Killing the Tiger I--wartime Russian views

[John Kettler]

I believe the grogs here will find this of considerable interest, especially when viewed in conjuction with the Battlefield.ru pieces on killing the Ferdinand and how to use the PTRS/PTRD antitank rifles.

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt_tigervulnerability/index.html

Regards,

John Kettler

[ January 06, 2007, 04:26 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[PanzerMiller]

Good stuff, John...thanks for the post!

I especially enjoyed the instructions for "drawing the board" full of mines in the path of the oncoming Tiger...hadn't heard that one before. And the discussion of the suspension's vulnerability takes me back to the Tiger-killing tactics showcased in "Saving Private Ryan"...But I remain skeptical of the efficacy of those feared incendiary bottles...at least based on game experience...

[John Kettler]

PanzerMiller,

I've seen some German footage of a daisy chain mine mounted on a long plank, so perhaps that's what was being said. Forgot to mention, too, that I thought what was said about where the Tiger I's ventilator intakes were located was very much on point. I think Molotov modeling is somewhat deficient in the game. If the ever pragmatic Russians had found no utility in Molotovs, then I'm pretty sure we would've seen simple demo charges rapidly substituted for them, yet they were still used in 1943 against the best the Germans had.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ January 05, 2007, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[jBrereton]

Originally posted by PanzerMiller:

But I remain skeptical of the efficacy of those feared incendiary bottles...at least based on game experience...

That's because they are vastly underpowered in CMBB. If you hit an engine block with one, a tank would start to burn profusely quite often.

A nasty weapon indeed, especially if they were dropped from buildings into tank hatches (as occured in Paris when the Germans started destroying it after the resistance really kicked in when the Allies arrived).

[Other Means]

Originally posted by jBrereton:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by PanzerMiller:

But I remain skeptical of the efficacy of those feared incendiary bottles...at least based on game experience...

That's because they are vastly underpowered in CMBB. If you hit an engine block with one, a tank would start to burn profusely quite often.

A nasty weapon indeed, especially if they were dropped from buildings into tank hatches (as occured in Paris when the Germans started destroying it after the resistance really kicked in when the Allies arrived). </font>

[Guest Mike]

I disagree.

There was no gaurantee of damaging a tank with a molotov - to do so you had to get the burning liquid inside the armour in sufficient quantitay and the right place to set somethign afire.

the Russians begane improving their engine air intakes to reduce this possibility after het Spanish Civil War. AFAIK most tanks had fairly compicated air paths into their engines - especially heavies such as tigers.

there were still some fairly simple ones - Japanese tanks weer apparently quiet vulnerable, while the Covenanter had a straight pathway into eth engine although the opening faced the turret - another good reason for it not to see service!

Burning liquids on the outside of the tank are unlikely to accomplish anything unless they cover enough area for long enough to deprive the engine or crew of oxygen, or set fire to rubber road wheels or the like. A molotov cocktail wouldn't come close IMO - several might - if they were well distributed, with a spot of luck,......

But even with that they were still better than nothing - a smal chance with a MC is better than no chance at all with a rifle or fragmentation grenade.

They do not have to be super-weapons to explain them still being in use at Stalingrad or Hungary in 1956!

[John Kettler]

Stalin's Organist,

I'm not claiming it was true for every German tank or SP, but for the Tiger I, at least, the following quote (fair use) seems both clear and specific as to why a Molotov would not only work but work well.

"The tank’s air vents and ventilators are under the perforations in the roof of the hull, directly behind the turret. Another air vent is in the front part of the roof, between the two observation ports used by the radio operator and the driver. Use AT grenades and incendiary bottles against these vents."

As for Hungary in '56, I'd have to check on the tank kills, but I know Molotovs thrown or dropped from above wiped out all kinds of BTR-152s, BTR-40s and the like before the main invasion occurred. Chechen tankhunter teams armed with an RPG-7 and a bunch of Molotovs per team caused wholesale havoc in the first Russian attack on Grozny in the early 1990s.

Regards,

John Kettler

[JasonC]

How ineffective are molotovs in CM?

As most have no doubt experienced, an infantry close assault attack - shown as a thrown ordinary grenade - is typically considerably more effective than a molotov attack. We have all had the experience, I trust, of molotov equipped Russian infantry throwing several bottles, getting one or two hits but no significant damage, and the target spotting the thrower, firing back, pinning it beyond hope of another throw etc.

