MAJOR OMISSION - Allied Hand Held Anti-Tank Weapons

[Michael Dorosh]

As discussed in the Bug thread that BFC refuses to acknowledge, JonS and others have pointed out the lack of anti-tank weaponry among British rifle sections.

This article comes from Canadian Army Training Memorandum No. 22 dated January 1943.

From the front cover:

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED....Every officer in the Canadian Army in Canada should receive a copy of the monthly Canadian Army Training Memorandum...

And the article itself:

Good Huntin' (A.T.M. No. 44)

The following story from the Middle East shows that tanks can be dealt with successfully by determined infantrymen: --

"The armament of the section consisted of a bren gun, a spandau, a tommy gun, a 2-in. Italian mortar, an anti-tank grenade rifle, 25 sticky bombs, 50 grenades.

"In the evening of 28th May, 28 German tanks advanced on Pt. 209 in 'W' formation. One came straight at the section position. The section waited until the tank was ten paces away and pelted it with sticky bombs. The tank jerked to a standstill spanning the trench. The heat drove out the crew. All were killed.

"Five minutes later another tank attacked the section, then a third, and then a fourth. All were dealt with in the same way; and all the crews were killed. Half-an-hour later three more tanks came up. The section had all taken cover under the first tank that had stopped over the trench. They were not observed by the Germans, who got out and examined their dead. One of them was a doctor. The section took them by surprise with grenades. The doctor, who shot at a member of the section with a pistol, was killed. Many of the other Germans were killed before they could reach their tanks.

"The section then withdrew, as its ammunition was exhausted, and reached Tobruk next morning.

"The total loss inflicted on the enemy was four tanks knocked out and 28 Germans killed."

Pipe dream?

Lucky?

Propaganda?

Maybe, but these AT weapons were on the scale of issue - why doesn't CM:AK include them?

[Abteilung]

Sticky bombs? As in an improvised explosive device? If so then this would not be anything particular to a certain combatant. They are not missing for the "Allies", they are not ingame altogether. I think the infanrty continues to engage armor with grenades if it is close enough. This grenade attack occurs even if squads are listed with no AT weapons or grenades. This isn't specific to a particular side, but occurs with all infantry squads. "Sticky bombs" or whatever would be a whole other catagory. Besides, I don't think socks or axle grease are modelled or tracked in CM:AK. Neither is Captain Miller.

[MikeyD]

I just took a peek in the unit editor. First let me say Canadians seems to be just about as hard to find as U.S. paratroopers in the date-specific unit selector (I never did find them in N. Africa - admittedly playing on the final Beta while at work )!

To my main point, one work-around for lack of proper anti-tank weapons might be to incorporate Pioneers or Engineers into the ranks. These guys get access to proper explosive charges which can be used on tanks. The main problem is an Engineer platoon is configured differently than regular infantry so compromises will have to be made when taking this route.

--

Its interesting what you miss playing CMAK vs CMBB. In CMBB I sorely missed tank smoke shells for the Russians. In CMAK I miss having Allied infantry molotovs and explosive charges.

[ March 16, 2004, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Pzman]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

I just took a peek in the unit editor. First let me say Canadians seems to be just about as hard to find as U.S. paratroopers in the date-specific unit selector (I never did find them in N. Africa - admittedly playing on the final Beta while at work )!

Thats because Canadians (other than a few in British units) didn't fight in NA. From Sicily till early 1945 they saw action in Italy.

[Sirocco]

"From May 1940, he [Churchill] combined his Premiership with the duties of Defence Minister and that brought rich dividends. He had authority to give wings to any propitious scientific undertaking. The development of the "sticky" bomb is a prime example."

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=831

"Rommel's tanks rip through 6 Brigade, whose anti-tank guns are also write-offs due to mines. The British send up a truckload of Mark 74 grenades, better known as "Sticky Bombs," an anti-tank

grenade. This unusual weapon's main feature is a sticky substance that fixes it to a tank's hull before it explodes."

http://www.usswashington.com/dl19jl42.htm

"Also known as the Sticky bomb, as it has a sticky coating which made helped it stick to the target. It was unpopular as it could stick to anything and was used as little as possible, plus it meant the user had to virtually touch the tank to use it."

http://www.btinternet.com/~ian.a.paterson/equipinfantry.htm

It would also be interesting to find a copy of:

Small Arms Training, Volume 1, Pamphlet No.13 Supplement No.2, No.73 Anti-Tank Genade (Hand), No.74 Anti-Tank Genade (Hand), dated 1941, 8 pages

I believe the "sticky bomb" was officially known as the Mark 74, or No.74? I don't think it's quite the same as the American improvised "sticky bomb".

An interesting page for Commonwealth grenades:

http://members.shaw.ca/dwlynn/british/britid.htm

[JonS]

Originally posted by Abteilung:

Sticky bombs? As in an improvised explosive device?

They were not an IED, as related in the previous post.

Also, I've been looking at the Kiwis in Italy recently, and there is extensive reference to No. 77 'phosphorus' grenades being used to engage German tanks - Panthers and Tigers - with some degree of success (one guy got 3 Panthers in the space of about an hour!* :eek: He also got deaded ).

Now, I don't want to open the whole phosphorus can-o-worms, and I don't expect BFC to model each and every different type of A-Tk grenade that the CW used. What would be nice, however, is a generic 'A-Tk Grenade' that could be a stand in for which ever model is appropriate in a given circumstance. To keep things simple, it could just be the Gammon Bomb that the Paras use, or the Demo Charge the engineers use. Or either/both.

Strangely enough, finding reference to CW infantry A-Tk weapons is anything but difficult. I wonder why BFC excluded them.

Be cool

JonS

* To be fair, it was somewhat of a special case - night and heavy fog. On the same night an officer relates walking into the side of a Panther before he realised it was there ...

[rune]

Some more sites:

The Nº 74 Grenade (Sticky Bomb) was designed as an anti-tank grenade and was disliked by everybody who ever came across it.

The grenade consisted of a glass ball on the end of a bakelite (plastic) handle. Inside the glass ball was an explosive filling whilst on the outside was a very sticky adhesive covering. Until used, this adhesive covering was encased in a metal outer casing.

http://www.home-guard.org.uk/gren74.html

Grenade, Hand, Anti-Tank No 74 Chemical (Thermide) 42 mm

The Sticky Bomb was rejected by the Army in the U.K. as being too dangerous for use by troops so it was issued to the Home Guard instead. Anyone who has seen the film Dad's Army may recall that the main hazard was the Bomb's ability to stick to the user's trousers, which then gave the user 7 seconds in which to remove his trousers, and remove himself to a safe distance.

http://miniatures.de/html/int/shells-british.html

Rune

[Wicky]

Apparently the glass container explosive was nitro-glycerine. Churchill instructed on 2nd Oct 1940 that 1 million to be produced after seeing the final trials of ST bombs and trying out for himself a tommy-gun (28th July 1940) at Farnborough Military Intelligence Research centre.

In fact 1 and half million were produced. Churchill wrote 'in the end the "sticky" bomb was accepted as one of our best emergency weapons. In Syria where primitive condions prevailed, it proved it's worth"

mmmm... So apart from Syria it apparently was worth much

[JonS]

Originally posted by Wicky:

... So apart from Syria it apparently was worth much

Tell that to the Kiwis who used them with success at Alamein in the summer of '42 (if not before).

I'm not saying they were the best thing since sliced bread. They weren't - but then the infantry A-Tk weapons of all nations were weapons of hope and last resort. However the point is that from the introduction of the No. 74, until the end of the war, the CW infantry did have, in a variety of formats, A-Tk weapons (other than the Boys and the PIAT). Currently, in CMAK, they cannot have anything. That is wrong. Further more, they are the only(?) infantry in CMAK to be disadvantaged so.

Regards

JonS

[John Kettler]

Impressively argued, and I concur. If the troops in question had them, then they should be in the game.

By the way, the phosphorous weapon JonS describes is the famous/notorious (still causing problems to this day; cache found recently in England) SIPP (self-igniting phosphorous projectile) designed to be fired from the Northover Projector and Bates Eight Barrel Bottle Thrower, with a secondary hand thrown application. The SIPP is best though of as a Molotov in which nothing burns prior to impact. Impact on the tank shatters the glass bottle, exposes the phosphorous to air, igniting it, which then sets the gasoline or whatever ablaze. We're talking a factory sealed Molotov, with no matches needed.

With such superb research skills, what can you find

on the No. 68 Rifle Grenade in CW use? On a separate note, in the CMBB Board, JasonC reports on his test firings of ATRs against a range of targets. My comment is that a Tiger I company at Kursk was basically sidelined by ATR fire (smashed vision blocks wholesale so tanks couldn't fight buttoned, injured several TCs, one seriously), despite what the tests show. The source was a Tiger company AAR I found online shortly after Panzer Elite came out. I printed out the piece (hunt underway with the friend who owned the game--was my roomie), but failed to bookmark it. Can any of you master researchers find that AAR somewhere and either post it or post a link? It was a most valuable report.

Regards,

John Kettler

[JonS]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

... what can you find on the No. 68 Rifle Grenade in CW use? ...

Not much. I have come across references to it from time to time, the best is probably in Fortys "British Army Handbook", which is little more than an editted re-print of the US Army 1942 publication (c.f. "The German Army Handbook", "The Japanese Army Handbook", etc).

I have little doubt that the CW had grenade launchers, but my doubts are stronger as to whether they used them. I can't recall any mentions of their use in combat, nor any photos of them from operational theatres. Naturally, that isn't definitive one way or the other, but it doesn't such much for their popularity or common-ness.

