Flame On!

[ASL Veteran]

I have to say that I am a little disappointed in the performance of the Flame Thrower - especially the man pack version. First you only get eight or nine shots (reasonable), second you have to be within 32 meters (historically accurate), and third you have to stay alive long enough to use the dang thing (true enough). The problem is that after you have managed to work your way into position to use the thing, it seems like your chances of hitting are very low. I've had an enemy squad directly in front of me and the Flame Thrower team shoots its fiery fingers of death off to the extreme left or right - as if the guy using the thing was cross eyed.

To top it all off, after securing one of those rare hits you might kill a man or two from the enemy squad if you are lucky. Now the morale effect is pretty severe (as it should be), but really - is the average flame thrower in CM really worth all the effort?

It seems to me that the Flame Thrower is more of an area 'fire' device. Does it matter if your troops are hiding behind a tree or hiding in a foxhole when the fingers of flame are searching for you? No, I don't think it matters - so I believe that a squad's exposure should make NO difference in the accuracy of a Flame Thrower. The protection that you gain from being in a foxhole or in the woods should be reduced too for the same reasons as stated above.

I welcome all flames that are added to this thread

[Jeff Heidman]

I agree. The (very rare) occasions I have gotten to actually fire a FT at a target have been less than impressive.

I had a FT in a building once light up a Sherman right outside the building that was immobilized. It took the FT 4 shots to get the crew to bail from the vehicle from about 10 meters.

They seem to be useful as a terrain denial weapon, but that is about it.

Jeff Heidman

[Private Pike]

I found one use for back pack flame throwers, They draw all the AIs fire onto them allowing you to move up more useful units. On the other hand the churchill crocc is great fun.

[Guest ACTOR]

I wouldn't say that I have been extremely successful, but I have been able to knock out a couple of tanks and route a number of squads. I agree, however, trying to get them in position to be effective is a trying effort. Most times, they get hosed by everything on the map when spotted.

Their relatively slow speed is the main problem. Once spotted their easy targets because they can't get out of the way. I try to employ covered movement around the flanks in order to use them. When I can do this, they are VERY effective.

[tss]

Let's make a funny calculation.(I'm doing this on the fly so don't expect too much accuracy).

Let's suppose that the flame incapacitates a person in 1 second. I don't know whether this is reasonable or not but I'd guess that shorter exposures wouldn't give long lasting damage.

Next, suppose that the target is a 10-man infantry squad in foxholes covering a 20 x 20 meter area (one CM terrain square), with one foxhole being 1m x 1m.

I'm not an expert on flamethrowers, so let's just assume that the point of effect (where the flame touches ground) is 2m x 2m.

Now, the square has 20x20 = 400 possible foxhole locations. (If we allow two-man or larger foxholes). At any point the flame will cover 4 locations. So, supposing that you want to give each possible location a 1 second spray and you can move the flame instantly, it will take 400/4 = 100 seconds to cover the whole area.

Except that you have fuel only for 8 seconds, so you can cover only 32 of the 400 possible spots.

These figures were taken straight out of a hat but I'd say that when firing a dispersed squad, one or two casualties is the maximum. (Morale effects are altogether different issue).

The flamethrowers are most effective when attacking fixed fortifications where you can be quite certain that the enemy is concentrated in a quite small area. Favourite targets are firing slits of bunkers and trench-clearing.

- Tommi

[Joe Shaw]

For the most part I agree with you Jeff, the man pack flamers are terribly vulnerable and the actual casualties they cause seem very low. Given the right situation, however, they can be very nasty in that they can force units into the open. I recently had opportunity to flame a couple of houses occupied by bad guys. They didn't take too many casualties from the flame, but they had to run out into the street where they were cut to pieces by my other infantry and MGs.

In another case, I used a Wasp to force three squads out of a house at which time they also suffered from "normal" infantry fire. It appears that IF you can get the flamers in range, having support handy to take advantage of the enemy running out of the area may make the difference.

Joe

[Chupacabra]

Also, there's a reason why no major army uses flamethrowers in any sort of combat situation anymore. The damn things were more trouble than they were worth.

I find them best in ambushes.

------------------

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[David Aitken]

Flamethrowers are no use for general infantry purposes, but essentially they're nutcrackers. You should ideally keep them in reserve (or at least, out of harm's way) until you come up against a really stubborn fortification, and then use the flamethrower to clear it out.

The instance that always springs to mind when I think about flamethrowers is US Marines clearing out Japanese island fortifications. Very handy for making sure they're clear, because flames get into places where bullets can't. The Germans didn't really dig themselves in so well, or defend so fanatically, so there's less need for flamethrowers in Europe.

