Canadian flamethrowers & Cold War

[Fishbone Jones]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

"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).

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:

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:

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 ...

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:

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]

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]

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.