|
Post by tenchuu on Oct 22, 2016 2:36:46 GMT
The AQMF rules give the flame gun the same effective range as a rifle (15inches). A pump system that can launch the flames that far should certainly be able to reach up 50 feet or so from a bit above ground level. Probably reaches even higher to permit an arc that would carry out to rifle ranges. Fifty feet in a slowly dropping arc. Firing upward would drop the range significantly. And then you're running into "peeing into the wind" problems.
|
|
|
Post by boxholder on Oct 22, 2016 14:03:14 GMT
The "peeing into the wind" analogy gets to the heart of the flamethrower weapon. Depending on the exact properties of the fuel and the pressure that can be generated by the pumping system, ranges up to 140-150 yards were attained from vehicle mounted flamethrowers in WW-2. This means that giving a flame gun the range of a rifle is a bit of a stretch. But, this is a game world, so OK. Now let’s take a look at a British Churchill flame tank: The peeing into the wind analogy gets to the heart of the flamethrower weapon. Depending on the exact properties of the fuel and the pressure that can be generated by the pumping system, ranges up to 140-150 yards were attained from vehicle mounted flamethrowers. This means that giving a flame gun the range of a rifle is a bit of a stretch. But, this is a game world so OK. Now let’s take a look at a British Churchill flame tank: If we scale the height of the tank, it is about 10 feet above the water level. Clearly, the flame is peaking something around twice that or about 20 feet. It is clear that the flame is traveling quite a distance, staying together for much more than 50 feet. If the firing angle is raised, more of the “go yonder” is converted to “go up there.” So even firing from essentially ground level, the vitals of an assault or scout tripod are vulnerable without need for a tower. If the tower is desired for aesthetic purposes, OK. But, it is not an absolute necessity for those who don’t want it. If we scale the height of the tank, it is about 10 feet above the water level. Clearly, the flame is peaking something around twice that or about 20 feet. It is clear that the flame is traveling quite a distance, staying together for much more than 50 feet. If the firing angle is raised, more of the “go yonder” is converted to “go up there.” So even firing from essentially ground level, the vitals of an assault or scout tripod are vulnerable without need for a tower. If the tower is desired for aesthetic purposes, OK. But, it is not an absolute necessity for those who don’t want it.
|
|
|
Post by tenchuu on Oct 22, 2016 15:10:37 GMT
Maybe decrease the range but up the power of the non-tower, to account for the lack head pressure the tower requires.
|
|
|
Post by morbius on Oct 22, 2016 21:52:18 GMT
I think the tower would be useful for defending fortifications. The external tanks mean the vehicle is wider, and can't go more places than a regular Mark IV, so I think the tower version is going to be best used in static positions, where it moves only occasionally. The lower version has a lower centre of gravity, no real disadvantage in range (it can still spray a tall tripod with ease) and presents a lower silhouette and smaller target overall. It would be lighter and better able to move, despite the width than the tower version and would be better used on open terrain with few obstacles. I am not keen on the externally mounted tanks, as they make the tank wider, place more weight over the treads and likely makes the already prone-to-breaking-down vehicle less reliable, it also makes the vehicle a deathtrap (the original Shermans were nicknamed "Ronsons" for a reason). At the same token, if it is the trailer that makes producing the model impossible, then so be it. I'll still be purchasing one of these when the budget allows Craig
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Oct 23, 2016 8:37:52 GMT
Ah well see my various conversions of 'fuel tenders' to flamethrower tanks. I did both the AD and Conqueror versions with minimal effort (adding rules and a chopped up 3" gun for the flamer). Rules are in the various TO&E stat lines for the vehicles. I agree that the 'tower' would probably be a fixed position affair with the mobility for shifting positions before a battle. BTW that is a Vietnam era riverine boat pictured.
|
|
|
Post by boxholder on Oct 23, 2016 12:29:55 GMT
OK--thanks. The picture caption said it was a Churchill in a landing craft. But I don't remember reading about them in the Pacific. Take internet stuff with caution.
|
|
|
Post by gdieckhaus on Nov 7, 2016 17:49:24 GMT
I hate the tower... it just looks goofy.
|
|
|
Post by LS650 on Nov 7, 2016 18:06:14 GMT
IIRC according to the AQMF Facebook page, the consensus seems to be that the 'neck' will be included but optional with this miniature: if you don't like the neck, you can assemble the mini without it. Maybe folks will get inventive and use small magnets or some other means to make it optional.
