How do you miss with a flamethrower?

[palleon]

I have recently played in two games where i attacked tanks with falmethrowers to no avail. In the first (Axis vs Brits in large hills) I managed to sneak a falmethrower up a slope and opened up on a Challenger from 20 meters. After blazing away (at least 4 shots) the challenger calmly backed away. Fortunately the gun was already damaged on it so it could not reply. In the second game, I was the Brits and rushed a Wasp (the bloody things are FAST) around for a flanking shot on a Stug. Again after three shots from 30m there was no effect while the buttoned Stug calmly pivoted and killed the Wasp. My question is this, how on earth do you miss (if that is what is happening)with a flamethrower?! if you have spent the time and resources manuvering the darned things into place for a shot then a kill of a tank should be a given, in my humble and uninformed opinion. I know there have been previous discussions on this, but none that I could find specifically on tank v flamethrower.

[109 Gustav]

A better question might be "How do you get flame inside a locked up steel tub?" If the tanks are buttoned, they've got their hatches closed down tight. The flame would have to get inside the tank somehow if they were going to have any effect. Otherwise, it would just scorch the paint off and maybe blind the crew. They do work sometimes though, so don't let me discourage you from flaming any tank that happens along. However, if you're going to go off stalking tanks, use a zook or shreck team.

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

Well my skiff's a twenty dollar boat, And I hope to God she stays afloat.

But if somehow my skiff goes down, I'll freeze to death before I drown.

And pray my body will be found, Alaska salmon fishing, boys, Alaska salmon fishing.

-Commercial fishing in Kodiak, Alaska

[This message has been edited by 109 Gustav (edited 01-13-2001).]

[curih]

I don't know how the game models these types of encounters, but that much flame would suck the oxygen right out of a tank.

Alex

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Flamethrowers are not meant as anti-tank weapons. They are meant to wipe out bunkers, entrenched infantry, and houses. What all those things have in common is unarmored men inside an imposing piece of cover that is difficult to hit with regular weapons. But they also have openings the men inside are sighting through. The point of the liquid is to get into openings that aimed shots find too small to go through.

There aren't necessarily such openings on AFVs. Open top ones, flamethrowers should work on, for the same reason they work against bunkers and such. Similar story for unbuttoned AFVs, if you catch them that way with their hatches open. But a buttoned, topped AFV is not a box of matches and it is made out of steel, not wood.

Flamethrowers do sometimes take out buttoned tanks, because sometimes the burning fuel will get into the engine compartment and manage to set the engine on fire. There is lubricating motor oil in there. Elsewhere on some tanks are some containers of hydraulic fluid to move the turret and such, and it has a gas supply somewhere (often diesel, though, which does not ignite so easily).

But most of those combustibles, like the ammo supply, are stowed well inside the tank where the flame is not going to get if the tank is buttoned up. Basically, you manage to set the engine on fire or you don't. The fire lasts and spreads or it doesn't.

The flamethrower itself is only firing for a few seconds, not nearly long enough a fire to actual destroy the tank. A tank has to burn for minutes to actually knock it out (smoke overwhelming the crew unless they bail out e.g.), which is only going to happen if parts of it catch fire in their own right.

[bebbetufs]

How can molotows be effective against tanks if a flametrower is useless?

[Guest Pillar]

I believe the Flamethrower fires a sticky petrol mix that burns for some time.

[Guest Michael emrys]

As Jason mentions, flamethrowers can be quite deadly against AFVs if they manage to get to and ignite something combustable. The easiest way to do this is to attack the engine compartment. Not only are there possibly leaky fuel lines, there is usually oil all over the place, unless you have a very fastidious crew who have the time to clean it out frequently. What's more, engine compartments usually had lots of cooling louvers that provided handy access for burning liquids to penetrate the interior of the engine compartment. That's where the Molotov cocktails were hurled.

The chief advantage an AFV had over a pillbox/bunker is mobility. Provided it had not actually been entered by flaming liquids, it could simply leave the scene of the fire.

One thing I noticed, palleon, is that your attacks were at or near the maximum range of your flamethrowers. This would make it harder for the operators to aim it reliably, so that even if they were trying to hit the rear deck, it would be hard for them to do.

Michael

[This message has been edited by Michael emrys (edited 01-14-2001).]

[Gremlin]

Check the thread below for a translation of German field manual instructing infantry how to take out tanks in close combat--the standard equivalent of the Molotov cocktail (Brandflasche) figures prominently. As discussed above, targeting the engine vent covers is a primary means of knocking out the tank.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/014827.html

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

War does not determine who is right--only who is left.

--Bertrand Russell

[palleon]

Thanks to the informative replies. i was used to other games (such as Stel Panthers and Close Combat) where flamethrowers at close range were masters of all they surveyed. Next time Ill just tell my infantry to take off their socks to make "sticky bombs".

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

"Conan! What is best in life?"

"To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of the women!"

[CATguy]

In all reality most AFV during WWII could not withstand a flamethrower attack. Granted enough of the burning liquid had to get on the vehicle, but if enough was applied the fumes, heat, smoke and other nasty combusibles would get in small areas, burn vital components and generally cause havoc. Modern AFV can withstand an attack like this since they have seperate ventilation systems for chem warfare and the like....depending on the ratio of mixtures and the gases and liquids used you could either make it real hot for burning or you could throw burning liquid or gel at the target. this would be quite nasty and would bring down a king tiger no problem if there was no infantry nearby of course

[Olle Petersson]

Apply a fair amount of burning liquid to the engine air inlet, and the engine will die. Possibly beyond repair.

Cheers

Olle

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

Srategy is the art of avoiding a fair fight...

[FriendlyFire]

I had my first success with a flamethrower team last night, by sneaking it into a building about 10m from a buttoned Cromwell. They spotted each other at about the same time, and although the Cromwell's shot missed (panicked gunner?), the first burst of flame had no apparent effect. However, the second burst came a couple of seconds later, much faster than the tank could reload, and the Cromwell's status promptly went to Abandoned. I was cheering like crazy. The next turn I told the flamethrower squad to hide, but they decided instead to expose themselves to toast the cowering tank crew (crispy critters - ever seen a crew go from 4 to 0 in one second?), and then got nailed by every single enemy unit in sight. Boy, that TacAI really likes to target flamethrower units!

So, I'd say that to kill a tank in CM you need:

(a) to be up close so that every burst hits

( a lot of luck - we've seen that two bursts can work, and four bursts can fail...

[Michael Dorosh]

But from a realism view point - what Wasp crew in his right mind would go hunting StuGs? I think any Wasp commander would righfully feel that work was best left to the AT platoon, divisional AT regiment, or the PIAT teams in the infantry platoons, and concentrate his focus on supporting the squaddies. Faced with the decision to shoot or not to shoot his flamethrower at an enemy tank - I think many troops would be hesitant to

a) use up their precious little fuel on such a hard target to kill

announce their presence to the rest of the battlefield (a flame weapon produces a lot of light and attendant smoke when the target starts to burn....)

Shooting is one thing - getting away alive afterwards is entirely another...and unless you're Japanese, in WW II one of your goals was usually to live through the day.