OH, this was Definitely one of your Most interesting videos, So Much pertaining to these half-track's was unknown to me like their independent existence At ALL. But what a Horrifying and very effective weapon it must have been. What Really hurts me is, though you are explaining this equipment as if it is currently in use "In the War," the Reality is that None of these terrifying weapons has Ever been used by the Great German Third Reich Military in over 75 Long years and the War was Lost because of America's Traitor Masonic Scumbag FDR butting in with the secondary plan of Destroying America herself unbeknownst to the American soldiers brain-washed into destroying Western Civilization's Last Hope to succeed which was A.H. and the Reich. I know both he and the British Traitor as well as "Uncle Joe" Stalin are Screaming AND Burning in hell maybe with One or two of these half-tracks!!
When the game first came out you could just drive it into the enemy base if you were fast enough building it and instantly win the game. It used to be much more armored
@@logoseven3365 that's true, but being barbecued alive seems just a far more excruciating death and should speak for itself. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not saying it's stupid or anything, I find it somewhat funny that someone thought that up.
@@rudolfnechvile oh man, I get it, I thought the exact same thing haha the only person capable of thinking something that diabolical up is a fuckin' nazi haha either one of them or Dr. Strangelove him self
One of the main reasons firearms were used up until the 19th century was the noise, longbows would have been more precise, faster to shoot and cheaper.
It wirft Flammenwerfersonderkraftfahrzeugsflammen mit seinem Flammenwerfersonderkraftfahrzeugsflammenwerfer und es wird bedient von seiner Flammenwerfersonderkraftfahrzeugsflammenwerfermannschaft!
its a Sonderkraftfahrzeug whichs werfs (wirft*) Flammen. I cannot believe how no one understands the perfect sense and immense beauty of the German language... xD
Guys, I just want to thank you. In terms of using pictograms you are setting standards. I can easily stay focussed during the whole videos you make. I really like the graphic approach in your videos rather than having snippets of "documentary" footage being replayed again and again. Please keep up the great work. Thanks again.
Oh man what a glorious game.... I'm not into video games at all, though I did grow up playing Starcraft and AOE... I just happened upon COH soon after it first came out and what a fucking wonderful play through that was haha
They're a lot tougher in vanilla CoH than they would be realistically. I play the Spearhead mod and one good AT rifle shot or rifle grenade can take them out in that, they are very vulnerable as the video notes and usually die before accomplishing anything if you send them at enemy lines. They're so vulnerable to any sort of AT that I had really been wondering how they could have been anything but deathtraps historically, but using them as a platoon at night to counter infantry break-ins and illuminate the battlefield makes a lot of sense. Too bad there's no night fighting in CoH.
In CoH2 I actually fear the MGMC more, because that thing will instapin in a single burst from beyond visual range. However the flamer 251 is still ranked pretty high in terms of fear factor and effectiveness for me, it's devastatingly effective against infantry that don't have an AT weapon.
I was thinking that is was time to think about going to bed, but then I heard that it is TIME to talk about German Flame Half-Track Tactics. I'm so proud. MHV has merged clickbait and German precision into one phrase.
This was just superb! I play the boardgame Advanced Squad Leader, and the SdKfz 251/16 is pretty well modeled in it. The point about restricted range when both flamethrowers are shooting is very interesting. The game rules may need errata:)
Played ASL through the 1980's, Switched to winSPWWII when it became available. Occasionally engage in PBEM using the computer version. I find it more enjoyable than ASL, and lots easier to find opponents, of which there seem to be none in the San Antonio, TX area for ASL. Damned few for any turn based game, everyone wants to play wizards & lizards, from which I abstain.
@@whiskeytangosierra6 VASL seems to be the best option these days. There is something about the feel with ASL that is hard to capture with computer games.
@@Zajuts149 I'll take a look, however, from what I have seen so far, the winSPWWII looks more blind free kriegspiel than VASL. The thing I really enjoy is the challenge of NOT knowing where the other guy is until contact. The game is available as a free trial download, you should give it a try.
The comment about avoiding "premature flaming" is interesting. Lindybeige did a look at Churchill Crocodiles in British service. British experience showed that the Crocodile was most effective in provoking enemy soldiers to surrender, rather than actually killing them. They also found that if they flamed early, while they were still several hundred yards away from the enemy positions, the enemy soldiers were more likely to surrender than if they waited to flame until they were close. It seems flaming early acted as a warning to enemy soldiers, "Surrender now or enjoy a firery death". Most preferred surrender to being burned alive. I wonder why German experience wasn't similar.
Probably because the British encountered Germans who knew they would receive okay POW treatment and were of mid to low morale at that point of the war. So surrendering didn't seem that bad unless they were SS. On the other hand, the Soviets were of high moral at that time due to their large gains and knew if they were captured they were most likely to receive poor treatment.
@@Rally_Armaments That occurred to me. The German doctrine that was mentioned was almost certainly written based on experience against Soviet troops. By the time the Russians were actually encountering flame panzers, they would have known surrendering to the Germans was pretty nearly a death sentence. Not so for Germans surrendering to the western allies. Were I forced to bet on it, your answer is the reasoning I'd put my money behind. That makes me curious as to the American experience with using flame tanks in Europe. I've read plenty of accounts of using them in the Pacific, but I can't recall ever reading anything that discussed their use in Europe. I imagine it would be similar to that of the British, but I've never read anything that would confirm it.
The late model churchill was a lot harder to knock out than the flammenwerfer 251, which i guess made a difference. The front of the late model churchill was largely immune to all German AT guns except for the 8,8cm Pak43. Even the Tiger with its short 8,8cm gun could not pen the front armor of the churchill. The only other weapon that might have an effect on the churchill's front armor was the panzerfaust or panzerschrek but these have shorter ranges than the churchill's flamethrower so it's nearly impossible to knock out a flamethrower churchill with these weapons if its well protected by infantry on its sides
11:55 I remember LindyBeige once saying how a solider soaked in gasoline is 1000% more willing to get out of the foxhole and surrender rather than staying there and dying in a fireball, the video is called "The most effective weapon of World War Two", he explains how British used such psihological tactics with their Churchill crocodiles (flamethrower churchill)
About not firing in thick natural fog: this is probably because smoke and particles from even relatively small fires rapidly add to natural fog in an area and this could make the line of sight even worse for all troops. (Thick natural fog is often due to stagnant layers of air keeping the mist near ground level and these same layers will also impede smoke and particles that would otherwise rise.)
i play the miniature game Flames of war i have a full strength Gepanzerte panzergrenadierkompanie that has a platoon of these vehicles! i love how this shows how i am suppost to use them by the book!
Learning the actual history to be better at a game is...not going to help you I'm afraid. Game = game rules. History =/= game rules. It's that simple. Best case scenario, you might get inspired.
