Anyone using flamethrowers consistently well?

[GravesRegistration]

Smoke / walk behind a tank / Thick Terrian where all fire is point blank are very good ways to get your FT's in action.

[athkatla]

Originally posted by Demangel:

"It would seem that one reason the flamethrowers igniting parts of the terrain works out to be gamey is because the fire is so well behaved. In reality, depending on wind and other environmental factors, the flames would move about and thus be much less desirable as a defensive barrier in close proximity to one's own forces. The suggestion of burning the area behind the bunker door would be less attractive if there were a chance that the fire would spread to the bunker itself -- which would be one of the real world concerns.

Maybe fires should be able to spread?

A call for enhancement?"

I totaly agree with you on this one tar. Adding a wind effect in this game could make it even more interesting... Your smoek shells etc would have to be placed differently, and fires would have to watched closely! ESPECIALY in very dry gournd conditions where a fire could start many meters from the first one!

As an ex MFC (Mortar Fire Controller) with the British Army I agree with this. Getting smoke, and light at night, on target was totally dependant on weather conditions and some good calculations by the MFC. I've seen many a smoke screen wasted due to high winds and incorrect calculations. It would be an interesting addition to CM2!

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by GravesRegistration:

Smoke / walk behind a tank / Thick Terrian where all fire is point blank are very good ways to get your FT's in action.

Good ideas except for the walk behind a tank one. Probably a great idea IRL, but non-KOed vehicles provied *no* cover in CM. A limitation of the game engine, apparently.

Also, if anyone would like to check the CMBB FAQ thread, you'll note that wind modeling in in CMBB. There have also been some cryptic comments from the powers that be about the treatment of fire and the way it spreads, & c. - it sounds like it will be much different and hopefully more realistic.

Cheers,

YD

[tecumseh]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

You do know who you're correcting, right?

[JasonC]

The question was whether anyone got consistent good use out of their FTs. The tips on how to use them are all welcome, but I think the basic question has not really been answered. In addition, few have looked at alternative methods of accomplishing the same thing (though one fellow mentioned gammon bombs), and at their costs.

Here are some of the things people mentioned as successful uses of FTs -

KOed one Hotchkiss from ambush. A bazooka would have done the same thing at twice the range for 40% of the cost. The user mentioned typically getting one shot then dying, and a 50-50 chance of "major damage" if a shot was achieved.

One fellow mentioned KOing bogged assault guns (turretless). Use a zook and you can do it with fast speed instead of slow, from 2-3 times as far, with more ammo, for less cost. Every German assault gun can be KOed by a flank shot from a bazooka.

Some mentioned flame vehicles, which are a whole different story. They can be successful because they produce assymmetric engagements if infantry AT is not present. Meaning deadly to the target and also invunerable to its replies. The better ones outrange organic AT, which is also highly sensitive to suppression. Wasps are also small and fast. The 251/16, on the other hand, is vunerable to 50 cal at the ranges it needs.

One fellow says you can hide in a foxhole (thus defender) by a road to ambush a passing vehicle, especially at a spot where it has to slow down. He mentioned that the FT will generally die in return but that "it is worth it" for all but empty trucks. But if you know something will come down that road, you can put an AT mine in the road for 40% of the cost of an FT team. It will KO vehicles more reliably, going fast or slow. And block the road afterward, too. Without scoring any knock-out points for the other guy.

Many mention ambush positions in foxholes inside heavy cover. I agree that is the best use of them as they are, but that it is a cost effective use is debatable. For the cost of 2 FTs (thus difference between a engineer/pioneer platoon and a regular one) you can have an AP minefield 140 meters long. The FTs are scarcely more mobile in a static ambush role. They have only a chance of blocking the route by starting fires, while the AP mines do so as a matter of course. They might still have uses along these lines in city fights, which one fellow mentioned in another thread.

Another suggests wide flanking moves against enemies in heavy cover, while they are engaged in front. If the flank is open, obviously anything sent around it will help. But wide movements in heavy cover are very slow with FTs. The firefight is likely to be over one way or the other before you arrive. Fast infantry is a much better bet to actually get there in time, and more likely to survive and do something useful is the flank turns out not to be completely open.

Another fellow said "I still dream of getting one into place by passenger movement". Note this one did not say that he ever had, let alone "consistently".

