# Canadian flamethrowers & Cold War



## MadMat

Hi,

  I've read on wargame rules or TO&E that the Canadian Forces were one of the last NATO armies to use flamethrowers during the Cold War. But once I've searched for any official source stating that, I've found nothing ...  ???

  Could someone confirm, or deny, that they indeed used them. And if they did, does anyone knows the latter's designation?

Thanks.


----------



## MikeL

http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/equipment/engineerequipment/flamethrower.htm
http://fuckyeahcanadianforces.tumblr.com/post/28200002610/johanvandemerwe-ppcli-flamethrower-korean-war


----------



## MadMat

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/equipment/engineerequipment/flamethrower.htm
> http://fuckyeahcanadianforces.tumblr.com/post/28200002610/johanvandemerwe-ppcli-flamethrower-korean-war


Thanks.
Actually, I knew the first site, but it is about WW2.
I'm presently interested in Cold War, and more the late decades of the 70's & 80's. I was wondering if the well-established rumor among wargamers that Canadian Forces were the last to use flamethrowers in those days was based on facts or just a legend.


----------



## daftandbarmy

MadMat said:
			
		

> Thanks.
> Actually, I knew the first site, but it is about WW2.
> I'm presently interested in Cold War, and more the late decades of the 70's & 80's. I was wondering if the well-established rumor among wargamers that Canadian Forces were the last to use flamethrowers in those days was based on facts or just a legend.



Flamethrowers during the Cold War... isn't that an Oxymoron?  ;D


----------



## MadMat

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Flamethrowers during the Cold War... isn't that an Oxymoron?  ;D



Well, USA only shelved theirs after Vietnam, and France still has some (at least in the _Légion_).


----------



## MilEME09

We still have them in war stocks, me and my section commander found the stock numbers for flame throwers, vehicle mounts for them, and the related EIS. We wanted to try and order one for mounting on a HL but our Sgt said no cause it was probably impossible to explain why we wanted it


----------



## MadMat

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> We still have them in war stocks, me and my section commander found the stock numbers for flame throwers, vehicle mounts for them, and the related EIS. We wanted to try and order one for mounting on a HL but our Sgt said no cause it was probably impossible to explain why we wanted it



When was that?
And they were supposed to be vehicule-mounted? On what vehicle?
And would you, by any chance, know their designation?


----------



## cupper

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> We still have them in war stocks, me and my section commander found the stock numbers for flame throwers, vehicle mounts for them, and the related EIS. We wanted to try and order one for mounting on a HL but our Sgt said no cause it was probably impossible to explain why we wanted it



You mean " Just 'cause we can" and "It would be so cool!" aren't good enough reasons?

How times have changed since the Cold War Days. :nod:


----------



## AJFitzpatrick

Why do I have visions of a mobile barb-e-que detachment?


----------



## Shrek1985

According to the books Tools of the Trade: Equipping the Canadian Army, Mechanized Flamethrowers in Canadian Service and Secret Weapons of the Canadian Army, the later two by Roger V. Lucy, we had a number of different flame warfare systems during WWII and retained the capability for some time. 

According to 'Mechanized Flamethrowers; fittings for WASP 2C mounts were retained at various levels as HQ assets, with several Universal carriers being capable of mounting the system for as long as we retained the Universal carrier. There was a little bit of up and down on this, but in 49, it was decided that each Inf Battalion's carrier platoon would have three and the rest would be kept for training. We also developed a version of the WWII Badger system and fitted it to our M4A2E8 "Kangaroos" though how standardized this modification was I cannot say.

We also developed a new system "Iroquois" which was fitted to universal carriers after about 1950 with a contract completed for 100 systems. This was better than the WASP 2C in all ways, but the terrain in Korea was apparantly bad for the 18 WASP Carriers which were sent and they saw little use. Iroquois was deployed however to germany and to reg force battalions in Canada from sept 1953, but none were sent to Korea.

We used us M2 series flame throwers and Life Bouys in Korea and would have also retained them for some time it seems, but the once-promised forthcoming book on manportable flame weapons has disappeared from the www.servicepub.com website, sadly.

Iroquois was fitted to the Bobcat APC while under development, though an improved system "Cree" was not. From 53 to 56 Cree was mounted in a de-turreted MkIII Centurion, but this was cancelled after passing trials it's before it could be issued.

