Modern flamethrower tanks

[Sidewinder]

By flamethrower tanks, I mean armored fighting vehicles armed with flamethrowers. I know there are flamethrower-armed variants of tanks that saw service after WWII, like the American M4 Sherman and M48 Patton, and the Russian T-34, T-54, T-55, and T-62. However, the American designs had the flamethrower REPLACING the main gun; considering the effectiveness of modern tanks' targeting systems, it's downright suicide to drive such a vehicle into battle.

The basic question is thus, can a tank in late 20th century or early 21st century NATO service replace its COAXIAL MACHINE GUN with a flamethrower, as is the case in the T-54 and T-62 variants? (The models I have in mind are the American M1 Abrams, the German Leopard 1 and 2, the British Challenger, and the Israeli Merkava.) Are they limited to small flamethrowers, i.e., those light enough for an infantryman to carry on his back? Or can they mount large flamethrowers with superior range?

Also, tanks fired their coaxial machine guns at each other to drive off enemy infantrymen who swarmed over the tanks, as demonstrated in one chapter of Mr. Slade's 'Armageddon??' Can flamethrower tanks use this same tactic? Or will this end up transforming a friendly tank into an oven, with predictably bad consequences for the crewmen? Will this overheat and kill a tank's engine, causing a mobility kill?

[Sidewinder]

I forgot to add the Magach and Sabra to the list. Yes, there's already a flamethrower-armed variant of the Patton tank, but the flamethrower replaces the main gun in the M67's case. I do NOT want to drive such a tank into battle when an enemy tank will likely use its main gun to shoot at the flamethrower tank, which has no antitank weapons that can match the main gun's range.

[PeZook]

Why do that, rather than simply using various incendiary and thermobaric munitions for the main gun, or installing an automatic grenade launcher, giving more range, firepower and versatility?

Using a flamethrower for "Backscratching" is really kind of a poor choice: first, it would destroy a lot of the external equipment, second, you can use a machinegun to do that at hundreds of meters rather than dozens.

[Sidewinder]

Why do that, rather than simply using various incendiary and thermobaric munitions for the main gun, or installing an automatic grenade launcher, giving more range, firepower and versatility?

I apologize for using Wikipedia, but the relevant article addresses the main reasons.

It is primarily used against battlefield fortifications, bunkers, and other protected emplacements. A flamethrower projects a stream of flammable liquid, rather than flame, which allows bouncing the stream off walls and ceilings to project the fire into blind and unseen spaces, such as inside bunkers or pillboxes.
<snip>
Flamethrowers also are used by people needing controlled burns, as in agriculture and other land management tasks. In ripe canebrakes of sugar cane, they are used to burn up the dry dead leaves which clog harvesters, and incidentally also kill any lurking venomous snakes. Flamethrowers are also sometimes used for igniting controlled burns of grassland or forest, although more commonly a driptorch or a flare (fusee) is used.

This suggests flamethrowers are useful in Vietnam and Afghanistan. I've considered using flamethrower tanks in alt history stories set in the Vietnam War and the Soviet War in Afghanistan, and wish to avoid making some of S. M. Stirling's mistakes.

Using a flamethrower for "Backscratching" is really kind of a poor choice: first, it would destroy a lot of the external equipment, second, you can use a machinegun to do that at hundreds of meters rather than dozens.

Vehicle-mounted flamethrowers DO have ranges of over 100 meters.

Four hundred gallons of fuel and nitrogen propellant, enough for eighty[1][2][3] one-second bursts, were stored in a 6½ ton detachable armoured trailer towed by the Crocodile. The thrower had a range of up to 120 yards[4] (some sources quote 150 yards[5][6]).

TO-55 (OT-55, Ob'yekt 482[13]) - This flame-thrower version of the T-55 tank incorporates the ATO-200 flame projector. The flame thrower is ignited by pyrotechnic charges, and 12 charges are the basic load. The stowage tank, which replaces the hull ammunition rack besides the driver, contains 460-litres of flammable liquid, and each burst averages 36 liters. The maximum effective range of the system is 200 meters, with the stream having an initial muzzle velocity of about 100 mps.[17][21][13]

TO-62 - T-62 converted into a flamethrower tank. The flamethrower has an effective range of 100 meters and is mounted coaxially with the 115 mm gun.[8]

[Shroom Man 777]

Explosions can do as much good as fire. In the case of thermobaric weaponry, fuel air explosives and such, these explosions are actually fire-explosions and can do what flamethrowers do. Flamethrowers are rather complicated and volatile, whatever advantages they offer in killing people is just minimal compared to the inconvenience in fielding them. Grenades and such offer similar advantages but are much easier to use and much more versatile, so they are overall more effective.

Putting a flamethrower in a co-axial position... as in putting it in the position of that machinegun RIGHT BESIDE the main gun? I'd think that putting a tank of volatile and flammable liquids right next to a big honking gun that has massive recoil upon firing would be a very baaad thing.

Storing more than necessary flammable stuff inside tanks is a major no-no too. Damage control and dealing with secondary explosions and other problems is already hard enough WITHOUT having tanks and cannisters of burning promethium.

