Play Conflict of Nations for FREE on PC, iOS or Android: con.onelink.me/kZW6/MHV001 Receive a Unique Starter Pack, available only for the next 30 days!
@@tirushone6446 I would also imagine that the fuel used for driving is probably a lot more than the fuel used for flaming. You drive around all the time but only occasionally do you actually get close to use the flamethrower, and you would rarely use all the fuel.
If you manage to mix gas with cooking oil and alcohol without blowing yourself you kinda just won against that. Cooking oil is far from the same material. You can concentrate a large number of vegetables to degrade and make gas (did a little kaboom with that 6th grade experiment) And well, alcohol wouldn't be that hard to get. Issue is that you basically need a big ass nerf super soaker lol. The slightest of liquid falling on your tank and it's so freaking over
The problem is that Germany after they started retreating was not in a situation that could benefit from flame tanks. Those are mostly offensive in nature, made to take out really stubborn bunkers and fortifications. The Allies could make great use of those as they had air superiority / supremacy and plenty of fortifications to tackle with flame tanks ( the Churchill Crocodile is a prime example ). In the Pacific theatre too, they could make great use of flame Shermans as the japanese did not have AT guns as good as Germany.
Germany still conducted offensives and counterattacks at the corps and army level, even into 1945, like with Operation Spring Awakening. They still could use a flame tank in that role to great efficiency. But it had to be well armored because since everybody hates flamethrowers they would drew fire like a moth to flames.
this video also illustrates how delusional the decision-making has become over at least the last year of the war. lots of clutching on to hopeless ideas...
@@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623 If they had little success against the soviets in 1942-1943 when the Red Army was weaker, they would not have great success in late war, when the Allied superiorty was so overwhelming.
In Hoi4 the meta thing to do with plammpanzers seem to be to stick a bunch of extra fuel drums on it, and have it act as a mobile refueling station for the panzer division.
7:07 Here we see the deployment of a brand new MHV visual emblem: The "Überrascht Piepsenmäus". Remember it for it may, in itself, become history to one day be visualised.
Don‘t need it. When you‘re fighting a war that‘s as decisive as WWII, defeat is not an option you can entertain. In that situation, it‘d rational to grasp at straw, rather than give up, which is the only real alternative.
This was very informative and well-presented. I especially liked the little circular info bubbles for 'heavy losses' (6:05) and 'easily caught fire when hit.'(7:05) My grandfather was a Sherman tank commander on Iwo Jima, and at one point was assigned to a flamethrower tank. He said that the entire crew hated riding with the flame fuel sloshing around in the belly, and they considered the tank to be little more than a rolling bomb.
The little jokes will never fail to amuse - don't think I didn't catch that surprised pikachu face (in the context of a flame tank catching fire) at 7:08!
For me it was the "germany converted stugs into flametanks and then back into stugs, because they had so much time and resources left" that made me spit out my coffee.
When designing The Longest Day monster wargame in the late 1970s, my research uncovered the fact that the 319th Infanterie Division, deployed to the Channel Islands was a VERY large division with all kinds of extra units attached to it, including a full battalion of Char B Flammpanzers. I suppose that they were penny-packeted out to the various Channel Islands in 1943-44. One wonders what would have happened had Hitler allowed the 319th to move to the Fortress Cherbourg area to hold that vital port for longer than happened historically.
Allied flame tanks in comparison had much thicker armor and had retained their main guns. I'm referring to both Churchill Crocodile AND KV-8, the latter had 45mm gun in place of their normal 76mm, but said 45mm still had APHE shell that can deal with most german armor up to Panther and has a respectable HE shell to deal with towed guns.
The Russians used flammpanzers against Finnish bunkers on the Karelian Isthmus. When they got close, they shot a jet of oil through openings in the bunker which they then ignited. There are documented horror stories of how entire crews in the bunkers were burned to death. The Finns lacked anti-tank weapons during the Winter War but their machine guns were effective and inflicted huge losses on the Russians. Thats why the Russians change tactics and used flammpanzers for the Assault. The Finns soon abandoned fixed bunkers and switched to mobile defense instead by switching places to several prepared nests.
Flamethrower tanks were used with success after WWII, americans used them in Vietnam. It's simply that since that time we developed better weapons with more precision and longer range like thermobaric and thermite rounds
So the US flame tanks were very good in the Pacific due to the limited ranges and the Japanese were bunkered down in caves. Not sure how well they would have worked in the open fields of Europe.
Both British and US used Churchill Crocodiles with great effect in Europe (US "borrowing" the British assault tank units). They were used against bunkers, pillboxes and fortified buildings that would otherwise require substantial forces to take. It was simply the reality of WWII combat that by 1944 Germans didn't have such targets but it's not exactly an argument against flame tank per se
@@christopherwang4392it could work, but the problem is that it’s much easier to seal and escape from a building than a cave, the Japanese mostly died of lack of oxygen because the flame used up all of them in the caves while in Europe it’s only useful for clearing bunkers on D-Day.
Love the way this guy digs into every topic. Can we get some more of those tactical videos. Like how Germany attacked or defended positions. Keep it up brotha!
This seems like a genuinely useful idea until you realize you‘re not making flamethrowers better, you‘re just making tanks worse. Sure, having a mobile flamethrower protected against small-arms would on it‘s face be helpful, but in reality, it probably can‘t do much that a tank (or better yet a platoon of them) can‘t already do. Tanks already deploy the biggest gun that’s feasible to carry around, and that gun can usually destroy any position not itself protected by a bunker, casemate or heavy armor. In theory, those things the tank can‘t destroy are vulnerable to flamethrowers, but most of those things can also fire back, and then it becomes a contest of range where the flamethrower inevitably loses. Unlike a normal tank or assault gun, which can still suppress a target at significant ranges.