Sadly, by 58, insufficient parts supplies were causing serviceable iroquios and carriers to decline and flame warfare declined to 1962 when mechanized flame carriers were declared obsolete and ordered disposed of. To this time some systems had been retained at higher levels. it was promised that once Bobcat materialized Cree would be fitted to it, but we all know how that turned out. The book concludes by stating that some manpack systems (M2 series) were retained for training and testing purposes for sometime thereafter.

Even if some were in warstocks, our recent visit from the UN arms limitation people would have seen to them, as they saw to our C1s, c2s, ect.

From a wargaming standpoint, I would however expect flame throwers to be a fixture of any canadian forces unit in anything but a sudden emergency, right up till the 1980s. Historically, we're fond of them and they work, similiar situations tending to lead to similar solutions and history tending to rhyme, if not repeat, I think the conclusion is logical.


----------



## MilEME09

MadMat said:
			
		

> When was that?
> And they were supposed to be vehicule-mounted? On what vehicle?
> And would you, by any chance, know their designation?



We found both the Man Pack, and the vehicle mounted version, the mount it self was a different stock number, my assumption is on a M113, but doesn't mean a skilled vtech couldn't rig it up. As for designations no, I'd have to find the weapons catalogue, might take some time to dig up my unit just moved buildings.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> We still have them in war stocks, me and my section commander found the stock numbers for flame throwers, vehicle mounts for them, and the related EIS. We wanted to try and order one for mounting on a HL but our Sgt said no cause it was probably impossible to explain why we wanted it



Just because they are listed, doesn't mean we have them.

We have light sabres listed (no kidding) but they are on back order  

and no, I don't have the number handy.


----------



## brihard

I'm almost sure we have a qualification code still in the system for flamethrower... I think I stumbled across it while searching random MITE codes in Monitor MASS some time back.

It goes without saying that they've been long rendered illegal for our military use by treaty.


----------



## bLUE fOX

20-A06-7988, Lightesabre Master Replica, Electro-luminescent Core, Measures 46.7Lx1.75Hx2.5W, Requires 3 AA batteries, Digitally Recorded Sound Effects, Integrated Sensor Switch, Colour Red, Used by Jedi's.

As per the MIMS screen.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

bLUE fOX said:
			
		

> 20-A06-7988, Lightesabre Master Replica, Electro-luminescent Core, Measures 46.7Lx1.75Hx2.5W, Requires 3 AA batteries, Digitally Recorded Sound Effects, Integrated Sensor Switch, Colour Red, Used by Jedi's.
> 
> As per the MIMS screen.



I had the RQ requisition one and we got a response two weeks later that it was backordered and we would be notified when it became available again.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Just like there is an NSN for M113 c/w Troops......my question is how do the troops breath in all that shrink wrap..... ;D


----------



## bLUE fOX

I think It's hilarious that MIMS makes sure you know it's for use by Jedi's. I always thought that Jedi's used green though.


----------



## MikeL

These light sabers are meant for Jedi's who turned to the dark side  ;D


----------



## MadMat

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> We found both the Man Pack, and the vehicle mounted version, the mount it self was a different stock number, my assumption is on a M113, but doesn't mean a skilled vtech couldn't rig it up. As for designations no, I'd have to find the weapons catalogue, might take some time to dig up my unit just moved buildings.


Did the mount for M113 was under turret, like the American M132?
http://flickrhivemind.net/Tags/m132/Interesting
Or was it an external, same as for the .50?


----------



## a_majoor

Traditional flamethrowers are obsolete, but some armies now use Thermobaric warheads on rockets (most particularly the Russians). 

Canadians are considered to be on the forefront in defending _against_ this type of weapon, though:

http://secondsightresearch.tripod.com/id77.html


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Traditional flamethrowers are obsolete, but some armies now use Thermobaric warheads on rockets (most particularly the Russians).
> 
> Canadians are considered to be on the forefront in defending _against_ this type of weapon, though:
> 
> http://secondsightresearch.tripod.com/id77.html



The article is 10 years old. Hardly topical without a more recent one showing we are even still interested in this.


----------



## Infanteer

Brihard said:
			
		

> It goes without saying that they've been long rendered illegal for our military use by treaty.



