| 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 1. FUEL and GAS
Page 6
QUESTIONNAIRE AND ANSWERS
BY R.A.C. USER OFFICER
| No | QUESTION | ANSWER |
|---|---|---|
| 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!