Priest says vehicle movement has worked for him with a "moderate to good" success rate. He recounts one incident against a bunker (he doesn't say if it was concrete or wood). It is however noteworthy that he mentions suppression help from the MG on the jeep during this example. Jeep MGs no longer allow passengers. That was changed almost a year and a half ago.

Very likely the incident Priest was remembering pre-dates the change. But if so, it was probably something of an outlier in his own experience, or an early impression-forming one. (I mean, if he is doing it every day, why is the successful example on the tip of his tongue a year and a half old?)

I decided to test the jeep-FT combo idea, to see what "moderate" success might look like. I set up 6 fire lanes seperated by pines, with locations for a supporting fire base in woods about 300 yards from targets in scattered trees at the other end. Each attempter was supported by a 60 man base of fire, consisting of a full strength US platoon (minus 1 half squad in a few cases - see below) and the MGs of a US weapons platoon 1x50, 2x30 cal. In half the cases, an 81mm mortar FO assisted as well.

The targets at the other end were - 1xHMG with HQ behind, twice, 2xHMG with HQ behind, twice, wooden bunker, concrete MG pillbox, in each case again with an HQ a ways behind them in the scattered trees. I use the HMGs because I for one use them more often for MG nests that the bunkers, which I find too easy to spot, vunerable, and overpriced. Since they aren't automatically spotted, in those fire lanes I walked forward one 1/2 squad with SMG, 5 M-1 at "move" pace.

2 FTs got shots off. In one case, a lone HMG was broken by the overwatch fire (small arms and MGs only) allowing the FT to reach the area easily enough. He shot at the retreating HMG team twice, and set one tile on fire. Then the FT was shot in turn by the German HQ deeper in the position.

The second case was against the wooden bunker, and did not go smoothly. The jeep made it to the side of the bunker safely, but with 81mm HE still falling. He went cautious, then panicked and ran. He ran back through the LOS of the wooden bunker and lost a man, then made it to the pines at the side of the "lane" out of the bunkers covered arc. He rallied. I switched the 81mm to smoke, and he walked, not drove, back to the side of the bunker. Took several minutes. At 17 meters in clouds of smoke, he squirted the bunker 4 times and finally KOed it.

Every other jeep was knocked out before even getting close. In two cases, the FT survived the bail out. One went forward along the line of pines; I was thinking of the "flank in tight terrain" suggestion. Took the FT several minutes. This was a 2xHMG lane, but one HMG had been KOed by combined mortar and firebase fire. The other was targeted by the whole firebase as the FT walked from 150m to 100m. The HMG ducked repeatedly. But got off a few shots. In pine cover, at 125-150, this caused only "cautious" and the advance continued. At under 100m, however, the FT team was rapidly wiped out, despite suppression and cover.

I conclude that the only way to make the FT-jeep idea work *consistently* is with heavy prior smoke. But that makes it a largely redundant, "overdetermined" tactic. If you have smoke and a jeep to run next to the target, and there isn't much else around that target, you can probably take it out this way. But at least in the case of bunkers, any 1/2 squad with a demo charge, or AT teams, can do the same thing with that much assistance. If you can get to the side at 17m, you can get to the rear door.

The idea might be more promising with armor protecting the FT. An M3A1 scout car is the obvious thing to try. It carries a team, has armor protection, and suppresses infantry it approaches with 2xMGs. On the other hand, it is only 7mm of armor and sometimes will run from an HMG. Probably better that than being knocked out. The Brits have thicker Kangeroos, but they also have wasps which are cheaper than an FT-kangeroo pair and better in every respect. Indeed, the M3A1+FT idea is a sort of "poor man's wasp". The Germans could try the same with their HTs, but it is simpler to just buy a dedicated 251/16.

Foot FTs are units, and they can sometimes hurt things. But almost everything they do can be done better or cheaper by other types (mines, infantry AT, flame vehicles, etc). For their very high price, I still think they just suck in almost all situations. Urban fighting and in particular defensive urban ambushes seem about the only thing they really bring to the table.

As for gamey firestarting, all the discussion of whether deliberate fire-setting was ever used in WW II misses the point. In real life, you don't need a flamethrower to start a fire. A zippo and a pile of trash will do. Yes there are problems of fire control. But much more to the point, you can only burn things you already control and only once. The enemy is not really is such an all-fired rush, and can generally wait a few hours for all your stuff to be reduced to ash before attacking. Use of firestarting by FTs in CM is gamey, because it is artificially timed for an artificially restricted scenario length, and artificially limited to FTs.