What treaty is that?

The one thing I got out of my Law of Armed Conflict course, after some significant debate and looking at international law, was that flamethrowers were not outlawed.


----------



## MilEME09

MadMat said:
			
		

> Did the mount for M113 was under turret, like the American M132?
> http://flickrhivemind.net/Tags/m132/Interesting
> Or was it an external, same as for the .50?



It didn't specifically say a vehicle, and it looked similar to a much larger and bulkier version of an AA mount. So I'm guessing this thing is from the 60's or 70's. We also found the vehicle that replenishes the man pack, no doubt out of the system, but I would not of wanted to be the driver who had to take that 800L of petro and chemical mixture to the front.


----------



## Eaglelord17

Just looked it up and it is not illegal for Canada to use flamethrowers, just how we use them. The treaty which has an effect on them is called the 'Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects (with Protocols I, II and III)'. Part III is what effects incendiary devices (also includes flamethrowers).

Here is the link for Part III for the Convention 

http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/B409BC0DCFA0171CC12571DE005BC1DD/$file/PROTOCOL+III.pdf

and here is a link for the signatories (Canada also made some declarations before signing)

http://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVI-2&chapter=26&lang=en#EndDec


----------



## MilEME09

Honestly I could see a use on a Dom op to do controlled burns in BC to help control wild fires, or have some fun clearing River Ice in Manitoba


----------



## brihard

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Just looked it up and it is not illegal for Canada to use flamethrowers, just how we use them. The treaty which has an effect on them is called the 'Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects (with Protocols I, II and III)'. Part III is what effects incendiary devices (also includes flamethrowers).
> 
> Here is the link for Part III for the Convention
> 
> http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/B409BC0DCFA0171CC12571DE005BC1DD/$file/PROTOCOL+III.pdf
> 
> and here is a link for the signatories (Canada also made some declarations before signing)
> 
> http://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVI-2&chapter=26&lang=en#EndDec



Sorry- brain fart. That is indeed the convention and optional protocol I was thinking of, but I was getting mixed up with a previous instance where I've looked at this one; it does indeed apply itself to the use of incendiaries on civilian targets and on military targets near concentrations of civilians. 

There doesn't appear to be restriction on the use of incendiaries purely against military targets, or military targets amongst civilian ones if the force used fits the normal criteria of proportionality, necessity, and discrimination. My error.


----------



## Shrek1985

MadMat said:
			
		

> Did the mount for M113 was under turret, like the American M132?
> http://flickrhivemind.net/Tags/m132/Interesting
> Or was it an external, same as for the .50?



Negative, we never deployed the M132, or the M11 series Flame gun, ref my previous post on the subject. Nor the flame-thrower version of the M59 APC, which I have also seen mounted with a similar system.



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> Sorry- brain fart. That is indeed the convention and optional protocol I was thinking of, but I was getting mixed up with a previous instance where I've looked at this one; it does indeed apply itself to the use of incendiaries on civilian targets and on military targets near concentrations of civilians.
> 
> There doesn't appear to be restriction on the use of incendiaries purely against military targets, or military targets amongst civilian ones if the force used fits the normal criteria of proportionality, necessity, and discrimination. My error.



To clarify: we are totally allowed to use incendiaries, we choose not too. I'm very tempted to lapse into a tirade as to why and what it says about us, but I will refrain, suffice to say I find such decisions asinine and childish.

We are not allowed to use incendiaries on or near civilian targets, or to burn large tracts of woodlands in warfare.

Such weapons are far from obsolete. FAE is a different capability. You cannot assault a fortification and "pour" a thermobaric rocket in from point blank range and then light it. Flame throwers do however have limited capabilities and uses. In certain roles and circumstances, history demonstrates they can be invaluable. Criticism against such weapons and tactics tends, historicaly to have more to do with the sensitivities of the reviewers and whatever political overtones appear to be in place.


----------



## MadMat

Is there a picture of the short-lived "Centurion Cree"?
And could those Cree or Iroquois mounts be rigged on a M113 if urgency had called for it?


----------



## my72jeep

We had some Truck mounted Flamethrowers for doing slash pile burns in Northern Ont. stopped using them due to cost of fuel. We were having to much fun with them.