@@The_Crimson_Fucker hey don't know it. Studying doctrine can actually help in games like Combat Mission, where you get units taken right out of each nation's Table of Organization. Knowing how each nation fought helps you learn how to utilize their equipment and what it was designed for. It does rely on the individual game, but at least for Combat Mission games it does help
The best thing you can do is learn about Combined Arms combat and learn how to apply it in game. Tanks support the inf. Inf protects the Tanks, air support and artillery on breakthrough points and finally, speed.
@@jett_phil yes this is true, but again how each nation applies that doctrine is different and is reflected in their equipment. The Soviets vs. American doctrine. The Soviets rely far more on mass, while the Americans emphasize finesse meaning they each handle differently
based on my own experience, fire looks a lot bigger during night because all of the smoke above it gets illuminated, remember turning on ur phone at night and getting blinded by your 100% screen brightness, basically the same effect 🔥 😂
Flame units always have a great psychological impact on the enemy and there are many examples of Churchill flame tanks ( crocodiles) just showing up and Germans surrendering. However this is a thinly armored vechile with an open top, pretty sure these crews burned to death on a regular basis.
That's what I was thinking, A stray bullet or a shot from above, Let alone a flame cocktail or grenade and that entire half track will violently explode into a ball of flame.
@@Mkxvandal I mean yea, I can't imagine it would be easy to get close to a armoured vehicle with coverage of 2 flame throwers, a machine gun and a infantry unit. BUUUUT. If a grenade did get in there, Alot of Flammen would be Werfed.
@@edi9892 Not at all! Also the effective range of the UK's PIAT, which often hit obliquely and exploded harmlessly! However, IF the PIAT hit squarely, there was no German tank that could withstand it. The solution to ward it off, as well as the more numerous Soviet RPG weapons? "Schurtzen", relatively thin spaced armor plating at the tank's sides, or, where they found them, mattress frames!
@@selfdo AFAIK, the Panzerfaust had an effective range of 100m though being considerably closer helped significantly to hit critical areas. Anti tank rifles could kill earlier tanks from over 100m and anti tank guns are a completely different story... So, against a small bunker, tanks were relatively safe at the time, but could be knocked out.
@@selfdo obviously, the effective ranges increased during the war and are today even longer. My original reply was born from seeing media where tanks are shot near point blank, which would in reality kill the infantry...
@@edi9892 This is why early in the war, the concept of the "Infantry Tank", to fend off shots from AT rifles and the 37-mm AT guns which were common at the time. Deficient on mobility, their slow speed didn't matter as the bunkers and fortifications that were their purported targets weren't going anywhere. That's a reason also why the Brits persisted with the type, culminating in the Churchill. While it'd not win a tank drag race, the Churchill well-suited Sir Bernard Law Montgomery's "set piece" battle plans which often involved head-on assaults against German fortifications.
Not to mention getting ahold of said flammable liquid after 1943 would be extremely difficult. Flamethrower fuel was a low-priority Not to mention it was an open-topped vehicle
After an enemy break-in, especially on the eastern front, it could probably also be expected that infantry and possible tanks are seperated by the fighting. So a flamethrower will be highly effective.
Your videos are as always of such high quality 👍 But to be completely honest... Sometimes I watch your videos primarily to see the circles with the pictograms... They really set your videos apart from others! 🙂 And add an extra visual aid for the brain to process the verbal information given. I love how you at the 3 min mark, have one that means "dropped during production" 🤣
Here is a German training film that shows the usage of flamethrower halftracks in combination with other troops (the English subtitles are a bit bad). This link points directly to an animation at the end that shows the movements to counter an enemy attack: ruclips.net/video/66yC70M9cPU/видео.html
Hey MHV. Do you have any clue how they chose the crews? Was is voluntary or did they just pick random people to serve in those units? Driving around with a thinly armoured, huge vehicle full of fuel must have been nerve-wracking.
no idea, there was a rather large section on how to treat burn wounds, which also mentioned the lack of experience with the flame oil or that special variant... but outside of that, not very much. Since it was also a very small group of people, not sure if anything survived in terms of documents or memoirs.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized What document is the one that describes the flame oil if you don't mind me asking? I'm curious of its composition in comparison to allied mixes
That's a really interesting question. I think the psychological analysis that goes into choosing this is really interesting. Example: in the UK, recruitment for Armed Police (ie: British SWAT) is different in Scotland vs. England. In England, Armed Police are selected from the ranks by higher ups and basically have no choice in being assigned; in Scotland, we rely on volunteers to the armed units, and so we have a shortage of Scottish Armed Police because no one volunteers for that duty. On one hand it feels good to know our cops are not Rambo, but on the other hand, I feel the screening of English shooters might be more thorough... (I seem to remeber Flame Troopers being a prestige unit because of the high casualty rate in WW1... that might be a factor in volunteering)
Noted with interest your mention of the Stuka during this presentation of the Panzer flame track and wondered if Germany had mastered jellied gasoline like napalm mixed with clothes washing detergent like we employed against Japan and Vietnam making "crispy critters". I also know Geman troops who captured a Sherman with the barrel of the cannon hooked to a high pressure nitrogen tank carried in the rear of the tank in a wagon subsequently put our crews up against the wall and executed them post haste. I think our volumes were about ten times as much as the track and the cylinders were 2 to 3,000psi. But pushing that much liquid down a 75mm barrel could be used even in wind.
The only flamethrower tanks we used in the war with a flamethrower in the turret were in the Pacific. We did have four Sherman Crocodile modifications with the armored fuel tank trailer in Europe late in the war. The others tried out had an infantry flamethrower replacing the hull MG. Range on those and fuel capacity wasn't good. German Panzerfausts and Panzerschrecks out ranged the flamethrower. The conversions were 'disliked' and their use discontinued. In fact when infantry flamethrowers were requested by 3rd Army attacking Metz the only ones found were in a depot 75 miles away. From what I read the Germans never developed napalm. They did use a fuel mixture but never one that worked as well as the US/British developed napalm flame fuel. Probably the major reason for the short range of their flamethrowers. There is a short passage in the book COMPANY COMMANDER by .. McDonald of his unit, in German West Wall bunkers previously captured, being attacked by Germans using 251/16 half-tracks.
Hi! Ever thought about a video on the impact of female fighters employed by the Soviets on the Eastern Front? I heard some sources underline their importance in terms of manpower, while others downplay their role, so it would be nice to know more. Sorry if I'm off-topic, I'm a newcomer.