More realistic would be allowing defenders to buy a "fortification type", "cleared field of fire", say in 60x40 blocks or whatever, that reduce woods or pines to scattered trees, those to brush, brush or wheat to open ground, and buildings to rubble. That was the kind of thing defenders really did use fire for - but before the kind of tactical fight each CM scenario represents, not during it.

One man's opinions.

[ June 23, 2002, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[xerxes]

The entire question of "should you use FTs" is boring. In a player pick QB game they really don't make sense. QB towns quite frankly are awful.

FTs really only apply to scenarios (and if you get them by a stroke of bad luck in a computer pick QB). The real question is how to maximize their effectiveness in different terrain and different tactical situations.

The HT loaded with a 1/2 squad and a FT is an interesting combination. I'd like to hear some more experiences with that. Jeeps die if there is anything near them, HTs can at least survive infantry fire.

[Agua]

hmmm... In QB's on defense in a village or town, I find them useful to deny the attacker use of buildings immediate to my MLR.

[CombinedArms]

JasonC's cost-effectiveness points are well taken on one level, but perhaps beside the point on another. I think we all know that FT teams are problematic to use as modelled in CM--one of CM's little problems. The undercurrent of this whole thread is that they are problematic. For example, they cost to much and are too easily killed to be an attractive purchase in a QB (execpt perhaps, as Agua indicates, for urban defense). The problem is how to squeeze some utility out of them if you're handed a few.

As several people have previously indicated, they're most easily and effectively used as ambush weapons on defense. I've recently argued for hiding them in a second line of buidlings on defense, and flaming the outer line as enemy attackers enter them. That worked great the one time I tried it.

OTOH, it takes a combination of great skill and a good deal of luck to get utility out of FT teams on the attack. Though there are many good suggestions above, I don't think anyone could claim to succeed consistently.

[JasonC]

Combined arms said - "we all know that FT teams are problematic...The problem is how to squeeze some utility out of them if you're handed a few." xerxes, rather than agreeing they are problematic, regards the question as "boring". While I agree with most of Combined Arms comments, I think he has missed both (1) how needlessly controversial this subject often is, and the amount of resistence the perfectly evident proposition "FTs are problematic" receives, and (2) the effect of this resistence on newer players.

We don't all know that FT teams are problematic. This is a tips section. People come here to learn the ins and outs of fighting in CM, especially newer players trying to learn its tactics. Many of which are similar to real world tactics or those of previous wargames, some of which are quite particular to CM because of issues of modeling, price, etc.

Many a new player can easily notice that his FTs just suck, and ask an entirely pertinent question "does anybody get a lot out of them?", without in the least knowing what Combined Arms thinks he must already know. He does not know whether FTs suck, or he just doesn't know how to use them yet.

When he asks and is regaled with numerous dazzling stories of the single greatest use each veteran player has ever gotten out of an FT team, he can easily get the impression that FTs aren't problematic, his play is. Then he runs off and tries to use FTs again. And fails again. And thinks it is his fault. It is not his fault. FTs as modeled in CM mostly suck. And that is the single most important, pertinent piece of information someone honestly asking such a question needs.

Yes, after he knows that, after it is acknowledged, it makes perfect sense to move on to Combined Arms' next question, how to get something out of them when a scenario hands you a few (or you need engineers for mineclearing in a QB, and so have two of the things to make the most of as a byproduct).

And I agree with Combined Arms that the best use of them in CM today is for relatively static ambushes in very tight terrain. When maximum visibility is so low they are always in range of anyone who can see them, and especially if they are also stationary against a moving target to get the first shot (because being vunerable to replies but high firepower themselves, they are "quick draw" weapons with the first shooter likely to win), they can hurt things.

I would only add as Berli and others have argued, that they also tend to be more useful in towns, especially ones modeled more densely than typical wide-street CM towns in QBs. The reason is that in addition to relatively tight terrain, troop density is often high and the targets are generally in flammable buildings. The upside to a single success can rise to a whole platoon in a large building, instead of one squad hit in a woods ambush.

Since vehicle drop off was mentioned as another idea, I tested it and showed its limitations, while suggesting two practical attendents to such use - an armored vehicle, and prior smoke. Without those things making them wonder weapons or reversing the general verdict that "FTs are problematic" (for their CM cost in QBs), those seem to be the uses of them that actually have the best chance of making a difference. Other ways are gamey (big lines of fires) or substitutes for other cheaper units you may not have enough of (bazookas, minefields).

[ June 24, 2002, 09:11 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Redwolf]

I used FT teams much in my initial AI playing and early PBEMs. In the majority of games I got one man out of two teams intact to a decisive point and found the effect to be worthwhile. I always use APCs to drive them in, sometimes a M20 or similar.

Later when I knew about the victory point system I stopped doing that, because the ~55 points you lose from losing the three men are quite substancial and outbalanced the quotation I previosuly found favourable.

Nowadays I play mostly scenarios and when I get them I have to use them. And I even voluntarily do, especially against very skilled opponents. Against an opponet you assume to be superiour you have to do some bold moves, otherwise you are slowly getting decimized with few win chances. In a recent attack against Wreck I could use my single FT team to good effect as slightly more than flank security. A pretty weak force of a halftrack, a FT team, a Bazooka and a decent HQ can effectivly close some tight terrain (woods, houses) against a counterattack. It is not flank security as "in case he", you really want a complete effective blocking force, the good players practically always counterattack somewhere, no matter whether they win or lose.

So far I only lost one of the two men and the other one is not out of danger yet. But besides some routet unit there is some burning woods now which is good, it blocks infantry and AFV shots. The bazooka scored, too, so life is good at that flank now and Wreck has committed quite some units there.

[ June 25, 2002, 10:31 AM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[xerxes]

In low visibility scenarios (night/heavy fog) when you're on the attack it's also good to have the FT crawl in cover towards a known strongpoint with a "?" bonus leader. If it's a "must reduce the strongpoint" situation you can area target staying just out of the LOS of the strongpoint. This works best in dry conditions just so you don't shoot off your entire tank. The other option is to area target and give a crawl the other way command so the FT only shoots once or twice.

[dasreich]

For me, FT troops have done little but waste my points. The only success with FT I have had is with the Hetzter Flammpanzer. With sloped armor and a an MG, it is capable of surviving on the front line. I once got 40 Infantry kills with it.

[markshot]

Well, I just read this thread and also had my first very positive experience with Germam FTs (one GRN and one VET).

This was playing one of the CD scenarios (versus AI).

Situation: A heavily wooded map and heavy fog. I placed my two FTs in woods on the opposite sides of a dirt road initially under the command of a Vet HQ unit with a combat bonus. The road was leading to an objective I was trying to hold, of course.

A few minutes earlier a squad with panzerfausts and a panzerschreck team knocked out some troublesome tanks lumbering down the road.

Much to my amazement the two FT teams (they had some supporting fire from a HQ unit and an SMG squad, but not too much) appeared to break as many as 6-8 allied squads that were advancing through the woods towards the objective. This was over a period of about seven minutes.

Here is my speculation as to why they were so effective:

- Very limited visibility (fog, woods, scattered trees, and smoke from fires which errupted from the first few flame bursts and burning tanks).

- The FT units were stationary and the allies were in motion.

- Although there were a considerable number of allied units approaching, the poor visibility prevented many-to-one sighting by the enemy. Thus, my FT teams were able to take them one at a time.

- The poor visibility meant that the allied squads were practically on top of (20 meters) my FT teams by the time they spotted one another. The the allied squads were in the kill zone of the FTs.

- The burning vegitation from previous FT shots, further helped to channel the approaching allied squads into a small window.

- The reaction of allied squads to being flamed at appeared to be disproportionate to the amount of actual casualties they took. Meaning it appears to be programmed into the game that getting flamed scares the crap out of the TAC AI.

I offer the above with no knowledge of WWII to tactics, history, or even a good understanding of CMBO mechanics. But none the less, I thought it might prove of some value.

[xerxes]

Those are near perfect FT conditions and for all the reasons you stated. Sounds like you handled them quite well.

[Priest]

Jason is correct that example was quite a long time ago, but it was one of plenty of examples. What made "on the tip of my tongue" was that it was one of my first successes with them.

Anywho I do not play many QB games so Jason you point theories are completely out the window for me (not for others, not that they are invalid, just have no importance to me). I just played a very interesting scenario where a company of Vet+ German PZGrens with a understrength Company of Tigers attacked my position which was defended by 4 platoons of engineers, a Cromwell (75mm) and 4-5 Churchill VIIIs. Do not worry no spoiler possible here it was a hrmmpph custom scenario.

