"Battleground World War II Question" Topic

Situation: a squad member in a vehicle has a flame thrower. He is killed and the flamethrower blows up. Does it have a chance of damaging the vehicle?

One of our players says no, only a vehicle-mounted flamethrower can damage the vehicle if it blows up. He says the rules make no provision for anything else.

Also, if anybody is really into these rules and knows if the designers addressed this question, we'd appreciate it.

Thanks

I'm inclined to say the vehicle survives unharmed. However, anything inside made of meat is now golden brown and extra crispy.

Oh, until any ammo in the vehicle goes off.

I would treat any flamethrower in the vehicle the same way.

I take the opposite track. If an infantry flamethrower explodes inside a halftrack or truck, then roll on the molotov/flamethrower vs vehicle chart.

Maybe the rules don't baldly state this, but it is in the spirit of BGWW2.

In any case, how can a container of flamethrower fuel explode inside a truck without damaging it?

I am with Hrothgar Returns

You can treat it as a flame thrower vrs vehicle, the vehcle is taking the full brunt of a flame thrower!

Not only would the crew be toast but the vehile would be also and in serious flames with all that sticky fluids on fire.

My 2 cents :)

Tests done by the U.S. Amry done during WWII prove that flamethrowers do NOT blow up when hit.

jdg

In the rules it says anyone who is equipped with a flamethrower that is hit could detonate on a die roll so it makes since that the possibility of such an event is probable. I'd roll that test and if it blows then the vehicle will be hit as if hit by a flamethrower attack.

The whole "There is no distinction" thing is reminiscent of a 40K player saying "Well, technically tr rules say…".

Battlground is about realism and realistically if the interior of a vehicle is engulfed in napalm it is going to cause that vehicle some kind of damage. At least the interior is so fired that it couldn't even be manned to drive.

Brian

I would even give the roll a -5 modifier, as it is already INSIDE the vehicle, not trying to hit it. Plus anyone else in the vehicle should have to pass a 1/2 gut check to bail out, otherwise they are dead. Flamethrower guys were very lonely people on the battlefield.

jd- tell that to the guys immolated when their fuel tank took a bullet.

My dad used to tell me about two old-time Marines standing in the middle of the airfield on Eniwetok arguing over whose turn it was to carry the thing (neither one wanted it, that is).

It was not a job to be desired and everyone gave them a wide berth, except when up against a bunker (or cave, as it were).

"Battlground is about realism…"

Thanks for the LOL.

BG is about having a fun miniatures game with a good dash of Hollywood and an equal portion of too-many dice rolls.

I'm with the others, vehicle suffers a flamethrower hit with a -5 bonus to effect and any other crew/passengers must pass 1/2 guts to bail or die. If I was playing the game, on either side, that vehicle would get a pile of burning vehicle markers, no survivors, no dice rolls. But I'm a "wing it, whatever should happen" kind of player.

Hey Scale Creep Miniatures, speaking of Extra Crispy, how is he doing?

I would take the same stance as Hrothgar Returns.

Like that did ya Button?

Brian

Is something wrong with Extra Crispy?

Sundance said:

jd- tell that to the guys immolated when their fuel tank took a bullet.

What evidence do you have of this ever happening, please?

I don't know what you think flamethrowers contain, but most fuels, whether thin or thick, take a lot of setting fire to.

All the best,

John.

Well with a open flame shooting out of it's pilot and then a pressurized tank full of fuel I think it is within scientific possibility for it to ignite and fry the gunner.

But I'm no flamethrower gunner,
Brian

One tank contains a version of napalm – usually referred to as jellied gasoline. The other tank carries an inert pressurized gas to expel it. You think that's not dangerous? Even the inert gas is dangerous if a pressurized tank is punctured. A spark igniter, similar to the little gadget used to light a blowtorch, was used to ignite the fuel, but it was built into the system – not separate from it. That isn't that much when it comes to lighting it up. Did you also know that there was a tremendous backblast associated with the expulsion of fuel from one of these things so that if a man wasn't prepared for it, it would knock him flat? Nope, not the least bit dangerous…

Oh, yeah, the igniter often failed and the operator could use a Zippo lighter to ignite it. Takes a lot to burn the fuel…

My evidence is eyewitnesses. Read accounts of Marines in the Pacific, who used these things much more than the Army did in Europe. They talk about so-and-so getting it when his tank was hit by a bullet and he went up with it. IIRC, even the official USMC histories mention this happening.

