Flammpanzer: German Flame Tanks of WW2
Переглядів 47,663
День томуPlay 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!
In this video we look at German flame tanks of the Second World War called Flammpanzer. Specifically, we look at the field modification of the Panzer I, Panzer II Flamm, the Beutepanzer Char B2 mod Flamm, Panzer III Flamm, Stug Flamm, the Flammpanzer 38 (Conversion of the Jagdpanzer 38 “Hetzer”) and the basic infos on the “Flammtiger”.
Disclosure: This video was sponsored by Conflict of Nations.
Cover Design by vonKickass.
Cover Image Original: Bundesarchiv, Bild 101I-732-0114-16 / CC-BY-SA 3.0, CC BY-SA 3.0 DE , via Wikimedia Commons
»» GET BOOKS & VIDEOS ««
» Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
» Tank Assault - Combat Manual of the Soviet Tank Forces 1944 - stm44.com
» IS-2 Stalin's Warhammer - www.is-2tank.com
» StuG: Ausbildung, Einsatz und Führung der StuG Batterie - stug-hdv.de
» Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de
» Panzerkonferenz Video - pzkonf.de
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon - see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
» UKposts Membership - / @militaryhistoryvisual...
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
»» SOURCES ««
Jentz, Thomas L.; Doyle, H.L.: Flammpanzer: German Flamethrowers, 1941-1945, 1997 Reprint, Osprey: London, UK, 1995.
Chamberlain, Peter; Doyle, H.L.: Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two: A Complete Illustrated Directory of German Battle tanks, Armoured Cars, Self-propelled Guns, and Semi-tracked Vehicles, 1933-1945, Rev. ed, Arms and Armour ; Distributed in the USA by Sterling Pub: London : New York, 1993.
00:00 Intro
00:37 Conflict of Nations
01:47 Limitations & German Decisions
03:32 Panzer I
04:07 Panzer II
06:31 Char B2 mod
07:37 Panzer III
10:24 Stug Flamm
10:54 SdKfz 251/16
11:06 Flammpanzer 38
12:39 Flammtiger
14:17 Summary
15:01 Conflict of Nations
Pöhlmann, Markus: Der Panzer und die Mechanisierung des Krieges: Eine deutsche Geschichte 1890 bis 1945. Ferdinand Schöningh: Paderborn, 2016.
von Senger und Etterlin, F. M.: Die Panzergrenadiere. Geschichte und Gestalt der mechanisierten Infanterie 1930-1960. J. F. Lehmans Verlag: 1961, München.
Munzel, Oskar: Die deutschen gepanzerten Truppen bis 1945, Maximilian-Verlag: Herford, Germany, 1965.
@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Місяць тому
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!
@looinrims Місяць тому
„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!”
@tirushone6446 Місяць тому
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
@imflikyt Місяць тому
@@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.
@brittakriep2938 Місяць тому
Wenn sie kein Deutsch können, dann lassen sie dumme Witze.
@DaDudeb Місяць тому
Hans! Get ze Flammpanzer!
@l-nolazck-rn24 21 день тому
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
@Thaumogenesis Місяць тому
It werfs flammen.
@looinrims Місяць тому
Ein Minenwerfer, it werfs minen
@Archangelm127 Місяць тому
@@looinrims Ein Nebelwerfer: it werfs nebel! 🤣
@Evgen991 Місяць тому
@@Archangelm127 It does make quite a lot of Nebel during launch. Werfing rockets is a nice bonus.
@kapitan517 Місяць тому
Schweinwerfer; it werfs schweine
@neeatago2984 Місяць тому
A sturmgeschutz... It stugs
@alexanderlaveau7819 Місяць тому
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!
@Calvin_Coolage Місяць тому
And the chainsword for the limited range icon.
@ElDesperado7 Місяць тому
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.
@asebeleketo1466 Місяць тому
"This video is sponsored by conflict of nations" how quite meta of you mister military history
@Vlad_-_-_ Місяць тому
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.
@ihategooglealot3741 Місяць тому
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.
@Canis_Lupus_Rex Місяць тому
In defense they can be used as a area denial weapon, especially in prepared areas.
@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623 29 днів тому
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.
@simonschneider5913 29 днів тому
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...
@Vlad_-_-_ 29 днів тому
@@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.
@argusflugmotor7895 Місяць тому
“The importance of a flammpanzer with 250mm of armour in 1945” meth is a helluva drug
@jed-henrywitkowski6470 29 днів тому
Panzerchoclate is oh so tasty though!
@aleksazunjic9672 29 днів тому
Arguably, at that time period only the heavily armored vehicle had a chance to get close enough and actually use flamethrower.
@raylast3873 17 днів тому
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.
@barwit12345 Місяць тому
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.
@Jens_Heika 28 днів тому
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.
@MilitaryHistoryVisualized 28 днів тому
😂
@lucasfoldesi4265 Місяць тому
Flammpanzer, good on paper. I see what you did there!
@thomasdoubting2730 Місяць тому
-Daddy, what did you do in the war? -Nothing.
@bwilliams463 Місяць тому
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.
@randallreed9048 Місяць тому
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.
@Querulously 27 днів тому
That was a monster game !
@patrickwentz8413 Місяць тому
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.
@handlesrstupid123 Місяць тому
More for city fighting or destruction of fortifications I would imagine
@mymax1267 Місяць тому
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
@christopherwang4392 Місяць тому
Wouldn't flame tanks have been useful in the forested and urban areas of Europe?
@czwarty7878 Місяць тому
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
@dannyzero692 Місяць тому
@@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.
@l.a.wright6912 Місяць тому
Yeah the flamethrower tank is something everyone tried durring ww2 but didnt persist after for a reason.
@redmorphius Місяць тому
Geneva convention killed it
@MonEyRuLess Місяць тому
@@redmorphius Can you kill something, that was never truly alive?
@duncant.2570 Місяць тому
Proliferation of infantry antitank weapons doesn't help. Especially when launchers have a greater range than the flame projectors.
@czwarty7878 Місяць тому
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
@ReaperCH90 Місяць тому
@@czwarty7878and nobody wants to sit in this thing when a peasant with an old panzerfaust 3 can kill you 400 m away
@ursus9104 Місяць тому
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.
@DoubleyouCeeGee Місяць тому
Would love to see a full series about all the different flame tanks of the major nations in WW2.
@l-nolazck-rn24 21 день тому
Me like flames!
@EuropeAryan Місяць тому
thanks for posting❤
@dominikreim7723 Місяць тому
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
@dermotrooney9584 22 дні тому
Lovely stuff! Thank you for sharing. 👍
@matthayward7889 29 днів тому
2:05 chainsword to denote “limited range” is perfect 😂
@jiyuhong5853 28 днів тому
which legion are you?
@matthayward7889 27 днів тому
@@jiyuhong5853 imperial guard! (With some Raptor legion)
@jiyuhong5853 25 днів тому
@@matthayward7889 perfect! Althought I have ultramarines logo I am wolves
@jiyuhong5853 25 днів тому
@@matthayward7889 so sons of Dorn?
@matthayward7889 23 дні тому
@@jiyuhong5853 nice!
@wolfsmaul-ger8318 Місяць тому
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
@randallreed9048 25 днів тому
Urban warfare is not good for armored vehicles with limited vision and limited upward traverse.
@markrowland1366 9 днів тому
Never knew of this. Thankyou.
@Blairwatchproject6780 21 день тому
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!
@BlackMasterRoshi Місяць тому
this is why the USSR switched to thermobaric rockets
@captainhurricane5705 Місяць тому
Flammtiger - oh dear...
@cespu_iv4519 Місяць тому
If it's good in Hoi4 it's good in real life.
@donnut999 Місяць тому
Cool Video!
@TheArklyte 23 дні тому
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.
@davidjernigan8161 Місяць тому
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.
@bagibadoo439 17 днів тому
As I understood it acetylene was only used to ignite the fuel and nitrogen to propel the oil.
@davids-ip2lr Місяць тому
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.
@mohammedsaysrashid3587 Місяць тому
Nice explained
29 днів тому
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
@marktaylor6491 29 днів тому
Alas, Germany didn't have a 'Percy Hobart'.
@dylanmilne6683 29 днів тому
I disagree I think they did and he was in every German tank workshop/factory and that was a problem.
@unknown0soldier Місяць тому
I came here for the flammen jokes. I was not disappointed xD
@thomas.02 Місяць тому
would you do a video looking at the effectiveness of flame tanks in the Pacific theatre? (or have you already made the video)
Місяць тому
Great video, would have been a scary proposition to come up against if you didn’t have AT support, that’s for sure.
@alexbeau348 Місяць тому
-О! Ганс, смотри- там дж пз е100 -Где? -На бумаге!
