Andreas Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Originally posted by Stalin's Organist: MC's are not simple to carry - they are full of flamable liquid, and carrying 2 or 3 of them was just as much as hassle as carrying anythign else of the same weight. Probably more so, considering that bottles are really not that easy to carry, and very breakable (my expert knowledge on this comes from carrying wine bottles down to the cellar). Maybe someone should try going through an infantry combat range with 2 or 3 wine bottles on you on top of all the other gear, and come back to tell us how many were still in one piece at the end of it. All the best Andreas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Apples and oranges. Molotov coctails were produced into vodka bottles, not wine bottles. The standard size for that is not 75cl but 50cl, meaning a considerable difference in handling. Contrary to what has been said, MC didn't go out of use after WW2. After the war, a special version of AK-47 was developed to deliver Molotov liquid. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undead reindeer cavalry Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Originally posted by jBrereton: and if they're a Kasapano-style charge, they are also relatively bulky and heavy, which puts another burden on infantrymen. lol, nice typo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 who said molotovs went out of use after WW2? they're used in pretty much every violent demonstration you see on the tube world wide. Nice bottle tho! I am aware that the Sov's produced satchels for carrying 3 or 4 molotovs - there's a picture of one in the WW2 fact file series volume on anti-tank weapons. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jBrereton Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Originally posted by Stalin's Organist: Below you have the gall to accuse me of conjecture, and yet you put this forward without any backup at all? I've provided references for my conclusionsNo, you haven't. You've said "Molotovs are crap", but nowhere have you proved that demo charges were actually prefered by the average soldier. </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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?</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 1/ I have never said molotovs are crap. I have said that they are improvised weapons of marginal utility that are invariably replaced by something better when somethign better is available. 2/ I have read recently that 1-2 lbs of explosives suffices to remove a track - the "useless information" you complain about gives the total explosives used by the USSR in WW2 in 1 or 2 places - can you do the math? Or are you asking how MANY demo charges were made and what proportion of the total explosives manufacture they were? I have no idea. However I do know that molotov cocktails entailed uing 0% of the available explosives. 3/ Soviet preference for use of Pz-fausts is entirely relevant as it suports my point #1 - they repalced molotovs with something better as son as they could. 4/ I have not forgotten about demo charges having to be used from close range either - however the point I was replying to was the assetion that molotovs are easy to use - "just smash the bottle" or some wuch comment. It was a simplistic point. Demo charges are not simple to use either - but they weer not being discussed. 5/ The 50cl bottle comment above was a joke referring only to the really nice Kalashnikov bottle pictured AFAIK - pictures of molotov cocktails in soviet use show they were pretty much the same size as "standard" liquer bottles everywhere - 75-100 cl. Demo charges are not prone to breaking open and coating the wearer with flammable liquids. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Here are some answers regarding satchel charges: Those wacky Finns * 2 kg was sufficient to destroy vehicles with the weight of around 6 tons (FAI, BA-3, BA-6, BA-10, T-37, T-38) * 3 kg was sufficient to destroy vehicles with the weight of around 12 tons (T-26, BT-2, BT-7) * 4 kg was sufficient to destroy vehicles with the weight of around 30 tons (T-28) All the best Andreas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitchen frizzy Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 For comparison, a Molotov made from a 750 ml bottle would weigh around 0.9 kg or so. Each one would be somewhat lighter than a satchel charge, but much more awkward to carry - once "armed" with its "fuse" it has to be kept upright even before being lit. It's also fragile. The problem of the liquid running out can be solved by gelling the gasoline by mixing it with detergent or something, but then the soldier has the fun of carrying homemade napalm in a breakable container. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitchen frizzy Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Should add that the gasoline, being of course much less dense than explosive, will mean that the Molotov will be bulkier than a satchel charge that weighs more. Bulk is as much a problem as weight. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inola Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 The thing is that engine deck of a new tank is the most protected place from napalm of a new! tank. Whaen we have tank had been fighting some weeks, especially in cold winter, this protection would be ruined, and molotovs will become effective. Dont forget morale effect - "we are burning", which makes crews to abandon the tank. IMO, their effect is undermodelled, but not very. The thing is it should make much more marol decrease, i.e. conscripts will bail out after first throw, bu elite will not suffer at all. This is reasonable enough. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 What would degrade on the engine deck of a tank? Early and pre-war tanks are noted as being vulnerable to molotovs because they often simply have holes going straight through the decking to the engine compartment. But by mid war such holes had either disappeared completely, or the air paths were more complicated so that liquids wouldn't make it into the engine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitchen frizzy Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 (Back up a few posts and you'll find a claim that the grates on engine decks got larger as the war progressed because the tank engines got larger.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Certainly the tanks themselves got larger, and the grates may well have become larger in some cases - but some tanks had no grates at all, and my contention is that grates, whether large or not, no longer presented a simple path to the engine. For example there's not a lot of holes on the top of a Sherman, and the apparent grills on a T34 cover radiators rather than the engine. There are some good photos and diagrams of Sherman rear decking here by way of illustration [ January 10, 2007, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organist ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
z-warfare Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Idle speculation here but I would think a couple blocks of dynamite in a bag would be handier to run around with than a wine bottle, but on the con side soldiers might feel more comfortable with the bottle than the possibly unstable TNT or whatever it was armies used before C4... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inola Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Is it possible to write home-grown patch ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSColonel_131st Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Originally posted by Sergei: A bit of entertainment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQXi04jKdmc What funky movie was that from? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Battle of the Xmas Trees? Originally posted by RSColonel_131st: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sergei: A bit of entertainment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQXi04jKdmc What funky movie was that from? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Originally posted by RSColonel_131st: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sergei: A bit of entertainment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQXi04jKdmc What funky movie was that from? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Originally posted by bitchen frizzy: once "armed" with its "fuse" it has to be kept upright even before being lit.Hmm. Why? The fuse is a stick (or whatever) attached to the side of the bottle. It is lit and when the bottle is broken, the fuel is set alight. There's no need to open the bottle unless the tank hunter is in need of 'encouragement'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 yep - the "fuse" is there to ignite the fluid AFTER the bottle has broken - pictures of bottles with flaming "fuses" stuffed in their necks generally only come from civilian riots where they are made by "amateurs". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitchen frizzy Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Aahh. I see. I had a picture in my mind of a rag stuck in the end of the bottle, but maybe I've been getting too much of my information from Hollywood movies. You learn something new every day. I can still say with a fair degree of confidence that it's probably not a good idea to seek encouragement by drinking gasoline. I suppose you could sniff it... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
z-warfare Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 'Huff', i believe, is the proper terminology. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jBrereton Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Originally posted by bitchen frizzy: For comparison, a Molotov made from a 750 ml bottle would weigh around 0.9 kg or so. Each one would be somewhat lighter than a satchel charge, but much more awkward to carry - once "armed" with its "fuse" it has to be kept upright even before being lit. It's also fragile.I believe (although I might be wrong) that the USSR only ever used the 3kg demo charge in any kind of numbers - that's over three times as heavy as a molotov cocktail, and is a more awkward shape, too - round bottle that you can tuck into your coat vs. essentially a supersized stick grenade, with pointy-out bits at the top of no small size. The problem of the liquid running out can be solved by gelling the gasoline by mixing it with detergent or something, but then the soldier has the fun of carrying homemade napalm in a breakable container. Ehm... there's no reason at all about why it should leak whatsoever, and if the container broke, it would probably be due to being shot, which would be slightly more of an issue than being covered in fuel at that point of time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PanzerMiller Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Hmmm...had no idea the original comment about Molotovs would stir such a response, especially in light of the earlier threads we've all read on this subject...but I'm glad it did! As always, I've learned a few new things in this thread. I myself would feel much safer carrying around a few kg of C4 than a few glass bottles of napalm strapped to my waist...! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Very interesting discussion on cocktails. Please note that the preferred mix was sodium chlorate and indeed it was 50cl bottles. web page 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.