Amidst_Void Posted November 12, 2001 Share Posted November 12, 2001 First let's get this out of the way, the flamethrower trap: Due to the limited value of flamethrower teams, I have devised a very useful strategy with them. I am known to place them in the foremost part of the map in a location (usually forest or woods) that I think will have at least some enemy infantry traffic. I never move them from this location. essentially, I think of them as infantry mines now. The tactic (if you can call it that) is effective because, as the battle starts heating up, enemy units looking to advance through the area that my flame thrower (or throwers) are in will risk being demoralized, killed, routed by the attack. The best thing that can happen is a fire starting, hopefully blocking this route from further traffic. Anyway, the flamethrower trap works like so, the biggest advantage of it is that... (gasp!) they could actually serve a purpose! Now on to my main point. I find it hard to believe that a 2 man flame thrower team manages to surpress, route, or cause heavy casualties to a "fresh", unscratched, rifle squad. How is it that 2 men can have such a profound effect on 12 men (U.S. rifle squad)? CM is heavily abstracted, each soldier in a rifle platoon is NOT where the 3D soldier image is, a platoon is not 12 men lassoed together in one spot, they are scattered about the central 3D model. The flame thrower, when attacking a squad, would only be concentrating their attack on 1 maybe 2 soldiers at once, not twelve, because of the platoon being so spread out. At this time, the flamethrower is probably dodging bullets from some of the remaining soldiers from the platoon. Anyway, the situation is absurd. I just can't see why flamethrowers have such a demoralizing effect on platoons, they can't possibly supress a whole squad so effectively, much less, route them! How hard is it to fire back at such a clumbsy unit? I think even a soldier with a pistol has a big advantage over a flamethrower, primarily because of 150m range, and that counts for a lot. Now the bigger issue. Above I wrote that 'The flame thrower, when attacking a squad, would only be concentrating their attack on 1 maybe 2 soldiers at once, not twelve, because of the platoon being so spread out.' Strangely, CM doesn't seem to agree with me, the reason being that when a flamethrower fires upon a rifle squad and the whole squad takes cover, that, in CM terms, means that the flamethrower, strangely, effected every member of the squad. How do I know that? Simply because in the "taking cover" state, I have never seen a squad (or any other unit) fire back. If not every soldier in the squad is surpressed, than a little fire should be exchanged from the surpressed squad by the 1 or 2 (or more) soldiers that aren't surpressed, that isn't happening though, a surpressed squad is a turtle in a shell. Again, a 2 man flamethrower can achieve that!? So my main question is, are flamethrowers at all correct? Is the infantry surpression right? Is anything wrong? Anyway, I could be wrong about everything, hopefully I didn't go everywhere all at once, I hope I'm right about at least 1 thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Carrot Posted November 12, 2001 Share Posted November 12, 2001 I think the infantry get so suppressed is because the flamethrower has a blast value of 200. I guess the infantry are reacting to the flame thrower the same as they react to arty of the same value - flee for the nearest cover. My 2cents anyway. Cpl Carrot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrene Posted November 12, 2001 Share Posted November 12, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>How is it that 2 men can have such a profound effect on 12 men (U.S. rifle squad)? <hr></blockquote> and <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> I just can't see why flamethrowers have such a demoralizing effect on platoons, they can't possibly supress a whole squad so effectively, much less, route them! <hr></blockquote> Have you ever seen a flame thrower being used? Obviously not. The fear of being burned to death is as primal and ingrained in the human psyche as being eaten alive or drowing. Being ambushed by a flame thrower team is every bit as demoralizing in CM as it should be. Gyrene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted November 12, 2001 Share Posted November 12, 2001 This is echoed in Commonwealth regimental histories - even battle hardened German troops of the best divisions tended to run away or give up rapidly when flame weapons were brought to bear. I think BTS got it exactly right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amidst_Void Posted November 12, 2001 Author Share Posted November 12, 2001 Have you ever seen a flame thrower being used? Obviously not. The fear of being burned to death is as primal and ingrained in the human psyche as being eaten alive or drowing. Being ambushed by a flame thrower team is every bit as demoralizing in CM as it should be. ____________ Wow, I seem to have overlooked that! How big is the flame any way? I still find it exagerated that a whole squad flees, a flamethrower is no match for an armed soldier that's out of range of it's blast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrene Posted November 12, 2001 Share Posted November 12, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>How big is the flame any way? I still find it exagerated that a whole squad flees, a flamethrower is no match for an armed soldier that's out of range of it's blast.<hr></blockquote> Out of range of it's blast...If they triggered an ambush they are well within it's range. Remember that the radiated heat at the end of the thing adds another 50% or so to the range of the flames you can see. As for the range... From this very web site Gyrene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak40 Posted November 12, 2001 Share Posted November 12, 2001 A flamethrower is certainly a weapon to be feared. In a forest it would be even more fearful because of everything in the path of the flame would certainly catch fire so long as it's not raining. You say that a flametrower team would only be able to fire at 1-2 men at a time, I highly disagree, especially when the squad is in a forest. When a squad is in a forest they are closer together than if they were out in the open. They are maybe 20-25 meters from one end to the other. A flamethrower ambush in this situation can be deadly. Within a few seconds a 60° arc of flame 30 meters long would be torched, this could easily engulf an entire squad. Every man in the enemy squad knows that if he doesn't run away ASAP he will be burned to death. It's not so much a surpressing factor as it is a fear of being burned alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Wacky Posted November 12, 2001 Share Posted November 12, 2001 Everyone on this board likes to complain about how CM flamethrowers are so useless. I would beg to disagree. They are ineffective in CM because they are not meant to be used in infantry vs infantry outdoor engagements. They are meant to be used in an engineering role, destroying fixed fortifications. This they do well. They are also tremendously effective in city fighting. I like to pull troops out of a builing, watch the enemy take it, and then burn the building down. They enemy troops run out and the soldiers that I originally pulled back cut them to pieces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted November 12, 2001 Share Posted November 12, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Pak40: It's not so much a surpressing factor as it is a fear of being burned alive.<hr></blockquote> Remember the conversation in PATHS OF GLORY? Do they fear being killed, or of being burned painfully and left to suffer? You are absolutely right, of course, in that fear is as big an effect as actual casualty causation. (Who said the moral is to the physical as three to one?) Anyway, I thought I would throw a red herring in - I do honestly think that men fear disfigurement and pain more than death, but your point is as valid either way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalistdoginchina Posted November 12, 2001 Share Posted November 12, 2001 My infantry flame thrower took out a Stug just the other day with the second burst - boy did it go up with a bang! In another battle my men were ambushed by a Veteran flame thrower - the flame missed twice (They were not even pinned)they then turned and with their first shots killed both men in the flameteam. So they are not always sooooo deadly, and a squad under fire can still return fire if the circumstances are favourable. But i must say when the flame does hit the intended target even crack squads will panic quickly. I think the flame-throwers are quite well modelled - except that for some reason they die quicker than other units. Compare them to a 2 man squad, the 2 man squad will last a lot longer when under small arms fire. Snipers also die very easily. Most players have more success with flame units on the defence, on the attack it is very hard to keep them alive long enough to catch up with the main attacking force. CDIC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrene Posted November 12, 2001 Share Posted November 12, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>I think the flame-throwers are quite well modelled - except that for some reason they die quicker than other units. Compare them to a 2 man squad, the 2 man squad will last a lot longer when under small arms fire. Snipers also die very easily. <hr></blockquote> I also noticed that FO's and sole surviving members of HQ's are almost bullet proof. I once had a flamethrower team get killed while riding in a HT. The HT crew wasn't scratched. Gyrene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
History Buff Posted November 12, 2001 Share Posted November 12, 2001 I don't know about you mate, but the sight of gushing flame heading in my direction, and seeing me mates get fried to bits, would cause me to take cover or run!!!!!!! I personally like using flame throwers to lay a blanket of fire onto structures which will be used by the enemy. And torching a wooded area pretty good at blocking an enemies movement path to an objective My 2 Cents :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameroon Posted November 12, 2001 Share Posted November 12, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gyrene: I also noticed that FO's and sole surviving members of HQ's are almost bullet proof. I once had a flamethrower team get killed while riding in a HT. The HT crew wasn't scratched. Gyrene<hr></blockquote> Better than bullet proof. I had a Company HQ holding a lone patch of woods with 1 member of a decimated squad against a MG firing down on them and at least two squads in buildings firing across at them. Not only were they not surpressed, but when charged (albeit by a 3 or 4 man squad) they fought back and won. The rifle squad was eliminated but the HQ actually took out the two remaining members of the squad that rushed them. I praised the Company HQ for quite a few turns after that. Unfortunately I do believe he ended up dying in the end after that the area around that patch had been secured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amidst_Void Posted November 12, 2001 Author Share Posted November 12, 2001 "I think the flame-throwers are quite well modelled - except that for some reason they die quicker than other units. Compare them to a 2 man squad, the 2 man squad will last a lot longer when under small arms fire. Snipers also die very easily." Well, I would imagine that the large tank he is carrying doesn't do wonders for his mobility, he's easy prey. But really, I suppose I overlooked a lot of things, I never claimed to be an expert on flamethrowers, my opinion was based off of my logic, I truly didn't know how effective flamethrowers really were. Come to think of it, I should have remembered that flamethrowers were also used in the Vietnam