DrJonez Posted July 5, 2003 Share Posted July 5, 2003 So I just played a game with a friend, and I snuck up on his Flammpanzer with a T-34. I put a round into his tank, and then it turned around, and in one little burst of flame completely knocked out my T-34. I was really mad when this happened. How is a little fire going to burn through 50mm+ of steel plate? Even if it hit a fuel tank or something, the tank wouldn't be totally dead. It seems like flamethrowers are completely dominating against tanks as long as they can get close enough to fire. It really sort of makes me mad because of how unrealistic this appears to be. If anyone cares to correct me though, please do 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SurlyBen Posted July 5, 2003 Share Posted July 5, 2003 Well, if you really want to be mad, let a basic infantry squad get that close to your tank. Those grenades'll knock it out in no time at all. As for your question about the realism of flamethrowers knocking out tanks, I'm sure a flamethrower grog will be along in no time to answer your question in a comprehensive manner. IIRC, it's not just a matter of the flames getting into the engine compartment. It also has to do with fear of being cooked alive, the fact that the flames consume nearby oxygen, and a lack of total airtightness on the part of tanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laxx Posted July 5, 2003 Share Posted July 5, 2003 doc, doan feel bad, next time doan hit a flame panzer so close. now, try this out: get a sharpshooter and a flamethrower to hide in two buildings both adjacent to a road. shoot the t-34 to hatch up the tank commander, and when it comes within 30-40ms, open the FT at the t-34, it takes 2 squirts to kill the t-34. better still, get 2x molotov cocktail throwing tank hunter teams to kill the t-34. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJonez Posted July 5, 2003 Author Share Posted July 5, 2003 Well it wasn't a fear of being cooked alive, because the tank was knocked out, not abandoned. And even if it got in the engine compartment, wouldn't that just immobilize the tank? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted July 5, 2003 Share Posted July 5, 2003 The main thing is the "oh crap we're on fire!" factor. As for actual damage, remember that unlike most molotovs flamethowers weren't just spraying regular gas. They used a sticky jell and burned longer and hotter than just gas. This could do neat things like raise the temp inside the tank as well as suck out all the oxygen. It cooks exposed wiring and any flamable material it encounters, like engine wiring, and can ruin the tanks optics. It also has the annoying habbit of flowing into the little holes one tends to find in the tanks of the era, air vents, shell hatches, the space around the coax mg, etc., and actually starting fires inside the tank. You don't have to blow a big hole in a tank to knock it out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Determinant Posted July 5, 2003 Share Posted July 5, 2003 Originally posted by DrJonez: Well it wasn't a fear of being cooked alive, because the tank was knocked out, not abandoned. And even if it got in the engine compartment, wouldn't that just immobilize the tank? The distinction between knocked out and abandoned can sometimes seem a bit odd. I suppose that 'knocked out' operates on the vehicle while 'abandoned' operates on the crew. Some determined crews will continue to fight their vehicle, or what's left of it, even once it is technicaly knocked out. While crews who have seen quite enough already thank you will abandon their vehicles at the first sign of a loose grommet. The answer to the flame attack KO must be that the vehicle is burning, and that the flames render the vehicle unuseable. A flame attack abandonment would mean that the crew are scared of being burned to death and want to be elsewhere, even though a few seconds work with a fire extinguisher might see them right as rain. I'm not sure that a fire in the engine compartment would be shrugged off as 'just an 'M' kill' by any but the most fanatic crews. Armoured vehicles are tinderboxes. They are packed with fuel, oil, propellant, explosives and all sorts of combustible stuff. Flame and vehicles is grim stuff. Perhaps the most frightening thing that I saw on the TV coverage of the latest Gulf war was the Paladin SPG brewing up, and I was watching on TV and could easily hide behind my sofa, it must have made a deep impression on those actually there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted July 5, 2003 Share Posted July 5, 2003 you're in a giant pressure cooker surrounded by loose clothes, oil, grease, cordite, fuel & high explosive shells. if the whole lot starts to go on fire the chances are you're not going to stop it. getting out might be a smart move. especially if the igniter is some kind of burning material that is designed to carry on burning & be difficult to put out. thinking about it molotovs may be under modelled in the game. does anybody have any proof one way or another? cheers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Phosphorus Posted July 6, 2003 Share Posted July 6, 2003 Originally posted by Other Means: you're in a giant pressure cooker surrounded by loose clothes, oil, grease, cordite, fuel & high explosive shells. if the whole lot starts to go on fire the chances are you're not going to stop it. getting out might be a smart move. especially if the igniter is some kind of burning material that is designed to carry on burning & be difficult to put out. thinking about it molotovs may be under modelled in the game. does anybody have any proof one way or another? cheers. I think the problem with molotovs is that they do not carry much fuel at all. And that the fuel has to leak into the vehicle. While a flamer forcebly pumps it inside. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin's Organ Posted July 6, 2003 Share Posted July 6, 2003 I dunno that a flame thrower "forces" it inside as such, but it will use an awful lot more gas per shot than a molotov - especialy a vehicle mounted one. IIRC we're talking 2-5 gallons per shot (9-25 ltres), verses a pint (1/2 litre) for a molotov. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maj. Battaglia Posted July 6, 2003 Share Posted July 6, 2003 I've noticed that flamethrower performance against AFVs varies greatly and seems to be based a lot on luck. Sometimes you get the AFV on the first shot, other times I've seen it take a good five or six bursts to cook the beast. Even against OT vehicles like halftracks I've seen it take four to five bursts. Overall I'd say that it is modeled well. There are a lot of variables, like can the burning fuel find some way inside the vehicle, etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eichenbaum Posted July 6, 2003 Share Posted July 6, 2003 Imagine you're a bunch of cookies getting baked in the oven. How do you feel ? A tank does in most cases not offer many space for it's crew. Filled with grenades and equipment it's not a nice place to stay. Esp. when a flametrower or molotov cocktails make it awefull hot in there.... Eichenbaum 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.