[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
From: "Helter" <helter-at-worldofnothing.com>
Subject: RE: Would this be alllowed in battle?
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 19:54:21 -0400
Reply-To: tanks-at-rctankcombat.com

Steve, I think you underestimate the usefullness of a flamethrower.
Remember that the molotov cocktail was originally designed as a simple
anti-tank weapon.
Covering a tank in burnin napalm would go a long way towards removing the
oxygen supply for both the crew and the engines.  Not to mention heating up
the crew compartment to unbearable and possibly fatal temperatures.  I'd
imagine that it would also add to the speed at which the weapons overheat. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tanks-admin-at-rctankcombat.com 
> [mailto:tanks-admin-at-rctankcombat.com] On Behalf Of Steve Tyng
> Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 11:32 AM
> To: tanks-at-rctankcombat.com
> Subject: RE: Would this be alllowed in battle?
> Morgan wrote:
> > How about insteadof using a flane thrower with fire you use 
> a can of 
> > spraypaint or something simmilar (like an airbrush hooked 
> up to a CO2 
> > tank) for a flame thrower instead?
> Introducing a whole new weapons class to the game will take 
> some discussion.  A flame thrower was mainly an 
> anti-personnel weapon and I think would have little impact on 
> a tank.  The British had their Crocodile flamethrower tank 
> (conversion of a Churchill tank) at the Normandy landings to 
> burn out bunkers.  It towed a trailer for the combustant.  I 
> would imagine, If one were to build a version for our game, a 
> single hit to the trailer would kill the vehicle.  Or at 
> least double damage and deny the use of the flamethrower.
> It would look cool going up to a bunch of infantry and 
> spraying/flaming them down.  Now, if we only had some infantry...
> Steve