I am curious as to how effective MGs and flamethrowers really were against tanks. I imagined that MGs and flamethrowers (if they ever got that close) would do little against tanks, but after researching a bit it seems that flamethrowers were a bit more effective than I thought.

It seems that directing a large amount of burning fuel into engines and into open hatches and vents and whatnot would deal with a tank in short order.

I watched a program about Stalingrad last night. One segment was on how the Germans used flamethrowers to counteract snipers. Since they were often hidden and shooting through small holes, the only effective attack on them was with burning liquid that could go through any and all holes around their hideaways. The German tanks were attacked from above with AT-rifles (no mention of flamethrowers) in Stalingrad (as I recall or saw), but the same principle would apply.

One of the things about TOI that seems a little unrealistic is that MGs can inflict damage on tanks quite readily whereas I imagine the reality would be that it would take an extremely lucky shot for an MG to damage, let alone disable, a tank.

I believe flamethrowers would be more effective, both for the reasons stated above and the fact that they could potentially heat up the interior of a tank to make survival for the crew unviable (they were hot enough places in the first place usually).

I do not think flamethrowere were able to heat a tank enough to make it unsurviable. But if it did finde a hole or hatch, crew would be gone. Air intakes might also let it damage the engine. Molotovs might be an analoge, though I belive that they burn much longer and hotter than the fire from a flame thrower.

MGs: I think MGs should only be able to damage light vehicles or vehicles with an armor value equal to or less than their fire power. MGs against a Tiger?!?!...fool's courage. The potential for damaging suspension components is there, but should that be incorporated into the model is the question. They were not designed to attack heavy AFVs.

FTs: FTs could seriously damage and destroy tanks if the flaming liquid was applied properly and onto the vulnerable area of the tank. WWII tanks were not hermetically sealed and had multiple points of vulnerability to FT liquid...engine gratings, air vents, machine gun ports, etc. Rubber and/or rubberized materials such as hoses, fan belts, suspension rollers, etc., were particularly flammable and vulnerable. Moreover, the flaming liquid would draw the air from the internal spaces of the tank causing panic at least, and possible asphyxiation of the crew. Some vehicles had fire suppression systems within the engine compartments and fire extinguishers within the crew compartment that could limit the effect, but if the crew panicked and bailed out, they became vulnerable to close assault especially if a FT squad had been able to get close enough to fire. FTs had a range of about 35-40 yards but a liquid volume capacity of only about 2-3 gallons. Total application time for a full kit was 6-7 seconds. If the liquid got onto the tank there was a fair chance of doing serious damage. The tactic taught to counter a FT attack was to drive thru the flames and NOT STOP until clear. A FT attack against an immobilized tank was deadly. I think a reasonable argument can be made for allowing FTs to reduce the "cover" value of an AFVs armor. Open topped vehicles such as SP assault guns, TDs and half-tracks were especially vulnerable.

Actually, take a look of WWII intelligence about how to deal with German tanks:

www.lonelysentry.com/intellbulletin/index_subject.html

Find the link to: Vunerability of Tiger Tanks

There's a reference diagram to shoot at the weak points of a tiger tank. Heavy machine gun fire placed on the area of the tank that joins the turret and the tank body can prevent the turret from moving. That's enough to make any tank commander retreat.

Very heavy German tanks had problems with their tracks. Extra pieces were put on when the tanks moved long distances. The allies found that the front wheel that helped drive the tracks was extremely easy to destroy. Imagine if your car weighed 60 tons and had two flat tires on one side.

As for flamethrowers, the inside of the tank did get rather 'warm'. Ever shoot several clips through a large caliber rifle? The barrel gets hot. A small weapon puts out a considerable amount of hot gas. Now Think about a tank gun; that's a lot of hot air in a confined space. The Tiger had a large number of gas vents to deal with the heat problem and fire ports so the crew could shoot at approaching infantry. If you were adjacent to the tank (real world application, close enough to touch it with your outstretched hand), and the vents were open, you could probably could cook the crew inside, or enough to cripple the tank. I don't think anyone ever made it that close to a tank with a flamethrower on their back. Also bear in mind that flamethrowers placed on a modified tank had a realistic range of 20-30 yards (listed range is 40-55 yards). A German portable flame thrower is listed as having a range of 25 yards. I seem to recall the American version having slightly less range. That probably translates to a realistic range of 8-12 yards.

Tide of Iron fails to account for how lethal a tank was against WWII infantry. Remember that a Tiger could easily destroy most enemy tank at a range of 1,000 yards. Would you really charge at a tank whose crew could reliably hit a vehicle at 1200 yards? I wouldn't be the only one shooting at such a tank with a heavy MG either. That's a really great way to get the tank to put a H.E. shell right through your bunker.

The Flamethrower, Portable, M2-2

Empty weight: 43 pounds
Filled weight: 68 pounds
Fuel capacity: 4 gallons
Range: 20-40 yards
Fuel type: Gasoline
Propellant: Nitrogen
Burn time: 10-20 seconds

Nationality based models varied in specs to the M2-2. Tactical application was for infantry to apply suppressive fire thus allowing the FT to approach to within assault range, then apply the flaming liquid. It wasn't the heat that could disable a tank so much as the flaming liquid (jellied gasoline) entering vulnerable openings and igniting flammable components, or via asphyxiation. American forces didn't use FTs in the ETO as much as other countries.

