Section 1. FUEL and GAS
Page 6

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)

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 6