Molotov cocktails vs tanks?

[Alter Mann]

I have heard that mixing soap flakes with gasoline, kerosene, Diesel fuel, or a mixture is a good idea. This makes the fluid gel.
Attack from above is the desired method, but, in a situation where a unit is being over-run or hard pressed enough for someone to get into Molotov Cocktail range, I'm not so sure it would matter if the crew knows where the device comes from.
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. Molotov Cocktails, in my opinion, are one of the best arguments for some sort of close range weapons system on AFVs.

[Graham Clayton]

The best place to toss it at a tank was onto the back deck so that the burning gas and oil would suffocate the engine (static tank is better target for other weapons) and/or cause the POL products in the engine compartment to ignite.

Aufklarung,

During the Winter War, Soviet tankers attached bushes or wire mesh to protect the rear end of the tank. They hoped that the bottle wouldn't break, as it didn't hit the armour. To circumvent this, the Finns would tie 2 - 3 stones at the end of strings and tying the strings on the bottle so that the stones would shatter the glass, upon impact with the bushes or mesh on the Soviet tanks.

[Karelia]

Some more info about the background of the "Molotov's cocktail".

When the soviets started the Winter War in 1939, they bombed Finnish towns and cities with cluster bombs. When the soviets were accused for that the soviet foreign minister Molotov replied, that the soviets hadn't bombed at all but were only dropping bread baskets for the poor Finnish workers.

After that those cluster bombs were named as "Molotov's breadbaskets". When the improved version of the burn bottle - the idea of which originated from the Spanish Civil War - was introduced to the Finnish Defence Forces in an alcohol bottle it was aptly named as "Molotov's cocktail". After all one needs something to drink too after eating so much bread...

[bronk7]

would it create any kind of oxygen deficiency?? not as much as flamethrowers of course

[JTV]

would it create any kind of oxygen deficiency?? not as much as flamethrowers of course

That would be highly unlikely considering how small the amount of burning liquid actually was. Finnish industrially manufactured molotov cocktails had 0.5 litre bottles. The area of tank which Finnish soldiers were trained to target with molotov cocktail was top of the engine - either air intake/outlet or engine grill. Once burning liquid got in engine compartment it would set the oil, grease and rubber tubes on fire. Structural solutions used in tanks made notable difference - from Soviet tanks T-26 proved especially vulnerable, while for example T-28 and T-34 seem to have been notably difficult to destroy with molotov cocktail.

Jarkko

[bronk7]

would it create any kind of oxygen deficiency?? not as much as flamethrowers of course

That would be highly unlikely considering how small the amount of burning liquid actually was. Finnish industrially manufactured molotov cocktails had 0.5 litre bottles. The area of tank which Finnish soldiers were trained to target with molotov cocktail was top of the engine - either air intake/outlet or engine grill. Once burning liquid got in engine compartment it would set the oil, grease and rubber tubes on fire. Structural solutions used in tanks made notable difference - from Soviet tanks T-26 proved especially vulnerable, while for example T-28 and T-34 seem to have been notably difficult to destroy with molotov cocktail.

Jarkko

excellent post...much thanks, and why I enjoy getting information here...It's hard to find the specific info needed on the web or in a book

[LWD]

Not to mention burning off the insulation of any wiring in the compartment. Batteries would also not react well to the fire.

[Juha Tompuri]

Structural solutions used in tanks made notable difference - from Soviet tanks T-26 proved especially vulnerable, while for example T-28 and T-34 seem to have been notably difficult to destroy with molotov cocktail.

Two things made T-26 specially vulnerable to Molotov cocktails: engine being air cooled and gasoline powered.
The T-34 being liquid cooled and diesel powered.

Regards, Juha

[phylo_roadking]

Attack from above is the desired method, but, in a situation where a unit is being over-run or hard pressed enough for someone to get into Molotov Cocktail range, I'm not so sure it would matter if the crew knows where the device comes from.

Not necessarily; looking at the 1941 N.Z. Home Guard Manual reveals that there are several other "blind spots" for tackling tanks at close range...not only can tank guns not elevate sufficiently to tackle men on the roof of a building, they couldn't depress far enough to fire into a pit or slit trench if within a certain radius

Field of fire: the guns cannot hit anything within a radius of 20 feet, of the tank or fire above an angle of 25 degrees (this latter applied to current Japanese types - my note) Therefore if you are on a high bank or at a second storey window, you might be seen but the enemy would be unable to fire on you. On the other hand, you would be in an ideal position to drop your bombs onto the roof of the tank. A tank could not fire into a deep "slit trench" and as the turrets revolve slowly, a simultaneous attack from various directions will be bound to have the required result.

Infantry attacking tanks from cover had another advantage...

Blindness: There are only slits for the driver, the gunner and the commander, and at no time is more than 10% of the surrounding country visible from inside the tank. Likewise, at ground level, nothing within a radius if 15 feet can be seen. Therfore, if you are laying on the ground within 15 feet of a tank you are out of sight This is just the ideal distance for lobbing your deathdealing "cocktail".

The manual suggests a typical anti-tank ambush using Molotov Cocktails....including men in a pit on one side of the road and a slit trench on the other ( to illustrate both types of earthwork) - to allow an attack from both sides at once. The suggested ambush tactic ALSO suggests that this be within range of a blockhouse or pillbox - and that on a signal from the ambushers the pillbox should fire on the tank to distract the crew from what would be happening to either side

Regarding the lighting of petrol bombs giving away the position of the bombers - the manual notes that only the FIRST one thrown and impacting on a tank needed to be lit! All bombs thrown after that are of course lit BY the burning petrol already on the tank!

Construction details are simple and as described elsewhere - with the preferred NZ "cocktail" being equal parts tar, kerosene and petrol. It DOES however note that the addition of sulphur to the mix would be against the spirit of the Hague Convention and the Geneva Gas protocol!


As well as the Finns, the British also manufactured a "factory"-produced Molotov Cocktail, the No76 SIP Grenade, the "Albright & Wilson Bomb", and six million had been produced by 1941! A simple glass bottle, it came in two types; a slightly stronger one sealed with a green cap that would survive being fired from a Northover Projector, and the "hand" grenade that was sealed with a red cap. Each types were of around* a half-pint capacity, and half-filled in turn with a mixture of white phosphorous, and either naptha or benzene mixed with water...then rubber or raw latex was added before the bottle was sealed at the factory. This dissolved in the benzene to create a sticky mass that would stick to the target rather than splashing everywhere...and it ALSO had good effect as a nice smoky target marker AND for illustratiing a hit during practice! The grenade wasn't to be shaken before being used - or the gelid mass would break up again and NOT stick

* the "Green" bottle had a diameter of 2.5 inches, and the "Red" bottle of 2.7; this latter COULD be jammed into the loose-fit breech of a Northover Projector but would almost always jam in the barrel and break...but this DID make it a good one-shot flame thrower!

The Home Guard became very proficient with their Northover Projectors, and certainly preferred them over their replacement in service, the Blacker Bombard; but one of the main reasons they were replaced WAS this proficiency! The Home Guard fired off SO many "Green" grenades - with extra latex added as "practice" rounds - that the War Office cancelled production as latex for smoke mortar rounds was becoming short for North Africa!

[phylo_roadking]

It's also worth noting that in Britain at least, some of the first training "manuals" available to the first "parashots", the embryonic LDV that later became the Home Guard, were quite detailed and effective private publications by ex-Spanish Civil War International Brigade volunteers who had returned to the UK with considerable experience under their belts! At least one private but VERY well-attended Communist-leaning training camp had to be closed down by the government, and several others incorporated into the LDV, because the skills the trainees were being taught might have been as effective AGAINST the government as in defence of it!

As well as the old trick about laying dinner plates out on a street to give tank crews pause as to laid mines...a tactic variously attributed to the Spanish Civil War, the war in China against the Japanese etc....the NZ Home Guard manual suggests another very novel way of luring tanks into an ambush from above...string a rope BETWEEN two buildings and hang blankets or sheets from it - as if you DID have something to hide behind it!

[JTV]

Structural solutions used in tanks made notable difference - from Soviet tanks T-26 proved especially vulnerable, while for example T-28 and T-34 seem to have been notably difficult to destroy with molotov cocktail.

Two things made T-26 specially vulnerable to Molotov cocktails: engine being air cooled and gasoline powered.
The T-34 being liquid cooled and diesel powered.

These are the obvious reasons, but they were not the only ones. T-26 engine had its air intake from crew compartment, hence engine compartment and crew compartment were not completely sealed from each other - which resulted fire likely spreading from engine compartment also into crew compartment. Air cooling can be done in several ways, but with T-26 the design made large and obvious targets (engine grill & air outlet) which allowed the burning liquid to easily enter the engine compartment.

Also T-28 had gasoline engine, but it was water-cooled and apparently the ventilator on top of the engine made it far less vulnerable molotov cocktail attack. As noted T-34 was with liquid-cooled diesel engine, but the engine compartment was also apparently well protected - could be that the possibility of being attacked with molotov cocktails may have been taken into consideration already during designing of this tank?

Jarkko

[LWD]

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

[JTV]

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

Or metal tubes - none of the sources goes to such level of detail, that it would indicate things like this. I also tried checking the photos that I have about surviving T-28 tanks, but none of them show any sort of hoses or tubes with radiator.

Jarkko

[LWD]

I would think that one reason for the rubber tubes in cars is to provide vibration isolation. Especially if the raidator is not rigidly attached to the engine then the difference in vibration between the hull and the engine could fatigue metal tubes especially at their joints. Not an expert here by any means though.

[Juha Tompuri]

Structural solutions used in tanks made notable difference - from Soviet tanks T-26 proved especially vulnerable, while for example T-28 and T-34 seem to have been notably difficult to destroy with molotov cocktail.

Two things made T-26 specially vulnerable to Molotov cocktails: engine being air cooled and gasoline powered.
The T-34 being liquid cooled and diesel powered.

These are the obvious reasons, but they were not the only ones.

Yes, of course not the only ones, but perhaps the most deciding ones.
Also the carburetor of the T-26 was of the type that it caught up fire quite easily

T-26 engine had its air intake from crew compartment, hence engine compartment and crew compartment were not completely sealed from each other - which resulted fire likely spreading from engine compartment also into crew compartment.

As long the engine was running it sucked air from the crew compartment and from outside to the crew compartment ( molotov cocktail hits to for instance the frontal section of the tank - as done according to the Finnish instructions IIRC - might result flames sucked in from the loopholes and seams).
The flames and fumes perhaps more easily followed the direction of the air flow than "traveled" against it.

Air cooling can be done in several ways

Yes of course.

Regards, Juha