Jump to content


Burning Down the House


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

Community #1 Posted 15 January 2014 - 12:45 PM

    Sergeant

  • Content Team
  • 0 battles
  • 24,443
  • Member since:
    11-09-2011
Learn the story of British flamethrower tank development in World War Two, and take a look at the fearsome Crocodile.

Full news text

The_Challenger #2 Posted 15 January 2014 - 01:04 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Military Specialist
  • 4478 battles
  • 1,981
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    01-19-2012

Hi all, just to make it clear this is a fabulous contribution by our friend "Listy" should reflect this on the portal news:sad:,,,so will get amended soonest. 

 

Cheers Listy me old mucker. :smile:


Edited by The_Challenger, 15 January 2014 - 01:05 PM.


CountOfTuscany #3 Posted 15 January 2014 - 01:55 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 4562 battles
  • 1,032
  • [SMACK] SMACK
  • Member since:
    07-01-2011

Excellent story!

 

If this vehicle is to be introduced in WoT I think the definition of peek-a-boo has to be redifined :D



guest273 #4 Posted 15 January 2014 - 02:50 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 35394 battles
  • 2,261
  • Member since:
    05-31-2012

Would be nice if you had a flamethrower tank in the game. :)

It probably would be imbalanced and hard to balance because it would need extra armor, a bit more speed and changing the gun to flamethrower...but I think nice idea ;)

Good video. I really like British tanks in life, even more than in WoT.



ThunderboltZ #5 Posted 15 January 2014 - 03:03 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 24184 battles
  • 287
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

Great story :great: 

 

In game, the forgotten Valentine II premium tier IV tank would really need a gun buff tho. 2-pdr/6-pdr gun would really make it worth buying again, its totally useless with that T-26 gun that it has now ...and no armor to speak off after Matilda got introduced. A bit off topic but just saying :glasses:



The_Challenger #6 Posted 15 January 2014 - 03:07 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Military Specialist
  • 4478 battles
  • 1,981
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    01-19-2012

View Postguest273, on 15 January 2014 - 01:50 PM, said:

Would be nice if you had a flamethrower tank in the game. :)

It probably would be imbalanced and hard to balance because it would need extra armor, a bit more speed and changing the gun to flamethrower...but I think nice idea ;)

Good video. I really like British tanks in life, even more than in WoT.

Agreed, be a nice variation, range-appalling !



Darkmancer #7 Posted 15 January 2014 - 03:08 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 50358 battles
  • 436
  • [S-I-G] S-I-G
  • Member since:
    03-30-2011

Did the British use inferior quality fuel?  The Russian Churchill seems to get better power & less chance of fire on its engine.

 

I wish the Brit Churchill was as fun to play as the Russian one.

 

and +1 to flamethrowers in game


Edited by Darkmancer, 15 January 2014 - 03:09 PM.


Darkmancer #8 Posted 15 January 2014 - 03:10 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 50358 battles
  • 436
  • [S-I-G] S-I-G
  • Member since:
    03-30-2011

And Brit ARVE's

 

And useable hull mounted guns.



Darkmancer #9 Posted 15 January 2014 - 03:16 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 50358 battles
  • 436
  • [S-I-G] S-I-G
  • Member since:
    03-30-2011

And stop crippling brit 75mm guns.

 

Just fix the damn brit lines WG



TheKroo #10 Posted 15 January 2014 - 03:46 PM

    Product Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 10290 battles
  • 5,653
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    08-24-2010
Interesting way to "dispose" of excess fuel, for sure.

CountOfTuscany #11 Posted 15 January 2014 - 04:17 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 4562 battles
  • 1,032
  • [SMACK] SMACK
  • Member since:
    07-01-2011

View PostHunter1911, on 15 January 2014 - 03:46 PM, said:

Interesting way to "dispose" of excess fuel, for sure.

 

The Germans would have probably sold quite some prototype vehicles and Mauses to the British near the end of the war, just to get some British petrol.



sword_of_Damocles #12 Posted 15 January 2014 - 04:41 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 59469 battles
  • 5,297
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    03-26-2011

One more time thanks to Listy for the article and especially that specific part

Block Quote

However, contrary to popular myth and the imagination of Hollywood, flame-thrower fuel tanks don't burn or explode when hit.
 

 After i saw the pic with the valentine towing fuel tank,was thinking how safe was that method!

 


Edited by sword_of_Damocles, 15 January 2014 - 04:44 PM.


The_Challenger #13 Posted 15 January 2014 - 04:51 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Military Specialist
  • 4478 battles
  • 1,981
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    01-19-2012

View PostDarkmancer, on 15 January 2014 - 02:08 PM, said:

Did the British use inferior quality fuel? 

You might find this interesting regarding aviation fuel:

 

Germany received the majority of her oil from Romania, setting up massive distilling plants in Germany to produce petrol from coal. In the States the oil was not "as good" and the oil industry instead had to invest heavily in various expensive boosting systems. This turned out to be a huge blessing in disguise. US industry was soon delivering fuels of ever-increasing octane ratings by adding more of the boosting agents, with cost no longer a factor during wartime. By war's end American aviation fuel was commonly 130 to 150 octane, which could easily be put to use in existing engines to deliver much more power by increasing the compression delivered by the superchargers. The Germans, relying entirely on "good" petrol, had no such industry, and instead had to rely on ever-larger engines to deliver more power.

 German aviation engines were of the direct fuel injection type and could use emergency methanol-water and nitrous-oxide injection, which gave 50% more engine power for 5 minutes of dogfight. This could be done only five times and then the aero engine went to the scrapyard (or after 40 hours run-time, whichever came first). Most German aero engines used 87 octane fuel (called B4), some high-powered engines used 100 octane (C2/C3)fuel.

 This historical "issue" is based on a very common misapprehension about wartime fuel octane numbers. There are two octane numbers for each fuel, one for lean mix and one for rich mix, rich being always greater. So, for example, a common British aviation fuel of the later part of the war was 100/125. The misapprehension that German fuels have a lower octane number (and thus a poorer quality- This whole debate about lower octane means poorer fuel is simply not true) arises because the Germans quoted the lean mix octane number for their fuels while the Allies quoted the rich mix number for their fuels. Standard German high-grade aviation fuel used in the later part of the war had lean/rich octane numbers of 100/130. The Germans would list this as a 100 octane fuel while the Allies would list it as 130 octane.

After the war the US Navy sent a Technical Mission to Germany to interview German petrochemists and examine German fuel quality, their report entitled "Technical Report 145-45 Manufacture of Aviation Gasoline in Germany" chemically analysed the different fuels and concluded "Toward the end of the war the quality of fuel being used by the German fighter planes was quite similar to that being used by the Allies".


Edited by The_Challenger, 15 January 2014 - 04:53 PM.


tudor05 #14 Posted 15 January 2014 - 05:33 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 23204 battles
  • 63
  • [ROF] ROF
  • Member since:
    09-05-2012
So, a Panther can bounce a shot? Interesting....:unsure:

Darkmancer #15 Posted 15 January 2014 - 06:34 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 50358 battles
  • 436
  • [S-I-G] S-I-G
  • Member since:
    03-30-2011

View PostThe_Challenger, on 15 January 2014 - 03:51 PM, said:

You might find this interesting regarding aviation fuel:

 

Germany received the majority of her oil from Romania, setting up massive distilling plants in Germany to produce petrol from coal. In the States the oil was not "as good" and the oil industry instead had to invest heavily in various expensive boosting systems. This turned out to be a huge blessing in disguise. US industry was soon delivering fuels of ever-increasing octane ratings by adding more of the boosting agents, with cost no longer a factor during wartime. By war's end American aviation fuel was commonly 130 to 150 octane, which could easily be put to use in existing engines to deliver much more power by increasing the compression delivered by the superchargers. The Germans, relying entirely on "good" petrol, had no such industry, and instead had to rely on ever-larger engines to deliver more power.

 German aviation engines were of the direct fuel injection type and could use emergency methanol-water and nitrous-oxide injection, which gave 50% more engine power for 5 minutes of dogfight. This could be done only five times and then the aero engine went to the scrapyard (or after 40 hours run-time, whichever came first). Most German aero engines used 87 octane fuel (called B4), some high-powered engines used 100 octane (C2/C3)fuel.

 This historical "issue" is based on a very common misapprehension about wartime fuel octane numbers. There are two octane numbers for each fuel, one for lean mix and one for rich mix, rich being always greater. So, for example, a common British aviation fuel of the later part of the war was 100/125. The misapprehension that German fuels have a lower octane number (and thus a poorer quality- This whole debate about lower octane means poorer fuel is simply not true) arises because the Germans quoted the lean mix octane number for their fuels while the Allies quoted the rich mix number for their fuels. Standard German high-grade aviation fuel used in the later part of the war had lean/rich octane numbers of 100/130. The Germans would list this as a 100 octane fuel while the Allies would list it as 130 octane.

