Flamethrower as AT

Just curious as to how a flamethrower destroys/disables a tank, i've heard that it leaks through the seems setting the interior on fire, or it just gets really hot and the crew bails. Is this how it works or does it depend on something else?
And also where some tanks more resistent to FT's than others?

 

I heard of fire being used to tank out a tanks engines , it gets into the engine ventilation and the engine ceases to function.

 

It's probably a conbination.

The heat and smoke could case the crew to bail.
The fire could cause the crew to panic and bail
The flames could damage the engine immobilsing it causing the crew to bail.

However I think the key thing is the crew bailing.

I can't see the a flamethrower actually doing more than superficial harm to most tanks.

FNG

 

but the flamethrower will need to be really close to the tank and to do that they need to charge at their primary target, while the others tanks will be haveing a field day with the flammethrower geting closer to the platoon, do you see my point?

 

Why close? These things had a range of up to 50 yards which was pretty much the effective range of a PIAT.

And I know which I would rather hit a tank with

FNG

 

They use molotov cocktails against tanks to take out the engines, same probably goes for the flamethrower.

 

It could work, but there are several difficulties:

• The flamethrower operator is quite conspicuous, having a large, heavy, flammable tank on his back, and usually had acrew with him for protection. Therefore, it is more difficult to hide.
• The operator needs to get within the practical range of the tank, and be able to his a vulnerable spot (such as the engines).
• Once fired,noone will be in any doubt as to where the flame thrower is located, which is not as much the case with PIATs, Bazookas or Molotov cocktails.

Christian

 

what if the flame hits this the turret can it get so hot that the he or ap rounds explode isnide the tanks?

 

Well... probably, but it would take so darn long that hte flamethrower team would almost certainly have been located and killed before it hapened.

 

As I said, I think it is more the fear factor that the crew are sat in a burning box full of fuel and explosive and will most likely bail

FNG

 

but then, is it more scary to bail from inside a tank directly into the flames?

Almost literally out of the frying pan & into the fire...

 

Not really, it's a combination of the specific heat capacity of the turret (the turret would have to heat up enough locally to transfer detonation temperature to the ammo) and duration of the flame - flamethrowers are relatively short-lived burning times.
Ricky - it's a case of almost certain death by suffocation or risking the flames as you jump out. Unless the flamethrower is still playing on the tank then the burning compound (petrol and ??) would be flowing down the tank away from the crew hatches. I know which I'd choose

 

Oli - surely the time neaed for the flamethrower to actually cause suffocation to the tank crew than the flamethrower guy would be dealt with? Or possibly even run out of flame...

 

I wonder if any tank crew would ever stand alone, without infantry support, against enemy infantry within flamethrower range. If you get knocked out in this situation it's because a tactical mistake has been made.

 

remember what happened to the elephant's debut, lacked bow mg an easy prey for the infantry

 

Most flamethrowers use I think diesel? or napalm. I doubt the flames would be running down the tank, most flamethrower fuel has an adhesive in it which sticks to things.

I think most of you are right that it scares the crew with smoke/heat and makes them bail, seems more likely.

 

Which makes me wonder. A crew inside a tank sees remarkably little; most of the crewmembers only have view slits forward, and in combat the entire crew inculding the commander is restricted to view slits and periscopes for vision. Would they actually notice a flamethrower was being fired at their tank if not for the increased heat, which would take considerable effort to really make a difference inside the tank?

 

Theres 4 or 5 crew all desperatly looking out of their own ports for signs of the enemy.

Whilst individual visability is restricted overall field of view is probably quite high. In that there are few complete blind spots where no one can see anything

Also flame throwers are neither suttble, or if I remember right, quiet. But the flame is 10 to 50 feet long, I am sure that one crew man would spot it.

and panic

FNG

 

Flamethrowers use petroleum (basically thickened gasoline) or a mixture of compressed hydrogen (explosive) and nitrogen (propellant) gas.

I can't see flamethrowers causing much superficial damage to a tank. Like Oli said, the standard flamethower had about 30(?) seconds of fuel, no where near enough to turn a tank into an oven.

 

Ricky
I assumed that the high temperatures would use up the oxygen and even after the flame had burnt out the remaining heat would be so much (inside the tank) as to thin out the air - okay maybe not GUARANTEED suffocation, but certainly hot thin air and the fear of suffocation.
Crazy thumbs, even with an adhesive the fuel for a flamethrower is a liquid and would flow downwards under its own weight and the fact that it is on a (slightly) downward trajectory as it hits (low velocity jet, so the muzzle is angled upwards).
If the flame got into the engine compartment it would starve the engine of oxygen, causing a cut out, and then, maybe burn through fuel lines - that's probably the biggest danger - causing a fuel-fed fire which may lead to total burn out. Or am I arguing against myself here? :lol: