Effectiveness of flamethrowers against tanks

[Oddball_E8]

Another thing about the FT's in CMRT... Why do they arc so high?

I think this contributes to them missing so often.

But in real life, fire doesn't arc like that.

Here's a clip from mythbusters where they use a vintage Vietnam War era flamethrower at a range of 60ft (around 18m)... Notice the complete lack of an arc?

[Canada Guy]

I had a Russian flame team attack a SdKfz 251 (dismounted) and it emptied its whole fuel tank and the vehicle was not KO'd. OT but still no luck.

[db_zero]

Be interesting to see results of FT vs HT with a load of infantry. You would think the infantry being transported would get cooked and panic.

[Bulletpoint]

I think you forget an important detail: the game doesn't take into account prolonged exposure. For example, in the game, bunkers are invulnerable to artillery. You could fire millions of shells at a bunker, and it would never be destroyed, even though in real life, millions of direct hits would eventually tunnel into the strongest bunker. Likewise, a tank would be cooked by standing in fire for hours, but in the game, each burst of flamethrower is seen as a short individual attack that doesn't have time to heat up the tank. Heck, even pistol shots would destroy a tank if you shot enough rounds at it (might take a thousand years but eventually the armour would be eroded)

[Amizaur]

It doesn't have to heat up the tank. It's enough (well, depending on crew quality and motivation level) that the smoke and maybe some of the flamming fluid get's into the tank by any hole/slit, the crew is likely to panic just as fellow tanker described. There should be a chance (depending on crew quality/motivation) that flamethrower attack would result in crew panic or even crew abbaddoning the vehicle.

[Oddball_E8]

After all the tests, I have found that it is possible to destroy or damage a tank with a flamethrower, but the chances are so minimal that it would be a waste of ammo to even try it.

The main thing that bothers me now tho, is that there is absolutely zero effect on the crew morale.

Not even if you manage to immobilize the tank and damage the radio and optics (which I managed once in my 10x flamethrowers vs 1 tank scenario).

The crew didn't even bat an eye despite being stuck in an immobilized tank with no radio and no optics surrounded by 10 flamethrowers firing at them.

This bothers me since even a PTRD firing at the front of a Tiger tank from far away can have an effect on the crews morale.

Coupled with pnzrldr's comments about being a tanker and how he would react to a tank being on fire, it just doesn't make any sense that they don't react at all.

I'm ok with the chances being astronomical to damage a tank with a flamethrower (I'd like to see them higher since I don't feel it's realistic the way it is, but I'll settle for it being possible at all), but to have the crew completely unbothered by having their tank set ablaze (and even damaged) just doesn't make any sense.

[Michael Emrys]

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

Do you have any citations for that? BTW, FTs don't "suck all the air out". They do consume most of the oxygen in the immediate vicinity and replace it with toxic smoke and fumes of various sorts, which is bad enough. But they don't create a vacuum. The surrounding atmosphere sees to that.

Michael

[Pelican Pal]

db might be thinking of flamethrowers used against cave systems.

[YankeeDog]

Do you have any citations for that? BTW, FTs don't "suck all the air out". They do consume most of the oxygen in the immediate vicinity and replace it with toxic smoke and fumes of various sorts, which is bad enough. But they don't create a vacuum. The surrounding atmosphere sees to that.

Michael

Exactly. "Sucking all the air out" and "collapsing lungs" is more description of what thermobaric warheads do. And while in many ways thermobarics fill a role on the modern battlefield that used to be filled by flamethrower weapons, but actually work by a very different mechanism.

[Michael Emrys]

db might be thinking of flamethrowers used against cave systems.

Same principle. The fire consumes oxygen and the people within suffocate. Nothing to do with collapsed lungs.

Michael

[db_zero]

Do you have any citations for that? BTW, FTs don't "suck all the air out". They do consume most of the oxygen in the immediate vicinity and replace it with toxic smoke and fumes of various sorts, which is bad enough. But they don't create a vacuum. The surrounding atmosphere sees to that.

Michael

Let me see what I can dig up when I get home. I thought I recall reading that in one of my old reference material. In all honesty I may have confused it with fuel air explosives or something else.

[YankeeDog]

With the kind of fire caused by "Normal" flame weapons, even in an enclosed space people more typically die from smoke and other toxin inhalation rather than oxygen deprivation. Actually, technically, they *do* die of oxygen deprivation, but it's because the chemicals in the smoke damage the lining of the lungs and the lungs lose their ability to exchange oxygen, not due to lack of oxygen in the air, as such. It takes a really big fire to actually suck all of the oxygen out of the air and if you're that close to a fire that big, you're cooked anyway.

