Fire and Rubble Update

[Canada Guy]

In the video - Did the halftrack flamethrower take out the Russian tank? Or was it hit by a shell at the same time (as I had thought that flamethrowers were useless against tanks)

Edited April 16, 2020 by Canada Guy

[Xorg_Xalargsky]

It was hit by a tank shell just before the flamethrower opened fire.

Matter of fact, I think the flamethrower opened fire because the vehicle was destroyed and it was aiming at the crew.

[Aquila-SmartWargames]

Yes the flamethrower vs tank, an interesting situation.

4 hours ago, Canada Guy said:

Or was it hit by a shell at the same time

In the video situation it was indeed hit by a Stummel HEAT round the same time. It deemed me when I checked the casualty statistics afterwards.

4 hours ago, Canada Guy said:

I had thought that flamethrowers were useless against tanks)

Depends, if for you "useless against tanks" equals there is no way to harm a tank with flamethrowers in CM than no this is not the case. If you define it by being absolutely not reliable when dealing with tanks than yes as achieving an effect on a tank with a flamethrower might be a matter of luck with low chance.

4 hours ago, Xorg_Xalargsky said:

 I think the flamethrower opened fire because the vehicle was destroyed and it was aiming at the crew.

The flamethrower fired at the tank.

 

I did an experiment video ago and possible effects on a Panther tank can be seen condensed here. The chance to achieve such effects in this specific Panther case was low. The chance might depend on factors like vehicle model, engagement angle etc. 

 

Edited April 17, 2020 by Aquila-SmartWargames

[Bulletpoint]

9 hours ago, Aquila-SmartWargames said:

Yes the flamethrower vs tank, an interesting situation.

In the video situation it was indeed hit by a Stummel HEAT round the same time. It deemed me when I checked the casualty statistics afterwards.

Depends, if for you "useless against tanks" equals there is no way to harm a tank with flamethrowers in CM than no this is not the case. If you define it by being absolutely not reliable when dealing with tanks than yes as achieving an effect on a tank with a flamethrower might be a matter of luck with low chance.

The flamethrower fired at the tank.

 

I did an experiment video ago and possible effects on a Panther tank can be seen condensed here. The chance to achieve such effects in this specific Panther case was low. The chance might depend on factors like vehicle model, engagement angle etc. 

 

That's new.. I've seen some other flamethrower test that showed absolutely no damage on tanks. Maybe it got changed with a recent patch...

[Aquila-SmartWargames]

2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

I've seen some other flamethrower test that showed absolutely no damage on tanks.

It could depend on the tank model, I just did  testing on a limited sample of attempts and vehicles but some seemed to be almost impenetrable for flamethrowers

When I did the full testing video I remember that I did some research out of curiosity on this topic. I recall that I´ve read an article that prior the war there was some testing done on using flamethrowers in a primary AT fashion and results were achieved with the burning liquid penetrating into the inner compartment through niches. However it seems that this method never developed into something serious compared to the wide-spread use of launchers and (DIY) throwables which might utilize on the flame/flare effect aswell in order to stun, immobilize, or entirely disable tanks.

In short: possible but likely not viable. Concluding upon this limited and short research it seems that the CM simulation nailed it pretty authentic again.

Edited April 17, 2020 by Aquila-SmartWargames

[Bulletpoint]

2 hours ago, Aquila-SmartWargames said:

It could depend on the tank model, I just did  testing on a limited sample of attempts and vehicles but some seemed to be almost impenetrable for flamethrowers

When I did the full testing video I remember that I did some research out of curiosity on this topic. I recall that I´ve read an article that prior the war there was some testing done on using flamethrowers in a primary AT fashion and results were achieved with the burning liquid penetrating into the inner compartment through niches. However it seems that this method never developed into something serious compared to the wide-spread use of launchers and (DIY) throwables which might utilize on the flame/flare effect aswell in order to stun, immobilize, or entirely disable tanks.

