Immobilisation by flames (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

asgrrr -> Immobilisation by flames (1/21/2002 4:36:00 AM)

How would a flame weapon (molotoff, flamethrower) immobilise a vehicle without rendering it useless in other respects? One would imagine that the fire would not burn up the engine and then put itself quietly out. Flame weapons should destroy a vehicle that it manages to immobilise. Is it the plan to change this in CL?



Alexandra -> (1/21/2002 8:25:00 AM)

It could kill the driver. It could knock out something like the road wheels of a tank, or the drive train, or suspension. Immboilzie hits are more often, irl, wheel/track hits than engine hits after all. Alex



asgrrr -> (1/21/2002 9:46:00 AM)

Yezzzz.... possible, but not very convincing.
*There is usually more than one man in the crew who is at least supposed to be able to drive the tank.
*Most immobilising FLAME hits are to the engine.
*I find it hard to visualise how fire could damage the external running gear of a tank. Unless it was left to burn for a long time, in which case the tank would have to be immobile to begin with.



challenge -> (1/21/2002 10:42:00 AM)

If you need a visualization, other than just going with it as the effect of game mechanics simplified for play, it melts everything that isn't metal: hoses, wires, etc... Works for me.



swagman -> (1/21/2002 11:01:00 AM)

It strikes me that SPWAW relies on warhead size and pentration values for its damage calculations...the problem is that a flame weapon has no warhead and no penmetration...it just does a hell of a lot of damage...hence the SPWAW engine fails to model flame damage. I don't know much about flame damage in the real world, but it strikes there damage potential relies on them touching unprotected things that can be fire damaged...eg people. I think there are three types of flame weapons:
1. fuel bombs like molotovs, that spill liquid fuel that is then ignited...they rely on the fuel being contained in an area so it can burn for long enough to do damage (eg engine compartment), or for the vapours to be contained until a concentration is reached that will explode (leakage through the turret ring into the fighting compartment)...soft-skinned vehicles are vulnerable since the thin metal would quickly convey heat to ignitable components;
2. jelly fuel weapons that stick...damage risk to a vehicle would be minimal...possible some rubber damage to tyres...uhh, and the paintwork...the fuel wouldn't leak anywhere where it could damage the vehicle, and the heat is above the flames, so the vehicle would not cook...but soft-skinned vehicles would again be at high risk.
3. flame throwers, which really only enshroud the target in flame...the flame burst wouldn't last long enough to cook the vehicle or crew, not to ignite anything critical...and once it stopped the wheel and track movement would put out any burning tyres or tracks...but soft-skinned vehicles would again be at high risk.
Similarly, the following are likely to be the impacts, with a molotov has a low to hit value and a flame thrower a high too hit value and a jelly fuel somewhere in between as it would be most likely aerily delivered.
*troops (humans) receive high destructive value on a hit...
*soft vehicles would be vulnerable all three types of weapons, since in all three the thin skin conveys heat to combustible components
*open top armour such as half-tracks are at high risk and probably suffer almost 100% destruction rates on a top hit...a side hit would have close to 100% failure rate...even if a molotov hit the rubberised tracks, the fuel would be spun off if the vehicle was moving and damage would be minimal moving track would spin of...a flamethrower side hit would have the heat flow over the top of the compartment most likely...
*closed armour strikes me as only at risk from a molotov, where liquid fuel can leak into close compartments, including that for the engine...to knock out a tank you need to climb onto it and throw your molotov through the open hatch...or stick the nozzle of your flamethrower through a vision slit...pretty certain a kamakaze act and so unlikely in the real world. Conclusion:
* flame weapons success should be driven by a too hit factor, not a warhead size
* flame throwers should cause enormous suppression to hard armour (crews panic), and enormous damage to soft targets...on a successful hit
*molotovs should cause various damage on a successful hard armour hit depending on location, but destruction on successful soft target hit. Feel free to correct any of this is the real world proved differently. How do the game mechanics compare? Flame throwers are way to successful on closed hard armour, poorly modelled for open topped hard armour, and well modelled for soft targets. Molotovs are acceptably modelled for all targets. Suggested Solution
Flame throwers should only be HE, with at best a HE chance of damaging hard armour...but in SPWAW bunkers are armour and they are the intended target for flame throwers...then there needs to be a bunker class weapon which are either a soft target for a flame thrower or, alternatively, against which the flame thrower has hard target warhead and penetration. Unfortunately, use of a warhead 8 HE flamethrower would probably wipe out the crew due to adjacent hex damage. This would go far to get rid of the flame super weapon...something nice to see in CL.



