Defeating tanks with makeshift methods, grenades?

Discussions on every day life in the Weimar Republic, pre-anschluss Austria, Third Reich and the occupied territories. Hosted by Vikki.
Post Reply
User avatar
Big Yehudah
Member
Posts: 33
Joined: 11 Jun 2014, 00:49

Defeating tanks with makeshift methods, grenades?

#1

Post by Big Yehudah » 27 Jul 2014, 15:53

Hello everyone.

Many forms of media (obviously inarticulately), movies, video games, etc, show tanks being destroyed or disabled by using grenades or other devices which do not seem powerful enough. But I want to know is it realistically possible to destroy or disable certain tanks or other AFVs with grenades or other unorthodox weapons? Would it be possible for grenades to disable light tanks? The movie Flowers of War about the Nanking massacre (very good movie) shows this and it seems it might be possible if the armor is thin enough or the grenades could damage the tracks or other parts.

Are there known examples in ANY theater of operations of grenades (or even molotov coctails or other devices) defeating tank(s) during any part of wwii? (i include the invasion of Ethiopia and the Sino-Japanese war.)

User avatar
Habu
Member
Posts: 332
Joined: 31 May 2005, 07:18
Location: US midwest

Re: Defeating tanks with makeshift methods, grenades?

#2

Post by Habu » 27 Jul 2014, 19:53

Define "defeat". If, for example, it is enough to disable the tank so that it is basically immobile until someone comes along to repair it--by disabling a track, for instance--yeah, it was sometimes done with grenades. Once the tank can't move (or can only move in circles) it becomes easier to cause the operators to abandon the vehicle or to eliminate them, or to just bypass the tank. If "defeat" means to cause the tank to cease to function in an offensive or defensive manner, it becomes much more uncertain. If "defeat" means "to instantaneously blow apart into scrap metal", then probably not.

One early (developed WWI-era) strategy was to take a M24 Stielhandgrenate and tape or wire the explosive heads from several additional grenades to it. The modified grenade was then thrown onto the top of the tank or armored vehicle, where the armor was thinner. It worked, sometimes. The same modified grenade could be thrown into the side, or under, the treads of a tank, hopefully resulting in the tread being broken or the drive wheels damaged. Once that was accomplished, the tank could be set on fire or otherwise destroyed.

During WWII, a similar improvised approach was to use a bag of grenades. Pull the pin from one and ensure the spoon has separated, drop the grenade back in the bag, and IMMEDIATELY throw the bag at the tank. While watching a basketball game about 30 years ago, a friend mentioned that the "nicest basket" he ever saw was in the Pacific. One of the men in his squad tossed a bag of grenades at a Japanese tank just as the hatch opened. The bag bounced off the hatch and fell into the tank. The tank was destroyed, there were no survivors, but at the cost of 1 USMC KIA and 3 WIA.

Molotov cocktails were used to disable tanks; perhaps, "to try to disable tanks" would be a better way of putting it. One early approach (Spanish Civil War) was to target the rubber drive wheels in an attempt to disable the treads. During a battle between the Japanese and Soviets (1939 or 1940, I don't recall), the Japanese claim to have disabled "hundreds" of tanks with molotov cocktails. (The Soviets disputed this.) Later, the Finns focused on first separating the infantry from the tanks, then targeting the rear deck. The goal was to have the burning fluids penetrate and set aflame the hydraulics/hoses/fuel/etc.

The obvious problems with all of these approaches are the inherent risk to the party or parties attacking the tank, and the uncertainty of the attack succeeding. It could be done--it was done--but there were no guarantees that even if everything went according to plan, the attack would succeed.


User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3348
Joined: 05 Jun 2003, 17:22
Location: USA

Re: Defeating tanks with makeshift methods, grenades?

#3

Post by Kingfish » 27 Jul 2014, 21:22

Not WW2 but at least illustrative of a makeshift weapon used against tanks

the statute is of a Vietminh soldier armed with a "bom ba cang", or three clawed bomb. This is a version of the Japanese Lunge AT mine used during WW2. Basically the soldier would run up to the tank and jam the three prongs against the vehicle's side, thereby destroying the tank and himself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_ ... T_Mine.jpg
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb

steverodgers801
Member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Aug 2011, 19:02

Re: Defeating tanks with makeshift methods, grenades?

#4

Post by steverodgers801 » 27 Jul 2014, 22:48

The Ferdinand TD during the Kursk battles had the worse distinction, for some reason they had no MG's for defense and when they went too far from their infantry support they were easy pickings. Tanks are vulnerable to infantry attack if they do not have supporting infantry.

User avatar
sitalkes
Member
Posts: 471
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 01:23

Re: Defeating tanks with makeshift methods, grenades?

#5

Post by sitalkes » 28 Jul 2014, 01:33

I don't know of any documented examples, but I'm sure if you look up the citations for military medals you will find quite a few awarded for destruction of a tank with improvised weapons. For instance, in Germany, the tank destroyer cuff title was issued in 1942 back dated to June 22, 1941 (operation Barbarossa the invasion of Russia). It was awarded for the heroic destruction of an enemy tank or armoured car in hand to hand combat with out the use of anti-tank weapons. This meant an individual solider had to destroy his target at close range with great personal danger to himself with hand-held weapons like hand grenades (potato masher), Teller mines, flame throwers, and other explosive devices. A Silver Cuff title was awarded for each AFV (armoured fighting vehicle) destroyed the Gold was issued for 5 kills.

It was very difficult to see well from inside a tank so usually the commander had the hatch open and was looking out of the tank. Thus a well-placed grenade could be thrown inside the tank, with obviously deadly results. Even if the grenade missed, it could cause the death of the tank commander or at least cause the tank to be "closed up". Due to the visibility problems, Once a tank was closed up it was much easier to approach it or for it to be hit from the flank. That's why infantry were urged to shoot their rifles at tanks (there was also the chance of hitting a vision block). Molotov cocktails were found to work usually only if a lot of them were thrown at a tank, a single one rarely worked. Whether they worked or not also depended on the tank design, as if the burning fuel from the broken bottle fell from the rear of the tank into the tank's engine compartment it could set the engine on fire. Tanks were later designed to prevent that from happening, but the principal aim of an incendiary weapon was to get burning fuel to flow into the crew or engine compartment (or simply to scare the crew into abandoning the tank, believing it to be on fire).

Up to September 1940, the only anti-tank weapon officially issued to the Home Guard was the No. 76 Special Incendiary Grenade, which was a self-igniting Molotov cocktail. For personal weapons, they would have been reliant on that, ordinary molotovs, any grenades they could lay their hands on, and whatever other explosives they could find to stop the panzers. Since the panzers didn't operate on their own, but likely had accompanying infantry, Churchill's proposed invocation to "take one with you" would probably have been prophetic.

User avatar
Gamle Lode
Member
Posts: 52
Joined: 27 Mar 2014, 13:35
Location: Finland

Re: Defeating tanks with makeshift methods, grenades?

#6

Post by Gamle Lode » 10 Aug 2014, 17:32

Defeating the tank means 'defeating the crew'. It's only a bonus if you receive the tank as a spoil.

- Knocking on the hatch, and wait 'till they come to open. It has worked a couple of times.
- tossing a smoke grenade underneath the hull, it worked against an immobile tank, forcing the crew to jettison it.
- Satchel charges, mines, terrain impediments (once a T-34 got stuck in a trunk).
- shooting at it very hard with a pistol in both hands (untrue, but is some kind of freudism of most action film makers).

Dropping a grenade inside the tank may however be fatal to the tank assaulters too, since the tank may explode with its munitions and shatter its pieces all over the surroundings.

User avatar
Big Yehudah
Member
Posts: 33
Joined: 11 Jun 2014, 00:49

Re: Defeating tanks with makeshift methods, grenades?

#7

Post by Big Yehudah » 17 Aug 2014, 16:54

I have a weird question. Were tanks and assault guns necessary? Could a country take all of its resources used on tanks and assault guns and put them into other things and still be able to defeat an army which does use assault guns and tanks?

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Defeating tanks with makeshift methods, grenades?

#8

Post by phylo_roadking » 17 Aug 2014, 19:19

Molotov cocktails were found to work usually only if a lot of them were thrown at a tank, a single one rarely worked.
...and of course, they didn't need to be thrown lit after the first one was burning merrily on a tank - just pile on the bottled petrol!
Whether they worked or not also depended on the tank design, as if the burning fuel from the broken bottle fell from the rear of the tank into the tank's engine compartment it could set the engine on fire. Tanks were later designed to prevent that from happening, ....
I think there's mention in Longmate that by the middle of the war at least, British tanks were being designed to effectively close this possibility down, and tests were carried out.
but the principal aim of an incendiary weapon was to get burning fuel to flow into the crew or engine compartment
...rememberingtoo that tank crews didn't actually LIKE fighting "buttoned up" in early-war, cramped designs. Not until effective cuploas etc and decently-designed vision blocks and periscopes came along. Which is why there's so much film of tank commanders up in their hatches as they motor along roads...
(or simply to scare the crew into abandoning the tank, believing it to be on fire)
If you look at Montefiore, early-war Wehrmacht tank crews seem to have been rather nervous critters, sometimes bailing out into cover at the first A/T round...
Dropping a grenade inside the tank may however be fatal to the tank assaulters too, since the tank may explode with its munitions and shatter its pieces all over the surroundings.
And, of course, the NEXT tank along, with its hull and coax MGs, is able to clean any attackers off the hull of the tank in front - given that IT is armoured against MG fire!
I have a weird question. Were tanks and assault guns necessary? Could a country take all of its resources used on tanks and assault guns and put them into other things and still be able to defeat an army which does use assault guns and tanks?
B-Y...tanks weren't SUPPOSED to be fought with other tanks - you were supposed to fight them with anti-tank guns ;) But they're only a defensive weapon - you still need tanks to take YOUR offensive to the enemy...
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Defeating tanks with makeshift methods, grenades?

