Flamethrowers Suck!!

[Sirocco]

I bought two FT teams in my last PBEM, and put one in a building behind which a StuH 42 was hiding, to provide it with some flank security. When a British squad made a dash for one of the VP flags it entered another nearby building and the FT team promptly flamed it, set the house on fire, and the British squad fled. That VP flag was never seriously threatened again.

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

"He belongs to a race which has coloured the map red, and all he wants are the green fields of England..."

- Joe Illingworth, Yorkshire Post War Correspondent

[Lorak]

Personally, I love the FT teams.

If your fighting on a low-visability map then an engineer squad is a great investment. Also the german flmae-hlf-track is a great asset also. If you have eliminated or countered any afv threat. Just suppress the area and move the track into place. Even if you don't seriuosly injure the enemey, you usually route them from the area.

Lorak

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

"Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; but make it hot by striking."--William Butler Yeats

Cesspool

[Michlos]

I would like to put together a tactics on how to use flamethrowers. Anyone have any suggestions on this one? Either post here or email me about it.

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

< All gave some, some gave ALL>

Owner of MiNa's CMBO Page

http://www.combat-mission.com

[Bobbaro]

Exploding fuels require a fairly narrow air-fuel mix. Anyone messing with an engine that has it wrong sees first hand how that goes. Fuel tanks are filled with fuel only, either liquid or vapor. That stuff only burns as it comes in contact with outside air. The most dangerous fuel tank as far as explosions are concerned is one that is "empty" where air has been introduced. It the mix is right and a source of ignition is present, bang.

Gasoline poses a flash hazard as its heavy vapors may move on away from the liquid from which they are derived before encountering a source of ignition. Such flashes can be very rapid and can, when the mix is right, provide somewhat of an explosively rapid burn. It is much more effective like gunpowder when the mix is contained. Large volumes of fuel as from ruptured fuel tanks suddenly energised by external forces so that the liquid is thrown about sometimes with some of it in various states of aerosolization can provide one hell of a flash or series thereof. For the person nearby, the difference between a flash or burn or explosion is inconsequential. Being tosted in a fireball or disentegrated by blast forces leaves little leeway for the discerning or picky.

Speaking domestically, propane is by far safer to handle than gasoline, though it deserves respect as well.

[Mr. Clark]

In Saving Private Ryan, a flamethrower team takes a hit to the tanks and it ignites about 3 people (the team I would suspect).

Since we ALL know that movies only depict real life in the truest sense, this is what I always imagined a flamethrower tank hit would do, at worst.

[Nick Carter]

****Possible Spoiler****

In Team DeSobry, as the US you have a flamethrower. If you save him until the night battle, he can do some good, if hidden in a building. Mine took out a SP gun and a HT, as well as supressing a few squads.

In South of Sword (maybe, I can't quite remember) I was attacked by German Pioneers, and rained mortar shells upon them - some sought refuge in scattered trees, when all of a sudden the tile was engulfed in flames -

because I assume, there was a FT team in there.

When playing as the axis, I set up a few of the FT teams in buildings, and when the AI blundered into town with their shermans, with no inf. support, I fried several shermans.

In "Move it or Lose it" you have a FT team as the US, I moved him up to the church where a squad or two of suppressed security squads were cowering in, and set it on fire.

Any time I am on the defense, at night, or in fog, FT teams are great.

In "Sherbrooke Fusiliers" the first thing that gets blown up as the Canadians, is the WASP, no matter how you try to move it, it gets blowed up real good.

[Splinty]

Shouldn't that be "flamethrowers blow?"

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

Nicht Schiessen!!

[tss]

Slapdragon:

I think lighting all the buildings in a town is gamey, but choosing one the enemy is using as a highway is good playing.

I don't see why that is gamey. I'm not certain on West Front but in the East it was very common to torch villages and even towns. Of course, this was most often done in winter and as a final thing to do before retreating from the village but there were also cases of lighting buildings during actual combat.

And sometimes torching buildings was the only purpose of the combat, as happened some times during the initial fighting withdrawl phase of the Winter War. The Soviets would find an intact house and send in some unlucky souls to see if it is mined and will blow up. If the house was still intact after the initial examination, some units would move in for the night. Then, in the middle of night would come a platoon of Finns with demolition charges and Molotov coctails to distrupt the sleep.

It is possible that my grandfather participated in one nightly house-burning mission on 2nd December 1939. I don't know that for certain because I don't know what platoon he was in. However, his engineer company sent one combined recon and burning patrol that night and my grandfather had a tendency of volunteering to dangerous assignments. (Apparently that patrol didn't actually meet Soviets since they were advancing very slowly and didn't enter the area until 4th December, two days after the last Finnish defenders leaved the area).

- Tommi

[Slapdragon]

Torching the houses you are getting your butt kicked out of is good tactics, torching all the buildings in the middle of a defence of a town you are trying not to get kicked out of is gamey. Imagine you are in the Ardennes in winter and retaining the town is of ultimate importance because it means your men are out from the cold. Do you, possesing a FT HT light everybuilding on fire but what you can staff? Nope, because fires spread and even though in the game engine we know the next building wont light, in real life it may well light and drive you out of your defence.

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

torching all the buildings in the middle of a defence of a town you are trying not to get kicked out of is gamey<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No way do I agree with any of this. Any commander can make a decision to burn any town, any time, without risk of gaminess.

The men in the Ardennes froze in foxholes on a regular basis. Sure, buildings were better, but the notion that retaining them to sleep in is better than denying them to the enemy, is absurd. I would love to hear your explanation to your commanding officer, after losing a town intact to the Germans, with the excuse that you were saving the buildings for billeting.

When I was in Germany in the late '70s I participated in countless terrain walks, and a standard plan was to rubble the town to deny it to the enemy, regardless of weather. Officers were occasionally admonished for neglecting to cover this step in their briefings (depending on the situation). I was often billeted in a tent in deep snow at the time (when I wasn't sleeping in my jeep trailer) and would have laughed aloud at this suggestion.

These notions of what constitutes "gamey" behavior are really taken to extremes by some. There is no loophole in the rules of which this takes advantage, there is ample historical precedent for it, and it is just one of the decisions a commander could make, right or wrong. Is it gamey to mine or crater a road, because it may be needed for the advance or supply of subsequent operations?

Commanders knowingly made decisions to send men to their deaths on a regular basis in WWII because it was for a higher good (the survival of the many, and to win the war). I find it hard to believe that such men would pale at torching a few buildings to spare their men sleeping in the cold, when they were doing exactly that all over the Ardennes.

[Olle Petersson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Commissar:

I remember one of the best ways to kill a tank was to flame it. ...

What is the heaviest armor that succumbs to flamethrower fire?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Armour isn't a parameter. The effect is that burning liquid is sucked into the engine compartment, usually through the rear upper deck.

This destroys the engine and thus the vehicle.

Not only FTs, but also Molotov Coctails are efficient in this respect.

(Oh, Napalm sipping through vision slits or open hatches do add to the devastation.)

Cheers

Olle

Cheers

Olle

[ahauschild]

Just started reading the posts.

I have had limited luck and success with flame throwers. Yes, at times they dont seem to be doing much, but other times i have wiped out almost 1 squad and routed two or two others ones with two shots.

As for the tactic on setting buildings or woods on fire to deny them to advancing enemy forces. Yes, it is a valid tactic. No matter what the resources you use, flames, tnt, mines, bobbytraps, or just plain attillery, if you have to retreat and any structure or dominent landmark that will give the advancing enemys any advantages, including civil buildings, bridges, churges, depos and rail are to be expandable. Know i know the American and British forces did draw the line on some structures, such as churches and such, but the Germans and Russions for that matter in general had no qualms about blowing up anyting they had to leave behind. They practiced scorched earth policy as a standard.

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

Andreas Hauschild

Who ever said that war was fair.

[Slapdragon]

Yeah, but the way to defend the town is not to light the building you are in on fire, that is plain stupid. Gamey means that stupid actions will not effect you in the frame of the game. IF the fire would spread from building to building as in real life, then I would agree. Also, if civilians were hiding in the basement of the building you were randomly torching, and you lost points for killing them, then it would not be gamey.

Now, before anyone says -- Germans killed hundreds of civilians if it would bring them victory -- it is part of being a soldier - it is not true. German Heer were very concerned for the safety of even the French civilians and never killed huddling civilians on the western front in any numbers. SS did, but even the SS had some compuction about killing Germans. I cannot find one incidence of a town being burned to keep it from the Allies on the Western front (although if anyone wants to point out an oral history that has such information in it I am not wedded to this idea), most town destructions were through active shelling while enemy soldiers were occupying.

And yes, US commanders tried very hard to keep towns rather than let their men freeze, even to the point of not shelling the towns if possible. The US has always been concerned with soldier comfort -- an oddity but a long running thread in almost every history you read.

Finally -- flame thrower mixture was rarely wasted. Better ways to burn a house than hit it with a flamethrower.

I should add: would you light the trees around the foxholes of your men on fire? Troops are scared by flame, and it would, in real life, be a bad idea to light the very building they are defending on fire.

[This message has been edited by Slapdragon (edited 10-01-2000).]

[Darwin]

I have been able to get good results from my flamethrower units. I don't expect any kills for them as a unit but use them to supress or rout a target as supporting infantry wipes them up.

Terrain density will of course heavily effect their usefullness on any particular map. The denser the better for them.

[tss]

Olle Petersson wrote:

Armour isn't a parameter. The effect is that burning liquid is sucked into the engine compartment, usually through the rear upper deck.This destroys the engine and thus the vehicle.

Yes, but a FT attack against a tank was not a certain kill by any means. Some vehicles had covers over air slits that would allow effective attacks only from certain directions (namely, rear). According to what I've read, a FT is pretty hard to aim at fast moving targets (bulky and the flame obstructs the target) so a tank in motion could well survive an attack. An immobilized tank would certainly be dead meat in very short time.

Not only FTs, but also Molotov Coctails are efficient in this respect.

Yes but again, only if they hit the correct place.

(Oh, Napalm sipping through vision slits or open hatches do add to the devastation.)

According to Finnish tactical manuals flamethrowers should be used in pairs while in AT role. The first one blinds the crew by firing at vision slots while the other aims for the engine cover. I don't know whether this was ever tested in practice.

- Tommi

[Berlichtingen]

I wondered how long it would be before you chimed in Berli...[/quote}

I couldn't sit idle while my favorite weapon was being insulted

[Slapdragon]

The US flamethrower manual for the M9 advises that first a cold shot should be fired at armoured vehicles or bunkers, followed by a hotshot. A cold shot is one in which the flame is swung away or turn off so only fuel soaks into the target. A hot shot is a normal shot. This allows fuel to seep deeper into cracks before ignited. Although the manual does not say this, it also is designed so that the flamethrower guy at least does something to the enemy pillbox before getting gunned down, because a later grenade hit can effectively ignite the fuel.

The M9 manual though is postwar (Vietnam era).

A further issue is the real use of a FT. It is a psychological weapon. The flame in and of itself will not cook a huge number of men, but the smell and sight of a BBQ of your own troops is enough to break even the most moraled unit.

[GrunShreck]

What I think has been neglected in this discussion is the possibility of using FT's as a screen to cover advances. I saw an example of this on the History Channel by some german pioneers who would light up an area, advance, then light up another area while being followed by some HT's and infantry. The screen seemed much more dense and effective than smoke and I have successfully used this method in various games.

One thing to think about in the AT use of FT's is that the crew of a piece of armor is in an enclosure and that if the ventilation to the crew were covered by a flaming liquid it would cause drastic enviromental changes within the hull, i.e. pressure changes due to the consumption of oxygen within the hull. One can only assume that being inside an armored vehicle, with the hatches closed, during an FT attack would be a rather unpleasant affair.

I would also like to back up the occurence of spontainious fires that can only be connected to the obliteration of an FT crew.

[pzvg]

Slapdragon, don't let the "book" confuse you,

IRL, we NEVER douse the unit, (too hard to relight under those conditions) generally, accepted practice is to lay down a stream and let it build up until it flows into cracks,ports, etc. Coldshots look good on paper, but allow the enemy a chance to shoot back, something the "wall o' fire" does not.

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

Pzvg

"Confucious say, it is better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt"

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ahauschild:

As for the tactic on setting buildings or woods on fire to deny them to advancing enemy forces. Yes, it is a valid tactic. No matter what the resources you use, flames, tnt, mines, bobbytraps, or just plain attillery, if you have to retreat and any structure or dominent landmark that will give the advancing enemys any advantages, including civil buildings, bridges, churges, depos and rail are to be expandable.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What did the English police force ever do to the Germans to warrant special traps set for them all over a batlefield?

Regards

Jim R.

[PeterNZer]

I both love and hate flamrthrower units. On the one hand they promise much devistation, on the other, I can't seem to get them to deliver on that promise!

I generally find the foot-based FT units last about one, maybe two squirts before everything rains on their heads and they are supressed, paniced or killed. I have had better luck with the mobile units.

In a recent game my main attack force was a group of Sturm-jager-hamsters or whatever those big squads of 13 are called.. with a cover of half squads of regular rifles at the front.

Line of battle went something like this.

1) Advancing platoon of Riflemen. Two squads were split in half, the central squad was kept whole. Their job, to scout.

behind them I kept close a germy FT halftrack, then behind it the main force of two platoons of heavy inf ready to assault.

Now although overall the attack failed (I got majorly flanked, oops), the principle worked. When I came across a hidden English platoon my half sqauds laid down some fire, I moved my half track up and two squirts later one squad ran for it and the other two didn't last long as the rest of the force kept up.

One annoyance was the halftrack with its short range was wary of getting into range. At one point I had another UK platoon supressed, but in the foxholes it wasn't dying quickly, so I advanced the HT on it.. but the HT wouldn't get closer than about 70m, so it couldn't use the FT! Kept backing out and away, was a bit scared of those cowering englisher pig-dogs.

In future I'll have to try an armored FT =)

Dr Al and GermanBoy both reckon that the Churchill Crocodile is great, LOTS of armor on the front, a huge 100m range and it comes with an MG and that 6lber? Something handy like that. Not sure on the points of the thing.

I've not seen the Wespe do well myself. The only time i've seen it my platoon of germs charged the bastard and it fired, missed, then retreated for the hills hehe It's first squirt killed only a few of a squad.. so not so good.

PeterNZ

[Chupacabra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Gamey means that stupid actions will not effect you in the frame of the game <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eh? I've heard a lot of definitions of 'gameyness,' and that's the first time I've heard that one. Hell, I've made lots of stupid decisions that don't effect me in the frame of the game. I guess that time I forgot that I'd bought artillery spotters was gamey, then. Ditto the time I parked a platoon of Shermans smack on top of a big hill. Neither action affected the end result of the game in either way, but both were stupid decisions.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> And yes, US commanders tried very hard to keep towns rather than let their men freeze, even to the point of not shelling the towns if possible. The US has always been concerned with soldier comfort -- an oddity but a long running thread in almost every history you read.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tell that to the folks in Aachen. Soldier comfort is fine, but I doubt that American commanders were much worried about it when they wanted to shell the living piss out of a town. Also, consider Frost's paras in Arnhem, who, AFAIK, did use flamethrowers to deny houses to German troops.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I should add: would you light the trees around the foxholes of your men on fire? Troops are scared by flame, and it would, in real life, be a bad idea to light the very building they are defending on fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think anyone is suggesting burning up houses which are currently being occupied by friendly soldiers. But setting something on fire is a pretty good way of denying it to the enemy, no?

Sorry, but I don't see this as gameyness at all.

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

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

[tss]

One concrete datapoint that I just stumbled on:

During the Finnish counterattack at Koukunniemi on the night between 6th and 7th December 1939 the Soviets torched two buildings that were in the front of their lines. Later in the battle two Finns set on fire one building using thatch. (There was a Soviet MG nest inside the building).

- Tommi

[GI Tom]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

I love flamethrowers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For anyone that hasn't played this man in a QB, this statement, qualifies as the understatement of the year.

Berli seems to be Mr. Flame. He should just change his name to Burningfleshictingen.

GI Tom

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

To a New Yorker like you, a hero is some type of wierd sandwich.