Effectiveness of flamethrowers against tanks

[Oddball_E8]

Or rather, lack there of.

I did a few tests and it seems that it is nigh-impossible for flamethrowers to do any damage to tanks at all.

In my test I had 10 flamethrower infantry units vs one single T-34/85 and in five minutes all they managed to do was damage the radio and optics very slightly (went from green to yellow on the damage board).

They didn't even cause any morale damage to the crew.

Now, I don't know of many first hand accounts of flamethrowers against tanks, but I do know they were used from time to time.

And it stands to reason that if there was even a single vision slit open the flames would come pouring in, and even if there were no openings, the engine would surely overheat and the air would get sucked away by the flames, possibly stalling the engine. Any exterior fuel tanks seem vulnerable too.

And not to mention that AFAIK most of the flamethrowers during WWII used a combination of gas and tar which would stick to the vehicle, causing the flames to continue long after the initial burst, possibly cooking not only the ammunition, but the crew as well.

It just seems odd that flamethrowers do no damage whatsoever to tanks in CMRT.

[Fizou]

Interesting.. I would expect a flamethrower to be able to take out a tank, via vision slits and air intake for the engine.

[Endymion]

I guess it's that flamethrowers are a new thing so that they can still be updated in some future patch, much like machine guns were.

Hopefully the matter of flamethrowers not affecting friendly units even if the flame lands in the middle of them can be fixed as well...

[ZPB II]

This was debated back and forth. There doesn't seem to be very much material on the topic of flamethrowers vs. tanks.

Anyway, tanks aren't 100% immune to FTs. Especially open-topped ones. Atleast they shouldn't be unless something is borked.

[Fizou]

This was debated back and forth. There doesn't seem to be very much material on the topic of flamethrowers vs. tanks.

We're molotovs not fairly effective against tanks? I would think a flamethrower, at least if it can arc and hit air vents etc would be effective against a tank.

[Oddball_E8]

This was debated back and forth. There doesn't seem to be very much material on the topic of flamethrowers vs. tanks.

Anyway, tanks aren't 100% immune to FTs. Especially open-topped ones. Atleast they shouldn't be unless something is borked.

Well the reason there is little material on it would most likely be because it didn't happen often.

That doesn't mean it didn't happen tho.

And the theoretics of it should be relatively easy to suss out.

It does turn out that they are 99% immune tho. So something appears to be borked.

10 FT's going at it against a T-34/85 (not exactly the most hermetically sealed tank ever made) should have had more effect than just "bruising" the radio and optics slightly.

[ZPB II]

We're molotovs not fairly effective against tanks?

AFAIK only effective against obsolete early war designs or something with an open top.

I personally would like FTs to be a bit more effective, but not the the extent they were in IIRC Close Combat 3 or somesuch in which it a single short burst of flame would K-kill even a heavy tank.

[Oddball_E8]

AFAIK only effective against obsolete early war designs or something with an open top.

I personally would like FTs to be a bit more effective, but not the the extent they were in IIRC Close Combat 3 or somesuch in which it a single short burst of flame would K-kill even a heavy tank.

Actually, a well placed molotov made of the right substances (something that'll burn for a while and not just a short time) can be effective against most WWII tanks.

Again, the engines need oxygen to run. They also need to stay cool or risk overheating.

Prolonged fire at the wrong parts of a tank could potentially set off ammunition inside.

Smoke can certainly blind a tank for a long time and the crew needs air to breathe, air that comes from the outside, so smoke could become a major factor on the inside too.

Not to mention that most WWII tanks had some open vision ports even on the later tanks through which flammable liquids could spill, thus spreading the fire to the inside of the tank.

EDIT: Seems to be pretty effective against "modern" armoured vehicles too: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bbd_1392754437

[ZPB II]

I think you are overestimating the molotov. A bottle doesn't hold all that much flammable liquid and the main reason they worked early in the war was poorly designed engine compartments which was fixed in later designs. Compare the amount of fuel a flamethrower projects to what a bottle holds.

[c3k]

Plenty of footage of the Irish "Troubles" showing British Land Rovers (with added mesh over windows) getting pelted with Molotov cocktails and still driving away.

Hell, I had a buddy DRINK a flaming Molotov cocktail in college. Okay, the burns on his lips and chin were a great reminder to all of us about how stupid he'd been...but a lot of the effectiveness of Molotov cocktails is driven by Hollywood imagery.

The best effect MC's have on a tank is to blind it so the close assault teams can rush up and place the demo charges on it.

Ken

[Lee_Vincent]

Right I would have thought that many flamethrowers would have choked the engine, and likely crew, of oxygen. Wouldn't have done the tracks of say a Sherman much good either.