In short: possible but likely not viable. Concluding upon this limited and short research it seems that the CM simulation nailed it pretty authentic again.

How long (how many flame bursts) did it take you to knock out the Panther?

[Erwin]

Am thinking that the problem was not the lethality of a flamethrower vs WW2 era AFV's but getting close enough with a short range weapon like a bulky flamethrower that was hard to hump around and made the carrier an obvious target.  Much easier to hide and deploy a 'Faust or Bazooka.

As discussed elsewhere it's hard to use a flamethrower even vs inf.  The inf have to first be suppressed so they can't fire back and the flamers are only useful for mopping up or vs bunkers.

[Aquila-SmartWargames]

3 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

How long (how many flame bursts) did it take you to knock out the Panther?

In the description of the Panther/Flamethrower Youtube video is a link to the full testing footage

Edited April 17, 2020 by Aquila-SmartWargames

[Bulletpoint]

51 minutes ago, Aquila-SmartWargames said:

In the description of the Panther/Flamethrower Youtube video is a link to the full testing footage

From watching the full video, I'm thinking it's not about weak spots... it's more that each flame "blob" has some small but non-zero chance of causing a catastrophic explosion.

[Aquila-SmartWargames]

4 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

From watching the full video, I'm thinking it's not about weak spots... it's more that each flame "blob" has some small but non-zero chance of causing a catastrophic explosion.

That is possible.

I can´t remember exactly how the testing played out in the video but if I recall correctly the skirted Pz4 was very hard to damage/knock out while the Panther at some point showed result which then brought up the idea that it might have something to do with individual differences, weaknesses, or what spot on the tank the liquid manages to make contact with. However with such a small sample size all of this could be coincidental.

Edited April 17, 2020 by Aquila-SmartWargames

[Bulletpoint]

11 hours ago, Aquila-SmartWargames said:

if I recall correctly the skirted Pz4 was very hard to damage/knock out while the Panther at some point showed result which then brought up the idea that it might have something to do with individual differences

My guess would be that it's simply a case of the skirt physically stopping the flame from touching the tank hull, and that it's only the actual hull that has been given the property that it can be destroyed by flame.

[snarre]

is game progres level still on (soon) status or move to (wery soon) ?  

[Hadwin73]

Yes, a really interesting question

[MikeyD]

US M4/M4A1, British tanks and PzIV were designed to be proof against fire attacks. Note there's no large uncovered open engine grates for the blazing liquid to pour into. US got away from that as their engine cooling needs grew with M4A3 engine deck. Napalm was utilized late in WWII by US Air Force as an antitank weapon. It would at the least remove the oxygen from the fighting compartment incapacitating the crew.

[Bulletpoint]

25 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

It would at the least remove the oxygen from the fighting compartment incapacitating the crew.

I don't think napalm burns long enough to remove the crew's oxygen... 

[jtsjc1]

If anything it seems that it will kill the engine by cutting off the air intake. Actually destroying the tank seems alot harder. Maybe by igniting raw fuel in the engine compartment.

[Ts4EVER]

Probably too late at this point, but considering amphibious vehicles are in, I assume this might also include the DUKW used by the Russians?

Because I recently researched OSNAZ forces (Special Purpose Motorized Battalions) and a friend of mine found some very interesting info. Basically these were special forces for crossing rivers and they were equipped with lend lease DUKWs. To make matters even more interesting, obviously they weren't able to transport every kind of heavy weapon, including the 45mm AT gun usually attached to Russian infantry. Because of that they had something called a "rocket rifle section". These were actually equipped with lend lease Bazookas, one of the few instances where these weapons were used by the Russians! Not only that, but here is a commendation for one Junior Seargent Degtyarev that my friend found and translated (don't speak Russian myself).