Italian, German and Russian flamethrowers commonly used fuel oil as their fuel. I suspect that's rather hard to ignite, and I can't imagine what physical process people imagine occurs to make it "explode" or "detonate". Too much Hollywood, not enough history, I suspect.

WO 208/2112, "Translation of German flamethrower manual", says: "In order to give the men a greater sense of security attention should be drawn to the fact that should the weapon be struck by an infantry bullet or shell splinter it will not explode." ("not" underlined in the original.)

Obviously there exist a whole bunch of different flavours of jellied unpleasantness known under the blanket term "napalm", but I don't believe that the thickened fuel used in the US M2 manpack flamethrower was especially easy to ignite.

Sundance wrote:

My evidence is eyewitnesses. Read accounts of Marines in the Pacific, who used these things much more than the Army did in Europe. They talk about so-and-so getting it when his tank was hit by a bullet and he went up with it. IIRC, even the official USMC histories mention this happening.

I've read plenty of accounts of combat in all theatres, and cannot recall ever reading one in which a manpack flamethrower operator "goes up with it". ISTR E.B. Sledge mentioned a flamethrower operator getting his propellent tank hit, with the result of a loud hissing noise. You can read a pretty comprehensive history of the use of flamethrowers, both vehicular and manpack, in the Pacific here:

link

Oddly, there is not mention of this exploding-flamethrower phenomenon.

So, could you please supply a more specific reference to these "eyewitnesses" and "official USMC histories" you say provide evidence for it?

Looking forward to an informative reply,

John.

Gory Death rule. Anyone witnessing a GD (center of flame template) roles morale. Is there another rules system that factors throwing up on your shoes? Poor sods.

Sorry, I don't have time to go back through the 100+ books I've read on the Pacific War to find a few references for you. I didn't say it was common. If I'm wrong, that's my fault, but I'm sure I've read references to that happening. It's possible it was a leaking tank or that it was hit by something bigger than a rifle bullet. I suspect, however, that if a spark or Zippo will ignite the stuff, a tracer round could do the same. Maybe the Italian, German, and Russian FTs used fuel oil – the US didn't as is abundantly clear, and which you obviously didn't know. The stuff wasn't JP-4, which you can throw a lit match into. Clearly, though, you know better than anyone else…or should I say everyone else since you've read "plenty of accounts of combat in all theaters"?

I would say that one punctured during operation might ignite since the flamer's igniter would be lit. However, any flamer climbing inside a truck with his burner running would be even more unpopular than normal. Flame throwers were unpopular because they were heavy and cumbersome and were fire magnets. Normal rounds will not ignite any flammable material (they are made of lead) tracer might, but was not commonly used on land. The kings of bad science "mythbusters" fired many rounds of different calibers at LPG cylinders, and whilst some penetrated, none caused ignition until they used a 50cal using tracer.

"So, could you please supply a more specific reference to these "eyewitnesses" and "official USMC histories" you say provide evidence for it?"

I'm not sure of the certainity of this, but on Stephen Ambrose book D-Day there are at least two accounts of flamethrowers exploding, one for the nearby impact of a 88mm on the LCI the guy was getting out from, the other one because of a bullet (as it's told in the book). One of them is a testimony of a Rangers captain called Raaen, the other is from a Captain Robert Walker from 116 Rgt.

BTW, about the rules thing maybe the right way to do it is to apply a modifier on the roll to determine if the FT blows depending if the FT gunner is hit by a rifle or a MG as an MG usually would use tracers.

Who cares if it "really" ever happened?

It should be a rule in any WWII skirmish game that if the FT guy gets hit he might asplode and anyone around him is in a bad way.

Anything less takes all the fun out of having the FT guy on the table!

"Anything less takes all the fun out of having the FT guy on the table!"

This is the heaviest and deeper argument in the thread and one which I can not argue against.