panda124c -> (1/21/2002 8:33:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Challenge:
If you need a visualization, other than just going with it as the effect of game mechanics simplified for play, it melts everything that isn't metal: hoses, wires, etc... Works for me.
For the American's "damn burned the rubber right off the tracks" for everyone "damn it, that bloody flamer toasted the rubber right off the wheels".



RichardTheFirst -> (1/21/2002 8:45:00 PM)

For the internetians: #$%/% that ft burned the rubber off the wls



K G von Martinez -> (1/21/2002 9:10:00 PM)

Don't show it to Richard, he doesn't like abbreviations



asgrrr -> (1/21/2002 10:30:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by pbear:
For the American's "damn burned the rubber right off the tracks" for everyone "damn it, that bloody flamer toasted the rubber right off the wheels".
Actually, shermans (and other US tanks) had rubber tracks, so this saying is literal. I can visualise a sherman being immobilised by fire, as they often were.



RichardTheFirst -> (1/21/2002 11:04:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by kgvm:
Don't show it to Richard, he doesn't like abbreviations
Internetian is very different from any other language: Everybody can write it but only few can understand it.



V-man -> (1/22/2002 7:21:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Penetrator:
How would a flame weapon (molotoff, flamethrower) immobilise a vehicle without rendering it useless in other respects? One would imagine that the fire would not burn up the engine and then put itself quietly out. Flame weapons should destroy a vehicle that it manages to immobilise. Is it the plan to change this in CL?
Please try this experiment, but ensure you have adult supervision. Go out to a large automobile, such as a 1972 Cadillac. Have somebody get in, start up, and rev the engine to simulate high speed operation. Now, get a hand pump,fill with gasoline. To simulate a flamethrower, have a second companion light what you are pumping out (gasoline). Aim pump at the front grille of the car. The car, while operating, intakes air and mixes it with fuel. Imagine what happens when that air is replaced by combustion-temperature gasoline vapor followed by actual flame. The engine will blow out. That's how tanks are immobilised. They ingest the flaming fuel, it blows out the carberator. V-man



V-man -> (1/23/2002 8:16:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Penetrator:
How would a flame weapon (molotoff, flamethrower) immobilise a vehicle without rendering it useless in other respects? One would imagine that the fire would not burn up the engine and then put itself quietly out. Flame weapons should destroy a vehicle that it manages to immobilise. Is it the plan to change this in CL?
Yes, it *does* burn up the engine. The engine takes in air to work. This is is supposed to be in normal air temperature ranges. If it's super hot, such as the air/fumes/etc of flames, then the carbeurator will explode the moment this air is mixed with fuel. V-man



asgrrr -> (1/23/2002 8:34:00 AM)

Allright, I do see this point. But how likely is this to happen without setting the engine compartment on fire and eventually destroying the tank?



asgrrr -> (1/23/2002 8:37:00 AM)

Allright, I do see this point. But how likely is this to happen without setting the engine compartment on fire and eventually destroying the tank? Remember, the compartment is very hot, covered with oil and other flammable stuff. The carburettor of a tank engine would contain a sizable amount of fuel that either spills out burning in the liquid form, or explodes as a fume, producing a very high temperature.



