Flammpanzer B2 (f): French Steel, German Fire

[Zombificus 792]

The Flammpanzer B2(f) (usually stylised B-2(f)) was the German designation for the 60-84 captured French Char B1 Bis heavy tanks rearmed with a flamethrower in place of the hull-mounted 75mm howitzer. These modified tanks, though relatively few in number, saw a great deal of combat from 1941 to 1944, first on the Eastern Front in support of Operation Barbarossa, then in Europe against the liberating Allies, most notably at Arnhem during Operation Market Garden. Unlike many flamethrower vehicles, these Flammpanzer B2s still had a capable main gun -- the French 47mm SA 35 -- which, since it's also the Char B1 Bis' most-penetrating gun, would allow them to take on tanks just as strong as a standard B1 Bis. The tradeoff, of course, is the loss of the more damaging hull gun and with it the ability to alternate shots between the guns for a higher effective rate of fire, offset somewhat by the extra hull superstructure added above the flamethrower to protect it and its operator. Even if War Thunder never adds a flamethrower mechanic, with the usual good armour of the Char B1 Bis and only the loss of its hull gun it should still be a capable heavy tank, so I'm confident it can find a place in the game with or without a working flamethrower.

 

 

History:

 

During the Battle of France, the French Char B1 and B1 Bis had proven highly effective heavy tanks, whose fantastic protection and powerful armaments had often been let down by poor tactics and ultimately weren't enough to turn the tide, a fate that Germany's Tigers also suffered later in the war. Highly impressed by the tank, and able to capture many in good condition due to the B1s being more often lost to fuel and parts shortages than enemy fire, when it came time to invade the USSR in Operation Barbarossa, Germany was eager to set the monster of the Battle of France loose on the Soviets. Standard tanks, renamed Char B-2(f), saw combat on the Eastern Front along with 105mm SPH models and the subject of this suggestion, the Flammpanzer B2(f). While the Flammpanzer II (aka Panzer II Flamm) was being constructed and tested, Adolf Hitler insisted that a heavier chassis also be adapted to the role, for which the extremely well-armoured PzKfw B2(f) seemed perfect. Hitler authorised construction of the tank, which was officially named Flammwagen auf Panzerkampfwagen B-2 740(f), and it would serve as the major component of Panzerabteilung (F) 102, with two 12-tank Schwere Flammcompanie (Heavy Flamethrower Companies) each accompanied by an escort of three 75mm-armed Panzer B-2(f)s. 

 

Early Flammpanzer B-2(f)s  on their way to the Eastern Front; these have no extra superstructure and would therefore be tanks of the 102nd Pz.Abt.(F).

 

The tanks first saw action on the 29th of June, 1941, where they were put to work against the Soviet border fortresses at Wielki Dzial Mountain in what is now Ukraine, but at the time was part of Poland. Supported by 88mm flak guns employed for direct fire, the 102nd Panzerabteilung (F) advanced on the enemy position and eventually overran it, with the loss of three of their own Flammpanzers. The 102nd continued to fight on the Eastern Front, hampered by breakdowns and poor supply lines just as the French before them, until their disbandment on July 27th of the same year, just under a month after their first action. These Flammpanzer B-2(f)s were of the original type, with no modifications to the front of hull and the same Flammenwerfer-Spritzkoff as the smaller Flammpanzer II, and were subsequently revised and modified into a new design. Since a figure of 60 tanks is quoted for this upgrade, it seems that the either three Flammpanzer B2(f)s knocked out at Wielki Dzial were recovered and returned to service after the battle, they were replaced by new Char B1s, or the all of the subsequent 60 flamethrower tanks were built from scratch.

 

The new superstructure and fuel tank and some pictures of how they were installed onto tanks, one of which shows the new ball mount.

 

The newly converted tanks were the definitive version most often seen in photographs, with a large superstructure similar to the original driver's box mounted above an improved flamethrower. The fuel being hit by frontal fire was no longer an issue for this model, as in response to complaints by crews in the field the fuel tank was moved from within the vehicle to an armoured box on the hull rear. The new frontal superstructure sat just above the line of rivets that secure the sponson housing, its base more or less in line with the bottom of the driver's vision slit. No source I've encountered has given the thickness of the new armour, but I'd expect it to be similarly thick or thicker than the original hull front, since it would otherwise have presented a huge weak spot through which the flamethrower and its operator could be hit. The actual thickness of the armour can probably be verified, since Bovington Tank Museum's Char B1 Bis has an identical superstructure box, although the vision slit seems to have either been welded up or never installed and a 75mm gun and its sponson have been put back on the tank. This vehicle apparently spent the war as a training tank, and it's entirely possible the superstructure was installed for the extra room it provides -- always a useful thing for a training vehicle -- rather than the tank having originally been a Flammpanzer, which is often assumed without evidence. Nevertheless, it appears to be exactly the same structure and is probably our best bet at finding real figures for the Flammpanzers' additions.

 

Late-production Flammpanzer B2(f)s, and Bovington's training Pz.Kfw. B2(f) as it looks now in the museum, and as it was at the end of the war.

 

The upgraded Flammpanzers, whose new pressurised flamethrower had greater range, were split between three different armoured groups: in the Eastern Front they served with the 223rd Panzerabteilung to continue the work begun by the disbanded 102nd, while on the Western Front they equipped the 100th Panzerbrigade and saw action in Europe. The third, smaller group, was the SS Panzerdivision "Prinz Eugen", based in Yugoslavia. There is little record of what the SS Flammpanzers accomplished in Yugoslavia, but it can be assumed that they, like the other Eastern Front fighters in the 223rd Pz.Abt., saw heavy losses throughout the Soviet counterattack and German retreat from the USSR. With the same fatal flaw of heavy reliance on supply lines and frequent maintenance suffered by the original B1 Bis in France, as well as their fellow Eastern Front newcomer, the Ferdinand tank destroyer, many Flammpanzer B2(f)s were simply abandoned by crews fleeing the Soviet advance, who often either lacked fuel to drive them or the parts and time to repair them. Although the only Western Front force operating the Flammpanzer B2(f) in 1941 was the 100th Panzerbrigade, by the time of the tanks' last recorded combat at Osterbeek during the Battle of Arnhem, the tanks doing the fighting belonged instead to the 657th Panzerjager Abteilung, which had been formed in late 1943 and incorporated many former training companies pressed into front line service. Fighting alongside German-designed tanks of the 9th SS Panzerdivision "Hohenstaufen" such as StuH 42s and Tigers, the 657th deployed 14 Flammpanzer B2(f)s of the 224th Panzerkompanie, who had converted to Flammpanzers in April of that year, in defensive actions on the 20th and 21st of September. Before the Allied retreat, these tanks caused havoc during the disastrous Operation Market Garden, their heavy armour and flamethrowers proving a deadly combination against allied paratroopers who'd been caught without adequate tank support. Nevertheless, six of the 224th's Flammpanzers were knocked out by enemy action, one being taken out by a wheeled 6-Pounder antitank gun, and the fierce efforts of the surrounded Allies resulted in even SS Tigers falling, particularly to the soldiers under Major Robert Cain, who earned a Victoria Cross for his actions and, leading by example, personally knocked out one of the Tigers with a PIAT.

 

Paratroopers during Market Garden; Major Robert Cain; Allied AT gunners firing at a Flammpanzer B2(f); and another one knocked out by a PIAT.

 

There's no record of German Flammpanzer B2(f)s after the 21st of September 1944, although 8 of the 224th's tanks did survive the action at Osterbeek, implying that they weren't used in the failed German counterattacks after the Battle of Arnhem, nor later on in the immediate counterattack to the Allies' subsequent, more successful push across the Rhine. It's probable that the tanks were taken out of service not long after they succeeded in repelling the Allies from Osterbeek, since the 224th's complement had been reduced to just 8, which was likely considered too few tanks to justify their continued operation in light of their high fuel and maintenance requirements. In any case, the 657th Panzerjager Abteilung, to which the 224th had been assigned, was disbanded just weeks later, in October, so even if the 224th had continued as a unit, they would likely have been redeployed and assigned different tanks following Arnhem. Many French tanks pressed into German service met their ends in 1944, with most of the tank destroyer and howitzer conversions of the Lorraine 37L tractor being destroyed in the Falaise Pocket in August, while the veteran Panzer 35-S(f) (Somua S35s) disappeared from records after November. Like those fellow ex-French Beutepanzers, the Flammpanzer B2(f)s were always fairly limited in number compared with native German designs but nevertheless proved effective weapons until the tide of the war turned and more modern Allied tanks took to the battlefield.

 

Specifications:

 

 

Length: 6.37m

Width: 2.46m

Height: 2.79m

Weight: 28 tons

Crew: 4 (driver, flamethrower operator, gunner, commander)

Turret Armour: 56mm front, sides and rear, 30mm roof

Hull Armour: 60mm front, est. 60mm superstructure, 55mm sides, 50mm rear, 25mm roof

Main Armament: 47mm SA 35 (turret mounted; 50 rounds)

Secondary Armament: Flammenwerfer-Spritzkopf flamethrower (hull mounted), 7.5mm Reibel MAC 31 machine gun (turret coaxial; 5100 rounds)

Armament Info: SA 35  -18 to 18 degrees elevation; Original flamethrower: -30 to 30 degrees elevation, no traverse; Late flamethrower: -30 to 30 degrees elevation and traverse

Max Speed: 17 mph (28 kph)

 

Use Of The Flamethrower & Balance Ideas:

 

Flamethrowers obviously can't penetrate armour, which is how tanks usually kill one another. What they can do, however, is exploit gaps in the armour and damage whatever's behind them. In a fully-enclosed tank, the main way of causing damage would be to land the flame on a vehicle's engine deck and force it to put out the fire or burn to death -- this could be implemented quite simply by having the flamethrower cause the same engine / fuel tank fire we get when a flammable part of a tank is shot, with the caveat that the fire cannot be put out while the flamethrower is still firing at it. Flamethrowers generally have very short firing times, with even short burst using a large quantity of the fuel reserves, so while a flamethrower tank might be able to abuse its weapon and prevent the enemy from putting out the fire by continuing to fire until it's dead, it's not likely to be worth the cost in fuel, especially since many tanks take as long to burn out as the typical flamethrower would to fire all its fuel. The US's handheld flamethrower had just 7 seconds of fire time, while the German equivalent had 10; with around 3x more fuel, on average, a tank-based flamethrower like the one on Flammpanzer B2(f) would still have no more than 30 seconds of fuel, which would be quickly used up in continuous fire. The more efficient way to kill a tank with a flamethrower would be to replicate exactly the same tactics tanks already use to burn out an otherwise impenetrable tank through their engine -- fire, wait for them to extinguish, repeat -- and would similarly be best countered by (where possible) knocking out the opponent's weapon before extinguishing the fire they caused.

 

An open-topped vehicle would be at much greater risk, since the crew and ammunition would also be vulnerable. In cases where the flamethrower hits the crew or near to them, they should logically die faster than from an engine fire, since the fire is much closer to them. Similarly, ammo near a fire would cook off and explode sooner than it would from an engine fire. Both aspects would make open-topped and open-turreted vehicles vastly more vulnerable to flamethrowers, and if flamethrower tanks were implemented en-masse might even require an extra FPE use to counter how much more easily they could be hit and killed by fire. That said, flamethrowers are also very short ranged, even the powerful types mounted on tanks, and at the usual combat ranges of tank destroyers -- the most common class for an open-top to be -- they'd have no chance of hitting. In most cases, an open-topped vehicle -- whether tank destroyer or AA -- caught by surprise at close range will usually die anyway, without the need for a flamethrower to be used. The only major advantage would be the ability to arc over cover in a way that only howitzers can do currently, but that's a highly situational thing and not likely to be useful often. Ideally, a tank lit on fire on/around the sights should have the same problems seeing what they're shooting that tanks crashed into by planes already do, making shooting the turret front then flanking to hit the engine a viable strategy when engaging tanks from the front. A Flammpanzer B2(f) has the advantage of being able to immobilise and disarm the enemy tank with its main gun, allowing easy use of the flamethrower to finish it off if necessary, or instead blinding the enemy with the flamethrower while using the 47mm so that the B2(f) has the advantage in being able to aim with precision. 