Enough to make it clear that you'd rather not have them, than have them.

But can and do they KO tanks if enough are thrown? A simple test.

A single buttoned Pz III J short is in a small clearing of open in a sea of scattered trees. Ringed about it is a platoon of Russian infantry, HQ and 4 squads, plus 2 tank hunters. All 7 Russian units have the maximum 4 molotovs. The Russians are veterans, the leader is excellent, and the Russians are 50% fanatic.

Under these conditions the molotovs readily kill the Panzer III. First trial, 24 were thrown to do so. Second trial, 25 thrown. Third trial, 17 thrown.

I next tried sequential attacks, one thrower at a time, to see if one could be expected to kill the thing. If one unit was shot up or ran out, another unhide to throw. Units out of molotovs got a "withdraw-run" order and had their targeting cancelled, to ensure an infantry close assault didn't do the job, instead.

First sequential trial, 7 molotovs thrown. Second sequential trial, 13 molotovs thrown (and one TH and one squad shot up).

Moral - molotovs will kill buttoned AFVs, it just takes about 10 throws to do it - and more like 20 to be sure.

The time to throw from targeting order and in range, unsuppressed, is usually around 20 seconds, but occasionally as long as 50 seconds. Once they start, additional throws can happen as fast as one every 10 seconds. Only top penetrations are effective, and most of those just push the tank to cautious, recovering to altered and then OK within 30 seconds. Occasionally they get one crewmember. But sometimes they get a full KO result.

It helps to deliver it from a blind side, in cover and stationary (a short sneak the next best). The key to throwing several is multiple throwers at once and not being spotted and targeted, because you are on a blind side or the tank is busy firing at something else.

The reason they are so ineffective in practice is it is quite rare to get any infantry AT weapon attack at all, and when you finally do get a unit in range for one, you want it to work if you are going to reveal the thrower. But with molotovs, you need more like 3-4 throwers each tossing every one they've got, to get even one KO. When the tank has any "friends", second and third throws become unlikely - not to mention most throwers aren't well led veterans in cover with 50% fanaticism.

[Sergei]

A bit of entertainment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQXi04jKdmc

[Guest Mike]

John of course they say to use weapons against weak points - why would you say to use them against anything else?

MC's were marginal weapons - they HAD to be used agaisnt weak points to have any chance of success.

Many tanks in BUA's were destroyed by getting explosives inside them through open hatches - Hungary was no exception IIRC - and hte BTR's you mention are OPEN TOPPED - MC's are a bit more useful against such vehicles than they are against enclosed AFV's that have few openingings in teh armour.

I suggest you try Jason's test agaisnt some half tracks and open topped armoured cars and see what the difference is.....

[jBrereton]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

John of course they say to use weapons against weak points - why would you say to use them against anything else?

MC's were marginal weapons - they HAD to be used agaisnt weak points to have any chance of success.

They were still used far, far more frequently on the battlefield than demo charges - which suggests that they were more effective, seeing as the Russians replaced pretty much anything that they found inneffective when possible.

Many tanks in BUA's were destroyed by getting explosives inside them through open hatches - Hungary was no exception IIRC - and hte BTR's you mention are OPEN TOPPED - MC's are a bit more useful against such vehicles than they are against enclosed AFV's that have few openingings in teh armour.

They still have their uses, mainly for ruining peoples' engines, which pretty much destroys a tank's actual battlefield usefulness.

I suggest you try Jason's test agaisnt some half tracks and open topped armoured cars and see what the difference is.....

Yes, the difference is that it only takes about 6 or 7 hits to maybe possibly take them out rather than 13 or 14 when unbuttoned.

[ January 08, 2007, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: jBrereton ]

[jBrereton]

*whoops! - replied instead of edited!*

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by jBrereton:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

John of course they say to use weapons against weak points - why would you say to use them against anything else?

MC's were marginal weapons - they HAD to be used agaisnt weak points to have any chance of success.

They were still used far, far more frequently on the battlefield than demo charges - which suggests that they were more effective, seeing as the Russians replaced pretty much anything that they found inneffective when possible.

</font>

[Other Means]

I'm sorry SO, but everything you've said so far has been conjecture. You're assuming effects because of what you assume a bottle of flammable liquid can do, not what you've read they've done.

If you can find me passages where it states MC's where NOT effective, then we can both argue from solid ground. However, all the RL AAR's I've seen have stated that they took out tanks.

