All Infantry Wear Asbestos Suits or Flame Tanks Just Suck?

[Col Deadmarsh]

After some time using both the Wasp and the Badger, I've come to the conclusion that they don't do anything but scare the **** outta the enemy.

From my experience, these tanks spray a round over a squad and nothing happens. The second or third round into the area, be it a house or foilage, may result in the area catching fire with the men caught in the middle. Again, nothing happens. I still see 3 men in the squad. Sure, they may have lost 1 or 2 guys but when I'm 60m away shooting a gigantic flame at somebody, I would venture to say that in real life, at least half of that squad would be on fire and subsequently die.

Why doesn't this happen here? In my present game, I fired 5-6 shots from about 40m away at an enemy squad hiding in the woods. After the last shot, they ran away with the 3 members still showing, meaning they couldn't have lost more than 2-3 guys in the squad. Now I'll prepare for somebody to tell me about all the abstractions in the game.

God I miss my Hetzerflammen from CC2. I want to see men burn dammit! At least let me here some screams...

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

Youth is wasted on the young.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hehe... Close Combat, putting the Flame into Wargaming Obviously we feel that they got the effectiveness of flamethrower equipment wrong...

Flamethrowers were designed to destroy installations, not squads of men. Trying to kill 12 men, spaced apart from each other and under their own cover, is rather a tall task for any weapon. No different for a flamethrower. The advantage is that whoever survives is likely to run away. When they do this you can mow 'em down with other weapons or, at the very least, render the unit and its defenses useless.

Since much of warfare is all about combat effectiveness, and not just body counts, the flamethrower is still a VERY effective weapon on the battlefield. If you think about it this way you should be much more happier with the results.

Steve

[lucero1148]

I'll agree to that. I just finished a pbem battle using my FlamHetzer to great effect. Burned out 2 vet. platoons from their buildings and mowed them downed in the open. All flamethrower units are basically psychchological weapons as it'll scare the defending troops like nothing else.

Patrick

[KiwiJoe]

I have 2 disagree with you Colonel_Deadmarsh. If you can get a flame-tank into range of infantry it is a truely devestating weapon. They are particularly good at destroying mg nests. I think you just had an unlucky run with them.

[hnh3_cm]

anti-spam bump

[Col Deadmarsh]

I hope you're right Joe. Steve, I see what you're saying. Once again, I will have to assimilate myself when it comes to switching between CC and CM.

Being a fan of CC2 though, you have to admit that the hetzerflammen can be very therapeudic when torching the enemy. Is there a better release than showering your enemy with flames and watching them writhe in pain? Oh well, I guess I won't find that here...

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

Youth is wasted on the young.

[Terence]

I played a qb as the brits recently and discovered during the force purchase screen what exactly the wasp was.

Hot Puppies, I thought when I found out and bought 3 -- one for each platoon.

The resulting battle was a vindication for the weapon, in my opinion. Fire and scalded german infantry everywhere.

Its tough enough to withstand all kinds of small arms fire, and works very well with tanks and infantry who suppress the bad guys, so you can scuttle in and hose them down.

Usually that unsettles the bad buys and they run away, at which point your men can cut them down. Its not a wonder weapon, but if you are careful with it, it can be really really useful. Also, its quite fast.

All three survived the battle (against german infantry entrenched on a hill) and used all their 50 shots on targets.

[Phoenix]

Had huge success with Wasps in the past. Including one that could have one a medal of honor! The guy ran around waxing all sorts of stuff. Scored 16 infantry casualties, and 2 guns knocked out. A couple days ago while faced with an annoying "gun" that had raised hell with me, I ended up flanking and charging the wasp into position behind the gun. The "gun" turned out to be an 88. Too late for the 88 as the Wasp sprayed him big time and knocked it out.

I like em!

[Col Deadmarsh]

Just make sure you button up when going in close because if you lose the commander to the Wasp, you lose the ability to fire its gun.

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

Youth is wasted on the young.

