Effectiveness of flamethrowers against tanks

[Oddball_E8]

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.

Well I'll let you know when I find a tank and 10 flamethrowers and some volunteers :/

Listen, we know there are few documented cases of this happening, but the theories behind it should be relatively easy to figure out without real-world documented instances of it happening.

I mean, if there were no documented incidents of an 88mm cannon hitting a T-26, we wouldn't make it invulnerable to it, now would we?

We can calculate pretty easily what would happen if one was shot at by the other.

Same thing with a flamethrower using a gasoline/tar mix.

It would have the potential to damage the engine for sure.

It would have the potential to seep through openings in the tanks (pretty easy to check if tanks had some openings or not).

It would have the potential to cook and ignite fuel stored on the outside of the tank.

It would have the potential to cause smoke that blinds the tank momentarily.

It would have the potential to cause panic with the crew if any of the above instances happened.

But right now, it seems that the decision process has been this:

-Ok, can we find any documented instances of flamethrowers being used against tanks?

-Not really?

-Well then they have no effect on tanks.

It really does seem that way.

Now, if that is not the way it was, I'd love to hear the reasoning behind fire not having any noticable effect on tanks in the game.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

What about trying flamethrowers against armoured cars, halftracks and light tanks. Maybe you will ghave more luck against these?

[Oddball_E8]

What about trying flamethrowers against armoured cars, halftracks and light tanks. Maybe you will ghave more luck against these?

Of course I will.

That's not the point.

[Oddball_E8]

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.

Nice to hear this from an actual Tanker

Did you look at my video? Did you feel it was an accurate portrayal of what would happen to a tank in that situation?

[MikeyD]

I believe napalm was used towards the end of the war as an antidote to German heavy tanks. But there's a difference between dropping hundreds of gallons of flaming liquid onto a tank and giving it a couple squirts out of a garden hose.

As an aside on the general topic of tanks catching fire, I recall reading back a dozen years ago (or more) that Abrams MBT had spontaneously caught fire some 500 times since they were first fielded. A problem that its predecessor did not share. Early Panther tended to spontaneously catch fire too. Their workaround to that problem brought on the problem of muffler backfires. Tanks can be finicky beasts.

[Broadsword56]

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...

Now that's what I call "a party school."

[Michael Emrys]

...a whole 20 gallon jerry-can...

That should be 20 liters. Or 5.3 gallons.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

...I recall reading back a dozen years ago (or more) that Abrams MBT had spontaneously caught fire some 500 times since they were first fielded.

Not surprising. That turbine puts out a lot of heat. I recall reading that there were concerns about it setting fire to dried grass and leaves in its immediate vicinity if left parked with the engine running for any length of time. I haven't heard how that actually worked out in practice, but the point is made.

Michael

[pnzrldr]

Many of the fires were not engine related. Had a number of NBC system fires back in the 90s. Had a fellow LT lose his driver that way at NTC. Tragedy. My point though is that tanks have lots and lots of flammable things on them, and when they catch fire the crew usually does not want to remain inside.

First, a video of what happens to an armored vehicle when hit with sufficient flaming petrol...

Now an amusing but relevant clip from a movie on the Finnish war, depicting both flamethrower tank use, and molotov vs. tank.

[jtsjc1]

Someone posted a link to the Russian Battlefield site showing Ferdinand TD losses at Ponyri. 5 were ignited by Molotov cocktail after being disabled and all burned out. It appears to be a pretty effective weapon.

[YankeeDog]

Someone posted a link to the Russian Battlefield site showing Ferdinand TD losses at Ponyri. 5 were ignited by Molotov cocktail after being disabled and all burned out. It appears to be a pretty effective weapon.

Eh... assuming "disabled" means "immobilized", then that's a coup de gras against a stationary turretless AFV without so much as a bow machine gun to defend itself. Once they cleared the immediate area of enemy infantry, they could have walked up, poured the gasoline into whatever convenient crevice they could find, and lit it with a match. Heck, you don't even need the gasoline, just gather some wood and build a bonfire under the Ferd. It'd take awhile, but sooner or later you'd smoke the crew out.

