Chemical Warfare Service: Flame Tank Group Seabees
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: Formatting (e.g. bullet points used for external links). (June 2023) |
When WWII broke the United States had no mechanized flamethrowing capability. It is believed that an officer in the 754th
World War II
During WWII
Pacific field commanders had tried field modified mechanized flame throwers early on,[8] with the Marine Corps deciding to leave further development to the Army. The Navy had an interest in flame throwing and five Navy Mark I flamethrowers arrived in Hawaii in April 1944. The Navy deemed them "unsuitable" due to their weight and turned them over to the Army's Chemical Warfare Service.[9] In May a top secret composite unit was assembled at Schofield Barracks.[10][11] It was led by Colonel Unmacht of the US Army Chemical Warfare Service, Central Pacific Area (CENPAC)[6][12] Col. Unmacht began the project with only the 43rd Chemical Laboratory Company. They modified the first light tank designating it a "Satan".[11] The flame tank group was expanded with men from the 5th Marine tank battalion and 25 from the 117th CB.[10] The newly attached Seabees went over what the Army had created and concluded it was a little over engineered. They recommended reducing the number of moving parts from over a hundred to a half dozen.
V Amphibious Corps (VAC) wanted mechanized flamethrowing capabilities for the Marianas operations. VAC had ordered and received two shipments of Canadian
- Four Seabees received Navy/Marine Corps commendations for their work from Lt. Gen. Holland M. Smith Commanding General(USMC) FMF Pacific.[10]
- At least 7 were awarded the Bronze Star.[13]
Mid-September the Army decided to officially form a CWS "Flame Thrower Group" with Col Unmacht requesting 56 additional Seabees.
In November 1944, prior to the rave USMC reviews of Iwo Jima, the Fleet Marine Force had requested 54 mechanized flame throwers, nine for each of the Marine Corps divisions[15] On Iwo the tanks all landed D-day and went into action on D+2, sparingly at first. As the battle progressed, portable flame units sustained casualty rates up to 92%, leaving few troops trained to use the weapon. More and more calls came for the Mark-1s to the point that the Marines became dependent upon the tanks and would hold up their assault until a flame tank was available.[6] Since each tank battalion had only four they were not assigned. Rather, they were "pooled" and would dispatch from their respective refueling locations as the battle progressed. One of the 4th Division tanks had a 50 cal. machine gun coaxial to the flamethrower as well as 4 in (100 mm) concrete armor to counter placement of magnetic charges. Towards the end of the battle, 5th Marine tanks used between 5,000 to 10,000 US gal (19,000 to 38,000 L) gallons per day.[6] When the battle was over the Marines credited the flame tanks as the single best weapon they had.[7] The eight flame tank crews received Presidential Unit Citations with their respective tank battalions.
For Okinawa the
In June 1945, the 43rd Chemical Lab. Co. had developed a stabilized flamethrower fuel (
Another 72 tanks were ordered by the Marine Corps for the planned invasion of Japan[6] of which Col. Unmacht's crews had 70 ready by Victory over Japan Day. In total Unmacht's Flame Tank Group Seabees produced 354 tanks.[20]
The military did not have uniform terminology for referencing mechanized flamethrowers until after
"Primary" where the main armament was removed and replaced.
- The first eight had Navy CB-H1 or CB-H2 flamethrowers. US Army Chemical Corps variously identified these tanks as POA-CWS-H1,[13] (Pacific Ocean Area-Chemical Warfare Section-Hawaii) CWS-POA-H2, CWS-POA-H1 H2, OR CWS-"75"-H1 H2 mechanized flamethrowers. US Marine and US Army observer documents from Iwo Jima refer to them as the CB-Mk-1 or CB-H1.[21] Marines on the lines simply called them the Mark I.[21] The official USMC designation was "M4 A3R5".[21] The Japanese referred to them as M1 tanks and it is speculated that they did so due to a poor translation of "MH-1".[21]
- The next 54 tanks had Ronson flamethrowers. That made them the third tank variant produced. Army records identify them as POA-CWS-H1s.