@NaturalLanguageLearning Місяць тому
Хаха
@alexbeau348 29 днів тому
@@NaturalLanguageLearning о как так зачеркнутым написалось
@mymax1267 Місяць тому
Ich glaube der Kommentar mit dem Link ist ein bisschen zu oft aufgetaucht
@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Місяць тому
Danke, UKposts Kommentare bug...
@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Місяць тому
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.
@mymax1267 Місяць тому
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized die unergründlichen Laune des UKpostsalgorythmus :)
@karolkowalski4240 Місяць тому
Clearly You haven't played Close Combat III where Flammpanzer was OP ;)
@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Місяць тому
Hah, I played the game, but I don't think I used the Flammpanzer there.
@DD-qw4fz Місяць тому
Loved the flamethrower in any form in that game, the screams of enemies and the hissing sounds of the flame still warms my heart.
@Dark_Plum Місяць тому
OP but still very fragile. It was a challenge to use them. But a fun challenge ;)
@user-kt9ge6ul2i 29 днів тому
I miss the double flamethrower 😢
@alexandercorbett3095 Місяць тому
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.
@bpz8175 29 днів тому
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.
@czwarty7878 Місяць тому
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.
@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623 29 днів тому
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.
@czwarty7878 29 днів тому
@@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
@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623 29 днів тому
@@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.
@frankunderbush Місяць тому
It's one of those "win more, win harder" weapons, not for when you're losing.
@shaider1982 Місяць тому
Wow, I did not know there was the Stug life but literally on fire👍🏻
@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Місяць тому
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!
@lordMartiya Місяць тому
Good on paper... Because it burns it well?
@wilsonli5642 28 днів тому
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?
@StaffordMagnus 23 дні тому
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!
@GunRunner106 Місяць тому
wasnt the mouse also considered to have like flamethrowers installed or such?
@ChrisS-fh7zt 27 днів тому
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.
@dylanmilne6683 29 днів тому
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.
@raylast3873 17 днів тому
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.
@MilitaryHistoryVisualized 17 днів тому
> 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!
@danielburgess7785 Місяць тому
Use by the U.S. Marine Corps in the Pacific campaign of such weapons was highly effective.
@jonathansmith6050 29 днів тому
Fortunately the Japanese lacked effective armor support, or the kinds and numbers of anti-tank weapons commonly present on European battlefields.
@fredmullison4246 17 днів тому
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.
@MilitaryHistoryVisualized 16 днів тому
Glad you enjoyed it!
@Warmaker01 28 днів тому
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.
@alex_zetsu 28 днів тому
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.
@thecoder7817 Місяць тому
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.
@davidkusner5637 29 днів тому
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?
@KethKessel Місяць тому
Would have been interesting if they re developed the flame werfen rocket into a shell with similar effects....
@outofturn331 Місяць тому
9:47 experience reports were rare, i can take a wild guess why
@Vandelberger Місяць тому
In HOI, developing light armored Flame Tanks as support units for infantry or even tank division makes them stupid strong in most terrain.
@lordmasterkingslayergodgei327 Місяць тому
For sure its good on paper, paper burns like hell!
@podemosurss8316 Місяць тому
5:45 Ah, yes, the Panzeranklopfkanone...
@Chilionloppu Місяць тому
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.
@kampfer91 Місяць тому
Hans want a flammwerfer , he got a flammpanzer instead .
@billd2635 29 днів тому
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.
@MilitaryHistoryVisualized 29 днів тому
No, they are way thicker.
@billd2635 29 днів тому
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Thanz for answering. That would make sense as a smaller diameter tube would increase the pressure.
@MilitaryHistoryVisualized 28 днів тому
@@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.
@billd2635 28 днів тому
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Maybe I need a course in hydrodynamics. lol
@gregorykrajeski6255 13 днів тому
I am surprised a little because the allies seemed to have pretty good results with our flame thrower tanks.
@MilitaryHistoryVisualized 13 днів тому
Seemed. Also facing different firepower.
@k9er596 Місяць тому
It's adds 10% attack so it's good
@djscottdog1 29 днів тому
I think they might make sense on a panza 2
@robertsolomielke5134 5 днів тому
TY. I understand flame tanks caused more surrenders than any other sturm kampfen tactic.
@imflikyt Місяць тому
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.
@czwarty7878 Місяць тому
"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
@TheDoctor1225 Місяць тому
"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.
@TheDoctor1225 Місяць тому
@@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.
@herbertgearing1702 Місяць тому
Ah Flampanzers putting the "Char" in Char B.