asgrrr -> (1/23/2002 8:41:00 AM)

This happened in a tunnel on the franco-italian border last year. A cigarette was sucked into the carburettor of a moving truck. The tunnel was turned into an inferno, with scores of people killed.



valdor17 -> (1/23/2002 9:56:00 AM)

Several comments: US tracks have rubber track pads but the track itself is made of steel (well, except on a few oddball vehicles like the Ontos--but that's another story.) A small engine fire could very easily disable the engine but not be catastrophic--I've personnaly had a couple of these on Sheridans and one on an M60A3. Most tanks have fire extinguishers built into the engine compartment that helps to limit damage and the spread of the fire. Also, the engine compartment is usually pretty well seperated from the crew compartment. (Admittedly, on an older gas-burner like a Sherman this would be much more of a problem!) Even without an actual fire, things like the electrical harness could be damaged by a flame weapon and disable the engine. I am reasonably sure that on most US WWII era flame throwers there were two triggers--one to spray the fuel and one to ignite it. Quite often they would spray un-ignited fuel for several seconds before igniting it, giving it a chance to penetrate/soak the target.



V-man -> (1/23/2002 10:09:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Penetrator:
Allright, I do see this point. But how likely is this to happen without setting the engine compartment on fire and eventually destroying the tank? Remember, the compartment is very hot, covered with oil and other flammable stuff. The carburettor of a tank engine would contain a sizable amount of fuel that either spills out burning in the liquid form, or explodes as a fume, producing a very high temperature.
Well, that is sort of the point. There isn't enough fuel in the carb to do more than destroy it. As for the fuel lines and such, they have shut offs, in most heavy machinery.

Engine compartments on tanks are separate from the "fighting compartment", just to ensure that someting happening to the engine does't harmt he crew. V-man



asgrrr -> (1/23/2002 8:50:00 PM)

I am glad for all the input, but I am still not convinced. It seems to me that: 1. Most flame hits that affect the engine involve burning liquid pouring into the engine compartment, setting everything there on fire. WW2 tanks didn't have fire extinguishing systems that I know of. No bulkhead will protect from engine fire that is allowed to burn its course, and certainly will not convince a crew to stay inside a burning vehicle. 2. Even in the unlikely event there is ingress of fire into the carburettor and no other adverse effect, this has a very great chance to set the engine compartment on fire. In a hot, confined, oily space, any amount of burning fuel will do. I don't see how this event can account for the relatively common occurrence of flame immobilization in the game. I am sure it is just one of those imperfections that the team is trying to eradicate, one by one. Remember that when the area is swamped with grunts, perhaps even someone is running around with a flamethrower, a crew's first priority is not getting out the fire extinguishers.



Belisarius -> (1/23/2002 11:56:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Penetrator:
This happened in a tunnel on the franco-italian border last year. A cigarette was sucked into the carburettor of a moving truck. The tunnel was turned into an inferno, with scores of people killed.
Oh yes....I really doubt that truck engine had carburators? Point taken, tho. [ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: Belisarius ]



V-man -> (1/24/2002 1:26:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Penetrator:
I am glad for all the input, but I am still not convinced. It seems to me that: 1. Most flame hits that affect the engine involve burning liquid pouring into the engine compartment, setting everything there on fire. WW2 tanks didn't have fire extinguishing systems that I know of. No bulkhead will protect from engine fire that is allowed to burn its course, and certainly will not convince a crew to stay inside a burning vehicle.
Why *won't* the firewall contain the fire? What convinces you of this?
2. Even in the unlikely event there is ingress of fire into the carburettor and no other adverse effect, this has a very great chance to set the engine compartment on fire. In a hot, confined, oily space, any amount of burning fuel will do. I don't see how this event can account for the relatively common occurrence of flame immobilization in the game. I am sure it is just one of those imperfections that the team is trying to eradicate, one by one.
[/QUOTE] OK - internal combustion engines have wires, hoses, and other things made of or insulated by rubber. What happens when those get dosed with gasoline and set on fire? Will a radiator hose still work after it gets set on fire? Will the voltage regulator, ofter made of a plastic housing, still work after being burned?
Remember that when the area is swamped with grunts, perhaps even someone is running around with a flamethrower, a crew's first priority is not getting out the fire extinguishers.[/QUOTE] A remote fire extinguisher is an easy thing to arrange. You put a normal fire extinguisher in the engine compartment with a wire running to a pull handle elsewhere. That's how it's done *today*, using 1910 pull-wire technology. V-man



