Flamers

[martin goddard]

After our recent games there are to be some test changes to flamers.
Stewart suggested a  2 square fall back. We shall try this.

A new version of PBI will be with you very soon.

If a target square has tanks and foot in it the flamer rolls D6 against both. This is quite potent.  This means that the tank targets might fall back, but the foot not fall back.

OR should the flamer declare the shot is just at the vehicle target or just the foot target?


martin

[Colonel Kilgore]

Given the area that a square represents, some kind of limitation on the targets that (a single?) flamethrower (of limited range and duration) can affect would seems appropriate.

Simon

[martin goddard]

Maybe the flamer should choose vehicles or foot?

martin

[Moggy]

I should think that any platoon hit by a flamer weapon should have a morale check taken. The prospect of facing a flamer should be pretty dammed intimidating to the most professional troops regardless of their dedication.

Maybe that could an answer rather than moving a certain number of zones backwards. Maybe both!

Derek

[Smiley Miley 66]

Where I ve been(forcibly) looking into Section/platoon tactics in and around Holland and Germany in LW ? The use of Flammers was the most feared weapon from a German point of view. The British and Commonwealth and also Americans did use the Flammers a lot by the looks of it ? More than what some people have led us to believe?
I think all that suffer a flame attack should either have a chance to flee, if not the suffer a morale test ?
I ve always said it's not its ability to kill ? It's the thought that counts !
But saying that a Gurkha that at charging at a loads of Japs killed up to 7 with guns then picked a Flammers and killed another 30 ? He did get a VC for his actions!
Miles

[martin goddard]

Fine  thinking.

Cleverly the PBI "1 and 6" rules takes all this into account without any clumsy extra morale test.

Luckily flame throwers are very rare in the sort of games PBI portrays.

martin

[simmo]

>Where I ve been(forcibly) looking into Section/platoon tactics in and around Holland and Germany in LW ? The use of Flammers was the most feared weapon from a German point of view. The British and Commonwealth and also Americans did use the Flammers a lot by the looks of it ? More than what some people have led us to believe?

Can I ask what sort of action they mostly undertaking? I'd be interested to hear of a flamethrower being used to stalk and flame a tank.

Martyn

[Smiley Miley 66]

This is mainly going after Strongpoints and Villages and Towns.
It does look like the Allies did like to use Artillery and Flammers (Crocodiles, Wasps but a lack of mention on Manpacks)when committing an Assault on the fore mentioned places !
I am not too sure about tank Stalking ?
But at the same time I wouldn't want to be in a tank if and when flames hit ? Petrol, Oil and other flammable materials around !
Miles

[John Watson]

I understood that they were mainly used for clearing buildings, bunkers and trenches/fox holes.  Also that the British preferred to use vehicles rather than infantry flamers, partly to protect the user ( fancy walking across a battlefield with a large amount of petrol on your back?) and partly because a vehicle can carry more fuel, is better protected and has a longer range. The infantry flamer was a very short range and very short duration weapon.
John

[Smiley Miley 66]

Martin I would agree the 1 and 6 does go someway of sorting that out !
But as I just put above I am starting to come to a conclusion that if the Artillery was available, this actually seems harder to get, as everyone wanted it ? Also if Flammers and other specialist vehicles were available? Then these would be used as it does look like they were given out at Company level ?
For the push against the West wall, there was as many 79th Division speacialist vehicles as there were normal AFVs ? We are talking 500 a for each total Available! This list does include the likes of Crocodiles, Wasps, Fail tanks, Bridging tanks, Buffalo's Kangaroo's and Weasels to name a few though.
At the moment I am concentrating on the British but I will start looking at the Americans and Germans ? It does seem that when it came to Assaults especially built up circumstances the Germans were on top, but the British were very close behind as they actually read the German Manuals !
Also after the Blitz the British started using the Bombed out parts of London to test and train theories on Fighting in Built up areas !
The Americans do seem to come 3rd in this ? Interesting enough in the use of SMGs in the US forces seems to be the least of the 3 ? Which seems funny as in the movies they always seem to be bristling with them ? But also before DDay the Americans were not really interested in the use of spealist vehicles! But that soon changed once they got off the beaches! Seemingly!
In a British Infantry Division total, there seems to be nearly as many SMGs as rifles ? But of course a lot were given to personnel that weren't some much front line and had other duties to do, as the SMG is easier to store than a 303 rifle ?
Miles

[Colonel Kilgore]

Can I ask what sort of action they mostly undertaking? I'd be interested to hear of a flamethrower being used to stalk and flame a tank.

Martyn

Very interesting point, Martyn. In the interest of simplification, would it be easier to say that flamethrowers have no effect on armour?

Simon

[Smiley Miley 66]

Actually in V2 the Flammer had an effect of 8 on an AFV. I wouldn't be so sure than a Flame thrower has no effect as it was highly Pressurised highly Flammable material, that would probably get into a lot of gaps ? Remember a turret of a tank only sits on it ?
There was a lot of work done to make tanks waterproof- in the Cold War NBC proof.
 If you see the pictures of the Sorry to say British tanks,( but where I live in Christchurch it's where they have the purpose built facility to test tanks water proofing and can say how high a tank can go,into the water ?)it's still there by the way ! Those levels are normally only 2/3 rd of the way up a tank hull ?
I am Assuming Vision slits, tank Hatches and other out side elements and door ways/hatches don't allow an WW2 to be air tight as we might think ? Look at the Australian Matilda's they had a red lines painted on the out side of their hulls to say that's how far they could go into the water, for Jungle Warfare !
So I would think a Tank hull will give you so much protection but that's it ? I don't think being inside a WW2 tank is absolute guarantee from the effects of a flammer ? But then is there many stories of Flammers going for tanks ? I can't think of any at the moment ?
That's put it like this I wouldn't want to test the theory out in a fully kitted out WW2 tank with camo nets and other kit and things draped over it etc ?
Miles

[Colonel Kilgore]

I agree that in practice AFVs wouldn't be fully flameproof. However, if in practice and doctrine AFVs would not normally be targeted by flamethrowers, wouldn't it be a handy rules simplification to say that AFVs cannot be so targeted if there are infantry in the same square?

Simon

[Smiley Miley 66]

Not really as flames and the fuel used would cover anything in its reach ?
Wouldn't be easier as it is in the rules already? If the tank withdraws because of the more 1s rule it wouldn't be pinned ? If it gets hit as per 6s rule then the saves as per Artillery hits or Assaults ?
Nothing too dramatic!but that would be the Action of that vehicle?
Blimey a man who normally plays German afraid of a little flame thrower?
There's Irony there somewhere ?
Miles

[John Watson]

If you pit a British Flame tank against an average late war German tank (i.e. a PzIV) how many shots is the PzIV going to get off at the flamer before it gets into flare range. PzIV 75mm L48 gun has a range of up to 7,700m and can fire upwards of 10 rounds a minute. The flamer (Churchill Crocodile) has a maximum range of 140m and an effective range of 75mm.
On that basis the PzIV would get off countless rounds before the Crocodile got into range. On a PBI table that would not be reflected as the Crocodile would be able to close range more quickly than in reality. Perhaps the PBI vehicle range needs to be reduced to reflect its real life effective range, rather than the damage the flamer can inflict.
John