> This seems like a genuinely useful idea until you realize you‘re not making flamethrowers > better, you‘re just making tanks worse. Very interesting point!
i feel like if they took the time to develop a dedicated tank design with corresponding armour it could have been very effective, the design would generally work in urban environments but for example attacks from top, sides and back would be very likely and prevent a flame tank from properly advancing down a street or even towards a large enough building
It's really amazing how important the situation is for flamethrowers. For Germans on the Eastern Front, they were utter garbage. Much of the eastern front was wide open spaces, flat, with plenty of sight lines that made it easy for just about any anti-tank weapon to hit a Flammpanzer before the Germans even had a chance to shoot back. The armour could stop a round at 400m, but the tank had to be in 50m so it's a moot point. Meanwhile, in the pacific theatre, the Americans were able to use flame tanks to excellent effect against the Japanese, who were often dug in in caves and bunkers that were armed only with small-arms. Since the Japanese were lacking large tanks and large guns, the American flame tanks were able to have much more success, and the environment also meant that you wouldn't get a chance to fire at the tank until it was within flamethrowing distance of you. On paper the American flame tanks were not much different from the German ones, but the situations were entirely different.
Play Conflict of Nations for FREE on PC, iOS or Android: 💥con.onelink.me/kZW6/MHV001 Receive a Unique Starter Pack, available only for the next 30 days!
Not sure how feasible it would have been considering we're talking late 1944 / early 1945 time frame, and the anti-tank capabilities of everyone in Europe / Eastern Front. I know the US was quite fond of flame tanks in the Pacific. However, the Japanese army were years behind in anti-tank weaponry compared to most every other major belligerent of the war. Even in the area of infantry held anti-tank weapons, the best the Japanese could do were bundled grenades or handing a mine to a soldier and tell him to run underneath a tank. They had nothing like the Bazooka, Panzerschreck, PIAT. These weapons started to appear with the Allies and Germans in 1943 and the Japanese did not have this kind of stuff. So Sherman tanks in the Pacific had a lot of free real estate to burn.
I believe the statement from the source saying that compressed acetylene is incorrect. Acetylene at a pressure greater than 15 psig is unstable. Acetylene is normally stored dissolved in acetone.
14:51 This statement hits the nail in the head. If the enemy lacks anti-tank weapons, even a panzer 1 or 2 would suffice. Having an expensive (for germans, with their fuel shortage) weapon system that exploits an extremely rare weakness does not seem to be quite worth it.
The seems pretty useful if mounted on a tank that can resist all frontal fire. Seems like man portable flamethrowers are more favorable for local counterattacks tbh. Seems like the only time flame tanks could be used in mass and effectively is right after dday to clear out hedgerows and fortifications.
Or urban combat where you can torch entire rooms to dislodge defending infantry. It seems to me like the Germans kept trying to use flame tanks for things they aren't good enough at to be worth fielding.
It's one of those "win more, win harder" weapons, not for when you're losing.
10 หลายเดือนก่อน +1
Interesting topic. I guess there is a good reason why we dont see any flmetanks today and havnt really seen them for some time. Although maybe if the point of comparison is a Marine unit on some pacific Island or an American unit in Vietnam, reports would a littel more positive. I guss it is an edge case weapon
About 14:00 the main problem was that obviously Germans were in defensive, while Allies were in offensive. Obviously, a flamethrower tank is not only an offensive weapon but even an extremum of it, therefore it excelled on side which was on offensive while defending side didn't have much use for it with exception of few local counterattacks. British and US used with great success Churchill Crocodiles in dispatching German bunkers, pillboxes and fortified buildings which were plentiful in Normandy and west Germany, against which medium caliber HE shells (like 75mm tank guns) were inefficient, and which would require substantial forces to defeat - offensive capability of Churchill Crocodile allowed their destruction in much easier way. The secondary problem is indeed German flame tank designs weren't even really needed and "wasted" tank chassis' because same task could be done by much cheaper and lighter SdKfz 251/16 flamethrower halftracks; and to me there seems that again in designing flamethrower tanks there are paths of two extremes - you either want a light and fast vehicle (like SdKfz251/16) which can rush, burn the target and scoot away, or a very heavy vehicle with enough armor that it can withstand enemy AT weaponry enough to safely close in to fire distance (indeed like Churchill Crocodile with it's 152mm-thick armor, which could withstand German AT rounds up to 7.5cm PaK40). Flame tank with medium tank chassis lacks both speed and maneuverability as well as armor protection, so it failed at it's task. Suprisingly while Hitler's dreaming of flame tank with 250mm of armor in 1945 read like 8th grader's fantasies, he still was onto something - you either want something very light or very heavy. But either way Germans didn't have neither production capabilities, strategic abilities nor tactical opportunities to produce and employ flame tanks in any way, so it's a moot point. But flame tank as idea itself is not a failed vehicle at all, like aforementioned Churchill Crocodile has proven.
The Germans conducted offensives and counter offensives up to army levels even into 1945. It's not like they only sat in bunkers and trenches after Kursk and only defended themselves. A weapon suitable for offensive use is still useful to them.
@@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623 Yes but these offensives didn't encounter heavily fortified bunkers like western allies did with German bunkers in Normandy and Germany, or like Germans encountered in early war in USSR. The defensive positions they encountered for example in Ardennes were fairly light and German's biggest problems were with mobile reinforcements not local fortifications For example sending flamethrower Hetzers with Op.Nordwind was logical, but that operation was quickly stopped again giving these vehicles little ability to prove themselves
@@czwarty7878 I've read that the Germans said that Soviet soldiers were famous for being able to dig in and fortify their position in no time. I reckon that whenever the Wehrmacht launched a counter offensive on the East a flame tank would have been useful. More useful probably then the Sturmpanzers with the big ass mortar for actually dealing with bunkers.
What was the doctrine for the usage of the flame tanks? You mentioned they were organized as an independent battalion at first - were they used differently then versus when there were flame tank platoons available at the battalion level?