Although the Soviet Army actually eschewed women in front-line units, believing that their presence to be a detriment, that doesn't mean the "Soviet Sisters" couldn't and didn't get their chances to be "Heroines of the Soviet Union". Many nurses were right there and served as medics. Many girls served as snipers, some trained by Vasily Zaitsev himself, and were deadly shots! And do look up the 588th Taman Bomber regiment, aka the "Night Witches". These women flew wood and canvas biplanes such as the PO-2, often on night harassment missions over German positions, which could involve cutting the plane's engine and GLIDING in over the target at less than 200 meters!
Whether or not the German half-track had a "Flammenwerfer" mounted, the PTRD was a cheap but effective weapon to stop one, or at least slow it down! So was the British Boys anti-tank rifle.
I was going to make a similar remark (lit: Schütze = shooter). Then he explained that those guys also were mostly equipped with rifles as personal weapons. Which makes them riflemen after all.
The issue is, that Schütze in the Heer was used a lot, e.g., the lowest rank in the Panzer Arm was "Panzerschütze", at first I thought that is the gunner, nope that is the Richtschütze. So you have "Schütze" all over the place, as such I prefer "rifleman". "Shooter" sounds ok in theory in practice less so. Yeah, flame gunner would have worked in this case or might have been even better.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Yeah, its basically our catch all term for infanterists of the lowest rank (below private). For these 2 examples Id simply go with loader and ammo carrier.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized ; Ladeschütze is just Loader, Munitionschütze would be just Ammunition Bearer / Ammo Carrier. As there are equivalent roles in say the US Army I think those should be used especially since we are talking in English. There is no reason to always use a direct translation IMHO. Soldiers or Sailors manning guns are usually gunners especially for tanks and IFVs, hence my prior comment.
I don't know, but I suspect 2 things, 1) in overall the amount was extremely small, 2) maybe it was by-product or something that was not really usable for other stuff anyway.
Did you do one of these on the Sdkfz 251 rocket firing halftracks? Stuka zu fuss? I'm curious how effective they were. They seemed to be in production through various models of the 251 (B, C, D).
It would seem exposing the sides of a half-track to even small arms at under 80 meters would be dangerous. Up to 6mm of armor @0° could be penetrated by the Mosin 7.62x54mm heavy 'D' ball @ 200m. 3.5mm of armor @30° was obtainable by 7.62x54mm light 'L' ball @ 100m.
I think this is the mentioned Stuka siren video from MAH: ruclips.net/video/cf5potr_KYQ/видео.html Spraying unignited oil into dug in positions for further penetration makes sense, especially in an early regulation; but I immediately thought of the Forgotten Weapons flamethrower video series, in which IIRC Ian mentioned that even Japanese troops would often surrender if fuel was sprayed into their positions unignited...for obvious reasons. So I'm curious if that's related, either from experience in Spain or (though unlikely) even the Great War. Soldiers not having to go into positions hit by these weapons does seem like it would have saved time and morale. I'm also curious what type of fuel the "flame oil" was. I want to assume napalm was preferred and gasoline used if it was unavailable, as with American flamethrowers, but I think I remember some countries did only use plain gasoline.
Easily my favorite Sdkfz 251 variant. Really wish there was more footage of it and to be honest it should definitely see some more light in movies and other video games besides CoH and Steel Division
Iirc Guderian as chief of staff gave the order to transfer most automatic weapons to frontline infantry units. Might have something to do with the reduction of smgs. I dont remembrr were i red about It though.
That's quite a mouthful. What did German troops call the 251? Even the shorter "Alarm! Typhoons coming! Back to the mittlerer Flammpanzerwagen" is rather cumbersome.
the range of the fire cat might be in optimum conditions but maybe wind or other weather conditions might affect that so in real terms maybe the slightly lower is normal operation that can be counted on, and maybe the range degreases slightly as the fire cats oil is used, just my thoughts on this smoking gun.
So, this is going to be a version of my ongoing stupid questions about timing of these innovations. So, I get it. Flamethrower on a halftrack. Very maneuverable. Lots of punch. But the timing in 43 seems a bit late to the party to be really effective for the German Army. I get the notion that both channels here and Military Aviation History talk about the need for fire brigades to stem Soviet Attacks late in the war. I guess my question is that why not in 42? There was this huge gap in innovation. If we say the Wehrmacht was very successful in 41, there was not a lot new in 42. All the new stuff didn't really arrive until 43 - Tigers (okay they were 2H42), Panthers, Self-Propelled Artillery, now Flame Halftracks. What caused the delay of anything really helpful for the Wehrmacht being available for Fall Blau?
It takes several years, I remember that I thought a lot of innovations / changes were due to the war going on, then I read the bullet points for changes in the upcoming years, I think those were written around 1936-38, all those points I thought were a reaction to the war, nope, all were already mentioned pre-war.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Do you think this could have anything to do with not wanting to put Germany on a war economy? The Panzer I was 1934. The Panzer II was 1936. The Panzer III was 1939. The Panzer IV was also 1939. The Panzer III and IV were up gunned, but the next Panzer was the Panzer VI in 2nd half of 1942. The Tiger was not successful when it was introduced in 1942 (see - tankmuseum.org/article/tiger-combat-debut/ ). I am guessing that the success in 1939 and 1940 meant that until the Wehrmacht saw Soviet tanks that they saw no problems. The British tanks were inferior. Was the intel on Soviet tanks that bad?
Interesting, thank you. A Sdkfz 251 just seems way too vulnerable a vehicle to use in such a role. Surely there was high risk of the entire vehicle bursting into a ball of flame if it was hit? Not very comforting for the crew. A heavily armoured tank, such as the Churchill, seems to make a lot more sense.
Depends on tactics and also resources. The British built a few hundred tanks (I think in total around 1500) that they never used for combat, meanwhile the Germans were using all kinds of captured tanks.
Me: Huh, what is this video? Video: German guy talking about a Flammpanzerwagen. Me: (looking down) Where did this M1 Garand come from? And what is this paper that says draft notice?
I assume they didn’t want to use the flamethrowers in fog because they would burn the fog and thus expose their position by giving away the cover of the mist.
80 m or even 60 m is pretty close to a bunker that is defended. How could you get so close to a bunker without the risk of being hit in the half track that did not have much amor / protection. looks like a suicidal command and not well thought compared to the allied flame thrower tank which were tanks, not half tracks with close to no amor. And supply in barrels would also mean that just a hit by a handgrenade or shrapnel could ignite such barrel that has to be stored in the open area and not inside the vehicle deep down protected inside. And 6 of those in 1 unit looks also a bit over the top and also a high risk cause once the enemy had learned how to deal and succeed with these all others could be eleminated the same way as the first. Of cause once they achiieved the first hit the bunker crew had close to no chance but if that reguires a short distance of 60 or 80 m there will have been a lot at stake if such halftrack started to attack. But 6 in just 1 spot is an awfull lot of flame and high risk cause 1 hit of any kind and the whole flame system could blow up.
As outlined in the Video they didn't exist in a vacuum. Spoken in modern terms they were a "win more" weapon system to mop up a supressed or inadequatly equipped enemy.
Would you make a review on Portuguese ww2 tanks? story: In 1941 Portugal fired to be invaded by Germany after the "supposed victory in Soviet Unon" (which didn't happened), by Germany, Portugal though they would be next along side whit Spain. (maybe) Sow they built some tank prototypes and armored cars, they were very simple. Based on Vicker 7 ton. Whit rebited armour, probably worse than Italian tanks in paper. But there isn't a lot of info on them. Along side some tanketes for multi role and suport the Valentines bough from UK. Would be cool if you could make a small video on it.
@@claas.relotius Not Germany but Spain wanted. Also, Portugal sold Natural resources to allies and Germany, maybe they wanted it all. But the idea of Franco invading Portugal was simply because it would help them fight the British and having the Portuguese Islands near US to bomb them. If they went to war US in 1943 settled in Terceira. Still there until today to secure the Atlantic
1944 refit: +1 officer: to avoid a lack-of-comand-dilemma, to give training-opportunities for the subcommander - 2 motorcycles: (sidewards communication per radio, not per depeche, no own recon, commander is HT-mounted, leading from front and not hovering around in his Beiwagen) + 1 Kettenrad: more Offroad-mobility
I know I saw somewhere the crewmen who operated the flame throwers wore special suits to protect them, as well as a mask and goggles. It looked silverish. Wish I could remember the source... Sorry.
Well, flamethrower operators that were part of infantry or pioneer units did wear a special overcoat that shed leaking fuel and insulated gloves. The gear did give some protection, BUT...a sharp-eyed sniper could more readily identify them as a "Flammenwerfer", even if they'd set their machine aside! Either way, such a man's life expectancy could be rather...SHORT.
Check out the Stuka: The Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber Book campaign here: stukabook.com
I saw this film a while ago, some good shots of the Flammpanzerwagen.
ruclips.net/video/66yC70M9cPU/видео.html
OH, this was Definitely one of your Most interesting videos, So Much pertaining to these half-track's was unknown to me like their independent existence At ALL. But what a Horrifying and very effective weapon it must have been.
What Really hurts me is, though you are explaining this equipment as if it is currently in use "In the War," the Reality is that None of these terrifying weapons has Ever been used by the Great German Third Reich Military in over 75 Long years and the War was Lost because of America's Traitor Masonic Scumbag FDR butting in with the secondary plan of Destroying America herself unbeknownst to the American soldiers brain-washed into destroying Western Civilization's Last Hope to succeed which was A.H. and the Reich.
I know both he and the British Traitor as well as "Uncle Joe" Stalin are Screaming AND Burning in hell maybe with One or two of these half-tracks!!
Toller Akzent mein Freund und toller professioneller Aufbau, mach doch mal Videos in deiner Muttersprache, wir möchten auch was lernen :)
@@d.oroboros4905 ruclips.net/video/ti6Vwt04sWw/видео.html
When the game first came out you could just drive it into the enemy base if you were fast enough building it and instantly win the game. It used to be much more armored
If a German company came out with a new model of BBQ grill and called it the “Flammenwerfer” I would absolutely buy it.
Or a hotdog grill:
"Flammenweiner"!
GAS OR CHARCOAL?
*Psychoyandereeyes
What about an Admiral Karl Donuts franchise?
With an iron Cross on the side
I think this would be a rather lame joke in Germany. Kids make jokes like this when they stole their first lighter :D
As if the threat of being set ablaze isn't scary or demoralising enough, someone really went "let's add a siren to make it more scary"...
Worked for the Stuka
@@logoseven3365 that's true, but being barbecued alive seems just a far more excruciating death and should speak for itself. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not saying it's stupid or anything, I find it somewhat funny that someone thought that up.
@@rudolfnechvile oh man, I get it, I thought the exact same thing haha the only person capable of thinking something that diabolical up is a fuckin' nazi haha either one of them or Dr. Strangelove him self
"Put a machine gun on the front and the back... And add rifle slots!"
One of the main reasons firearms were used up until the 19th century was the noise, longbows would have been more precise, faster to shoot and cheaper.
This is a flammenwerfersonderkraftfahrzeuge.
It werfensonderkraftfahrzeuge flammen.
It wirft Flammenwerfersonderkraftfahrzeugsflammen mit seinem Flammenwerfersonderkraftfahrzeugsflammenwerfer und es wird bedient von seiner Flammenwerfersonderkraftfahrzeugsflammenwerfermannschaft!
Zu viel Spass. LAL!
No, it's a Flammengonnaburnustoacrisp
Kamerad, du hast gerade Fremdscham hochgeladen. Fortan wirst du Abonnenten verlieren.
its a Sonderkraftfahrzeug whichs werfs (wirft*) Flammen.
I cannot believe how no one understands the perfect sense and immense beauty of the German language... xD
When you listen to German half track flamethrower taktics you reached the end of available knowledge on the Internet.
Guys, I just want to thank you. In terms of using pictograms you are setting standards. I can easily stay focussed during the whole videos you make. I really like the graphic approach in your videos rather than having snippets of "documentary" footage being replayed again and again. Please keep up the great work. Thanks again.
Your Warhammer reference did not go unnoticed Mr. Kast.
The Emperor protects!
Oh god, this is the one vehicle I fear in Company of Heroes. I honestly think this thing was more dangerous than its American counterpart.
Indeed, especially in the early game when your only AT are AT rifle/hand grenades.
They are pretty OP I was able to lunch counter attacks with one of those and two infantry to find AT guns, but they are good only early game
Oh man what a glorious game.... I'm not into video games at all, though I did grow up playing Starcraft and AOE... I just happened upon COH soon after it first came out and what a fucking wonderful play through that was haha
They're a lot tougher in vanilla CoH than they would be realistically. I play the Spearhead mod and one good AT rifle shot or rifle grenade can take them out in that, they are very vulnerable as the video notes and usually die before accomplishing anything if you send them at enemy lines. They're so vulnerable to any sort of AT that I had really been wondering how they could have been anything but deathtraps historically, but using them as a platoon at night to counter infantry break-ins and illuminate the battlefield makes a lot of sense. Too bad there's no night fighting in CoH.
In CoH2 I actually fear the MGMC more, because that thing will instapin in a single burst from beyond visual range. However the flamer 251 is still ranked pretty high in terms of fear factor and effectiveness for me, it's devastatingly effective against infantry that don't have an AT weapon.
