Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

9401Re: [G104] Re: Flamethrower Tanks and Doctrine in WWII Technology

Expand Messages
  • Joe DeMarco
    Mar 23, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks, Trent, you had sent the pix.
       
      The 713th TB AAR is very well written, compared to many of the others. The first use of the "fire hose" appears to have been on May 22nd by C Co. The Infantry operator was wounded, so the action seems to have been unsuccessful. There are 5 other instances of its use reported. All C Co except an unsuccessful attempt by B Co on June 19th. I've attached the June 19th file where it is reported that Sgt Boughan was drenched with Napalm from a badly leaking hose, but continued to use it until the fuel ran out.
      It's mentioned that the 713th was not equipped with Infantry phones, & that they completely removed the wading gear, so the absence of those items might help to ID their Shermans in period photos. At least one of their tanks had a dozer blade. I assume the real high Speed Numbers in a different "font" indicate C Co, even though they don't make any sense with just 54 tanks. Perhaps they were taken from other units training in Hawaii, & there was no time to renumber them? There is nothing in the records about the little platforms seen on the rear sponsons of some of their tanks. Did they have anything to do with the hose?  It's noted that on May 22, Lt Butner brought up a tank that had been uparmored by Ordnance, & they were curious to see how the extra weight would perform in the terrain, but no further mention of it. "The" tank recovery vehicle is noted to have been used, which suggests they only had one. The commander recommended using M4A3s, more armor, & a 75mm main gun along with the flame unit on future tanks, including the M26, if they were to be issued. 10 Army HQ did not concur about the main gun saying it would be a distraction. In the event, the POA CWS did produce 70 H5s according to Hunnicutt, & there are a few surviving examples here in the US.
       
      I couldn't cross reference the well known Signal Corps photo attached with the AAR. It is stamped June 23, but that doesn't mean it was taken on that date. Speed Number 20 can be seen to be Tank A-11. There are 4 M4(105)HVSS in the front. The 711th Tank Bn had some of those. The one to the right with Speed No 25 was named "Big Shot."  I was able to cross reference the M4A3(75)W on the far right. Speed No 43 was with C Co of the 711th, named "China Clipper" USA 3082598.
       
      Watchman (Rick?), please thank your dad for his service.
       
      Joe
       
       
       
       
       

      Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 5:39 PM
      Subject: Re: [G104] Re: Flamethrower Tanks and Doctrine in WWII Technology

      Joe,
       
      Steve Zaloga is putting together a WW2 American flame tank book for Osprey.
       
      Steve made a visit to the RG175 files at NARA and got a bunch of stuff on the Hawaii flame thrower group that put together the Iwo jima and Okinawa Sherman flame tanks.
       
      I think I have sent you the attached already, but FYI if not.


      From: Joe DeMarco <snick13@...>
      To: G104@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wed, March 21, 2012 11:47:53 AM
      Subject: Re: [G104] Re: Flamethrower Tanks and Doctrine in WWII Technology

       

      Watchman, did your Dad take any photos? Did he or the other vet ever mention
      using the firehose attachment in combat?

      Joe

      --------------------------------------------------
      From: "watchman662000" <watchman662000@...>
      Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 11:12 AM
      To: <G104@yahoogroups.com>
      Subject: [G104] Re: Flamethrower Tanks and Doctrine in WWII Technology

      > Thanks
      for bringing the NYMAS site to our attention. I did listen to the
      >
      podcast, during which I noted some information gaps, due to a lack of
      >
      firsthand accounts. Major Rinquist was therefore very interested to hear
      > that my father, a member of the 713th Tank Battalion (Flamethrower)is
      > still among us. The Major will be interviewing my father to possibly
      fill
      > in the information they lack. I'm hoping another surviving member
      of A
      > company, with whom I am in contact, will be interested in being
      > interviewed as well.
      >
      > --- In
      href="mailto:G104%40yahoogroups.com" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:G104%40yahoogroups.com">G104@yahoogroups.com, Trent Telenko <trent_telenko@...> wrote:
      >>
      >> Digital recordings of
      the talk's audio will be on the NYMAS web site
      >> after
      the
      >> talk is
      given.
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      ________________________________
      >> From: Mike Davino
      <mdavino@...>
      >> To:
      rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:G104%40yahoogroups.com">G104@yahoogroups.com
      >>
      Sent: Fri, February 10, 2012 9:17:33 AM
      >> Subject: Re: [G104]
      Flamethrower Tanks and Doctrine in WWII Technology
      >>
      >>
      Â
      >> According to the NYMAS website, "NYMAS talks are free and open to
      the
      >> public."
      >>
      >> I made a presentation at one
      several years ago about US Central Command's
      >> role
      >> in
      the Global War on Terrorism when I was still on active duty. It was
      >> a
      >> quite diverse
      audience.
      >>
      >>
      >> Mike
      D
      >>

    • Show all 12 messages in this topic