The Flammpanzer of the Panzer III chaises seems like a creative improvement. It doesn't solve the fundamental problem of range, but I feel that it is impressive what they managed to do given the requirement of "put flamethrower on vehicle and try to make it as useful as possible." I wonder if it would have been effective in Africa in early 1942.Despite video games tending to use what appear to be agricultural propane-based flamethrowers instead of military ones that use liquid (because their animations and range seem to resemble the propane flamethowers), they do accurately replicate one outcome seen in real life: the thing gets shot long before it gets close to its target.
Der ursprüngliche Kommentar hat nämlich die Tendenz manchmal zu verschwinden (für ein paar Tage), als workaround wurde mir geraten ihn nach release nochmal ein zu posten... der wurde dann aber nicht angezeigt, deshalb, dann nochmal, bis es geklappt hat.
I'd be very curious to kmow how allied flame ranks faired too. Your grass is greener statement is interesting but the allies did at least seem somewhat successful with these weapons.
I wonder how the Brits managed to get such a decent range out of the Crocodile when the Germans apparently couldn't? The range of the Churchill Crocodiles flamethrower was apparently up to 110 meters!
Very interesting video. I had never heard of the Germans using captured French Char Bis2 tanks converted to flammpanzers! The idea of them being used on the eastern front is startling. The idea of them being used on the western front is kind of disturbing.
Flame tanks are good in an offence as a support weapon that can take out bunkers while the infantry covers it, but in defence it's about as effective as a regular flamethrower
First use of a flame tank in warfare was by Brazil. Noted the tank had a more first world war apperance then a 1930's tank but was still a somewhat capable tool of war.
Could of also been referencing the hand full of M4 Crocodiles ( total of 6 built but only 4 used in combat) the US used in March to late April 1945 in western Germany at the time before the surrender was agreed to.
well done I did not realize Germany had any flame throwing tanks at all. I think they were most effectively used in the Pacific against Japanese bunkers. The idea of using them as an assault weapon is not very practical and as time went on the United States did that with napalm dropped from airplanes. And of course thermite dropped on cities in factories in Europe by the eighth Air Force which I reject the idea of doing. Very inhumane thinking of Hamburg and Dresden. Did you know that more people were killed in Tokyo in the fire bombing raids than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki using two Atom bombs? The atomic bombs were just convenient and the allies were thinking ahead about a confrontation with Russia.
I'd really like to know about the internal mechanics. Are these barrels just regular old gun barrels? Or is the "bore" modified somehow? I understand why you would want to camouflage it to look like a normal barrel.
@@billd2635 Clarification, I meant the outside diameter, didn't look at the inside, but I doubt that the barrel needs to be thicker, I think it houses a hose etc.
It seems like the basic idea of a flame tank is to attack troops in heavy cover, especially bunkers and the like. An HE round through the bunker slit probably has similar effect, or you can use artillery or air power (even delivering napalm or similar). To get that flamethrower of questionable utility, youre giving up an enormous amount of range which leaves you very vulnerable. Something like the crocodile, that used a flamethrower instead of an MG but retained the main gun, makes a lot more sense. It still seems that flame tanks would always be a highly specialised weapon and only used in small numbers in specific locations.
"An HE round through the bunker slit probably has similar effect" Oh how easy it is to deduce that in theory ;) it was tested and tried, HE from 75mm gun will not defeat a reinforced pillbox. That's exactly why British and US used to great extent Churchill Crocodile, often in pairs with AVREs, to dispatch German bunkers in Normandy and Germany. It was very effective weapon doing job that would otherwise require an entire operation with substantial forces
"It still seems that flame tanks would always be a highly specialised weapon and only used in small numbers in specific locations." You mean, like a flamethrower itself? Unlike video games, you didn't have entire groups of flamethrower carrying soldiers running around torching other people. It was a specialized weapon, used for specific reasons such as reinforced pillboxes and allowed the soldiers to be protected while using it.
@@czwarty7878 Armchair Generalship can be obtained fairly easily, especially some 70+ years after the fact, I understand. Comments like "An HE round through the bunker slit probably has similar effect" shows that pretty well, many times.
If I'm not mistaken, the Allies used flamethrowers with most success against hardened defensive positions when there would be limited fire against the flamethrowers. Was this a situation Germany faced much after 1942?
Well the croc worked because it replaces a hull machine gun with flame, but you still get the proper gun in a turret. I'll have a flamer over a .303 hull machine gun, definitely.
flame tanks that were based on the US M3 light tank and M4 medium tank, which replaced the main gun with a flame thrower, worked well for the USMC in the Pacific.
@@flarvin8945 That's a good point. The video, and possibly my comment, assume the European theatre as Germany weren't really in the Pacific. As the Japanese didn't have a large number of well armoured tanks, lighter vehicles with minimal anti-tank ability will work well for a flame unit.
@@QofSQ the wasp based on the universal carrier and the badger based on the ram tank were liked by the Canadians, and they lacked a "proper gun." There were several successful flame thrower tanks used by the allies, that did not have proper guns.
@@flarvin8945 I suspect this is because the Japanese did not have the effective anti-tank weaponry that the Germans had in 1944/45. But I doubt the Churchill Crocodile would have done well on Pacific island terrain. It's about picking the right equipment for the environment and the enemy.
I wonder if "the troops" that rejected and then requested a Flammpanzer were the same, as in if they belonged to the same army branch. I suspect this could have been the usual case of normal infantry overrating tank capabilities compounded by the fact that they were under attack, on the backfoot, and more specifically having some of their comrades being burned alive.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Because the General who compiled the report only worked with panzer units, or something along those lines? I guess that could be it, and it could just be a case of "greener grass" then.
Generally, one would use flame thrower tanks against infantry that is entrenched, etc. There was infantry in tank division, but less, whereas nearly every other division consisted mostly of infantry. Additionally, bringing out a flame thrower tank, against a tank division increases the chance of being flank etc.
