Canadian flamethrowers & Cold War

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.