Search results

3rd Canadian Infantry Division will be featured as a playable division in the upcoming Steel Division - Normandy '44 strategy game. http://www.steeldivisiongame.com/

Too much money & manpower was invested in the Maginot Line indeed, but building more B1 bis wouldn't have changed the outcome of the war. Although they were powerful foes on the field, they were so slow and such gas guzzler that from a strategic point of view they were barely more mobile than...

Doing a bit of thread-necromancy here ... I don't play ASL, I've given Lock'n Load a try, but I'm more interested in miniatures wargame (which I play a lot) and video-wargames (which I'm a developper of  ;)). Although I like WW2, Kursk and the Battle of Normandy like any other Grognard, I'd...

And now a Leopard C1:  :)

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

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.

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.

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

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

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...

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.

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...

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...

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...

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?  :-\

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)?

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?

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?

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

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