@@Darilon12 I read it in a very old piece of "Arménytt" (the newspaper magazine of the Swedish army). In Sweden we never use feet as a measurement for anything. Here we only use meters instead. The magazine did compare flamethrowers from Nato with Soviet union. And most of the "best" western flamethrowers did not even have half that range.
Then it's most likely wrong. Maybe someone fell for soviet propaganda. Every increase in range needs an increase in pressure. Anything above 100m gets very hard. Even today we can hardly throw water more than 200m. I doubt it gets any easier with burning fuel.
I wonder how such a weapon system would work today, with all the technology available. Could work decently (if supported properly) in some urban warfare situations.
I was wondering if Laminar Flow tech' might keep a coherent fuel jet over longer distances. ?? Be useful for shallow underground bunkers - stripping out oxygen.
We have a far better understanding of explosives today, and much better delivery systems. Flamethrowers are just obsolete because the basic physics limitations remain (short range, inaccurate, bulky and volatile fuel etc). An RPG or similar is just better.
It would be interesting to compare the use of flame tanks by the US in the Pacific to the German experience. Why they were successful for the US and seemingly unsuccessful for the Germans.
Given the state of today's technology, I think tank trailers should make a come back. Make the trailer powered and "smart." Make it detachable from the inside, and give it some AI instructions along the lines of "if the trailer gets detached then get out of the way."
@@causewaykayakkind of like the Soviet ampule cannon. It shot glass spheres filled with a pyrophoric liquid that caught fire when the glass shattered.
I think it would only made Sense when they were used in anphibies operations. And also the tank would have needed to be a new model. You cant use outdated tanks. Its like breakthrough tanks. It like brumbear and sturmtiger. When its finally would have been finished. It didnr have a purpose anymore. So you only can use this in spesific sitiations when you have the inititiv. And not on the defensiv. Or its only a one trick Pony. Flamenwerfer ist also in infantry weapon use only a offensiv weapon. So it suggest its not very usefull when you allready at the defensiv 1943. And in the early years germany didnt had the Ressources to develop a specfic Tank for satch tasks. As specially when there is no sitiation anphibies natur were you could use satch a thing for the Germans. Hätten die vorher auch wissen können. Man hat halt in der Not alles versucht nutzbar zu machen. Was trotz alledem schwachsinnig war ohne das man sich vorher mal Gedanken gemacht hat.
Play Conflict of Nations for FREE on PC, iOS or Android:
con.onelink.me/kZW6/MHV001
Receive a Unique Starter Pack, available only for the next 30 days!
„Hey Hans, we are a dealing with a really tough fuel situation, what should we do?”
„Franz is it not obvious? Make weapons that shoot oil and fuel!”
tbf you can use oil for a flame througher that you couldn't use for fuel, you could use thickend cooking oil if you wanted
@@tirushone6446 I would also imagine that the fuel used for driving is probably a lot more than the fuel used for flaming. You drive around all the time but only occasionally do you actually get close to use the flamethrower, and you would rarely use all the fuel.
Wenn sie kein Deutsch können, dann lassen sie dumme Witze.
Hans! Get ze Flammpanzer!
If you manage to mix gas with cooking oil and alcohol without blowing yourself you kinda just won against that.
Cooking oil is far from the same material.
You can concentrate a large number of vegetables to degrade and make gas (did a little kaboom with that 6th grade experiment)
And well, alcohol wouldn't be that hard to get.
Issue is that you basically need a big ass nerf super soaker lol.
The slightest of liquid falling on your tank and it's so freaking over
The problem is that Germany after they started retreating was not in a situation that could benefit from flame tanks. Those are mostly offensive in nature, made to take out really stubborn bunkers and fortifications. The Allies could make great use of those as they had air superiority / supremacy and plenty of fortifications to tackle with flame tanks ( the Churchill Crocodile is a prime example ). In the Pacific theatre too, they could make great use of flame Shermans as the japanese did not have AT guns as good as Germany.
Crocodile was also able to flame at up to 80-100 metres and retained its main gun, which fired the highly effective US 75mm HE shell.
In defense they can be used as a area denial weapon, especially in prepared areas.
Germany still conducted offensives and counterattacks at the corps and army level, even into 1945, like with Operation Spring Awakening. They still could use a flame tank in that role to great efficiency. But it had to be well armored because since everybody hates flamethrowers they would drew fire like a moth to flames.
this video also illustrates how delusional the decision-making has become over at least the last year of the war. lots of clutching on to hopeless ideas...
@@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623 If they had little success against the soviets in 1942-1943 when the Red Army was weaker, they would not have great success in late war, when the Allied superiorty was so overwhelming.
In Hoi4 the meta thing to do with plammpanzers seem to be to stick a bunch of extra fuel drums on it, and have it act as a mobile refueling station for the panzer division.
😂
7:07 Here we see the deployment of a brand new MHV visual emblem: The "Überrascht Piepsenmäus". Remember it for it may, in itself, become history to one day be visualised.
“The importance of a flammpanzer with 250mm of armour in 1945” meth is a helluva drug
Panzerchoclate is oh so tasty though!
Arguably, at that time period only the heavily armored vehicle had a chance to get close enough and actually use flamethrower.
Don‘t need it. When you‘re fighting a war that‘s as decisive as WWII, defeat is not an option you can entertain. In that situation, it‘d rational to grasp at straw, rather than give up, which is the only real alternative.
It werfs flammen.
Ein Minenwerfer, it werfs minen
@@looinrims Ein Nebelwerfer: it werfs nebel! 🤣
@@Archangelm127 It does make quite a lot of Nebel during launch. Werfing rockets is a nice bonus.
Schweinwerfer; it werfs schweine
A sturmgeschutz...
It stugs
This was very informative and well-presented. I especially liked the little circular info bubbles for 'heavy losses' (6:05) and 'easily caught fire when hit.'(7:05)
My grandfather was a Sherman tank commander on Iwo Jima, and at one point was assigned to a flamethrower tank. He said that the entire crew hated riding with the flame fuel sloshing around in the belly, and they considered the tank to be little more than a rolling bomb.
The little jokes will never fail to amuse - don't think I didn't catch that surprised pikachu face (in the context of a flame tank catching fire) at 7:08!
And the chainsword for the limited range icon.
For me it was the "germany converted stugs into flametanks and then back into stugs, because they had so much time and resources left" that made me spit out my coffee.
@@ElDesperado7 F for your keyboard.
When designing The Longest Day monster wargame in the late 1970s, my research uncovered the fact that the 319th Infanterie Division, deployed to the Channel Islands was a VERY large division with all kinds of extra units attached to it, including a full battalion of Char B Flammpanzers. I suppose that they were penny-packeted out to the various Channel Islands in 1943-44. One wonders what would have happened had Hitler allowed the 319th to move to the Fortress Cherbourg area to hold that vital port for longer than happened historically.
That was a monster game !
Flammpanzer, good on paper.
I see what you did there!
"This video is sponsored by conflict of nations" how quite meta of you mister military history
-Daddy, what did you do in the war?
-Nothing.
Allied flame tanks in comparison had much thicker armor and had retained their main guns.
I'm referring to both Churchill Crocodile AND KV-8, the latter had 45mm gun in place of their normal 76mm, but said 45mm still had APHE shell that can deal with most german armor up to Panther and has a respectable HE shell to deal with towed guns.
The Russians used flammpanzers against Finnish bunkers on the Karelian Isthmus. When they got close, they shot a jet of oil through openings in the bunker which they then ignited. There are documented horror stories of how entire crews in the bunkers were burned to death. The Finns lacked anti-tank weapons during the Winter War but their machine guns were effective and inflicted huge losses on the Russians. Thats why the Russians change tactics and used flammpanzers for the Assault. The Finns soon abandoned fixed bunkers and switched to mobile defense instead by switching places to several prepared nests.
Would love to see a full series about all the different flame tanks of the major nations in WW2.
Me like flames!
Yeah the flamethrower tank is something everyone tried durring ww2 but didnt persist after for a reason.
Geneva convention killed it
@@redmorphius Can you kill something, that was never truly alive?
Proliferation of infantry antitank weapons doesn't help. Especially when launchers have a greater range than the flame projectors.
Flamethrower tanks were used with success after WWII, americans used them in Vietnam. It's simply that since that time we developed better weapons with more precision and longer range like thermobaric and thermite rounds
@@czwarty7878and nobody wants to sit in this thing when a peasant with an old panzerfaust 3 can kill you 400 m away
So the US flame tanks were very good in the Pacific due to the limited ranges and the Japanese were bunkered down in caves. Not sure how well they would have worked in the open fields of Europe.
More for city fighting or destruction of fortifications I would imagine
I mean they sure lite up the way to the Target Well if its night, this way you dont have to use other Methods of illuminating the battlefield at Night
Wouldn't flame tanks have been useful in the forested and urban areas of Europe?
Both British and US used Churchill Crocodiles with great effect in Europe (US "borrowing" the British assault tank units). They were used against bunkers, pillboxes and fortified buildings that would otherwise require substantial forces to take. It was simply the reality of WWII combat that by 1944 Germans didn't have such targets but it's not exactly an argument against flame tank per se
@@christopherwang4392it could work, but the problem is that it’s much easier to seal and escape from a building than a cave, the Japanese mostly died of lack of oxygen because the flame used up all of them in the caves while in Europe it’s only useful for clearing bunkers on D-Day.
They were used with great success in the pacific war against Japan.
Love the way this guy digs into every topic. Can we get some more of those tactical videos. Like how Germany attacked or defended positions. Keep it up brotha!
2:05 chainsword to denote “limited range” is perfect 😂
which legion are you?
@@jiyuhong5853 imperial guard! (With some Raptor legion)
@@matthayward7889 perfect! Althought I have ultramarines logo I am wolves
@@matthayward7889 so sons of Dorn?
@@jiyuhong5853 nice!
This seems like a genuinely useful idea until you realize you‘re not making flamethrowers better, you‘re just making tanks worse.
Sure, having a mobile flamethrower protected against small-arms would on it‘s face be helpful, but in reality, it probably can‘t do much that a tank (or better yet a platoon of them) can‘t already do. Tanks already deploy the biggest gun that’s feasible to carry around, and that gun can usually destroy any position not itself protected by a bunker, casemate or heavy armor.
In theory, those things the tank can‘t destroy are vulnerable to flamethrowers, but most of those things can also fire back, and then it becomes a contest of range where the flamethrower inevitably loses. Unlike a normal tank or assault gun, which can still suppress a target at significant ranges.
> This seems like a genuinely useful idea until you realize you‘re not making flamethrowers
> better, you‘re just making tanks worse.
Very interesting point!
i feel like if they took the time to develop a dedicated tank design with corresponding armour it could have been very effective, the design would generally work in urban environments but for example attacks from top, sides and back would be very likely and prevent a flame tank from properly advancing down a street or even towards a large enough building
Urban warfare is not good for armored vehicles with limited vision and limited upward traverse.
It's really amazing how important the situation is for flamethrowers. For Germans on the Eastern Front, they were utter garbage. Much of the eastern front was wide open spaces, flat, with plenty of sight lines that made it easy for just about any anti-tank weapon to hit a Flammpanzer before the Germans even had a chance to shoot back. The armour could stop a round at 400m, but the tank had to be in 50m so it's a moot point.
Meanwhile, in the pacific theatre, the Americans were able to use flame tanks to excellent effect against the Japanese, who were often dug in in caves and bunkers that were armed only with small-arms. Since the Japanese were lacking large tanks and large guns, the American flame tanks were able to have much more success, and the environment also meant that you wouldn't get a chance to fire at the tank until it was within flamethrowing distance of you.