[Forever Babra]

I had an enjoyable BBQ yesterday, using three crocodiles to spearhead an assault scenario. Only two of them made it to the enemy's MLR where they proceeded to thoroughly unhinge the defences, greatly reducing casualties among the friendly infantry. By scenario's end, each claimed over dozen infantry kills, but their "assists" were far greater. Wouldn't do an assault without 'em.

[Guest Captitalistdoginchina]

I have used these vehicles to great effect, although they may not kill so many men they can rout and panic an entire platoon out of woods and buildings forcing them to flee into the open where you cun cut them down with infantry. I have also destroyed a Jagdpanzer 1V with a wasp

CDIC

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

"Death solves all problems - no man no problem"

J.V.Stalin, 1918

[CATguy]

Sitting behind some woods with my VG platoon several AT guns and some HMG's I felt confident of stopping the allied advance. That was until a crocodile showed up. This little bugger proceeded proceeded to make mince meat of my guys and in a span of a few turns everybody was routing or captured... I hope I never see one again!!!!

[Guest Wildman]

I had two FT teams have a go at a MG42 HMG team. All of this took place in the woods, next to a church. The first team moved within 30m and started firing off shots. The first shot missed the church and started a fire in the open grass behind the woods and church. The second blast was on the church setting it ablaze. The MG team ran toward the FT, because of the fire behind the church. By this time I had two FT teams within 30m of the MG Team. I expected a wiped out MG team, however, BOTH FT teams used all of their ammo without killing a MG team at 25m. The MG team did not surrender and just lay there until I brought over a rifle squad. When the rifle squad arrived the MG started to beat feet and was then killed to the last man.

Maybe it is just me, however, with two FT at a single immobile target they should have killed it.

On the flip side I have forced a Panther to be abandoned with a FT. Very cool.

---

[Dittohead]

From http://www.britwar.co.uk/salts/salt5.htm

WO 291/308 Effect of flamethrowers on military personnel.

Users believe from experience in action that flamethrowers have a strong morale effect.

It is estimated that a gallon of burning fuel in contact with the victim will kill.

Information from flame actions showed an average of 270 gallons per death, 9 gallons per prisoner.

Discharge rates are 4.7 gallons/sec for the Crocodile, 1 gallon/sec for the manpack.

Thickened fuel gives a clean flame rod, with little or no obscuration, and the fuel continues to burn on the ground.

Unthickened fuel produces a sheet of billowing flame, much obscuration, and little burning on the ground.

This obscuration effect could be used to blind pillbox slits at 20 yards or over with a manpack flamethrower, then approach to 10 yards, close enough to shoot through the aperture.

WO 291/986 The operational effectiveness of the flamethrower tank (Crocodile).

This report uses war diaries and other sources covering 175 Crocodile and infantry actions in NW Europe. The actions listed show from 2 to 15 Crocodiles supporting typically 1 or 2 infantry companies, but sometime nil, one platoon, 4 companies, or an unknown number.

The report concludes that, as indicated by casualties sustained by the attacking infantry, the Crocodile was better than a standard tank in the support role by a factor of about 2 in day actions and about 2.5 in night actions.

Of the 175 actions, in only 11 cases did the infantry fail to reach their objective. In about 50% of actions little or no opposition was encountered after flame was used. "This indicates the great morale effect of flame". In one instance, a German NCO ordered his men to surrender if they were attacked by flamethrowers.

For each trailer of fuel expended, about 6 enemy were killed and about 28 captured.

In about 50% of actions, 50 to 100% of the fuel was expended, with an overall average of about 70%. Over the period Jan 1944 to Apr 1945 fuel expenditure increased from about 30% on average to about 90% in the last few

months.

The capacity of the trailer was considered adequate: A crocodile trailer holds 400 gallons, about enough for 100 shots.

[GravesRegistration]

CM does not seem to model the psychological effects of a pending flame attack..

it seems to only kill, and not more effectively than say a normal squad at the same ranges.. and the infantry flamethrowers are so slow and vulnerable in CM that they are useless except on the defensive which is unrealistic cause it was an offensive weapon. I suggest that they allow it to move fast for short periods and not fire off bursts miles off target. I've actually had flame throwers get into range and then fire 45 degrees off to the right. What a joke.

