NUTTERNAME
Member
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=113&t=14386
Some good info. I just wonder how often the man-pack types were really used. I suppose German combat engineers and other engineers used them especially in city and town fighting. I doubt many infantry types could be persuaded to don them. Given the short range, even the distance between hedgerows in the bocage means coming forward and being seen to get within shot distance. Most of these early designs had issues. Perhaps because they sat so long in storage.
The use of thickened fuels certainly made them deadlier. One poster at BF said that most of the fuel is consumed before hitting the target. Perhaps with the unthickened fuels but that is not true at all for the later models. Actually, most things about flame and molotovs etc. is incorrect at BF. Molotovs used against tanks can immobilize them rather quickly if the hit is near the engine air intake. The fuel and lack of oxygen stalls out the motor. The tank will quickly come to a halt due to rolling resistance and further molotovs can target the engine further or the fans on the tank.
FT operators were well aware of their special target status. In fact, many FT would douse down a target before setting it alight. This way, the initial flame is intense and target shock increased and firer exposure is limited. Perhaps a great way to attack a tank. I have read of one account of a Japanese FT dousing down an allied tank, coating one tanker with an open hatch, yet his FT failed to ignite and the operator was killed. Marine FT guys were held back and carefully brought forward to secured areas and then only brought forth when a suitable target was encountered.
I suppose that the Market Garden module will get the most bang with the flamethrowers. Historically, they were used and it will be interesting to see if they change play balance.
Some good info. I just wonder how often the man-pack types were really used. I suppose German combat engineers and other engineers used them especially in city and town fighting. I doubt many infantry types could be persuaded to don them. Given the short range, even the distance between hedgerows in the bocage means coming forward and being seen to get within shot distance. Most of these early designs had issues. Perhaps because they sat so long in storage.
The use of thickened fuels certainly made them deadlier. One poster at BF said that most of the fuel is consumed before hitting the target. Perhaps with the unthickened fuels but that is not true at all for the later models. Actually, most things about flame and molotovs etc. is incorrect at BF. Molotovs used against tanks can immobilize them rather quickly if the hit is near the engine air intake. The fuel and lack of oxygen stalls out the motor. The tank will quickly come to a halt due to rolling resistance and further molotovs can target the engine further or the fans on the tank.
FT operators were well aware of their special target status. In fact, many FT would douse down a target before setting it alight. This way, the initial flame is intense and target shock increased and firer exposure is limited. Perhaps a great way to attack a tank. I have read of one account of a Japanese FT dousing down an allied tank, coating one tanker with an open hatch, yet his FT failed to ignite and the operator was killed. Marine FT guys were held back and carefully brought forward to secured areas and then only brought forth when a suitable target was encountered.
I suppose that the Market Garden module will get the most bang with the flamethrowers. Historically, they were used and it will be interesting to see if they change play balance.