 

One concern brought up against flamethrower tanks in the past -- and, IIRC, cited as a reason the devs were at that time unwilling to implement them -- is that the flames themselves would be abusable against players with lower-spec computers. The worry was that large quantities of persistent flames would slow down these players' computers by giving their graphics cards too much to deal with. I no longer think that's such a problem, since if I remember right this was also why we didn't have smoke for a long time, which is currently working fine and causes no major problems. Granted, flames would probably have more in the way of lighting effects, but I don't foresee them being much more taxing on computers. We already have fairly persistent flames whenever a plane crashes, and I see no reason the effects for flamethrowers should be more detailed than those, so given that tanks are generally smaller than planes, the fire effects should ideally be no more problematic. If we're being realistic, flames on the ground and buildings would probably damage exposed crew very close to them and vehicles sitting on top of them for too long, so it would be worth having it stick around for a little while, but I am aware that letting players have half the map on fire at the same time would probably cause problems. I think for balance a relatively short time would be best, say 10-15 seconds, because any longer than that and we could see troll players covering larger quantities of the ground with fire, which at the extremes could start to cause problems for people's computers.

 

To reduce computer loads, making a variation of the current engine flame animation with more or brighter flames would probably be fine. We don't need tanks turning into fireballs, just enough fire on them to make it obvious what they've been hit by, which applies to non-damaging hits too. Like with fires on the ground, I don't think flames on tanks lasting longer than 10-15 seconds is either necessary or a good idea, and if it's unrealistic to have it burn out so quickly I don't think that's as important as avoiding the mechanic being abusable. The German flamethrowers of WWII used simple petrol as fuel, propelled by nitrogen, so I also find it fairly unlikely that a non-flammable material such as a tank's steel hull would continue to burn past ~15 seconds, since all that's there to burn is the petrol itself. More flames would be required for an open-topped vehicle, but I think the best way of doing this would by simply applying a flat flame texture over the walls and floor of the tank that's been hit, rather than doing anything more complex with individual textures for the various things on fire. Having the crew literally on fire is 1: far too much effort; and 2: probably a no-no if War Thunder wants to keep that 12 rating.  A smoke effect for when the extinguisher is used on an open-top's fighting compartment fire would be a nice detail, but not necessary. As with everything, having the mechanic be usable and not abusable takes precedent over realism. 

 

For Flammpanzer B2(f) itself, the flamethrower would be much more of a secondary weapon and a helpful way of making the enemy an easier target. When you've got a main gun that can penetrate an enemy frontally, there's no need to spend ages burning them out through their engine with your flamethrower, but arcing fire over an enemy onto its engine to stop it moving (and hopefully tempt it into extinguishing the fire rather than shooting back) or onto their sights to blind them is a sensible use of the weapon. Short-ranged and hull-mounted, this would not be as easy a weapon to aim as the turret-mounted flamethrowers used on some Shermans, and the aforementioned trick shot arcing fire over onto the engine may prove impossible against most tanks, so this would be a more useful combat implement from the sides and especially the rear, where the job of hitting the engine isn't complicated by a big turret in the way. Flamethrowers always have a lot of drop, so ranging bursts to aim would (as in real life) likely be necessary, which also reduces the amount of firing time the Flammpanzer B2(f) would have. It's not going to be the tank's primary weapon by any stretch of the imagination, but its utility against light and open vehicles you'd otherwise plink to death with the machine gun would be greater than that against actual tanks. That said, it did replace the original B1's hull gun and had similar traversal issues: the original version couldn't aim without turning the hull, whereas the upgraded model has just 30 degrees to either side, which of course makes it hard to use against moving targets, as does the flame's low velocity. It might prove more useful than the fixed-range RP-3s on the Cromwell Tulip, but it will inevitably be more of a gimmicky extra than a practical weapon. This, too, makes it seem fitting for an event vehicle, rather than a main tree offering. 

 

Its Place In The Game:

 

Since War Thunder doesn't seem likely to add a flamethrower mechanic in the immediate future, the Flammpanzer B2(f) would simply be a Char B1 Bis that swaps its hull gun for some extra armour on the hull front (above the flamethrower) which was added by the Germans to protect the flamethrower's tanks and give the flamethrower operator a proper position. Retaining the 47mm gun, it has the same maximum penetration as the French original, but with the lower post-pen of that weapon and reduced effective rate of fire from losing the hull gun, it could potentially see success at a slightly lower BR. The extra hull armour, while nice, is also less sloped than the equivalent area on the B1 Bis, so while it does protect the whole of the turret ring from frontal fire, it's not as significant an upgrade as if the Germans had up-armoured the whole of the front or simply added applique to the original slope. A common application on German tanks was track armour below the driver's box, which will add a little armour, but that too is not a very big upgrade. In summary, this is still likely to be a formidable tank, but not one quite on the level of the existing Char B1 Bis, so unless it had a working flamethrower (allowing it another avenue to damage tanks) it shouldn't really sit at the same BR. If, however, the devs decided to implement flamethower tanks, the Flammpanzer B2(f) would be a sensible option for a mechanic-trialling event vehicle, like we've seen previously with the minelaying VS-8 and mortar-equipped MKB-161 (1943), since it would still be a decent tank even if the mechanic proved unsuccessful. 

 

I hope you like this tank, and I look forward to hearing from you in the comments!

 

 

More Pictures:

 

Spoiler

 

A Flammpanzer B2(f) of the later 60-vehicle run; the track armour on the hull is standard for all German B1s.

 

For contrast, an early model with only a new vision port added to the original hull.

 

And a standard B1 Bis. Note the lack of a vision port and the longer gun.

 

And Bovington's training B2(f). It has the superstructure, but no flamethrower or vision ports.

 

A good frontal shot of a late-production model.

 

Probably the same tank from another angle. The whip antenna on the hull front was a common addition.

 

More late production tanks, with their superstructures visible.

 

A later tank and its crew; from the uniforms, they're probably SS and therefore most likely tankers of the "Prinz Eugen" division.

 

An early tank on the move.

 

An abandoned Flammpanzer, its flame fuel tank visible on the hull rear, under the drum. Like many of the German B2(f)s, the cupola has been removed.

 

A tank of the 102nd fires on the Eastern Front.

 

Another tank firing.

 

A closeup, right next to the tank's distinctive tracks.

 

The (unfortunately low-quality) aftermath of a firing test.

 

Another late Flammpanzer B2(f).

 

An intermediate model, with a ball mount but no superstructure. 

 

A tank of a similar type on the move.

 

A late model abandoned in Paris, where it was part of the garrison.

 

A bigger photo of the superstructure.

 

A closeup on an actual tank. 

 

A bigger photo of the fuel tank.

 

And again, the part installed on an actual tank. Like many, this one has no cupola.

 

A Panzer B2(f) from the rear. Tow chains and winches were common additions.

 

A Flammpanzer B2(f) being used in training.

 

The same tank.

 

A low-quality picture of a late Flammpanzer B2(f), which lacks a cupola.

 

The same photo in far better quality, with accompanying info.

 

One of the six Flammpanzer B2(f)s of the 224th Panzerkompanie knocked out during the Battle of Arnhem. This one was taken out by an Allied soldier's PIAT, and is being posed on by a Dutch woman.

 

Tank Encyclopedia's rendition. They've apparently decided to model the early model, judging by the original French rear-hull antenna and lack of rear fuel box. Since this model is identical to a normal B1 from the side, they might as well not have bothered specifying it's a Flammpanzer. A late model would have been a better choice if they wanted a good example of a Flammpanzer B2(f), but that would also have taken more work than just recolouring their existing picture.

 

War Drawings' early model, with the more limited mount and added vision port.

 

The same site's late model.This artist has remembered the antenna and rear hull fuel box, which immediately make it an obvious Flammpanzer. They've also gone to the trouble of detailing the flamethrower's mount, which is a detail I appreciate.

 

 

Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Char_B1

https://worldwar2database.com/gallery/wwii0053

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/france/char_B1_bis.php

http://www.wardrawings.be/WW2/Files/1-Vehicles/Axis/1-Germany/02-mPanzers/Others/Flammpanzer-B2.htm

http://www.loutan.net/olivier/archives/2019/09/21/char-lance-flamme-flammpanzer-renault-b2f-renault-b1-bis-armee-allemande/

http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2017/05/char-b-in-german-service.html

https://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=824

https://ww2db.com/vehicle_spec.php?q=164

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_tank#German_Army

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arnhem

Arnhem: The Complete Story of Operation Market Garden 17-25 September 1944, by William F. Buckingham (online copy can be found here)

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/major-robert-cain-vc.html

https://www.feldgrau.com/WW2-German-Independent-Panzer-Brigades

https://www.axishistory.com/books/153-germany-heer/heer-other-units/9445-panzer-kompanie-224

https://www.axishistory.com/books/153-germany-heer/heer-other-units/9283-panzerjaeger-abteilung-657

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamethrower#Germany

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flammenwerfer_35

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flammenwerfer_41

 

 

Edited November 20, 2019 by Zombificus

[leroyonly 4,310]

Open for discussion. 

[Stuhlfleisch 3,762]

Yes please, even without flamethrower, that could be added later anyway. It would make a great premium! +1 

[eleks12 1,079]

could be added as a event machine if flamethrowers are added 1 day. +1

[Milocat 4,854]

I would definitely like to see this (and perhaps other flame tanks) with the flame mechanic you propose, it would be great to see!  +1.

[Xenecrite 899]

Long live the flame spear +1

 

[Solarmod 1,203]

I want flamethrower tanks in game, it'd be fun. And difficult. +1 for this to be a testing vehicle like the VT1-2

 

[HMSD33Dauntless 1,257]

A tank like this could be a good test for flamethrower-armed tanks especially since it already functions well as a tank without it and doesn't need to tow a fuel trailer around. I'd like to see both with one as a premium and the other as a squadron tank, as for the track armor maybe one should get it and the other shouldn't. +1

 

How well the flamethrower works could depend on how they model it IMO. If they model the ability for it to get inside all the little openings and unsealed areas of vehicles then it could be pretty powerful, but if they don't model it being able to get inside grates and unsealed areas it won't do much unless against open vehicles.

[Haschide 15]

+1 Tanks with a flamethrower would be really interesting in the game. Especially on maps with many trees.

[Deathbringer007 118]

On 27/11/2019 at 12:55, Haschide said:

+1 Tanks with a flamethrower would be really interesting in the game. Especially on maps with many trees.

BURN THE TREES MWA HA HA HA! Yes I'm a pyromaniac deal wit hit. On a more serious note I'll take it especially if they implement the flamethrower.

[smaddeus 54]

What you gonna do with it, cook crew from inside? You'll be dead before you'll manage to heat up the tank, unless Gaijin gives it arcade-ish damage dealing parameters that speeds up the process and makes it an effective crew killing vehicle...

[Zombificus 792]

25 minutes ago, smaddeus said:

What you gonna do with it, cook crew from inside? You'll be dead before you'll manage to heat up the tank, unless Gaijin gives it arcade-ish damage dealing parameters that speeds up the process and makes it an effective crew killing vehicle...

 

I actually did go over this in the post, but essentially there's two ways of doing damage. Against open-top vehicles you can directly spray the crew and ammo to kill them, which should deal damage / cook off the ammo more quickly than an engine fire because the fire is in there with them, rather than somewhere else in the vehicle. Against fully enclosed vehicles you can spray onto the engine deck / grille and light the engine on fire just like you can by shooting it normally. Obviously, it's not a great weapon if you had to rely on it, which is why I suggested this tank rather than some of the other flamethrower vehicles. The B1 bis's best gun for raw penetration is its 47mm turret gun, so the Flammpanzer B-2(f) still has a workable main gun to kill things with and the same great armour as the normal tank. The flamethrower would be more of a situational gadget, like the rockets on the Calliope, Cromwell V RP-3 and M26 T99, which gives another way to damage enemies besides the cannon. I'm not sure if pure flame tanks like the Pz.III version would work, because they would always have to flank to do any damage, but something like this with a normal gun and good armour should still be a decent tank whether or not the flamethrower turns out to be useful.

Edited April 17, 2020 by Zombificus

[M0licht_@psn 487]

Would make a great premium +1

[Cpt_Jack_Irons 464]

-1 would require a lot of effort to model a flamethrower weapon ingame for it only be used on handful amount of vehicles, also early modeled flamethrower is more than likely gonna be an massive FPS eraser

also it would not be that useful anyway

[SaperPL 446]

-1 as well. As much as I'd like a flamethrower mechanics in the game, it would be such a huge change in the mechanics and still it would need to be properly implemented so this is a great effort for the devs who can't seem to keep up with already existing bugs.

 

Flamethrowers are easy to be made for a single player FPP game, but once you need to look at those flame streams from all sides, the graphics get complicated and you either end up with something that looks half cooked or you end up spawning a lot of particles. Add this up to players often picking same thing at the specific tier and if this new flamethrower mechanic has some advantage/unique play style that is really useful, we'll see over and over half of the team having those and spamming flame particles all over the map and it's not good. Also think about whether we want flame stream to be able to put ground and destructibles on fire or not.

Second thing is that how this is implemented mechanically vs vehicles - it could end up either as just putting something on fire right away or figuring out mechanics of how you can deflect things, stuff like overheating the barrels to melt/degrade to yellow and so on. It'll make so many inconsistencies it'll get annoying to play against those in the game.

Would put the -1, but I'll wait for other opinions. Still a no from me for now, at this point in a game that still needs ton of fixes.

[Deathmisser 4,058]

Since the brits are getting theirs in the next BP and BvvD said they are struggling for German vehicles with flamethrowers tanks.

I will support this idea.

 

+1 

[warner7 81]

+1

[Chomusuke1 1,219]

On 17/10/2022 at 16:55, Deathmisser said:

BvvD said they are struggling for German vehicles with flamethrowers tanks

 

Typical gaijin. Did they forget about the Maus? There are more than enough vehicles:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Chomusuke1 1,219]

On 17/04/2020 at 17:25, Zombificus said:

Flammpanzer B2 (f)

 

Are you aware that this vehicle had the possibility of smoke?:

 

 

 

[Stuhlfleisch 3,762]

2 hours ago, Chomusuke1 said:

 

Typical gaijin. Did they forget about the Maus? There are more than enough vehicles:

 

~snip~

 

Specifically, tanks with both a cannon and a flamethrower, like the Churchill Crocodile, meaning in the end, the only vehicles that remain for Germany are the Flammpanzer B2, and the Maus with the flamethrower, though since the Maus flamethrower-system was a mockup, which was mounted on a mockup of the Maus, I am unsure if they'd ever add that.

 

Basically, the Flammpanzer B2 remains as the only option for a German flame-tank in War Thunder, at least until the mechanics are reworked in a way, that flamethrowers can damage engines through the engine-deck and radiators etc. then I can imagine tanks armed with only flamethrowers could also be added.

[Chomusuke1 1,219]

On 28/10/2022 at 05:56, Stuhlfleisch said:

Maus flamethrower-system was a mockup

So was the Kronshtadt, T-26-4, BT-7 [F32], RBT-5, BA-11, T-126, Matilda (F-96), SU-85A, SU-100Y, KV-2 (ZiS-6), KV-220, KV-122, T-34-100, T-44-100, T-44-122, TIS MA, Su 8...

 

On 28/10/2022 at 05:56, Stuhlfleisch said:

at least until the mechanics are reworked in a way, that flamethrowers can damage engines through the engine-deck and radiators etc. then I can imagine tanks armed with only flamethrowers could also be added

Is that necessary? As is, they would be effective against unarmored, open topped, thin crap such as the M3, M8, M10, M13, M15, M16, M18, M19, M36, M42, ZiS-30, YaG-10 (29-K), SU-5-1, ZiS-43, ZSU-37, ZiS-12 (94-KM), BTR-152A, GAZ-MM, GAZ-AAA, SU-57, SU-76, SU-85A, etc...

 

Edited December 17, 2022 by Chomusuke1

[Stuhlfleisch 3,762]

1 hour ago, Chomusuke1 said:

So was the Kronshtadt, T-26-4, BT-7 [F32], RBT-5, BA-11, T-126, Matilda (F-96), SU-85A, SU-100Y, KV-2 (ZiS-6), KV-220, KV-122, T-34-100, T-44-100, T-44-122, TIS MA....

 

Naval generally has different rules from what I understand, because for a ship to be built, the plans for it have to be finalized, since you can't easily make quick changes during construction, so ships that were laid down, can be added, provided that complete blueprints and plans are present.

 

As for the rest, mockup doesn't equal prototype. A mockup is a non-fuctional model of a vehicle or system, often made of wood or mild steel, while a prototype is a partially, or fully working system / vehicle, which was built with the intend of either simply testing the feasibility of an idea and / or to develop it into a viable production model.

 

The flamethrower Maus was a non functional mockup, to showcase an idea and as I understand it, Gaijin no longer approves of any mockup vehicles to be added to the game, which is why I am voicing my doubts that we will ever see the flamethrower Maus, though it would be cool to see, maybe someone will make a usermodel of it, now that we have flamethrowers as a working mechanic in the game.

[Spexta 68]

On 28/10/2022 at 17:19, Chomusuke1 said:

So was the Kronshtadt, T-26-4, BT-7 [F32], RBT-5, BA-11, T-126, Matilda (F-96), SU-85A, SU-100Y, KV-2 (ZiS-6), KV-220, KV-122, T-34-100, T-44-100, T-44-122, TIS MA....

You do know that, except for the Kronshtadt, all of these vehicles were not only fully built but also fully functional and combat capable, right?

[Chomusuke1 1,219]

If you say so commissar. How many enemy did these kill in WW II? Show me accounts of them firing their weapons in anger in WW II and all the actions that they participated in. Or are these more like those ballistic missile vehicles that the soviets kept showing off in their military parades and after they fell, it turned out that they were wooden/sheet metal fakes and props built over a truck or vehicle chassis?

 

On 28/10/2022 at 12:53, Stuhlfleisch said:

testing the feasibility of an idea and / or to develop it into a viable production mode

 

That is the thing. Most of these mentioned fakes were detrimental to their own structural integrity or the crew's health, for example firing the weapons would 'stress the crew's heads' or deform its own turret ring and yet here they are, fully functional & operational in their most ideal and complete configuration with no detriments whatsoever in this game...This same rule should apply to the Maus as well, in this case to make it 'fully functional & operational' it would need its missing 2 cm MG, its flamethrower obviously, its actual productionized turret and whatever else equipment that it was slated to receive...

 

Edited November 4, 2022 by Chomusuke1

[Spexta 68]

For someone so passionate about the Maus you shouldnt be talking about tanks actually killing things in WW2 for them to be acceptable, or let alone structural or mechanical flaws in vehicles, as that would probably invalidate a third of the german WW2 vehicles in game. Claiming vehicles are fake because you dont like fighting them in a vehicle combat game is nonsensical. Also, the Maus was never built with the 2cm MK, but is instead in the game the way it was actually built and tested, just like the other Prototype vehicles in game (ho ri maybe being an exception but you gotta admit the japanese tree desperately needed that one). If you want vehicles to be in game the way they were planned, i hope you know that the KV220 was actually a testing rig for the planned KV-3 and 4 iterations before production halted due to the war. If you want to constantly fight KV-3 and 4s with your tigers or panthers in game, because "thats how they were planned to be", be my guest. If only some of these prototype vehicles were in the game the way they were planned, you would probably have a lot harder time than currently.