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

[Pibwl]

Hello,

I've jest read "US flamethrower tanks of World War 2" by Steven Zaloga (Osprey) and decided to write down some comments on USMC OOB, for eventual future use (or for mod makers ). I used also Zaloga's "US Marine Corps tanks of World War 2".

04 M4A1 - it has radio=92, while according to Zaloga, the only time, that the USMC used M4A1 tanks in combat was battle of Cape Gloucester (12/43-4/44), and they "were not a normal type in Marine arsenal".

05 M4A3 (75) - according to Zaloga, Marine tank battalions began a shift from M4A2 to M4A3 in 1945 (now 6/44).

06, 200 M4A2 - it could have radio 92 (now 90), being the most typical tank of the USMC

Flame tanks:

07 A-H1B Satan - name was just M3A1 Satan (Zaloga doesn't mention any other designation).

I think, that it should have more shots, especially in comparison with other flame tanks. It had a capacity 170 gal and firing time 110 sec, which was the longest firing time of US flame tanks, save POA CWS H1(for comparison: BMG-mounted M3-4-3 flamethrower: 50 gal and 50 sec, E7: 118 gal and 50 sec (higher discharge rate), Mk I Ronson: 220 gal and 90 sec (higher discharge rate), POA CWS H1: 290 gal and 150 sec)

Maybe ranges of vehicle flamethrowers should be corrected? Now all use weapon 108, with range of 3, but Satan (unit 007) and POA CWS H1/H5 (008,203,204) had a range 80 yds, and M4 3-4-3 Flame (205,208) 70 yds. Only Mk I (206) had 115 yds, and E7 - 135 yds.

There could be added a new unit: M3A1 Flame. First USMC flamethrower tanks were created in late 1943 and appeared in action in 2/44 on New Britain - they were improvised mountings of portable short range FT instead of BMG in M3A1 tanks (in smaller number on M5A1 and possibly LVT(A)1). From 7/44 improvised mountings were prohibited. There is no information on its range, but surely it was no more, than 50 yds.
(BTW: the same machines could be added to US Army, used in action from 1/44)

08 POA-CWS 75-H5 - picture shows a tank with auxiliary FT instead of BMG, while it should be a two-barrel turret (however, photos of variant with 75mm gun are rarer, than of 105mm).
Name was POA-CWS-H5 - maybe POA-CWS-H5(75) would be better? Maybe it should have radio 91? (they didn't arrive in time to see action)

078 E7 Flame Tank - this unit is based upon LVT, but in fact, E7 flamethrower saw action mounted in M5A1 light tank only. According to Zaloga, ten E7-LVT(A)1 were built for trials, but never saw combat. If it's kept, it maybe should have an experimental status or radio x3. Besides, it's available too early - first was mounted experimentally in 6/44.

Four M5A1 E7-7 were built and used on Luzon from 4/45 (but apparently used by the Army - 13th Armoured Group of I Corps)

203 M4A1 POA-CWS-H1 according to Zaloga, the ones used in action with the Marines, were mounted on M4A3 tanks

204 POA-CWS-105-H5 - maybe POA-CWS-H5(105) name would be better?
Maybe it should have radio 91 (they didn't see action, and apparently 105mm flamethrower tank was accepted as a standard only between WW2 and Korean war - but I have no precise info)

205, 208 M4 3-4-3 Flame - in fact, for most of its active service it was known as M4 E4-5 Flame - only from 4/45 a derivate of an auxiliary flamethrower E4-5 (full name: E4R4-5R4-5R1 ) was standardized as M3-4-4.
If the latter name is chosen, maybe it should be just M3-4-3 Flame or M4/M3-4-3 Flame?