On paper the American flame tanks were not much different from the German ones, but the situations were entirely different.
Play Conflict of Nations for FREE on PC, iOS or Android:
💥con.onelink.me/kZW6/MHV001
Receive a Unique Starter Pack, available only for the next 30 days!
thanks for posting❤
I love the use of a chainsword to show “limited range”
:)
Not sure how feasible it would have been considering we're talking late 1944 / early 1945 time frame, and the anti-tank capabilities of everyone in Europe / Eastern Front. I know the US was quite fond of flame tanks in the Pacific. However, the Japanese army were years behind in anti-tank weaponry compared to most every other major belligerent of the war. Even in the area of infantry held anti-tank weapons, the best the Japanese could do were bundled grenades or handing a mine to a soldier and tell him to run underneath a tank. They had nothing like the Bazooka, Panzerschreck, PIAT. These weapons started to appear with the Allies and Germans in 1943 and the Japanese did not have this kind of stuff. So Sherman tanks in the Pacific had a lot of free real estate to burn.
The Panzer Maus and Ratte would have been great flame tanks.
Those 2 had a great chance to save oil by firing it instead of moving to the target : D
I believe the statement from the source saying that compressed acetylene is incorrect. Acetylene at a pressure greater than 15 psig is unstable. Acetylene is normally stored dissolved in acetone.
As I understood it acetylene was only used to ignite the fuel and nitrogen to propel the oil.
14:51 This statement hits the nail in the head. If the enemy lacks anti-tank weapons, even a panzer 1 or 2 would suffice. Having an expensive (for germans, with their fuel shortage) weapon system that exploits an extremely rare weakness does not seem to be quite worth it.
The seems pretty useful if mounted on a tank that can resist all frontal fire. Seems like man portable flamethrowers are more favorable for local counterattacks tbh. Seems like the only time flame tanks could be used in mass and effectively is right after dday to clear out hedgerows and fortifications.
Or urban combat where you can torch entire rooms to dislodge defending infantry. It seems to me like the Germans kept trying to use flame tanks for things they aren't good enough at to be worth fielding.
Lovely stuff! Thank you for sharing. 👍
It's one of those "win more, win harder" weapons, not for when you're losing.
Interesting topic. I guess there is a good reason why we dont see any flmetanks today and havnt really seen them for some time.
Although maybe if the point of comparison is a Marine unit on some pacific Island or an American unit in Vietnam, reports would a littel more positive.
I guss it is an edge case weapon
Never knew of this. Thankyou.
Cool Video!
Alas, Germany didn't have a 'Percy Hobart'.
I disagree
I think they did and he was in every German tank workshop/factory and that was a problem.
this is why the USSR switched to thermobaric rockets
I came here for the flammen jokes. I was not disappointed xD
About 14:00 the main problem was that obviously Germans were in defensive, while Allies were in offensive. Obviously, a flamethrower tank is not only an offensive weapon but even an extremum of it, therefore it excelled on side which was on offensive while defending side didn't have much use for it with exception of few local counterattacks. British and US used with great success Churchill Crocodiles in dispatching German bunkers, pillboxes and fortified buildings which were plentiful in Normandy and west Germany, against which medium caliber HE shells (like 75mm tank guns) were inefficient, and which would require substantial forces to defeat - offensive capability of Churchill Crocodile allowed their destruction in much easier way.
The secondary problem is indeed German flame tank designs weren't even really needed and "wasted" tank chassis' because same task could be done by much cheaper and lighter SdKfz 251/16 flamethrower halftracks; and to me there seems that again in designing flamethrower tanks there are paths of two extremes - you either want a light and fast vehicle (like SdKfz251/16) which can rush, burn the target and scoot away, or a very heavy vehicle with enough armor that it can withstand enemy AT weaponry enough to safely close in to fire distance (indeed like Churchill Crocodile with it's 152mm-thick armor, which could withstand German AT rounds up to 7.5cm PaK40). Flame tank with medium tank chassis lacks both speed and maneuverability as well as armor protection, so it failed at it's task. Suprisingly while Hitler's dreaming of flame tank with 250mm of armor in 1945 read like 8th grader's fantasies, he still was onto something - you either want something very light or very heavy. But either way Germans didn't have neither production capabilities, strategic abilities nor tactical opportunities to produce and employ flame tanks in any way, so it's a moot point. But flame tank as idea itself is not a failed vehicle at all, like aforementioned Churchill Crocodile has proven.
The Germans conducted offensives and counter offensives up to army levels even into 1945. It's not like they only sat in bunkers and trenches after Kursk and only defended themselves. A weapon suitable for offensive use is still useful to them.
@@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623 Yes but these offensives didn't encounter heavily fortified bunkers like western allies did with German bunkers in Normandy and Germany, or like Germans encountered in early war in USSR. The defensive positions they encountered for example in Ardennes were fairly light and German's biggest problems were with mobile reinforcements not local fortifications
For example sending flamethrower Hetzers with Op.Nordwind was logical, but that operation was quickly stopped again giving these vehicles little ability to prove themselves
@@czwarty7878 I've read that the Germans said that Soviet soldiers were famous for being able to dig in and fortify their position in no time. I reckon that whenever the Wehrmacht launched a counter offensive on the East a flame tank would have been useful. More useful probably then the Sturmpanzers with the big ass mortar for actually dealing with bunkers.
Wow, I did not know there was the Stug life but literally on fire👍🏻
What was the doctrine for the usage of the flame tanks? You mentioned they were organized as an independent battalion at first - were they used differently then versus when there were flame tank platoons available at the battalion level?
would you do a video looking at the effectiveness of flame tanks in the Pacific theatre? (or have you already made the video)
If it's good in Hoi4 it's good in real life.
The Flammpanzer of the Panzer III chaises seems like a creative improvement. It doesn't solve the fundamental problem of range, but I feel that it is impressive what they managed to do given the requirement of "put flamethrower on vehicle and try to make it as useful as possible." I wonder if it would have been effective in Africa in early 1942.Despite video games tending to use what appear to be agricultural propane-based flamethrowers instead of military ones that use liquid (because their animations and range seem to resemble the propane flamethowers), they do accurately replicate one outcome seen in real life: the thing gets shot long before it gets close to its target.
Flammtiger - oh dear...
Ich glaube der Kommentar mit dem Link ist ein bisschen zu oft aufgetaucht
Danke, TH-cam Kommentare bug...
Der ursprüngliche Kommentar hat nämlich die Tendenz manchmal zu verschwinden (für ein paar Tage), als workaround wurde mir geraten ihn nach release nochmal ein zu posten... der wurde dann aber nicht angezeigt, deshalb, dann nochmal, bis es geklappt hat.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized die unergründlichen Laune des TH-camalgorythmus :)
-О! Ганс, смотри- там дж пз е100
-Где?
-На бумаге!
Хаха
@@NaturalLanguageLearning о
как так зачеркнутым написалось
I'd be very curious to kmow how allied flame ranks faired too. Your grass is greener statement is interesting but the allies did at least seem somewhat successful with these weapons.
Good on paper... Because it burns it well?
I wonder how the Brits managed to get such a decent range out of the Crocodile when the Germans apparently couldn't?
The range of the Churchill Crocodiles flamethrower was apparently up to 110 meters!
Use by the U.S. Marine Corps in the Pacific campaign of such weapons was highly effective.
Fortunately the Japanese lacked effective armor support, or the kinds and numbers of anti-tank weapons commonly present on European battlefields.
Very interesting video. I had never heard of the Germans using captured French Char Bis2 tanks converted to flammpanzers! The idea of them being used on the eastern front is startling. The idea of them being used on the western front is kind of disturbing.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Flame tanks are good in an offence as a support weapon that can take out bunkers while the infantry covers it, but in defence it's about as effective as a regular flamethrower
First use of a flame tank in warfare was by Brazil. Noted the tank had a more first world war apperance then a 1930's tank but was still a somewhat capable tool of war.
9:47 experience reports were rare, i can take a wild guess why
I am surprised a little because the allies seemed to have pretty good results with our flame thrower tanks.
Seemed. Also facing different firepower.
Could of also been referencing the hand full of M4 Crocodiles ( total of 6 built but only 4 used in combat) the US used in March to late April 1945 in western Germany at the time before the surrender was agreed to.
limited range depicted by a changesword, Nice one :D
well done I did not realize Germany had any flame throwing tanks at all. I think they were most effectively used in the Pacific against Japanese bunkers. The idea of using them as an assault weapon is not very practical and as time went on the United States did that with napalm dropped from airplanes. And of course thermite dropped on cities in factories in Europe by the eighth Air Force which I reject the idea of doing. Very inhumane thinking of Hamburg and Dresden.
Did you know that more people were killed in Tokyo in the fire bombing raids than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki using two Atom bombs? The atomic bombs were just convenient and the allies were thinking ahead about a confrontation with Russia.
Nice explained
Is it even possible to just use regular tanks with incendiary shells, or would the shells just simply be too small for any useful effect?
In HOI, developing light armored Flame Tanks as support units for infantry or even tank division makes them stupid strong in most terrain.
I'd really like to know about the internal mechanics. Are these barrels just regular old gun barrels? Or is the "bore" modified somehow? I understand why you would want to camouflage it to look like a normal barrel.
No, they are way thicker.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Thanz for answering. That would make sense as a smaller diameter tube would increase the pressure.
@@billd2635 Clarification, I meant the outside diameter, didn't look at the inside, but I doubt that the barrel needs to be thicker, I think it houses a hose etc.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Maybe I need a course in hydrodynamics. lol
5:45 Ah, yes, the Panzeranklopfkanone...
wasnt the mouse also considered to have like flamethrowers installed or such?
It seems like the basic idea of a flame tank is to attack troops in heavy cover, especially bunkers and the like.
An HE round through the bunker slit probably has similar effect, or you can use artillery or air power (even delivering napalm or similar).
To get that flamethrower of questionable utility, youre giving up an enormous amount of range which leaves you very vulnerable.
Something like the crocodile, that used a flamethrower instead of an MG but retained the main gun, makes a lot more sense.
It still seems that flame tanks would always be a highly specialised weapon and only used in small numbers in specific locations.
"An HE round through the bunker slit probably has similar effect"
Oh how easy it is to deduce that in theory ;) it was tested and tried, HE from 75mm gun will not defeat a reinforced pillbox. That's exactly why British and US used to great extent Churchill Crocodile, often in pairs with AVREs, to dispatch German bunkers in Normandy and Germany. It was very effective weapon doing job that would otherwise require an entire operation with substantial forces
"It still seems that flame tanks would always be a highly specialised weapon and only used in small numbers in specific locations." You mean, like a flamethrower itself? Unlike video games, you didn't have entire groups of flamethrower carrying soldiers running around torching other people. It was a specialized weapon, used for specific reasons such as reinforced pillboxes and allowed the soldiers to be protected while using it.
@@czwarty7878 Armchair Generalship can be obtained fairly easily, especially some 70+ years after the fact, I understand. Comments like "An HE round through the bunker slit probably has similar effect" shows that pretty well, many times.
It's adds 10% attack so it's good
If I'm not mistaken, the Allies used flamethrowers with most success against hardened defensive positions when there would be limited fire against the flamethrowers. Was this a situation Germany faced much after 1942?
No.
Would have been interesting if they re developed the flame werfen rocket into a shell with similar effects....
Clearly You haven't played Close Combat III where Flammpanzer was OP ;)
Hah, I played the game, but I don't think I used the Flammpanzer there.
Loved the flamethrower in any form in that game, the screams of enemies and the hissing sounds of the flame still warms my heart.
