Flamethrowers

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Just some thoughts I had in the bathtube

I have noticed that Flamethrowers are mostly useless, because they are very slow and have only a short range, this makes it difficult to move them into a fireposition before they are killed. So would it be a good idea to merge them with the engineer squads?

My thoughts:

- Flamethrowers were (AFAIK!) part of engineer or other special troops. Maybe I'm wrong here, I couldn't find a source about it. At least in CM they are only part of engineer formations (when you select a large formation).

- Because they are so vulnerable, they need infantry cover.

- Merged with a squad, they are not longer an exposed target. This would reflect the cover they get from the rest of the squad. When they are close enough to fire, they can do this similar to rifle grenades or Panzerfausts.

- Of course it would be necessary that squads with flamthrowers move much slower than normal squads. Squads can only advance as fast as the slowest member. But I think troops with flamthrowers are anyway specialists for close combat situations like housefighting, so they move in relativ covered terrain. They could even run, but get much faster tired, like a Panzerschreck. Just on a distances that's necessary to cross a road.

- Engineers in CM has currently only limited efficence. They are only a medium quality infantry with some demolition charges. That's a pity, cause they were highly trained and, when operating in city or similar terrain, a very hazardous opponent. Maybe this could be reflected a little bit better when they have 'integrated' Flamethrowers?

Okay, I'm sure most people think that it is not a good idea. I only wanted to get this out of my head.

BTW, why has a Flamethrower team two men? Does it mean two Flamethrowers, or need a Flamethrower a two men crew?

[ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]</p>

[Slapdragon]

You are somewhat right, but flamethrowers are more useful than you think if you use them historically. They were rarely used to charge MG nests without covering fire and spoke. They usually worked hand in hand with infantry. You can make engineers more sturdy by buying elite or veteran forces, depending on what your game is like.

The biggest problem with engineers is that battles with them in real life where slow motion affairs designed to get the engineers in position to assault the target without coming under prolonged machinegun fire. This could take hours, require large amounts of arty and smoke, and often needed a sustained fire MG or two. The game does not always leave you time to do all that.

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

You are somewhat right, but flamethrowers are more useful than you think if you use them historically. They were rarely used to charge MG nests without covering fire and spoke. They usually worked hand in hand with infantry. You can make engineers more sturdy by buying elite or veteran forces, depending on what your game is like.<hr></blockquote>

Ehm, I have said they need cover, haven't I??? But as team they are still exposed, because they can be aimed as specific target, and as a team the have (AFAIK) a much higher target priority then an infantry squad - that is the problem I see. As part of a squad they are not longer exposed, and the wouldn't have a higher target priority, so this would simulate the cover IMO better. Troop quality can not always be free selected, especially in QBs it's restricted.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

The biggest problem with engineers is that battles with them in real life where slow motion affairs designed to get the engineers in position to assault the target without coming under prolonged machinegun fire. This could take hours, require large amounts of arty and smoke, and often needed a sustained fire MG or two. The game does not always leave you time to do all that.<hr></blockquote>

Yes, but real battle can't be generally compared with a CM game, I guess BTS has once said something about it. There were often hours without much action, while troops waiting for support or supply. I see it this way: when the CM battle starts, all the hours needed to get a formation into position are already past, in CM we only have a 'full action part' of the battle. So we have our engineers already in position.

[Dirtweasle]

To use them you almost have to have 2 of the squads pin the enemy target squad, and advance the flamethrower team up once the enemy squad is pinned. Use the third squad to screen the flamethrower from attack while it moves. It takes the right circumstances to pull off. Even so sometimes they get knocked out.

You can also use them to fire up woods, houses, etc.

Also in abmush they are are very nasty.

[M Hofbauer]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Dirtweasle:

To use them you almost have to have 2 of the squads pin the enemy target squad, and advance the flamethrower team up once the enemy squad is pinned. Use the third squad to screen the flamethrower from attack while it moves.<hr></blockquote>

once I have done all that there is little need left for the flamethrower.

[Andrew H.]

Flamethrowers are pretty realistic as they are now modeled in CM: in real life, they were very vulnerable, and were often specifically targeted by enemy troops. They also did not have a long range.

The reason that they are something of a marginal unit in CM is because they had something of a marginal role in CM type battles. This is essentially the same point that Slappy made.

Flamethrowers excel against troops who can't fire back, essentially, but who are in a defensive location that makes it difficult to dig them out without suffering casualties. This would include troops in bunkers if you approach the bunker from an oblique angle, or troops barracaded in buildings, or troops in caves.

In most, although not all, cases, these uses of flamethrowers were sort of "second-wave" weapons: i.e., the marines have cleared part of the island, but there are still a lot of caves with troops in them. Or soldiers have mostly taken a city block, but there are some holdouts in fortified buildings.

Occasionally FTs did have "first-wave" application, as when a particular pillbox or fortified building was holding up an advance.

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

Flamethrowers are pretty realistic as they are now modeled in CM: in real life, they were very vulnerable, and were often specifically targeted by enemy troops. They also did not have a long range.

The reason that they are something of a marginal unit in CM is because they had something of a marginal role in CM type battles. This is essentially the same point that Slappy made.

Flamethrowers excel against troops who can't fire back, essentially, but who are in a defensive location that makes it difficult to dig them out without suffering casualties. This would include troops in bunkers if you approach the bunker from an oblique angle, or troops barracaded in buildings, or troops in caves.

In most, although not all, cases, these uses of flamethrowers were sort of "second-wave" weapons: i.e., the marines have cleared part of the island, but there are still a lot of caves with troops in them. Or soldiers have mostly taken a city block, but there are some holdouts in fortified buildings.

Occasionally FTs did have "first-wave" application, as when a particular pillbox or fortified building was holding up an advance.<hr></blockquote>

Ehm, I said they are very vulnerable and didn't have a long range, haven't I??? The primare target thing you said is right, and indeed they were slow, but in the game, this factors seem to multiplicate each other, so the vulnerabilty gets IMO a bit oversized.

What I had in mind is mostly the city fighting where they have a more offensive role. As you pointed out, Flamethrowers are not important in CM:BO battles. Partialy because city fighting in general is not important in CM:BO.

But all I have heart yet about CM:BB make me believe that the BTS folks has paid much more attention on city battles. Maybe my idea makes more sense when is this kept in mind.

[Andreas]

The consequence of this would be that the engineer squad would be horrendously slow though. Which is a bit unrealistic in itself - I guess people would then want to be able to split them off, and you are back to where you are now. Also, for the German engineers this would lead to something very unrealistic, because they were supposed to be more like line-infantry (or at least got used that way), so they would not always have flamethrowers handy.

I am not sure what you think is broken that needs fixing? They are slow and become a target for everyone and their second cousin. If you merge them with the squad, the squad becomes slow and becomes a priority target. Also, since CMBO does not model the individual soldier, how would you handle the fact that the two guys manning the FT would be the prime target in the squad?

[Snarker]

Puff,

I've found that careful manuever, cover and sneaking are keys to getting some use out of FT teams before they end up doing their impression of Johnny Storm (The human torch)from the Fantastic Four!

They really are in a more forward role than normal in CM - but they are excellent to deny cover / flush units in hide mode.

If BTS made them part of a squad, there should realistically be a chance of losing the squad when those bad boys blow...

Hey! Come to think of it - why don't the current teams somtimes explode when eliminated, setting their location on fire?

[Redwolf]

Well, P.t.m.D.

if you vistit the tips'n'trick forum, you see that we have a quarterly discussion about them.

Basically, the only use the infantry flamethrower teamshave in CMBO is to demonstrate that you are the biggest bear in the valley. Because they are expensive, and the important part here isn't that they cost purchase points you could spend otherwise, it is that they do great damage to your victory point level when lost. Loose two veteran FT teams and you can forget about one small flag's status. Noone fighting for maximum victory points can effort to invest so many points in so volatile units. So if you buy them, you say, "look, you can't hurt me anyway, and I will run over you and afterwards I don't want to think I did so because I have robust units".

