I have that in my pipeline, of course, and I read what a fearsome reputation it had in Europe. But what about the ones by other countries? There was also a KV version, plus small American tanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_tank

H.P.

There were no "small American tanks" equipped with flamethrowers that fought in the ETO. The US high command was unimpressed with flamethrower tanks or flamethrower operations prior to D-Day, and until the action of the 29th Infantry at Brest in August 1944, when they requested and received support from two squadrons of British Crocodiles, that helped "persuade" the Germans to surrender, they remained unimpressed. There were several prototype "Sherman Crocodile" tanks produced, and up to 300 were ordered, but the limitations of flame weapons simply overcame the desire for their use in the ETO because of the mobile nature of fighting in Europe in 1944-45. Later in the war, when breaching the Siegfried Line was planned, the need for an effective flamethrower vehicle became more distinct, and the US Army Chemical Warfare service came up with the E-4 & E-5 flamethrower unit that replaced the bow machine guns in medium tanks. They had a limited range and duration of flame. These units used 50 gal. of flame fuel mounted in two tanks-- one over the transmission and one in the space in the right sponson to carry fuel. The only outward alteration to the tank was the appearance of the bow machine gun barrel. They were moderately effective, and a unit of the 741st Tank Bn was equipped with several for a planned assault. In correct use, they proved to be a terrifying weapon, but the range and the duration of the flame limited their effectiveness in combat. Which brings us back to the reasons Commanders in the ETO didn't develop these weapons. Whereas mobile warfare in the ETO didn't particularly suit the flame tank, the Pacific was a different story, and specialized vehicles like the Sherman Flame tank, LVT, and Light M5 Satan tanks were purpose manufactured and frequently employed.

--This information comes from "The Chemical Warfare Service in WWII", part of the Army historical series. The US Army Chemical Corps was responsible for the development, sustainment and sometimes the employment of these weapons. When I transferred from Armor to the Chemical Corps in 1980, I had to take a course in "Flame Weapons and Field Expedients", which included employment of flame weapons. All I can say is I would not want to be on the receiving end, but they are heavy, require a lot of logistical support, and this old rule applies-- ..."if you're close enough to burn 'em you're too close!"
VR, Russ

There was also a Centurion flamethrower tank. Canada had at least one of them for trials and testing.

IRC the KV version was the KV - 8 . It had the flame thrower mounted next to a 45mm gun in the turret . T-34/76 and /85 had the flame thrower mounted in the hull instead of the machine gun .

Germans converted a number of tanks and vehicles into flame throwers also.

The two that come to mind are the Flammpanzer II D "flamingo" and the Flammpanzer III based on a L or M chassis.
The latter was used against the Americans at Anzio.

The nozzles for the T-34s come in several of the Dragon kits. The KV-8 and KV-8s are in the Eastern Express and Trumpeter KV lineups. The Flammpanzer II is made by Bronco, Alan and ICM and the Flammpanzer III is in the Dragon line of Panzer III.

We should not forget the Wasp which was based on a universal carrier and used in the Eto.

Some more from the German side: there were JPz 38 flamethrower tanks as well. If the OP so desires they also had it on a half-track -- the SdKfz 251/16.

CHeck out this Blog with the last two articles dealing with British and American flamethrower tanks:
http://overlord-wot.blogspot.de/

THis guy does some serious research on stuff and I love reading his weekly articles!