- Some of these tanks were configured with an external 400-foot (120 m) long hose supplying a M2-2 portable flamethrower that ground troops could use.[21] This variation could throw 40 yd (37 m) on terrain with up to a 45° slope. A drawback to this attachment was all the fuel it took to charge the hose line so it could fire, diminished the tank's overall effectiveness. Army documents post-war refer to this variation as being a CWS-POA-H1.[21]
"Auxiliary" where the flame thrower was mounted coaxial to the main armament. Eighteen of the first generation model were on the way to the 10th Army on Okinawa, but the island was taken before they arrived, so they were given to the 3rd Marine tank battalion on Guam.[22]
- 75mm main armament with Ronson
- 75mm main armament with H1-H5a
- 105mm main armament with Ronson
- 105mm main armament with H1a-H5a USMC designation M4-A3E8.
The tanks produced in Hawaii all used bottled CO2 as the propellent that was discharged at 300 psi. The majority of H5 tanks were M4 A3(105)HVSS Shermans. It was this type the Marine Corps had at Inchon in 1950.[23] In mid-1945 the Seabees started producing the second generation of these tanks. All H5a Shermans, with either 75mm or 105mm main armaments, were referred to as CWS-POA-5s.[23]
"Periscope Mount" This model was based upon work done by the U.S. Army at
- H1 periscope[24]
- H1A periscope[24]
- H1B periscope[24]
- Examples labeled POA-CWS-H1 and POA-CWS-H5 are on display at the Mahaffey Museum at Fort Leonard Wood Missouri.[15]
- 5th Marine CB-H1 in action on D+22,[25]
- Example M42 B1E9 [16]
The Marines preferred the CB tanks to any produced in the U.S. at that time.[26] The Marine Corps and Army both felt that the flame throwing tanks saved U.S. troops lives and kept the casualty numbers lower than they would have been had the tanks not been used.[12] They also agreed that they would need many for the invasion of the Japanese homeland.
- WWII Naval Construction Battalion Logos[27]
- Col. Unmacht 1946 Military Review flame tank article.[28]
Korea
Postwar the Army stood down the provisional 713th keeping few flame tanks.
See also
- 1st Tank Battalion
- 3rd Tank Battalion
- 4th Marine Tank Battalion
- M4 Sherman variants
References
- ^ 117th Naval Construction Battalion Cruisebook, NHHC, Seabee Museum website, Port Hueneme CA, Jan. 2020, p. 22,23 [1]
- ^ a b New Tanks for Old, USN CEC Bulletin Vol. 1, No. 1, Dec. 1946, BuDocks Navy Deot, U.S. GPO, Washington D.C., p. 53. [2]
- ^ LVT4 Landing Vehicle, Tracked, Unarmored (Mark IV), John Pike, GlobalSecurity.Org, July 2011, paragraph 5[LVT4 Landing Vehicle, Tracked, Unarmored (Mark IV)]
- ^ Hellfire on the Hornet's Nest: Flamethrower Tanks at Bougainville, Steve Zaloga, Warfare History Network, April 2013 [3]
- ^ Chapter: the Bitter End, CLOSING IN: Marines in the Seizure of Iwo Jima, Colonel Joseph H. Alexander, USMC (Ret), History and Museums Division, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, Washington, D.C., 1994, p.37 [4]
- ^ a b c d e Kelber, Brookes E.; Birdsell, Dale (1990), "Chapter XV, The Flame Thrower in the Pacific: Marianas to Okinawa" (PDF), United States Army in World War II, The Technical Services, The Chemical Warfare Service; Chemicals in Combat, Center of Military History United States Army, Washington DC, pp. 558–583, 586