asgrrr -> (1/24/2002 2:52:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Velovich:

Why *won't* the firewall contain the fire? What convinces you of this?
V-man
An engine is never completely isolated from its environment, if it is to do any good at all. There are things leading from it, like the transmission, electric wires, fuel line etc. If you are familiar with the behaviour of fire, you know it explores all such avenues, especially a fire of this nature (confined, with oily/rubbery food). Besides, the high temperature warps the metal, creating cracks. The flames also leap outside, burn the paint, rubber wheels, and where are the fuel tanks? They are often close to the engine, and they cannot take much heat. Also, the heat can set off ammunition inside the fighting compartment, and in any case renders it uninhabitable for the duration of the fire.
quote:

Originally posted by Velovich:

Will a radiator hose still work after it gets set on fire? Will the voltage regulator, ofter made of a plastic housing, still work after being burned?
V-man
That is not the point. The point is whether the tank will be destroyed.
quote:

Originally posted by Velovich:

A remote fire extinguisher is an easy thing to arrange.
V-man
Maybe, but one that actually works? Anyway, that is not the point. The point is, DID WW2 tanks have it? Belisarius: This was the conclusion of the investigating commission. I am not 100% sure what type of vehicle it was, just that it had a carburettor. So, what do trucks have?



V-man -> (1/24/2002 5:17:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Penetrator:
Maybe, but one that actually works? Anyway, that is not the point. The point is, DID WW2 tanks have it?
I can't address the fire extinguisher issue but i *can* address the issue o the fire spreading. The engine compartment is no teh same as one for a car. It is armored. This is to protect the engine and to protect the crew. I know that a Sherman's engine firewall was proof vs small arms and small caliber AP. Was it peirced by controls? No. Those ran around it, via other routes, ISTR. And they went through a seal, desinged to limit teh damage fire would cause. Thing with a rubber seal in a hole in metal is that once the layer exposed to fire has bunrt, it's carbonised remains give some protection from the fire burning further. Also, these engines are not as filthy as an automobile's. They aren't allowed to get that dirty. Filler tubes for the fluids are not right on the crankcase, they are long tubes extending away from the engine. Spillage goes into the bilge of the vehicle, where it will either drain out (if permitted) or be easily sopped up. Funnels are easily available (as opposed to Joe Average that doesn't think that real men need a funnel to put oil in the car). V-man



valdor17 -> (1/24/2002 9:10:00 AM)

The Sherman had two 10lb fixed fire extinguishers that could be activited by pulling a handle near the driver's seat or a second handle on the back deck. It also carried two portable 4lb fire extinguishers.



csmz -> (1/24/2002 10:21:00 AM)

take main battle tanks as example, throwing a molotov onto the engine vents can quite possibly render the engine useless. this is also still a vulnerable hot spot on modern armor, which has just recently been adressed in a satisfactory manner with the swedish beefed up version of the leopard 2, named Stridsvagn (Strv) 122.
this, possibly the best in service main battle tank to this date, features a very sophisticated fire protection. here is a snipped of info: "The engine compartment is constantly cooled to reduce the IR signature, and heat sensors installed in the engine compartment would automatically cut off fan and air intake operation if the Strv 122 should come under attack by napalm. " i hope that helps a bit, and if not, its still interesting to know



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.890625