Flame thrower tanks development

As the combat period approached, Colonel Unmacht and his stafiF turned their attention from numerous projects in gas warfare defense and decontamination to the nontoxic chemical weapons and munitions. Their work on the flame thrower tank, and later on stabilized flame thrower fuels, was the outstanding overseas development work of the worldwide CWS. Unmacht was a strong proponent of the use of the 4.2-inch chemical mortar with high-explosive shell, and the development, testing, and combat supply of a landing craft mortar mounting for Pacific amphibious operations represented one of his achievements in the field of combat support. The mortar gun boat development was also a noteworthy example of Army-Navy co-operation. 

Mechanized or Tank-type Flame Throwers, During WWII a 3td type of flame dirower was developed, the so-called tank-mounted or "mechanized flame thrower, which at first was intermediate in size between the stationary and portable types but later surpassed the W WI stationary types in size. Although tank-mounted throwers were effective at... 

Tank crews developed a fear of the periscope type after the fuel container of one burst and ignited upon being struck by an enemy shell, burning the tank crew to death. This type of auxiliary flame thrower, therefore, was never fully tested in battle. Nor was the bow gun type, with which the III Amphibious Corps was equipped, put to much use, for main armament flame tanks of the 713th Tank Battalion were preferred by Marine as well as Army units. ... 

Patton expressed doubt about the tactical value of a mechanized flame thrower. A September 1944 demonstration of two models of the newly developed auxiliary flame thrower for the medium tank elicited no requirement for the weapon. A series of conferences on the mechanized flame thrower led Allied Force Headquarters in December 1944 also to report that no requirement existed for the auxiliary model. One of the major factors in this conclusion was the fact that the Italian terrain was most unfavorable for the use of tanks. ... 

In the zone of interior the Armored Force Board had never been enthusiastic about any flame-throwing tank that was a special-purpose weapon, that Is, if it had the flame thrower as its main armament, or if it had a distinguishing silhouette. The British Crocodile met the first requirement, but its fuel-carrying trailer certainly made it readily identifiable. In any event, the board urged the Chemical Warfare Service to concentrate its efforts on the auxiliary model, one that main- tained the normal armament of the vehicle, which was then under development. The result was an auxiliary flame thrower which was interchangeable with the bow machine gun of either the light or medium tank. 

As a matter of fact, comparatively little use was made of the E4-3 in France and Germany. Unfortunately, the first reported action was a complete failure, a circumstance which may have helped discourage wider use of the weapon. Two medium tanks with E4-3 flame throwers reported to the y4ist Tank Battalion, First Army, on 13 September 1944. At the time, both tanks were improperly equipped and one had a defective engine. The y4ist Tank Battalion repaired and equipped the vehicles and attached them to Company C. When further trouble developed, one of the tanks was evacuated to an ordnance repair shop. On 18 September, the remaining E4-3 flame tank supported an infantry attack on an enemy pillbox. Because of inadequate pressure the tank had to get within twenty-five yards of the fortification before the flame could reach the embrasure. This action failed to reduce the pillbox, and the infantry did not take the position. In fact, there was doubt whether or not the enemy suffered any casualties from the attack. 

Although the M2-2 was better than its predecessor, it was not entirely satisfactory. It was too heavy, it did not hold enough fuel, and the fuel tanks were uncomfortable on the backs of the operators when the weapon had to be carried a considerable distance. It was, however, the most reliable flame thrower designed by any army up to that time. The CWS technicians continued to develop a light, large capacity weapon, but they did not reach their goal during the war. 

By the beginning of 1943 there were thus two fairly satisfactory flame throwers, the CWS model and NDRCs "Q. Although theaters of operation had not asked for main armament flame throwers the Army Ground Forces had watched the development of the weapon with approval. In March 1943 CWS arranged a demonstration to allow the AGF to decide which of the two models it preferred. This turned out to be "Q. The Army decided to place the flame thrower in light tanks, these being the only tanks available. ... 

Development and Field Use of E7-7 Mechanized Flame Thrower, NDRC Div 11, Report No. OSRD 6012, 12 Sep 45. (2) Flame Thrower, Mechanized, E7-7, in Light Tank, M5A1. NDRC Div 11, Report No. OSRD 5125, 29 May 45. 

The Italian and Japanese Armies did not equip tanks with auxiliary flame throwers, but the German Army had two flame throwers that might be placed in this classification. For the Pz. Kw. II tank it developed a... 

DF, Brig Gen W. A. Borden, Dir New Developments Div to G-4, 26 Jun 45, sub Production Status of Tank Flame Thrower, E12-7R1. OPD 470.71. By this time a number of mechanized units had been manufaaured and assembled in the Middle Pacific Area and had been successfully employed in Pacific operations, especially on Okinawa. See Pritchard, Kleber, and Bird-sell, Chemicals in Combat. 

---