@tommihommi1 Місяць тому
clearly the smart move would be to build a gigantic paintball gun with napalm paintballs and some kind of ignition system
@causewaykayak Місяць тому
not a bad idea. Sort of auto grenade launcher mechanism ?
@ericferguson9989 Місяць тому
@@causewaykayakkind of like the Soviet ampule cannon. It shot glass spheres filled with a pyrophoric liquid that caught fire when the glass shattered.
@causewaykayak Місяць тому
@@ericferguson9989 Sounds rife with user hazard. Bit like the nuclear hand grenade 😏
@nattygsbord Місяць тому
I read that the Soviets had a flamethrower that could reach 300 meters
@Darilon12 Місяць тому
300ft? Maybe. 300m? Physically impossible.
@nattygsbord Місяць тому
@@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.
@Darilon12 Місяць тому
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.
@penelopegreene 25 днів тому
Notice them compensating? 😁
@adamcrookedsmile Місяць тому
Flammpanzer translation: you fill flammer in your panz
@DaDudeb Місяць тому
It flamms Panzers!
@196cupcake 22 дні тому
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."
@StoneCresent Місяць тому
I think the Germans originally designed the Maus with flamethrowers; they were later deleted.
@edi9892 Місяць тому
How about urban combat? RPGs weren't common and even then, you don't want to get too close...
@HvH909 26 днів тому
I think the Russians also had a flammpanzer - based on the T-34.
@MakeMeThinkAgain 29 днів тому
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?
@MilitaryHistoryVisualized 29 днів тому
No.
@jacopomangini3036 29 днів тому
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 29 днів тому
I doubt that.
@jacopomangini3036 29 днів тому
@@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.
@MilitaryHistoryVisualized 27 днів тому
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.
@marcelxd1633 Місяць тому
HANZ GET ZE FLAMMENWERFER
@Alguien644 25 днів тому
Help a flammpanzer III is chasing me what do I do
@JeanLucsNerdBrain 24 дні тому
It seems a very makeshift approach was used. it would be interesting to compare the flammpanzer development to the allied versions.
@QofSQ Місяць тому
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.
@jrd33 Місяць тому
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.
@flarvin8945 29 днів тому
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.
@QofSQ 28 днів тому
@@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.
@flarvin8945 28 днів тому
@@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.
@jrd33 27 днів тому
@@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.
@looinrims Місяць тому
I’d love to see Vietnam flame tank reports
@meowmeowmeow1243 Місяць тому
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.
@causewaykayak Місяць тому
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.
@jrd33 Місяць тому
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.
@charlottewolery558 11 днів тому
I gotta say, this kinda misses the point of a flame tank as demonstrated by the crocodile. The purpose of battle, and especially a flame tank, is to compel the enemy to stop resisting. Using a flame tank to attack highly fortified positions is a waste. Really you want to use these in mop up exercises and convince pockets of infantry to surrender without further fighting. But I think German battle thinking is always towards the hard factors of weapon systems, not the soft factors. If it were, they would have known you needed a crocodile like heavy vehicle to make intimidation a possibility.
@WilhelmScreamer Місяць тому
14:10 Why would it be the churchil and not the other variants of flame tanks the allies developed?
@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Місяць тому
Because as far as I remember only the Churchill Crocodile was brought up several times in my comment section.
@WilhelmScreamer Місяць тому
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized understandable, have a nice day
@caryblack5985 Місяць тому
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.
@StefanRamsen 26 днів тому
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.
@granitesevan6243 Місяць тому
Tank
@randelbrooks 16 днів тому
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.
@nicolasbusse 23 дні тому
GAIJIN, WHEN?!?! Snail come on
@Neklar 12 днів тому
Ronson tank.
@besteffortint Місяць тому
No way Germany had enough fuel to waste it like this
@thatOneViewer1856 Місяць тому
They were going to fuel it with the Fuhrer's tears.
@budnrobots2968 Місяць тому
Works on paper Lol
@mymax1267 Місяць тому
A Tank with a Flamethrower always Sounds to me more like a 40k Invention than something that really was used in out World
@user-uy3bj9ue5c 22 дні тому
That long barrelled 75mm couldnt fire flames.
@MilitaryHistoryVisualized 22 дні тому
Wrong Tank and gun, watch the video.
The Operations Room
Переглядів 479 тис.
РЕАЛЬНА ІСТОРІЯ
Переглядів 521 тис.
Military History not Visualized
Переглядів 68 тис.