During 1940, British engineers from the Petroleum Warfare Department, Lagonda and others worked on projects for the Cockatrice family of self-propelled flamethrowers. Two models of such equipment went into series and were used by the troops in order to protect airfields from a possible attack. By the end of the year, the authors of the projects decided to use the existing developments and ideas in new projects of self-propelled vehicles with increased mobility characteristics. The first successful example of this technique was named the Ronson flamethrower.
One of the main problems with the Cockatrice flamethrowers was lack of mobility. The chassis of the trucks did not have too high cross-country ability, which was worsened by the large mass of armor and special equipment. During the tests, such technical features even led to an accident with the destruction of some structures. For this reason, at the end of 1940, the development of the Basilisk self-propelled flamethrower began, which was supposed to be distinguished by increased mobility. According to some reports, this project reached the stage of testing a prototype, but did not interest the army. Work in the direction of improving technology was continued.
The front of the Ronson flamethrower with a flamethrower hose. Photo UK War Office / Iwm.org.uk
The main executor of work on the new projects was the Department of Oil War, which was responsible for the creation of all flamethrower and incendiary weapons for the British army. An important role in the creation and development of technology was played by the head of the automobile company Lagonda Reiginald P. Fraser. In addition, participants in previous projects, Neville Shute Norway and Lieutenant John Cook, were involved in the work. Thus, the off-road flamethrower vehicle was actually developed by the same design team as the previous Basilisks.
The new project of the self-propelled flamethrower received the working title Ronson flamethrower, under which it went down in history. The origin of this name is of particular interest. The combat vehicle was named after a famous American company that produced pocket lighters. Such products were very popular in Great Britain, which led to the appearance of the original name of the project. It is noteworthy that a similar principle of naming technology was loved overseas: all US self-propelled flamethrowers were unofficially called Zippo - also in honor of the famous lighters.
The main problem with previous PWD and Lagonda flamethrowers was the lack of mobility associated with the wheeled chassis of trucks. A new version of such a technique was to be based on an existing sample with the required characteristics. Based on the results of an analysis of the existing tracked armored vehicles, which are in serial production and used by the army, the Universal Carrier armored personnel carrier was chosen as the carrier of the updated flamethrower.
The Universal Carrier armored personnel carrier went into production in the mid-thirties and became the most massive equipment of the British army. Such machines have already mastered a number of new specialties and were produced in several modifications for one purpose or another. Now the list of modifications was proposed to be replenished with a self-propelled flamethrower. Experience from previous projects has shown that the installation of new equipment on a tracked chassis is not an overly difficult task.
The armored personnel carrier had a recognizable appearance, due to the peculiarities of the layout. The body of the vehicle was made of armor plates up to 10 mm thick, which protected the crew from bullets and shrapnel. The frontal part of the hull had a reduced height, behind it there was a control compartment with a curved frontal sheet, equipped with inspection hatches. The hull had developed fenders with vertical sides. The central compartment of the hull was given over to the troop compartment. In its middle, between the two volumes for the landing, there was a casing of the power plant. A characteristic feature of the Universal Carrier was its small size and weight. The length of the armored personnel carrier was 3, 65 m, width - 2 m, height - less than 1, 6 m. Combat weight, depending on the configuration, up to 3, 5-3, 7 tons.
Universal Carrier armored personnel carrier involved in military-historical reconstruction. Photo Wikimedia Commons
The armored vehicles were equipped with gasoline engines with a capacity of at least 85 hp. With the help of a mechanical transmission, the engine transmitted torque to the drive wheels of the aft position. The guide wheels of the propeller, respectively, were located in the front of the body. There were three road wheels on each side of the car. The front two were mounted on a spring-cushioned bogie. The third was attached to its own balance beam with a similar shock absorber.
In an armored vehicle configuration, the Universal Carrier carried one BREN machine gun or one Boys anti-tank rifle. The car was driven by a driver and his assistant, who was also a shooter. A small troop compartment could accommodate no more than 3-4 soldiers with weapons. In the variants of specialized equipment, the troop compartment could be used for the installation of certain systems. Despite its limited capacity and lifting capacity, the machine performed well and was produced in large quantities. British and foreign enterprises jointly built more than 110 thousand units of such equipment.
The widespread and mastered armored personnel carrier interested the authors of the "Ronson" project. Soon the appearance of a promising armored vehicle was formed, implying some minor modifications to the existing equipment. In fact, the basic armored personnel carrier was supposed to lose several existing parts, as well as receive a set of new equipment. In order to reduce the cost of production and operation, the new PWD project implied maximum simplification of the design of new units.
The developers of the new project decided that a self-propelled flamethrower of a new type could do without machine-gun armament. As a result, the BREN machine gun was removed from the frontal embrasure of the Universal Carrier, and the empty hole was covered with a flap. Now at the shooter's workplace only a flamethrower cannon was to be found. Nevertheless, the design of the machine did not exclude the possibility of installing the machine gun on other mounts.
On the zygomatic sheet of the hull, in front of the gunner's place, there was a stand for attaching a fire hose, which was also part of a pipe for supplying a fire mixture. On the top of this pipe there was a hinge that made it possible to direct the hose in two planes. The latter was a tube with a nozzle on the muzzle. At the back, a pipe for supplying a combustible liquid, flexible hoses and cables were connected to it. All elements of the system were closed with a cylindrical casing with holes in the end caps. It was proposed to aim the weapon manually, holding it by the breech. To control the fire, there was a manually operated combat valve, which allowed the shooter to independently change the duration of the "salvo". The low location of the gun and the low height of the sides of the hull were supposed to provide acceptable comfort for the gunner.