|
|
|
Post by wisercj on Nov 13, 2016 14:59:46 GMT
OK--thanks. The picture caption said it was a Churchill in a landing craft. But I don't remember reading about them in the Pacific. Take internet stuff with caution. The photo in question is a Vietnam era Riverine Monitor or Zippo boat based on an ATC hull. "Initially, an ATC was used to test an Army M132A1 flamethrower armored personnel carrier (APC) to burn out enemy bunkers along the shoreline. This conversion was called the “Zippo” boat. Another ATC (T-111-7) was converted to permanently mount two M10-8 flamethrower turrets and the associated fuel and compressed air to run them. One Monitor, M-92-2 mounted two flame guns aft of the 40mm turret in where the mortar pit was located. Later, several Monitors were converted to Zippo boats by mounting the M10-8 flamethrower turrets on the bow and the napalm and compressed air cylinders in the space formerly occupied by the mortar pit. Still later, several Program 5 Monitors were converted to Zippo boats." www.warboats.org/stonerbwn/the%20brown%20water%20navy%20in%20vietnam_part%203.htm
|
|
|
Post by wisercj on Nov 13, 2016 15:33:33 GMT
Perhaps I am in the minority but I am in favor of the tower for the following reasons:
1. It looks cool and unusual, which is one of the reasons I like this game. I have plenty of 15mm WW II and Modern tanks which I could easily use as surrogates so I am looking for something different.
2. Avoid technology creep. The Humans in this game are essentially WW1 steampunk. The technology is based on the early 1900s and when stretched it is in alternative directions based on ideas at the time.
As for technology, here are some more successful flamethrowers for their time: 1935: Flammenwerfer 35 (80 lbs man portable) 25 meter range (effective pistol range), 3 gallons for up to 10 seconds 1943: Churchill Crocodile (Tank towing trailer) 120 yard range (well within effective rifle range), 400 gallon tank for up to 80 seconds 1964: M132A1 Zippo (M10-8 flamethrower turret mounted on an M113) 200 meter range (within effective rifle range), 200 gallon fuel capacity for up to 32 seconds To get the range and the height you need pressure and elevation (the zippo could elevate +55 degrees) and that does not include the fact that the tripods are up in the sky. A crude tower helps this greatly and although it looks strange, it would makes perfect sense to someone at the time.
That said I hold no grudge against anyone who does not want or use the tower version. Without the tower, it still looks cool, but frankly not that unusual and I will be the first to admit that it will be more challenging to transport, but no more so than the tripods.
My compromise recommendation is that the tower is made available as an add on for separate purchase.
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Dec 3, 2016 0:55:49 GMT
Well I like the shorter version and without the trailer. As an aside, I'd already converted the Fuel Tender into a flamethrower tank so this might be a 'British' tank type. I'd go with MGs over guns in the front there btw. Perhaps also a rule that its might run out of fuel, kinda like a natural '1' and no further shot for the game unless resupplied by a fuel carrier? BTW another idea for a flivver - a fuel flivver. Base it around a WW1 style truck with a airport fuel truck. With the addition on your flame tanks, the airplanes with airfields, and other vehicles using fuel vs coal, this could be the newest in 'flivverwear'.
|
|
|
Post by loyalist on Dec 3, 2016 14:45:20 GMT
I received 2 Woodland Scenics 1914 Diamond T tank truck kits in the mail yesterday - there's your fuel flivver Morgan.
I bought them to use the fuel tanks for trailers. The first fuel trailer was finished last night: I filed the small gun mounts off a spare Ironclad Miniatures Faraday Electric Gun carriage and glued on the Diamond T's fuel tank, which required only a couple of minor modifications. The fuel trailer looks great behind MK II, Mk IV and S2G British tanks, and I'm left with 2 more trucks on which to scratch-build van bodies. (They have the same wheelbase as flivvers so with styrene frame extensions could have the same size body or flatbed.)
I planned to have the supply tanks hauling the trailers attached to my gasoline powered S2G tank units, but they'll also do as water tankers for slow steam tanks like the Mk IV and the Mk V when that's released.
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Dec 3, 2016 22:28:18 GMT
I was looking at those trucks! Ty for the conversion info. I've got those needle caps from my diabetes supply to use for the nozzles.
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Dec 3, 2016 22:39:03 GMT
wisercj - ty for all the info on IRL flamer platforms and the VN era boats as well. The Zippo boat would be rather limited for any action in AQMF as its primary target would only be for Lobos I'd think. Besides its tech past my artificial cutoff date on 1925. I could see some attempt at a flamer riverine boat though - after all drones can be effected by that flame burst, as witnessed by the land units having same. I see a host of different Paper Terrain boats that scott could market, with crossover WW2 and VN era applications. As long as an enclosed wheelhouse and turrets are used, you could pretty well call them any period/AQ version needed.
|
|
|
Post by loyalist on Dec 4, 2016 2:29:59 GMT
I was looking at those trucks! Ty for the conversion info. I've got those needle caps from my diabetes supply to use for the nozzles. Nozzles for a scratch-built flame thrower?
|
|