Not another AAR!? Tux Vs. Juste

[DavidFields]

Wow.....I know see one good effect of both sides having substantial number of heavy armor pieces--one duel does not decide an entire scenario.

I just did not understand how many units you both had at the start--what a rollicking battle from A to C to B.

Have I kept track correctly, that you have not lost an AFV? I would think that a couple of more AFV losses for him, and he will be in danger of being overwhelmed--his running his T-34s back and forth between C and B presages this. The Tac-AI will have his units skipping around between targets, which will reduce his effectiveness against any of them.

And I don't see how he can now flank your AFVs, unless you give him a "shot" when you maneuver.

I am impressed he was able to get infantry units into B, but is this going to be a reverse Stalingrad? (you hope)

Oh....Do We Have All Those AFVs Buttoned Now?

[Tux]

Aye, I have yet to lose an AFV. I have had a StuG immobilised though, and since Juste started the fight with 8 full AFVs to my 4 (I can't really count the FPz IIIs since they're almost useless in a tank-on-tank fight) I think he still basically has a slight advantage in the armour war. If he drew them all together and advanced his SU-152 towards my Tiger whilst flanking it with two T-34s on either side I don't know how I'd counter it effectively without losing most of my own tanks. I think his relatively piecemeal deployment of armour thus far has made it far, far easier to handle it all.

As for buttoning, I actually still have all the AFVs who can be unbuttoned. They are all fairly far away from the nearest enemy infantry, so I need the spotting capability. I would have had that FPz III commander buttoned if I'd realised he had LOS to the forest from which the shot eventually came.

For Juste's units to survive at B he needs to kill my FPz III. I feel fairly safe in assuming that his infantry won't manage that, so then it's down to his T-34 and SU-152. If they are to knock out my FPz then they first have to face down two StuG IIIGs along the road.

Should be fun...

[ May 13, 2008, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: Tux ]

[John Kettler]

Tux,

Your SP karma's better than mine, for mine when Immobilized always wind up pointed in a militarily useless direction, generally also while exposing flank armor! You're fortunate that Juste is exhibiting classical lousy early-mid war Russian armor tactics. If he fought per doctrine, his tanks would all be buttoned and would be wielded as a single unit, rather than being all over the place.

If something as simple as burning bedrolls can cause a King Tiger's crew to abandon its armored behemoth (WP round from a Sherman; true event), I'm pretty sure a direct flame hit would ruin a T-34's day. The engine doesn't breathe flame well, and I think there's not even a complete bulkhead between the engine and the fighting compartment. There're also the little matters of the ventilators' sucking in smoke and the fact that the bogies all have combustible, acridly burning rubber rims. Mind, I've never hit a tank with a flame tank in CM. The closest I've come was dousing an unbuttoned captured H-39 with a backpack mounted flamethrower, and that worked great.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ May 15, 2008, 02:21 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[hoolaman]

Tux, just wanted to let you know I am reading and enjoying your reports, keep up the good work.

[John Kettler]

Tux,

Forgot to mention that in Korea, napalm worked very nicely on T-34/85s. One of our members posted color post strike photos to prove it.

Regards,

John Kettler

[JasonC]

Yeah well, there is sort of a difference between 130 gallons burning at 5000 degrees for two minutes, and 2 gallons for 2 seconds. Even so, napalm destroys tanks by starting secondary fires in that period (usually in the engine, but even just the rubber parts of tracks). It is a bit like saying "since this 2000 lb bomb proves high explosive can destroy a tank, this hand grenade must be able to".

[John Kettler]

JasonC,

I think you're rather overstating your case. Even if we optimistically assume a direct hit on the target tank, physics and plenty of napalm delivery footage convincingly demonstrate that most of it will wind up anywhere than on the target, though what doesn't splash off on impact is likely to stick, thanks to the gel chemistry involved. In the more likely case of near miss, the tank winds up getting splashed over part of its surface by the flames, with the part getting hit varying based on weapon burst point and flight axis relative to the tank hit.

Contrast this with an aimed burst, likely switched to a longer jet of fire once a hit is scored, deliberately aimed smack dab at the tank. We know

from combat accounts that tank crews have a pronounced fear of burning alive and are therefore prone to abandon a tank perceived to be burning. This was exploited by Yeltsin's supporters when they immobilized MBTs of the countercoup forces and forced their abandonment by building fires under them. This is both a product of human instinct and a great desire not to be trapped in a blazing oven full of explosives. We know, too, that simply setting bedrolls and such on fire has led to many abandonments of AFVs, for the crews inside don't know "it's only a bedroll." Now, let's look at the KE of that flame jet. It has a punch that's very real. Wilson, in his book FLAMETHROWER, describes how the Crocodile's jet tore apart a corrugated metal building. What's that likely to do to vision blocks? How about simple observation slits? What's the crew supposed to breathe while the tank's engulfed in flames? What about the engine?

According to this site, the flow rate was 7.8 liters/sec, with 1020 liters of flame fuel carried. This is what it looks like when aimed at someone else. Now, imagine being the aimpoint!

http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/22725

Regards,

John Kettler

[Yushal]

Well, if their souls are pure, they wont burn, so whats the difference? Luckily for Tux, communists are evil.

[JasonC]

JK - I've continually challenged everyone who think so to find any real combat instances of tanks destroyed by FTs. There are none in the MOH citations, for instance. There is a single prominent report of them being used, along with molotovs and close assault, to finish off immobilized and MG-less AFVs at Kursk. So far, that is about it. You can find panzerfausts and bazookas destroying tanks on every other page of any detailed battle narrative.

They simply failed to do it. Napalm, on the other hand, was the first truly successful air to ground munition, and accounted for 80% of such kills in Korea. The reason is purely the effective hit radius, around 50 meters instead of about 3 meters. The reason backpack FTs have no such record is they lack range and lack the fuel endurance to deliver any appreciable load.

A German backpack FT carried 2 to 3 gallons of fuel - 3 for the earlier war types, which weighed 80 pounds and was far too heavy to be useful, and less than 2 gallons (7 liters) for the most common later war model, which still weighed 40 pounds. That 7 liters could be stretched into 10 separate bursts, maximum, before exhausting the igniter.

The US FT weighed in at 70 pounds and carried 4 gallons.

Moreover, in the typical dramatic use, fired already ignited, most of this fuel burns in the air between thrower and target, and tends to evaporate upward from the heat of the rest of the jet.

The right way to use one against an armored vehicle is to "shoot" a "burst" "wet", without being ignited, and then a second ignited one to light the first, after it has already soaked in. Otherwise, 90% of the fuel fired never reaches the target.

When firing at personnel this hardly matters - one because they will be scared regardless, two because their clothes are readily ignitable, and three because even a small amount reaching a man is debilitating. None of these is true for armored vehicles.

Unless the short period of actual burning ignites a secondary fire from flammable material already part on the tank, there is no risk to internal crew whatever. And a couple of seconds just isn't enough to ignite most things in a tank. Your best chances are gear stowed on deck, oil in the engine compartment (comparatively hard to ignite, but smoke producing it it does), and rubber parts of tracks for those types that have them.

It is smoke from any of those secondary fires that might force the crew to exit the vehicle. They simply can't breath smoke for 10 minutes. But they can certainly hold their breath for as long as any manpacked FT can fire at them.

Needless to say, the idea that men are going to bail out instantly because they fear burning, when the source of said fear is a flamethrower being fired at them from point blank range, is crazy. They are vastly more in danger from the same FT while outside than while inside, and know it.

You can find actual combat reports of FTs being used successfully on bunkers and machinegun nests and caves. You can find occasional instances of directly poured out fuel being used to destroy immobilized tanks. You can find reports of attempts to KO tanks with molotovs, and a handful of documented instances of that working e.g. in the Warsaw uprising.

But that is really about it.

Understand, literally scores of thousands of FTs were fielded in the war. If they routinely killed tanks, it would appear in the dispatches. It does not.

[John Kettler]

JasonC,

Yours is a comparison of apples to bananas. They're both fruit, but that's about it. I'm not talking about a manpack flamethrower, the subject of much discussion in the Forums over the years, but a flamethrowing tank, hence the name Flammpanzer III.

