Flamethrowers in all Engineer Squards

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Sun Jul 22, 2001 9:13 pm

I know this question may not go over that well, but is it realistic for all Engineer squads to have flamethrowers? I think the Marine OOB, where an engineer squad has either a flame thrower, or satchel charges, seems a little more kosher. I’m not speaking from a detailed knowledge of squad TOE of WW2 engineer squads, but common sense tells me that most engineer squads wouldn’t keep flame throwers all the time. Demo charges, yes, because they were used for all sorts of things – digging ditches, felling trees, heating coffee, etc. Also, I can't remember ever, with the exception of the marines in the pacific, reading about the use of flamethrowers. I've read about satchel charges in Stalingrad, grenade bundles, explosives, but almost no mention of flamethowers. So, is the idea of 1 flame thrower per eng. squad realistic?

Do the engineer teams have both flamethrower, satchel charges, and a handy supply of mines to be sown during the game just because that was there composition way back in SP1? This is my guess.

Seems to me, that a Flamethower would be better as a two man team attached to an engineer or assault platoon, or as a specialty attachment to an assault squad like in the Marine OOB.

This would balance the engineer units within the game (whick isn't actually my point). Right now, of those of you playing campaigns, who DOESN’T have at least half of your core force Infantry as Engineers? It is because they are well worth the points.

Warrior · Post by **Warrior** » Sun Jul 22, 2001 11:19 pm

Play as Italians, they have the flame teams you mention.

Chief Wiggum · Post by **Chief Wiggum** » Mon Jul 23, 2001 2:01 am

A_B, I agree with you. I have read in many a war book that all Marine, Army and support squads were not equipped with Flamethrowers, Satchel charges ect. Wether through the loss during battles, or logistics screw ups, not all teams had the same equipment all the time.

I would imagine one could probably write a simple code for random OOB builds, but it could become a problem after a while. Or maybe after you choose your teams and after deployment a simple math system could subdivide weapons in the squads that you want to make a bit more realistic. Like I said though, this could be a problem with ALL squads and would have to be regulated through the player as opposed to the computer.

Just my thoughts (not even worth a cent

)

Best Wishes To All
Mike
AKA: Chief Wiggum
AKA AGAIN: IronicFate

Charles2222 · Post by **Charles2222** » Mon Jul 23, 2001 3:21 am

A_B: Demo Charges to heat coffee?

Slayer · Post by **Slayer** » Mon Jul 23, 2001 3:28 am

Originally posted by A_B:
Right now, of those of you playing campaigns, who DOESN’T have at least half of your core force Infantry as Engineers?

Me! Not a single engineer anywhere in my German 1939 long campaign. I only use them as support for assault missions, actually. Gotta keep it at least a BIT fair...

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Mon Jul 23, 2001 3:43 am

I just don't think flame throwers were employed near as much as in the game. They were a specialty weapon. That, combined with there effectiveness in types of actions they really weren't used in, compeled me to bring this up. If they were part of every engineer squads TOE, then great, lets keep em. If the only reason they are there is because SP 1 had them in everysquad, lets get rid of them, except as specialty teams.

Chief Wiggam; I don't think we need any code changes - we will have to wait for CL/CA for that. I think engineers should get EITHER a flamethrower or demo charges. Having both makes the team too powerful, and i don't think an engineer squad could effectivly employ both.

Charles; it is an old demo-mans trick to use a small chunk of C4 as a heat-tab. You tear a small bit off a block, and set it between to rocks, light it, and set your canteen cup over it. Makes a dandy cup of coffee. It can't explode unless put under extreme pressure - like when a blasting cap goes off inside of it.

Slayer; well hats off to you. They make the game much too easy. BTW, if your a campaign player, would you be intersted in the cooperative campaign idea that a couple of us have been floating around?

Slayer · Post by **Slayer** » Mon Jul 23, 2001 4:10 am

What exactly would be involved?
In about month, I'll be moving to Toronto for college, so I don't know how long I'll be without internet access...until then, I'm free of course...

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Mon Jul 23, 2001 4:13 am

Slayer, email me and i'll send you the info we have. danmonos@earthlink.net

Slayer · Post by **Slayer** » Mon Jul 23, 2001 5:01 am

So, it's basically designing scenarios for a massive campaign, is it?

Truckeye · Post by **Truckeye** » Mon Jul 23, 2001 5:30 am

i believe the heating coffee is a legit comment. im sure there are several on this board that have lit c4 to heat things. it burns rather nicely and is safe, though in battle im not sure its a wise move to use up your supply this way

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Mon Jul 23, 2001 10:29 pm

bump - should we take away all the flamethrowers?

Warhorse · Post by **Warhorse** » Mon Jul 23, 2001 11:21 pm

No, don't take them away all together!! However, at least for the Germans, they are WAY too prevailant!! There were, in real life, only 3 TO A COMPANY!!!! I would say the best way would be to make a special team, but then again, we are out of slots, so.... The U.S. Army should probably be the same way, a team, I'm quite sure they were similiar to the Germans in doling these out, say 1 per platoon. What say ye?!

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Mon Jul 23, 2001 11:36 pm

Warhorse, see my first post. I think one flamethrower team per eng. platoon makes more sense. I can't imagine the TOE was one per squad, for any nation. Having three man teams - like the italian oob - would also make their use more kosher, coming in after a unit has been suppressed, to finish it off, especially in city of bunker fighting.

Warhorse · Post by **Warhorse** » Tue Jul 24, 2001 6:45 am

@A_B

I agree 100%!!!

Hot Shot · Post by **Hot Shot** » Tue Jul 24, 2001 12:06 pm

I agree with the comments of A_B. The best way to put ft in the game is a separate squad used for special purposes, as they was used. Also the engineers without ft would be more suitable for all scenaries as they can be considered as sappers or infantry with more abilities to clean obstacles or demolish something with charges. Also the flame tanks should get a higher rarity value.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Tue Jul 24, 2001 8:42 pm

Everyone seems to agree - lets get flamethrowers out of the Engineer squads!

Hot Shot · Post by **Hot Shot** » Tue Jul 24, 2001 9:35 pm

OK. I think it's only needed to make some little changes in the oob, not because they are wrong, only to make the game more "realistic", and to make the ft much less avalaible: the last 4 or 5 games online or pbem i had, had converted to a huge "burning land", and it is very bored. I've been playing for years with SP1, SP3 and all versions of SPWAW, and now I am ready to say that this is ONLY the bug that I see. GREAT JOB DONE by the people of Matrix Games.
Please A_B contact me if you want to modify some oobs.