David

------------------

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

[aka_tom_w]

Here's a thought.....

I have found they work well against units in buildings. If you can use cover and the woods to get them close enough they really can light a building on fire, the units will them abandon the building and you can mow them down as they exit

or try to light the woods or their cover on fire.

I figure the flame thrower is not really that good at inflicting mega death or casualities but it should set smoething on fire and make them run out in the open.

Its not a machine gun or a tank or anything, but those 2 man flamthrower squads can really light up the battlfield if you are interested in torching things like buildings or abandoned tanks or woods or brush, then you can target the exiting units, with bullets that actually seem to be much more effective

If you don't expect any "miracles" out of these guys they can be VERY handy in defensive ambush positions as well.

just my thoughts

-tom w

[Redleg]

Actually Flamers are very effective, they are just disallowed by the Law of Land Warfare - Geneva Convention.

Anyway, I have only used them once. When I used it, it worked well. The rightmost platoon in VOT was being overrun so I targeted the flamer at the trees where the germans were. The fire made them high tail it into the road on the left where a .50cal cleaned them up.

Other than that, they are a pain to keep alive.

[Disaster]

Flamethrower Teams are best used in ambush on defense. Hide them and then set up ambush points. Deadly for any team that is heading toward what they perceive is cover when out of the cover a swath of flame shoots out making them all roll around in as their flesh drips off their bones in gobbets, screaming, screaming. Oh my god the screams. I can't get them out my ...

------------------

---

I am Legend

[sniperscope]

Regardless of how good or effective they are:

they sure look good hahahaha

sniperscope

[Lane]

On subjct flame thrower.

I saw this in the demo. German tank was

moving around enemy troops on ground All

sudden this guy approches tank and its torched playing the replay it was a inf

Flame thrower unit.

Never saw this happen again so far.

Last night I was playing german side and I

had a Flame Thrower tank. It got wiped out

before seeing it in action.

Have you guys seen it in action?

Lane

[Joe Shaw]

Don't they though SS Nothing is quite as satisfying as hearing that "SWHOOOSSHHH" and knowing that the little bastards finally got it right.

Joe

[ASL Veteran]

I think my biggest thing is the accuracy of the weapon as modeled in CM. Sometimes it feels like the thing is firing everywhere but where you want to fire it. I have had occasion to use them numerous times in CM - I don't know why, but I always seem to have them in the scenarios I play.

As far as the effectiveness goes - I suppose it could be argued that maybe the casualties are more or less in line, but (and this is a big but) we are making several assumptions about what is going on. The squad is not going to be dispersed over the entire 20x20 square that is a tile in CM. Just looking at one squad standing in one square should be sufficient to see that this is a false assumption. To say that the flames only cover a 2x2 meter area is also questionable. Now I've never used a FlameThrower before, but from the newsreels of Marines flaming Japanese bunkers, the flame that is spewing forth is very robust in size, and easily exceeds 2m x 2m.

[robo]

The AI ambushed a squad of mine with a FT while they were sneaking through some Woods. Before I could get to them, the Woods were all aflame but they had lost only one man. I decided (probably incorrectly) to cancel their current move and have them run away in the opposite direction - the entire squad was lost within 30 seconds!

[TankDawg]

Hi Disaster,

You are right, in CM they are only effective in the defense.The problem being is that FTs were Offensive weapons, not defensive.

They will really need to get this fixed for CM2 - especially in Stalingrad.

Jeff

[Maastrictian]

I agree that the man portable version is not the best. The "croc" tanks (especially the Chruchill) are the best tanks around IMO. The flame thrower is a good alternative to the wimpy 75mm gun the CHurchill normally carries. And there is nothing better in a city fight. The easiest way to get the bad guys out of a building is to set it on fire. Its too easy to go overboard on this though and not leave yourself any avenue of advance.

--Chris

[tss]

ASL Veteran wrote:

As far as the effectiveness goes - I suppose it could be argued that maybe the casualties are more or less in line, but (and this is a big but) we are making several assumptions about what is going on.

As I mentioned, I took the assumptions right out my hat on the fly. I tried to use figures that sounded reasonable to me.

The squad is not going to be dispersed over the entire 20x20 square that is a tile in CM.

Actually, the worst gripe that I have with CM is that the infantry squads are grouped too tight. I'm not an expert on squad tactical formations that were in use in different armies, but here in Finland the most common battle formation was an open line that was about 40-60 meters wide, the men being 3-8 meters from each other. Of course, this would depend heavily on conditions of the battle. During assaults the density would be higher as well as when defending isolated strongpoints.