The differences in capability between a flamethrowing tank and a manpack flamethrower are both real and dramatic, as I sought to highlight in my reply. Thus, I fail to understand why you are assailing me with stories of the ineffectiveness of manpack flamethrowers. I don't personally know of any instances in which a flame tank engaged a tank during the War, but I'm certain I wouldn't want to be in said tank.

Regards,

John Kettler

[General Jack Ripper]

If I may break into conversation,

While real combat instances of tanks being destroyed by FT's are non existant, in the game it is very easy to destroy tanks with FT's.

I'm not saying it is realistic, but it certainly justifies purchasing Flampanzer III and expecting it to be capable of destroying tanks at close range.

I built a scenario with different types of flamethrowers (manpack, HT and Tank FT's) hiding in ambush alongside a road and drove many different types of russian tanks down the road. The only tanks that survived were ones that had crew casualty causing them to panic and reverse out of LOS.

It seems that in-game, flamthrowers can destroy almost any type of tank. This is probably a game design decision to make it more desirable to use flamethrower in certain situations, IMO.

[John Kettler]

SLIM,

If you look at the volume of (literal fire) being placed on the target in the still and in the latter part of the Crocodile footage here, it's pretty obvious it would ruin the victim tank crew's day.

The blinding aspect is confirmed in the live fire analysis the U.S. did with a flamethrower against

a Panzer IV captured in North Africa.

http://www.lonesentry.com/germansoldier/index.html

Also, I recently saw a Panther vid on breaching Kursk style defenses (below) on YouTube U.K. As you can see starting at ~8:30, the Panther crew gets pretty excited over a Molotov cocktail's detonating on the engine compartment. This being the case, what happens when the tank is basically a sheet of flame?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=W8c_Tbr_fXQ

Regards,

John Kettler

[Yushal]

What happens? They calmly hold their breath! Like I am holding mine for an update on the AAR. Remember the AAR?

[John Kettler]

Yushal,

I do indeed, but my only calm regarding it is born of exhaustion. Dying to see what happens next!

Regards,

John Kettler

[General Jack Ripper]

John Kettler,

Didn't mean to sound like I was disagreeing with earlier statment. Just pointing out that in game and real-life two separate things. (Thus agreeing with apples to banannas comparison, but in different way.)

I had seen the arguement over flamethrowers in another thread, I was just trying to make the distinction that arguing whether flamethrowers can destroy a tank is irrelevant. The simple fact is that in-game, flamethrowers destroy tanks easily.

I appreciate your reply, and I enjoyed the videos you linked to.

-SLIM

Tux,

I'm enjoying this during action report, hope to see more soon. I didn't mean to clutter up your thread.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

while we are waiting for the AAR to continue, i'd like to point out that flame tanks were credited with tank kills.

[John Kettler]

undead reindeer cavalry,

Are you talking about in CM, or in WW II? If the latter, please provide the relevant cites. Have had no luck with this myself, despite some pretty deep digging. Am absolutely certain other grogs will be equally engrossed.

Regards,

John Kettler

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Are you talking about in CM, or in WW II? If the latter, please provide the relevant cites. Have had no luck with this myself, despite some pretty deep digging. Am absolutely certain other grogs will be equally engrossed.

i'm talking about WW2. i'll try to dig out a quote later today. a book i have about German flame tanks quotes an AAR that reports flame tanks taking out a number of enemy tanks, at least if i recall correctly.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

here goes.

the source is "Flammpanzer - German Flamethrowers 1941-1945", by Jentz and Doyle. it's an Osprey booklet.

page 13:

Pz.Abt.(F) 101 on 26 August 1941, while attached to the 7.Panzer-Division:

Equipment definitely destroyed by Pz.Abt.(F) 101 amounted to several light machine guns, 11 heavy machine guns, one mortar, two cars, three trucks, and one tank. Pz.Abt.(F) 101 claimed probable destruction of a heavy tank and two artillery pieces. Forty prisoners were turned over to the infantry. About 100 to 150 enemy infantry were killed by the flamethrowers and machine gun gun fire. (SIC) Pz.Abt.(F) 101 did not suffer any losses in men or material.

