US MVA Note F : bow mounted FT on place of BMG

[Robin Reeve]

Hi all,
I don't remember having seen any scenario featuring a FT substituting a BMG on US tanks where note F applies.
I only have one picture if that type of adaptation on the cover of Liddel-Hart's history of WW2.
If that feature was current enough to be pointed out in chapter H, it seems that it perhaps was not extremely rare.
Does someone have a historical indication about the frequency of the bow-mounted FT in place of the BMG (i.e. not the Satan Stuart model for an example)?
Are there scenarios which depict it?

 

[von Marwitz]

Hi all,
I don't remember having seen any scenario featuring a FT substituting a BMG on US tanks where note F applies.
I only have one picture if that type of adaptation on the cover of Liddel-Hart's history of WW2.
If that feature was current enough to be pointed out in chapter H, it seems that it perhaps was not extremely rare.
Does someone have a historical indication about the frequency of the bow-mounted FT in place of the BMG (i.e. not the Satan Stuart model for an example)?
Are there scenarios which depict it?

This question made me immediately think of the late Paul M. Weir...

It makes you feel acutely, that this fine man is no longer among us and it is painful to see that where you would have anticipated his answer within short order just a couple of days ago, now he cannot share his extrordinary knowledge with us.

Sometimes silence can be louder than any storm...

Rest in peace, Paul...

von Marwitz

 

[bprobst]

Well, Note F itself, per the DYO instructions, strongly implies that the FT was very rare in the ETO, and only slightly more common in the PTO.

Hunnicutt's Sherman says:

The E5 flame gun replaced the bow machine gun and had an effective range of about 60 yards at 10 degrees elevation using 4.2 per cent Napalm. .... A single E4 24 gallon fuel tank was mounted in the right sponson and it was possible to fit an additional tank over the transmission between the driver and the flame gun operator. The combination of the E4 sponson fuel tank and the E5 gun became the E4-5 flame thrower. Although it operated satisfactorily, the E4-5 was limited along with later auxiliary flame throwers by its short range and low fuel capacity. It was standardized as the M3-4-3 in 1945. This terminology indicated the combination of the M3 sponson fuel tank, the M4 transmission fuel tank, and the M3 bow mount flame gun.

...

Even though they were unpopular with the tank crews, the auxiliary flame throwers were used in the Pacific until the fighting ceased. In Europe, a few of the E4-5s were employed, but they were considered unsatisfactory in comparison with the British equipment.

Hunnicutt was very likely the major source of the Chapter H notes. The overall implication is that the tank crews (in both theatres) were not really all that impressed with the "secondary" FT devices, much preferring the use of vehicles that were equipped with the FT as MA, because of better range and fuel capacity in the latter. With little demand for them there wouldn't have been a lot of pressure to deploy them, hence the rarity.

 

[ibncalb]

Chapter 14: The Flame Thrower in the Pacific: Guadalcanal to the Marshall Islands

history.army.mil

Chapters 14 and 15 give good info on the Pacific.

 

[pj norton]

The initial scenario of the Stoumont CG has one IIRC.

 

[JRKrejsa]

There are a couple others out there too. I’m wanting to say in BFPs Operation Cobra?

 

[agoldin]

There are a couple others out there too. I’m wanting to say in BFPs Operation Cobra?

Correct. BFPs “Russian Style” gives the US player one bow mounted FT, replacing the BMG. It’s quite handy in the bocage although the scenario designer probably intended it for clearing the town.

 

[Actionjick]

This question made me immediately think of the late Paul M. Weir...

It makes you feel acutely, that this fine man is no longer among us and it is painful to see that where you would have anticipated his answer within short order just a couple of days ago, now he cannot share his extrordinary knowledge with us.

Sometimes silence can be louder than any storm...

Rest in peace, Paul...

von Marwitz

Well said.

 

[Actionjick]

If you were the tank crew would you rather have the bow mounted MG or FT?

While the FT was definitely intimidating the MG's greater range is a factor to be considered. Plus ammo and FT fuel storage need to be taken into account.

I would most likely stick with the MG.

 

[Ganjulama]

Just played BFP Cobras Venom and US OB has one of these. I was US and it was the only tank to survive via the miracle of rear hit with PF then defective ammo on TK role