After the war the US Navy sent a Technical Mission to Germany to interview German petrochemists and examine German fuel quality, their report entitled "Technical Report 145-45 Manufacture of Aviation Gasoline in Germany" chemically analysed the different fuels and concluded "Toward the end of the war the quality of fuel being used by the German fighter planes was quite similar to that being used by the Allies".

Ya that's quite interesting but doesn't answer the question.

 

Given Britain's empire status I presume she had multiple sources of Oil as well as the US?  So what quality of petrol was used for tanks?

 

By the same token the Russians seemed to prefer diesel engines, presumably for supply & temperature reasons, but how did they go on with fueling the LL vehicles as I believe both the brit val/church & US shemans were both petrol engine I thought so were they run on purely imported oil or Russian petrol?

 

Ingame the British Bedford six produces 350hp vs the Russians 374hp.  So either the Russians upgraded the engine which I cant see given how unreliable it was to start with, or they used better fuel (or WG pulled the figures out of their [edited]).



great_kahn #16 Posted 15 January 2014 - 06:44 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 20031 battles
  • 782
  • Member since:
    06-07-2012

I wish to melt a panther tank. Make it so WG.

 

Good write up, nice one Listy.



Panzer_Fenris #17 Posted 15 January 2014 - 07:14 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 16307 battles
  • 516
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012
Great read Listy.

Listy #18 Posted 15 January 2014 - 07:48 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 12095 battles
  • 5,732
  • Member since:
    04-19-2011

View PostDarkmancer, on 15 January 2014 - 05:34 PM, said:

Given Britain's empire status I presume she had multiple sources of Oil as well as the US? 

 

The US was the main producer of Oil during the period. During the war they even built a pipeline across the US to make supplies to the UK easier to handle. Other sources of oil at the time were Iraq, which the British were heavily investing in, however production would never match US output. The other source was Iran. Which both the UK and the USSR could draw from, after invading the country (I'm trying to pull together an article about that at the moment).

 

 

View Postgreat_kahn, on 15 January 2014 - 05:44 PM, said:

I wish to melt a panther tank. Make it so WG.

 

 

You and me both. Armoured flame-throwers and wheeled vehicles two things the British used a lot of.

 

View PostPanzer_Fenris, on 15 January 2014 - 06:14 PM, said:

Great read Listy.

 

Thanks, to you all.



TheKroo #19 Posted 16 January 2014 - 11:24 AM

    Product Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 10290 battles
  • 5,653
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    08-24-2010

View Postsword_of_Damocles, on 15 January 2014 - 04:41 PM, said:

One more time thanks to Listy for the article and especially that specific part

 After i saw the pic with the valentine towing fuel tank,was thinking how safe was that method!

 

 

It was safe, if no one was shooting at you.

 

View PostDarkmancer, on 15 January 2014 - 06:34 PM, said:

Ya that's quite interesting but doesn't answer the question.

 

Given Britain's empire status I presume she had multiple sources of Oil as well as the US?  So what quality of petrol was used for tanks?

 

By the same token the Russians seemed to prefer diesel engines, presumably for supply & temperature reasons, but how did they go on with fueling the LL vehicles as I believe both the brit val/church & US shemans were both petrol engine I thought so were they run on purely imported oil or Russian petrol?

 

Ingame the British Bedford six produces 350hp vs the Russians 374hp.  So either the Russians upgraded the engine which I cant see given how unreliable it was to start with, or they used better fuel (or WG pulled the figures out of their [edited]).

 

Interesting fact is that the UK has had a large supply of oil in World War II, but the production and processing of that oil were a somewhat different story.

So the largest producer of oil, largest output came from United States, as Listy has noted.

 

USSR did had a fairly decent crude oil production tho, enough to supply the LL's, in other instances it relied on US.

 

Differences between British Bedford Six on Premium and Standard Churchill are not a reflection of the oil status, rather a game balancing device.

 

 



Kevbar #20 Posted 16 January 2014 - 11:36 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 17928 battles
  • 1,215
  • Member since:
    01-22-2013
Great article. :great: to all involved.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users