[engy]

CM does not seem to model the psychological effects of a pending flame attack..

"Pending" flame attack? As in, I see a flamethrower about to let loose at me? The psychological effects of that would be every single man in my squad firing everything he has in the direction of the flamethrower team.

it seems to only kill, and not more effectively than say a normal squad at the same ranges..

CM does model the morale effects of having been a flamethrower target. Just check the status of the roasted infantry...it certainly will not read "OK"

and the infantry flamethrowers are so slow and vulnerable in CM...I suggest they allow it to move fast for short periods

Slow and vulnerable in real life, too. There was a thread not too long ago about what it took to strap on the tank, carry it, and get off a shot, and it was not an easy thing. I don't have the thread name right here, but it should come up with a search.

that they are useless except on the defensive which is unrealistic cause it was an offensive weapon.

You just need to be very methodical in the attack. I have gotten flame teams into effective position on the attack, but it's not as easy as sprinting a rifle squad down a city street. Infantry needs to be in place, providing suppressive fire, in order for the flamethrower to have a chance to get close, because once seen (and rightfully so), it becomes a very high priority target.

I suggest that and not fire off bursts miles off target. I've actually had flame throwers get into range and then fire 45 degrees off to the right. What a joke.

Never seen it, so I can't agree/disagree. But I would suggest not throwing out phrases like "what a joke" unless you can show us that flamethrower teams, once in place, scored a direct hit with every single one of their shots. Remember, flame teams are people, too, and just like any other infantryman, they will duck (reducing the effectiveness of their attack) when faced with significant suppressing fire.

engy

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

"He who makes war without many mistakes has not made war very long."

Napoleon Bonaparte

[Splinty]

I think a flame thrower's efffectivness as a killing device depends on the nature of the target. In the open the flame is going to be dispersed by air and vegetation,when fired at a building the structure itself is going to catch most of the heat,when fired into a bunker or cave however,the troops inside are going to be the ones to burn because in that situation they're the most flammible.

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

Nicht Schiessen!!

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Had huge success with Wasps in the past. Including one that could have one a medal of honor! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He'd be happier with the Victoria Cross...

(signed, Smart Ass Mike)

[Michael Dorosh]

Outstanding post, Engy. The only thing I would disagree with is that while some squads would indeed bring all available firepower to bear, the wartime memo reprinted above raises the other possibility - many enemy troops would simply flee or give up rather than face a flame weapon - I have seen it referred to as the most feared weapon on the battlefield - in Roman times as well as today.

Also note how many gallons it took to produce a single enemy mortality - it would seem the game is modelled quite well. Don't forget the icons on the screen are a lot bigger than they should be (so we can see everything) and that even in relatively "open" ground there is a lot of places for a 10 man squad to hide themselves or find cover - flame is as "dumb" a weapon as an aerial bomb - it will not seek out targets, it will only go where the human operator points it.

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

"Pending" flame attack? As in, I see a flamethrower about to let loose at me? The psychological effects of that would be every single man in my squad firing everything he has in the direction of the flamethrower team.

[<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Leonidas]

I rarely use flamethrowers, either infantry or vehicle, because they are so much less effective than the alternatives. Why buy a Crocodile and risk 'shreck fire to burn down buildings, when you can get a Priest for lower cost and flatten buildings from a safer range?

I don't contest the historical effectiveness, range, etc. of a flamethrower unit. I just think they have problems within CM as a game. I can't think of a use for FTs that isn't better met by self-propelled artillery.

[Jasper]

I've got some period stuff on flame tanks. The Russian article from 1940 is the best.

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

Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ for military documents written during WWII

[Fred]

Anyone knows the russian flamethrower ROKS-2?

This ft tube was designed to look like an ordinary russian rifle, while the fuel was contained in a device looking like the usual infantry backpack.

The single reason was (quote from "War Machine"):

" ... if there was one tactical lesson learned from WW1, it was about the fact, that an identified FT team draw the fire of all weapons in sight on them".

So, CM is right on target

Fred