war. If they were ineffective in WWII (which, by what I'm reading, they weren't) then I would imagine they wouldn't have bothered equipping soldiers with flamethrowers in the Vietnam war. Presently, do we still equipe our soldiers with flamethrowers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Rock Posted November 12, 2001 Share Posted November 12, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Who said the moral is to the physical as three to one? <hr></blockquote> Napolean. But he was overmodeled too. For what it's worth, I think the effects are probably about right. I have a healthy fear of fire, and figure that someone popping up at 20 metres and spraying it in my general direction would be enough to put me in an "all things considered it might be time to make tracks in a retrograde fashion crowd" frame of mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holien Posted November 12, 2001 Share Posted November 12, 2001 Just to add fuel to the fire I can say that they do not always work. I have had a German Flame 1/2 track squirt several jets of liquid at several stone buildings and the jets failed to ignite the building. It was later taken out (same turn) by a Piat in the building I was trying to ignite and was I pissed. So I do not think that they supress all the time. As for the men dying with ease I agree they seem to be less resilent to gunfire and I put that down to them not being killed but dropping the tanks and running like mad when they come under fire. CM shows them as dead but that might not be the case, it is just that they have given up the fight. I know if I had a man pack flammer given to me the first sign of serious gun fire in my direction would cause me to drop the pack and run like hell, before being engulfed by hell. You can use them in the offensive role and in a recent game I used one to great effect to take a key position in two turns. I still lost a man (of the two man crew) in the attack but the effect and diversion (all gunfire from the enemy went towards the flammer crew) ensured my men at the back door came in unobserved. H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeadams Posted November 12, 2001 Share Posted November 12, 2001 The high demoralisation may be modelling the fact that, when faced with a flamethrower, the best response is to run away, not just duck. Ducking works fine against bullets, but doesn't help against sheets of flame dropping down. So, if you see your squad under attack your smart move it to get out of range as fast as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splinty Posted November 12, 2001 Share Posted November 12, 2001 Presently, do we still equipe our soldiers with flamethrowers?[/QB][/quote The U.S. Army still has them on the books,although they are not part of an infantry units normal table of equiptment. I have heard the Marines still have them,but Gyrene may be able to answer that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted November 12, 2001 Share Posted November 12, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Brian Rock: Napolean. But he was overmodeled too..<hr></blockquote> Thanks! He did have good brandy, though. FWIW, the Canadian Army has banned the use of flame weapons as they are "inhumane", along with landmines. (I'm not kidding!) The Claymore is excepted because it is a direction, human operated weapon. Go figure. Like we wouldn't use them anyway if push came to shove! Seems kind of silly - the Canadian Army came to rely on Wasps and Crocodiles in the last year of WW II. Seems like we learn nothing, sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrene Posted November 12, 2001 Share Posted November 12, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> The U.S. Army still has them on the books,although they are not part of an infantry units normal table of equiptment. I have heard the Marines still have them,but Gyrene may be able to answer that one. <hr></blockquote> The USMC still has some Vietnam-era flame-throwers, but most Marines hardly ever get to see, much less fire them. Even in Vietnam most flame-throwers used by the USMC were mounted on tanks, and those were actually used quite a bit against known enemy fortifications. They only deployed them when they knew they would need them to tackle bunkers and heavily dug in opponents. Man-portable flame-throwers were used mostly for the dubious task of destroying villages after a battle. I think the main reason the USMC has stopped relying on portable flame-throwers was the adoption of the SMAW "Bunker-Buster" rocket system. It does a very good job against man-made bunkers from a much longer range than a flame thrower. It also doesn't have the nasty reputation or media-unfriendliness factor of the flame-thrower. Gyrene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amidst_Void Posted November 13, 2001 Author Share Posted November 13, 2001 Hmmm, Combat Mission Vietnam... nah, it wont work. How much armor did we really use during Vietnam, much less, how much armor did the vietcong use during Vietnam? I suppose it could work as a highly technical squad level game but, we want tanks, lots of tanks, what else is Fernando going to model, infantry hair styles? Seriously though, did armor, primarily tanks, make an impact in Vietnam? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted November 13, 2001 Share Posted November 13, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Amidst_Void: Hmmm, Combat Mission Vietnam... nah, it wont work. How much armor did we really use during Vietnam, much less, how much armor did the vietcong use during Vietnam? I suppose it could work as a highly technical squad level game but, we want tanks, lots of tanks, what else is Fernando going to model, infantry hair styles? Seriously though, did armor, primarily tanks, make an impact in Vietnam?<hr></blockquote> The NVA used some (PT-76??) at Lang Vei near Khe Sanh. And they were used to overrun Saigon. Other than that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts