Jump to content


Flamethrower tanks

flame tanks tank flamethrowertanks flamethrower should be in game

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
14 replies to this topic

Poll: Flamethrower tanks (49 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 250 battles in order to participate this poll.

Should there be flametrower tanks in world of tanks?

  1. YES (9 votes [18.37%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 18.37%

  2. No (15 votes [30.61%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 30.61%

  3. i wouldn mind (5 votes [10.20%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 10.20%

  4. No they would be stupid or/and broken (14 votes [28.57%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 28.57%

  5. yes they would have totally different and fun playing style (6 votes [12.24%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 12.24%

Vote Hide poll

sekko2 #1 Posted 17 November 2013 - 09:22 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 2640 battles
  • 1
  • [1P1] 1P1
  • Member since:
    09-22-2011
As far as i kwon there were flamethrower tanks in real life,should there be those in world of tanks? And if they were in wot how would they work?

Acvila_RO #2 Posted 17 November 2013 - 09:26 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 10887 battles
  • 47
  • Member since:
    03-21-2013
Flamethrower worked only against infantry. As far as I can see, there is no infantry in this game.
Maybe flamethrower could kill some crew members, but that's it!

typhaon #3 Posted 17 November 2013 - 09:28 PM

    Major General

  • Beta Tester
  • 14201 battles
  • 5,441
  • Member since:
    08-22-2010

View Postsekko2, on 17 November 2013 - 09:22 PM, said:

As far as i kwon there were flamethrower tanks in real life,should there be those in world of tanks? And if they were in wot how would they work?

There shouldn't be flame thrower tanks in WoT and they would not work at all.. imagine a tank with like 30m attack range, mostly on rather slow tanks...

Furthermore you would have to change the damage system, as you would have to aim for open spots like view slits, grills for engine ventilation and something like that... you with most closed tanks you would only be able to burn down the engine at best...

MadGunna #4 Posted 18 November 2013 - 12:26 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 10956 battles
  • 150
  • [G0T] G0T
  • Member since:
    05-21-2013
Around world war 2 flamethrowers were viable anti tank weapons (see also the Molotov coctail, a Finnish invention designed to knock out Russian tanks).
The crew would be cooked alive inside their tanks, such a horrible fate I heard a rumour that crews preferred to shoot themselves over burning to death. Somewhere around I think 1955 or so the first completely enclosed tanks were produced that did not have any directly accessible crew areas (no vision slits or air holes) so past a certain point flamethrowers would lose their effectiveness.
.
In WoT, I don't think they're a viable weapon. If you think a pz 1C causes bad lag, just wait when the server has to calculate a flame spray. On top of that as stated the thing would probably only do crew and module damage, and have a piss poor range. Then there's the fact only slow tanks like the Churchill would be able to mount it (Crocodile variant). I really, really don't see it catching on.
.
On the off chance a developer sees this thread, deems it a cool feature, and implements it anyway despite the aforementioned issues, I am going to buy one.
Posted Image

Edited by MadGunna, 18 November 2013 - 12:26 AM.


Nvincible #5 Posted 18 November 2013 - 03:13 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 19203 battles
  • 582
  • Member since:
    02-28-2012
Flamethrower tanks are planned according to one of the RU Q&As from july.

Cant see how they'll work as a main weapon, being restricted to 20-50m just poses so many problems. It could be viable as a secondary weapon though, once the multi-gun system is sorted out.

Pandabird #6 Posted 18 November 2013 - 04:03 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 33973 battles
  • 4,526
  • [KOFF] KOFF
  • Member since:
    05-19-2013
Looks like something new, can't say it's bad either.
Sounds complicated and theoretical, won't expect to see this too soon at least
In order to make it work they'd have to add new physics to the game.
If they do i hope they also make it possible to flip tanks over xP

Edited by Pandabird, 18 November 2013 - 04:06 AM.


anonym_kL7qtn3e52MB #7 Posted 18 November 2013 - 12:10 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 0 battles
  • 6,815
  • Member since:
    07-10-2018
30 meters is a bit on the low side.
That was the range of many infantry flamethrowers.

Tank flamethrowers could fire ~120 yrds/100 meters.

Another thing is that most of the tanks in the timeperiod of WoT didn't have "ABC protection" at all.
ABC Warfare = Atomic, Biological and Chemical warfare

Tanks were not even water proof most of the time. So a burning liquid could infiltrate easily.
Result: dead engine or dead crew or exploding ammunition (sometimes a combination of)

justpin #8 Posted 18 November 2013 - 12:52 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 9217 battles
  • 1,127
  • Member since:
    08-07-2013
I think flame throwers are an excellent idea.

