Tiger tank 'KO'ed by Flamethrower??

[Harv]

I told you Lorak. I told you.

Maybe next time you'll listen to me.

Harv

[Other Means]

tangentially, the only account i've seen of a molotov at work was in a fictional book about the Hungarian uprising Under the Frog.

this states that a molotov could easily take out a tank if there were no infantry nearby.

i am aware that this removes me from any chance of ever becoming a grog.

[Lorak]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Thanks Lorak, but it hardly impresses. The Russian case claims 4 tanks by static FTs, which means a positional engineer work rather more elaborate than a backpack. For the Guad case the tank obviously burned, but whether it was due to an FT or just the usual ammo fire after being penetrated is less than obvious - it is quite possible the caption is a guess based on seeing the wreck rather than an eyewitness AAR.

No, what is really wanted is an account with time place and unit, preferably with blow by blow. As in "One of the panzers was crippled, but the crew compartment proved impervious to bazooka rounds (perhaps this was a Tiger) (aside - actually, it was a Jagd-70 with skirts, as the German side units present establishes). So Cpl. Charles Roberts (Company D) and Sgt. Otis Bone (Company drained some gasoline from an abandoned vehicle, doused the tank, and lit the whole with thermite grenades." But with an FT.

Are you serious? I mean really?

So you need a whole paragraph description detailing weapons used, time frame, unit, and personal involved before you believe a tank was taken out?

You know.. I was pretty sure untill now that the germans and russians lost thousands of tanks to AT guns on the east front. But by your criteria this can't be true as I have only seen paragraphs written about much less than that. Maybe a couple hundred if I pulled ever reference I have out that list unit, time, soldiers involved, and a description of how it took place.. maybe not even that many.

I guess I'll just be gullible and go on believing that flaming liquid poured all over and into an engine compartment is bad for it.

Lorak

[Spanish Bombs]

I can't place the source at present, but I recall reading about flamethrowers being used against

Ferdinands at Kursk. They may have been immobilized, and were obviously poorly prepared to deal with infantry, but they were Tiger-like in some aspects.

[Spanish Bombs]

OK, found it. In Citadel by Robin Cross , p. 165, describing the drive on Hill 253.3 to the East of Ponyri

...The Elefants were soon marooned in a maze of slit trenches, however. where they were seperated from the lighter tanks needed to cover their flanks., like a screen of destroyers protecting a capital ship. Lacking secondary armament, they fell victim to Soviet infantry who emerged from their foxholes, boarded them on the move and played flamethrowers over the engine ventilation slats. Model's monsters had feet of clay.

[MikeyD]

Talk about German tanks and flamables, by coincidence reading the book "Death Traps" by Cooper on the subway this morning, I happened across an account I hadn't heard before.

G.I.s without adequate armor support in one town facing oncoming German tanks during the Bulge offensive came up with the idea to let 55 gallon drums filled with high octane gas roll down the street towards the approaching German armor. The drums would then be shot at with tracer round to ignite them. As the Germans scrambled to hastily abandon their burning tank the G.I.s would shoot them down.

Just one anecdote, but it does imply burning gasoline = abandoned tank.

[JasonC]

The Elephant story is reasonably close to what is wanted. But it is not clear it actually checks out. The wrecks of Elephants around Ponyri station were surveyed by the Russians, and their causes of destruction are detailed here -

<a href=http://www.battlefield.ru/library/bookshelf/losses/losses5.html>Koed Elephants</a>

So, which ones were supposedly boarded while moving and KOed by flamethrowers?

There are 8 with reported flame components to the attacks that took them out. 5 specify "Molotov", 3 say "ignited" without specifying by what. Only one of these, however, has no other cause of the KO listed - II-01. A molotov is the listed cause. Of the other 7, 4 were specified as already knocked out by mines before being lit. Two were hit by AP, and one by "a shell", not specified.

It is possible some of these were immobilized but not otherwise harmed by the mines or shells. Being both turretless and without MGs, an immobilized Elephant is a particularly helpless critter. It can't hurt anything outside a narrow arc directly ahead. It is still not obvious the ones finished off by flame were functioning - e.g. some of the mine KOs may have been full kills already, with flame just preventing recovery and "making sure".