I was thinking that is was time to think about going to bed, but then I heard that it is TIME to talk about German Flame Half-Track Tactics. I'm so proud. MHV has merged clickbait and German precision into one phrase.
I had to replay the line, he says it so well
i heard they are very effective at maintaining social distancing.
1. Point it at the enemy
2. Press magic button
3. BBQ
Russians: SMILE IN PTRD and PTRS.
"The heavy flamer is enough." A true servant of the Emperor. It brings a tear to my eye.
I wondered if anyone else caught that lol
None who live can survive the flame.
This was just superb! I play the boardgame Advanced Squad Leader, and the SdKfz 251/16 is pretty well modeled in it. The point about restricted range when both flamethrowers are shooting is very interesting. The game rules may need errata:)
Played ASL through the 1980's, Switched to winSPWWII when it became available. Occasionally engage in PBEM using the computer version. I find it more enjoyable than ASL, and lots easier to find opponents, of which there seem to be none in the San Antonio, TX area for ASL. Damned few for any turn based game, everyone wants to play wizards & lizards, from which I abstain.
@@whiskeytangosierra6 VASL seems to be the best option these days. There is something about the feel with ASL that is hard to capture with computer games.
@@Zajuts149 I'll take a look, however, from what I have seen so far, the winSPWWII looks more blind free kriegspiel than VASL. The thing I really enjoy is the challenge of NOT knowing where the other guy is until contact.
The game is available as a free trial download, you should give it a try.
Squad Leader.
The only board game in existence who's instruction manual is the size of a text book.
@@patrickkenyon2326 Tactical combat is complex. That is why letting a computer handle a lot of the trivia is so useful. Hence spWW2.
The comment about avoiding "premature flaming" is interesting.
Lindybeige did a look at Churchill Crocodiles in British service. British experience showed that the Crocodile was most effective in provoking enemy soldiers to surrender, rather than actually killing them. They also found that if they flamed early, while they were still several hundred yards away from the enemy positions, the enemy soldiers were more likely to surrender than if they waited to flame until they were close.
It seems flaming early acted as a warning to enemy soldiers, "Surrender now or enjoy a firery death". Most preferred surrender to being burned alive.
I wonder why German experience wasn't similar.
Probably because the British encountered Germans who knew they would receive okay POW treatment and were of mid to low morale at that point of the war. So surrendering didn't seem that bad unless they were SS. On the other hand, the Soviets were of high moral at that time due to their large gains and knew if they were captured they were most likely to receive poor treatment.
@@Rally_Armaments That occurred to me. The German doctrine that was mentioned was almost certainly written based on experience against Soviet troops. By the time the Russians were actually encountering flame panzers, they would have known surrendering to the Germans was pretty nearly a death sentence.
Not so for Germans surrendering to the western allies.
Were I forced to bet on it, your answer is the reasoning I'd put my money behind.
That makes me curious as to the American experience with using flame tanks in Europe.
I've read plenty of accounts of using them in the Pacific, but I can't recall ever reading anything that discussed their use in Europe.
I imagine it would be similar to that of the British, but I've never read anything that would confirm it.
The late model churchill was a lot harder to knock out than the flammenwerfer 251, which i guess made a difference. The front of the late model churchill was largely immune to all German AT guns except for the 8,8cm Pak43. Even the Tiger with its short 8,8cm gun could not pen the front armor of the churchill. The only other weapon that might have an effect on the churchill's front armor was the panzerfaust or panzerschrek but these have shorter ranges than the churchill's flamethrower so it's nearly impossible to knock out a flamethrower churchill with these weapons if its well protected by infantry on its sides
11:55 I remember LindyBeige once saying how a solider soaked in gasoline is 1000% more willing to get out of the foxhole and surrender rather than staying there and dying in a fireball, the video is called "The most effective weapon of World War Two", he explains how British used such psihological tactics with their Churchill crocodiles (flamethrower churchill)
About not firing in thick natural fog: this is probably because smoke and particles from even relatively small fires rapidly add to natural fog in an area and this could make the line of sight even worse for all troops. (Thick natural fog is often due to stagnant layers of air keeping the mist near ground level and these same layers will also impede smoke and particles that would otherwise rise.)
i play the miniature game Flames of war i have a full strength Gepanzerte panzergrenadierkompanie that has a platoon of these vehicles! i love how this shows how i am suppost to use them by the book!
I love the history and find it super interesting, but surely I'm not the only one seeing what they can learn to be better at Steel Division?
Learning the actual history to be better at a game is...not going to help you I'm afraid. Game = game rules. History =/= game rules. It's that simple.
Best case scenario, you might get inspired.
@@The_Crimson_Fucker hey don't know it. Studying doctrine can actually help in games like Combat Mission, where you get units taken right out of each nation's Table of Organization. Knowing how each nation fought helps you learn how to utilize their equipment and what it was designed for. It does rely on the individual game, but at least for Combat Mission games it does help
@@The_Crimson_Fucker steel division is one of the more 'realistic' milsims out there so I wouldn't underplay it too much.
The best thing you can do is learn about Combined Arms combat and learn how to apply it in game. Tanks support the inf. Inf protects the Tanks, air support and artillery on breakthrough points and finally, speed.
@@jett_phil yes this is true, but again how each nation applies that doctrine is different and is reflected in their equipment. The Soviets vs. American doctrine. The Soviets rely far more on mass, while the Americans emphasize finesse meaning they each handle differently
Perhaps the flames cause flash blindness at night which blinds the enemy?
based on my own experience, fire looks a lot bigger during night because all of the smoke above it gets illuminated, remember turning on ur phone at night and getting blinded by your 100% screen brightness, basically the same effect 🔥
😂
Flame units always have a great psychological impact on the enemy and there are many examples of Churchill flame tanks ( crocodiles) just showing up and Germans surrendering. However this is a thinly armored vechile with an open top, pretty sure these crews burned to death on a regular basis.
Thinking that myself. Don't know how much the Allies used rifle grenades, but in direct or indirect fire would cause the crew to have a very bad day.
That's what I was thinking, A stray bullet or a shot from above, Let alone a flame cocktail or grenade and that entire half track will violently explode into a ball of flame.
It said they rarley lost units
@@Mkxvandal I mean yea, I can't imagine it would be easy to get close to a armoured vehicle with coverage of 2 flame throwers, a machine gun and a infantry unit.
BUUUUT. If a grenade did get in there, Alot of Flammen would be Werfed.
@Darker_Mage Now tell him what we do when we talk about something that is not real, but in the past tense...
50-60 meters holy shit. For some reason I envisioned something way shorter, like 10 meters.
50m is not much regarding man carried anti tank weapons...
@@edi9892 Not at all! Also the effective range of the UK's PIAT, which often hit obliquely and exploded harmlessly! However, IF the PIAT hit squarely, there was no German tank that could withstand it. The solution to ward it off, as well as the more numerous Soviet RPG weapons? "Schurtzen", relatively thin spaced armor plating at the tank's sides, or, where they found them, mattress frames!
@@selfdo AFAIK, the Panzerfaust had an effective range of 100m though being considerably closer helped significantly to hit critical areas. Anti tank rifles could kill earlier tanks from over 100m and anti tank guns are a completely different story... So, against a small bunker, tanks were relatively safe at the time, but could be knocked out.
@@selfdo obviously, the effective ranges increased during the war and are today even longer.
My original reply was born from seeing media where tanks are shot near point blank, which would in reality kill the infantry...
@@edi9892 This is why early in the war, the concept of the "Infantry Tank", to fend off shots from AT rifles and the 37-mm AT guns which were common at the time. Deficient on mobility, their slow speed didn't matter as the bunkers and fortifications that were their purported targets weren't going anywhere. That's a reason also why the Brits persisted with the type, culminating in the Churchill. While it'd not win a tank drag race, the Churchill well-suited Sir Bernard Law Montgomery's "set piece" battle plans which often involved head-on assaults against German fortifications.
You had me at "flame half-track"...
CoH 2 already taught me about this lol
Big target, lightly armoured, full of flammable liquid and needs to get really close to the enemy to attack? sounds like a plan.
Not to mention getting ahold of said flammable liquid after 1943 would be extremely difficult.
Flamethrower fuel was a low-priority
Not to mention it was an open-topped vehicle
After an enemy break-in, especially on the eastern front, it could probably also be expected that infantry and possible tanks are seperated by the fighting. So a flamethrower will be highly effective.
Any armoured vehicle would be pretty effective in that situation, but the damage and moral impacts of a flamethrower would be especially effective
Your videos are as always of such high quality 👍
But to be completely honest... Sometimes I watch your videos primarily to see the circles with the pictograms...
They really set your videos apart from others! 🙂 And add an extra visual aid for the brain to process the verbal information given.
I love how you at the 3 min mark, have one that means "dropped during production" 🤣
thank you!
And this is what makes your videos the best out there (for me). Vehicle specs, organization, doctrine...all in an easy to understand video. Fantastic!
Here is a German training film that shows the usage of flamethrower halftracks in combination with other troops (the English subtitles are a bit bad). This link points directly to an animation at the end that shows the movements to counter an enemy attack: ruclips.net/video/66yC70M9cPU/видео.html
I've watched that a few days ago, too. Can definitely recommend it if you want to see these Flammpanzerwagen in action.
Thanks a lot. Just built one in 1/35 scale. Amazing weapon.
History behind the scenes is more interesting than History Channel.
Hey MHV. Do you have any clue how they chose the crews?
Was is voluntary or did they just pick random people to serve in those units?
Driving around with a thinly armoured, huge vehicle full of fuel must have been nerve-wracking.
no idea, there was a rather large section on how to treat burn wounds, which also mentioned the lack of experience with the flame oil or that special variant... but outside of that, not very much. Since it was also a very small group of people, not sure if anything survived in terms of documents or memoirs.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized What document is the one that describes the flame oil if you don't mind me asking? I'm curious of its composition in comparison to allied mixes
@@supersarge24 it described the burns, etc. I think the manual for 251/16 see the description.
That's a really interesting question. I think the psychological analysis that goes into choosing this is really interesting. Example: in the UK, recruitment for Armed Police (ie: British SWAT) is different in Scotland vs. England. In England, Armed Police are selected from the ranks by higher ups and basically have no choice in being assigned; in Scotland, we rely on volunteers to the armed units, and so we have a shortage of Scottish Armed Police because no one volunteers for that duty. On one hand it feels good to know our cops are not Rambo, but on the other hand, I feel the screening of English shooters might be more thorough...
(I seem to remeber Flame Troopers being a prestige unit because of the high casualty rate in WW1... that might be a factor in volunteering)
Interesting point. However, combat on the "Ostfront" wasn't considered a formula for a LONG life...for EITHER side.
I would highly recommend to watch the (handheld) Flamethrower videos on Forgotten Weapons for more general context.
Noted with interest your mention of the Stuka during this presentation of the Panzer flame track and wondered if Germany had mastered jellied gasoline like napalm mixed with clothes washing detergent like we employed against Japan and Vietnam making "crispy critters". I also know Geman troops who captured a Sherman with the barrel of the cannon hooked to a high pressure nitrogen tank carried in the rear of the tank in a wagon subsequently put our crews up against the wall and executed them post haste. I think our volumes were about ten times as much as the track and the cylinders were 2 to 3,000psi. But pushing that much liquid down a 75mm barrel could be used even in wind.
The only flamethrower tanks we used in the war with a flamethrower in the turret were in the Pacific. We did have four Sherman Crocodile modifications with the armored fuel tank trailer in Europe late in the war. The others tried out had an infantry flamethrower replacing the hull MG. Range on those and fuel capacity wasn't good. German Panzerfausts and Panzerschrecks out ranged the flamethrower. The conversions were 'disliked' and their use discontinued. In fact when infantry flamethrowers were requested by 3rd Army attacking Metz the only ones found were in a depot 75 miles away.
From what I read the Germans never developed napalm. They did use a fuel mixture but never one that worked as well as the US/British developed napalm flame fuel. Probably the major reason for the short range of their flamethrowers.
There is a short passage in the book COMPANY COMMANDER by .. McDonald of his unit, in German West Wall bunkers previously captured, being attacked by Germans using 251/16 half-tracks.
3:35: "My eyes! The goggles do nothing!"
Real acid?
@@1CounterTerrorist The Simpsons. Rainier Wolfcastle:)
Hanz get the Flammpanzerwagen!
Hanz, ei wonna smok a zigarette, du yu hav a laiter?
...
Not funni Hanz...
German army: We're short on fuel.
Also them:
That's not the same carbohydrate stuff. Like Diesel isn't Petrol
I'm sorry what did you say at 0:11.............
Hi! Ever thought about a video on the impact of female fighters employed by the Soviets on the Eastern Front?
I heard some sources underline their importance in terms of manpower, while others downplay their role, so it would be nice to know more.
Sorry if I'm off-topic, I'm a newcomer.
Although the Soviet Army actually eschewed women in front-line units, believing that their presence to be a detriment, that doesn't mean the "Soviet Sisters" couldn't and didn't get their chances to be "Heroines of the Soviet Union". Many nurses were right there and served as medics. Many girls served as snipers, some trained by Vasily Zaitsev himself, and were deadly shots! And do look up the 588th Taman Bomber regiment, aka the "Night Witches". These women flew wood and canvas biplanes such as the PO-2, often on night harassment missions over German positions, which could involve cutting the plane's engine and GLIDING in over the target at less than 200 meters!