Fire is very dangerous even for modern tanks, as the engines are air breathing, suffocate the engine and you're in deep trouble. There is a video about a British recon tank in Iraq which was mobbed and set alight. The crew got out pretty damned quickly! Which is why tanks shouldn't be used in cities.

Additionally these are pre 1960s tanks with no NBC protection meaning you shoot at the front of a tank, much like the US campaign on Okinawa where they used flamers on bunkers. The flame would go in through the holes and weak spots and burn the occupants inside.

Secondly I think fire will have many tactical possibilities. Murovanka and Komarin have big forests, so there are a ton of TDs hiding in there under camo nets. Currently they are almost impossible to approach if they have good spotters. With a flame tank, you can burn down the forest and force them out.

Or use area denial tactics like burn the southern edge of Murovanka forest preventing enemy tanks from coming through that way. Funnelling the enemy through the town.

Hell even with a tactical retreat you can burn things to prevent cover. We have players who recommend crushing the boxes and ladders in base at the start. So on maps like sacred valley or airfield... why not burn the entire town so when you retreat the enemy has no cover to use when they approach you.


Obviously to prevent server overload and burning EVERYTHING, ammo is limited and no more than 2 per match on each side.

justpin #9 Posted 18 November 2013 - 12:55 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 9217 battles
  • 1,127
  • Member since:
    08-07-2013
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=8pRihxvk4YY

32 seconds and upto 200 metre range (though it peters out at 200m as you can see in the video)

Since most of my combat happens at under 100 metres, that would do me fine!

lobsterden #10 Posted 18 November 2013 - 01:40 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 24237 battles
  • 31
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    11-22-2011
its not a good idea to put flamethrower tank against a Maus or a AMX12t cause it cant do dmg to it

MadGunna #11 Posted 18 November 2013 - 04:14 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 10956 battles
  • 150
  • [G0T] G0T
  • Member since:
    05-21-2013

View Postlobsterden, on 18 November 2013 - 01:40 PM, said:

its not a good idea to put flamethrower tank against a Maus or a AMX12t cause it cant do dmg to it
As a dedicated french scout driver, I can say with some confidence a stiff breeze is a threat to an AMX 12t, let alone a flamethrower.

Commander_Chris #12 Posted 18 November 2013 - 05:49 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 21678 battles
  • 1,110
  • [TFUK] TFUK
  • Member since:
    09-05-2012
Flamethrower would be great! It wouldn't have to be a primary weapon, only a secondary weapon but with maybe a 10 second ammo throughout the WHOLE match. But, it may be hated on and it would be like making the secondary guns on the M3 Lee and the French TD's actually work.

Ze_HOFF_fverhoef #13 Posted 19 November 2013 - 12:07 PM

    Lieutenant –°olonel

  • Player
  • 15134 battles
  • 3,134
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    03-18-2012
They should only introduce flamethrowers if they mount it on an ELC. Now that would be a great little trolling machine.
But as far as I know, most flamethrower tanks (like crocodile) were mostly designed against bunkers an other types of fortifications. Yes they could fire upto about 120 meters, but not for a long time.

It would be fun to fight against a crocodile tough... shooting at that little fuel trailer ;)

soolerman #14 Posted 21 November 2013 - 05:17 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 24366 battles
  • 1,218
  • Member since:
    12-10-2012

View Posttyphaon, on 17 November 2013 - 09:28 PM, said:

There shouldn't be flame thrower tanks in WoT and they would not work at all.. imagine a tank with like 30m attack range, mostly on rather slow tanks...

Furthermore you would have to change the damage system, as you would have to aim for open spots like view slits, grills for engine ventilation and something like that... you with most closed tanks you would only be able to burn down the engine at best...

The flame tank would be very OP so a limited range would be all good. A tank hit with a flame thrower would not just suffer engine problems it would be a out and out knockout blow. Among other things like the optics being destroyed the crew would not have air to breath it would be like when a tank drowns and the same mechanics could be used.

As an aside IRL the flame thrower was mostly used against fixed defenses not infantry. Its a common misunderstanding about this bit of death teak.

justpin #15 Posted 21 November 2013 - 06:21 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 9217 battles
  • 1,127
  • Member since:
    08-07-2013

View Postfverhoef, on 19 November 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:

They should only introduce flamethrowers if they mount it on an ELC. Now that would be a great little trolling machine.
But as far as I know, most flamethrower tanks (like crocodile) were mostly designed against bunkers an other types of fortifications. Yes they could fire upto about 120 meters, but not for a long time.

It would be fun to fight against a crocodile tough... shooting at that little fuel trailer ;)


So that's a green light then? As HE was also supposed to be used against bunkers and fortifications!





Also tagged with flame, tanks, tank, flamethrowertanks, flamethrower, should, be, in, game

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users