The German side blamed the losses in part on the lack of MGs for the Elephant. They were explaining the failure of a particularly potent AFV and lobbying for an improvement. It is obvious from the listed causes that minefields account for much of the damage, and flanking fire for much of the rest. Close infantry assault obviously finished off a number of the resulting cripples and clearly overran their position. They clearly used flame to KO the cripples, and perhaps one live one, I-02 (though it is also possible the absence of another cause for that one reflects the extent of the fire damage, making it impossible to tell, rather than showing nothing else hit it).

But this is somewhat different from the story of swarms of infantry mobbing live Elephants and taking out numerous AFVs with flamethrowers (or by climbing aboard) vs. still fully functional AFVs. Leading to the question, do those German side accounts of what happened accurately reflect the tactical realities? They are distant and higher echelon accounts. The details from the Russian side collaborate infantry overrun and flame attack - but against cripples or already KOed vehicles, and mostly by Molotov.

As for Lorak's question whether I am serious, sure I am serious. When something happens regularly, it leaves traces in accounts. Do I think every AFV KOed by an ATG left an eyewitness account? No of course not. But I've read any number of eyewitness reports of ATGs KOing AFVs. It was also a key part of tactical doctrines, motivated entire unit types and their uses, etc. It leaves a massive trail in the record.

For flamethrowers, I have cases like the above showing flame attacks used to finish off crippled TDs - which also covers the Jagd-70 case in the Bulge I quoted earlier. It seems physically possible the same thing could be done by backpack FTs. Without this yet showing that the same was ever accomplished against a moving, functioning, armed AFV - though that too should be physically possible.

(If the flaming liquid can do it, why am I skeptical? Because you have to get a particularly hard to move weapon within 40m of the rear or far side facing of a vehicle that can move and kill the operator. With items like magnetic mines - or a light molotov - it is at least possible to move rapidly. Many of these alternatives were more readily available as well as probably better at it if you could get that close).

I think it likely it happened at some time or other, from one end of the war to the other. People were also probably struck by lightning sometime during WW II, but I don't consider that a tactically important circumstance. I do not think it could have been at all common without leaving traces in AARs. If more such traces are found, I would willingly upgrade my opinion of it to "rare but tactically important and real". What I've seen so far leaves me at "not proven".

[MikeyD]

"People were also probably struck by lightning sometime during WW II"

Now THAT's a game feature I'd want to see in the patch! :eek:

[Roach]

Whilst in Normandy in 1994 for the 50th D-Day Anniversary, a few friends and myself were giving a few 29th Division Veterans a Jeep Tour around some of the places that they had fought over. During the course of the day one of the 29ers recounted one of the most moving stories I have heard from a Veteran.

During the advance through Brittany, this particular 29er’s Rifle Company had been held up by a single German tank which was proving impossible to dislodge. The decision was made to try and burn the tank out and a flame-thrower was duly brought forward. Volunteers were asked for and nobody, naturally enough, volunteered – they all regarded anything to do with a flamethrower as a suicide mission.

The 29er in question was one of those not wishing to volunteer their services and this in spite of the fact that he had been trained to use the flamethrower back at the Weapons Training Centre in Woolacombe, England – because they did regard it as a suicide mission he was keeping very quiet about his training. Unfortunately for him, one of his buddies (the Vet smiled one of those smiles at this point!) let it be known that he knew how to use one – and so in spite of his silence he found himself strapping on the flamethrower anyway.

Using the available cover as best he could (and with little hope of success and even less enthusiasm for the task in hand) he managed to get within, what he judged to be 40 yards of the tank, and at that point he was able to successfully aim, fire (quite literally) and burn the tank. He watched two of the crew trying to get out; one failed entirely, the other, on fire, managed to make it out and got approximately 25 yards before he collapsed. The Vet wasn’t certain whether that was because someone had made a mercy shot, or if he had simply succumbed to his wounds sustained in the tank. The Vet later discovered that there had been a third crewman in the tank.

After he had burned the tank, he told us how he just didn’t know how to feel about what he had done, but that he had shrugged off the flamethrower and left it where it lay and NEVER used one again. The look on his face said everything about how he felt about it. Most definitely a sobering thought.