----------



## Shrek1985

MadMat said:
			
		

> Is there a picture of the short-lived "Centurion Cree"?
> And could those Cree or Iroquois mounts be rigged on a M113 if urgency had called for it?



If there are pictures, I would love to see them!

As adaptable as the M113 is, I am sure they could be, the hard part; as on any turreted flamethrower would be the universal joint for the fuel supply.


----------



## MadMat

Did the Centurion Cree retained its main gun in addition to the flamethrower (like the Soviet TO-55 & TO-62) or was it firing flames only (like the USMC's M67 Zippo)?


----------



## MadMat

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> According to the books Tools of the Trade: Equipping the Canadian Army, Mechanized Flamethrowers in Canadian Service and Secret Weapons of the Canadian Army, the later two by Roger V. Lucy, we had a number of different flame warfare systems during WWII and retained the capability for some time.


I just ordered "_Mechanised Flamethrowers in Canadian Service_" on Amazon, hoping to get a picture of Centurion or (planned) Bobcat flamethrowers, but from your previous answer, I bet there are none of those in this book?   :-\


----------



## je suis prest

My late father had some pictures of flame-thrower exercises at, I think, Suffield in the late fifties.  Judging from the size of the stream of fire I assume they are from a vehicle-mounted system, but I think the actual vehicle is not visible in the pictures.  It seems from this thread that it was likely part of the test of the Centurion-mounted system.


----------



## Shrek1985

MadMat said:
			
		

> Did the Centurion Cree retained its main gun in addition to the flamethrower (like the Soviet TO-55 & TO-62) or was it firing flames only (like the USMC's M67 Zippo)?



negative, turret removed.



			
				MadMat said:
			
		

> I just ordered "_Mechanised Flamethrowers in Canadian Service_" on Amazon, hoping to get a picture of Centurion or (planned) Bobcat flamethrowers, but from your previous answer, I bet there are none of those in this book?   :-\



Correct.


----------



## MadMat

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> negative, turret removed



What did the "Iroquois" & "Cree" weapon system looked like then?
I was thinking that it was a "flamethrower turret" that was replacing the existing ones on Bobcat or Centurion.
But if the turret was removed, and none other mounted, from where was the flame being fired? From the front hull? Or was the Centurion being transformed into some kind of "giant open-top APC" with an external FT being fired by an exposed operator?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

There's some stuff here: http://www.britishpathe.com/video/demonstration-of-the-new-f-n-rifle/query/FLAME+THROWERS on the right hand side for links. Dated, but it shows everything vehicle mounted was in the front of the hull. Turreted vehicles retained their gun and turret.

more

http://sobchak.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/u-s-army-flamethrower-vehicles-part-3.pdf

"A Canadian “Iroquois” flame gun was operated
from a commander’s cupola. The range of a flame gun
equipped with a 0.89-inch nozzle was 180 yards at a
pressure of 2,000 pounds per square inch (psi). While this
vehicle appeared promising, it was not further developed
and the project was discontinued in favor of the M67
flamethrower tank."

more

Mechanized Flamethrowers in Canadian Service
http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/ref/sp/book_sp_flamethrow.shtml

I got all this in about 1-1/2 minutes by Googling "Iroquois Flamethrower"

You should try this great internet feature - http://lmgtfy.com/?q=iroquois+flamethrower


----------



## MadMat

recceguy said:
			
		

> "A Canadian “Iroquois” flame gun was operated
> from a commander’s cupola. The range of a flame gun
> equipped with a 0.89-inch nozzle was 180 yards at a
> pressure of 2,000 pounds per square inch (psi). While this
> vehicle appeared promising, it was not further developed
> and the project was discontinued in favor of the M67
> flamethrower tank."


Thanks for that one. 
I think I've came across it at some time in the past, but I must have forgotten about it ...
So that would be the _Iroquois_ system, ancestor to the _Cree_ later used on the Centurions I'm trying to get a look at, here mounted on a _M39 AUV_ (itself a deturreted _M18 Hellcat_ converted into an APC).








			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> I got all this in about 1-1/2 minutes by Googling "Iroquois Flamethrower"
> 
> You should try this great internet feature - http://lmgtfy.com/?q=iroquois+flamethrower


Do I hear sarcasms?
But I still can't see any pictures of a "Centurion Cree".

