flame tanks and flamethrowers

[urgrue]

Flamethrowers and flame tanks seem to be in every serious ww2 strategy game, but how common were these really? and how effective? how were they used? I've rarely if ever seen flame weapons mentioned or shown in various WW2 documentaries and films. Though I haven't seen that much so...

If anyone would have links to a good site that talks about flame weapons i'd be most interested.

On a different note, i pretty much only use flame tanks in CM to mop up infantry after i've taken out any AT weapons and tanks. flamethrowers (infantry) i pretty much use only defensively, as i seem to get get them killed way too easily in any sort of offensive duty, though theoretically they could be very useful. but i really dont think im making the most of these units.

would anyone care to share alternative tactics/uses for these fine units? offensive/defensive strategies and tactics?

[Runyan99]

I have found flame units to be very effective in city and town fighting.

I played a scenario in which I had one of those flame-carrier vehicles. It was an urban battle. That little sucker almost single handedly stopped a platoon sized attack, and routed them back the way they came. Very effective.

[StellarRat]

They were very rare. Mostly used for very special missions like an beach invasion or when there were known fortifications to be remove as part of a large operation. I think these will be very hard to get when the rarity rules are in place in CMBB.

[ June 02, 2002, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: StellarRat ]

[Aacooper]

It's difficult in CM to use flamethrowers on the attack, because they have a hard time keeping up with a CM-paced attack. Flamethrowers are best in urban or forest scenarios, because they need cover to survive. The disadvantage is that they can modify the terrain by lighting crucial buildings on fire (sometimes that helps).

The British Crocodile tanks were used continuously after D-Day. A troop was even attached to the U.S. 3rd Armored Div in the Aachen area. The Crocodile seems to have been at its peak in the Feb '45 Reichswald battle. I can't recall reading about a battle where any side used any other flame tank in Europe. The Pacific was different story - once the USMC and Army figured out the Japanese were going to dig in deep, they used a lot of flamethrowers and flame tanks.

[Michael Dorosh]

GD seems to have had a few flame tanks at Kursk, IIRC. But, they were super-duper special, so they got all the best toys.

[Olle Petersson]

From what I've understood about man portable flame throwers there were usually a couple available with just about every engineer company, and that goes for all nations.

For obvious reasons flame throwers are of limited use, and were therefore more often than not left with the other tools and supplies and not used in combat.

Cheers

Olle

[History Buff]

Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

For obvious reasons flame throwers are of limited use, and were therefore more often than not left with the other tools and supplies and not used in combat.

Cheers

Olle

Like lighting up a campfire or getting the BBQ going. Therefore the troops don't need to ask, "Anyone got a light?"

Seriously though, I love flamethrowers to simply block off an infantary assault in urban and wooded areas. I mean you can have a fanatic german squad ready to charge but it won't charge through a wall of flame.

[Olle Petersson]

What we don't see in CM is the effect of small arms fire hitting the pressurised bottle containing flammable gas and fuel...

Cheers

Olle

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by urgrue:

Flamethrowers and flame tanks seem to be in every serious ww2 strategy game, but how common were these really? and how effective? how were they used? [snips]

PRO doc WO 291/308, "Effect of flamethrowers on military personnel", says that the main effect is on morale. It estimates that a gallon of burning fuel in contact with the victim will kill. Information from flame actions showed an average of 270 gallons per death, 9 gallons per prisoner.

The document points out that two kinds of fuel can be used in a flamethrower. Thickened fuel gives a clean flame rod, with little or no obscuration, and the fuel continues to burn on the ground.

Unthickened fuel produces a sheet of billowing flame, good "flash burn", much obscuration, and little burning on the ground. This obscuration effect could be used to blind pillbox slits at 20 yards or over with a manpack flamethrower, then approach to 10 yards, close enough to shoot through the aperture.

WO 231/32, "Notes on Wasp and Lifebuoy", has the following to say: "An attack by flame depends largely on its terrifying effect for its success. Troops familiar with Flame Throwers will offer greater resistance than those inexperienced."

"It is difficult to get large quantities of burning fuel in through the slits in a pill box. Anti-ricochet slits and flaps afford additional protection."

"The occupants of a pill box are fairly safe if they retreat behind the partition wall."

The report advises that woollen blankets and greatcoats, especially if wet, give good protection against radiant heat, but should be easy to remove in case they do catch fire.

WO 208/2112, "Translation of German flamethrower manual", says:

"In order to give the men a greater sense of security attention should be drawn to the fact that should the weapon be struck by an infantry bullet or shell splinter it will not explode."

WO 232/70, "Flame throwers – Exchange of information with Red Army", says that the Red Army used manpack flamethrowers on the following scale:

For first-line rifle companies :- In attack 8–10 flame throwers: in defence 10–15 flame throwers.

The report also says: "In battle, flame thrower platoons are generally split up; sections being attached to rifle companies, while within companies they are distributed in groups of 2–4 flame throwers amongst the rifle platoons."

"The number of flame throwers allotted to an assault group formed to attack a pillbox depends on the number of embrasures. On an average 3–4 flame throwers are allotted per pillbox."

At a meeting on 19 Feb 43 Soviet officers stated that no special fuels were used in Soviet flame throwers, but were under development. Diesel oil is the usual fuel. It was given as the opinion of the Soviet general staff that thickened fuels would have more incendiary effect, but that the effect on morale is known to be reduced.

WO 291/986, "The operational effectiveness of the flamethrower tank (Crocodile)" produces statistics from a survey of 175 Crocodile and infantry actions in NW Europe. The actions listed show from 2 to 15 Crocodiles supporting typically 1 or 2 infantry companies, but sometimes other numbers. It is stressed that Crocodiles should be used en masse, with half a squadron as the minimum force.

The report concludes that, as indicated by casualties sustained by the attacking infantry, the Crocodile was better than a standard tank in the support role by a factor of about 2 in day actions and about 2.5 in night actions.

Of the 175 actions, in only 11 cases did the infantry fail to reach their objective. In about 50% of actions little or no opposition was encountered after flame was used. "This indicates the great morale effect of flame". In one instance, a German NCO ordered his men to surrender if they were attacked by flamethrowers.

For each trailer of fuel expended, about 6 enemy were killed and about 28 captured.

The report also says:

a) "Flame was most effective against houses and fortified buildings. There were invariably set on fire and gutted.

Open defences among woods, hedges and undergrowth provided good targets as the vegetation was easily set on fire.

c) As would be expected, flame was least effective against pillboxes and the like; only if it could be projected through apertures to the inside did the occupants suffer."

"As a rule it was not usual for Crocodiles to open fire until they were within effective flaming range, every effort being made to obtain the maximum shock and surprise. Against this, after a heavy air or artillery bombardment or where little determined resistance was expected flame would be fired from much greater ranges (up to 180 yards) and would be kept up as the Crocodiles moved in. This manoeuvre was frequently successful in inducing the enemy to surrender."

WO 291/1060, "The A45 flame gun versus the Panzerfaust", says that "a frontal shot of ignited fuel does negligible harm to men in a slit-trench providing they keep their heads down." The trench should either be enfiladed, or an unignited shot fired first. Because of the different ballistics of ignited and unignited fuel, it is likely that two unignited shots may be needed. It is also stated that, if wind conditions are such as to affect shooting, the first shot will usually be wasted, used for indicating wind direction.

That little lot should serve to correct a few misconceptions about flamethrowers. In summary:

They rely mainly on terror effect rather than physical destruction;

Their tactical characteristics differ depending on whether they use thickened or unthickened fuels;

They are not especially effective against pillboxes;

They should be used en masse;

They do not explode when hit.

All the best,

John.

[Michael Dorosh]

I believe most Commonwealth infantry battalions had WASPs on inventory as part of the Support Company by late 1944/early 1945. They seem to be the ones to use flamethrowing vehicles the most, including Crocodile, with the Americans in the Pacific also fielding a fair number of vehicles, though I don't have any figures.

They seem quite rare in German service.

Excellent post, John, very informative.

[Col Deadmarsh]

Sorry Dorosh but I got greedy and wanted my own thread.

Feel free to challenge me again though...

[ June 04, 2002, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

37 points blah blah greedy greedy me

You suck, man!

[ June 05, 2002, 12:37 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]