As for the tank itself, he wasn’t exactly sure what it was, only that it wasn’t a big one – so obviously not a Tiger! But, it was nevertheless big enough to hold his Company up, and so, that made it big enough. He also mentioned that it appeared to have shut off its engines and was solely using machine guns, so it’s possible it may have already become disabled, which no doubt may have helped him get close enough to do what he had to do. If so, then luck was definitely on his side that day.

But even so, whether the tank was disabled or not, he had still managed to successfully use the flamethrower to knock it out – no mean feat in itself, and one that has left a lasting impression on him throughout his life.

[JasonC]

Very good Roach. That definitely counts as a real AAR.

I just noticed something, as a PS. He snuck up on the tank, so it did not know he was coming, right? And the result was not an engine fire, but 2 men physically set on fire. So, was the tank buttoned when he fired?

[ January 01, 2004, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Roach]

Aha, a good point. I don't recall whether or not he said it was buttoned (I'll see if I can find the recording). Although assumption is obviously a dangerous thing, I think it fairly likely that it was buttoned because of the fact that he was able to creep up on it. Plus of course, it also had a rifle company desperately trying to divert its attention and shut the beggar up.

As for an engine fire, again, I'll try checking the tape or see if any of the guys recall better than I do. But I'm pretty certain that he didn't mention what specifically might have caught fire first, i.e., the engine.

I think that all he was aware of at the time was that he set it on fire, it kept burning, two of the crew tried to bail, and that the tank was then no longer a problem. After the event I think his thoughts were mainly occupied with the notion that a flamethrower is not a nice way for anyone to meet their maker, not even the enemy. I can't say I disagree.

[dieseltaylor]

Just thought I would let everyone know that in a serious game of CMBB my Flampanzer 111 was being stalked by two T34's and because of the lie of the land one came in sight at 60 seconds at a range of 60 metres and drew a bead on my tank.

Being PBEM I had to await the next film the following day and was pleased to see that three shots left a bailed out T34, the second seeing the flames backed away and a squad taking advantage to rush up was fried. Very satisfying.

Maybe not historical but exciting you bet

Anyone wish for the file please e-mail me putting in cmbb in the header. Pictures will end up at the MZO noticeboard

[JasonC]

I understand the moral of the story to be, it sucks to burn to death, so much that it sucks (less but some) to burn somebody else to death. Since that is the moral, not "FTs KO tanks", it is tangential to our concern here. Though certainly it might speak to our concern, in passing.

As for the unbuttoned possibility, the problem is he says two guys got out on fire. It is central to the moral of his story. So, how is an FT supposed to set on fire men inside a buttoned tank?

That is not how an FT actually KOs a buttoned tank, if it does manage to. It won't actually light up men behind armor. It supposedly starts a fire in the engine compartment - e.g. by igniting the oil present in the compartment. Smoke from that fire enters the crew compartment. The crew can't breath in smoke. They have to bail out.

It is physically wildly implausible than an FT directly sets on fire a man inside a buttoned tank. There aren't gaps for flame to actually get all the way inside to where the crew is, if the thing is buttoned up.

It is however perfectly believable that an FT fired at an unbuttoned tank KOs it, by actually burning the men. An unbuttoned tank is very much like a bunker in this respect. It has openings for the flame to get inside, just like a bunker does.

(Of course, for the same reason an unbuttoned tank might be KOed by a hand grenade - though that might be harder to actually do, since presumably an FT just needs to get close enough i.e. it is hard to miss with one, easy to miss with a grenade from 30m away or whatever).

[zukkov]

with regards to how flaming an enemy to death adversely affects the soldier, think of all the guys in the pacific that had to do just that, time and again, because their enemy was down in a hole and it was the only way to dig him out.

with regards to whether or not a flamethrower could ko a buttoned tank, wasn't there vision slits the flames could penetrate? also, it could have been the crew panicked when the flames hit the tank, then caught fire as they tried to exit.

[JasonC]

Vision slits are slits in the metal, not complete holes. They are filled by heavy glass several inches thick. They regularly stopped 14.5mm ATR rounds, let alone hot air. The explanation of panic is more believable. Since FTs can only fire for a few seconds before completely exhausting their fuel, however, it is still not very likely - unless they got hit by a later burst out of several, after they had unbuttoned. Which reduces to the previous - to do this to them, the tank had to be unbuttoned when flamed.