Oddball_E8
-
Posts
2,871 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by 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.
-
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.
-
Awesome! 10char
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
1: No we can't (but BFC might) since they use the same sound file.
2: Yes, they fire that fast. 600 rpm might not wound fast, but it's still 10 shots per second.
-
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.
-
I plan to, just haven't got around to it. I re-uploaded this, and changed the Red soviet set to have Grey German spotted/tan FOW not that one couldn't make that combo already if they wanted.
Oh ok, just wondering. It seems some don't upload there for some reason.
-
Are the penetrations you were descibing that you wanted to see, like the impacts at the top of this photo?
Yes, but the bottom ones are pretty good too.
You see a bit more armour and it doesn't look paper thin
The one he is pointing to is perfect IMHO
-
-
May I ask why you don't upload to cmmods/greenasjade?
-
120mm mortar vs T-34/85
Smooooooooke on the water!
-
Loving the work you have done so far and I've been using them since yo ureleased them, but there was always something that irked me...
And i finally figured out what it was.
The riccochets look like they gouged a deep chunk of the metal out, which would be right.
But the penetrations look like they were made in paper thin metal.
Is there any way you culd increase the 3d depth look of the hole to make it look like it is actually a hole in thick armour?
-
We had that in CMx1, and frankly it sucked. I'm glad that feature didn't make it into CMx2.
Was it really worse than not having any ammo at all?
Because I don't think it was.
-
sorry it's a fault mate
:-)
So where's the video you meant to link to?
-
Pffft!
I play on my 40" TV
(1920x1080).On the other hand, I sit a bit further from the screen than most monitor users, but not as far as most TV users.
Maby 1½ meters?
-
My new video on my youtube channel
New aar section will be opened soon in my channel , link at my signature
Have fun
Wait... why are you linking a CMBN video in the CMRT thread?
-
I think this is just one of those things that take to much time to implement vs the time they will actually happen in game. At some point Im sure BF will revisit this but so far it has just been to far down on the "list".
Doesn't that depend heavily on the level of abstraction?
I think many of the players wouldn't mind a near complete abstraction in the way I described earlier as long as their troops can perform hand to hand combat in dire situations.
-
Oh ok, good.
AFAIK that's all that's needed tho... for them to be mono and not stereo.
-
Not running on the Mac?
I think it should.
If not, just use a program like DBPowerAMP to convert all the sounds (at once) to mono.
-
I had a thought...
At 1000m, what kind of arc is the 85mm shell going at?
Is it still really shallow or does it arc enough to hit the front plate at less of an angle then if fired at 100m?
That could make a difference... a pretty big one even.
-
Oh wow, and here I was thinking I'd skip downloading your german collection since I had already moved them from CMBN, and you go and put extra decals on them
You naughty boy Fuser!
(1920x1080).
Tanks not rotating to face target.
in Combat Mission Red Thunder
Posted
I've noticed that sometimes (maby all the time, I haven't kept track) my tanks won't rotate to face a target between shots.
IIRC they did it in CMBN and CMFI, but it seems something has changed.
I made a video of it today (SPOILERS FOR THE MISSION ANGRIFF!!!!).
Notice how the panther tank with its side to the target is only turning the turret?
It doesn't start turning its hull until after it loses its target.