ToI doesn't seem to model heavy MGs at this point. The MGs listed are light. The US .50 heavy MG, for example, had a much greater range and normal/suppressive effect than the MGs modeled in the game. German troops greatly feared the .50 cal and took cover or retreated frequently when it was used, albeit from a vehicle mounting. It could also damage the weaker external components of an AFV. Again, the MGs in the game are light and would have much less effect on tanks. There is no way a light MG should have the capability to destroy a heavy vehicle even on a lucky roll.

The greatest effect a .50 Cal would have, is the effect it would have on the unit that has to carry it, its stand and its ammo. US platoons often, perhaps mostly, did not even have an MG, but the dreadfull BAR.

Correct...I noted that it was most frequently used from a vehicle mounting.

Summed up: From a historically point of view, both weapons were only of very limited use against vehicles.

I agree that the MG's in ToI are light-class models (MG34/42 and.30 cal), deadly to infantry, nothing to worry for AFV's. I have no hard facts about flamethrowers but I think the limited range and the limited tank capacity prevented them form being real tank busters.

BUT: What would happen in game of ToI, if you deny these weapons to damage enemy AFV's? The infantry's entire anti-armour capacity would rest on the shoulders of one or two bazooka-teams (max.). Suppressing these and the enemy armour acts unhindered on the battlefield. Bearing this in mind, I think it is okay for the game balance that these weapons pose a limited threat to enemy armour.

Any infantry model save Mortar has and AT capacity. Even in ToI tanks do not want to be near enemy infantry squads.

Bazookajoe, my point about the heat generated inside the tank was in reference to the fact that during an engagement the vents would probably be open. Hence the idea that the tank would be somewhat vunerable to a flamethrower if you could get close enough. Check the link I gave and you'll see that those ranged I listed for the tank mounted flamer were from tech manuals of the period. That's also based on a 1 second burst from the tank. I'm extremely dubious about the listed ranges for carried units considering the tank flamer's realistic range is almost exactly half it's listed range.

Hefsgaard, why do you hate the BAR so? Depending on which model you had , it was a very effective weapon. Don't tell me you would rather have the Chauchat. That has to be one of the worst machine guns ever invented. Part of the reason the BAR was not used in WWI was because they did not want the Germans to be able to use the design. While the M1917A1 was a huge improvement over the Maxim gun, it still had a large problem. It takes 2-3 soldiers to use it effectively. By comparison, you could have 3 BARs to utilize 3 different angles of attack, and the squad as a whole would be more mobile.

Apu, I agree with everything you said except for your first sentence. Machine guns were used against the weak point of certain tanks. Before the advent of widespread elctronic gizmos, tanks were much more vunerable. Drivers had to open a steel port to see where they were going, and commanders had view ports they used to look out from relative safety.

The BAR was not used during WWI? That would be news to my Uncle Buck...37th ID, BAR man, WWI.

Flamethrower stats: Just quoting specs. Lots of different models...improvements were constantly being made. I'm sure the effect range of the M2-2 was less than the specs I quoted, but more than 8-12 yards.

MGs: There is a fundamental difference between gamers who want a more historic game and those who want a balanced hobby game. I am a historic based gamer that understands and respects both viewpoints. Light MGs significantly damage tanks to the extent that capabilities would be degraded. There are other ways to introduce an infantry threat that would influence armors ability to run amok, however, without special weapons, training and leadership, infantry was hard pressed to make lone, isolated stands against enemy armor unless supported by artillery or friendly armor.

Sorry, that should read:

Light MGs could not significantly damage tanks to the extent that capabilities would be degraded.

A BAR does not have good enough volume of fire. Though something can be said for its ability to be operated by one man. Of cause an automatic weapon is always welcome in a bolt/semi world :-) But I would rather be backed by an MG-36. or wickers for that matter ;-)

Perhaps, tanks should be like heavy weapons and be unable to attack a unit in their current hex?

This does negate the successful attacks on a 4, but would it compensate for infantry? Just an idea--i don't fully support this.

In ToI no unit ever attacks another unit in it's own hex ;-)

although I am not sure WHERE I read it, i am very sure THAT i read the following about tank tactics - late war if i remember right: When tanks without infantry support where engaged by enemy infantry in close assault (mines, bazookas, etc.) they turned their guns on each other and sprayed the formation with a hail of bullets thus preventing the enemy to get nearby.

If this was true, mg's could not have be such a big threat to tanks as stated above - at least not during the late war period when tanks were obviously more heavily armoured.

Did anyone else read about this or did it all appear to me in a dream??

Light arms and even most heavy machine guns were not a threat to mid-late war tanks. While concievably it might have been possible to directly hit a vision slit or maybe jam the turret (Americans used to jam the turrets of Japanese tanks but sticking their bayonets inbetween the turret and the hull!), the chances or scoring a "lucky hit" like that were few and far inbetween

One thing you have to keep in mind about heavy machine guns like a .30, .50, or MG42 is that ammunition for them was heavy and the MG crews didn't carry a lot of rounds with them. The purpose of an MG, primarily, is to make enemy troops keep their heads down while the infantry flanks and assaults them. Firing on a heavily armoured tank would amount to littlemore than a waste of ammunition.

They did sometimes have a little more luck against lightly armoured verhicles, like M10's, M18, and armoured cars. They were also effective against "soft" targets like halftracks. However, when it came to engaging tanks, that's what tank destroyers, AT guns, and dedicated anti-tank weapons (Panzershreks, Zooks, PIATS, etc.) were for.

As for flamethrowers, I don't recall ever reading about their effectiveness against tanks. I'm sure they may have been used against them, but I don't know to what effect. They were more effective against soft targets and "open" armoured vehicles, such as the M10, M18, and SPA units since they were usually open topped.