Chapter 16: The Flame Thrower in the War Against Germany
The Portable Flame Thrower in the MTO
Although the combat engineer battalion of each U.S. division invading Northwest Africa carried ashore twenty-four portable flame throwers, American troops did not use the weapon in that campaign. For one thing, no positive need existed for the portable flame thrower in Northwest Africa where much of the fighting was characterized by fast-moving tactics. As the enemy rarely made use of pillboxes or other fixed fortifications and house-to-house combat was negligible, the combat situations in which flame throwers were most valuable did not arise.1
Even had conditions been favorable, it is unlikely that flame throwers would have been effectively employed. The campaign took place at a time when the tactical doctrine for the flame thrower was nascent and its supply and maintenance procedures but poorly conceived. If a situation favoring the use of the weapon had suddenly come up, the flame thrower, usually back with the organizational equipment, would not have been readily available.2
The inherent technical deficiency of the portable flame thrower itself also stood in the way of effective employment. The models taken to Africa were the E1R1 and the M1, neither of which, it will be recalled, was capable of firing thickened fuel. Not until the spring and early summer of 1943 did the longer ranged M1A1 portable flame thrower become available in the theater as a replacement for the early models.3 And flame thrower training for the African landings,
generally superficial, was, nonetheless, extensive enough to reveal the deficiencies of the weapon. Although it is difficult to assess the importance of any one of these conditions there can be no doubt about their cumulative effect.4
The napalm-firing M1 At 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.5
There was only one recorded use of the portable flame thrower by American troops in Sicily. In an action reminiscent of the burning of the Philistine grain fields by Samson, 1st Division engineers burned a Sicilian wheat field in which enemy infantry had taken position.6 American troops in Sicily soon learned that white phosphorus and high explosives could neutralize the fortifications encountered on the island; flame throwers were not used again throughout the operations.7 At a 2-day critique after the fighting, division chemical officers expressed doubts about the value of the flame thrower and recommended it be declared an item of Class IV supply, or, in other words, be relegated to the classification of a special-purpose weapon.8
Flame thrower training given to Fifth Army units before the Salerno landings consisted of demonstrations and enough technical training to familiarize operators with the weapon. Some units did not even consider it worthwhile to exchange the M1 flame thrower for the newly arrived M1 AI, although Salerno-bound engineer battalions did carry their full quota of the weapon.9 The series of extremely strong German defensive positions across the Italian peninsula aroused enough
interest in the portable flame thrower to cause VI Corps in December 1943 to ask the chemical officer of the Fifth Army, for a 2-day school to familiarize troops with the operation and tactical employment of the weapon.10
Units engaged in the difficult fighting at Cassino and at Anzio used the weapon with some success against fixed fortifications, particularly when other means had failed to overcome this type of defense.11 An experience of the 85th division in the Gustav Line helps to illustrate this use. In May 1944 a platoon of Company G, 339th Infantry, had been held up for two days near Tremensuoli by a series of enemy pillboxes which stretched across a dominant ridge two hundred yards away. Finally, Lt. Robert T. Waugh, the platoon leader, secured a portable flame thrower from regimental headquarters. Under the covering fire of small arms and automatic weapons, Sgt. Fred Juliano, an assistant squad leader, crawled with the flame thrower to within fifteen yards of the key pillbox. Three short bursts killed all of its defenders, and the platoon swiftly overcame the other positions with the help of white phosphorus grenades.12
The portable flame thrower, for various reasons, saw little use in Italy.13 To begin with, the reputation of the early models was not such as to commend the weapon to combat commanders, and there had been little experience of any kind in Africa and Sicily to recommend its use in Italy. Moreover, there was hardly any need for the weapon in Italy. The Italian terrain and climate contributed additional problems for the employment of the flame throwers. The rugged mountains encountered throughout most of Italy made it difficult, if not impossible, to man-carry the cumbersome weapon to the front line
or to keep it apace of the advancing troops once it got there.14 The cold, wet climate had almost the same deleterious effect as the heat and moisture of the tropics; and, despite numerous reports of misfires, no means was ever devised to waterproof the electrical ignition system as had been done in the Southwest Pacific.15
Probably because of the limited opportunity for employing the flame thrower, matters of doctrine and training were somewhat neglected. Although in April 1944 the Fifth Army published a training memorandum16 which recommended an integrated 8-man team for the deployment of the portable flame thrower (illustrated with examples of successful use on Guadalcanal) , there seemed to be as many schemes for employing the weapon as there were divisions. A survey conducted early in 1945 concluded that there was no theater standard for organizing and equipping flame thrower teams.17
