Mortars and flamethrowers of the US army

[bonzillou]

Hi

I'd like to know which mortars were used by US troops and if they used a US made flamethrower or if they used the french ones.

Cheers

Pascal

[edit: sorry couldn't edit the typo in title!] done! thanks Centurion!

[bob lembke]

Pascal;

It is 3 AM; I will answer you from memory, which might be somewhat spotty, as I have not worked in this area in a couple of years.

I do not know the models of mortars that the US forces used for general fire support. (If it is important I think where I know where I can find the answer.) The US sent a "gas and flame" regiment to France, commanded by an Amos Fries (a great name for a flame-thrower officer!), and I think that, like the British gas and flame brigade (the Special Brigade; there is a very long and detailed thread running on this Forum for years on this topic), the US unit had several mortar batteries for throwing gas shells, and I think that the US, like the Brits, used a mortar called the Livens Projector for throwing gas shells. (Livens was a British inventor, who I also think was a company commander in the Special Brigade; he also designed flame-thrower equipment.)I do not know if the US used the Livens Projector more widely as a mortar. I think that it might have been about a 4" mortar. Years later the standard US heavy mortar was a 4.2" mortar, about 106 mm; this caliber may have derived from the Livens Projector.

I know more about flame-throwers. (My father was a flame-thrower operator in Garde=Reserve=Pionier=Regiment (Flammenwerfer) from 1916 to December 1918.) I have seen a postcard photo of troops in French uniforms and helmets training with French flame-throwers, and the caption said that they were US troops being trained by French flame-thrower troops.

The commander of the US "gas and flame" regiment, Col. Amos Fries, seems to have been heavily influenced by the commander of the UK Special Brigade, one Foulkes (forgot his first name, probably a brigadier), and the history of the US unit closely followed that of the Special Brigade. Foulkes was a interesting character; he lacked any special knowledge when handed the command of UK gas and flame effort, was very energetic, but if he formed a first opinion he stubbornly hung on to it like a junkyard dog hangs onto a dirty bone. To my informed mind, Foulkes made several fundamental bad technical judgments, and tenaciously hung on to these decisions in both his gas and his flame warfare work. (If you don't consider it closely, gas and flame warfare might seem to be rather similar activities, but the two activities, given the technology of the day, required rather different types of troops for optimal performance. WW I German practice was to keep these two activities strictly separated; in my opinion it was a serious mistake to have a single unit carry out both activities, especially when directed by a rigid figure like Foulkes. I have followed the career of Amos Fries for long after the war, and I have found actual manuscript copies of important memos he wrote long after the war, and the gentleman was, as we say, "a piece of work", and an astonishing liar, even when communicating with General Pershing. Both Foulkes and Fries have written books, and they are extremely self-serving, from memory, although it has been years since I read them, justifying some of their bad decisions, and seriously mis-representing the successful German flame effort. Fries also has written other strange materials, including a book in which he argues that any political activity by women is inherently "communistic", no matter what the actual politics of the woman involved actually is, say, extremely "right", or extremely "progressive".

Foulkes made several important technical decisions about flame-throwers that seem quite wrong-headed, seemingly sabotaging the effort, and then dropped the weapon, although he retained several devices in working order to display to visiting notables, such as royals. (For part of the war, one company of the Special Brigade was a flame company, but eventually the effort was dropped, and the actual equipment was left exposed to physically deterioriate.) After attending the demonstration of an inventors' device, weighting about 60 pounds, and supposedly deciding that it was too heavy for use in trench warfare, he then focused on the use of a flame-thrower weighing 4600 pounds. (The single most popular design of German flame-thrower, the Wex, fully charged with flame oil and propellant nitrogen, weighed 43 pounds, less than the standard German infantry back-pack. The German flame commander, Reddemann, proudly possessed a photo of one of his men carrying two of the devices.) It does not require the facilities of a brain surgeon to decide that the movement and employment of a 4600 pound flamethrower in the front trenches on the Western Front would pose some difficulties, say, compared to a 43 pound device. Pulling on my mechanical engineering hat, other lighter UK flame-throwers were odd and rather awful designs. However, Livens was a good mechanical designer.