"Piat" rifle gunner Junior Sergeant Degtyarev - participant of the battles from Odessa to Vienna. In the battles for the city of Belgrade (Yugoslavia) on Lake Balaton (Hungary), he showed examples of courage and bravery. In the last battles on the Raba River on March 28, 1945, he was one of the first to cross the enemy shore. He captured the "tongue", destroying together with other fighters up to 25 enemy soldiers.

Original document:

[Haiduk]

1 hour ago, Ts4EVER said:

Probably too late at this point, but considering amphibious vehicles are in, I assume this might also include the DUKW used by the Russians?

Because I recently researched OSNAZ forces (Special Purpose Motorized Battalions) and a friend of mine found some very interesting info. Basically these were special forces for crossing rivers and they were equipped with lend lease DUKWs. 

There were 11 special purpose motorized battalions created since spring 1944. Their task was maintaining of forcing the rivers by rifle units or crossing the rivers themeselves, also troopers of that battalions received sapper training and were able to clear mines and wire obstacles in the places of landing along the rivers. Typical TO&E HQ + 2 x motorized companies per 3 platoons per 3 squads with amfibious vehicle each + mortar battery per 3 platoons per 3 mortar crews with amph.veh each + sapper company with 3 amph.veh and 5 trucks. + maintennance company

There are FORD-GPA and(or) GMC-DUKW were on armamemt. I can't say anything about PIATs/Bazookas in these units, but UK really sent to USSR 1000 PIATs and 100000 projectiles to them.  

In neighbor thread about Warsaw uprising I've meant some Soviet "amphibious battalion", which maintained attempts of Polish Army to take bridgehaeds on westrn bank of Visla - there was 274th  special purpose motorized battalion. Further in Berlin operation about half of all these units participated.

 

Edited April 18, 2020 by Haiduk

[JM Stuff]

14 hours ago, Haiduk said:

There were...

 

Very nice infos, rarity of pictures !!

Edited April 19, 2020 by 3j2m7

[Holien]

The photos popping up just lately are great, thanks for posting them...

[DesertFox]

Great appetizers here. But I have to ask the obvious question. Any sensible guestimate when we can start playing our own Seelow Heights scenarios? Summer or Autumn or X-mas? Or god forbid...2021?

[Bud Backer]

The other day, I saw this in another thread. It’s exciting to see someone discover a new front, and a new game.  

But I would never have thought the eastern front could be described as “easy!”

 

19 hours ago, Falaise said:

 

I come back to this thread and my subject will only concern Red Thunder !!

It's been over a month now that I'm fighting in the East and can give my first impressions. My surprise is to see how different the game can be from Normandy and Italy

It's easier (much easier) than in Italy.

For once we even tremble with a panther or a tiger!

 My surprise is the SU 76, I took it for a "tankette". Bitter meeting when one is German. Great surprise also the Soviet snipers.

Frankly, I have only one regret is not having bought it before !!

 

Easy?

 

Edited May 4, 2020 by Bud Backer

[Ts4EVER]

Is this the start of an AAR?

[Falaise]

5 hours ago, Bud Backer said:

L'autre jour, j'ai vu cela dans un autre fil. C'est excitant de voir quelqu'un découvrir un nouveau front et un nouveau jeu. 

Mais je n'aurais jamais pensé que le front oriental pouvait être décrit comme «facile!»

 

 

Facile?

 

It is true that said like that it may seem strange !!!
But Bud you make me say what I don't say 
I'm not saying it's easy, I'm saying it's easier than CM Italy

it is often explained to the new player that CM Normandy is the best choice for beginners because he offers the most with all his modules ...
however for the technique of game I think that Red thunder is more affordable

CM Italy is to be flee because I think it can discourage new player
very beautiful picture

[Freyberg]

6 hours ago, Bud Backer said:

Easy?

From the Allied perspective, the games get more balanced as you get closer to the end of the war; on the Eastern Front, even the CMRT base game offers the Soviet player (and I much prefer playing the Allies) some serious firepower. Panthers aren't that tough in CMRT...