Molotovs?

[throwdjohn]

I am no grog, but having recently read "A Col. in the Armored Divisions" plus my limited CM experience, what is that point of the Russki infantry having molotovs? I have never seen one do anything to a tank besides button it up, not to mention IRL they were not effective at all. Why did BFS include them in the game?

[Bergerbitz]

I've lost a Tiger to a molotov once. Yes, I am embarassed to mention it in public. Those little bottles do work from time to time.

I've had good success with them in urban battles against infantry usually. Chuck a few of them into a building and it usually flushes out some stubborn infantry holed up in there. Never tried them on a tank...yet.

[Other Means]

in the correct terrain Molotovs were deadly. this is not modeled in CMBB where they do little but give the infantrys position away.

have a look at this thread for a discussion of them:

here

[MikeyD]

Molotovs are flaming bottles of kerosine or something similar. In the game they do about as much damage as you'd expect a flaming bottle of kerosine would.

[imported_no_one]

Thinking back,I remember having a TC get killed and the crew shocked from a molotov.IIRC,with the crew in that state,a couple more MC's and they bailed.

[murphus]

Molotovs are one of the most embarrassing aspects of CMBB. Research done by one of the grogs has definitely shown that they are really useless vs tanks, despite the odd kill we've all seen. I hereby appeal to all scenario designers: EDIT OUT the molotovs, give your infantry grenade bundles if you really want them to score vs tanks. They won't throw grenade bundles if they have molotovs still to use:

"Piotr, here comes a German panzer. Shall we throw this really deadly packet of explosive?"

"Niet, comrade, I have this vodka bottle full of cheap grade kerosene. Glub glub... Hey, it's not bad! Throw the explosive, we'll have a party with the molotivs later".

[Krautman]

Well, i guess BTS did some serious research concerning weapons & equipment in cmbb, including molotovs, and if they were used these times, why leave them out? Imagine holding a kerosene-filled bottle with burning cloth in your hand and a hand grenade safely in a bag at your belt. Which one would you throw first?

Besides from that, the russians apparently thought the molotov to be an effective AT-Weapon, at least during the early war. Why else would they construct the Apulomet? So there's reason to suppose russian infantry were told to use the molotov against tanks and hand grenades against infantry. Remember- the average WW2 soldier didn't have your cmbb experience-how could he know a molotov isn't effective AT stuff?

[ November 12, 2004, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: Krautman ]

[MikeyD]

CMBB has Russian Molotovs for the same reason that CMAK has so many almost identical Sherman types. Because they were really there! I haven't heard about Russian grenade bundles in use, and Russian grenades were not able to be stacked like soup cans (German stick grenades). it'd be rather inconvenient trying to tie 5-6 apple-shaped grenades tightly together.

[Foreigner]

Actually, some Soviet grenades were like soup cans, in particular because they are cheaper to produce. Anti-tank and "offensive" grenades were most often shaped like that.

But don't take my word for that, see for yourself.

The Soviets also employed grenade bundles, and from the public images the most common ones for the purpose were the RGD-33 (from the link above). They could also be (and were) used against non-armor targets.

The main advantage of the Molotov cocktail is the ability to make it fast and on the spot even in the most miserable field conditions, although in some cases "upscale" models were factory-produced - those did not require a burning rag hanging from the neck, as they contained a phosphorus-based compound that ignited on contact with air (i.e. when the bottle broke).

And don't forget that gasoline engines are fairly prone to fires (especially under prolonged combat strain and adverse climate conditions), and a little "help" from a Molotov mught just be the spark they need. IIRC, one of the most serious teething problems of the Panther was the poor ventilation of the engine compartmnet and leaky fuel lines combined to create spontaneous fires even before the tanks saw the enemy. Plus, there's oil and grease and paint and all sort of other flammable stuff in/on a tank, and I belive at a high enough temperature even steel starts to burn.

[throwdjohn]

Wow lots of response eh? I am basing my assertion based on the fact that I have never had any AT use from them in game, and in the book I mentioned before, "A Col. in the Armd. Div." by Col. Trimble, the good col. tried and tried to destroy a tank with a molotov cocktail (it was actually a phosphorus version) to no avail. I beleive this is one of the reasons the US didn't use them.

[MikeyD]

Hey Foreigner, your site has the ONLY decent pict I've seen of the Russian late-war HEAT anti-tank grenades use in the game! They're the ones with the kite-streamer tails to stabilize the round so it'll land warhead-side-up.

[Michael Emrys]

Don't you mean warhead side down?

Michael

[Grach]

It is interesting to note that the Soviets did investigate the use of anti-tank grenades very seriously after their experiences with the Finns.

They had designed a supplemental charge for their M1914 grenade in WW1 (not the RGD-33 as mentioned above) for assault & demolition purposes. I have no data on the size of this charge, but it seems to have been a somewhat unweildy expedient. Winter War experience presumably mitigated against such a cumbersome device and it is unlikely that these would have been encountered in the GPW. (Although stocks of 'vanilla' M1914's were indeed issued and used.)

The first purpose-designed AT grenade was the RPG-40 which appeared in 1940. This was a substantial weapon relying purely on blast for its effect and would presumably behave like the in-game grenade bundle.

RPG-40 weighed 1105g and had a considerable TNT charge of 794g, it was stabilised in flight by a trailing ribbon and had an all-ways instant functioning fuze. It had a powerful blast and fragmentation effect and was quite useful in urban fighting as well.

Not currently modelled in CMBB.

The RPG-43 appeared next and was available in time for the Kursk battles. This used a shaped charge and was considerably more sophisticated than the RPG-40 which it supplanted.

RPG-43 weighed 1200g and had a TNT charge of 612g which could, in theory, allow penetration of around 75mm of armour at 0 degrees. This was also stabilised by trailing streamers and used the same fuze. A substantial fragmentation effect was also claimed for this weapon.

As far as I can tell this is the only specialised infantry AT weapon that the Soviets field in CMBB.

The last weapon to reach service during the war was the RPG-6. From what I can gather this started to appear in 1945 during the fighting in Germany itself. The RPG-6 looks suspiciously like a Panzerwurfmine save for its stabilisation arrangements. Another shaped charge weapon, the RPG-6 was undeniably more effective than the RPG-43 against armour but lacked the heavy fragmentation of its predecessors.

RPG-6 weighed 1100g had a TNT charge of 562g with an improved liner geometry which could, in theory, allow penetration of around 100mm of armour at 0 degrees. Like the earlier weapons it was stabilised by trailing streamers and used the same all-ways instantaneous fuze.

As far as I can tell it isn't modelled in CMBB.

An anti-armour rifle grenade, the VPGS-41, was experimented with. It was a pure blast weapon and didn't employ a shaped charge. It was not proceeded with.

Nice images of the above can be found here.

The less said about dog-mines, the better!

Cheers!

[Sergei]

Not bad for a first post, not bad at all!

[murphus]

Yes, I second Sergei's appreciation. This level of scholarship is what makes this forum special. While we're on the subject of Russian AT capability, I'd like to point out two holes in the CMBB menu of possibilities:

1) the Russians have no US-made bazookas. These were shipped to the USSR with other lend-lease equipment from 1943 on. So why don't the Sovs have them, even with a high rarity penalty?

2) No captured Panzerschrecks. Surely the Russians would have captured masses of them, so why don't they exist in the setup list, say from 1944 on?

Just my two roubles.

[Grach]

Thanks for the kind welcome people.

I took care to read the FAQ, being a newb, and thus far have managed to keep a cork in it on a couple of subjects dear to my twisted little heart...

However... When I saw the new molotovs thread, the subject of Soviet infantry AT got out from under the cork!

IIRC M1 bazookas were indeed sent as part of lease-lend. Never in very substantial numbers, but they should definitely be around, possibly limited to Guards support picks at a rarity value? That is if another patch was ever to be remotely considered...

As far as captured weapons went, it seemed that the favoured German AT weapon was the Panzerfaust (of various flavours.) Considerable numbers of these were accumulated late in the war and, being nice and simple, they were rapidly turned against their former users. There are quite a few photos and so forth showing Soviet troops lugging these things. AFAIK, Panzerschrek was not seen as commonly in Soviet hands, at least the amount of photographic and written documentation is much less than for Panzerfaust usage.

Cheers!

I won't mention dog mines.

Or T-28/Lee/Grant using the CM:AK workarounds...

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by murphus:

1) the Russians have no US-made bazookas. These were shipped to the USSR with other lend-lease equipment from 1943 on. So why don't the Sovs have them, even with a high rarity penalty?

My understanding is that the Sovs didn't like them (not enough penetration) and so didn't issue them.

Michael

[MikeyD]

Maybe I knew this awhile ago but I've forgotten. What's the meaning of the term "RPG" is Russian WWII weaponry terms? Postwar its of course evolved into "Rocket Propelled Grenade" but the WWII weapons weren't rocket propelled.

[throwdjohn]

Why are RPGs not modelled into CMBB? Was use not widespread enough? Also, russkis weren't the only Allies to use captured 'fausts. To me they are one of the best reasons to play as axis. No other infantry units have anywhere NEAR the at capability.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by throwdjohn:

Why are RPGs not modelled into CMBB?

They are. Tank Hunters can have them starting from June 1943.

[MikeyD]

I answered my own question thanks to Foreigner's excellent link.

RPG:

Ruchnaya Protivotankovaya Granata

("Hand Anti-Tank Grenade")

This doesn't show up in the soviet arsenal until very late in the game. i can't recall the last time i saw one in use. A similar German weapon shows up MUCH sooner. For most of the war the Russians have to settle for those darned Molotovs or simple grenades.

[Foreigner]

Dear MikeyD,

Thanks for the kind words, but to be fair, most of the work was done by Google...

As far as Soviet Panzerfaust use, I have never come upon accounts of their use against Axis armor - instead the preferred targets seem to had been strongpoints in built-up areas (like in the recent movie "The Pianist", a Polish resistance fighter fires a 'faust across the street into a window of the German headquarters or something). In other words, they were used as oversize antipersonnel "grenade launchers".

My theory is, that by the time 'fausts became widespread among German troops (and therefore available for capture), the Soviets had achieved nearly overwhelming superiority in tanks, SP guns and tank destroyers, and AT guns. As a result, whenever the infantry encountered enemy armor, they generally had enough AT assets "on call", and man-portable AT weapons were not considered a priority.

[throwdjohn]

As to the 'fausts, makes sense, although it would be nice to see 1 per couple of US infantry squads. To sergei, DUR, I'm so unobservant. I'd rather ask this question than look for myself i guess. Also I foolishly let my cousin borrow BB, and he has absconded with it.