Anyone have information about flamethrower battalions attached to divisions during WW2?

[billcorr]

10-Flamethrower Support Company (Gives Bonus Against Forts)

I'd like to learn more about flamethrower support companies (battalions (?) ) that were part of a division's table of organization and equipment (1936 to 1945)

Does anyone have more information regarding these units?

Thanks to @Huseyin1453tr for bringing up this topic.

I agree that having game mechanics to overcome in-game obstacles (such as forts) would be good game design. Right. Good design = a game sets up difficulties and the game provides solutions to overcoming those difficulties.

As the game is currently designed, the game pieces that provide anti-fort capability include:

• Characters with special abilities (fort buster skill)
• Special items
  • Heavy tanks
  • Heavy tank destroyers
  • Super heavy tanks
  • Super heavy tank destroyers

It might be that the HoI4 game designers need to counterbalance the strength of forts and add more abilities or equipment to overcome forts. A while back, there were many threads declaring that forts were too strong. Strong points.

Flamethrower battalions could be the game-design answer.

Anyone have information about flamethrower battalions attached to divisions during WW2?

 

[billcorr]

As the game is currently designed, the game pieces that provide anti-fort capability include:

• Characters with special abilities (fort buster skill)
• Special items
  • Heavy tanks
  • Heavy tank destroyers
  • Super heavy tanks
  • Super heavy tank destroyers

According to the HoI4 WIki, there are several more pieces of equipment that help defeat fortifications:

Terrain - Hearts of Iron 4 Wiki

hoi4.paradoxwikis.com

 

[billcorr]

Perhaps a "Flamethrower" unit could modify the attack on a fort by either:

• 15%
• 40%
• 45%
• 55% or more
  
  

The terrain attack adjusters by unit identify various bits of equipment that modify attacks on a fort by:

5%
10%
20%
25%
30%
50%


These modifiers have gaps in them...15%, 40%, 45%, 55%+

...maybe there is a need for another unit to fill in those gaps.

...maybe not.


What do you think?

 

[kettyo]

Flamethrowers are more against underground and urban hideouts so in game terms more against entrenchment. Classic forts are more countered by heavy artillery and aerial bombing.

The game has a siege artillery command or something to simulate heavy artillery. Strats can be very lethal against forts, even TAC against forts with weak to no AA.

So the game representation is kinda there.

Engineers give both urban and fort bonuses to simulate their demolition tasks.

Flamethrower support units might reduce enemy entrenchment.

 

[porta80]

To be honest i dont think this is needed.
Flame throwers are only effectiv at close quarter range, also in a soldiers hand its always the risk to be shoot at the tank on your back and injure yourself and your comrades nearby.
Also Forts/bunkers are build of reinforced concrete which itself doesnt burn so the effect even if you get close to the fort itself is neglegtable.

Its ok for clearing rooms before entering, nowadays special forces have flashbangs for this purpose, so i would only see this as an addtional infantry equipment probably only 1 soldier out of the platoon got those flamethrowers back then and some training on how to use it thats it.
Just watch the starting scene from the film "Saving Private Ryan" where they storm Omaha beach and the coastal defense, that i think is pretty close to how they were used, there were no spezialised flamthrower battalions/support companies.

Its probably more the psychological effect of having to deal with fire that would decrease the enemys oganisation if you want something spezial.

 

[Rafled]

I feel Engineer support companies already include this technology in their benefits. I don't feel it makes sense to have an individual battalion/support unit for just flamethrowers.... such a thing never existed in real life.

 

[Volodio]

I feel Engineer support companies already include this technology in their benefits. I don't feel it makes sense to have an individual battalion/support unit for just flamethrowers.... such a thing never existed in real life.

Agreed. Several mods include the flamethrower technology as part of the engineer support tree.

 

[Harin]

I think it is World Ablaze mod that does this, but you can research flamethrowers and even pontoon bridges. I think this makes the default engineer unit more expensive, but I know it gives additional buffs, like against forts, cities, etc... and for the bridges, faster crossing of rivers. There is another mod that actually has something like assault engineers and regular engineers. Now that is very realistic as the two can be very different things.

Personally, I would like to see more flavor and abilities added to the divisions. The current system has players using two-thirds or more of their economy and a large part of their research to build two things: tanks and planes. Sometimes it can feel hollow. The war was so much more than that.

 

[Zauberelefant]

I feel Engineer support companies already include this technology in their benefits. I don't feel it makes sense to have an individual battalion/support unit for just flamethrowers.... such a thing never existed in real life.

The Wehrmacht employed flame tank companies as corps/army units.

 

[Huseyin1453tr]

I Think still can be used as Enginer sub Passive Technology Like OWB Mod will be optiminal to Research
Historicaly Flamethrowers used 6th army at stalingrad.

 

[Zauberelefant]

It must be pointed out that usually, flamethrowers were part of engineer/infantry outfits already, so their effect is either represented in the relevant units stats or it's not represented at all. I tend to the former, because infantry battalions are using all sorts of equipment as of now, Up to 75mm infantry guns. Hand held explosives are also included.

High level forts take time and casualties to overcome, flamethrowers be damned. I do however see a point for flame tanks/halftrack/tankette Equipment, like Panzer III flamm, Churchill crocodile, T34, bren Carrier and such, but maybe more of a support Option rather than full battalion.

 

[Louella]

flame tanks and other close assault vehicles might be justifiable as a support unit (Armoured Combat Engineers ?), not sure about a main unit type though.

Flamethrower troops, I don't think need explicitly modelled, instead being part of the Engineer company, or as specialists within elite infantry such as Marines and Paratroopers.

The Wehrmacht employed flame tank companies as corps/army units.

A company of flame tanks, supporting a corps of 3? divisions, is kind of awkward to represent at HOI4s scales.

 

[Fulmen]

The Russians fielded and produced thousands of flamethrower tanks throughout WW2, including in dedicated flamethrower tank battalions and even regiments. Definitely makes sense to include those in the game, but I don't think separate flamethrower infantry battalions would make much sense. Assault engineers as opposed to regular combat engineers though? Perhaps.

Production of AFVs

Data about production of Armored Fighting Vehicles in the USSR 1941-45

armchairgeneral.com

85% of the Soviet armoured vehicle park on 1.1.1936 is missing from HoI4 (updated to NSB)

So lately I've been doing some casual research into Soviet equipment and production figures again. Here's how their real-life armour figures from 1.1.1936 compare with HoI4's. The following table is based on primary sources from Russian...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

47-й отдельный огнеметно-танковый полк

47-й отдельный огнеметно-танковый полк. История формирования, командование, боевой путь, состав полка

tankfront.ru

Etc.

Use your browser's translator on the last site.

I have the Red Army's Handbook 1939-45 which I can check tomorrow for more specific information on how they included flamethrower tanks in the TO&E of their conventional formations.