Sooooo.... how does one become flame leader again? Asking for a friend.
An understandable reason for the widespread deployment of anti-tank rifles, which the Red Army was fond of, right up until the end of the war.
Whether or not the German half-track had a "Flammenwerfer" mounted, the PTRD was a cheap but effective weapon to stop one, or at least slow it down! So was the British Boys anti-tank rifle.
3:36 Schütze can be translated as Gunner as is more correct in this context.
I was going to make a similar remark (lit: Schütze = shooter). Then he explained that those guys also were mostly equipped with rifles as personal weapons. Which makes them riflemen after all.
The issue is, that Schütze in the Heer was used a lot, e.g., the lowest rank in the Panzer Arm was "Panzerschütze", at first I thought that is the gunner, nope that is the Richtschütze. So you have "Schütze" all over the place, as such I prefer "rifleman". "Shooter" sounds ok in theory in practice less so.
Yeah, flame gunner would have worked in this case or might have been even better.
Shooter really falls flat with "Ladeschütze" and "Munitionsschütze", same with gunner.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Yeah, its basically our catch all term for infanterists of the lowest rank (below private).
For these 2 examples Id simply go with loader and ammo carrier.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized ; Ladeschütze is just Loader, Munitionschütze would be just Ammunition Bearer / Ammo Carrier. As there are equivalent roles in say the US Army I think those should be used especially since we are talking in English. There is no reason to always use a direct translation IMHO. Soldiers or Sailors manning guns are usually gunners especially for tanks and IFVs, hence my prior comment.
CoH 2 Ostheer vibes are strong in this one.
To ensure the maximum social distancing of the Enemy use the Flammenwerfer.
Personal favourite armored vehicle. Happy to see a deep dive into its history and use :)
I'm sorry. I misheard your accent and heard you suggest using the flamethrower against bankers....
you're right😂😂
This is why Jesus kicked them out of the temple; he had one of these waiting outside.
As short as the germans were on fuel I'm sure had to be short on flame oil was there a substitute?
I don't know, but I suspect 2 things, 1) in overall the amount was extremely small, 2) maybe it was by-product or something that was not really usable for other stuff anyway.
Man maybe we can get a vid on the commonwealth wasp carrier as an allied flamethrower counterpart
Also a force to be reckoned with in the WW2 RTS game with online matchmaking--Company of Heroes 2!
Did you do one of these on the Sdkfz 251 rocket firing halftracks? Stuka zu fuss? I'm curious how effective they were. They seemed to be in production through various models of the 251 (B, C, D).
Company of heroes players: "Vietnam Flashbacks"
God i hate these things in CoH2.
Outstanding video and presentation.
The siren would be awesome in video games.
MORE BANG FOR THERE BUCKS , BUT WHERE DID THEY GET THE FUEL MIX THINGS WERE TIGHT .
I like using them on Close Combat Panther to take building
It would seem exposing the sides of a half-track to even small arms at under 80 meters would be dangerous.
Up to 6mm of armor @0° could be penetrated by the Mosin 7.62x54mm heavy 'D' ball @ 200m.
3.5mm of armor @30° was obtainable by 7.62x54mm light 'L' ball @ 100m.
The Sniper Elite series makes a whole lot more sense now
Can u do a video about the sdkfz 251 uhu?
I think this is the mentioned Stuka siren video from MAH:
ruclips.net/video/cf5potr_KYQ/видео.html
Spraying unignited oil into dug in positions for further penetration makes sense, especially in an early regulation; but I immediately thought of the Forgotten Weapons flamethrower video series, in which IIRC Ian mentioned that even Japanese troops would often surrender if fuel was sprayed into their positions unignited...for obvious reasons. So I'm curious if that's related, either from experience in Spain or (though unlikely) even the Great War. Soldiers not having to go into positions hit by these weapons does seem like it would have saved time and morale.
I'm also curious what type of fuel the "flame oil" was. I want to assume napalm was preferred and gasoline used if it was unavailable, as with American flamethrowers, but I think I remember some countries did only use plain gasoline.
Dear Santa...
"The Medium Flammpanzerwaggen onowanienaiofenofnaonfoeanfoa" Is what I heard... and now I am scared of learning German
Flammfuhrer is the best rank ive ever heard of. What an introduction at parties. 'This is Olz he is a flammfuhrer...
Easily my favorite Sdkfz 251 variant. Really wish there was more footage of it and to be honest it should definitely see some more light in movies and other video games besides CoH and Steel Division
Man of war with some mods is also present
Flammfuhrer is going to be my next child's name.
*angry wife noises*
Idk if i wanna call these pioneers crazy or brave to be sitting in whats essentially an unarmored napalm tank
Ah, one of my favorite vehicles in CoH2, besides the Ostwind.
So I'm not the only one who still plays?😅
@@jackbower8671 Well, I've played one or two years ago. Currently I am playing hearts of Iron, pretty nice game to.
Like the wind!
Would like to have one of those and name it Smaug.
Man German as a wild language-love it 🤘🏽
Dude, that’s awesome how you can say the whole sonderkraftzwagonein…. Something something without messing it up. Props!
It is definitely far easier then "Welcome to the Military History Museum of the Bundeswehr in Dresden..." :D
I thought the Churchill tank was the only flamethrower vehicle in ww2 at it turns out this thing exists!
And there were flametrhower variants from Sherman, Universal Carrier, Panzer I, Panzer III, Hetzer, T-34, T-26, KV-1, CV-33 etc.
@@sygaos Yeah I just looked up some of those things.
It's crazy!
I guess my 251/d flammenweffer in 1/72 scale in panzergrau is inaccurate. Good thing I never wanted the flame tubes added.
Lets start with the velhice. *Speaks minecraft enhancement table*
The German language is always amusing to listen to.
@@recklesflam1ngo968 indeed
Iirc Guderian as chief of staff gave the order to transfer most automatic weapons to frontline infantry units. Might have something to do with the reduction of smgs. I dont remembrr were i red about It though.
Does the Flammführer carry Flammkuchen ?
For sure, if he was born in the Saarland or Elsass / Lothringen. Mmmh, so lecker!
What did you do in the War grandad... I was a Flammfuhrer son. Love it.
German flame half-track tactic: Don't set yourself on fire.
I'm sure that's not only German
can small arms and 50cal mg shoot a tank barrel enough to make it not safe to fire?
I saw the model kit for this and I taught it was special model
I have always wanted one of these halftracks. Imagine shutting down a road-rager pointing one of these at them….
I bet you got a real special treatment if you got caught out in one of those...
Or anything like it, no matter what side you were on...
