| Title | Analysis of operational use of Churchill Crocodile flame throwers in NW Europe, June-October 1944 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Description | Analysis of operational use of Churchill Crocodile flame throwers in NW Europe, June-October 1944 | ||
| Source | UK_National_Archive | Reference | SUPP 15/36 |
Section 2. GUN and EQUIPMENT Page 8
| No. | QUESTION | ANSWER |
|---|---|---|
| 9. | Did nozzle dribble give any trouble? | Only to a very minor extent. Virtually no. |
| 10. | Was ignition system reasonably dependable (a) In normal conditions? (b) In very bad weather? | YES. Very Good YES. Know of no trouble |
| 11. | Was any difficulty experienced through (a) Lack of traverse (b)Lack of elevation | In many operations, like assaults on edges of woods or hedgerows - No; but
obviously this is a weakness and for clearing the edges of woods, copses,
village streets, hedgerows, etc. a greater traverse would be an immense help.
This point is the most important of all if any improvements are being made. Not really. A little more elevation would be welcome for attacking chateau and larger houses in villages. |
| 12. | Is sighting satisfactory? Would it have helped to have it geared to the periscope? | YES Difficult to answer this, as it depends on gearing and whether easily manipulated etc. A trained gunner is perfectly happy as he is re sighting, but the flame gun is definitely unwieldy and anything that makes for increased accuracy must be good, especially if less unwieldy. |
(Archive transcripts © Copyright Normandy War Guide)
Found an error with this archive item? report it here!