Just looking at one squad standing in one square should be sufficient to see that this is a false assumption.

Umm... I fail to see that. I seem to remember that BTS has stated (many times) that the actual squad figure depicts the "mass center" of the squad and the actual men are considered to be spread out.

To say that the flames only cover a 2x2 meter area is also questionable. Now I've never used a FlameThrower before, but from the newsreels of Marines flaming Japanese bunkers, the flame that is spewing forth is very robust in size, and easily exceeds 2m x 2m.

I may well be wrong, but I'd guess that firing at bunker results in a larger ball of flame than firing at open ground. The reason for this is that some of the flames would reflect back from the walls of the bunker.

My 2x2 meter figure was an estimate of the size of the fire ball where it touches open ground when fired from 15-20 meters. As I've never handled a flamethrower, I don't know how accurate this estimate is.

About a week ago I had a chance to read a Finnish flamethrower operator's guide that was written in 1942 (or '41, I'm not sure anymore). According to it, there are three uses for a flamethrower in combat:

1) Destroying bunkers and other fortifications.

2) Clearing trenches during an attack (as an alternative for the point smg gunner).

3) Ambushing tanks. In this role the flamethrowers were used in pairs: the first one blinds the tank and the second one ignites the engine.

- Tommi

[Priest]

Hey guys.

I struggled with the flamethrower unit inthe beginning but found out a nasty combo. If you are the Allies and are planning to invest in a flamethrower then get veteran first thing. Second (this is important) buy an American .50 cal jeep, also veteran. Now park the jeep in the rear with the flamethrower embarked. Let the enemy show themselves and then deploy the jeep/flamethrower team where they are needed most. The veteran status will help keep them from abandoning the jeep under light small arms fire. When the flame crew disembarks then have the jeeps .50 cal cover them. It works like a charm. The .50 cal can usually suppress the target allowing the flamethrower into position. The enemy runs and gets mowed down by the .50 cal. Great Combo.

------------------

Sir are you sure you want to go to red alert...it would mean changing the bulb

-Priest

[Oddball_E8]

Wouldnt it be nice if you could make (very) short sprints, say about 20m, with these flamethrowers... as it is now they move REALLY slow... slower than normal infantry.

I mean, even if the tank on your back may be a bit heavy, you sure as hell dont mosy on over a street in a slow orderly maner when youre being shot at... now do you?

But seriously, IMO they are a bit too slow... they are slower than the american 50 cal HMG ant that is a heavy piece of machinery. shouldnt they at least be a little faster?

[Guest Mr. Johnson-<THC>-]

Yes, they draw fire like nothing else. I guess maybe we are all trying to be to aggressive with them. Maybe we should not move them at all for like the first 10 tens then move to the front to finish the job. Got to toss them in half tracks they are so slow. Any play Gettysburg! yet?

[ASL Veteran]

Originally posted by tss:

As I mentioned, I took the assumptions right out my hat on the fly. I tried to use figures that sounded reasonable to me.

Yeah, I know. I wasn't trying to flame you - or maybe I was Anyway, since they were the only figures tossed out there, I used them. I only mentioned the squad standing in a 20x20 square to demonstrate the spacial relationships that we are talking about here. A 20x20 space is a large area and to assume that a squad is always going to be totally dispersed in that large an area I think is a false one. Sure, an ideal situation would be for all those guys to be dispersed that way, but the reality is that the squad leader has to communicate with all those guys, and the farther apart they are, the more difficult it is to do that - especially in the noise of battle. Typically you may want to keep your troops within eyesight so you can at least give hand signals. Frequently, infantry will tend to clump together, and only very well trained and disciplined troops can maintain large intervals at all times.

The main problem to me is that the system seems to take exposure into the 'to hit' equation when I don't think it should be included at all for a FlameThrower. The main thing is that your 'exposure' shouldn't matter at all. This makes it far more difficult to even achieve a hit in the first place. This is just a searing blast of flaming hot death that is headed your way

I have spent many frustrating turns where my flamethrowers have gotten into position only to have them fire three or five of their nine shots everywhere but where the enemy is.

[Tiny]

Haven't really used MP flamethrower much.

Can remember when playing Valley of Trouble I managed to take out 2 buildings + occupants and the Panther with it.

Looks good though. !!

[Disaster@work]

hmmm how about trying this. Get an FT to ride the back of a tank. Get the tank to rush up close, FT drops off and the tank withdraws to provide cover. FT goes FLAME ON.

------------------

----

To download my scenarios: go to

http://www3.telus.net/pop_n_fresh/combatmiss/index.htm