Matrix Games Forums

Flame throwers seem to be very effective tank killers. I was wondering if anyone could explain why.

Is the exterior of the tank that flamable or is the crew being starved of air? I know that vs caves it is the starving of air that does most of the damage.

Same goes for Molitovs. Anyone know why they work so well?

Well, there's always vision slits and gun barrels for the napalm and whatnot to flow in through. And a well placed flamer shot or molotov on the engine deck can do lots of damage.

An open hatch is great for a hand grenade too but I am curious what the effects of an FT on a buttoned up tank are. What is the mechinism of damage? Fire or suffication?

Probably a bit of both. Stuff can seep into even the most buttoned up tank. US tank crews in the ETO used a trick against inexperienced German Panther crews where they hit the Panther with a WP smoke round; this sometimes caused the Germans to bail out.

A Molotov can be particularily dangerous if flaming gasoline seeps through the engine vents. Might not destroy the tank but it could disable it.

I think the Germans experimented with fitting metal grilles over their engine vents for just that reason.

Actually the real reason is probably that flame vs tank is poorly moddeled in the game and is over effective when compared to real life performances. I think flame is slightly overpowered in WAW though i cant say for sure.
Of course no one here wants to face the facts and therefore put forward any theory to justify the errors in the game.

An assumption on your part, and a biased one at that. You have an axe to grind and because no one gives you a detailed chart, you assume a problem. Is there one? I dont know, to tell the truth I dont use flamethrowers and except in an advance with low visibility and breakthrough, wouldnt expect a flame unit to survive to engage a competent tank crew. I doubt there were many instances of tanks being hit with Flamethrowers.

You admit you dont know, but you go onto say the game is flawed and that everyone is "justifying" that flaw. Wonder why that is?

i think flame is most likely overpowered but i cant provide evidence. I think a game error is plausible, flame really blows tanks easily in this game it doesnt kill crew or imobilize vehicles. Thats my angle and I dont mind being criticized for it.

I have no concrete evidence, having never a) attacked a WWII-era tank with a flamethrower or b) been in a WWII-era tank being attacked by a flamethrower, but I've always thought that there would be two prime methods of scoring a 'kill':

1. Mobility kill. I'm not a mechanical genius or familiar with tank engines, but wouldn't the action of the air being drawn into the engine cook the carbs? And if this is possible, could there then be a 'suck-back' effect causing a fuel explosion?

2. Crew kill. Either they get cooked if the tank is unbuttoned when attacked, or they could be put out of action due to oxygen starvation. The game doesn't model 'crew out of action for the next few hours', so maybe this is the way it gets handled.

I have seen numerous pictures of portable flamethrowers in action, and they throw a lot of flame a surprising distance... in my head I don't have a problem with the kill ratio of this weapon in SP:WaW, but appreciate that some do not share my thinking.

As an aside, one of the reasons that there are few AARs for British flametanks post D-Day is that enemy forces (very wisely) usually found that they had a pressing engagement elsewhere when they showed up.

ORIGINAL: soldier

i think flame is most likely overpowered but i cant provide evidence. I think a game error is plausible, flame really blows tanks easily in this game it doesnt kill crew or imobilize vehicles. Thats my angle and I dont mind being criticized for it.

Soldier, since you want people to do your research for you, here's a good document on mounting flamethrowers ON AFVs-- http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/c ... t/ch15.htm

Now, as for the effectiveness of flame AGAINST AFVs, then I suggest you start searching
for answers in the available documentation. Find something definitive, and THEN come back with informed thoughts, rather than blind suppositions.

Here is a point worth mentioning, though--if a tank is immobilized and its crew stunned, it becomes nothing more than a sitting duck, just like a bunker. At that point, the formula of blowtorch-corkscrew that the USMC & USA developed would be just as effective. The flames kill or suffocate the poor crew, and then the demolitions blow it apart.

Conversely, it would be suicidal for a guy with a gas-tank strapped to his back to attack a tank with its MGs still operative. Think about it--one round would turn the flamethrower operator into a human torch--not a pleasant thought.

Its an excellent article, i couldnt find much on flame vs tank but i havnt read all of it. Flame is obviously a devastating weapon against infantry in game and real life. i couldnt think of anything worse than a satan. As for flame taking on tanks, Firstly it wasnt the weapons primary role as it was designed to flush out entrenched infantry and caves so flame tank vs standard tank must be rare occurance. Certainly flame throwing troops vs tank seems a suicidal prospect but not necessarily in the game (molotov or incendiary device is a different prospect of course). There were obviously reasons for flame tanks not to engage armour, one being they seem like a particularly vunerable peice of machinery to blowing up themselves if hit by a penetrating round. As they have have no real penetration capabilities themselves I doubt they would have stuck around once enemy tanks showed up, i know i wouldnt hang around. The article mentions that early models were plagued by fragility and weakness, hardly the kind of weapon that could successfully engage tanks. However in Spwaw they can really blitz tanks. Ever played a flame head online ? I have and it wasnt pleasant once those flame tanks got close. Hence my earlier comments, wild assumptions on my part ? maybe as i dont really have any proof (if i did someone would just refute it anyway). I prefer to think of it as an educated guess, either way it doesn't "feel right" to me. So what do you think ? Was flame vs armour so effective historically ?

FWIW, I think the primary reason weapons such as flamethrowers, satchel charges, etc. are so effective against AFV's in the game is to prevent them from dominating the battlefield. It kind of forces you to use your infantry as a screening force to prevent this from happening in the first place.

As anyone who has played WAW knows, it's very dangerous to "lead with your tanks". If I'm not mistaken, you can literally stumble into hidden infantry in open ground if you rely on tanks to move & spot. When you do almost any type of infantry unit can do you serious harm. If infantry is in a building or trees they're even more dangerous.

I have no idea how historically accurate this is, but it certainly makes you have a healthy respect for hidden infantry units.

ORIGINAL: soldier

Its an excellent article, i couldnt find much on flame vs tank but i havnt read all of it.

There is an extensive notes section at the end of the article. Maybe these sources will lead you to some documentation.

Hi.

This is something I learned at school, and because winter war is pretty much glorified among some historians at finland, take this with a grain of salt:

It seems that finnish infantrymen neutralizing soviet tanks with molotovs used, at least in theory, following tactic: while most of available firepower was assigned to distract tank and disperse covering soviet infantry, team would advance upon enemy. One part of team immobilized tank using often any equipment available from treetrunks stuck at tracks to manual breaking of tracks with crowbars and varying engineer tools. The other part of team quickly lit molotov and threw it on ventilation found at back of most that era soviet tanks. It often sucked the flames and flaming liquids into engine and even crew compartment.

It seems that molotov-cocktails were desperate solution where satchel charges used by single slowly advancing men were preferred choice. Flames capability to cause damage was therefore one of flaws in soviet tank design. I guess that with better models molotov was capable of overheating the engine, as it would be even today against some modern tanks.

In short:Crew should be safe unless deprived of oxygen, engine would be most vulnerable point according to that info. Soviet design was an exception to rule.

Thanks for your patience.

I don't know. Let your car catch fire and see what your reaction would be [X(]

There is something about fire and being inside of anything when the outside is on fire that is quite intimidating. Who knows what these tank guys have stacked on the outside!

Burns are painful. Suffocation is probably one of the most horrible ways to die. Thinking about those things will definitely cause anyone to panic, I feel.

WB

It's a natural reaction to want to get away from fire. That's why the WP trick I described earlier worked.

ORIGINAL: Wild Bill

I don't know. Let your car catch fire and see what your reaction would be [X(]

There is something about fire and being inside of anything when the outside is on fire that is quite intimidating. Who knows what these tank guys have stacked on the outside!

Burns are painful. Suffocation is probably one of the most horrible ways to die. Thinking about those things will definitely cause anyone to panic, I feel.

WB

Completely agree with you, Bill. However, to change the subject slightly, why would anyone want to jump out of an airplane that ISN'T on fire? Kinda makes you wonder about those paratroopers, doesn't it? [:D]

I'll throw my two cents worth of technical knowledge in to thread,
All the complainers should consider some of these more critical facts.
The fluid that was carried in the ww2 flamethrower was a combination of campher oil, deisal fuel and gasoline, all ready on the battlefield of the times and had a combusting temp. of approx. 1100 degrees. Now I've considered that a tank opperating in a fight of a degree that they are conserned about a inf. assault would be in its upper envelope of tolerances in temp and crew effectiveness, high RPM's and rate of fire would heat and stress all involved. the ignition temp of a standard 75mm type shell is only 750 degrees, just over a match strike witch is 600 degrees.
So u tell me how many seconds is this infantry squad gonna have to hose anything with the nasty they carry to put a highly preforming tank to critical temp. with things like low temp igniting feul and ammo?
OR the grease filled bearings and poorly insulated electrical systems??
In short I think SPWAW gives a great rendition of the effects of FT in the game.RT

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin



why would anyone want to jump out of an airplane that ISN'T on fire?

I have only been in 2 two aircraft that had propellers and I paid someone to allow me to jump out of one of them. If they had given me the option I would have jumped out of the other one too. Puddle jumpers are not the most confidence inspiring aircraft to be in. [X(] I'll take my chances with a chute.

As for my reason for the first jump (and the 4 others): I was 19. Need I say more?