363185 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080118202057/http://www.pillbox-study-group.org.uk/poyningsflametrappage.htm to http://www.pillbox-study-group.org.uk/poyningsflametrappage.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080118202057/http://www.pillbox-study-group.org.uk/poyningsflametrappage.htm to http://www.pillbox-study-group.org.uk/poyningsflametrappage.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence under the heading is:

"In all 50,000 flame fougasse barrels were distributed of which the great majority were installed in 7,000 batteries, mostly in southern England and a little later at 2,000 sites in Scotland."

I think this is highly ambiguous. Does it mean that there were a total of 7,000 batteries, 2000 of which were deployed in Scotland a little later (than the original 5,000 in England); or that there were 7,000 batteries in England and another 2,000 in Scotland, for a total of 9,000 batteries all over the UK?

It can be interpreted either way, and would benefit from clarification. 2A02:AB88:1A8A:E780:3C9A:FF6C:B35E:278F (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)