206 Mk I Ronson - Zaloga doesn't mention Ronson name for it, and its Mark I flamethrower (aka Quickie or Q-gun) didn't come from Ronson. I suggest name "LVT4 Mk I Flame"

210 LVT(A)-4 Ronson - I couldn't find such vehicle in the mentioned book, nor In Action or Concord books on LVTs. Maybe it's confused with E7-LVT(A)1 (see unit 78 above)

There is in fact mentioned a single LVT(A)-1 Ronson converted and used on Leyte from 10/44 (but apparently used by the Army - XXIV Corps)

---
Rest of the OOB in order:

10 M4 Dozer - precisely, M4A2 Dozer (Zaloga)

17 LVT(A) 2 - according to "Amtracs in action", LVT (A) 2 was a special armoured variant, manufactured for the Army only. However, from 3/44 all LVT-2 were manufactured with cab armour, without a designation change. Apparently it only concerned cabs and front part - though there were also kits of side armour, that could be welded. Rear was apparently unarmoured.

19 LVT 4 - apparently rear was not armoured - they weren't made of armour steel, there were only kits for armouring, known as "LVT-4 (armored cab)". Ordinary LVT-4 weren't armoured.


201,202,292,293 M4 (Early/late) - Zaloga doesn't mention M4 variant in his book on USMC armour at all; if it was, it must have been not used in combat. They were used by the Army units in that theatre instead.

212 USMC Rifle Sqd - there's a photo of a sniper

264 M-H CTL-3 - crew was 2 (3), and size could be 2 (3) - they were just overgrown tankettes
http://www.marmon-herrington.webs.com/tank.html#ctl-3 ,
http://www.marmon-herrington.webs.com/usmc.html

According to these pages, it had armour 6mm (1/4 in) - now it has 2 in front. There were also CTL-6 tanks used, with armour 11 mm, and CTM-3TBD with a turret and .50 MG - but all were relegated to guarding of Samoa.

266 M3A1 - a picture is in fact M3 (with a commander's turret)

299 LVT 1 (AC) - they could carry one .50 AAMG (there is even a photo with two .50s and one .30).

380,385 75mm M1897 FG - photo is a modernized French 75mm

410 USMC Raider LMG - maybe a better picture is 2485, of Johnston LMG?

There could be added M6 tank destroyer - provided to the USMC in "very small numbers", used eg. at Bougainville in 1944 (Concord "US Tank Destroyers in combat 1941-45")

That's all

Regards
Michal

[DRG]

Michal, quit wasting your time and my time making suggestions regarding radio codes.

[Pibwl]

OK, although you can just skip such info

[scorpio_rocks]

Originally Posted by Pibwl

Maybe ranges of vehicle flamethrowers should be corrected? Now all use weapon 108, with range of 3, but Satan (unit 007) and POA CWS H1/H5 (008,203,204) had a range 80 yds, and M4 3-4-3 Flame (205,208) 70 yds. Only Mk I (206) had 115 yds, and E7 - 135 yds.

My question would be why the USMC's vehicle flamethrower in WW2 has a range of 3 and all others (including US army, UK, etc using same[similar?] equipment) and all modern (SPMBT) ones, including USMC, have a range of 2?

[scorpio_rocks]

EDIT BUTTON NOT WORKING:

This is especially strange in the case of the POA-CWS-105-H5 which appears in the OOB of the USMC for both WWII and Modern yet the later version has less range...

[DRG]

simple...........its an error. It was 2 in the last DOS version and somewhere between then and now it was made 3...why IDK but doing this work would be a LOT less stressfull if errors like this were NOT presented as some kind of conspiracy. IDK why it was changed or when.....I'd ask the "experts" who have made it their lifes work to comb through these OOB's looking for details like this and pointing them out.

OR it could be one of our resident USMC experts dug out a source claiming this range and I was too frigging busy to cross check the fact

Take your pick

EDIT.......well it looks like it was 2 like everyone else until V7 so when I get time I'll review last years notes and see if I can figure out why but it's back to 2 now.......maybe it was just "bigthumbitis"

Further Edit........ checked the V7 notes and there is no mention of any change to the USMC ww2 flamethrowers so put this down to $hit Happens

[Pibwl]

Originally Posted by DRG

I'd ask the "experts" who have made it their lifes work to comb through these OOB's looking for details like this and pointing them out.

