Flame Thrower Demonstration

During the last week in July 1943 the Hawaiian Department presented a portable flame thrower demonstration, based on an analysis of operations in the South Pacific, to approximately 1,400 Army, Navy, and Marine officers and enlisted men. The display, demonstrating how Japanese fortified defenses might be attacked and destroyed by assault parties armed with the flame thrower, generated considerable interest. ... 

Flame Thrower Demonstration, Camp Sihert, Alabama, 1 44. 

In the actual Marshalls operation, the tactical commander held resupply offshore until he could determine that it could be landed without clogging the beaches. The only CWS supply problem arising in the Marshalls was that so many portable flame throwers were provided that not all could be used. The allowance p>er division for subsequent operations was cut from 192 to 141 weapons. The physical condition and handling of supplies otherwise met demands, demonstrating that the CWS had learned to operate its share of the theater supply... 

CWS ofiScers in North Africa exerted every effort to acquaint infantry commanders with the chemical mission, including the 4.2-inch mortar and its proper employment. Even before the arrival of the chemical battalions they conducted demonstrations with 4.2-inch mortar WP shells, colored grenades, and flame throwers. With the arrival of the first three battalions CWS officers were able to hold mortar demonstrations for the chief of staff of Seventh Army and other high ranking officers. ... 

Although the flame thrower had performed dismally at Buna, Sixth Army had received reports of the successful use of the weapon on Guadalcanal and New Georgia. On the basis of these reports it appeared that a dependable flame thrower could be the answer to the problem of pillbox destruction. By October 1943 the rigorotis tests conducted by the loth Chemical Maintenance Company demonstrated that the flame thrower could be made reliable. Sixth Army therefore decided to include the weapon in its future combat operations and asked that Headquarters, U.S. Army Forces Far East, increase the... 

Although it was in the South and Southwest Pacific that flame throwers were first employed, it remained for troops in the Central Pacific to demonstrate the full potential of the weapon. This they proceeded to do in a long series of amphibious assaults that, paralleling MacArthur s drive in the Southwest Pacific, carried Army and Marine units from the Gilberts and Marshalls to the very doorstep of Japan. From the start commanders in the Central Pacific, especially Marine leaders, showed an interest in and an enthusiasm for the flame thrower unmatched in other theaters. Forces in the area were also blessed with an adequate and sometimes overabundant supply of the weapon, a relative absence of technical problems that plagued the Southwest Pacific, and sufficient time between engagements to train operators and assault teams. These factors helped to produce the success achieved by the flame thrower in the Central Pacific. 

May 44, Rpt Demonstration U.S. Navy Flame Thrower Mark I. Both in History, CVS, AFMIDPAC, vol. Ill, refs. II, 13. 

Standard i -inch rubber fire hose to a flame thrower tank and attained a range of 6o yards. Following a demonstration of the device in February 1945 Tenth Army ordered three sets of these hoses, all of which were to see service on Okinawa. ... 

The campaign demonstrated the validity of the new Sixth Army policy on tactical doctrine and servicing. Flame thrower operator casualties were light, malfunctions rare, and assault teams successful in the large majority of their missions. Japanese bimker, cave, and dug-out defenses on Leyte were elaborate and often ingenious. The success of the flame thrower pointed up the merits of the weapon and the training and skill of the operators. 

In the trial of battle the Army and Marine Corps in the Pacific discovered that the value of the flame thrower lay in its ability to reach the enemy in his prepared positions, which were for the most part impervious to conventional weapons. The excessive infantry casualties ordinarily incurred in rooting the Japanese from their defenses were thereby reduced. It appears certain that had the war not come to a sudden close the mechanized flame thrower would have demonstrated its ability to cut these losses to an even greater degree—not to mention the casualties which would be inflicted upon the enemy. 

The napalm-firing MiAi arrived in the theater in time for the preparations which were being conducted for the invasion of Sicily. Although demonstrations revealed a weapon with a range of forty or fifty yards, some Seventh Army units remained unconvinced of any appreciable improvement in the new model. The engineer battalions of two divisions returned their flame throwers to the base depot before embarking for Sicily. ... 

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. ... 

On 23 August 1944 Lt. Col. G. C. White, OCCWS, conducted a second demonstration of the E4-5 auxiliary flame thrower before high ranking officers of the First and Third Armies. This time the latest model with a capacity of fifty gallons was shown, and the equipment... 

The experiments to which Weissenberg refers were done during World War II in England on materials for flame throwers. One goal of this research was to improve predictions of the pressure drop through the spray nozzles (Russell. 1946). Gum rubber in gasoline, polymethyl methacrylate in benzene, and similar materials were studied. Figure 4.1.1 shows some of the experiments that were used to demonstrate normal stress effects. 

Just as World War II proved the value of portable flame throwers, it likewise demonstrated the usefulness of mechanized flame throwers. The CWS had designed its first mechanized flame thrower in World War I but did not have time to carry the weapon beyond the experimental stage. Intended for installation in a tank, the gun could expel a stream of oil fifty yards. After the war the service put mechanized flame throwers aside and did not work on them again for twenty years. ... 

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. ... 

The new flame thrower tank, designated POA-CWS "75 H-1 (POA for Pacific Ocean Areas, H for Hawaii), was demonstrated to the Tenth... 

---