By looking at its stats it’s rather terrible. So what is the main use of it and what kind of division is best suited for it? Thx!
Last edited:
What is the purpose of flame tank?
- Thread starter him_15
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Per se, the flame tanks aren't powerful. But they give huge flat bonus to your divisions.
- 5
- 5
- 3
You put it on divisions that you are using for attacking. Often that means tank divisions but can be others too. Stats aren't great but their number are so small that it won't matter as bonus is worth it.
- 1
multiplicative penalties are awful for division stats, and flame tanks remove a lot of them. often out-competes alternative companies on relevant terrain in terms of how much it impacts stats in practice, even if the flame tanks themselves don't do a lot.
since they are mostly a multiplier, use them on your best divisions that are pushing spearheads. they're doing almost nothing for line holder divs.
since they are mostly a multiplier, use them on your best divisions that are pushing spearheads. they're doing almost nothing for line holder divs.
Last edited:
- 5
- 1
Also Remember that they are Primarily a Support unit.
I am also making an assumption here that most of the posters are biased towards land combat on the Eurasian land mass.
I am also making an assumption here that most of the posters are biased towards land combat on the Eurasian land mass.
- 1
Repeated for emphasis. You probably won't be happy if you make an entire division solely of flame tanks, but they can be a nice addition to other divisions in the form of support companies. Their power lies in the way they enhance other units, not directly in just adding their own stats.
its the 3rd or 4rd highest soft atack of support companies(if u design the expesiviest medium flame) + terrain bonuses. its good if u wanna play "champion of soft atack".
..
Its a SA booster + terrain booster, can use with any division.
but remind it consume oil.
So if be careful if going play some sort oil scarcity scenario.
..
..
Its a SA booster + terrain booster, can use with any division.
but remind it consume oil.
So if be careful if going play some sort oil scarcity scenario.
Last edited:
Let's show why (I'm a visual guy...).
Here's a normal tank with flametrower armament: ANYTHING will give it more soft and/or hard attack (basic AA gun, automatic cannon, HMG....) so just don't do it.
Now, exactly the same design but marked as a Flame (SUPPORT COMPANY): note the loss of hardness, armor, and breakthrough. Basically, no merit per se, it would be a disaster to use in a battalion.
However, as a support company, definitely a winner, especially against forts, urban and jungle terrains. Note the fuel consumption but also the fuel capacity: you can design your support tanks with more fuel drums and use that as a buffer for your whole division.
- 3
- 2
I don’t understand at all why a flamethrower replaces the main weapon in a tank? perhaps the most common nation that replaced its main weapons with a flamethrower was Germany (Flamethrower Pz3 and Hetzer replacing the main weapon); other nations had either a coaxial or hull-mounted flamethrower: KV-8, OT-34, Churchill Crocodile, Sherman Zippo.
And why can’t flamethrower tanks be added as a regular battalion, only as a support battalion?
And why can’t flamethrower tanks be added as a regular battalion, only as a support battalion?
See my post above: you can equipe any normal tank with flame armament: as long as it's labeled as a tank, you can form battalions. But as I also show, it's armament is the weakest choice of all tanks.
The country to do this the most was not Germany, but the USSR, hands down.
On the eve of Barbarossa the USSR possessed some 1,250 OT-26s, OT-130s, OT-133s, OT-7s, OT-37s and OT-27s, all of which were designs that replaced the vehicle's main armament with a flamethrower. It is worth mentioning that only about 100 of these were anything other than T-26-based designs. To give some idea of comparison, between 1939 and 1945, Germany produced some 255 Pz. II and Pz. III flamethrower tanks that operated on the same principle of replacing the main armament with a flamethrower. These figures don't include the flamethrower tanks the USSR lost in the Winter War of 1939-40, or those that she produced after the beginning of Barbarossa, such as the OT-130s and OT-133s produced in September-October 1941 in Plant No. 174. At a glance, it seems Germany did not produce flamethrower versions of the Pz. II and Pz. III prior to 1940 and 1943 respectively, barring the possibility of prototypes, of course.
- 1
This is understandable, these were light tanks, there was no other option but to use a flamethrower as the main weapon. Flamethrowers are quite bulky, even in the large KV-8 there was not enough space for a 76mm cannon and a coaxial flamethrower, so a 45mm cannon had to be used. Well, in general, to be honest, using a light one as a flamethrower is not the best idea, and the fact that the USSR made such a number of T-26 flamethrowers is quite useless.
A total of 1,170 OT-34/34-85 were produced from 1942 to 1945 and another 102 KV-8 and KV-8S from 1942 to 1943.
Germans used Flammpanzer II flame tanks in the beginning of Operation Barbarossa, but since they did not perform as well as expected, all Pz II flames were converted to Marder tank destroyers.
The Germans produced 100 Flammpanzer III in 1943. Those were first used in the Operation Zitadelle at platoon strength in certain divisions, but again did not perform as well as expected. Part of them were converted to PzKw III gun tanks, part continued as flame tanks. They were later used in Italy.
The Germans also converted a smaller number of French B2 tanks and Hetzer tank destroyers to flame tanks. In 1945 Hitler demanded all Jagdtigers to be converted to flame tanks, but that order was never implemented; "everyone" in the German high command opposed it.
The most numerous German flame "tank" was SdKfz 251/16 halftrack used by the Armored Engineer Battalions of the Panzer Divisions.
Interesting post, but the part about Hitler demanding all Jagdtigers be converted to flamethrower tanks sounds like another one of those myths that float around. Googling it didn't come up with much. If you have anything concrete on that, feel free to share.
- 1
I checked the book Jentz and Doyle: Flammpanzer, German Flamethrowers 1941-45, Osprey Publishing 1995, pages 43-45.
On 5 Dec 1944 Hitler first suggested long range flamethrower mounted behind heaviest armor possible. He considered Jagdtiger with a flamethrower with 200 meters range. Colonel Crohn replied in Jan 45 that 120-140 m range is possible.
Instead of a Jagdtiger, a Tiger I was choosen to be converted as experimental Schwerst-Flammpanzer auf Tiger I. Flamethrower range estimate was lowered to 100-120 meters, and due to the short range, Tiger's frontal armor was suggested to be strengthened.
One prototype of Tiger flame tank was on making, but not ready, when the war ended.
- 1
Yeah, I expected as much. He considered a variant of the vehicle in the planning phase, which is a very different thing to demanding that all existing vehicles be converted. Interesting information on the flamethrower Tiger. 100-120 meters is quite a distance for a flamethrower. Probably no flamethrower in the war had that kind of range.
- 1
Why didn't others have such a range? OT-34 and KV-8 had a flamethrowing range of 60-70 meters with regular fuel, and 100-120 meters with special thicker fuel.
The record holder was the British Churchill Crocodile 140 meters.