Jarmo Posted July 19, 2000 Share Posted July 19, 2000 Could some wise men fill me in here? From what I know, there was not huge amounts of flamethrower vechiles and teams around during WWII. In CM these units are expensive, and effective. If manufacturing cost of flamethrower is not much greater than, say, a 20 mm gun, why didn't everybody have huge amounts of them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackhorse Posted July 19, 2000 Share Posted July 19, 2000 There were a few issues to contend with. One was the fact they used fuel which generally was a precious resource on the battlefield. Next, there was the fact that the flame-thrower was bulky and heavy and had to be carried by a hefty fella who had gonads the size of Montana to be able to get within..say 60 feet to use the thrower. All this while becoming a marked man on the battlefield. Then, there is the issue about limited uses. After a few bursts, the thrower is empty and the user has to resort to a sidearm. Finally, there is the issue of volatility. FTs were just as likely to harm their fellow soldiers as they were the enemy. Accidental ignitings and wayward bursts tended to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tss Posted July 19, 2000 Share Posted July 19, 2000 If manufacturing cost of flamethrower is not much greater than, say, a 20 mm gun, why didn't everybody have huge amounts of them? Because they had only limited use. Namely, they were used to take out specific fortifications when a bunker line had to be breached. The flamethrower units advanced near a bunker in cover of artillery barrage or smoke (an inclusive or here). As Blackhorse mentioned, they had too short range to be used in other situations. In a fluid battle, it was rare to get to flamethrower range. Note that in early '42 Finnish army decided to convert all OT-26 (and -130 and -133) flamethrower tanks into normal gun models because they were found to be practically useless in combat. The problem was to get near enough. The approaches to Soviet bunkers were covered by mined 'murros'es (I don't have any idea what that's in English. Basically it is a big pile of small felled trees that slows down advance) and by the time the minefields had been cleared enough to allow passage by tanks, infantry had taken the bunkers. Note also that flamethrower tanks in the West Front had better (longer-ranged) flamethrowers than T-26 based models. - Tommi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted July 19, 2000 Share Posted July 19, 2000 According to John Sands' document 'Britorg.rtf', the MG Coy of UK armoured divisions had six flamethrowers. I would assume that these were Wasps. No idea where infantry divisions got the Wasps from. There seem to have been a few of these. According to this website http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/8418/index.html#uk there were not more than 45 Crocodiles in June (assuming they all were Churchill VII conversions and all in the 141 RAC, there are no Crocodile figures for that month), 90 Crocodiles in Dec.44 (certain), and 166 in June 1945 (with 21 in depots). So for scenario design I would not allocate more than one Wasp or Crocodile per infantry batallion as a rule. They are nifty, but like heavy arty or large tank formations, infantry batallion and brigage level COs had no direct access to them, but had to ask. In the battle for Lingen during Varsity, one batallion of infantry was supported by one Wasp. The Sgt. commanding the Wasp received the DSM for that, IIRC. These weapons had a terrible effect on morale, and therefore you did not need a lot of them. Jerry may or may not have liked cold steel, but he certainly hated flamethrower tanks. According to Hastings 'Overlord', Crocodile tank crews that surrendered were often summarily shot on the spot. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted July 19, 2000 Author Share Posted July 19, 2000 Oh yeah, the fuel shortage. Still, I was under impression, that allies had plenty of gas. Maybe I'm wrong, wouldn't be the first. Limited use because of thrower getting empty quickly I don't understand. All weapons need to be filled from time to time Limited use because they were not practical, I can understand. But are they too good in CM then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted July 19, 2000 Share Posted July 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: Still, I was under impression, that allies had plenty of gas. Maybe I'm wrong, wouldn't be the first. Limited use because of thrower getting empty quickly I don't understand. All weapons need to be filled from time to time Limited use because they were not practical, I can understand. But are they too good in CM then?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> They had lots of fuel, but in late summer 1944 not where they needed it, ie on the frontline. Well all weapons need refilling, but if you can only squirt three or four times before you have to had back, it is a questionnable use of man-power. As was discussed before, the ones carried on the back are not very useful, they tend to die very fast. The vehicular ones are quite useful, but if scenario designers and people in quick battles keep their rarity in mind (look at the above figures), the problem should be solved. They are also quite vulnerable, b/c they still have to get into the range of Panzerfausts to work. Having said all that, if I fire up a quick battle expecting a realistic force make-up, and encounter 10 Flammpanzer 38(t), I know who is off my list of PBEM opponents. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Peltz Posted July 19, 2000 Share Posted July 19, 2000 I am glad that someone has addressed the historical availability of certain types of equipment. Reading some of the earlier posts on games where there were an even dozen flame units and three dozen King Tigers appearing kind of made my hair stand on end. I show that 6 Wasps were (under ideal circumstances), supposed to be allocated to each infantry battalion (Illustrated Encyclopedia of Twentieth Century Weapons and Warfare, Columbia House, 1979). Since circumstances were seldom, if ever ideal, I would suggest maybe three or less is more like it. For the size of most scenarios in CM, one would be the rule of thumb I would use: I would also apply this to AVRE's and most other "specialty" items. Tommi- I think the English word (actually French, but we stole it) that closest describes the tree barricades would be "abatis." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted July 19, 2000 Share Posted July 19, 2000 D'uh! Okay it is John D. Salt, not John Sands. And I just checked his Britorg. According to that there were 45 Crocodiles in Normandy, all in 141 RAC, and 36 AVRE Petards. So if you design scenarios and want to achieve historic accuracy, sprinkle these two in with care, no matter how cool (or hot, pardon the pun) they are. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted July 19, 2000 Share Posted July 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: So if you design scenarios and want to achieve historic accuracy, sprinkle these two in with care, no matter how cool (or hot, pardon the pun) they are.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hurridley working on adapting the ASL scenario "Cold Crocodiles" to CM. I plan to include both Crocs in the Brit OB, care be damned! BTW, does anyone know what sort of copyright issues might be involved in doing this? (especially since it's an "adaptation" not a "re-creation") ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rune Posted July 19, 2000 Share Posted July 19, 2000 Not to wreck your day or anything, but it has been done, and rather well I may add. I tested it with the scenario designer. It get's the Rune's thumbs up. Will let the designer state what/when he is going to post it. Rune <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IntelWeenie: Hurridley working on adapting the ASL scenario "Cold Crocodiles" to CM. I plan to include both Crocs in the Brit OB, care be damned! BTW, does anyone know what sort of copyright issues might be involved in doing this? (especially since it's an "adaptation" not a "re-creation") <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [This message has been edited by rune (edited 07-19-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sten Posted July 19, 2000 Share Posted July 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: <snip> Limited use because they were not practical, I can understand. But are they too good in CM then?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Do you still think they are too good? I think they're pretty realistic. Good, if you can get the enemy to come to you, fragile as h*ll, while on the move. Sten ------------------ Keep your whisky on the rocks and your tanks on the roll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted July 19, 2000 Share Posted July 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rune: Not to wreck your dau or anything, but it has been done, and rather well I may add. I tested it with the scenario designer. It get's the Rune's thumbs up. Will let the designer state what/when he is going to post it. Rune <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Curses! Foiled again! Tell him to hurry up the posting; it's one of my favorite ASL scenarios.... ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted July 19, 2000 Author Share Posted July 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sten: Do you still think they are too good? I think they're pretty realistic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's what I'd like to know, if they're realistic or not. I don't find them quite worth their price, but if they are, why weren't they used more in real life. I've had pretty good answers, but remain partly unconvinced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted July 19, 2000 Share Posted July 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: I've had pretty good answers, but remain partly unconvinced.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Look at the numbers: 6/44 - 45 Crocs 12/44 - 90 Crocs 6/45 - 166 Crocs (+21 in depots) That indicates to me that the British army thought they were useful. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted July 19, 2000 Author Share Posted July 19, 2000 Yes, more of the flamers in the end. But there was more of everything in the end. Total amount of flamers, compared to other vechiles, is still very small. Still, it's obvious they weren't considered worthless. And crocodile is kind of an exception, it doesn't have to rely in it's flamethrower, as it also has a decent gun. Having said that, I don't really know what I still want. It's just that.. dunno.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts