WP use against German Tanks, ETO, 1944-1945

[James]

I'm sure you've heard of it, but Soviet partisans made use of Molotov cocktails against German AFV's. The smoke, and even sometimes the burning liquid fuel would seep into the seems of the vehicles, especially the engine compartment vents for the radiators etc. if the vehicles were sealed up. I assume that WP would work the same way, if not better because of its high pyrotechnic temperature. I have a book from an ex Soviet partisan, I don't remember the name of it at the moment, but if I can find it I'll post it here.

Hope this helped.

Good info, thanks.

I know that in the early/mid 1990s we (USMC Infantry) were still being trained to make IEDs with oil+smoke/WP/frag in an ammo can full of oil.

[pocoloco]

I'm sure you've heard of it, but Soviet partisans made use of Molotov cocktails against German AFV's. The smoke, and even sometimes the burning liquid fuel would seep into the seems of the vehicles, especially the engine compartment vents for the radiators etc. if the vehicles were sealed up. I assume that WP would work the same way, if not better because of its high pyrotechnic temperature. I have a book from an ex Soviet partisan, I don't remember the name of it at the moment, but if I can find it I'll post it here.

Hope this helped.

Molotov cocktails, (term coined by the FDF during the Winter War against the SU aggressors) were already used in the Spanish Civil War, but here's info how it was used and mastered by the Finns:

The Finns perfected the design and tactical use of the petrol bomb. The fuel for the Molotov cocktail was refined to a slightly sticky mixture of gasoline, kerosene, tar, and potassium chlorate. Further refinements included the attachment of wind-proof matches or a phial of chemicals that would ignite on breakage, thereby removing the need to pre-ignite the bottle, and leaving the bottle about one-third empty was found to make breaking more likely.^[9] As the cooling system was almost invariably placed where direct fire wouldn't hit them, the target of choice was the rear deck of a tank; the burning contents of the bottle would pour through the large cooling grills and ignite fuel, hydraulic fluids and ammunition.

Thus also not worthy to try to throw it inside the tank, even if it wouldn't be buttoned up.

[LineDoggie]

Good info, thanks.

I know that in the early/mid 1990s we (USMC Infantry) were still being trained to make IEDs with oil+smoke/WP/frag in an ammo can full of oil.

Fcuk me just last week mentioned this thing to Minions Ownage. We called it the SGLI Payout in 82 because every time we tried to throw an Inert version the hooks caught in our uniforms or web gear.

[LineDoggie]

Molotov cocktails, (term coined by the FDF during the Winter War against the SU aggressors) were already used in the Spanish Civil War, but here's info how it was used and mastered by the Finns:



Thus also not worthy to try to throw it inside the tank, even if it wouldn't be buttoned up.

Chopped up chunks of rubber help also, as they give off terrible smoke when burning and become very sticky adhering to whatever they landed on.

[T-5 Killer]

Threads like this are why I love MP.net.

[Impartial Bias]

Molotov cocktails, (term coined by the FDF during the Winter War against the SU aggressors) were already used in the Spanish Civil War, but here's info how it was used and mastered by the Finns:

I was aware of their use during the Winter War (Molotov cocktail named after the Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov), but I didn't know they were used in the Spanish Civil War. The reason I used the Soviet partisan example was because James asked about German AFV's.
Do you know if the Molotov's may have been used against German armor in the Spanish Civil War? That'd be interesting to know.

[Breakfast in Vegas]

Thanks man. I wrote a scene in which a captured Panzerfaust + WP grenade = kaboom for a Jagdpanther. Blew it down to the tracks.

A little OT, but I was wondering how often US troops used captured Panzerfausts. They must have been able to capture quite a few and they were better than the bazooka and as a one off weapon they didnt need any supply chain, so it would seem sensible to use them.

Or was it shunned upon for some reason?

Just curious if anybody knows.

Fcuk me just last week mentioned this thing to Minions Ownage. We called it the SGLI Payout in 82 because every time we tried to throw an Inert version the hooks caught in our uniforms or web gear.

That is still in the Ranger handbook AFAIK... never tried it though and considering your experience, glad I didn't.

[pocoloco]

I was aware of their use during the Winter War (Molotov cocktail named after the Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov), but I didn't know they were used in the Spanish Civil War. The reason I used the Soviet partisan example was because James asked about German AFV's.
Do you know if the Molotov's may have been used against German armor in the Spanish Civil War? That'd be interesting to know.

The wiki mentions that nationalist side used petrol bombs against Soviet T-26s and there's also a quote by a member of International Brigade about the use of petrol soaked blankets so it seems both sides' tanks were on receiving end of things regarding the petrol bombs.

[MeiJoa]

Thanks man. I wrote a scene in which a captured Panzerfaust + WP grenade = kaboom for a Jagdpanther. Blew it down to the tracks.

Jagdpanthers are not very effective at short ranges because they have no turret. WP possibly will at least blind it temporarily and force it to change position, that means it cant really use its gun because it cant swivel independently and is vulnerable. WP fumes are bad, but as long as a tank can move it will try that first. But it could be very effective against towed anti tank guns as they are static, the crew is exposed and no direct hit needed.

A scenario where the Jagdpanther is hit by WP and tries to relocate/reposition but is then hit in the back/side/top by a panzerfaust makes sense to me. Front armor of the Jagdpanther will pretty much stop everything in that time.

About captured weapons use, this was generally not really recommended by any side because of sabotage devices. For example there were special german hand grenade fuses that had zero seconds delay. Meant to leave behind when retreating or for ****y traps. And the Panzerfaust was not really a safe and user friendly weapon, being a low quality mass product using cheap materials.

[Jippo]

Usually tanks do have over pressure in them. Modern tanks all have specialised systems that create higher than ambient pressure for two reasons: to ventilate fumes created by firing the tanks weapons out and prevent contaminants (ABC) from entering. Imagine tank traveling forward at full speed and firing it's gun to forward direction. When the breech is opened all the residual gases within the barrel would be forced in to the tank by the pressure caused by the forward motion. Such gases are mildly poisoneus and cause nausea and dizziness rather soon. likely at all because any gaps WP would find would have airflow coming from inside the tank making it very difficult for the WP itself or the smoke to get in the tanks crew area.

On the other hand, I have had to personally abandon tank on a FX due to enemy using smoke (non-WP, naturally). We were being used as a training aid for engineers training to make hasty AT-minefield and the follow-up actions to kill the tank disabled by the minefield. We stopped on the minefield and one of the engineers threw a smoke nade which ended up right by the track under the inlet of the mentioned overpressure fan. As it happened much of the smoke created by the nade was actually sucked inside the tank making it very inhospitable place to be and I had to order the crew to bail out. Of course there are other factors that led to this, pressure fan didn't have the ABC-filter on it, throw was spot on as were the weather conditions. On a peace time drill there is very little motivation to stay inside in a potentially very hazardous situation, etc.

What this means in terms of WP burning the tank from frontal hits, it is not likely at all. I can see sense in carrying WP in the barrel though. When enemy tank is spotted WP is used to blind him, and follow up shots in AP would be a little bit safer. On medium to short distances M4's would be toast in very short period of time in a tank to tank fight, so it would make sense to try and extend that timeframe to allow for own manouvering etc.

Ok then, why were Molotovs so succesful? They were only successful when the hit the tanks rear deck. Engine compartment doesn't need overpressure but it needs a huge amount of airflow through it because of the radiators. Air is typically sucked in from the top (where it is clean) and exhausted to the rear/rear up. This means that liquids that dropped on the engine covers didn't drop into the tank, but were infact also sucked in. Modern tanks have grills on the air intake that made to keep liquids outside.

[MeiJoa]

WW2 tanks didnt have an overpressure system afaik, the crew would use their normal gas masks and try to drive to a better spot. But it will keep them busy for some time: Putting gas masks on, start engine if not already on, drive to another position.