Assault teams, usually armed with rifles, automatic rifles, bazookas, and antitank grenades, saw a great deal of action against dugouts and fortified houses. Flame throwers were seldom added to this armament because a bazooka shell or antitank grenade fired through a window or door usually sufficed. Pillbox-type fortifications impervious to more conventional weapons, however, were considered appropriate targets for flame throwers.18
Closely related to the problem of doctrine was the status of flame thrower training. Despite several 2-day flame thrower schools sponsored by Fifth Army, the lack of adequately trained operators remained a problem throughout the campaign. These shortcomings in doctrine and training occasionally added up to situations wherein untrained operators received poor support from improperly oriented assault teams with the consequent failure of the mission.19
The Portable Flame Thrower in the ETO
Normandy
Pre-Normandy preparations included more effort directed toward the training of flame thrower operators and the preparation of tactical and logistical procedures for the weapon than had been attempted before the invasion of Italy. In October 1943 Headquarters, ETOUSA, published detailed instructions for all units under its control in the tactical use of the portable flame thrower. This training memorandum suggested the assignment of three men—operator, assistant operator, and refill carrier—to each weapon and urged that twice that number be trained. This document stressed the tactical necessity of covering the flame thrower operator with small arms and smoke, but it did not specify the exact composition of the assault party.20
As the date of the invasion approached, ETOUSA increased the tempo of its flame thrower preparations. New instructions, in the form of another training memorandum, did little more than reiterate the memo which it superseded.21 Of more help was the allocation of 150 portable flame throwers to each of the assault divisions of First Army,22 a number far in excess of the 24 flame throwers which the theater suggested for an infantry division in normal operations.23
The assignment of such a large number of flame throwers to the assault regiments naturally increased the problem of training. In general, the status of flame thrower training within the divisions in England was poor. Engineer battalions had received limited doses, but infantry division troops, even of the veteran units, were generally unfamiliar with both the technical and tactical aspects of the weapon. Divisions of the First U.S. Army conducted schools in an effort to correct this deficiency. Third Army units, slated for commitment later than those of First Army, suffered from a lack of flame throwers
(in August 1944 Third Army’s supply of the weapon was described as “practically nil”) ,24 and a consequent lack of trained operators.25
These preparations went for nought; there is no record that the flame thrower was used during the Normandy landings. Many of the weapons were lost in the rough surf, and infantrymen perforce abandoned others in the struggle to get across the beaches in the face of heavy enemy fire. The 4th Chemical Maintenance Company, which landed in Normandy at the end of June, repaired and returned to depot stock over 100 portable flame throwers which it had picked up from salvage piles on the beaches. In any event, German positions encountered on the beachheads usually were not suitable flame thrower targets.26
As the initial weeks of the campaign wore on and units moved inland, some flame thrower targets did appear. Cities and towns presented obstacles which occasionally called for flame thrower action, although the 1st and 2nd Infantry Divisions reported that the weapon was not particularly useful in ordinary street fighting. The V Corps stated that the limited range of the portable flame thrower restricted its usefulness in fighting in the hedgerows, that ubiquitous feature of the Normandy terrain.27
Brittany
The flame thrower was used more in the August and September fighting on the Brittany peninsula, particularly in and around the port of Brest, than at any other time in France. On one occasion the 1st Battalion, 121st Infantry, 8th Division, was held up near Brest by a series of three concrete positions within a two-acre area. Although artillery had failed to reduce the strongpoint, it had left many large shell holes in the vicinity. Using the cover afforded by these craters
two flame thrower operators, covered by the small arms fire of ten men, were able to crawl within thirty yards of the fortifications. A short burst of flame directed at each pillbox in turn resulted in the hasty surrender of the occupants. The psychological effect of the flame throwers was the determining factor in the success of the operation. Not one enemy soldier had been burned.28
A platoon of the 116th Infantry, 29th Division, had a similar experience in the same area. Halted by opposition from a pillbox, the men brought up a portable flame thrower to help cope with the situation. Although the fuel tanks were only partly filled, the operator fired three good bursts into the doorways. The five occupants immediately panicked but were prevented from coming out by the intense heat engulfing the strongpoint. It was a full ten minutes before the fire and heat subsided enough to allow the enemy to emerge, hands in the air. None of them was seriously burned but their nerves were shattered; as the bewildered men passed the flame thrower they shook their heads.29
The introduction of the flame thrower did not always spell success. On 27 August 1944, the 38th Infantry, 2nd Division, encountered strong enemy positions which dominated an area near Brest. The majority of the strongpoints consisted of heavy reinforced concrete pillboxes, well protected, as German defensive positions usually were, by bands of interlocking fire. The positions seemed impervious to artillery fire. In this extremity three flame thrower teams came forward, each consisting of an operator, assistant operator, and two BAR men. The first team reached its contact point only to have the operator killed and the fuel tanks of the weapon punctured by enemy machine gun fire. The second team reached its firing position but had to withdraw when it found that the weapon’s hydrogen line had been torn loose. The third team alone accomplished its mission, eliminating one of the enemy positions.30
Lest it be thought that these examples were typical of the fighting in France, the 8th Division action described was one of three times the unit used the flame thrower between 6 June and 2 s September 1944
and the ad Division employment was one of two such instances during the entire Brest campaign.31
The Siegfried Line
Fast-moving situations did not favor the employment of the flame thrower, and this was the type of operations experienced by the Allied forces once they broke out of Normandy. Matters of logistics, terrain, and stiffening enemy resistance caused this advance to grind to a halt in September 1944. In large part, the stiffening German resistance resulted from the strength of the Siegfried Line, or West Wall, positions which stretched from the southeastern corner of the Netherlands to the Swiss frontier. New techniques and special weapons had to be employed against this maze of dragon tooth obstructions and the intricate complex of concrete and steel and pillbox fortifications. One of these special weapons was the portable flame thrower.
The V Corps, in anticipation of the assault on the Siegfried Line fortifications, investigated the availability of portable flame throwers and found that Army depots had enough to provide each division of the corps with fifty weapons.32 In XIX Corps, the 30th Division chemical officer secured ninety-nine M1A1 portable flame throwers for the same purpose. He also found that the men who had been trained as operators while the division was still in England were no longer available. Consequently, the division’s chemical section and engineer battalion trained enough infantrymen to operate the twenty-five flame throwers allotted to each of the regiments.33 Some divisions conducted training in assault tactics before moving against the Siegfried Line. This training usually included the employment of the portable flame thrower. Third Army’s XX Corps realistically used captured Maginot Line fortifications to work out techniques for overcoming the German defenses.34
The actual technique employed to neutralize strongpoints by means of flame throwers varied somewhat among the divisions, but in most cases flame thrower teams went to work after the infantry had
Men training with flame thrower against a captured German pillbox.
advanced to within about twenty-five yards of its objective. At this point the flame thrower operator, accompanied by men armed with bazookas, white phosphorus grenades, and pole charges, and supported by small arms fire, made the final assault against the fortified position. The flame thrower was capable of penetrating certain embrasures or causing the enemy to close gun ports and other openings, thus allowing the placement of explosives at the vulnerable points of the fortifications.35
The 22nd Infantry, 4th Division, found an early opportunity to use the flame thrower in operations against West Wall defenses in the area of the Schnee Eifel, just within the German border. During the third week in September, the regiments encountered a series of pillboxes at i oo-yard intervals which were either unmanned or had poor
fields of fire. Flame thrower operators moved to within effective range without too much difficulty. Despite these circumstances, the division reported only one successful flame thrower operation; other attempts failed because of weapon malfunction.36
One regiment of the 9th Division reported that flame throwers were of little value against the Siegfried Line positions; and the 30th Division chemical officer stated in November 1944 that he had heard of only one successful use of the flame thrower. The 117th Infantry, 30th Division, reported that the portable weapons were of no value against large bunkers, a judgment affirmed by the engineer battalion of the 9th Division. The engineers of VII Corps stated that although they were equipped with flame throwers and pole charges, these weapons were unnecessary once the neutralizing fire of armored vehicles was brought upon the target. In October 1944 the 1st Division reported that while extra pole charges and flame throwers were kept accessible at all times, the flame thrower was too heavy for use by assault troops.37
On the other hand, there were some notable examples of the successful use of portable flame throwers against Siegfried Line fortifications. Despite the adverse comment on the weapon made by the 1st Division, the 26th Infantry reported on 12 October that Company L had “cleaned up” three pillboxes, after they had “worked on them with flame throwers.”38 The same regiment reported further successes with the portable flame thrower in February 1945. On the third of the month the regiment reported that it had “cleaned up a pillbox with flame throwers,” flushing out twenty men and three officers in the process. During the next several days the 26th Infantry went on to neutralize a number of additional pillboxes guarding the high ground near Hollerath, Germany, in operations which featured the successful use of portable flame throwers.39
