Flame Vehicles

[Col Deadmarsh]

I've noticed that the German flame half track (251/16) and the Flammpanzer have a max range of 50m compared to the British Wasp which has 75 and the Crocodile which has 100.

Are these numbers correct in real life? Why did the Germans have such inferior guns on their flame vehicles/tanks when the guns on their other tanks were superior to the Allied counterparts?

Also, which of these units do you use? I know people use the Wasp a lot but what about the others? Is it worth it for the Germs to spend precious armor points to buy a Flammpanzer which has such a limited range for the weapon?

Is the Crocodile too much money for the Allies or can it be used effectively in reasonably safe roles to make it worth it's high price tag?

[ 10-21-2001: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]

[Speedy]

My understanding is that the allies had a m uch better fuel for their flamethrowers, with a much greater percentage of the flame actually reaching the target. Hence a greater weapon effect at longer range.

[Brian]

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

I've noticed that the German flame half track (251/16) and the Flammpanzer have a max range of 50m compared to the British Wasp which has 75 and the Crocodile which has 100.

Are these numbers correct in real life? Why did the Germans have such inferior guns on their flame vehicles/tanks when the guns on their other tanks were superior to the Allied counterparts?

Also, which of these units do you use? I know people use the Wasp a lot but what about the others? Is it worth it for the Germs to spend precious armor points to buy a Flammpanzer which has such a limited range for the weapon?

Is the Sherman Crocodile too much money for the Allies or can it be used effectively in reasonably safe roles to make it worth it's high price tag?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, its actually the Churchill Crocodile, not the Sherman. However, that aside, the ranges are basically correct. The reason why the Wasp and the Crocodile were so superior was because of the methods used by the British over the Germans to pressurise the fuel tanks.

As I understand it, the Germans relied upon either gas generators which burnt solid propellant or pumps to force the fuel out of the flame gun's muzzle. The British used nitrogen held under pressure in bottles to pressurise their propellant tanks and then utilised high-speed aero pumps. This was not only safer (being a cold propellant) but it allowed higher pressures to be maintained.

As to their availability, Wasps were I understand extremely rare outside of the Canadian army, which developed it while the Crocodile was actually very rare. The German 251/16 was much more common than either.

[edward_n_kelly]

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

As to their availability, Wasps were I understand extremely rare outside of the Canadian army, which developed it while the Crocodile was actually very rare. The German 251/16 was much more common than either.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are there compartive production/conversion figures available to justify this statement ?

[von Lucke]

Well, I can tell you this much:

Only some 20 flammpanzer 38(t) Hetzers were built --- all specifically for use in the Ardennes offensive.

Compared to the some 800 Churchill Crocodiles built.

Then again, there were only 4 Sherman Crocodiles built --- all used by 2nd Armored.

[JasonC]

I haven't seen figures for SPW-251/16s. They were first fielded at the begining of 1943, but how many were converted I haven't been able to find. There were 11,000 SPWs of all makes and models made from that time onward, but most were plain troop carriers with MG, of course. The Germans made around 350 dedicated Flame tanks, most based on Pz IIs or Pz IIIs. Most flamethrowers were certainly dismounted. They produced 75,000 of the backpack flamethrowers.

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by von Lucke:

Well, I can tell you this much:

Only some 20 flammpanzer 38(t) Hetzers were built --- all specifically for use in the Ardennes offensive.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There were several other flammpanzers, built on Panzer I, II and III chassis.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Compared to the some 800 Churchill Crocodiles built.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That number sounds a trifle high, to me. What was the total production run for Churchills of all marks?

BTW, not Crocodiles were utilised as Crocodiles. David Fletcher makes the point that all the Churchill AVRE's which served in Korea were plumbed as Crocodiles, although no trailers were shipped to Korea and none were utilised as Crocodiles.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Then again, there were only 4 Sherman Crocodiles built --- all used by 2nd Armored.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Were they? My sources suggest that they never saw service.

[offtaskagain]

If there were only 4 flame-throwing Shermans built, then where did the ~100 used on Okinawa come from? I know this is much later in the war and the PTO but the statement seems to encompass the whole war.

[Michael Dorosh]

A clarification - 800 Crocodile kits were produced, but not all were used; I have yet to see a figure for the actual number of

Churchills so modified.

[von Lucke]

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

There were several other flammpanzers, built on Panzer I, II and III chassis.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very true, but I was only referencing the Hetzer model.

[von Lucke]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42:

If there were only 4 flame-throwing Shermans built, then where did the ~100 used on Okinawa come from? I know this is much later in the war and the PTO but the statement seems to encompass the whole war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sherman Crocodile does not = all American flamethrower tanks. The Crocs were adapted from British flame gear. Most (if not all) American built Sherman flame tanks went to the PTO: Most of them are labeled E4R**** (depending on the model), or POA****.

Not to mention the Stuart "Satan" tanks...

[von Lucke]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

A clarification - 800 Crocodile kits were produced, but not all were used; I have yet to see a figure for the actual number of

Churchills so modified.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I wondered about that too --- the number is from Chamberlain & Ellis, BTW. They do state that all late model Mk VII Churchills were built for "speedy adaptation to the Crocodile role as required", so one would assume that if every Mk VII rolling off the production line was already set up with the adapter gear, all you would need is a trailer full of napalm.

By the way, anybody know what the Wasp production figures are?

[CMplayer]

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

They produced 75,000 of the backpack flamethrowers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, 75000 x 37 points = 2,775,000 points.

Almost 3 million points JUST FOR THE BACKPACK FLAMETHROWERS? And you laughed at my estimate for the total cost of WWII! When my calculations are ready the only thing for you to do, Herr Professor, will be to defrock in shame (short of hara kiri).

[Cpl Carrot]

Don't have the game with me at the moment, but did you divide the number by 2 (each member has a thrower. That would put the figure at 1.4 odd million

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Okay, 75000 x 37 points = 2,775,000 points.

Almost 3 million points JUST FOR THE BACKPACK FLAMETHROWERS? And you laughed at my estimate for the total cost of WWII! When my calculations are ready the only thing for you to do, Herr Professor, will be to defrock in shame (short of hara kiri).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That assumes all the flamethrowers were issued, doesn't it? The cost of the FT in CM also relates to the two sorry jokers who had to schlep it.

Nonetheless, I wouldn't expect an admission of fault, much less defrocking, anytime soon...

[Col Deadmarsh]

For the gamers/ladder players: What I'd really like to know is which of these units do you buy on a regular basis?

Is it worth it to spend all that money on a croc? Do you wait until later in your battles to reveal it when the enemy is not at full strength? Is it reserved only for mop-up duty?

How do you prolong the life of your Flammpanzer if you have to move within 50m of the enemy to attack? Do you use infantry suppression or two of these tanks or what?

Ditto for the other flame units in this game...

[Redwolf]

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

For the gamers/ladder players: What I'd really like to know is which of these units do you buy on a regular basis?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wasp and Canadian Badger. 251/16 is too vulnerable to .50cal. Flammpanzer costs armour points better spent on another StuH.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Is it worth it to spend all that money on a croc?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. A tank is too volatile to spend more than 200 points on any tank. Except the King Tiger, which is just tough enough.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Do you wait until later in your battles to reveal it when the enemy is not at full strength? Is it reserved only for mop-up duty?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, cover is cover and there may always be a hidden gun, even late in the game.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How do you prolong the life of your Flammpanzer if you have to move within 50m of the enemy to attack? Do you use infantry suppression or two of these tanks or what?

[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

MMG carrier or just be reckless.

[ 10-21-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[edward_n_kelly]

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

BTW, not Crocodiles were utilised as Crocodiles. David Fletcher makes the point that all the Churchill AVRE's which served in Korea were plumbed as Crocodiles, although no trailers were shipped to Korea and none were utilised as Crocodiles.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And Fletcher also made the point that the trailers were in fact taken to Korea but only ever attached to Marder Medium trucks for towing around as the tanks moved from location to location.

On icy roads and with no brakes they were to cause quite a few accidents due to their weight even uladen.

Eventually they were left with an RAOC Ord Fd Pk and returned to Germany when the Churchills were withdrawn.

[edward_n_kelly]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by von Lucke:

Yes, I wondered about that too --- the number is from Chamberlain & Ellis, BTW. They do state that all late model Mk VII Churchills were built for "speedy adaptation to the Crocodile role as required", so one would assume that if every Mk VII rolling off the production line was already set up with the adapter gear, all you would need is a trailer full of napalm.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While Fletcher, after his analysis of the contracts let for the production of the Mk VII and Mk VIII Churchill, states that it is impossible to say when the "plumbing" began to be installed, not all were so fitted (it depended on the manufacturer). All that can be said is that certainly most of these marks were so fitted.