[Oddball_E8]

Plenty of footage of the Irish "Troubles" showing British Land Rovers (with added mesh over windows) getting pelted with Molotov cocktails and still driving away.

Hell, I had a buddy DRINK a flaming Molotov cocktail in college. Okay, the burns on his lips and chin were a great reminder to all of us about how stupid he'd been...but a lot of the effectiveness of Molotov cocktails is driven by Hollywood imagery.

The best effect MC's have on a tank is to blind it so the close assault teams can rush up and place the demo charges on it.

Ken

So your buddy in collage drank gasoline and motoroil?

And not to be a stickler, but if you look at most of those videos of IRA thowing molotovs at land rovers you'll see that most of the bottles are the size of a normal soda bottle.

So around 25-50cl.

Hardly a useful amount of flammables.

You'd need at least 75cl to make any difference.

You'll also notice that the Land Rovers never stay when the molotovs start raining down.

If they were that safe from them, they'd just stay there and wait.

I'm not saying a molotov cocktail was an excellent weapon against tanks.

Far from it.

I'm just saying that it could disable a tank if the tank crew couldn't take measures (such as moving out of the danger zone to extinguish the flames) to counteract the flames on the tank.

Also, you'd have to hit right on the engine compartment or a vision slit to make a difference. Setting fire to the side of the tank, for example, wouldn't do much...

But anyway, I digress. This thread was about the effects of flamethrowers against tanks, not molotovs.

[slysniper]

This sounds like a game flaw or bug presently if what you report is true.

BF CMX1 games had it about right as to what someone might expect for a battle result, so maybe it is something that just needs looked into because I doubt that what you are reporting is what they wanted it to do.

The older games gave you a chance to take out a tank with flame, but I dont recall how much of one.ut I would expect similar in these games once they have it working correctly

[ASL Veteran]

This sounds like a game flaw or bug presently if what you report is true.

BF CMX1 games had it about right as to what someone might expect for a battle result, so maybe it is something that just needs looked into because I doubt that what you are reporting is what they wanted it to do.

The older games gave you a chance to take out a tank with flame, but I dont recall how much of one.ut I would expect similar in these games once they have it working correctly

Flamethrowers vs tanks is working as designed. Whether you want to agree or not that it matches up with your understanding of reality is an open question.

[Oddball_E8]

Flamethrowers vs tanks is working as designed. Whether you want to agree or not that it matches up with your understanding of reality is an open question.

Are you telling me that if I hose down a T-34 with a flamethrower unmolested for a minute or two, the crew would barely take notice and the tank would be completely unscathed?

Because that is what is happening.

And if that is "working as designed", then I am very unimpressed.

I'm not saying that a flamethrower is the ultimate AT weapon.

I am, however, saying that if you hose down a tank with one, there is a pretty big chance the tank will stop working in some way or the crew will panic and bail because of the heat, smoke or flames seeping into the tank.

We are not using NBC-proofed modern tanks here. We are using WWII tanks with plenty of openings in them and engines that are not exactly fireproofed like most modern tanks are.

It should have SOME effect. Tanks shouldn't just drive through a complete firestorm without batting an eye.

[Melchior]

The crew must abandon the tank if it catches fire. Their are countless cases of this happening in WW2 with molotov cocktails. Though improvised firebombs were unreliable and had to be spammed to really start a consistent fire. A flamethrower will definitely force the crew to abandon the vehicle. A fire over the intakes will choke the engine and possibly get sucked into the engine compartment.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that Flamethrowers were not choice anti-tank weapons though. Attacking a tank with one involved all kinds of bravery/stupidity and usually happened only under very circumstantial conditions. If it's too much of a pain to code, we might as well just stick with the current abstractions for infantry close assault on armor.

We are not using NBC-proofed modern tanks here. We are using WWII tanks with plenty of openings in them and engines that are not exactly fireproofed like most modern tanks are.

Many tanks had fire suppression systems in World War 2, but they were designed to stop an accidental fire like from an overheating or leaking engine. Not a fireball engulfing the compartment.

[YankeeDog]

Early war tanks were MUCH more vulnerable to attack by incendiary liquid than later war designs, so e.g., the occasional success of molotov attacks against German Panzers during the defense of Moscow in 1941 isn't particularly useful in trying to figure out how effective flamethrowers should be against tanks in 1944.

What would be helpful is if we actually had records of tank(s) being successfully attacked and destroyed by flamethrowers. As noted, we did a fair amount of discussing and digging regarding this on the beta forums, and came up with basically nothing in the way of real-world incidents or data to back up our speculation.