unfortunately the passages related to the actions quoted above do not contain information about precisely how the enemy tanks were destroyed. fortunately, the following passage does so.

page 22:

during a counter-attack by 2.Flamm-Kompanie/Panzer-Regiment 26, on 16 December 1943:

'A Flammwagen (Flammpanzer III -URC) succeeded in destroying an enemy tank. The type of tank could not be determined in the darkness. The Flammwagen had adroitly crept up on the enemy tank that was hidden under cover of a straw stack and set it on fire with several spurts from the flamethrower.'

page 43:

a relevant segment from an experience report submitted by Panzer-Flamm-Kompanie 352 on the employment of Flammpanzer 38, dated 23 February 1945:

Success against tanks can only be achieved by a surprise attack from close range, since the Flammpanzer itself does not possess a heavy weapon. The only possibilities that remain are to try to set the motor of the tank on fire or to interfere with their vision by engaging the enemy tank with ignited spurts.

[John Kettler]

undead reindeer cavalry,

Spectacular find! This should warp JasonC's head, but good. Many thanks for sharing this!

Regards,

John Kettler

[JasonC]

Hardly. By a tank not a manpacked FT. At night. Enemy tank *hiding in a haystack*. Um, yeah, you could probably destroy a tank "hiding" directly under a wrecking ball crane with a pair of bolt cutters, too.

In the bulge, a US captain won the CMH for KOing a tank with his tommy gun. Shot the exposed driver as it was crossing a bridge at night, and it went over the side into a gorge.

Stuff happens. Doesn't mean a tommy gun is an AT weapon.

[John Kettler]

JasonC,

No moving the goalpost! Your staunch assertion was that no=0 flamethrower kills of tanks were made during the war. You further asserted that even an AFV mounted flamethrower couldn't significantly damage, never mind kill, a tank. Undead reindeer cavalry has not only produced two such instances, from two different units separated in time by two years of war, but the toll may include a heavy tank as well. Finally, a third unit, writing late in the war, has clearly had its own combat experiences pitting Flammpanzers against tanks and has learned therefrom. I therefore deem your argument on this subject refuted, which is not the same as saying a flamethrower, be it manpacked or AFV mounted, should be considered a primary antitank weapon.

It is, though, part of an array of expedient means to combat tanks and other AFVs. Would have you interview the crews of Ferdinands immobilized by AT mines at Kursk, but I fear they were roasted by Russian combat engineers wielding "useless" flamethrowers, judging from some of the reports I've seen.

Regards,

John Kettler

[undead reindeer cavalry]

the source is a ~70 page booklet. it's, i suppose, purely by chance that the included AARs contain reports of destroyed tanks at all. the focus is on actions against infantry, bunkers, MG nests and such, and selected so that each vehicle type gets AAR or two.

in general the booklet portrays flame tanks to be in most cases quite useless, due to various things (like too light armor and too limited range of the weapon). they don't see much action, but they can be very effective if conditions are right. one also gets the idea that they were one of those silly things Hitler was obsessed about, to the annoyance of the army.

nonetheless it seems clear that they were in fact able to destroy tanks.

BTW there was an interesting passage in one of the AARs. first 88mm FlaK fired at firing slits of a bunker for one hour. then the flame tanks fired a good number of bursts at the slits for a good while from point blank range. yet the bunker remained in operation. IIRC to be dealt with by engineers.

[DavidFields]

I have no stake in the FT tank issue, but I was amused by the:

"The Flammwagen had adroitly crept up on an enemy tank..."

I am in no way doubting the source, but I could not keep the picture of a tank tip-toeing in the dark....quietly.....when it heard a sound, stopping, then "adroitly" creeping up to squirt the sleeping enemy tank.

Really, were Flammwagen's that quiet? Maybe the enemy crew was off somewhere else?

And the "88mm Flak fired at firing slits of a bunker for an hour..."--I am not looking forward to that ever being made into a scenario. File that under: war, indeed, is often tedious.

Meanwhile, wasn't there an AAR going on when this fight broke out? Get the hooligans off the field, and let's get back to the game!

[Tux]

Just waiting for Juste to send back a file atm. I've just finished my final exams but I think he may still be in the middle of his.