"Pretty effective"... yeah; I guess. But in that situation a decent toolbox could be considered an effective AT weapon -- almost could have simply dismantled the thing piece by piece...

[MikeyD]

Flamethrower effects against armor in the game are not negligible, they're simply not consistent. Designed to be so, makes success against a tank a hit-and-miss affair, a coin toss. Plus if you're the flamethrower side you're not going to see the crew panicking, you're just going to see the tank sitting there seemingly unscathed.

[c3k]

Carbon on the armored glass would be an effect.

[Broadsword56]

On Youtube I recently saw a WWII German 1943 training film for tank crews that showed dismounted Soviets trying to throw molotovs onto the rear engine decks -- the film noted how dangerous this was because the burning fuel could drip in through those vents. And it demonstrated a crewmember grabbing a fire extinguisher and using a rear hatch in the turret to put out the fire ASAP. If that had been a flamethrower, the danger could only have been worse, I'd think.

[YankeeDog]

If that had been a flamethrower, the danger could only have been worse, I'd think.

Not by as much as you'd think. WWII Soviet manpack flamethrowers only held 9-10 liters of fuel, which was expected to last for 6-8 short "blasts". So it's not a heck of a lot of fuel per blast. And unlike with a molotov cocktail broken directly onto the engine deck, there's a lot of wastage with a flamethrower blast -- significant amount of the fuel either burns on the way to the target, or misses the target entirely, especially if shot at the tank from longer range (bearing in mind that "long range" for a manpack flamethrower is anything over about 20m). Precision weapons, they are not.

Now, if you want to posit a a guy with flamethrower actually running right up to the tank and hosing it down, you'd probably would be looking at a lot more actually hitting the tank. But again, for this kind of event to actually happen you're probably talking about a coup de gras on a disabled vehicle and CM's regular infantry close assault routine handles this just fine.

[JasonC]

YD - xactly.

In research this subject once before, I looked through all the US WW II medal of honor citations for infantry AT instances. There is a case of a jerry can (thanks ME for the volume correction) of gas emptied onto the rear engine deck of a Jagdpanzer, but none in the ETO of a manpacked flamethrower taking out a tank. There is even one of an officer taking out a tank with a Tommy gun, by shooting the hatch-open driver as it was crossing a bridge, with the result that it drove off the bridge side and fell into the river below - but no manpacked FTs taking out tanks.

I have also seen reports of FTs vs Japanese light tanks in the Pacific that do report effective kills, but also describe how it had to be done. They would fire a very long burst without igniting the jet, to just "soak" the target as completely as possible, particularly the engine deck. Then ignite it with a second shorter burst. Ranges very short jungle ones, and light, primitive tanks, frequently already damaged by other means.

So yes it can do it, but it is not easy. And it is emphatically not just a measure of blowing the flame jet over the tank and that somehow itself taking the tank out.

[Oddball_E8]

Flamethrower effects against armor in the game are not negligible, they're simply not consistent. Designed to be so, makes success against a tank a hit-and-miss affair, a coin toss. Plus if you're the flamethrower side you're not going to see the crew panicking, you're just going to see the tank sitting there seemingly unscathed.

Well since I've run the test arount 10 times now and the only time I have gotten any damage beyond the radio and optics (and never both destroyed), was when I artificially immobilized the tank first in the scenario editor, I'd say that the chances are not a "hit-and-miss" affair, but something that is exceedingly rare, to the point of not being considered useful in any way shape or form.

As for the crew panicking, I play the scenario in hotseat so I can clearly see that the crew never ever panicked.

Not once during those 10 tests.

I'll be trying it again tomorrow, but I don't expect any different results.

[Oddball_E8]

Not by as much as you'd think. WWII Soviet manpack flamethrowers only held 9-10 liters of fuel, which was expected to last for 6-8 short "blasts". So it's not a heck of a lot of fuel per blast. And unlike with a molotov cocktail broken directly onto the engine deck, there's a lot of wastage with a flamethrower blast -- significant amount of the fuel either burns on the way to the target, or misses the target entirely, especially if shot at the tank from longer range (bearing in mind that "long range" for a manpack flamethrower is anything over about 20m). Precision weapons, they are not.

