a tank with a flamethrower instead of a lmg.
3 Likes
Probably will see some when we get USA vs Empire of Japan.
Germany and Britan also had them.
Not sure how you balance those in this game though.
well the range would be way less so to get up close someone could kobe a tnt
Not sure I would take them over a Tank that could actually use a Cannon (i.e. Hetzer with the Flame thrower). At least the Crocodile still had a Main gun (and one big ass Trailer full of Fuel).
1 Like
i thought they still had cannon use? isnt it kinda made the way a lmg in a tank would be?
I can’t imagine the devs successfully modeling a trailer.
It really depended on the tank design. The Ronson (which was a Sherman Variation I think) was Flamethrower without a Main gun) but the M5 had its 37mm still (IIRC, I could be wrong)
The Hetzer for sure did not so.
Depends on the tanks. Some tanks had no primary gun and/ or machine gun and for example the Crocodile had a tank trailer which could be a easy target.
huh the more you know lol. that crocodile sounds fun ( at rifle to the gas tank). even if its underpowered in comparison to normal tanks would still be wild to have any flame tank.
flammpanzers on normandy, yes
1 Like
I dont say its UP. Despite the trailer, the Churchill Crocodile was considered to be one of the best flame tanks on Allied side and mabye even of the whole war (at least I cant image sth. better than a Churchill with a flamethrower).
feel like that trailer would make it a easy target though mixed with the range it’d be hard to play but really fun when it pays off
it would need a long range (for a flamethrower)
i can see it in pacific campaign.
if i am not mistaken, flamethrower was installed instead of main gun?
mostly