(I've also posted this in the Warfare board because I feel its also a relevant question here on Tactics)

Sorry guys if this has been covered before but I couldn't find anything close. Is it weird that most flamethrowers do like 4 damage across the board on armored targets per hit? Like an Armor 7 still takes 4 points of damage…7 supposedly the heaviest of armors (super heavy tanks, land fortresses, etc.). Not even Panzerschreks/Bazookas, AP Tank Buster rounds do that much damage (3/hit tops). I want to know the rationale behind this…..

hittin a tank wit a flamethrower would make it like an oven not destroyin the tank but rather killin its crew possibly i no its a long shot but i thought it was the best answer

well if if the fire were to cause no physical damage to the tank, engines overheat, shells explode and crew inside the tank can all be damaged by smoke and heat.

You try sitting inside a metal box surrounded by fuel and ammo when your tank is covered in gelled gasoline. Tanks of this era are not sealed enviroments Flaming gel would be seaping in setting you and everything else on fire. But as far as realism the fire would cause engine stalls at the very least more likely it would get into the engine bay and just burn up everything that it could. I have never thought of Flame throwers actually damaging the armor more like wrecking sub systems and more likely causing the crew to bail out for fear of burning to death.

Keerplunk said:

I agree. Its not an immediate kill weapon but rather a slow kill weapon in regards to tanks.

In that era, a bottle of gasoline with a flaming piece of rag was enough (like during the Warsaw Uprising), not to mention flamethrowers. That is why tanks were suffering heavy casualties in urban combat - You don`t have to pierce the armor, just to set it on fire… Just check Fakyeli`s Molotov cocktails