Collapsed lungs is something that happens due to a sudden pressure differential, not lack of oxygen as such. Thermobarics are all about pressure (hence the name), so this is one of their primary casualty mechanisms.

[costard]

"Collapsed lung" could also be the dying body's way of keeping the burning fuel/air mix out of it's lungs - you wouldn't be breathing in the middle of a fire-ball. Collapsed lung as a diagnosis is most often made when there is a penetrating wound to the thorax and the pressure differential can no longer be exercised by the diaphragm.

With regards to JC's post, how long did a FT have to sit in place to hose down the tank? How does the FT avoid taking an injury when the mix is ignited (petrol in air is a pretty hot and harsh bang, from what I remember of my mis-spent youth)? Lying down would be good... but that limits aiming to the top of the vehicle.. etc.

[YankeeDog]

"Collapsed lung" could also be the dying body's way of keeping the burning fuel/air mix out of it's lungs - you wouldn't be breathing in the middle of a fire-ball. Collapsed lung as a diagnosis is most often made when there is a penetrating wound to the thorax and the pressure differential can no longer be exercised by the diaphragm.

True; technically a "collapsed lung" is what you get from a sucking chest wound. What thermobarics cause is massive pulmonary edema due to internal hemorrhaging.

Normal fire can also cause pulmonary edema if e.g., the person breathes in hot gases that sear the internal membranes of the lung, but the mechanism is different.

[Amizaur]

There is no weapon that "sucks all the air" and "creates vaccum than makes the lungs to collaps". It's urban myth.

There is even hardly a weapon that consumes all the oxygen in it's surroundings. Because in the open the hot gases (result of explosion/fire) will quickly move up, and fresh air will just as quickly flow-in near ground to fill the area.

If someone was so close to explosion/flames that he would "breath" the oxygen-low (and very hot!!) gases, he would most likely die from the explosion/flames in the first place, or die from internal burns after trying to breath hot gases.

Lack of oxygen to breath because of explosion/flames could happen only in enclosed space, but then again - if someone was so close to have problems with lack of oxygen, he would die from explosion/overpressure/flames in the first place.

Dying from breathing a (already cooled) smoke is another matter and can happen from any fire. It's usually not the lack of oxygen that kills, anyway.

Thermobaric weapons or other fuel-air explosion also don't kill by "making vaccum" but by effect of the overpressure and quickly following underpressure waves, which can travel relatively long distances from explosion and may in fact damage alveolis in lungs (or lungs in general) to the point that the person can't breath and would die from lack of oxygen. The oxygen is in the air, was there all the time, just the person can't breath effectively with damaged lungs. The body (colour of the skin) may look like a victim of suffocation -they in fact were, but from lack of oxygen...

Someone have seen victims of such explosions, looking like they have suffocated, maybe some military surgerons said they had their lungs damaged, and that's how the myth of "vaccum weapons" probably created itself.

This effect is rarely observed during explosion of conventional HE explosives, because if one was so close to explosion of a shell, a bomb or an IED that his lungs were damaged by overpressure wave, he would be probably torn to pieces by the explosion in the first place - again .

Thermobaric or fuel-air (or very large conventional) explosions are somewhat different, such explosions create strong overpressure wave of long wavelengt which can travel larger distances and cover larger areas - at some range one can survive the blast (for example in a foxhole), but the overpressure wave is still strong enough to damage the lungs (and other body organs).

[GhostRider3/3]

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.

I totaly agree with Jason C here. After reviewing my technical books on the construction of the Pz IV, Pz V etc.. and that even of the T-34 and T34/85 you would really need a sustained hit on the rear deck or an Open hatch to either cause any significant damage or casualties... I know both sides would usually have Infantry either not far behind or flanking the tanks or Vice/ versa... and any flame spewing out of a tank, or Human.. would be targeted rather quickly. Not sure what the lifespan of a Flamethrower unit was.

[db_zero]

I haven't been able to dig up a reliable reference and what I have found isn't reliable so I'll have to say I was mistaken and bought the urban myth...

Speaking of urban myths iirc a source I once read mentioned the blast effect from a FAE approached that of a tactical nuke.

Does that sound about right or would that too fall under the category of urban myth?

I am going to continue to look for the reference to the collapse lungs stuff, I have a ton of books, magazines and other reference material lying around.

Speaking of reference material. I swooped in and won a bid on Ebay for a lot of S&T mags at a very cheap price. I got the mags and in it I found something interesting. Its a map labeled "OBERSALBERG Hitler's Residential Area 1923-1945"

On the bottom it has AFRC T-200 also has No 13389

Information gathered by the Berchtesgarden Recreation Area March MCMLXIV Engineer Section.

