ANALYSIS OF ACTIONS (continued) Page 4

DATEPLACE AND TYPE OF OBJECTIVENUMBER OF CROCODILES DEPLOYEDQUANTITY OF FUEL USEDENEMY KILLED OR SHOT WHEN RUNNING ABOUT ON FIREPRISONERS OF WARQUALITY OF ENEMYREMARKS
12 AUGCHATEAU 15547831/6 trailer averageNil knownNil knownGoodSmall operation. Flame helped Infantry - saved casualties. Restored momentum
(2 Can. Div)
10 SEPTHAVRE (Woods, Concrete defences)8Full trailer each16 estimated200 - 300Fair Very well-planned. Boldly carried out by Crocodiles, who improvised their Inf. and Tank support during the battle. Fine flaming. Ideal use.
(49 Div.)
11 SEPTArea HARVE (Hedgerows and Buildings)31/2 trailer each average200 - 250Fair
14/
16 SEPT
FORT MONTBARREY1Full trailerNil known122GoodRest of Crocodiles held up by mines.
(U.S. Army)
(Fort)9Full trailerSome80GoodWell-planned. Fine Inf. support. Excellent use of flame
(U.S. Army)
20 SEPTBOULOGNE MONS MALBERT (Concrete defences) Omits 2 small actions11/6 trailerNil known200 (800 in all)PoorA poor enemy ready to "pack-in". Defences virtually collapsed when Crocodiles lead attack
(3 Can. Div.)
27 SEPTCALIAS (Concrete defences)51/4 trailer each averageNil known400 estimatedPoorWell-planned, but Infantry 2 hours late. On Crocodiles flaming, white flags appeared.
(2 Can. Div.)
30 SEPTCALAIS FORT NAPIN (Fort)31/4 trailer each averageNil150 estimatedPoorAlthough the flame could not quite reach the fort the enemy surrendered when the flaming started.
(3. Can Div.)

(Archive transcripts © Copyright Normandy War Guide)

Share this

Found an error?

Found an error with this archive item? report it here!

Archive: Analysis of operational use of Churchill Crocodile flame throwers in NW Europe, June-October 1944

Page: Page 4