Molotov cocktails vs tanks?

[Juha Tompuri]

If it was water cooled wouldn't it have had rubber hoses?

Might also be that the possible rubber did not start burning that easily with the relatively small amount of gasoline content (=molotov cocktail) compared to the greasy (air cooled) engine.

Regards, Juha

[Juha Tompuri]

The first Russian T26 destroyed in SCW bas burnt with a Botijo full of fuel,thrown over the Engine Deck by a "Infanteria de marina " soldier (That´s a "Marine"...Extrange isn´t it?) and then set fire with an oil lamp ...

This is a "BOTIJO" Does it count as "Molotov Cocktail"?

Hmmm... perhaps not.
That would be a ... Litvinov cocktail?

Earlier, topic related discussion:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 1130&hilit

Regards, Juha

[Tim Smith]

Molotov cocktails, pah.

If WW2 had happened in the 1960's instead of the 1940's, some crazy scientist would no doubt have invented the atomic hand grenade.

http://lew-cabintalk.blogspot.co.uk/201 ... enade.html

[LWD]

If it was water cooled wouldn't it have had rubber hoses?

Might also be that the possible rubber did not start burning that easily with the relatively small amount of gasoline content (=molotov cocktail) compared to the greasy (air cooled) engine. ...

My understanding is that rubber burns pretty easily especially if it is preheated as it would be in this case. Even if it doesn't burn if it melts it can result in the cooling system going out. Are air cooled engines any more or less greasy than qater cooled ones? I've had one engine fire on an automobile and it was pretty impressive not much left of the hoses or the insulation on any of the wires, battery was also a mess. Greater air flow in an air cooled engine might produce more vigorus flames though.

[Helmut0815]

I have heard that mixing soap flakes with gasoline, kerosene, Diesel fuel, or a mixture is a good idea. This makes the fluid gel.

And basically you've got some kind of Napalm...

regards


Helmut

[Juha Tompuri]

If it was water cooled wouldn't it have had rubber hoses?

Might also be that the possible rubber did not start burning that easily with the relatively small amount of gasoline content (=molotov cocktail) compared to the greasy (air cooled) engine. ...

My understanding is that rubber burns pretty easily especially if it is preheated as it would be in this case. Even if it doesn't burn if it melts it can result in the cooling system going out.

Most probably not just rubber, but sort of (heat resistant) fibre - rubber combination.

Are air cooled engines any more or less greasy than qater cooled ones?

Most probably not.
What I ment at my previous post was AFAIK that as (WWII) tanks were not hermetically closed environments , because of the crew needs, weapons produced gases and perhaps mainly because of the engine.
As combustion engines mainly are either liquid or air cooled, they needed air to cool either water at the radiator or directly the engine (surface). Also air was also used to ventilate the engine room.
The engines itself also needed air in their working (burning) system.

What was helpful when using molotov cocktails against a tank, was that if one knows where the burning liquid can set the tank on fire.
One of the best and easiest ways seemed to have been if the burning liquid can enter the engine (room)
One of the easiest ways achieving that was using the already existing "paths" and possible assisting draught.
Engine air inlet and cooling systems both fit those criteria, the air inlet often being protected so, that molotov cocktail burning liquid entering that way to the engine (room) was made quite difficult.
Now...

Might also be that the possible rubber did not start burning that easily with the relatively small amount of gasoline content (=molotov cocktail) compared to the greasy (air cooled) engine. ...

Against a liquid cooled engine the molotov cocktail burning liquid sucked in often "meets" first the (wet, leaking?) radiator assembly, but at air cooled tanks there often was "just a fan" delivering fresh air from outside directly towards the (oily, greasy?) engine (surface).

I've had one engine fire on an automobile and it was pretty impressive not much left of the hoses or the insulation on any of the wires, battery was also a mess. Greater air flow in an air cooled engine might produce more vigorus flames though.

At such occasions the battery is a thing that one should be very careful about.
It contains acid, and it can explode at high temperatures. The then following acid splashes can be really bad.

Regards, Juha

[Marcus]

A how-to post for violent demonstrators was removed, we don't allow that kind of thing here.

/Marcus

[Nautilus]

I don't think that heat is a major factor in the damage done. I think that the main effects are from fires in the engine compartment and smoke. I have never seen a tank that has been off the wash rack for more than two hours that didn't have flammables in the hull. Tanks carry very large amounts of petroleum products and other flammable things. They usually have fixed fire extinguishers to take care of fires in the engine compartment, but they are, at best, two shot. A persistent fire in the engine compartment would be a tremendous incentive for the crew to bail out.

This happens on modern tanks (and generally modern, post-1980 machinery). A WWII tank was far more flammable by design.

Generally early internal-combustion heavy machinery (tank, APC, bulldozer, truck), let's say from the Edwardian Age to the 1970s was not quite top-notch in assembly quality and fatigue resistance. Poor seals dripped oil, carburettors needed massive air intakes and dripped small amounts of gasoline at the seams, ducts were either copper or mesh-rubber, engine compartment insulation was just felt, if any, never fireproof and a fire hazard by itself when it got impregnated with dripped oil or fuel. People who drove or maintained older trucks or earthmoving machines know it by experience, the engine bay was often a black sticky and stinky mess. The stereotype of the dirty greasy and oily job of truck driver and mechanic was fully justified.

Drop a sticky, gooey and flammable liquid and everything burns in an instant. Even Diesel trucks, in peacetime, on highway, could burst into flames from the engine bay. But a poorly assembled and battle worn tank leaking gasoline would do it even faster.

Modern machinery has better insulation, fireproofing and gaskets, fuel injection, protected fuel lines made from steel and not copper, and it can still burst into flame sometimes.

[randwick]

.
Sorry for "the how to " I was under the ( wrong )impression it was close to the discussion

setting the intake on fire , probably , would get the engine to stall, by lack of oxygen