|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|
Section 1. FUEL and GAS
QUESTIONNAIRE AND ANSWERS
BY R.A.C. USER OFFICER
|1.||Estimated proportion of cases where 25% 50% 75% or 100% of fuel was used.|| Used 25% or less - 60% of flame actions.|
Used 50% or less - 30% of flame actions.
Used 100% or less - 10% of flame actions.
75% seems rarely to occur.
Recently much more used, as employed more suitably.
Tried expected to continue. Results over last 3 weeks will be interesting
|2.||Was fuel generally satisfactory?||YES - in every way|
|3.||How was refuelling in action generally arranged?||Tanks withdrew to some reasonably safe place where Squadron fuel lorries met them.|
|4.||Would it have been an advantage if the refuelling could have been done more simply or quickly?||YES|
|5.||Would a system of using dried powder with motor spirit have had any advantage?||The F.T.F. Heavy fuel is - to the best of my knowledge - perfect for attacking the enemy. If dried powder and motor spirit reduced bulk for carriage, gave speedier refuelling and simplified supply problems it would of course be very much better - always provided it gave the same "rod" and burning power, or better.|
|6.||Was the system of replenishment of gas supplies satisfactory?||YES. It works out at about 18 bottles of gas to 1 trailer fill 400 galls. F.T.F. in practice or action to date. This ratio should come down to 12 (or even 9) to 1 fill.|
|7.||Would smaller and lighter cylinders have been welcomed?||YES - but not vitally important.|
(Archive transcripts © Copyright Normandy War Guide)
Found an error with this archive item? report it here!