#9

Post by LWD » 18 Aug 2014, 14:28

Big Yehudah wrote:I have a weird question. Were tanks and assault guns necessary? Could a country take all of its resources used on tanks and assault guns and put them into other things and still be able to defeat an army which does use assault guns and tanks?
The answer to that is probably "It depends". I'm not sure that Switzerland for instance needed them all that much. Germany and the USSR could hardly do without them though. An island nation or one with mostly rough terrain that wants to remain on the defensive might have little need for them. A larger nation, one with little in the way of natural defences, and/or one requiring significant offensive power is likly to find them a requirement.

steinmetz
Banned
Posts: 183
Joined: 18 Sep 2014, 06:16

Re: Defeating tanks with makeshift methods, grenades?

#10

Post by steinmetz » 21 Sep 2014, 12:10

Big Yehudah wrote:I have a weird question. Were tanks and assault guns necessary? Could a country take all of its resources used on tanks and assault guns and put them into other things and still be able to defeat an army which does use assault guns and tanks?
Hardly as it would mean you would be forced to a passive defense which does not work. And these same assault guns and tanks are themselves very useful to defeat enemy tanks.

steinmetz
Banned
Posts: 183
Joined: 18 Sep 2014, 06:16

Re: Defeating tanks with makeshift methods, grenades?

#11

Post by steinmetz » 21 Sep 2014, 12:13

steverodgers801 wrote:The Ferdinand TD during the Kursk battles had the worse distinction, for some reason they had no MG's for defense and when they went too far from their infantry support they were easy pickings. Tanks are vulnerable to infantry attack if they do not have supporting infantry.
The latter depends on terrain because in the open tanks will be able to protect each other and keeping on the move also helps.

hoot72
Member
Posts: 148
Joined: 17 Mar 2017, 11:58
Location: Singapore

Re: Defeating tanks with makeshift methods, grenades?

#12

Post by hoot72 » 25 Dec 2020, 15:03

steverodgers801 wrote:
27 Jul 2014, 22:48
The Ferdinand TD during the Kursk battles had the worse distinction, for some reason they had no MG's for defense and when they went too far from their infantry support they were easy pickings. Tanks are vulnerable to infantry attack if they do not have supporting infantry.
This is a seriously often misguided and flawed argument.

The Ferdinands of 653 and 654 were deployed with infantry, engineers and support tanks BUT the problem is, more often than not, they were driving into minefields that had not been cleared because the wooden mines were not detectable. There was also the problem of heavy russian artillery barrages which killed/injured many infantry and engineers who were supposed to support the Ferdinands.

The fact the German's had to throw the Ferdinands into the mix on the Northern Front also tells us they simply did not have enough tanks for the sort of campaign they expected to win. And the Russian's were well aware of the coming offensive and simply added more and more defensive belts and mines months before the offensive.

In hindsight, the German's would probably have employed Stugs alongside the Ferdinands but the reality was, the German's simply had too much ground to cover to also hold the line whilst the offensive went on in the Northern and Southern fronts....we forget the defensive lines stretched north and south beyond the conflict zone at Kursk for hundreds and hundreds of miles...and the German's by 1943, were simply running out of tanks, manpower and aircraft/bombers and replacements to be able to hold the line.

The Kursk campaign merely excellerated the defeat of Germany by 2 years because they lost their last of the most experienced officers and men in the offensive and also wiped out vital tank assets that would otherwise have perhaps helped sustain a defensive posture until some sort of negotiations for peace could have been made with the Russians, if, any could be agreed to at some point in time further down the line once German production of tanks was able to replace the tanks lost after 3 years of war in Russia with more Stugs, Tigers and a better prepared Panther.
Whever we went, whatever we did, we quoted the songs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgUhjWJVVCQ&t=199s

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Defeating tanks with makeshift methods, grenades?

#13

Post by Sheldrake » 26 Dec 2020, 02:00

Big Yehudah wrote:
27 Jul 2014, 15:53
Hello everyone.

Many forms of media (obviously inarticulately), movies, video games, etc, show tanks being destroyed or disabled by using grenades or other devices which do not seem powerful enough. But I want to know is it realistically possible to destroy or disable certain tanks or other AFVs with grenades or other unorthodox weapons? Would it be possible for grenades to disable light tanks? The movie Flowers of War about the Nanking massacre (very good movie) shows this and it seems it might be possible if the armor is thin enough or the grenades could damage the tracks or other parts.

Are there known examples in ANY theater of operations of grenades (or even molotov coctails or other devices) defeating tank(s) during any part of wwii? (i include the invasion of Ethiopia and the Sino-Japanese war.)
Ian Van Hogg called his book on anti tank weapons "Men against tanks" after watching the German training film of the same name. The principles are to separate armour from their accompanying infantry.
Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Alan Morshead wrote of an occasion at El Alamein where German tanks attacking Australian positions were knocked out by sticky bombs

There was a fun training programme for NATO troops at the Vogelsang training area which involved being driven over by a tank and then preparing using Molotov cocktails. The best instructor in my troop was a Belfast lad whose summer holidays involved petrol bombs

Post Reply

Return to “Life in the Third Reich & Weimar Republic”