The pipe, which served as a support for the fire hose, bent in the lower part of the zygomatic sheet and went to the left side of the hull. She was attached to it with several clamps. In the aft part of the car, the pipe bent again, connecting to the tanks for storing the fire mixture. The installation of the pipe and its fasteners did not require significant alteration of the body. In fact, only a few bolt holes had to be drilled.
General view of a self-propelled flamethrower. Photo Canadiansoldiers.com
It was proposed to transport the fire mixture in several metal tanks mounted inside and outside the body. Two containers for "ammunition" were placed in the former troop compartment, one in each half of it. Two more such tanks were installed behind the stern sheet on an additional frame. All tanks for the fire mixture were connected by pipes into a common system. Through one of the fittings, the tank system was connected to the side pipe leading to the fire hose. Cylinders for compressed gas used for throwing flammable liquid were also installed in the free volume of the hull.
Flamethrower "Ronson", proposed for installation on the serial armored personnel carrier Universal Carrier, was a slightly modified system borrowed from previous projects. As a result, the general characteristics of the weapon remained the same. The pressure in the gas cylinders made it possible to send the fire mixture at a distance of up to 100 yards (91 m), while the resulting torch had a width of up to several meters. Flamethrower mounts made it possible to attack targets in a wide sector of the front hemisphere, as well as raise the cannon to relatively large elevation angles, increasing the throwing range.
In late 1940 or early 1941, a prototype of the Ronson flamethrower armored vehicle went out for tests, during which it was planned to determine the correctness and viability of the main ideas of the project. Tests have shown that in terms of its combat qualities, the new sample hardly differed from the previous systems of the Cockatrice family. The only drawback in comparison with the previous technique was the reduced capacity of the fire mixture tanks. Previous self-propelled flamethrowers could carry at least 2 tons of flammable liquid, and the carrying capacity of the tracked chassis did not exceed 500-550 kg, including flamethrower elements. At the same time, there were significant advantages in mobility. The serial tracked chassis made it possible to move both on roads and over rough terrain, thanks to which the new equipment could be used not only in the rear, but also at the front.
After confirming the design characteristics, the newest self-propelled flamethrower was offered to a potential customer in the person of the British army. Specialists of the military department got acquainted with the presented prototype, but did not show interest in it. The characteristics of the original armored vehicle were considered insufficient and unacceptable for use in the military. One of the main reasons for the refusal was the insufficient level of protection and safety of equipment for the crew. Bulletproof armor of the hull could not provide reliable protection for tanks with flammable liquid. Additional risks were associated with the lack of a hull roof and the open placement of the two stern tanks. The placement of the gun on a vertical support was also considered incorrect, since the gunner could not control the weapon while under the protection of the hull.
Due to the ambiguous ratio of characteristics, the Ronson flamethrower self-propelled flamethrower could not interest the military and enter service with the British army. At the same time, the military came up with a counter proposal regarding the further development of flamethrower systems. According to army experts, a flamethrower designed by PWD and R. P. Frazier showed acceptable performance, but needed a different medium. The Churchill tank was recommended as a more successful and convenient platform for placing such weapons. Such an armored vehicle had a much more powerful booking, which could reduce the risks to the crew and equipment. The first prototype of the Churchill Mk II tank with two Ronson-type frontal directional flamethrowers was presented in March 1942. Subsequently, the project was redesigned, resulting in the famous Churchill Oke combat vehicle. Even later, the development of tank flamethrowers led to the emergence of the Churchill Crocodile project.
As for a self-propelled flamethrower based on a serial armored personnel carrier, this machine has lost its future in the context of the rearmament of the British army. However, taking into account the peculiarities of the current situation, the prototype of such equipment was not sent for disassembly. So, in March 42nd, a demonstration of modern flamethrower weapons from the Petroleum Warfare Department took place, during which, along with other samples of weapons and equipment, a prototype of the Ronson Flamethrower was demonstrated. It is unlikely that the developers hoped that the army would reconsider its decision, but even a hopeless armored vehicle could serve as a "decoration" and create the appearance of the existence of more projects.
Museum sample of the Wasp II serial machine. Photo Wikimedia Commons
An interesting fact is that by this time the military had changed their minds about the prospects for self-propelled vehicles with flamethrower weapons. Now it was decided to put into service not only flamethrower tanks with powerful armor, but also light vehicles like the previously rejected Ronson flamethrower. Nevertheless, the technique should have been improved taking into account the identified shortcomings. The military considered the negative features of the existing project to be the open location of the fire mixture tanks, including those associated with the insufficient height of the hull and the absence of a roof. It was also required to change the design of the flamethrower in such a way that the gunner could work under the protection of an armored body and not be exposed to unnecessary risk.
In the shortest possible time, the designers of PWD and related organizations developed a new version of the Ronson project, modified in accordance with the wishes of the customer. Such a machine completely satisfied the military and was put into service under the designation Wasp Mk I. Soon the serial production of self-propelled flamethrowers was started in the interests of the British army. Later, some foreign countries became interested in this technique.
The Ronson flamethrower self-propelled flamethrower in the original version could not interest the military due to a number of characteristic shortcomings. Nevertheless, after the revision, the vehicle was put into service and helped to increase the firepower of the infantry units. The first version of the project, which had insufficient characteristics, was no longer needed. However, there is reason to believe that this development has not been forgotten. There is information about the construction of a number of "simplified" Wasp machines, similar in design to the first prototype of the "Ronson". Such equipment, which was distinguished by its lower cost and complexity of production, was used as training machines for the training of driver and gunners.
As a linear technique to strengthen combat units, it was proposed to use serial flamethrowers of the Wasp family. These samples had minimal differences from the basic Ronson flamethrower, but still represented a new technique of an improved model with higher characteristics. For this reason, they should be considered in a separate article.