- ^ a b c U.S. Army Flamethrower Vehicles (part 2), Captain John Ringquest, Army Chemical Review professional bulletin, Winter 2007, 14010 MSCoE Loop, Building 3201, Suite 2661, Fort Leonard Wood, MO., p. 26-28 [5]
- ^ Kelber and Birdsall (1966) p 558
- ^ Armored Thunderbolt: The U.S. Sherman in World War II, Steve Zaloga, 2008
- ^ a b c d e f g New Tanks for Old, U.S. Navy Civil Engineer Corps Bulletin Vol. 2 NAVDOCKS P-2, issue 14, January 1948, Bureau of BuDocks, Dept. of the Navy, p.51 (on line 21) [6]
- ^ a b c U.S. Army Flamethrower Vehicles (part 1), Captain John Ringquest, Army Chemical Review professional bulletin, July–December 2007, 14010 MSCoE Loop, Building 3201, Suite 2661, Fort Leonard Wood, MO., p. 29-33 [7]
- ^ a b c d e f CHAPTER XV, The Flame Thrower in the Pacific: Marianas to Okinawa, WWII Chemical in Combat, Dec 2001, p. 558 [8]
- ^ a b c d e f g Unmacht (CWS), Col Geo. F. (April 1948), "Flame Throwing Seabees", United States Naval Institute Proceedings, vol. 74, no. 342, pp. 425–7
- ^ Dr. Frank A. Blazich Jr., This week in Seabee History (Week of Oct. 23), U.S. Navy Seabee Museum, Port Hueneme, CA.
- ^ a b Zaloga 2013, p. 29.
- ^ Flamethrower Tanks on Okinawa, First Lieutenant Patrick J. Donahoe, Armor, PB- 17-94- I January–February 1994, Fort Knox, KY, p.7
- ^ 1st Lt. Patrick J. Donahoe (1994), "Flamethrower Tanks on Okinawa", Armor, no. Jan-Feb 1994, U.S. Army Armor Center, Fort Knox, p. 6
{{citation}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - ^ a b c Chapter VII Flamethrowers, History of the Chemical Warfare Service (CMH Pub 10-2), U.S. GPO Washington D.C., Leo P. Brophy, Wyndham D. Miles, Rexmond C. Cochrane, June 1959, p.162 [9]
- ^ History Friday: Mechanized Flame Weapons from the invasion That Never Happened, Chicagoboyz Blog archive, Trent Telenko, Nov 2013, chicagoboyz.net [10]
- ISBN 9780811764919
- ^ a b c d e f g Telenko, Trent (August 30, 2013), "History Friday: Technological Surprise & the Defeat of the 193rd Tank Battalion at Kakuza Ridge", Chicago Boyz Blog archive
- ^ The Chemical Warfare Service: From the Laboratory to the Field, L.B. Brophy, W.D. Miled, R.C. Cochrane, of Military History, U.S. Army, Washington D.C., U.S. GPO, Washington D.C., 1959, p. 153 [11]
- ^ a b c d e M4(105) and M4A3(105) Shermans, Sherman Minutia Website, Joe DeMarco, Leife Hulbert, and Pierre Olivier-Buan,[12]
- ^ ISBN 9781780960272
- ^ "New Footage: Flame Tanks on Iwo Jima (Silent)", Marine Corps Film Archive – via youtube
- ^ "Commandant USMC Memorandum for the record: 22 Jan, 1945, RG 127, File #2000, NA"
- ^ Naval Construction Battalion Logos, Flickr website, U.S. Navy Seabee Museum, Port Hueneme, CA
- ^ Flamethrower Tanks in the Pacific Ocean Areas, Colonel George F. Unmacht, Chemical Warfare Service Chemical Officer. United States Army, Forces. Middle Pacific, Military Review, March 1946, Vol 25 No 12, p. 44-51, Combined Arms Research Library, created 2010-09-10, [13]
- ^ a b Now They're Flame Dragons, chapt 50, Flame Dragons of the Korean War, Jerry Ravin & Jack Carty, Turner Publishing, 412 Broadway, Paducah, KY, 2003, p.222 [14]