If you're going to argue that these AAR's are noted down because they are such outliers, then you're going to have to prove that too

Until then, I'll argue that they are under modelled due to the historically noted effects and the fact they were used in the Red Army for so long, when they clearly knew what they were doing.

[Guest Mike]

OM AARs involving successful attacks by molotov cocktails are common enough precisely because it was a great effort for an infantryman to destroy a tank.

they invariably involve a brave infantryman, and 1 dead tank. Often other tanks are nearby and sometimes they retreat.

Finding them on the web is trivial.

For example here is the ONE account of successful MC usage in Warsaw in 1944:

The well-aimed bottles hit the tank. The flames spread quickly. The blast of the explosion is heard. The machine stands motionless. The crew is burned alive. The other two tanks turn around and withdraw. The Germans who took cover behind them withdraw in panic. We take leave of them with a few well-aimed shots and grenades.

It is found on numerous web pages including here, and on Wiki.

It is almost exactly what Jason posts above - an isolated tank (at the head of a column in a street) being overwhelmed by multiple MC's thrown from above by well motivated troops under cover.....and it got exactly 1 of 3 tanks without damaging the others - except perhaps for brown trousers!

In the context of 150,000+ tanks built in the war the numbers of such successful attacks are also trivial.

They are highlighted to inspire troops, but they do not give evidence of widespread effectiveness.

According to Wiki the Finns produced 450,000 mc's during the continuation war. The British produced them as Grenade, self-igniting, phosphorus, No. 76. but fortunately never had to use them - they instead had the PIAT, and even the Boyes anti-tank-rifle, both with all their known problems, as their standard infantry anti-tank weapons.

No-one who had enough infantry anti-tank weapons used them.

The Japanese claimed to have destroyed sseveral hundred Soviet tanks with them in 1939, and certainly tanks of that vintage were more vulnerable to them than those of just a few years later. However it appears that the Soviets lost only about 120 tanks total according to this US Leavenworth paper - including to anti-tank guns and mines.

At ref 13 of the same document you can read about troops trying to use molotovs vs a few tanks being machine gunned and having no effect, whereas 37mm AT guns crushed the main part of the same atack. The paper says that Japanese scouts originally reported 4 (FOUR) tanks destroyed in this action, but later found "more", without specifying how many.

The document also notes 1 (ONE) action where Japanese infantry "drove away" some Soviet tanks with molotovs, but makes no mention of them actually killing any - it seems more likely the Soviets retreated because they lacked infantry support.

Your comment that they must have been effective because the Red Army used them for so long misses the point, and is in danger of being circular. They were more effective than rifles and hand grenades which were the only things they would have otherwise. they were not more effective than proper infantry or heavier AT weapons.

Edit:

"Seek, Strike and Destroy: US Army Tank Destroyer doctrine in WWII", another Leavenworth pdf - to save the hassle of downloading it I'll point out the 2 mentions of molotovs:

1/ Page 4 - molotovs were adequate along with 37mm AT guns in the Spanish civil war.

2/ Page 42: Major Allerton Cushman, observer for the Tank Destroyer Command in the Tunisian campaign states:

Tank hunting, ie dismounted men going after tanks with sticky grenades, Molotov cocktails, etc., is fine in theory but is considered ridiculous by troops who are in actual war.

Edit 2:

And here is a rousing account of the early use of MC's by Spanish and Finns - it says hte finns made 550,000, not 450,000, and credits them with killing 350 Soviet tanks.

Edit 3: According to this site nikita Kruschev says the Soviets lost 2300 tanks and armoured cars. They had committed 3000. Given the considerable reputation of Finnish infantry and the appaling reputation of Soviet tankers in this war, 350 kills to MC's, about 1/8th the total losses, doesnt' really seem to add up to a fantastically wonderful weapon - although hte contribution is not to be sneezed at.

But again - we have situations much like Jason's test, with well motivated infantry lacking anything else against a poorly motivated foe.

[ January 08, 2007, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organist ]

[John Kettler]

Stalin's Organist,

The Trotter piece is very good and highly detailed, despite a few typos, notably T-28s to Spain. SOFAIK, the tanks shipped there were the more than adequate T-26s. As for the SIPPs, don't forget the

British ampulomet equivalents, the Northover Projector, the Bates Eight-Barrel Bottle Thrower and another one I can't remember right now. SIPP caches are still being found around London, causing all sorts of official consternation.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Andreas]

William Triplet, who wrote the very good memoir "A Colonel in the Armored Divisions" was in weapons development before being posted to a command position. He tested the efficacy of Molotov cocktails for the US Army and found them to be useless.

