USMC OOB13 (v.7) - flame tanks and misc.

[MarkSheppard]

lets see if this upload works...

Good to hear you're doing a lot better -- I know how bad it must feel to be perpetually hungry -- I went from 280 lbs to about 175 lbs several years ago, and have managed to stay around 170 lbs for the last few years; so congrats on the weight loss!

[DRG]

Originally Posted by scorpio_rocks

Great news Don! I really need to follow your example before I get any of the nastyness too.

Trust me...... it's best avoided . In my case the heart trouble wasn't the result of a poor lifestyle but I wasn't a poster boy for anything good . My valve went wonky as the result of a defect I've been living with since birth but didn't know about until 9 years ago. The stroke was the result of V-tac that was cause by the trama of surgery and my blood thinners hadn't stabilized yet. I cannot even begin to tell you what a PITA it is to stay on top of the blood thinners so they stay in range while losing 50 pounds.

Also, I could NOT have done this without FITBIT. I bought it initally for the Heart rate display............I could check that while I was exercising so I stayed within the range the kineseologist recommend but once I had it week I started using their food log and I became the guy who weighs and measures absolutely everything I ingested. It's a lot of work but the results speak for themselves. Without that info I would never have changed my diet as radicaly as I have or lost the weight I did but the end result is I eat better meals that taste better than I ever did before and I stay away from the high calorie low nutrition junk...........it's REALLY easy ( and cheap ) to eat badly but with some research and willpower it's possible to eat well and heathy but you have to want to. Attitude is everything and I can tell you after open heart surgery and a stroke the incentive for a better attitude is high.

Best money I spent this year was when I bought the FITBIT

Don

[DRG]

Originally Posted by MarkSheppard

I did an icon of the SC; I don't know if it meets your quality standards but here goes... (see attached).

It's fine. I made some adjstments but that's what I do........

[Pibwl]

05 M4A3 (75) - at a time of Iwo Jima landing most (or all) tanks were camouflaged, so maybe it could share an icon 1417 with #292 M4A2.

[Imp]

The bottom line is I'm technically heathier now than I've been in well over a decade. I have cheekbones again

Bit slow just got round to reading your post above, great to hear though as you say stabilizing the weight requires a bit of dedication.
Way to go Don

[MarkSheppard]

I've been at the US Naval Academy for a few weekends recently; downloading a lot of digitized microfilmed documents available through USNA's subscriptions to various databases.

Among these subscriptions was a database containing a copy of George C. Marshall's correspondence.

Buried in this correspondence was a letter dated 22 February 1945 to Marshall from ROBERT C. RICHARDSON, Jr., Lieutenant General, U.S. Army concerning tank flamethrowers built in POA.

From:
George C. Marshall WW2 Correspondence on Microfilm
“Richardson, Robert C., 1945 January-1945 February” folder

UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES
PACIFIC OCEAN AREAS
APO 958

THE COMMANDING GENERAL

AG 470.71/80

22 February 1945

General of the Army George C. Marshall,
The Chief of Staff, United States Army,
War Department,
Washington 25, D. C.

Dear General Marshall:

For your information, we have done a great deal of experimentation in this area with mounting flamethrowers in tanks and have succeeded in developing and perfecting a periscope flamethrower which is most effective. The installation of this apparatus in the tanks of the Marines is done under the supervision of this headquarters.

We have also succeeded in developing a hose two hundred feet in length, in sections, so that if the tank is stalled in any terrain the hose can be used to prolong the action of the tank with the flamethrower.

This data is sent merely for your information, as I know how interested you are in the new developments.

Very sincerely,

/S/
ROBERT C. RICHARDSON, Jr.,
Lieutenant General, U.S. Army,
Commanding.

Incl:
(1) Summary of Mechanized Flamethrowers Built in POA, with photographs

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Summary of Mechanized Flamethrowers
Built in POA

Type
No. Built
Built for.

Ronson flamethrower mounted in light tank, M3 (Satan).
1
Pilot Model.

Ronson flamethrower mounted in light tank, M3A1.
24
2nd and 4th Mar. Divs.

Ronson flamethrower mounted in LVT(A)1.
1
XXIV Corps.

Ronson flamethrower mounted in light tank, M3A1
9
XXIV Corps.

POA-CWS-H1 flamethrower in M4 tank.
2
Pilot models.

POA-CWS-H1 flamethrower in M4A3 tank.
8
4th and 5th Mar. Divs.

POA-CWS-H1 flamethrower in M4 tank.
54
10th Army.

POA-CWS-H1 flamethrower demonstration model
1
For flamethrower schools.

Total main armament flamethrowers built in POA
100

On Order by Fleet Marine Forces Pacific
64

Periscope mount flamethrowers for 10th Army.
176

Attached to the letter were several photographs which reproduced reasonably well; I'm including the ones of most interest.

[Pibwl]

This generally confirms the information by Zaloga, especially, that the Marines used M4A3 POA-CWS-H1 (like in a current OOB), and the Army - M4 one.

It also confirms, that there was a single LVT(A)-1 Ronson converted, but it was used the Army XXIV Corps (used on Leyte from 10/44). Hence, there is no confirmation for the USMC #210 LVT(A) 4 Flame (as I have also written before).

(There were ten LVT(A)1 with E7 flamethrower built for trials from 6/44, but never saw combat.)

BTW, as I have mentioned, four M5A1 E7-7 tanks were built and used by the Army on Luzon from 4/45, but it might be too insignificant vehicle to fiddle with. On the other hand, E7 FT was the only one with range 135 yds, what could make 3 hexes.
Unit #206 LVT 4 Flame had its early variant Mk I FT (aka Q-gun) with 115 yds.

Periscope-mounted Fts were not popular with the crews, and in game terms there's no difference from M4 E4-5 Flame (auxiliary bow-mounted FT) - apart from a lousy range 50 yds.

[MarkSheppard]

That document is still pretty early in the cycle for flamethrower development. There were a few wrinkles coming by late Summer '45.

BTW; regarding the M5A1 with E-7-7 Flamethrower on Luzon:

A friend of mine looking through documents I photographed found a 28 July 1945 Gen Krueger high priority air shipment spares request for the four E-7-7/M5 Stuart Flamethrower tanks being shipped to Mindanao for use with 8th Army.

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Pibwl

............, there is no confirmation for the USMC #210 LVT(A) 4 Flame (as I have also written before).

QUOTE

LVT(A)-4 (1944)

The 37mm gun of the LVT(A)-1 was inadequate for fire support version so the turret of the 75 mm Howitzer Motor Carriage M8 - armed with a 75 mm howitzer - was used to produce the LVT (A)-4. In some cases the 75 mm was replaced with the Canadian Ronson flamethrower.

and that's why it's in the OOB. It's now radio coded 93

Don

[Pibwl]

One thing that I've found: according to Concord 7004 - "Tank battles of the Pacific war 1941-1945", Marine M5A1 received a baptism of fire at Cape Gloucester in 12/43 (now unit 003: 2/44)