Interesting map...

[nik mond]

I just got a good shot off on a T-34/85. It must have panicked because it reversed immediately after the flame attack.. Whether by design as a result of a flame attack, or something else it seemed quite an appropriate response. Its not the first time I've seen tanks change direction from a flame thrower. Might be something to it.

[Oddball_E8]

I just got a good shot off on a T-34/85. It must have panicked because it reversed immediately after the flame attack.. Whether by design as a result of a flame attack, or something else it seemed quite an appropriate response. Its not the first time I've seen tanks change direction from a flame thrower. Might be something to it.

Having actually seen the morale of tanks in the game getting hit by flamethrowers repeatedly (playing hotseat), I'd say the fact that the tank reversed is probably a TacAI decision influenced by the fact that it was hit by a weapon with the potential (albeit nearly astronomically small chance) to damage or destroy the vehicle.

I can promise you that the crew did not panic or even become rattled.

It's just a simple TacAI decision of "damage dealing weapon over there, let's move away from it", nothing more.

[Oddball_E8]

I totaly agree with Jason C here. After reviewing my technical books on the construction of the Pz IV, Pz V etc.. and that even of the T-34 and T34/85 you would really need a sustained hit on the rear deck or an Open hatch to either cause any significant damage or casualties... I know both sides would usually have Infantry either not far behind or flanking the tanks or Vice/ versa... and any flame spewing out of a tank, or Human.. would be targeted rather quickly. Not sure what the lifespan of a Flamethrower unit was.

Yes, but we are not simulating the fact that they usually had infantry with them since that's up to the player to see to.

If a tank is cought in the open by a flamethrower and it had no infantry or armour near it, could that flamethrower do any damage to the tank?

You have the technical books. Could a burst of sticky flamethrower fuel (remember, this isn't some aerosol can shooting out gas flames, this is sticky stuff that burns for quite a while) do damage to the engine or other parts of the tank? And how likely would it be that the engine could keep operating after a good hit by the flamethrower.

Are there exposed wires or plastic tubing? Are there ventilations on top that could have flamethrower fuel dripping into them?

Things like that.

I don't have the technical books, so I can't check.

[db_zero]

Most if not all tanks have engine covers that allowed for some sort of ventilation for the engines and I would imagine like a car had plenty of rubber tubing for fluids so I can't imagine getting hosed with a flamethrower would be good for it. I would also guess the engine would be covered in gunk and fluids that could ignite.

I also think the Panther has some sort of fuel storage or some other very vulnerable spot in the rear that was an aimpoint tankers were instructed to aim for.

Some tanks carried extra gas in jerry cans or even fuel tanks that could be jettisoned.

Question may be how much time and effort would BF need to rectify any weakness in the game to cover something so rare in real life. May be other more pressing things to worry about? And really just how common and often were fts used in Europe?

[Oddball_E8]

Most if not all tanks have engine covers that allowed for some sort of ventilation for the engines and I would imagine like a car had plenty of rubber tubing for fluids so I can't imagine getting hosed with a flamethrower would be good for it. I would also guess the engine would be covered in gunk and fluids that could ignite.

I also think the Panther has some sort of fuel storage or some other very vulnerable spot in the rear that was an aimpoint tankers were instructed to aim for.

Some tanks carried extra gas in jerry cans or even fuel tanks that could be jettisoned.

Question may be how much time and effort would BF need to rectify any weakness in the game to cover something so rare in real life. May be other more pressing things to worry about? And really just how common and often were fts used in Europe?

Apparantly they were quite common on the eastern front. I read a bit about it and was surprised at how common they were.

As for the time and effort, how long would it take for BFC to just increase the chances of engine damage? I can't imagine it would take a very long time. The chance is already in there, it's just very low. Increasing the chance shouldn't take much effort (in my layman eyes)

[c3k]

Panther fuel: internal in the engine bay.

The Soviets were the main (only?) users of external fuel tanks in WWII. And, my understanding is that the external fuel tanks were supposed to be empty before combat. Burn it on the approach march.

[Oddball_E8]

Panther fuel: internal in the engine bay.

The Soviets were the main (only?) users of external fuel tanks in WWII. And, my understanding is that the external fuel tanks were supposed to be empty before combat. Burn it on the approach march.

Yeah, the panthers always (well, they were supposed to anyway) emptied those cans at the back before going into combat.

[c3k]

Yeah, the panthers always (well, they were supposed to anyway) emptied those cans at the back before going into combat.

Huh? What cans? There are two sheet metal stowage bins (sometimes) mounted near the exhaust pipes, just above the treads on the rear hull. They were NOT fuel tanks.