Well, starting with that:


			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> There's some stuff here: http://www.britishpathe.com/video/demonstration-of-the-new-f-n-rifle/query/FLAME+THROWERS on the right hand side for links. Dated, but it shows everything vehicle mounted was in the front of the hull. Turreted vehicles retained their gun and turret.



I can see a Churchill Crocrodile, and videos from 1941 or 1949 ... which is far away from my original questionings, as stated here:


			
				MadMat said:
			
		

> I'm presently interested in Cold War, and more the late decades of the 70's & 80's. I was wondering if the well-established rumor among wargamers that Canadian Forces were the last to use flamethrowers in those days was based on facts or just a legend.


Therefore, as much as I *love* WW2's Crocodiles, they are quite irrelevant here ...



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> more
> 
> Mechanized Flamethrowers in Canadian Service
> http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/ref/sp/book_sp_flamethrow.shtml


As I was saying just a few post above this one:


			
				MadMat said:
			
		

> I just ordered "Mechanised Flamethrowers in Canadian Service" on Amazon, hoping to get a picture of Centurion or (planned) Bobcat flamethrowers, but from your previous answer, I bet there are none of those in this book?


So, I knew about that one, thanks to *Shrek1985 *mentionning it.
Unfortunately, postal deliveries to France aren't as fast as I would wish they were.

To conclude, I would say that you should spend less time searching on the Internet, and more reading the messages above the one you're sardonically answering ...

Anyway, thanks for the help about the M-39 AUV ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones

MadMat said:
			
		

> Thanks for that one.
> I think I've came across it at some time in the past, but I must have forgotten about it ...
> So that would be the _Iroquois_ system, ancestor to the _Cree_ later used on the Centurions I'm trying to get a look at, here mounted on a _M39 AUV_ (itself a deturreted _M18 Hellcat_ converted into an APC).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do I hear sarcasms?
> But I still can't see any pictures of a "Centurion Cree".
> 
> Well, starting with that:
> I can see a Churchill Crocrodile, and videos from 1941 or 1949 ... which is far away from my original questionings, as stated here:Therefore, as much as I *love* WW2's Crocodiles, they are quite irrelevant here ...
> As I was saying just a few post above this one:So, I knew about that one, thanks to *Shrek1985 *mentionning it.
> Unfortunately, postal deliveries to France aren't as fast as I would wish they were.
> 
> To conclude, I would say that you should spend less time searching on the Internet, and more reading the messages above the one you're sardonically answering ...
> 
> Anyway, thanks for the help about the M-39 AUV ...



You're shitting me right?

You come here looking for help, trying to get everyone else here to do your research. You get some help, however vague, that you discount as not fitting into your little pigeon hole.

Then lecture someone on how they aren't helping you?

You're on your own here huckleberry.

And on 'Ignore'


----------



## MadMat

recceguy said:
			
		

> You're ******** me right?


I wouldn't think about it for a second ...

I came here asking for help, and I did get above my expectations. And I really appreciate that.
I've been given book references, which I ordered on the spot.

I'm also grateful for the article you provide about the M39 AUV experimental SP flamethrower.

Yet, you get here lecturing me (orange part of your message) about how a moron I am for not being able to get irrelevant videos of WW2's Crocodiles myself, or providing a book reference already stated as ordered (and already confirmed as not including any seeked-for pictures of _Centurion Cree_).
Actually, I had found those Pathe videos while searching myself, and knew there was nothing exploitable in it. If they hadn't been mentioned before in this thread, by me or anyone else, there could be for a reason other than everybody, including myself, being technologicaly retarded ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Imagine having a flame LAV or TLAV in Afghanistan.


----------



## Shrek1985

I should think afghanistan would be contraindicated for vehicular flame throwers, rather a manpack kind of terrain, but I'm guessing really.

An idea on how such would operate might be gained from russian use of OT-55s and -62s, if any, but I am not even sure where I would look for that. The Caveat being that the '55 and '62 have some pretty heavy, if dumb armour. LAVIII has a great spaced/ceramic package, correct? With/without bar armour, but vulnerable to recoilless rifle fire. TLAV, is an upgraded M113, correct? Which can have it's passive and active protection upgraded almost beyond reason, AND; there is a preexisting package for a flame warfare upgrade; the M132 cupola with M11 flamegun. Of course I have heard anecdotes of M132s have leaky universal joints.