For tactics, I think of them as a catalyst for smallarms firepower. This has not been mentioned in this tread, but if you shoot the FT at completely unsupressed rifle squad, they usually get away with few if any casualities. But if you have pinned enemy units in a place where you cannot get a tank to, then you would normally have to choose between expending most of your smallarms ammo or going into close combat. The flamethrower allows you to resolve the lock while preserving the effectivity of you rifle squads.

Obviously, an APC is a great thing to have for them. The Kangaroos are worth a special recommendation since they are thick as tanks (not vulnerable to 20mm flak and vehicles), fully tracked and light so they really go where you want (and not where the road want you), and fast enough. On the other hand, a M3A1 or M5A1 comes with the MG firepower needed for support.

[xerxes]

No city fighting in CM? Flamerthrowers are worthless. Pleeese.

Play "To the last man" (at the scenario depot) and then tell me flamethrowers are useless.

Don't confuse the entirety of CM with QBs.

-marc

[Boo Radley]

Hey there. I'm a "newbie" here. As a matter of fact this is my first post. I've wondered about the usefulness of flame throwers too. They're so darn slow! After playing the "Valley of Fear" scenario in the demo for about the 4th time, I decided to embark my flame throwers on my tanks to get them up to the action in less than a week or so. I actually got a flamethrower to knock out a heavy machine gun nest! I was quite pleased.

[Andreas]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by xerxes:

No city fighting in CM? Flamerthrowers are worthless. Pleeese.

Play "To the last man" (at the scenario depot) and then tell me flamethrowers are useless.

Don't confuse the entirety of CM with QBs.

-marc<hr></blockquote>

Thanks - I take that as a compliment.

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andreas:

The consequence of this would be that the engineer squad would be horrendously slow though. Which is a bit unrealistic in itself - I guess people would then want to be able to split them off, and you are back to where you are now. Also, for the German engineers this would lead to something very unrealistic, because they were supposed to be more like line-infantry (or at least got used that way), so they would not always have flamethrowers handy.

I am not sure what you think is broken that needs fixing? They are slow and become a target for everyone and their second cousin. If you merge them with the squad, the squad becomes slow and becomes a priority target. Also, since CMBO does not model the individual soldier, how would you handle the fact that the two guys manning the FT would be the prime target in the squad?<hr></blockquote>

Please excuse my silly question, but if the engineers are only line-infantry (or at least got used that way), what is the sense of a special engineer squad?

Let me think:

They have a demo charge (or two), and they can clear minefields.

The use of DC don't need to be discussed here, but clearing minefields falls - IMO - under the things that were mentioned by Slapdragon and Andrew. It is time consuming, and usually not done during a battle. (I mean CM battle, I have never seen someone doing it, I don't know if it was done in reality)

Maybe I should say it different. My idea was not only to make flamethrowers better to use, it was also to make the engineers to a unit with special abilities. Maybe I'm completly wrong informed about engineers, I have always the picture of 'Sturmpioniere' in my mind, a unit that is trained to attack fortified positions or fights in a special terraine like cities, for example the battle of Stalingrad. Well, it was just an idea, when I think about it, I guess CM is not able to realize things like that, because the infantry units in general are, ehm...just infantry, the only difference is that each squad has different handguns. Well, maybe that was what I think is broken, but on the other side, maybe this goes beyond the scope of CM.

To answer your question: to merge them with squads should negate that they are a primary target. But NOT, because they are not a prefered target - indeed they were. This should only simulate the cover they get from the rest of the squad.

Well, I already said in my initial post, no one things that it is a good idea, except me. Forget it.

[Andreas]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon:

To answer your question: to merge them with squads should negate that they are a primary target. But NOT, because they are not a prefered target - indeed they were. This should only simulate the cover they get from the rest of the squad. <hr></blockquote>

Err, bit of a conundrum here - so they should be prefered targets, but not? Sorry, but the logic behind that bit I don't understand at all. I just can't see how this 'cover' is supposed to work.