Also, tanks fired their coaxial machine guns at each other to drive off enemy infantrymen who swarmed over the tanks, as demonstrated in one chapter of Mr. Slade's 'Armageddon??' Can flamethrower tanks use this same tactic? Or will this end up transforming a friendly tank into an oven, with predictably bad consequences for the crewmen? Will this overheat and kill a tank's engine, causing a mobility kill?

Both can happen. I mean, if the fire lasts quite long, you can marinate your crew. Then there's secondary explosions... and making the burning tank a HUEG mark for infrared sensors.

[Palantas]

I know nothing about flamethrowers. I've never seen or heard of anything using flamethrowers in the US Army. I did a quick search, and found "FM 3-11.11 Flame, Riot Control Agent, and Herbicide Operations." It's got a couple pages describing the use of flame weapons in the attack and defense. The FM only describes two specific weapon systems:

• M201A1 FLASH rocket launcher: It shoots "thickened pyrophoric agent" (similar to white phosphorus), with a 20 meter bursts radius, accurate to 750 meters area/200 meters point target. Basically, it's the Pyro's flare gun from Team Fortress. Here's a Wiki article on it. (The FLASH, not the Pyro's flaregun.)
• AN-M14 TH3 incendiary grenade: Burns at 4,000 degrees and can melt through .5-inch steel plate. I've actually had experience with these, and was a little underwhelmed.

I'm not sure the US Army currently fields any flamethrowers. I've never heard of any, and they're not described in the FM for "flame operations." So if your question was "Can we mount one of these on a tank with current equipment?" then no, probably not.

If you're interested in what the FM has to say, and can't find a public copy, message me.

[Sea Skimmer]

The basic question is thus, can a tank in late 20th century or early 21st century NATO service replace its COAXIAL MACHINE GUN with a flamethrower, as is the case in the T-54 and T-62 variants? (The models I have in mind are the American M1 Abrams, the German Leopard 1 and 2, the British Challenger, and the Israeli Merkava.) Are they limited to small flamethrowers, i.e., those light enough for an infantryman to carry on his back? Or can they mount large flamethrowers with superior range?

The OT-54 with coaxial flamethrower works by replacing a hull fuel tank with about 400 liters flamethrower fuel and pressurizing gas, you could do this on any tank design. However the safety of piping fuel into the crew compartment is… not good and the tanks driving range is greatly reduced. I’m not sure a flamethrower version of the T-55 or T-62 were ever actually mass produced. The range on the OT-54 thrower was about 80 yards.

Also, tanks fired their coaxial machine guns at each other to drive off enemy infantrymen who swarmed over the tanks, as demonstrated in one chapter of Mr. Slade's 'Armageddon??' Can flamethrower tanks use this same tactic? Or will this end up transforming a friendly tank into an oven, with predictably bad consequences for the crewmen? Will this overheat and kill a tank's engine, causing a mobility kill?

The engine needs oxygen, the crew needs oxygen. Fire burns up oxygen, so yeah, your going to fuck up the tank, and suffocate the crew if you spray too much, and since tanks tend to carry lots of flammable crew equipment external its going to be even worse then just a quick burst of fire.

If you want a dedicated weapon for that kind of situation, then I suggest improved ammo, not whole new weapons. Machine gun bullets which have multiple stacked projectiles in each round have been around since WW2, and were used in combat in Vietnam. This gives a much wider cone of fire, at a price of range and accuracy, ideal for repelling ambushes or spraying down large masses of personal at close range. Some kind of thermobaric shell, or just a dedicated bunker busting round (which US tanks already have) could also handle most of the situations you’d want a flamethrower for with regards to attacking fortifications. We used to have WP tank shells too, and those could handle the job of just starting fires. No special modifications or dedicated flamethrower tanks necessary.

[Oskuro]

I would see a flamethrower as useful for intimidation purposes.

On the practicality side, appart from the hazzards posed by the fuel distribution, wouldn't operation actually interfere with instruments? Not to mention it would make seeing what you're shooting at difficult.

[Darwin]

I'm not sure the US Army currently fields any flamethrowers. I've never heard of any, and they're not described in the FM for "flame operations." So if your question was "Can we mount one of these on a tank with current equipment?" then no, probably not.

they don't. Flamethrowers are too short ranged, tempermental and dangerous to the user when the same effect can be delivered quickly and at range by a rocket.

[PeZook]

This suggests flamethrowers are useful in Vietnam and Afghanistan. I've considered using flamethrower tanks in alt history stories set in the Vietnam War and the Soviet War in Afghanistan, and wish to avoid making some of S. M. Stirling's mistakes.

How are they more useful than incendiary munitions, which not only serve all the uses of a flamethrower, but can be issued to every tank already equipped with a standard main gun?

In a couple of hours, you can convert your entire tank force into the equivalent of flamethrower tanks by simply giving them incendiary (or even thermobaric!) rounds, and only slightly compromise their ability to fight other tanks.

Vehicle-mounted flamethrowers DO have ranges of over 100 meters.<snip>

This is the maximum range of a flamethrower, though, and you're sacrificing other uses a coaxial machinegun has, plus endangering the crew by placing fuel tanks near them. And, since flamethrower backscratching will more likely than not kill the other tank's crew (not to mention damage the scopes and other external equipment), well...the point is moot

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

These days when there are even thermobaric RPGs out there, I wonder if there's a need for a flame throwers and what not, which have very short range.

[Shroom Man 777]

Doesn't the Abrams have a kind of specialized urban-combat anti-infantry shell? Basically full of buckshots, the 120mm equivalent of a shotgun shell?

[Darwin]

Doesn't the Abrams have a kind of specialized urban-combat anti-infantry shell? Basically full of buckshots, the 120mm equivalent of a shotgun shell?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cgn1nhUEgo8

[Shroom Man 777]

Now that's what I'm talking about.

Except... the middle scene, with the camera view of the pellets and the visible wave blur, kinda looks... fake. I don't know, but that seems like an impossible shot. How on Earth would you capture something like that?

[Sea Skimmer]

Now that's what I'm talking about.

Except... the middle scene, with the camera view of the pellets and the visible wave blur, kinda looks... fake. I don't know, but that seems like an impossible shot. How on Earth would you capture something like that?

Visible wave blur, you mean the compression shockwave coming off the passing projectile? You can practically see that effect from certain kinds of shells and missiles with the under some circumstances, using a modern digital camera that can record anything from 50,000 to as much as 400,000 frames per second its not a big deal to capture. They probably aren’t didn’t release anything close to the number of frames actually recorded on this footage just to keep the file size down. Run your finger in a straight line across some clam water and you’ll see the exact same kind of shockwave spread out.

[K. A. Pital]

I’m not sure a flamethrower version of the T-55 or T-62 were ever actually mass produced.

Don't know how mass was the production, but they were produced. Object 483 experimental tank had the gun totally replaced for a flamethrower (idea dropped after trials), while the serial OT-55 (TO-55) and OT-62 (TO-62) had a flamethrower installed alongside the gun.

All mass-produced flamethrower tanks were assembled in Omsk

All in all - useless idea, better go for MRLS with thermobaric munitions, a-la TOS-1. Effective, deadly, good range as opposed to having to move the tank in for the kill.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I’m not sure a flamethrower version of the T-55 or T-62 were ever actually mass produced.

Don't know how mass was the production, but they were produced. Object 483 experimental tank had the gun totally replaced for a flamethrower (idea dropped after trials), while the serial OT-55 (TO-55) and OT-62 (TO-62) had a flamethrower installed alongside the gun.

Do you know what was the rationale behind those models? NATO wasn't much into fixed fortifications during the Cold War and flame throwers are weapons developed primarily against fixed fortifications. Against standard field fortifications they are not much better than high explosive shells in effect while having a very marginal range.

[Sea Skimmer]

Fixed fortifications, urban areas and tunnels; two of which Western Europe had in abundance, though actually parts of the Maginot line and West Wall remained useable long after WW2 (and even today!) and were incorporated into NATO planning. Now Soviet doctrine called for bypassing urban centers (which have lots of subways, big sewers ect) whenever possible but they couldn’t all be avoided. Remember the Soviets had a colossal force structure, they could afford to keep around niche weapons and highly specialist units like flamethrower tank battalions much more readily then other armies. In addition to the flamethrower tanks they also had plain flamethrower battalions, equipped with manpack flamethrowers and hand pulled wheeled flamethrowers, as well as apparently a handful of battalions armed entirely with RPO rocket flamethrowers, some 200 apeice.

However by the 1980s the scale of issue was fairly limited. Some armies had a single flame battalion of one of the three sorts, while each group of forces or front (roughly army groups, with as many as 20 divisions) normally had a flamethrower tank battalion. Other battalions fell under central reserves controlled by Moscow. They would have been more likely to be employed against Afghanistan or the Chinese then NATO. Back in the 1950s when the flamethrower tanks were developed they had allot more utility, since this was before precision guided aircraft weapons or even effective anti tank weapons or truly high powered tank guns could be used to deal with bunkers and tunnel entrances. After all the US kept its own flamethrowers around until like 1976.

On a related note, in WW2 the US Army only ever had a single flamethrower tank battalion, the 713th from the 11th armored division, which first fought on Okinawa. It was credited with killing at least 5,000 Japanese, but suffered over 100% losses in vehicles. The USMC meanwhile also had only one flamethrower tank battalion, and was the first such US battalion to go into action fighting on Iwo Jima. Prior to this a handful of improvised M3 Stuart light tank flamethrowers were used on Saipan, along with a few improvised LVT-4 amtracks, but neither was effective owing to limited range of the flame system and a lack of sufficient armor.

So basically everything you ever hear about American flamethrower tanks burning up caves ect.. in WW2 came from just those two battalions in the Pacific in 1945. A lot of men could have been saved if he’d gotten a Sherman flamethrower sooner. But then, a lot of things could have been done to save American lives in the Pacific anyway.