OP but still very fragile. It was a challenge to use them. But a fun challenge ;)
I miss the double flamethrower 😢
TY. I understand flame tanks caused more surrenders than any other sturm kampfen tactic.
14:10 Why would it be the churchil and not the other variants of flame tanks the allies developed?
Because as far as I remember only the Churchill Crocodile was brought up several times in my comment section.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized understandable, have a nice day
For sure its good on paper, paper burns like hell!
Well the croc worked because it replaces a hull machine gun with flame, but you still get the proper gun in a turret. I'll have a flamer over a .303 hull machine gun, definitely.
Also, a fuel trailer makes sense when the tank is only intended to advance at 5 mph against static enemy positions. Best flame tank of the war.
flame tanks that were based on the US M3 light tank and M4 medium tank, which replaced the main gun with a flame thrower, worked well for the USMC in the Pacific.
@@flarvin8945 That's a good point. The video, and possibly my comment, assume the European theatre as Germany weren't really in the Pacific. As the Japanese didn't have a large number of well armoured tanks, lighter vehicles with minimal anti-tank ability will work well for a flame unit.
@@QofSQ the wasp based on the universal carrier and the badger based on the ram tank were liked by the Canadians, and they lacked a "proper gun." There were several successful flame thrower tanks used by the allies, that did not have proper guns.
@@flarvin8945 I suspect this is because the Japanese did not have the effective anti-tank weaponry that the Germans had in 1944/45. But I doubt the Churchill Crocodile would have done well on Pacific island terrain. It's about picking the right equipment for the environment and the enemy.
I wonder if "the troops" that rejected and then requested a Flammpanzer were the same, as in if they belonged to the same army branch. I suspect this could have been the usual case of normal infantry overrating tank capabilities compounded by the fact that they were under attack, on the backfoot, and more specifically having some of their comrades being burned alive.
I doubt that.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Because the General who compiled the report only worked with panzer units, or something along those lines? I guess that could be it, and it could just be a case of "greener grass" then.
Generally, one would use flame thrower tanks against infantry that is entrenched, etc. There was infantry in tank division, but less, whereas nearly every other division consisted mostly of infantry.
Additionally, bringing out a flame thrower tank, against a tank division increases the chance of being flank etc.
I think they might make sense on a panza 2
Help a flammpanzer III is chasing me what do I do
I read that the Soviets had a flamethrower that could reach 300 meters
300ft? Maybe. 300m? Physically impossible.
@@Darilon12
I read it in a very old piece of "Arménytt" (the newspaper magazine of the Swedish army). In Sweden we never use feet as a measurement for anything. Here we only use meters instead.
The magazine did compare flamethrowers from Nato with Soviet union. And most of the "best" western flamethrowers did not even have half that range.
Then it's most likely wrong. Maybe someone fell for soviet propaganda. Every increase in range needs an increase in pressure. Anything above 100m gets very hard. Even today we can hardly throw water more than 200m. I doubt it gets any easier with burning fuel.
Notice them compensating? 😁
I wonder how such a weapon system would work today, with all the technology available. Could work decently (if supported properly) in some urban warfare situations.
I was wondering if Laminar Flow tech' might keep a coherent fuel jet over longer distances. ?? Be useful for shallow underground bunkers - stripping out oxygen.
We have a far better understanding of explosives today, and much better delivery systems. Flamethrowers are just obsolete because the basic physics limitations remain (short range, inaccurate, bulky and volatile fuel etc). An RPG or similar is just better.
It would be interesting to compare the use of flame tanks by the US in the Pacific to the German experience. Why they were successful for the US and seemingly unsuccessful for the Germans.
Given the state of today's technology, I think tank trailers should make a come back. Make the trailer powered and "smart." Make it detachable from the inside, and give it some AI instructions along the lines of "if the trailer gets detached then get out of the way."
Hans want a flammwerfer , he got a flammpanzer instead .
clearly the smart move would be to build a gigantic paintball gun with napalm paintballs and some kind of ignition system
not a bad idea. Sort of auto grenade launcher mechanism ?
@@causewaykayakkind of like the Soviet ampule cannon. It shot glass spheres filled with a pyrophoric liquid that caught fire when the glass shattered.
@@ericferguson9989 Sounds rife with user hazard. Bit like the nuclear hand grenade 😏
Flammpanzer translation: you fill flammer in your panz
Why didnt the Germans or any other country use phosphor shells instead?
Good question. There might be multiple reasons why this was no option.
I think the Germans originally designed the Maus with flamethrowers; they were later deleted.
Ah Flampanzers putting the "Char" in Char B.
I’d love to see Vietnam flame tank reports
How about urban combat?
RPGs weren't common and even then, you don't want to get too close...
I think the Russians also had a flammpanzer - based on the T-34.
I think it would only made Sense when they were used in anphibies operations. And also the tank would have needed to be a new model. You cant use outdated tanks. Its like breakthrough tanks. It like brumbear and sturmtiger. When its finally would have been finished. It didnr have a purpose anymore. So you only can use this in spesific sitiations when you have the inititiv. And not on the defensiv. Or its only a one trick Pony. Flamenwerfer ist also in infantry weapon use only a offensiv weapon. So it suggest its not very usefull when you allready at the defensiv 1943. And in the early years germany didnt had the Ressources to develop a specfic Tank for satch tasks. As specially when there is no sitiation anphibies natur were you could use satch a thing for the Germans. Hätten die vorher auch wissen können. Man hat halt in der Not alles versucht nutzbar zu machen. Was trotz alledem schwachsinnig war ohne das man sich vorher mal Gedanken gemacht hat.
Works on paper Lol
It flamms Panzers!
HANZ GET ZE FLAMMENWERFER
GAIJIN, WHEN?!?! Snail come on
That long barrelled 75mm couldnt fire flames.
Wrong Tank and gun, watch the video.
Tank
No way Germany had enough fuel to waste it like this
They were going to fuel it with the Fuhrer's tears.