Anyways, as Xerxes said, if you use them the way they are supposed to be used, e.g in cities - and yes, city-fighting works brilliantly in CMBO, just not in QBs, and many of the scenarios trying to depict it are, not to mince my words, ****e. I am currently playtesting a brilliant city-scenario by Berli, and it is one hell of a ride, probably the most exciting one I have played in a long time. I can not comment on 'To the last man', since as the designer it unfortunately does not work for me.

[JasonC]

Infantry FTs are undermodeled and overpriced. So are demo charges. The result is that combat engineers are a waste and a point sink in almost all fights. Their only truly useful ability is mine-clearing, and that is critical only in particular scenarios when the designer has purposefully set up a map to require their use to get anywhere, but channelling possible movement avenues to narrow zones (e.g. via cliffs, or continuous blocks of terrain tanks can't get through, with all roads or gaps plugged by AT mines). The only useful role for CM FTs is the utterly non-historical one of the defensive ambush in heavy terrain, usually inside woods. And even in that role, they are overpriced and brittle - AP mines can do much the same thing and usually do it better.

The proposed solution would go a long way toward remedying this, and I support it. Without any speed reduction in the engineer squads, either. Make the FT effect like gammon bombs and rifle grenades are now - a certain number of squirts available at close enough range. Then people would notice combat engineers and be worried about getting rushed by them. Similarly, demolition charges should do more than act like glorified hand grenades when used against infantry targets. Since they represent charges of up to 10 lbs of TNT, they ought to have around 75 blast, like 105mm artillery.

As for people telling me how to use them carefully on adequately prepped positions, um, right. I am not a novice. They die on contact, long before they have time to fire. SMG infantry outperforms FTs as close in firepower, by miles, even against enemies in heavy cover (stone buildings, foxholes in woods). If the FT team can live long enough to lumber close, it is because the position has already been taken by other arms.

No, that is not historical. No, they did not only reduce bypassed points of resistence that had already fallen. No, they were not indecisive and ineffective weapons - though some front line infantry units, not well trained in their use or capabilities, did think so. The modeling in CM seems to be a swing away from the definite overmodeling FTs received in a certain famous board wargame - but it was too violent a swing. And their CM price still reflects an overmodeled uberweapon.

If you look at reports of engagements in which FTs were actually used, the first thing that stands out is that roughly 10 times as many enemies surrendered to a force supported by FTs as were clobbered directly by such forces. Their morale effect was very high and not at all limited to the direct recipients of their attentions. The number of men willing to be burned to death to delay an enemy advance 5 minutes is not large in most armies (the Japanese are an exception largely because nobody even considered accepting their surrenders). You see reports like such and such battalion attacked supported by FTs, encountered serious resistence until the first of them were brought to bear, then 250 enemy surrendered.

This never happens in CM because (1) it would be boring and (2) the FTs are already dead before they get in range and (3) they only break the unit torched if they ever do get off a shot, and it is usually slaughtered while defenseless rather than captured, because larger units (in men remaining) are overly reluctant to surrender to nearby enemies, even if broken.

As they are modeled now, the FTs are worth perhaps half their present price, if that. If they were integral to every engineer squad - as 4-6 FT attacks allowed per engineer unit, with split squads able to fire 2-3 times that way - then they might justify their current price, spread over the engineer platoon. They would actually scare defenders in that case.

Now they only inspire glee at the waste of CM budget they represent, and a childish delight in blowing them away. Pyromaniacs enjoy using them to torch unoccupied bits of cover artistically. Twisted but hardly economical defenders use them as expensive substitutes for land mines inside forests (3 AP minefields will do about the same job more permanently and more cheaply).

Incidentally, I quite agree with the earlier fellow's comment that all of this is going to matter rather more in the streets of Stalingrad than it does in typical CMBO QBs. BTS, please fix or do somfink.

[Andreas]

Well Jason, to repeat the point - you are talking QBs (who cares about them anyway), and if you pick up a decent city fight scenario, most of your points fall by the wayside. They are very useful now, and there is nothing BTS has to fix for them to be useful in Stalingrad.