The Soviets used hand-delivered hollow charge grenades (RPG-1), which reputedly where far more effective. The real fault in CMBB is not to give those to Soviet units early.

As for the argument that they continued to use them, therefore they must have been effective in killing tanks, that is simply not so. They continued using ATRs long past their sell-by date, or cavalry. That was because these had still some use in niches, even though they had become useless in their original task. My guess is that at best the same applied to MCs. But more likely they were still used because they were easier to procure than more effective weapons, and it was better to have a bad AT weapon than none at all.

All the best

Andreas

[MikeyD]

"William Triplet... ...He tested the efficacy of Molotov cocktails for the US Army and found them to be useless."

I wonder if he was testing against Allied or German equpment. I read somewhere the M4 Sherman engine deck was designed speciifically to protect against molotov-like weapons. The sloped rear without open engine grate. Same went for the Brit designs - the Churchill, Valentine, Crusader, and Cromwell all without exposed engine deck grating. Engine grating appeared with increased engine cooling demands. The clean engine deck of the M4 was replaced by the grated deck for the M4A3, the clean engine deck for the early PzIV was replaced by the grated deck for the 'tropicalized' F models. The Panther engine was particularly notorious for running hot - and for catching fire.

We might conclude from this that molotovs had been considered enough of a threat to see some protection against them designed-in, but the threat was considered minor enough that compromises to that protection were commonly made as other needs arose.

[Andreas]

I would need to pick up the book again, to give you an answer ?ike, and I am too lazy

All the best

Andreas

[jBrereton]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

IMO you are taking far too much for granted - eg that demo charges were widely available.

they were not.

Yes... because they weren't very popular, otherwise they would have been.

the USSR was short of explosives - about 50% of it's total useage was supplied by lend lease. Demolition charges were specialised equipment that used a lot of a valuable resource.

Please could I get some kind of proportion of Demo charge explosive consumption / Explosive consumption overall so that this can be above the levels of conjecture?

Molotov cocktails are easy to produce - all you need is a bottle, some petrol or diesel, and a rag - even infantry units usually had access to all of these and could make them up on the spot.

Molotov cocktails were used because the Soviets did NOT have access to anything better.

They were what was made because they were what was effective.

If the Russians had actually preferred to use demo charges, they would probably have actually started to produce them and ship in the materials needed for their production, too.

Using a molotov on a tank is fairly easy - light, smash and Bob's your uncle. Demo charges need quite a high degree of training to use properly, and if they're a Kasapano-style charge, they are also relatively bulky and heavy, which puts another burden on infantrymen.

[Hetzer38]

"Why the Molotovs?

Well, yea, lost my Ofenrohr, you know..."

("Ofenrohr" = Raketenpanzerbüchse 54 = "Panzerschreck")

[bitchen frizzy]

It doesn't follow that unavailability is due to unpopularity. Example: XBox 3.

Molotov cocktails aren't a joy to carry around, nor are they particularly safe to have on one's person.

They are easy to use.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by jBrereton:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

IMO you are taking far too much for granted - eg that demo charges were widely available.

they were not.

Yes... because they weren't very popular, otherwise they would have been..</font>

[Other Means]

OK, you got me. Saying the RA used them so they must have been good is very poor reasoning.

But the fact of the matter is they are *still* under modelled in game.

Even if you couldn't see them being thrown, that would be something. As it is, they are worse than a grenade attack, which is a simulated close assault - sometimes over 30m with intervening enemy infantry.

At least in real life, you could throw them from cover.

[Guest Mike]

Well at last there is something we can agree on - they should be better than grenades - at least vs vehicles with closed tops.

Grenades shuold be useless vs such vehicles - their only chance of getting a kill is to land INSIDE a vehicle - the do not have enough explosives to remove a track (unless bundled of course).

Vs an open topped vehicle I have no preference either way - a fragmentation grenade migth have a wider area effect, so if it lands in an unimportant corner then there's still shrapnel flying arounddoing damage, whereas if a MC lands in an unimportant corner the occupants get a hell of a fright but there might be no significant damage.

Anything can be thrown from cover of course - grenades, satchel charges, A/T mines.....