----------



## MadMat

I don't thing FT armor, even light ones like LAV, could render any service in Afghanistan mountainous terrain, where one usually has to climb to reach the caves.
Thermobaric RPG like the Soviet/Russian RPO (Rys or Shmel), or the once lived American M202 Flash, would be better suited.


----------



## Danjanou

MadMat said:
			
		

> I wouldn't think about it for a second ...
> 
> I came here asking for help, and I did get above my expectations. And I really appreciate that.
> I've been given book references, which I ordered on the spot.
> 
> I'm also grateful for the article you provide about the M39 AUV experimental SP flamethrower.
> 
> Yet, you get here lecturing me (orange part of your message) about how a moron I am for not being able to get irrelevant videos of WW2's Crocodiles myself, or providing a book reference already stated as ordered (and already confirmed as not including any seeked-for pictures of _Centurion Cree_).
> Actually, I had found those Pathe videos while searching myself, and knew there was nothing exploitable in it. If they hadn't been mentioned before in this thread, by me or anyone else, there could be for a reason other than everybody, including myself, being technologicaly retarded ...



Congrats skippy you just managed to piss off the closest we have to a SME on this subject on the site. A quick look at Recce's profile would have shown he actually was serving when these things were around and/or just being phased out. Probably with a little encouragement (he likes a decent Irish)  he could have helped a bit. Odds are he could have used the Blackhatter old boys network to dig up an actual operator  to answer any big boy questions for you. I can't see that happening now though.

Consider this your one freebie here, otherwise being on someone's ignore list will be the least of your worries.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MadMat said:
			
		

> I don't thing FT armor, even light ones like LAV, could render any service in Afghanistan mountainous terrain, where one usually has to climb to reach the caves.
> Thermobaric RPG like the Soviet/Russian RPO (Rys or Shmel), or the once lived American M202 Flash, would be better suited.



Seems a fair bit of combat was in the valley bottoms, those Grape huts might not be a great place to be if a flamer LAV pulled up. All theoretical now. but the psychological effect alone would likely play havoc with the Taliban morale.


----------



## Shrek1985

Colin P said:
			
		

> Seems a fair bit of combat was in the valley bottoms, those Grape huts might not be a great place to be if a flamer LAV pulled up. All theoretical now. but the psychological effect alone would likely play havoc with the Taliban morale.



That's the issue from my POV; thermobaric weapons are vitually indistinguishable from any distance, whereas the effect of a flame thrower is unmistakable and terrifying.

One could reasonably argue whether it is the peculiar utility of such weapons or their shattering psychological effect which is most valuable.

There again the thermobaric and phosphorus capability and effect is actually very different, though still extremely useful.

As an aside, I found this and I think until something better comes up that this is out best clue as to what a turretless Centurion mounted with a flame weapon would look like. 

I thank the previous poster for the excellent PDF link from the US army chemical warfare site, I found all three volumes very interesting. Though they do point out a very good point in that combat experience has proven that distinct armoured platforms, minus the main gun are at a severe tactical disadvantage.


----------



## exspy

MadMat said:
			
		

> I've read on wargame rules or TO&E that the Canadian Forces were one of the last NATO armies to use flamethrowers during the Cold War. But once I've searched for any official source stating that, I've found nothing ...
> 
> Could someone confirm, or deny, that they indeed used them. And if they did, does anyone knows the latter's designation?



The only thing that I can add to the discussion is that, on paper at least, the 1968 war establishment for the three mechanized infantry battalions in Germany called for the three sections of the pioneer platoon to be equipped with a man-pack version of the weapon.  The establishment doesn't specify the make or model used.

During the 1970 reorganization of the Brigade Group to a Battle Group, the pioneer platoons were removed from the establishment.  I couldn't find any reference to the flamethrowers in the new organization, but that doesn't mean they weren't there.

Cheers,
Dan.


----------



## Old Sweat

Dan M said:
			
		

> The only thing that I can add to the discussion is that, on paper at least, the 1968 war establishment for the three mechanized infantry battalions in Germany called for the three sections of the pioneer platoon to be equipped with a man-pack version of the weapon.  The establishment doesn't specify the make or model used.
> 
> During the 1970 reorganization of the Brigade Group to a Battle Group, the pioneer platoons were removed from the establishment.  I couldn't find any reference to the flamethrowers in the new organization, but that doesn't mean they weren't there.
> 
> Cheers,
> Dan.