As an additional comment, Jagdpanther is an ambush tank so it will be well camoflaged in good shooting position lurking for prey. The action starts after the Jagdpanther destroys the first enemy, a fast reacting crew of the remaining vehicles can fire a WP grenade then.

[gafkiwi]

I can attest to the AFV sucking in WP. During live fire training, one of our LAV III's was firing its smoke discharges and one of the canisters miss-fired and popped out of the launcher and landed on the engine deck beside the intake vent and then initiated. The WP got sucked right through the intake, engine, turbo etc and F'd it all. Engine was a right off LAV was repaired after abit of cleaning and paint work.

Funny thing was, (anyone whose been in a LAV III will understand) the driver got from his pit/drivers seat back through the wagon via the turret and out the troop door at a speed that defied belief. Something bloody awkward to do in the best of situations. Suppose seeing all your periscopes get covered in WP and the wagon then filling with smoke will give you the motivation needed

[LineDoggie]

Gotta remember the M4 wasnt a Bad tank when up against the German Pz IV ausf G/H/J which was far more numerous then the Tigers or Panthers. partly M4 losses are due to tactical reality. if your attacking down a single lane road in Normandy all you need is one tank Pz IV, Tiger, or Panther wont make much difference firing enfilading to dominate an approach. in more open terrain allowing flanking moves the M4 wasnt nearly as bad as thought.

Panzerfausts, Esp the Panzerfaust60M were capable of knocking out ANY Tank in WWII, German or Allied. Soviets used all they could get and were quite happy to have overran a working Panzerfaust factory. US 2nd Armored Divisions 41st Armored Infantry trained to use them and did stockpile them in Halftracks for use. so did Many other US divisions. When the TO&E of a rifle company had only 2 Bazookas a half dozen captured Panzerfaust was a godsend. and UNlike using a MG-34 or 42 the noise wasnt so different as to attract friendly fire to the users.

WP will stick to the vehicle it hits. driving a distance wont make the particles go away as the burn till they have no fuel left. a german AFV hit by a molotov would have the liquid running into whatever openings are nearby. certainly Allied and Axis armor wasnt airtight when buttoned up. Periscopes, hatches, ventilators, Mantlets, turret rings all were vulnerable to the liquid penetrating. On board storage will also ignite (tarps, boxes, netting, etc).

here's a great little example
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/t...ity/index.html
http://www.lonesentry.com/intelbulletin/tt_trends.html

[Jippo]

Most tanks AFAIK had turret ventilators already in WW2. They were ther to protect the crew from the fumes of their own guns, not chemical agents.

Considering leakages etc. in tanks one has to remember that tanks are ment to be used outside where it frequently rains. It would be very bad product desing not to make a brim to the hull of the tank that prevents rain water from entering through turret ring (for instance). That would mean that the turret bearings and the turning mechanism would be in very sad shape after a short period in the field.

M1 Abrams was destroyed in Iraq because HMG fire caused an external fire that led to an internal fire and destruction of said tank. Same here, WP can start a fire sure, but it is not a reliable tank stopping round by any meter. In my (very small) experience firefights between tanks are very short affairs. Even if WP would cause an external fire I would not consider it as a disabling shot because the damaged tank can fire and move even if on fire.

WP as a blinding and distraction device is of course perfectly viable.

[LineDoggie]

M1 tank destroyed in Iraq by RPG causing fuel leak and fire that wouldnt go out, not HMG fire that was the infamous "Cohones Eh?".

And tanks of the WWII era were notorious for leaking in the rain. Notice how internal mantlets were successively replaced with external mantlets by all the major powers fairly quickly Internal mantlets let in bullet splash and the elements rain dust, ice, etc.. How Post war Mantlet covers of waterproof material became the Norm. Major Norris Perkins of 2nd Armored Divisions 66th Armor with the division since it's formation in 1940 says how every time it rained he got wet while in his tank from North Africa to Sicily to Normandy to Germany. (Roll again Second Armored 1988 ISBN: 0 904811-11-5).