John Kettler Posted December 4, 2000 Share Posted December 4, 2000 I read much of the reams on flamethrowers and found nothing on this matter, but maybe I missed something. I'd like to know why a flamethrower team can't split into two guys, each with a flamethrower? I've used flamethrowers repeatedly, have taken a casualty in my flamethrower team on numerous occasions, but have never lost flame capability. Ergo, I'm forced to conclude that the team has two men armed with a flamethrower per, either that or I've always taken the casualty from the escort, presumably armed with a rifle or SMG. If there are indeed two flamethrowers in a team, as I believe to be true, why can't the team split, thus providing more tactical flexibility in their use? Sincerely, John Kettler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow 1st Hussars Posted December 4, 2000 Share Posted December 4, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Kettler: I read much of the reams on flamethrowers and found nothing on this matter, but maybe I missed something. I'd like to know why a flamethrower team can't split into two guys, each with a flamethrower? I've used flamethrowers repeatedly, have taken a casualty in my flamethrower team on numerous occasions, but have never lost flame capability. Ergo, I'm forced to conclude that the team has two men armed with a flamethrower per, either that or I've always taken the casualty from the escort, presumably armed with a rifle or SMG. If there are indeed two flamethrowers in a team, as I believe to be true, why can't the team split, thus providing more tactical flexibility in their use? Sincerely, John Kettler<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> the fact is there is only one flame thrower in a team. Watch the movie "a bridge to far" it demonstrates it well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted December 4, 2000 Share Posted December 4, 2000 While I'm not convinced that there were two flamethrowers in Allied or German flamethrower teams, I don't think it's a particularly good idea to cite Hollywood movies as proof. Rather, I think that the ability of flamethrower teams to continue firing after one casualty is an abstraction similar to a rifle squad remanning the squad support weapon if the soldier carrying it is hit. ------------------ Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted December 4, 2000 Share Posted December 4, 2000 There is one flamethrower. If the operartor gets hit, his assistant takes over the flamethrower. It's not an integral part of the operator's body, after all. Yes, there is a certain abstraction in that the exchange can take place very quickly. However, as they are a team, they are in very close proximity. I'm puzzled that you would assume anything different. Did you assume that every member of an MG squad had a machine gun, or that every mortarman had his own mortar? ------------------ Tremble, tyrants and you perfidious opprobrium of all the parties, Tremblez! your parricidal projects finally will receive their prices! But these sanguinary despots, But these accomplices of Berli, All these tigers which, without pity, Bauhaus the centre of their mother! We will enter the career When our elder is not there any more, We will find there their dust And the trace of their virtues [This message has been edited by Seanachai (edited 12-03-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deuce Posted December 4, 2000 Share Posted December 4, 2000 curious, if one guy can run a flame thrower, what's the assistant for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted December 4, 2000 Share Posted December 4, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Deuce: curious, if one guy can run a flame thrower, what's the assistant for?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> He carries the Zippo and marshmallows ------------------ Frag Hanoi Jane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freyland Posted December 4, 2000 Share Posted December 4, 2000 I thought the second guy was for carrying the sign saying, "Shoot us, were slow" Just an observation Jonathan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compassion Posted December 4, 2000 Share Posted December 4, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Deuce: curious, if one guy can run a flame thrower, what's the assistant for?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's just like in A Bridge Too Far... the other guy is to pop off wisecracks and berate the operator when he misses, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Clark Posted December 4, 2000 Share Posted December 4, 2000 Freyland, hilarious post! Perhaps I simply find it more amusing because I have NEVER ONCE effectively walked a flamethrower team to a target and fired the damn thing... not freaking once... ------------------ "The truth was that the Germans were losing faster than the Allies could win." - A Bridge Too Far Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StellarRat Posted December 4, 2000 Share Posted December 4, 2000 You have to use a lot of cover or a thick smoke screen to get a flamethrower in position. I've done it in the Aachen scenario by moving the flamethrower through buildings one by one. When they do fire, they are devastating against infantry worse than any tank gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow 1st Hussars Posted December 4, 2000 Share Posted December 4, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra: While I'm not convinced that there were two flamethrowers in Allied or German flamethrower teams, I don't think it's a particularly good idea to cite Hollywood movies as proof. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not. one man is has a rifle and "supports" the flamethrower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kking199 Posted December 4, 2000 Share Posted December 4, 2000 LOL... I have had limited success with FT's as well but they can be nasty in ambush roles! I also have successfully split a FT team... well actually it wasn't that successful as at the point of the splitting they blew up.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CATguy Posted December 4, 2000 Share Posted December 4, 2000 Flamethrowers of that era often required the assistant to turn the tanks on, light the pilot, and adjust the mixture and regulate the pressure all while under fire. Quite a task if you think of of it. Flamethrowers were usually brought up to the point of resistance. The operator strapped in and the assistant did his tasks and off they went usually with in 100 meters to flame the target. The tanks alone weigh in at over 100 lbs depending on the model and are very cumbersone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted December 4, 2000 Share Posted December 4, 2000 Having used a flame thrower (1960s vintage, but there was also one from 1943 there) I can assure you that an assistant is needed. As CATguy said, someone needs to get the thing functional while the operator gets ready to use it. It is quite bulky and would be very difficult to move fast with it. In WWII they initially tried to use FT teams like independent heavy weapons teams. Bad idea. They were singled out and picked off very easily. It was found that the whole platoon had to advance and "fix" the target in question. Keep it occupied and their heads down. Then someone would run back (the assistant perhaps), get the unlucky sod with the flamethrower, lead him to a preselected firing position (platoon leader designated), and then have him fire at the designated target. As you can see, this process is rather deliberate and rather time consuming. FTs were not generally used against anything that could move. At least not while on the attack. The reason why should be obvious, especially if you try it in CM Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted December 4, 2000 Share Posted December 4, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Seanachai: It's not an integral part of the operator's body, after all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Darn! I thought the FT was some cybernetic limb function added to those that had lost an arm or two in combat... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StellarRat: You have to use a lot of cover or a thick smoke screen to get a flamethrower in position.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I guess putting up a flame screen in front would provide some nice concealment... Cheers Olle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Clark Posted December 4, 2000 Share Posted December 4, 2000 Thanks for the description Steve, it helps me understand them a bit better in CM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Brian Posted December 4, 2000 Share Posted December 4, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Clark: Perhaps I simply find it more amusing because I have NEVER ONCE effectively walked a flamethrower team to a target and fired the damn thing... not freaking once... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I was worried. I'm glad I'm not the only one. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mensch Posted December 4, 2000 Share Posted December 4, 2000 I thought the assistant was there to panic and run around screaming on fire when the FT blows up. I mean some one has to do that job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted December 6, 2000 Share Posted December 6, 2000 On the subject of flame throwers; here's a suggestion to how to (not?) get your own: Calvin and Hobbes (I also posted this in the Tips section.) Cheers Olle [This message has been edited by Olle Petersson (edited 12-06-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts