WASPS: Were they common or rare?

[HarryInk]

Question for the history buffs: Were the British Wasp flame throwers rare little beasts over represented in CM games cos they're such nasty little beggars, or did they become fairly common during they war in the West?

Can anyone enlighten me/us?

Cheers

HarryInk

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by HarryInk:

Question for the history buffs: Were the British Wasp flame throwers rare little beasts over represented in CM games cos they're such nasty little beggars, or did they become fairly common during they war in the West?

AFV profile no. 14, "Carriers", by Peter Chamberlain and Duncan Crow (Profile publications, Windsor, probably 1970) says on page 119:

"By the beginning of 1945 the wasp Mk. IIC had replaced the Mk. II in 21 Army Group. Most infantry battalions were issued with six."

All the best,

John.

[moneymaxx]

I found this about the Canadian army:

"REPORT NO. 173

HISTORICAL OFFICER

CANADIAN MILITARY HEADQUARTERS

25 Mar 47

THE WATCH ON THE MAAS 9 NOV 44 - 8 FEB 45

...As the days of January went by, the area of 3 Cdn Inf Div saw notable

increase in offensive activity. On the 8th N. Shore R. launched a daylight

attack against the well-sited enemy positions west of Wyler. The attack was

made in heavy snow by a company of infantry supported by wasps and carriers. ..."

"REPORT NO. 186

HISTORICAL SECTION

CANADIAN MILITARY HEADQUARTERS

22 Jul 47

Operation "BLOCKBUSTER": The Canadian Offensive

West of the Rhine, 26 Feb - 23 Mar 45

... The company was being badly mauled from all sides, and a slow infantry fight developed in such close contact with the enemy that artillery support was difficult to arrange. While this opposition was being contained, all available tanks were kept ready to assist R.H.C. who had the vital task of maintaining contact with 6 Cdn Inf Bde on the right (Ibid). At about 1020 hours as the ituation cleared in front of R.H.C., first one, then two troops of tanks were shifted over to support R. de Mais, whose "B" Coy went forward under the covering fire of the armour to assault the last enemy positions. Wasp flame throwers were used against the stubborn resistance, yet

it was later reported that many Germans preferred to remain in the slit...

...51. By this time N. Shore r., whose two forward companies were still pinned down and suffering numerous casualties, had a new plan in conjunction with "C" Sqn 6 Cdn Armd Regt. The squadron, 11 tanks in all, was to advance on Keppeln with one platoon of "A" Coy mounted on them. "B" and "C" Coys would move forward from their present positions to follow the armour. The battalion's Wasps and carriers were to follow up as closely as possible to take on all anti-tank opposition which disclosed itself. ...

... 53. While the battle for Keppeln and Hollen had been raging, Q.O.R. of C.

were still attempting to fight their way ahead. "A" Coy met extremely stiff

resistance as they moved up the slope from Mooshof towards the road junction

(983459) north-west of Lookerhof and only after a vicious attack with the aid

of Wasps was the objective won. ... "

It looks to me that they were used quite often, which still leaves the question wether or not they are over-modelled in CMBO, since 1 wasp can set a whole tile on fire with just one shot, e.g. a big heavy building that's 400 square-meters !. At the same time you don't have to deal with the disadvantages, like spreading fires, unwanted smoke screens etc. Unfortunatly I don't know how many liters of flammable liquid they fired in one shot, maybe their destructive power is realistic after all?

Though I didn't find a ammo loadout for the wasps, I found an interesting questionnaire here:

http://members.shaw.ca/calgaryhighlanders/queslbacon.htm

"Battle Experience Questionnaire - R Bacon

Standard questionnaire, completed by R Bacon of the Calgary Highlanders. His remarks are in blue, those of the webmaster are in green. Some abbreviations have been expanded and some unintelligible comments have been either noted or deleted. Irrelevant portions of the questionnaire have been deleted and wording of some questions edited for Internet use. ....

...Have you found any of these weapons outstandingly effective? If so, which and why?

Weapon Chief reason(s) for Effectiveness

Bren Gun High rate of fire, mobility, accuracy

Medium Machine Gun High rate of fire, accuracy, men like it, good flank protection

3" Mortar Good searching power, effective smoke screen, close support

WASP flamethrower Always available, terrific burning power, bad for enemy morale

PIAT Great blasting power, men who know how to use it, love it ...."

It seems he liked them and he says that they were ALWAYS available. In my next 1000 point QB I'll buy 6 .

[JasonC]

On the web I found the following comment, at a site covering TOEs - "The stated aim was to provide each Battalion with eight units for fitting to existing machines as required, extended to Motor Battalions and Reconnaissance Regiments on the same scale. Actual availability varied enormously".

This makes a certain amount of sense, if you understand the distribution of carriers in a UK infantry battalion and their intended tactical role. Leave aside the 7 in the 3 inch mortar platoon for a second, as unlikely to be available. (The ATGs were moved by Loyd carriers, not universal carriers).

The infantry were supported by the carrier platoon of the support company, which had 4 sections each with 3 carriers. In addition, each of the 4 line companies had 1 carrier (a later addition it seems). The normal employment would be 1 carrier section assigned to each company. But for this or that mission, the number could easily be doubled e.g. by having the "back" companies go without.

Within each of the sections, the 3 Brens carried different weapons. The first was just the Bren. The others were meant to carry a 2 inch mortar and a PIAT, respectively. In effect, the carrier sections were the "weapons platoon" of the British line company.

They were meant primarily to provide additional fire support to whichever line platoon was providing a base of fire for the others to maneuver. Since the ranged firepower of a line platoon comes mostly from its Brens and mortar, it about doubled the firepower of an "overwatch" platoon.

The website I mentioned says the intention was 8 wasps but actually getting them varied. Another says battalions got 6. I suspect the truth is more ad hoc than that. Some may have had 1 or 2 wasp per section, with any mix left. Some may have used whole sections, 1 or 2, attached to advancing ("up") companies.

It is unlikely the 1 per company was equipped with them, since its role was mostly "utility" work (moving ammo, messengers, field ambulance, getting the CO around the battlefield, etc).

The carrier platoon sections were already conceptually thought of as "heavy weapons" support. Flame was probably looked on as an additional form of heavy weapons support, just anti-bunker or anti-building, instead of PIATs against tanks or mortars against MG nests.

In an "assault", it would be perfectly realistic to take a whole section of 3 of them. In any company level action, taking 1 along with 2-3 other carriers (standard or MMG) would not be unrealistic.

It should be a standard practice to take 3 carriers along with a rifle company to act as its heavy weapons. They cost ~100 points - if one is a wasp you just bump that to ~125.

[Michael Dorosh]

Remember also that the standard battalion attack seems to have been with two companies forward and two back, so if you have six platoons on the assault (or even four, with one per company in reserve), that still gives you a WASP per platoon.

Not sure how they parcelled them out tactically, though. For the Leopold Canal crossing I think they massed the WASPs and flamed the far side at one concentrated point.

Would be interesting to know who controlled the WASPs - company commanders? Platoon commanders? Were they on call to these men, or did the captain in charge of support company parcel them out and let them roam the battlefield at will?

EDIT - heh, glad you like "my" questionnaire, too. I hope to find some more when I return to the archives at the end of June.

[ June 22, 2003, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JasonC:

It is unlikely the 1 per company was equipped with them, since its role was mostly "utility" work (moving ammo, messengers, field ambulance, getting the CO around the battlefield, etc).

I don't know about that. The standard vehicle for a lieutenant colonel commanding a battalion was a jeep; at least one Canadian infantry battalion obtained an armoured halftrack for their CO. I'm only familiar with the workings of my own regiment, but it seemed that the carriers were used most often by the RSM and CSsM, as you mentioned, to move ammunition. The CO tended to stay in his Tac HQ and not venture into the fighting. If he did visit the line, it was in a period of quiet, so he would likely move forward on foot so as not to draw fire. I haven't read of any Canadian battalion commanders leading attacks, except for VC winner Merritt of the South Saskatchewans. The rarity of his action was probably one of the things that merited (sorry) his award.

On the other hand, there were instances of necessity where battalion COs took part in defensive fighting, ie the Regina Rifles in Normandy, but I am digressing.

Other battalions may have done things differently, but this jumped out at me. Was it based on something specific you've read?

[ June 22, 2003, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[moneymaxx]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

EDIT - heh, glad you like "my" questionnaire, too. I hope to find some more when I return to the archives at the end of June. [/QB]

Those questionnaires are great, apart from the information about the wasps, I was quite surprised to read that they liked the PIAT so much. Keep up the great work.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by moneymaxx:

[snips]

Unfortunatly I don't know how many liters of flammable liquid they fired in one shot, maybe their destructive power is realistic after all?

According to WO 231/32, "Notes on Wasp and Lifebuoy", it could deliver up to 5.5 gallons per second, depending on the thickness of the fuel.

WO 232/69, "Flame throwers -- tactical uses" implies a lower flow-rate, saying that 80 gallons (60 in some versions) is enough for 20 one-second bursts.

Even using the more conservative figure of 4 gallons/sec, this means that the Wasp can deliver in a second as much as the full load of the Lifebuoy manpack flame thrower. Its discharge rate is comparable with that of the Churchill Crocodile.

WO 291/308, "Effect of flamethrowers on military personnel", reports that information from flame actions indicates an average expenditure of 270 gallons per death and 9 gallons per prisoner.

All the best,

John.

[JasonC]

Not the battalion CO, the company COs. 1 per company were added mostly for utility work. A battalion CO might well use a jeep to get around, because he isn't exactly at the front. But in an "up" line infantry company, the commander is much more exposed.

There would be lots of times he'd want to e.g. cross ground subject to arty fire, cross rough or muddy country, or what have you. Carriers also hauled ammo, water, and wounded through such areas for the same reason. Soft skinned doesn't work well beyond a certain point forward.

As for who would control them, I'd expect them to be part of the carrier platoon of the support company. That means nominally the line went battalion CO, support company CO, carrier platoon CO, then section leader.

When attached to a line company, that would put the chain of command at company commander, section leader. With the carrier platoon commander in between only if the lot of them were in the same place (rare).

Although a section sized unit due to the limited number of personnel, when attached to the line infantry they would be treated tactically more like a 4th platoon under the company.

[Michael Dorosh]

Heh...in the Commonwealth, a company commander is called OC, not CO...hence my confusion.

You silly Yankee.

I'm aware of the chain of command in Support Company and the setup of a Carrier Platoon. But I am still interested in how the WASPs would have operated - you mention the likely practice of using a section of WASPs as a "fourth platoon" under control of the infantry company commander.

The OC had a No. 38 or No. 18 radio set as part of his Coy HQ; I would guess from your remarks that the WASP section would be on his net and able to respond to his commands.

Many questions though - did they travel up with the leading sections, or behind them - or even ahead? Or were they hustled up as needed when a particularly stubborn defensive point presented itself?

I've seen so few detailed references to them; would be interested in reading more about specific tactics, if anyone can oblige.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JasonC:

[QB] Not the battalion CO, the company COs. 1 per company were added mostly for utility work.

We're referring here to carriers, not WASPs I presume. My reading indicates the Company Sergeant Major controlled the company carrier, perhaps in conjunction with the Company Quartermaster Sergeant. As you indicated, it brought ammo and rations up, and wounded men and prisoners back. Signalmen also used them to lay line; the standard practice was to lay commo wire to the company command posts, and when moving, simply cut the line and lay fresh stuff at the new positions. And of course, FOOs (or FOs as they are called in CM) were shuttled around in them also.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

... And of course, FOOs (or FOs as they are called in CM) were shuttled around in them also.

FOOs had their own, they didn't have to borrow off the infantry.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JonS:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

... And of course, FOOs (or FOs as they are called in CM) were shuttled around in them also.

FOOs had their own, they didn't have to borrow off the infantry. </font>

[moneymaxx]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

"Notes on Wasp and Lifebuoy", it could deliver up to 5.5 gallons per second, depending on the thickness of the fuel.

WO 232/69, "Flame throwers -- tactical uses" implies a lower flow-rate, saying that 80 gallons (60 in some versions) is enough for 20 one-second bursts.

Even using the more conservative figure of 4 gallons/sec, this means that the Wasp can deliver in a second as much as the full load of the Lifebuoy manpack flame thrower. Its discharge rate is comparable with that of the Churchill Crocodile.

WO 291/308, "Effect of flamethrowers on military personnel", reports that information from flame actions indicates an average expenditure of 270 gallons per death and 9 gallons per prisoner.

All the best,

John. [/QB]

Thanks a lot for the information.

Do you (or someone) by any chance know how many gallons/liters they transported in their tank? (BTW are those British or American gallons?)

[JonS]

* The Crocodile (Churchill variant) held 908 litres/400 gallons in the trailer. (Bouchery/Forty)

Range ~ 185m (Bouchery) {I doubt this figure. JIS}

Range ~ 90-120yds (Forty)

Range ~ 80-120yds (Chamberlain & Ellis)

* The Wasp held 358 litres. Range ~100m (Bouchery) {I doubt the range figure. JIS}

* The Ack Pack (lifebouy) held 18.6 litres. Range ~45m (Bouchery)

According to Bouchery the Wasps were held by the MG Bn in each Infantry Division, and by the MG Company for Armoured Divisions. Each MG Company had one platoon of six wasps. Thus there was a total of six in an Armoured Division, and 18 in an Infantry Division*.

This is significantly lower than the totals JasonC suggests.

Bouchery shows a schematic for the vehicles in a 25-pr. battery. Included are "RA" and "RB", the troop commanders vehicles from A and B troops. The troop commanders were the FOOs, and the vehicles are shown as Bren Carriers. The BC also has a Bren Carrier, labelled as "X". The BC would typically hang out at the supported Bn HQ, and could act as an extra FOO as required.

This vehicle naming convention (Romeo for the FOOs, Xray for the BC) is still in use in the RNZA.

Regards

JonS

* Caveat: Bouchery is a little vague on the exact allocation in an MG Bn, and the above is extrapolated a bit from the org of the MG Coy. It is, however, supported by other comments.

Edit: Nigel Evans shows "RA" and "RB" as being part of the '"O" Party' (Observation Party), and being equipped with 'Armoured observation post (2 wireless sets)' as the period TO&E puts it.

[ June 23, 2003, 12:28 AM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[JasonC]

http://www.stormpages.com/garyjkennedy/Tactics/Formations/FireSupport/carrier_platoon.htm

See the paragraph near the end begining with the words "the stated aim was...", just before the summary.

For what it is worth.

[JonS]

I tried, with mixed success, to figure out where 2(NZ)Div put theirs. They didn't recieve any till ~March 1945. However, from a brief comment in this book it appears that the Kiwis put them in support company - which is rather what JasonC said in the first place The difference is that they were in a seperate, dedicated platoon, and the Wasp platoon was 'added,' (Plowmans word), rather than modifying individual vehicles within the existing structure.

Interesting stuff.

Regards

JonS

[JonS]

I had a rummage in the British Official Histories (Playfair, Molony, Ellis, etc), and didn't find much about the Wasps - which isn't too surprising I suppose. But, in one of the Appendixs to The Mediterranean and Middle East, vol 6: Victory in the Mediterranean, part 3: November 1944 - May 1945 there is a brief discussion on them which includes a comment along the lines of 'battalions commanders found them useful as a readily available source of flame attack.' I don't recall the exact wording, but it was the same as they would talk about the battalion 3-in. mortars - in other words, they belonged to the CO, and he didn't have to ask anyone for them, which suppots JasonCs comments above.

Bloody Bouchery :mad: There are some nice graphics in that book, but lots of errors too.

Regards

JonS

[Michael Dorosh]

Bouchery has been promising a volume on the Canadians for the last 6 months. He talked to a bunch of my friends about stuff for the book but never contacted me. I'm a bit concerned about what it will turn out like, given the poor translation of his British books into English, as well as the errors.

Jon, have you ever sat down and compiled a list of the errors in his books? I'd like to put up some errata on my CANUCK website regarding that. A lot of people think he is the sole go-to guy for this info, which is a bit dangerous.

[Michael Dorosh]

I actually have a copy of the Carrier Platoon manual kicking about somewhere; I doubt it mentions WASPs (I think it is a midwar pam) but will try and find it here on my four days off of work.

[HarryInk]

Ask a question...virtually any question...and get decent answers on this forum!!

Thanks fellas, great stuff.

And I've visited the Stormpages. Lots of nifty stuff there, too. Easily digestible.

Cheers

[z-warfare]

Just skimmed the appendices of "Cinderella Army: The Canadians in Northwest Europe, 1944-1945" and learned that:

- Wasps were ubiquitous in the Canadian Army, and apparently had a theoretical maximum range of 150m. Of course, practically, it was ~100m.

- There was also something they could do called "Golden Rain", which was a Wasp firing at maximum FT elevation in a sort of 'area fire' mode, so as to scatter small globs of burning fuel over a wide area... wish i could see that in CM...

- They also usually had a Bren gun operated by the vehicle commander.

[z-warfare]

Said book seems to have a fair bit on Wasps and FTs in Canadian use, btw. Maps too.

[Michael Dorosh]

WASP kits were issued to all infantry battalion carrier platoons beginning in late 1944, at least in Canadian service, so yep - they were fairly common.

[z-warfare]

Speaking of flame stuff, I wish the game's Commonwealth FT packs were like big inner tubes, proper "lifebuoys", not those darn cylinders.

(sigh)