[Andreas]

Oh yes, and I forgot. A point about their effectiveness. In another Der Kessel game I playtested against the AI, a flamethrower killed a King Tiger with three shots (ambushed it from inside a house), other FTs killed numerous HTs with single shots, and the morale effect Jason mentions is definitely in the game - the Germans who were treated to the tender attention of a flame-thrower were very eager to surrender. I had squads with just one or two casualties throw in the towel. To claim that all this is not in the game is just plain wrong.

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andreas:

Err, bit of a conundrum here - so they should be prefered targets, but not? Sorry, but the logic behind that bit I don't understand at all. I just can't see how this 'cover' is supposed to work.

...<hr></blockquote>

Cough, cough . How should I explain...

The FT now: slow, defensless because of short range. Anyway, the TacAI selects it as a primary target, similar to Bazookas AFAIK. This causes that this slow and on longer range defenseless unit is regulary slaughtered.

The FT as part of the squad: The TacAI don't aim an infantry squad as primary target. Especially not under FOW. The FT is not longer 'THERE THIS FT MUST BE KILLED', it is only one man* in a squad of 10. So the chance to be the one who is killed in the targeted unit falls from 100% to 10% - please don't nail me on the math , but I hope you get the idea now.

IN REALITY they are an important target - IN GAME as part of a squad, they can't be aimed as a single target, only the whole squad can be aimed. In princip this abstracts that the important FT is protected by other squad members.

*(BTW, still unanswered, why is a FT team two men?)

JasonC Thanks, I already feared I made a complete fool of me

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andreas:

Oh yes, and I forgot. A point about their effectiveness. In another Der Kessel game I playtested against the AI, a flamethrower killed a King Tiger with three shots (ambushed it from inside a house), other FTs killed numerous HTs with single shots, and the morale effect Jason mentions is definitely in the game - the Germans who were treated to the tender attention of a flame-thrower were very eager to surrender. I had squads with just one or two casualties throw in the towel. To claim that all this is not in the game is just plain wrong.<hr></blockquote>

Andreas, first, I play mostly QBs, because I play mostly PBEM. But don't let as discuss personal taste

It has been pointed out that FTs were historically used against fortified positions. I didn't knew that they were an AT unit. Do have some sources, I would like to read more about that.

[Charlie Rock]

Back in the Close Combat Days you could buy either a two man flamethrower team or an engineer squad which came with an FT. Makes perfect sense to me. Since the FT was surrounded by 7 guys with PPSH's he lived longer, as you couldn't target the FT guy as easily as the two lone targets. It was just another weapon, like an MG42 or BAR in a squad. (I bet no one would pick one up given a choice) Anyway...

At the micro-micro level, below CM issues, the most common use of a flame thrower was the psychogical use in a suppressive manner.

By firing a burst from, say 10-20 meters to the left of a bunker aperture, you shoot in a manner to graze the aperture and it gets that gunner away from the slit so you can throw a C4 pack inside. These techniques were called 'blowtorch and corkscrew' by the USMC.

Concur with JasonC on the overall uselessness of them in CMBO. I am partial to the wasps, OTOH.

Flamethrowers were to the best of my knowledge integral weapons within USMC rifle platoons. Maybe one or two per platoon.

A series D division (July 42) had zero

Series E (April 43) had 24

Series F (May 44) had 243.

Do the math. It was a rifle platoon weapon.

By Okinawa the trend was toward armored vehicles with FT. Clearly far more effective

They were issued as one per LCVP team for Normandy, and most of them are still probably on the bottom of the channel when thrown away.

Not to go on a rant, but when doing knock out a bunker drills, you're usually better off to grab your special gear and issue it to a guy or two in the platoon, rather than bring in a stranger nobody knows and have him bring his toys.

I think firing a FT at a bunker should put them in panicked mode immediately, so you could park a squad in front of the aperture and plug away with frags, bazookas, and demo.

[Slapdragon]

Well, while I too would find it neat to have FT teams who were bullet proof, walked on water, and could make a decent cup of latte' (as long as the other side did not have them) that would, of course, not be historical nor accurate. Here we are running into the difference between the historical flamethrower - a terror weapon useful in distinct (and limited) situations against a suppressed enemy dupported by combined arms to force an otherwise difficult to dig out force flee a prepared position, and the Flamethrower of movies and toy soldiers which explodes city blocks, kills hundreds, and is the master of the battlefield.