Now, if you want to posit a a guy with flamethrower actually running right up to the tank and hosing it down, you'd probably would be looking at a lot more actually hitting the tank. But again, for this kind of event to actually happen you're probably talking about a coup de gras on a disabled vehicle and CM's regular infantry close assault routine handles this just fine.

Unless that infantry happens to be flamethrower infantry, because then they are **** out of luck, since they don't seem to have grenades and flamethrowers are about as effective as firing your pistol at the tank.

[Oddball_E8]

YD - xactly.

In research this subject once before, I looked through all the US WW II medal of honor citations for infantry AT instances. There is a case of a jerry can (thanks ME for the volume correction) of gas emptied onto the rear engine deck of a Jagdpanzer, but none in the ETO of a manpacked flamethrower taking out a tank. There is even one of an officer taking out a tank with a Tommy gun, by shooting the hatch-open driver as it was crossing a bridge, with the result that it drove off the bridge side and fell into the river below - but no manpacked FTs taking out tanks.

I have also seen reports of FTs vs Japanese light tanks in the Pacific that do report effective kills, but also describe how it had to be done. They would fire a very long burst without igniting the jet, to just "soak" the target as completely as possible, particularly the engine deck. Then ignite it with a second shorter burst. Ranges very short jungle ones, and light, primitive tanks, frequently already damaged by other means.

So yes it can do it, but it is not easy. And it is emphatically not just a measure of blowing the flame jet over the tank and that somehow itself taking the tank out.

Yes, but that showes that it CAN be done.

To leave it out because it didn't happen often is not a good thing. These situations will happen more often in the game than it did in real life.

[ASL Veteran]

Yes, but that showes that it CAN be done.

To leave it out because it didn't happen often is not a good thing. These situations will happen more often in the game than it did in real life.

There was a basis for the effects to be as they are in game. It was not just a random decision.

[Oddball_E8]

There was a basis for the effects to be as they are in game. It was not just a random decision.

Of course, but I would love to hear the reasoning behind it.

[76mm]

Oddball, could you please include an open-top AFV such as a Marder or SU-76 in your test? If FTs have no effect on them, that is a problem!!

[Oddball_E8]

Oddball, could you please include an open-top AFV such as a Marder or SU-76 in your test? If FTs have no effect on them, that is a problem!!

No, those work fine, this is about the ineffectiveness of flamethrowers on tanks.

I'm running tests right now.

It is possible to immobilize a tank by damaging the engine after all. But the odds seem astronomically slim.

[db_zero]

FT don't just burn. They suck all the air out around the target area. On humans it can cause the lungs to collapse.

No idea of how well they would work on a tank.

You can put Styrofoam into gas and make a sticky goo that burns a long time. Mix in soap detergent and you get napalm like stuff. Me and my pals use to play with that stuff when we were kids. We did all sorts of stupid stuff like that.

[Oddball_E8]

Apparantly, you can actually knock out a tank with a flamethrower.

But it is exceedingly rare.

An Immobilization or even knock out (catastrophic explosion due to engine damage) can happen, but it is around 1 in 100 or less.

Radio seems to be the easiest to damage with the FT with around 10 in 100. After that is the optics with around 6 in 100.

The crew NEVER gets any hit on their morale tho, so apparantly sitting in a tank that is burning is not as scary as pnzrldr portrays it. :/

Of course, these are just tests run in game with one flame thrower behind an enemy tank.

I used the late model flamethrower (not sure if any other models are in the game) against a T-34/76 late.

It strikes me as odd how often the flamethrower team actually completely missed a huge tank less than 20 meters in front of them that wasn't moving at all. It seems to me (from videos, not personal experience) that it isn't that hard to hit what you are aiming at with a flamethrower. Especially not something as big as a tank.

These results are not super accurate, but they give an insight into how rare it is for a flame thrower to take out a tank in-game.

And if that tank happens to be moving as well, you might as well just shoot at it with a pistol.

But of course they won't so they'll waste their precious flame fuel on something that is nigh invincible to them.

And to 76mm's pleasure I also had a GAZ jeep in the scenario with another flamethrower team next to it and that got killed every time. (when the FT team hit it).