[James Crowley]

My understanding is that flamethrowers, when used against bunkers, caused casualties as much by suffocation as actual burn damage.

Tanks are not hugely different to bunkers, except, being made almost entirely of metal, they would perhaps conduct heat more readily.

Lack of oxygen should have a detrimental effect against both crew and engine, even if the actual flames don't, although it is hard to imagine that a combination of massive heat and burning oil wouldn't have the potential to do some damage.

In a recent QB my OT-34 flamed a Panther at very close range (20m) - no obvious effect. Although at the end I had a look and the crew were broken; whether by that or by some non-penetrating AT hits, I don't know.

[JasonC]

Most of the fuel shot out of a flamethrower is burning in the air on the way to the target, which isn't very efficient. That is dangerous to exposed people because the fireball in the air is radiating a ton of heat, and rapidly raises the target's surface temperature. Exposed skin will be burned by that and clothes ignite. But metal doesn't ignite. Large lumps of it won't heat up very quickly, either. The time the flamethrower can fire is not long enough to appreciably raise the temperature of 2-4 inches of steel, nor therefore of what is behind it.

As for the "vision slits" notion, um, they usually are not holes clear into the tank, but blocks of glass several inches thick. If the hatches are open / the tank unbuttoned, then sure there are ways in through those. Otherwise, not so much.

The rear engine deck has air intakes that lead into the engine, and inside the engine there is a coating of oil lots of places, there is rubber lined tubing, some wiring and the odd air filter that are flammable materials. There are fuel lines bringing diesel or gasoline into the engine. That is the most promising target overall. It isn't going to be damaged seriously by the direct flame burst - not long enough - but if an engine fire is started that has access to enough of its own fuel from the above sources, so that it continues after the flame is off, then the tankers have a serious problem.

That problem is more smoke than flame. Oil smoke from an engine fire will get into the tank - it is not air tight - and make breathing inside it difficult. This takes minutes not seconds to have any effect, but an uncontained engine fire that puts out enough oil smoke will eventually make the tank interior uninhabitable. That is really about it.

On tanks with rubber track "shoes", those might also be ignited and generate a smoke problem, but it is unlikely the continue to burn and put out enough smoke to force the crew to bail out, certainly much less likely than an engine fire. The same goes for any externally stored equipment that might be ignited.

When dismounts do succeed in taking out a tank with flame weapons, the application may be much more direct and in higher volume - dump a whole 20 gallon jerry-can of gasoline over the engine deck and ignite it, for example. That will directly cause such an engine fire, no two ways about it.

Of course, the crew might be induced to bail before a fatal engine fire gets started, but if the tank is mobile they are much more likely to try to run away in the tank than out of it - particularly if bailing is going to get them roasted, personally.

[Oddball_E8]

Early war tanks were MUCH more vulnerable to attack by incendiary liquid than later war designs, so e.g., the occasional success of molotov attacks against German Panzers during the defense of Moscow in 1941 isn't particularly useful in trying to figure out how effective flamethrowers should be against tanks in 1944.

What would be helpful is if we actually had records of tank(s) being successfully attacked and destroyed by flamethrowers. As noted, we did a fair amount of discussing and digging regarding this on the beta forums, and came up with basically nothing in the way of real-world incidents or data to back up our speculation.

No wonder since the use of flamethrowers were not exactly the optimal way to take out a tank.

But lack of real world use should not prevent some basic physics here. What would happen if a tank was set on fire?

How would the crew react?

How would the engines be affected?

How many WWII tanks on the eastern front had complete cover against flamethrower weapons (ie. no vision slits or other openings where the fuel could spill in).

These are some pretty basic things that could be accounted for without having substantial documented uses as a base.

The thing is, while flamethrowers might not have been used against tanks in anything but the most dire circumstances, this is not true in the game.

There are plenty of situations in the game where tanks get close to flamethrowers.

And the question isn't really wheter or not it was done, but what the effect would be if it was done.

Did anyone check out the pacific front when looking for documented use against tanks?

AFAIR the japanese and US were pretty fond of using flamethrowers there and tanks were often in range of flamethrowers (at least more often than on most other fronts).

On a sidenote, I managed to get a T-34/85 to blow up using flamethrowers.

Of course, I had to set it to immobilized at the start of the scenario and surround it with 10 flamethrowers that fired at it for almost a full minute before they got an "upper hull hit, partial penetration" that led to the tank exploding.

I think the mechanics for what happens to a tank when engulfed in flames are there, but the chances of anything happening seem much too low.

[Oddball_E8]

Most of the fuel shot out of a flamethrower is burning in the air on the way to the target, which isn't very efficient. That is dangerous to exposed people because the fireball in the air is radiating a ton of heat, and rapidly raises the target's surface temperature. Exposed skin will be burned by that and clothes ignite. But metal doesn't ignite. Large lumps of it won't heat up very quickly, either. The time the flamethrower can fire is not long enough to appreciably raise the temperature of 2-4 inches of steel, nor therefore of what is behind it.

As for the "vision slits" notion, um, they usually are not holes clear into the tank, but blocks of glass several inches thick. If the hatches are open / the tank unbuttoned, then sure there are ways in through those. Otherwise, not so much.

The rear engine deck has air intakes that lead into the engine, and inside the engine there is a coating of oil lots of places, there is rubber lined tubing, some wiring and the odd air filter that are flammable materials. There are fuel lines bringing diesel or gasoline into the engine. That is the most promising target overall. It isn't going to be damaged seriously by the direct flame burst - not long enough - but if an engine fire is started that has access to enough of its own fuel from the above sources, so that it continues after the flame is off, then the tankers have a serious problem.

That problem is more smoke than flame. Oil smoke from an engine fire will get into the tank - it is not air tight - and make breathing inside it difficult. This takes minutes not seconds to have any effect, but an uncontained engine fire that puts out enough oil smoke will eventually make the tank interior uninhabitable. That is really about it.

On tanks with rubber track "shoes", those might also be ignited and generate a smoke problem, but it is unlikely the continue to burn and put out enough smoke to force the crew to bail out, certainly much less likely than an engine fire. The same goes for any externally stored equipment that might be ignited.

When dismounts do succeed in taking out a tank with flame weapons, the application may be much more direct and in higher volume - dump a whole 20 gallon jerry-can of gasoline over the engine deck and ignite it, for example. That will directly cause such an engine fire, no two ways about it.

Of course, the crew might be induced to bail before a fatal engine fire gets started, but if the tank is mobile they are much more likely to try to run away in the tank than out of it - particularly if bailing is going to get them roasted, personally.

Don't forget that most flamethrowers used a mix of petrol and tar, not pressurized gas.

So they didn't just shoot out a flame of gas (as you would with a can of hairspray and a lighter for example) but the tar and petrol would stay ignited for quite a while if they got onto an engine for example.

I agree that it should be hard to knock out a tank with a flamethrower (you'd need to hit the right parts and be lucky if a vision slit/hatch is open for example) but as it stands the chances seem much too low.

Not to mention the fact that flamethrowers have zero impact on the crew morale.

I can't imagine that the crew of a tank would be completely unaffected by having 10 flamethrowers firing right at them for over a minute (like they are in my test scenarios).

Not even when the tank was immobilized (by me in the scenario design) did it affect their morale.

[Lee_Vincent]

No wonder since the use of flamethrowers were not exactly the optimal way to take out a tank.

But lack of real world use should not prevent some basic physics here. What would happen if a tank was set on fire?

How would the crew react?

How would the engines be affected?

How many WWII tanks on the eastern front had complete cover against flamethrower weapons (ie. no vision slits or other openings where the fuel could spill in).

These are some pretty basic things that could be accounted for without having substantial documented uses as a base.

The thing is, while flamethrowers might not have been used against tanks in anything but the most dire circumstances, this is not true in the game.

There are plenty of situations in the game where tanks get close to flamethrowers.

And the question isn't really wheter or not it was done, but what the effect would be if it was done.

Did anyone check out the pacific front when looking for documented use against tanks?

AFAIR the japanese and US were pretty fond of using flamethrowers there and tanks were often in range of flamethrowers (at least more often than on most other fronts).

On a sidenote, I managed to get a T-34/85 to blow up using flamethrowers.

Of course, I had to set it to immobilized at the start of the scenario and surround it with 10 flamethrowers that fired at it for almost a full minute before they got an "upper hull hit, partial penetration" that led to the tank exploding.

I think the mechanics for what happens to a tank when engulfed in flames are there, but the chances of anything happening seem much too low.

Yes there should be more examples from the Pacific, despite the mostly useless deployment of Japanese tanks there. But if the tank is 'unbuttoned', the effect could somewhat be comparable to that against a bunker IMHO.

[Oddball_E8]

I recorded another test run.

I placed one regular T-34/85 in the middle of a group of 10 Elite german flamethrower teams (all within the little dirt square on the map, so all in range).

I then ordered it to stand still for 1:30 minutes and after that move slowly in circles more or less.

While they did manage to take out the radio and damage the optics, not once did they damage anything else on the tank, the crew or even effect the morale of the crew.

They kept firing until they all ran out of ammo.

EDIT: Damnit, I put the clips in the wrong order. Oh well, you can clearly see that the tanks gets next to no damage and that the elite teams from 30 meters away (tops) are missing alot.

I noticed two things in this.

1: the tank is nearly invincible to flamethrowers.

2: the flamethrowers seem to miss this very large target at a very short range way too many times for an elite team.

[ASL Veteran]

Are you telling me that if I hose down a T-34 with a flamethrower unmolested for a minute or two, the crew would barely take notice and the tank would be completely unscathed?

Because that is what is happening.

And if that is "working as designed", then I am very unimpressed.

All I'm telling you is that it is working as designed. I'm not making a statement as to whether I agree with how it is working or if I disagree with how it is working. I am simply clarifying for those who like to play with fire that there is no bug in the way it is currently working. If someone feels that it is not working correctly, it will be necessary to show some real world evidence that indicates that the game is not working correctly as compared to reality. Showing how it works in the game will not move the discussion forward one inch.

[pnzrldr]

All:

This was my post when we discussed this prior to release.

Gentlemen - tanker here. You are seriously understating the effects of having flaming gasoline engulf a tank (your tank). Tanks are NOT waterproof. When it rains, tankers get wet. This is why molotov's work. Flaming gasoline will find ways to get inside the tank. Hatch 'seals' typically don't. Why do you think the US Army uses fairly significant air overpressure to combat chemical weapons? Wouldn't you assume that 'seals' would keep the nasty gas out? Not so much. Think like quarter inch or more gaps.

If you shoot a tank with a flamethrower, it is all going to depend upon how much winds up on the tank. Gravity will take the stuff down, while the heat of combustion simultaneously takes it up. If you get some on the engine deck, it will drip into the engine and ignite belts, hoses, wiring, batteries, fuel, etc... Very good chance of starting a real engine compartment fire. If you get it on/around the turret you have near certainty that some will come in via the vision slits, hatch gaps, MG blisters, coax port, air vents, turret ring, etc... If even a split instant of the pressurized spray hits an actual opening it is bad news. Imagine you are inside a metal box. How much flaming gasoline needs to be in there with you to significantly discomfort you? I submit the answer is 'not very much.' Experiment with your car if you like to prove this point.

Second, the combined effects of smoke and fume inhalation, oxygen dep and sheer unadulterated panic should have a VERY significant effect on crew morale. Tankers fear nothing so much as burning to death - think WWI flying crews. 88mm through the front armor, and then my chest? Well, sh** happens, at least it was quick. Ammo catches fire and I can't find the hatch handle to get out? Screaming, searing, agonizing pain as I am immolated? Yeah, that is NOT good. I do NOT want to play that game. Also bear in mind that a LOT of stuff on the tank is flammable. All the gear, rations, spare oil/grease, rubber, main gun ammo, smoke grenades, small arms ammo, hell even the PAINT can all burn if you get it hot enough. A lot of that is INSIDE the crew compartment. Spray a tank with a flamethrower and all that stuff on the outside (and very likely some on the inside) is going to catch fire and burn. And when it does, a lot of that smoke will find a way to go inside the tank - promise. And then the crew will not be able to breathe. And they will get out to try and find someplace where the CAN breathe. Quickly. Might get out, watch the flamethrower petrol burn out, realize the rest of the tank didn't catch, and then hop back in. But remember, when you are inside and recognize that the thing is on fire, you don't know necessarily if the fire is inside or outside. Smoke in tank. Can't see sh**. You don't know if it is the field jacket you left on top of the turret or the main gun ammo down in the hull about to cook off. Fire = bad. Get out, NOW.

Any one here mention the effects on open topped AFVs? Pretty much catastrophic if you actually hit it for a second or so I would imagine.

Bottom line - while not an ideal anti-tank weapon because you do NOT want to have to get real close to use it, a flamethrower is a very effective anti-tank weapon if you get a 'hit' (say more than 2-3 seconds of spray, actually onto the vehicle) and they should be modeled that way in the game. Hard to use, but deadly if actually employed.

Final word - known weakness/trade-off of US tanks is the fact that we use rubber track blocks and road wheel rims. Some other nation's tanks do too. That stuff is flammable, and I have read numerous instances of it catching fire in combat, from WWII to present day. Doesn't always result in a major problem unless the fire spreads, but it is a factor. If we retrofit flamethrowers back into CMBN or bring Shermans to Ostfront, they should be more vulnerable to this particular weapon.