I won. The Churchills outpreformed the Tigers in the city which was expected. (what was not expected was that one Church would bag four Tigers but hey what the heck!) What was interesting is that the FT teams I received did quite well. I only lost one team all the others survived with full members and all but the dead team expended all of their ammo and all of the teams caused casualties, two lit buildings on fire.

This is an example of a great rip roaring time with FTs but I have had a decent amount of others with similiar results, not quite as good but similiar. I think it comes down for me at least to a couple of things.

1.) I play very long games (60 turns+) which decreases the slow speed of a walking FT.

2.) I play very big games which increases the chance I have transport for the FT and increases the amount of targets I can ambush or attack with the FT.

Many smaller games I have played the FT either never got to the battle or never had anything come near it to shoot at it.

[John Kettler]

Am revisiting this thread as part of the essential reading for CMBO thread and have some new FT comments to offer based on tourney play.

First, the original example I gave was from a pregenerated combat scenario. The FT team I used was simply part of the force I was given.

Second, I have learned to my sorrow that FTs in dense woods are bad news. The first indication of trouble was when flame leapt into my stalwart HMG's position. Later, I had two squads of a veteran SS quick reaction platoon hurt and panicked. Would've been an outright break had they not been in command. Continuous woods, at least the ones typical of Germany late in the war, make it possible to essentially move infantry and FTs unseen. Beware!

Third, the Crocodile is a marvelous urban combat weapon--much better than the AVRE because of poor modeling of the Flying Dustbin projectile fired by the AVRE and because the Croc has thicker armor, not to mention the 75mm gun. One of mine burned down the best part of a block and outdueled a Pak 40 PB, shrugging off several frontal hits in the process.

Important note! Do NOT use them at night in villages, towns or cities. I did everything imaginable to suppress AT teams and lost mine anyway. It's too hard to see potential threats, and there are way too many hidey holes with embarrassing LOS. OTOH, a Croc in daylight, even an immobilized Croc, with a veteran crew can be murder. I killed a PB, several AFVs, a Panzerschreck team and gored some infantry. Terrain where the Croc was was basically flat, with gentle slopes upward away from the Croc's front.

Fourth, the Wasp can do good work in the attack, but keeping it alive is tricky. Lost one on an uphill attack against a concrete MG PB (assume it was a Panzerschreck fired from further up), but worked another one into a gully and basically tore apart a platoon of dug-in high quality infantry before getting hit by an AFV from across the board. Wasp attack was made from flank in conjunction with relatively modest (my forces pretty chewed up) suppressive fires from the gully rim.

Fifth, I've had mixed luck with the 251/16. Lost a pair in minutes while trying to clear a village. 251/16 in CMBO is short one major flame projector (had converted armored MG mounts on both sides of fighting compartment) and a capability to keep vehicle in defilade by use of hose mounted portable flame projector. OTOH, I've survived two shots from the beast while in a stone two story building.

My paras didn't break, and the building didn't catch. A 6-pounder KOed the 251/16 in one shot, though.

Hope this helps!

Regards,

John Kettler

[General Bolt]

My son designed a scenario. All wheatfield, hot dry whearther slight breeze. And nothing but FTs on both sides. :eek: LOTSA SMOKE. :eek: But in the end not much fun...

[HarryInk]

Haven't had time to read the whole thread, but:

Hit and miss devices.had one in a PBEM that was set up to fire, and only got off a single misdirected shot in the whole turn. Still, it distracted the German squad from the flanking doughboys that over ran it. *shrug*

In other games, FTs have cracked morale of enemy units quick smart, and if you can get 'em up vs a tank they'll toast it. Crew runs like doggies. But getting the FT close is murder!

FTs usually die on me...so the advice of plenty of support is very pertinent.

The best use I've found for them is to light up buildings at the start of a defence. You can channel attacks in this way, or deny the enemy a front entry into a town, forcing them into your ambush...

Use of them like that, where they're not under pressure is the most reliable I've found 'em. Otherwise,,, grrrr...a hit and miss thing.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

they are handy for taking out supressed pockets of resistance. you know, those bad guys that are hiding in woods or buildings like some sissy terrorists. so once you have used the lesser men to pin down the bad guys, then move in the FT to do the actual kill. and, hahaha, laugh! laugh and watch the bad guys burn, while your patriot FT rock'n'roll!