Talk:Flame fougasse

Terrorist training manual

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)

So terrorist training manuals are now getting Good Article status on Wikipedia?

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 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)

Non encyclopedic, copyright etc links

• Foo Gas on YouTube.
• Foo Gas on New Year's eve on YouTube.
• Fougasse on Flickr.
• Flame fougasse in Vietnam on Flickr.
• AL Firman laying foo gas on Flickr.
• Foo gas on Flickr.

"Martin flare?"

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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Flame fougasse/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments

Overall, I regard this as a good article (which is not the same as a Wikipedia:Good article); however, it needs a little more work before I can award GA-status. I've lightly cleaned up the article by adding some dual units were only Imperial units were used, as I worked my way through it so I'm not listing these as "problems" to be fixed.

The article is generally well referenced, well-illustrated, and is reasonable comprehensive in scope.

• The first problem is the WP:Lead. This should act both as an introduction to the article, which it does, and provide a summary of the the main points. The half-paragraph The flame fougasse was developed in Britain as an anti-tank weapon during the invasion crisis of 1940 and was deployed in large numbers.[2] The flame fougasse has since been used in a number of conflicts and remains in army field manuals as a battlefield expedient to the present day.[3] In a modern military context, the name may be contracted to simply fougasse and may be spelt foo gas.[4] is hardly a summary of the main points (the final sentence is not a summary, its part of the "introduction" since it discuses a topic of naming which does not appear in the body of the article). The current lead needs to be expanded considerable (possibly 100 - 200 per cent, but that is not the pass-fail criterion) and provide a concise summary of the main points.

• The second problem is the use of a few WP:Primary sources. By that I mean the citation of WO-, SUPP- and MUN- references (I have a Reader's ticket so I know exactly what these are).

• "Livens" appears in the Oxford Dictionary of the National Biography (Oxford DNB), so WP:Verifiability of his contribution can be achieved by citing Oxford DNB without the recall of primary War Office files. Unfortunately, Sir Donald Banks does not appear, but several other members (including Livens) of the PWD do have their biographies in the Oxford DNB.
• Possibly this topic appears in the volume "Design and Development of Weapons" in the series History of the Second World War, United Kingdom Civil Series, It is several years (about 15 years) since I last looked at it and I don't own a copy, so I can't easily check.

At this point I'm putting the review On Hold.

I'm willing the discuss, on this review page, if necessary, the use of WP:Primary sources, but not a substitutes for information that is readily available elsewhere.

Pyrotec (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Pyrotec: Thanks for you efforts. I have expanded the lead, let me know what you think.

Yes, the article uses quite a few primary sources. While there are many secondary and tertiary sources that mention these weapons none of them go into any significant level of detail. These things were never used in Britain, and unlike other odd weapons of the time they were never seen in Home Guard parades (presumably, they were largely kept secret from the general public) and, mostly destroyed before the war had ended, they never found their way into museums. It seems that to historians these weapons are all but invisible.

I have added a couple of secondary/tertiary references that briefly describe what a flame fougasse is.

Previously I had given the most detailed and definative reference I could find and sometimes that meant NA records. In most cases I have been able to find supplementary references and I have added these – the NA records could be removed, but I think at least some readers might find them useful.

It might be argued that beyond the NA references, most of the other references are to various memoirs which are also primary sources. Given that the article is a matter-of-fact description of physical things, I don't think that any of the details are in any way contentious. These references are not substitutes, they are the only available sources.

Gaius Cornelius (talk) 11:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The Oxford DNB entry for Livens is really all about his work in WWI, his contribution to WWII is dismissed in a single line mentioning that he worked for the Ministry of Supply.

Further comments

I am still concerned over the use of Original Records and the arguement "that there is no alternative": some citations I'll probably have to accept, but some are plainly not acceptable in their current form, i.e.:

• Inception -

• Ref 11: Livens WH Captain - WO 339/19021, used in the 3rd and 4th paragraphs (at [1] ). I'll accept, as it appears to be a single file.
• Ref 13: Gas and Chemical Supplies - MUN 5, used in the 3rd paragraph (at [2] ) is clearly not acceptable as an inline citation as it consists of 419 boxes and files, some of which were used in the preparation of History of the Ministry of Munitions, and is therefore not WP:Verifiable in its current form. Its a "further reading", not a citation.

• For information, the History of the Ministry of Munitions is obviously available at the National Achive (as a primary source - MUN5), but it's also (I beleive) on the open shelves at the National Archives as a set of bound copies entitled the "Official History of The Ministry of Munitions"; and they been published in facsimily by Naval and Military Press (see [3]) in twelve volumes. Using the argument of there is only primary sources wears a bit "thin", when MUN5 as a whole is used instead individual published volumes, and page numbers.

• I have made a much more precise reference to a particular report in MUN5 - it is sort of executive summary of flame warfare work. An alternative reference to "Palazzo 2002, p. 103." is also provided. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• The William Howard Livens article on wikipedia, uses a book by Simon Jones, (see [4]) which has a chapter on WW I use of the Livens Projector.

• I have added a reference to Jones 2007. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• There are also the Official Histories of the Second World War, again they are available at the National Achive (as a primary source), but aslo in published form: first by HMSO/Longmans Green and later republished.

• I really don't know. I cannot find anything useful via on-line searching. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Well they are on the open shelfs at Kew, since reference are made to files in the National Archives I asssume that have been read, and not merely included as "padding" - the on-line catalogues only provide verification that the files exist, not that the files verify what is stated in the article. I've not been to Kew during this review, otherwise I would have checked the files as well as the Official Histories. Pyrotec (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Pyrotec (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

What's the status on this review? Been a month since it started and a week since the above comments. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have been too busy to find much quality time on Wikipedia just at the moment, but I am trying to catch up. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• All the NA references except one minor point now have supplementary non-NA references too. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

An interesting article on a topic that appears not to be at that well known.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   I've given this a "yes" mark, but I do regard the use of original files in the National Records (formerly PRO) to be boarding on OR.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Britain/Scotland ambiguity

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Flame fougasse. Please take a moment to review 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

Ambiguity under "Deployment"

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)