...So, maybe all in all it's good, that sometimes somebody accidentally finds it?... Of course I understand, that it has no big impact on the game as a whole, and I don't want to take too much of your time. Anyway, I didn't meant to make it a problem, I just noticed it.

Mk I (115 yds) and E7 (135 yds) flamethrowers, both basing on Q-gun, could have bigger range still. If you'd like to add improvised vehicle FT, it should have range 1, like infantry ones.

One self-correction:

205, 208 M4 3-4-3 Flame - in fact, for most of its active service it was known as M4 E4-5 Flame - only from 4/45 a derivate of an auxiliary flamethrower E4-5 (full name: E4R4-5R4-5R1 ) was standardized as M3-4-4.

Of course, M3-4-3.

Regards
Michal

[MarkSheppard]

Suggest adding the SC Seahawk for the 2016 update for USMC OBAT; it was replacing the OS2U at a pretty fast clip -- per Naval Aeronautic Organization, 23 July 1945:

"For planning purposes BBU now using OS2U as substitutes for SC are assumed to be re-equipped with SC by Oct 1945.

...

"For planning purposes CAU now using OS2U or SOC as substitute for SC are assumed to be re-equipped with SC by Oct 1945."

...

"For planning purposes CLU now using OS2U or SOC as substitute for SC are assumed to be re-equipped with SC by Oct 1945."

Some units were already using it in the PTO in 1945; such as the Alaska Class Battlecruisers for one -- the ALASKA had SC's when she was operating off Iwo Jima during MAR 1945:

Link to image

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

PS Don: How's your health been doing?

[DRG]

Originally Posted by MarkSheppard

Link to image

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

PS Don: How's your health been doing?

No attachment........

Well I was going to post and update sometime soon so I guess this is as good a time as any

It took about a week or two after the stroke to get, more or less " back to normal" ( well "normal" for someone who had open heart surgery a month before the stroke.......) and by the end of May I was ready to start an exercise regime and loose some weight. I wasn't told I needed to.....but I needed to so on May 24th I started walking a minimum of 4km every morning. I only missed 6 days when I was canoeing/camping in September. As of an hour ago I have walked 645.72 km. And I'm doing it in 8 minute per km or slighly under....in May it was 12.5 minutes per km .

Up until a week ago I was on a -1000 cal per day deficit diet........so if I burned 3200 cals I could eat 2200........burn 2600 I get to eat 1600. ...........so there is incentive to burn calorories and you do that by staying busy.

As a result of diet and exercise ......( I actully run some of it every day which would have been a real knee slapper of a suggetion a year ago. After I'd got done laughing I would have suggested a future in comedy....)........I lost 50 pounds in 6 months. March 28th I was 230.2 pounds, I'm now 179 or so. I have nothing even close to high bloood pressure any longer......quite the opposite. I'm usually at the low end of normal now. So much so that I have had a couple of incidents of postural hypotension...which isn't fun at the time but it's childsplay compared to a stroke and open heart surgery.

I can put on the suit I wore at my wedding 25 years ago ( still looks in style ) and I haven't been able to do that in about 20 years. As a result I have a closet full of clothes that hang on me like old bags.

Had a stress test done in June and "scored " a 5.5 MET which isn't good.....about 67% of what a "fit" heathy man my age should be able to achieve. The one I did early this month scored 9.0 which is 109% of what a "fit" heathy man my age ( that's someone WITHOUT cardiac issues......... ) should be able to achieve so I was way behind the curve and now I'm out in front of it.

The trick now is stabilizing the weight because I just spent 5 months being hungry all the time as my "new normal" ........ oh yeah.... I lost all that weight and didn't stop having a beer or two every day which is a real trick but I did it. You have to draw the line someplace

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



Don

[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!