Returning to US flame-throwers, we have the photo of the US troops in French uniforms training with French flame-throwers. I also have seen post-war photos of US-designed light flame-throwers, being used to clear snow from sidewalks in the US. I don't remember any detail.

However, I do not recall any employment of flame-throwers in combat by US troops. There was a combined-weapons attack by the US Army, on Catagney (?), but the US formation borrowed French flame-thrower troops and some French light tanks.

Fries seemed to follow the same path as Foulkes, but I do not recall any detail on the nature of their collaboration, and the extent of their personal contact and communication.

Bob

[centurion]

The US developed a number of flame thrower types some influenced by French design but although American troops were trained none were deployed. There was significant 'army politics' involved. What was done was that French flame thrower troops were attached to American units and accompanied them into battle to provide close flame support in things like clearing bunkers etc

The USA decided to manufacture a number of mortars these being the Stokes 3 and 4 inch, the Newton 6 inch and the French 240 mm. AFAIK although contracts for the production of all of these were issued only the Stokes made it into action with the Americans by the armistice. The US Army also appears to have considered using the French Mortier de 58. Manufacture of the Livens was also commenced but again none reached the front. The Stokes 4 inch was mainly used for chemicals (smoke and gas)

[centurion]

US Flame throwers

Large flamethrower:

• Flame Projector, Parapet Type

Small flamethrowers:

• Knapsack Flame Projector, Mark I
• Boyd No. 3

Mobile flamethrower:

• Flame Projector, Tractor Type, Mark I

Flaming bayonet (small flamethrowers mounted on rifles):

• Flaming Bayonet Liquid type, Mark I
• Flaming Bayonet Cartridge Type, Mark I
• Flaming Bayonet pistol, Mark II
• Flaming Bayonet pistol, Mark III

[centurion]

French flame throwers supporting the Americans at Catigny

[centurion]

The flaming bayonet (no "fix yer flamin bayonets" is not an Australian command!)

[centurion]

The Boyd

and the Knapsack

[centurion]

More Catigny flame throwers (using the Schilt No. 3)

[Terry_Reeves]

The US developed a number of flame thrower types some influenced by French design but although American troops were trained none were deployed. There was significant 'army politics' involved. What was done was that French flame thrower troops were attached to American units and accompanied them into battle to provide close flame support in things like clearing bunkers etc

The USA decided to manufacture a number of mortars these being the Stokes 3 and 4 inch, the Newton 6 inch and the French 240 mm. AFAIK although contracts for the production of all of these were issued only the Stokes made it into action with the Americans by the armistice. The US Army also appears to have considered using the French Mortier de 58. Manufacture of the Livens was also commenced but again none reached the front. The Stokes 4 inch was mainly used for chemicals (smoke and gas)

With regard to the US Army and the Livens projector. This thread shows quite clearly that they did use the device in France:

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=196966

It appears to have been part of the US Army's inventory in WW2, as the date of this technical manual shows , although it is unlikely they had any of the weapons actually in stock.

http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc29948/m1/1/

TR

[centurion]

With regard to the US Army and the Livens projector. This thread shows quite clearly that they did use the device in France:

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=196966

It appears to have been part of the US Army's inventory in WW2, as the date of this technical manual shows , although it is unlikely they had any of the weapons actually in stock.

http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc29948/m1/1/

TR

The Projectors were supplied by the British Army no US manufactured Livens were used in WW1

Photo of Stokes in use by Americans in Russia

[Terry_Reeves]

Centurion

The original post was about which mortars the US Army were using. Your (un-cited) piece gives the distinct impression that the projectors were not being used by them, and that is the real point.

TR