That's quite a mouthful. What did German troops call the 251? Even the shorter "Alarm! Typhoons coming! Back to the mittlerer Flammpanzerwagen" is rather cumbersome.
Flammpanzerwagen with a siren...what a sick sense of humor
Firefighter unit :D
Wow! That Topic. Thank you!
the range of the fire cat might be in optimum conditions but maybe wind or other weather conditions might affect that so in real terms maybe the slightly lower is normal operation that can be counted on, and maybe the range degreases slightly as the fire cats oil is used, just my thoughts on this smoking gun.
So, this is going to be a version of my ongoing stupid questions about timing of these innovations.
So, I get it. Flamethrower on a halftrack. Very maneuverable. Lots of punch. But the timing in 43 seems a bit late to the party to be really effective for the German Army. I get the notion that both channels here and Military Aviation History talk about the need for fire brigades to stem Soviet Attacks late in the war. I guess my question is that why not in 42? There was this huge gap in innovation. If we say the Wehrmacht was very successful in 41, there was not a lot new in 42. All the new stuff didn't really arrive until 43 - Tigers (okay they were 2H42), Panthers, Self-Propelled Artillery, now Flame Halftracks. What caused the delay of anything really helpful for the Wehrmacht being available for Fall Blau?
Panzer IV F2, the first German tank with long barreled gun, entered service in 42.
It takes several years, I remember that I thought a lot of innovations / changes were due to the war going on, then I read the bullet points for changes in the upcoming years, I think those were written around 1936-38, all those points I thought were a reaction to the war, nope, all were already mentioned pre-war.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Do you think this could have anything to do with not wanting to put Germany on a war economy? The Panzer I was 1934. The Panzer II was 1936. The Panzer III was 1939. The Panzer IV was also 1939. The Panzer III and IV were up gunned, but the next Panzer was the Panzer VI in 2nd half of 1942. The Tiger was not successful when it was introduced in 1942 (see - tankmuseum.org/article/tiger-combat-debut/ ). I am guessing that the success in 1939 and 1940 meant that until the Wehrmacht saw Soviet tanks that they saw no problems. The British tanks were inferior. Was the intel on Soviet tanks that bad?
If u wanna here about how it feels to see them in the battle field read Blood red Snow
Interesting video about a gruesome weapon!
Do you also have one on the "Stuka zu Fuß"?
Interesting, thank you. A Sdkfz 251 just seems way too vulnerable a vehicle to use in such a role. Surely there was high risk of the entire vehicle bursting into a ball of flame if it was hit? Not very comforting for the crew. A heavily armoured tank, such as the Churchill, seems to make a lot more sense.
Depends on tactics and also resources. The British built a few hundred tanks (I think in total around 1500) that they never used for combat, meanwhile the Germans were using all kinds of captured tanks.
Wonderful, how much detail you provid. Since years! An absolutely "Must See" for every geek. Stay strong, keep it real ;)
Me: Huh, what is this video?
Video: German guy talking about a Flammpanzerwagen.
Me: (looking down) Where did this M1 Garand come from? And what is this paper that says draft notice?
I assume they didn’t want to use the flamethrowers in fog because they would burn the fog and thus expose their position by giving away the cover of the mist.
By that logic they would never use the flames because it would give away their position
Didn't even know bthe existence of this vehicle.
I thought flame throwers wr against the Geneva convention?
Nvrm this is not contemporary
Gibts das auch auf deutsch??
Used by 16.PzDiv 64.PzGrRgt in Baranow Bridgehead assault, Aug 11-13+, 1944. Source: unit history, Gliederung
80 m or even 60 m is pretty close to a bunker that is defended.
How could you get so close to a bunker without the risk of being hit in the half track that did not have much amor / protection.
looks like a suicidal command and not well thought compared to the allied flame thrower tank which were tanks, not half tracks with close to no amor. And supply in barrels would also mean that just a hit by a handgrenade or shrapnel could ignite such barrel that has to be stored in the open area and not inside the vehicle deep down protected inside.
And 6 of those in 1 unit looks also a bit over the top and also a high risk cause once the enemy had learned how to deal and succeed with these all others could be eleminated the same way as the first.
Of cause once they achiieved the first hit the bunker crew had close to no chance but if that reguires a short distance of 60 or 80 m there will have been a lot at stake if such halftrack started to attack. But 6 in just 1 spot is an awfull lot of flame and high risk cause 1 hit of any kind and the whole flame system could blow up.
As outlined in the Video they didn't exist in a vacuum. Spoken in modern terms they were a "win more" weapon system to mop up a supressed or inadequatly equipped enemy.
Hans ich habe den Flammenwerfer auf den Panzerwagen gelegt!
Would you make a review on Portuguese ww2 tanks?
story:
In 1941 Portugal fired to be invaded by Germany after the "supposed victory in Soviet Unon" (which didn't happened), by Germany, Portugal though they would be next along side whit Spain. (maybe)
Sow they built some tank prototypes and armored cars, they were very simple. Based on Vicker 7 ton. Whit rebited armour, probably worse than Italian tanks in paper.
But there isn't a lot of info on them.
Along side some tanketes for multi role and suport the Valentines bough from UK.
Would be cool if you could make a small video on it.
why is everybody so eager to claim Germany wanted to invade them?
@@claas.relotius Not Germany but Spain wanted.
Also, Portugal sold Natural resources to allies and Germany, maybe they wanted it all.
But the idea of Franco invading Portugal was simply because it would help them fight the British and having the Portuguese Islands near US to bomb them. If they went to war
US in 1943 settled in Terceira. Still there until today to secure the Atlantic
@@76456 Oh OK. I misunderstood
1944 refit:
+1 officer: to avoid a lack-of-comand-dilemma, to give training-opportunities for the subcommander
- 2 motorcycles: (sidewards communication per radio, not per depeche, no own recon, commander is HT-mounted, leading from front and not hovering around in his Beiwagen)
+ 1 Kettenrad: more Offroad-mobility
I know I saw somewhere the crewmen who operated the flame throwers wore special suits to protect them, as well as a mask and goggles. It looked silverish. Wish I could remember the source... Sorry.
Well, flamethrower operators that were part of infantry or pioneer units did wear a special overcoat that shed leaking fuel and insulated gloves. The gear did give some protection, BUT...a sharp-eyed sniper could more readily identify them as a "Flammenwerfer", even if they'd set their machine aside! Either way, such a man's life expectancy could be rather...SHORT.
The name of the SD.KFZ251/16 in German was a damn utter tongue twister.
Gutes Video
I see US GIs hitting that with a recoilless rifle real fast real quick
I would think that even ,50 caliber machine guns would present a danger to a half track loaded with 700 liters flame oil.