[John Kettler]

I believe you'll find my post in the enclosed thread of interest, particularly the book and chapter referenced within. The URL is http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=021937

The cited chapter has lots of information on flamethrowers from many countries, including a discussion of fuels, and also has a comprehensive explanation of where the PTO flame Shermans originated.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

What? No reaction? Strange!

Regards,

John Kettler

[JasonC]

First on British flame tanks, I too have seen the figure of 800 Crocs. 250 sent to the Far East and 550 left for Europe. There were 1600 of the Mk VII and Mk VIII Churchills, out of a total Churchill production of more than 4000, for the whole war.

4 Croc kits were also used to make Sherman Crocs, used by the US in the 2nd Armored Division. They also made a Sherman Salamander, using a Wasp FT in place of the gun, but these were not used (probably because it was found in practice a flame tank still needed a gun too). An earlier experiment with 3 Churchills equipped with Canadian made Ronson FTs at Dieppe was a failure, with all three knocked out before the FTs could fire.

As for the US FT tanks in the Pacific, the first were indeed the Stuart-based Satans, but only 24 were converted (other sources say 20, but the TOEs make more sense with the 24 figure). Following them came various kits that replaced the hull MG of a Sherman with a flamethrower - E4 series of various makes and models. These weren't factory installed, but issued as kits and changed over in the field. I haven't found numbers, but if there were US flame Shermans in Europe (besides 2AD's 4 Crocs) they were that kind.

The final version of a US flame tank, used in the Pacific only, was the M4 POA CWS H1 Sherman (whew - LOL), with a 105mm howitzer, coaxial mounted flamethrower of Navy design ("POA" model, no I don't know what it stands for), retaining the hull MG and roof 50 cal. This was a perfect bunker killing weapon, because the 105 could get the lighter bunkers at range, the FT rotated with the turret, and the other MGs were still there for infantry defense, etc.

USMC armor battalions went through various organizational changes, each format using a different letter designation. The E series USMC tank battalion was the one in use at the time of Tawara. The F series were used by the time of Saipan. And the G series was available for Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

A Marine armor battalion was never intended to fight as a single unit; instead each Marine regiment got one company attached from Tawara on. That remained the case for most of the rest of the Pacific war, although sometimes there were more tanks per infantry sub unit than that. It was still seperate companies at the tactical level, but by late in the war a Marine infantry battalion might have one attached, instead of a regiment.

The E series was originally all Stuarts, but 1 of the 3 companies had upgraded to Shermans by the time of Tawara. The other two still had Stuarts, and none had any flame tanks. They used a large company HQ section of 3 tanks, and 3 line platoons each of 3 tanks under them, making 12 per company all told. Their strength came from their ability to deal with MG nests and from canister and MGs vs. exposed infantry, but their bunker busting ability was limited. So foot FT teams and demo charges had to KO the tough bunkers.

The F series was the period when the Satans were used, at Saipan. The battalion now had 4 companies, 3 line companies and a flame company. The line companies were all Shermans, each with 4 platoons of 3 tanks, plus an HQ section with a dozer tank and 2 regular ones, making 15 Shermans per company. They were better able to deal with light bunkers, using HE. The flame company had 2 Stuarts as HQ tanks, and 3 platoons, each with a Stuart HQ tank and 4 Satans - making 5 Stuarts and 12 Satans per company. After those were used up, Shermans with kit FTs in the hull had to replace them, because there weren't any more Satans.

The G series pushed flame tanks down to each company, and dozer tanks (which were found extremely useful - burying cave entrances etc as well as clearing obstacles and making field fortifications) down to each platoon. The new format had 3 companies each with 3 Shermans as command tanks, and then 4 line platoons plus a 5th flame platoon. Each line platoon had 1 dozer Sherman and 2 other plain Shermans. The flame platoon had 3 Sherman 105s with coaxial flamethrower. So each company now had 3 flame-105s, 4 dozers, and 11 plain Shermans.

I hope this helps.

[ 10-22-2001: Message edited by: JasonC ]</p>

[von Lucke]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by John Kettler:

What? No reaction? Strange!

Regards,<hr></blockquote>

Well, you might have gotten more response if you had quoted a bit of info --- but I think none of us (besides you) has a copy of the tome you cited!