In a February action in the Seventh Army sector near Bitche, Company B, 399th Infantry, Tooth Division, used a flame thrower team as the nucleus of a combination raiding-assault party. This party, led by Lt. Harry G. Flanagan, consisted of the flame thrower operator and assistant, two automatic rifle teams, two men armed with M15 white phosphorus grenades, and riflemen. Its target was a German outpost in a Maginot Line blockhouse. Although enemy sentries detected the approach of the patrol and fired flares in an attempt to pinpoint it, the flame thrower operator, Cpl. Boyd R. Pike, was able to crawl to a position within fifteen yards of the open rear door of the emplacement. From this vantage point Pike fired three bursts at the enemy position, killing a sentry standing in the doorway. Enemy machine guns opened up at once on the patrol. Pike attempted to fire on the source of some of the enemy opposition, the steel turret surmounting the blockhouse, but he ran out of fuel and withdrew. The grenadiers lobbed their white phosphorus grenades against the blockhouse before retiring. On the way back Pike, exhausted by the ordeal, abandoned his flame thrower. All patrol members returned without injury, and even the flame thrower was eventually recovered.40
Actually, the number of fortifications against which flame throwers were used was few as compared to the total number assaulted. The incident just cited represented the first use of a portable flame thrower which came to the attention of the chemical officer of Seventh Army. By way of explanation for the limited use of the weapon consider the number of portable flame throwers carried by the units with Seventh Army in February 1945: of the 8 U.S. infantry divisions so assigned, 2 had no flame throwers on hand whatsoever, 1 division had 4, 3 divisions had 6, and 2 others had totals of 12 and 34.41 It should be remembered that at the beginning of operations the theater had recommended a complement of 24 portable flame throwers.
Evaluation
Portable flame throwers contributed as little to the success of operations in the European theater as they had in the Mediterranean. The weapon was infrequently used, and not always successfully. Some
infantry divisions never used the flame thrower; few considered it valuable. Reasons for this situation, which was in decided contrast to the successful role played by the portable flame thrower in the Pacific campaigns, are not difficult to find.
Foremost was the fact that the fighting in Europe never developed the need for the portable flame thrower, particularly when compared with operations in the Pacific. The latter theaters saw a fanatical enemy determined to resist to the last in defensive positions which were almost impregnable to the normal complement of infantry weapons, even to artillery fire and air action. Moreover, the jungle terrain in which much of the Pacific fighting took place permitted the flame thrower operator to advance to within effective range if he was protected by adequate supporting weapons. The situation was different on the European battlefields. As German defenses featured interlocking bands of fire and long, uninterrupted fields of vision, the utilization of weapons with limited range was difficult. The absence of concealment along the approaches drew attention to the size of the portable flame thrower and particularly to the unique silhouette of an operator with his weapon strapped to his back.42 The small size of the fuel load was another handicap, particularly when the flame thrower was used against the Siegfried Line fortifications where the enemy might avoid the flame by moving to another room of the emplacement.43
The makeup of the German soldier, as contrasted with that of his Axis ally in the Pacific, had an effect upon flame thrower operations. The Japanese infantryman often fought until death, and flame weapons were needed to insure that he was dead. The German soldier, on the other hand, skilled and valorous as he was, surrendered when conditions provided no alternative.44
In addition to, and sometimes because of, the factors just related, matters of training, supply, and maintenance conspired against the successful use of the portable flame thrower. Although the assault divisions of the First U.S. Army did receive some training in England
before the Normandy landings, the supply of flame throwers was critical during this period and none was available for other units, the divisions of Third Army, for example. Even when Third Army depots received stocks of portables in anticipation of operations against the Siegfried Line, troops received little training in the weapon.45 As late as October 1944 some divisions of II Corps had not been furnished with this item, and its low status in Seventh Army units early in 1945, as mentioned above, was not a reflection of extensive use.46 Seventh Army also reported that use of the weapon was at times limited by the lack of batteries and ignition assemblies; in October 1944 approximately 80 percent of its depot stock of flame throwers was deadlined because of these shortages. In December a shipment of twenty of the M1A1 models included three with defective fuel tanks and others with defective spark generator assemblies.47 The 5th Division reported the receipt from depots of flame throwers with loose electrical connections and with paint-filled discharge ports.48
Commanders and troops in Europe never had the same confidence in the portable flame thrower exhibited by their Pacific counterparts.49 Infrequent use of the weapon meant not only the neglect of doctrine and training, but that supply and maintenance practices would not be tested and improved. Employment of the weapon often ended disastrously, a circumstance which only added to its shaky reputation. In cases where it might have been effectively used it was sometimes discarded in favor of another weapon.
The Mechanized Flame Thrower
The Requirement for an Auxiliary Model
The role played by the U.S. mechanized flame thrower in the war against Germany was of even less consequence than was that of its portable counterpart. American-made flame throwers were not used at all in the Mediterranean theater. After the Sicily Campaign General
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.50
U.S. armored units used the mechanized flame thrower in France and Germany but only in a modest degree. Because the United States had not as yet produced a mechanized flame thrower, American planners for the Normandy invasion turned to the possibility of adapting the British flame thrower unit, then under development, to the U.S. medium tank. The British mounted the flame assembly in the hull of a Churchill Mark VII tank, retaining the 75-mm. gun of the armored vehicle. This flame weapon had a range of something around 120 yards. Called the Crocodile, it featured an armored trailer which held 400 imperial gallons of fuel. In 1943, the Commanding General, ETOUSA, submitted a request for 100 of the British flame throwers for installation in U.S. Sherman tanks. Development and testing of the Sherman-Crocodile proceeded slowly, and the first production model did not appear until March 1944.51
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 maintained the normal armament of the vehicle, which was then under development.52 The result was an auxiliary flame thrower which was interchangeable with the bow machine gun of either the light or medium tank.
On 9 March 1944 General Eisenhower requested that one of these
new bow gun flame throwers be sent to England for testing, inquiring at the same time when 100 more units could be made available. The War Department replied that the ETOUSA could have the single unit by mid-April and 200 flame throwers by 1 June 1944, 100 units for medium tanks, the E4-5, and 100 designed for light tanks, the E5-5.53 This was heartening news, especially as the requirements of the British Army precluded the delivery of the complete order of Sherman-Crocodiles until sometime in October.54
The theater chemical section quickly installed the first auxiliary unit in a medium tank and demonstrated it to interested officers from General Eisenhower’s headquarters in late June.55 In contrast to the long-range Crocodile the auxiliary flame thrower gave a poor performance. Perhaps the strongest point in favor of the American model was its availability. First Army, planning on nine flame throwers per medium tank battalion, asked for 200 auxiliary flame throwers and canceled its requirement for Sherman-Crocodiles.56 Meanwhile, because of the lack of trained personnel and its somewhat limited mobility, the British Crocodile flame thrower had not lived up to expectations in the first month on the Continent, and General Eisenhower soon canceled the American requirement for the flame tank. The fact that E4-5’s were understood to be available and that they had no identifying, mobility-hampering trailer, were doubtless other considerations in the decision.57
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
British Crocodile with fuel trailer, firing at a target 200 yards away during a test in England.
functioned perfectly at an effective range of fifty yards.58 The increased capacity came from the addition of a 25-gallon flame fuel tank located over the transmission of the vehicle. The original tank of the same size was situated on the right sponson.59 The 12th Army Group soon established a requirement for 333 of these auxiliary flame throwers, of which 150 were understood to be immediately available in the zone of interior. First Army, about to assault the Siegfried Line in the vicinity of Aachen, Germany, requested the prompt delivery of the weapons.60 One hundred and fifty of the E4-5 flame throwers reached the ETO in October 1944 but they were equipped with only one of the two 25-gallon fuel tanks. This caused some concern as the 50-
gallon fuel capacity was a popular feature of the flame throwers. The missing transmission fuel tanks finally arrived in November.61
The Main Armament Flame Thrower
If the theater’s interest in the auxiliary flame thrower could have been called mild, its concern for the main armament version was almost nonexistent. Army commanders indicated their reluctance to give up standard tanks for main armament flame throwers not only because of the reduced fire power but also because of the additional tanks needed to protect the vulnerable special weapon. And, as General Rowan pointed out, matters were all the worse because tanks and other armored vehicles remained in short supply.
It was not until January 1945 that General Bradley, 12th Army Group commander, requested twelve main armament flame throwers (EI 2-71U) for operational testing.62 The armored forces in the 6th Army Group declined to give up voluntarily any of the regular tanks in order to provide for main armament flame throwers. The Army Group Commander, General Devers, stated that any value gained in the use of the flame thrower would be more than offset by the consequent shortage of regular tanks and personnel.63
Word came in late February that ten, not twelve, of General Bradley’s flame throwers would be shipped to Europe on the first convoy in May.64 They were on shipboard ready to sail when the Germans surrendered at Reims on 7 May 1945.
Mechanized Flame Thrower Operations
The American forces did not have mechanized flame throwers when they were first committed to action in France, nor did they have them in any numbers for almost five months after the Normandy landings. This initial lack of experience and training with flame-throwing tanks probably did as much as anything to set the pattern for the insignificant role the weapon was to have in Europe, a role in decided contrast to
that in the British and the Canadian Armies, which used the mechanized flame thrower successfully and on a fairly large scale.65
Initially without flame tanks of their own, American forces in Trance received occasional support of British Crocodile squadrons. In September 1944 Squadron B, 141st Regiment, Royal Armoured Corps, consisting of a headquarters troop and four flame thrower troops, each with three Crocodile flame tanks, reported to Ninth Army’s VIII Corps. Three of these flame tanks supported elements of the 29th Division in operations against Fort Montbarey, a key enemy stronghold in Brest. On 14 September these flame tanks participated in the attack on a series of pillboxes near the fort. Although two were knocked out by mines before reaching the objective, the third flamed the pillboxes, which capitulated with a yield of 60 prisoners. Two days later, in the assault on Fort Montbarey itself, Crocodiles fired against the moat and the wall until their fuel was exhausted. Even then the tanks remained in position, their crews throwing white phosphorus hand grenades to cover the final infantry assault. The fort capitulated that evening. Prisoners indicated that the use of flame materially reduced the will to resist.66
Favorably impressed by the work of the Crocodiles in the Brest operation, the commanding general of Ninth Army, Lt. Gen. William H. Simpson, on 31 October urged General Bradley to make one squadron available to Ninth Army for the impending operations against the Siegfried Line.67 At this time the British flame tank squadrons were in great demand by 21 Army Group and Ninth Army received only four Sherman-Crocodile flame throwers, with well-trained crews. These four tanks, issued to a platoon of the 739th Tank Battalion, Special (Mine Exploder), were the only large capacity flame throwers used by American forces in the European Theater of Operations. In support of the 29th Division, which had also worked with flame tanks at Brest, the Sherman-Crocodile platoon crossed the Roer River on 24 February 1945. It then received orders to join in the assault on the citadel at Jülich where enemy small arms fire had impeded the
advance for several days. In the plan of attack, the four Crocodiles were to flame the south wall of the sixteenth century citadel from across the moat and fire 75-mm. shells to demolish the gate. Two of the tanks developed trouble before reaching the target, but the remaining two lumbered to within seventy-five yards of the citadel and fired flame over the wall, forcing the defenders underground. Twenty rounds from the 75s sufficed to smash the steel door and permit the tanks to flame the opening. The last German defenders fled just as infantrymen from the 29th Division poured over the moat into the burning citadel.68
The only American-made, mechanized flame thrower used by U.S. troops in the European theater was the E4-5, later standardized as the M3-4-3, the auxiliary model which initially had arrived without the transmission fuel tanks. Four of these flame thrower units arrived in the summer of 1944 and saw action with First Army in September. In November, 12th Army Group allotted the 150 E4-5 units on hand as follows: First Army, 75; Third Army, 30; Ninth Army, 45. Third Army had never established a requirement for the flame-throwing tank and held its 30 E4-5 flame throwers in an Army depot.69
As a matter of fact, comparatively little use was made of the E4-5 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 E4-5 flame throwers reported to the 741st Tank Battalion, First Army, on 15 September 1944. At the time, both tanks were improperly equipped and one had a defective engine. The 741st 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 E4-5 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.
The tank battalion commander was decidedly unimpressed with the possibilities of the flame tank, although he admitted that the lack of training experience of the crew (it had had one day of preparatory training) might have contributed to the inefficiency of the weapon. Another factor was the distinct, if unwarranted, reluctance of the crews to enter combat with the flame tanks, a reluctance also attributable to a lack of training and indoctrination.70
In December, Company B, 709th Tank Battalion, with Ninth Army, attacked hasty entrenchments near the town of Vossenack, Germany. The battalion had received and installed the two flame units just before the action. Unfortunately, there was no time for training the bow gunner-operators; they merely received verbal instructions on how to operate the weapon. The enemy fortifications were in a V-shaped position in a woods near the town. The plan of attack called for clearing the left half of the wedge, followed by a tank and flame tank attack on the right side. The vehicles, with infantrymen clinging to them, approached the objective in a line. As the flame tanks came within range of the positions they opened fire; when the flame fuel was exhausted the infantrymen dismounted and quickly took the positions. Though the operation was a success and the flame tanks achieved the expected result, their performance was nonetheless something less than spectacular. The ignition system worked well, but the range—only twenty yards—was extremely short. The officer in charge blamed this poor performance not so much on the E4-5 as upon the inexperience of the gunners.71
Seventh Army issued nine E4-5 flame throwers to the 14th Armored Division but only one had been installed by January 1945. When this flame tank and three standard tanks advanced abreast against a wooded area north of Strasbourg, they encountered an enemy machine gun nest holding up the infantry on the flank. The flame gunner fired his weapon even though the German position was well out of range. The flame traveled only halfway to the position but the defending enemy immediately surrendered. The division promptly installed the eight remaining flame throwers.72
Another example of the psychological impact of a flame attack took place during the advance of the 743rd Tank Battalion from the Roer River to the Rhine. One tank fired several high explosive shells at a German antitank gun, closed in, and poured flame on the position. The defending Germans immediately fled into the shelter of a nearby woods. Flame against troops in the open or in hasty entrenchments usually was extremely successful.73
Despite the advantages which resulted from the employment of flame, tank battalions and armored divisions remained unconvinced of the merits of the flame throwing tank. As a consequence, the few examples just cited represent a fairly substantial proportion of the reported flame actions. First Army, realizing that the weapon was seeing little use, acknowledged to its tank battalion commanders the “considerable difficulties ... encountered with ignition, fuel and first echelon maintenance.” Admitting that the shortcomings in the flame thrower had no immediate solution, the Army left the way open for the tank battalion commanders to store the flame throwers. The response to this frankly worded communication was significant. Six tank battalions requested permission to store most of their flame units; only two desired to keep the equipment until a tactical situation afforded the chance of a combat test.74
In summary, American forces in Europe used flame-throwing tanks very sparingly. Flame would have been more successful had there been adequate tactical and technical training in the proper use of mechanized flame throwers. Within the tank battalions the constant strain of combat, as contrasted with the intermittent battles in the Pacific, hindered the proper installation of flame-throwing equipment. Units often had to be committed to combat during the period of installation and training, and therefore training in flame thrower maintenance and tactics was often inadequate or entirely lacking. Moreover, the continuing shortage of medium tanks made armored commanders very reluctant to remove tanks from battle for the installation of the flame throwers.
For these reasons, the armored forces made but sporadic gestures at
establishing a requirement for a mechanized flame thrower, a fact which did little to expedite the development of an acceptable flame unit in the zone of interior. The late arrival of flame units caused little stir among the using forces, and defects of equipment and problems of maintenance did not help the reputation of the weapon. The end result was understandable. Caught in a vicious circle the mechanized flame thrower, much like the portable model, was able to contribute but little support to American forces in Europe.