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]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-62

Thank you for that important piece of information ... but what do you want?

_________________

http://www.wargame.com.pl/ - Polska strona o WARGAME!!!
Air Force and AA defense of NSWP NEED URGENT FIX!!!

They are scaled up so they have a purpose, no one can throw a grenade 450m or hit anything with a LAW at 725m either. If they only shot 500-750 they would be useless at clearing those random infantry in the little farmhouses on a lot of maps because the LAWs would outrange them.

_________________

_________________
Support better and more accurate aircraft loadouts.

If you have trouble viewing videos on YouTube because they are blocked in your country, try using this proxy service.

Some people just don't seem to understand that this is a GAME.

Extra Krispy!!

This has been done to death on other threads, but just to counter that point. M203 UGL grenades could get hits at 300-400m so not far off game range, though more effective at 100-200m range obviously. Likewise LAW/RPG can technically fire out to 700+m but again realistically hits at around 200-300m is best.
However with flame tanks its not a question of accuracy at range, they just shouldnt be able to pump napalm over 1k by any stretch of the imagination. Still the biggest (in fact pretty much the only) thing that bugs me about this game.
LAWS should out-range them. I don't buy into the argument that physics should be bent just in order to make flame tanks useful. At least give them equal range to LAW, they will still be able to fire through woods and buildings ignoring line of sight anyway...

i wonder if the idiots would still have a problem if the ranges were just shown as numbers, 1 for low and 10 for high for instance. whether the range of flamers matches their RL counterparts is completely irrelevant, especially when taking into consideration the numbers used are utterly made up for every single unit, and don't even match up right (distance by road versus distance by gun for instance).



unlucky.

Ah, all those pesky idiots whose ideas don't fall into line with yours eh? At least everything else is an attempt at a scaled representation of each units capabilities and characteristics. The flamers are the one thing that really glaringly stands out as unrealistically modelled and I don't think anybody is trying to deny that? But I realise they are here as a nice toy to keep intellectually superior geniuses happy at playtime so have fun with them.
I don't expect it to change anytime soon but I don't have to like it either, and that cuts both ways obviously. However on general principle I choose never to use them and its perfectly possible to clear woods without problems using other means. My opinion is they should be more like 50-60pts though so folks have to think a little bit harder about deploying them rather than happily spawning them everywhere. I am sure they would still get used by players.

Historically they really didn't feature regularly in Pact or NATO orbats as they were pretty much obsolete by 1975 technically and doctrinally. In the early 70s they might potentially have been used in small numbers in FIBUA but not in FIFAF (setting fire to the wood you are sitting in not a good Darwinian tactic) .

1988 Soviet Orbat = zero TO-55 or TO-62
http://orbat.com/site/history/historica ... wpact.html
None seen or suspected in any ORBAT or Doctrine report from the late 1970s either. More TO-55s have been deployed in the last hour in Wargame-EE than were ever produced I reckon...

for the sake of realism they should remove flame tanks (and zippos) completely from this game and cut the range of inf flamers significantly.
for the sake of fun everything should stay as it is.

bartke