Palafox wrote:

I'm not sure of the certainity of this, but on Stephen Ambrose book D-Day there are at least two accounts of flamethrowers exploding, one for the nearby impact of a 88mm on the LCI the guy was getting out from, the other one because of a bullet (as it's told in the book). One of them is a testimony of a Rangers captain called Raaen, the other is from a Captain Robert Walker from 116 Rgt.

Oooh, a reference, thanks.

Using the page numbers from the Touchstone edition, Walker's account is on page 341, and Raaen's on p. 429. If the index is to be trusted, there are no other such mentions.

In the first incident, it is stated that a flamethrower man was first hit by one bullet, then a second set the contents of the fuel tank on fire. No mention of any "explosion" or "detonation", and the poor bloke still managed to jump overboard.

In the second incident, an LCI ramp was "hit by an 88 just as the flamethrowr man stepped on to it", and "in an instant the boat was a mass of flames". That is, so far, the nearest to an "exploding flamethrower" incident I have heard of, and I think we might allow that an 88mm round is a bit more doosh than a bullet, even a tracer.

All the best,

John.

Sundance wrote:

Sorry, I don't have time to go back through the 100+ books I've read on the Pacific War to find a few references for you.

Yet you apparently consider it reasonable to tell other people to "read accounts of Marines in the Pacific" as a way of justifying your otherwise unsupported opinion.

Maybe the Italian, German, and Russian FTs used fuel oil – the US didn't as is abundantly clear, and which you obviously didn't know.

Actually, the US did use light fuel oil in some of its mixtures for the M2-2, as shown by change 1 to TM 3-376A.

The stuff wasn't JP-4, which you can throw a lit match into.

Well, no, since the JP-4 specification wasn't issued until the 1950s. But a 50-50 blend of kerosene and petrol would for all I know make a perfectly good unthickened flamethrower fuel.

Clearly, though, you know better than anyone else…or should I say everyone else since you've read "plenty of accounts of combat in all theaters"?

I've never claimed to know better than anyone else. But then, I'm not the one in this conversation who thinks his unsupported say-so is better evidence than reference to a published source.

John.

Look, it happens in the movies…and it's just a game…and its fun (though rather gruesome) to play it that way. So I'm with DJButton Up and Matusuru. Gory Death, vehicle fries as the napalm ignites other combustibles, etc., there is much rejoicing by the gamer who threw the magic die roll and another "Remember in that one game, when…" tale of lead adventure with which to regale each other.

"In the first incident, it is stated that a flamethrower man was first hit by one bullet, then a second set the contents of the fuel tank on fire. No mention of any "explosion" or "detonation", and the poor bloke still managed to jump overboard."

If you continue reading it says the guys near him were also in flames and before that it states all the ramp was on fire because of the FT hit, so some deflagration of the flammable liquid had to take place. Technically not an "explosion" but with rather nasty effects around.

" and I think we might allow that an 88mm round is a bit more doosh than a bullet, even a tracer".

So we can also allow that a flamethrower is dangerous and hitting it can set the guy carrying it and the ones nearby on flames.

as an alternative rule: if the FT man is hit, there is a chance he will spray flame in a random direction as he falls?
Inside a vehicle it would have the same effect.

Of course in BGWW2 the FT man has to take an action to ignite his weapon, so maybe only in cases where the FT is in use.

<<<In any case, how can a container of flamethrower fuel explode inside a truck without damaging it?>>>>

Becuz da roolz don' say it duz. ;)

Gosh guys, it's a game lighten up. This is like a club night with rules lawyers!

Palafox wrote:

" and I think we might allow that an 88mm round is a bit more doosh than a bullet, even a tracer".

So we can also allow that a flamethrower is dangerous and hitting it can set the guy carrying it and the ones nearby on flames.

It's not clear to me that it would cause any more damage that just the plain 88mm (or whatever calibre) HE shell landing in a packed landing-craft.

I can recall (Sydney Jary's "18 Platoon" and an account of the death of Kiwi Hunt in the Falklands I think from Middlebrook's book) two occasions on which WP grenades being carried by people went off when hit by bullets. That's as many as I've heard of for flamethrowers. So why have rules for one and not the other?

All the best,

John.

Hmmm, half of this topic was an argument to establish that flamethrower fuel is…inflammable?

No, it's flammable!

Flammable if it comes out the business end but inflammable if it comes out any other end?