As it is they work quite well in built up situations defense and offense where you can used covered apprach and suppression to light buildings on fire and cause enemy to fall fack.

Flamethrowers of course were not deployed by either side with 10 or 12 guys trooping behind them to take bullets for them. Flamethrowers did not cause many casualties on the battlefield. Flamethrowers were not magic bullets -- they did not have all that much fluid, where heavy, and jad a tendency to be surface effect weapons. In fact, the development of the flamethrower and the current USMC manual issued before they were replaced by the M202 projector advocates dousing a target in unlit fuel first, then firing a "hot shot", then shooting another shot with only fuel, as the only effective way to use a flamethrower as any more than a terror weapon.

The best bet for people who find the flamethrower not useful is not to use them. They were not historically a wonder weapon, and making them a wonder weapon in CM is not the answer.

(Besides, two months ago I sent a bunch of green infantry fleeing with one in street fighting. Did not kill many people, but it was a very useful tool. I cannot imagine making them uber weapons when they have been so effectice for me in the past, in the right place and with the proper support).

[Andreas]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon:

Cough, cough . How should I explain...

The FT now: slow, defensless because of short range. Anyway, the TacAI selects it as a primary target, similar to Bazookas AFAIK. This causes that this slow and on longer range defenseless unit is regulary slaughtered.

The FT as part of the squad: The TacAI don't aim an infantry squad as primary target. Especially not under FOW. The FT is not longer 'THERE THIS FT MUST BE KILLED', it is only one man* in a squad of 10. So the chance to be the one who is killed in the targeted unit falls from 100% to 10% - please don't nail me on the math , but I hope you get the idea now.

IN REALITY they are an important target - IN GAME as part of a squad, they can't be aimed as a single target, only the whole squad can be aimed. In princip this abstracts that the important FT is protected by other squad members.

*(BTW, still unanswered, why is a FT team two men?)

JasonC Thanks, I already feared I made a complete fool of me <hr></blockquote>

That's what I thought - in that case I simply disagree. What you want is to remove the possibility for the opposition to take care of a major threat to their position. That I feel is unrealistic and should not be done. FTs were prime targets. If you want them to be covered, do it with another squad/tank/whatever through suppression.

As for them working as AT weapons - no I don't, but I don't find it a major stretch of imagination that they disable vehicles or cause crews to bail. Someone posted here about the episode related by Belton Cooper in which Shermans caused KT crews to bail with WP rounds. Same principle.

As for Jason's points. Yes for some of them in QBs (I absolutely disagree with the claim that there is not enough of a morale effect). No for well-designed scenarios. This indicates to me that it is a QB problem, and not an FT problem. What needs fixing then is the QB system, which should probably include a city only setting in CMBB (although I am not sure if the auto-generator could handle such a map), and not some way to make FTs stronger than they already are (if used correctly).

[Slapdragon]

Andreas, one thing that I think would change my mind is if I could come up with evidence that flamethrower teams in the US Army, SS, Heer, CW, or Russian army were organic as squad level elements, instead of special weapons teams assigned to platoons.

[Charlie Rock]

Now that I think about it...

A flamethrower is a questionable unit to get an icon of its own. While I could think of a reason to independently maneuver a machine gun, or mortar, an FT with a range of 40m needs overwatch to live. I could never picture seeing 1st platoon humping along to the OBJ, and 100 meters off to the left the two flamethrower guys doing their thing by themselves.

Kind of like an earlier thread where someone wanted to independently maneuver his 43 bren guns, or put all the demo charge carriers into some human kamikaze squad for suicide operations. (Shoot at us, we blow YOU up).

These boys need adult supervision. I'd go for sticking 'em in a squad with the panzerfausts.

Which brings up another point. If you think an 80 lb flamethrower slows down the engineers it's because you don't know what the engineers are carrying to begin with.