I served in HQ 4 CIBG 1965-1967 as a liaison officer. One of my duties was monitoring the state of the brigade's equipment and I do not recall reading, hearing or discussing any matters regarding flame throwers either in the course of my duties or informally.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> That's the issue from my POV; thermobaric weapons are vitually indistinguishable from any distance, whereas the effect of a flame thrower is unmistakable and terrifying.
> 
> One could reasonably argue whether it is the peculiar utility of such weapons or their shattering psychological effect which is most valuable.
> 
> There again the thermobaric and phosphorus capability and effect is actually very different, though still extremely useful.
> 
> As an aside, I found this and I think until something better comes up that this is out best clue as to what a turretless Centurion mounted with a flame weapon would look like.
> 
> I thank the previous poster for the excellent PDF link from the US army chemical warfare site, I found all three volumes very interesting. Though they do point out a very good point in that combat experience has proven that distinct armoured platforms, minus the main gun are at a severe tactical disadvantage.



My dad was with the 3rd Cdn Div in WW2 and saw flamethrowers used alot against German positions. He said that they usually just had to bring the Crocodile up and fire a warning shot, and that brought eveyone out with their hands up. Fortunately, as I was told, the SS tended not to surrender....


----------



## Fishbone Jones

So after some digging around I found the info on a Centurion flamethrower tank. There was only one made and it was experimental. It's towing the Crusader flame fuel tank and the flame nozzle appears to be hull mounted. Nice pic too.


----------



## Michael OLeary

From the second volume of the regimental history of The RCR (Stevens, 1967):


----------



## daftandbarmy

This is a good guy to invite to a pig roast:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9DkciMTsLI


----------



## MadMat

recceguy said:
			
		

> So after some digging around I found the info on a Centurion flamethrower tank. There was only one made and it was experimental. It's towing the Crusader flame fuel tank and the flame nozzle appears to be hull mounted. Nice pic too.



Wouldn't that be the British _*Centurion Crocodile*_?







Another good picture here (select p.45)

Only one vehicle made, indeed, now kept at Bovington ... but seemingly without its trailer and its flamethrower removed  :'(, although vehicle registration 03 ZR 71 is the same.

Yet the Canadian *Centurion Cree* is said to be deturreted ...


----------



## MadMat

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> This is a good guy to invite to a pig roast:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9DkciMTsLI


The guy likes fire: I remember him shooting Dragon Breath rounds with his shotgun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=RP4FjODPDFA#t=263s


----------



## MadMat

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> From the second volume of the regimental history of The RCR (Stevens, 19676):



This is a Wasp-mounted _Iroquois_, isn't it?


----------



## Michael OLeary

I will leave that confirmation to our resident AFV recognition experts.


----------



## MadMat

Both this picture and the poster in the background make me think it is.

Btw, how is it that a Canadian vehicle exposed in a Canadian museum is displaying an American star on its side?

EDIT: Another picure here.


----------



## Danjanou

MadMat said:
			
		

> Both this picture and the poster in the background make me think it is.
> 
> Btw, how is it that a Canadian vehicle exposed in a Canadian museum is displaying an American star on its side?
> 
> EDIT: Another picure here.



During the Second World War that 5 pointed white star was adopted by all the Western Allies for Vehicle recognition.


----------



## MadMat

Danjanou said:
			
		

> During the Second World War that 5 pointed white star was adopted by all the Western Allies for Vehicle recognition.


Well, now that you mention it, I can indeed see some on French Sherman from Leclerc's 2e DB. I'd never realized that before.
Thanks.


----------



## Shrek1985

MadMat said:
			
		

> This is a Wasp-mounted _Iroquois_, isn't it?



Wasp and Iroquois were different systems. In this case it is probably a WASP IIC or an Iroquois.


----------



## MadMat

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> Wasp and Iroquois were different systems. In this case it is probably a WASP IIC or an Iroquois.


Just received my copy of Rover V. Lucy's "_Mechanized Flamethrowers in Canadian Service_" today, and indeed you are right.


----------