Regards

JonS

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Originally posted by JonS:

I have little doubt that the CW had grenade launchers, but my doubts are stronger as to whether they used them. I can't recall any mentions of their use in combat, nor any photos of them from operational theatres. Naturally, that isn't definitive one way or the other, but it doesn't such much for their popularity or common-ness.

Regards

JonS

As common and oft used as the infamous Bren tripod perhaps?

Regards

Jim R.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

As common and oft used as the infamous Bren tripod perhaps?

I know you were joking, but the tripod is different in that examples of it's use are comparatively easy to find. As are scales of issue, uses, etc.

Regards

JonS

[Wicky]

All I could locate for NZ use of sticky bombs at El Alamein were these two references:

"Rommel's tanks rip through 6 Brigade, whose anti-tank guns are also write-offs due to mines. The British send up a truckload of Mark 74 grenades, better known as "Sticky Bombs," an anti-tank grenade. This unusual weapon's main feature is a sticky substance

that fixes it to a tank's hull before it explodes. The Sticky Bombs are more useful for sabotage and as satchel charges. In any case, they never arrive. The truck hits a mine.

6 Brigade takes a beating. Brig. Clifton and brigade HQ are overrun. One battalion CO is killed, another is missing. 24th Battalion is almost totally destroyed. 25th is down to a rifle company."

<a href="http://www.usswashington.com/dl19jl42.htm" target="_blank">WORLD WAR II PLUS 55

July 19th through July 25th, 1942</a>

and "

...Practically every man prepared to carry a record load of ammunition. As Bob Wilson2 recalled the occasion later: ‘We packed our foodless pack with Bren and tommy mags—no time for food where we're going. Shorts and shirts should hold a few grenades, a sticky bomb is tied to someone's belt—a hell of a load but we're taking it!’

later

"Shorty Dunlop8 still had the sticky bomb down his left buttock—we were still intact."

NZETC CHAPTER 9

The Battle of El Alamein

Nothing describing it being used against entrenchments

"Bill Tilson, a humorist in 14 Platoon, who had been carrying a bangalore torpedo, inquired at this point: ‘Do I have to lump this bloody useless bangalore any further? It restricts my spearing power!’ "

Originally posted by JonS:

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

... So apart from Syria it apparently was worth much

Tell that to the Kiwis who used them with success at Alamein in the summer of '42 (if not before).

I'm not saying they were the best thing since sliced bread. They weren't - but then the infantry A-Tk weapons of all nations were weapons of hope and last resort. However the point is that from the introduction of the No. 74, until the end of the war, the CW infantry did have, in a variety of formats, A-Tk weapons (other than the Boys and the PIAT). Currently, in CMAK, they cannot have anything. That is wrong. Further more, they are the only(?) infantry in CMAK to be disadvantaged so.

Regards

JonS </font>

[JonS]

Originally posted by Wicky:

All I could locate for NZ use of sticky bombs at El Alamein were these two references:

[snip]

Do a word search for 'sticky' here, here, here, and here (which, incidentally, puts their use as early as Nov 41).

Nothing describing it being used against entrenchments

I don't understand the context of this quote.

Regards

JonS

[Simon Fox]

No.74, No.75, No.68 even No.82 consigned to impotency. Not to mention No.36 cup discharger

[sand digger]

There is mention of successful Australian use of sticky bombs against tanks around Alamein in the official history, namely Tobruk and El Alamein, Barton Maughan, AWM.

Dunno about the Kiwis, haven't had time to play the game much, but the Aussies have some significant corrections due.

[Mark Gallear]

Originally posted by rune:

Some more sites:

The Nº 74 Grenade (Sticky Bomb) was designed as an anti-tank grenade and was disliked by everybody who ever came across it.

The grenade consisted of a glass ball on the end of a bakelite (plastic) handle. Inside the glass ball was an explosive filling whilst on the outside was a very sticky adhesive covering. Until used, this adhesive covering was encased in a metal outer casing.

http://www.home-guard.org.uk/gren74.html

Grenade, Hand, Anti-Tank No 74 Chemical (Thermide) 42 mm

The Sticky Bomb was rejected by the Army in the U.K. as being too dangerous for use by troops so it was issued to the Home Guard instead. Anyone who has seen the film Dad's Army may recall that the main hazard was the Bomb's ability to stick to the user's trousers, which then gave the user 7 seconds in which to remove his trousers, and remove himself to a safe distance.

http://miniatures.de/html/int/shells-british.html

Rune

The sticky bomb may have been disliked but was used in combat by British/commonwealth troops and I have come across an account in "Meeting the Fox" of US troops being issued them in Tunisia.

[Lord Harmes]

hmmm... on Wednesdays I go and sit with an 82 year old ex-commando named John Austin who served in N.Africa, Dieppe, Anzio and Normandy... I'll ask him if he can remember ever seeing/using any kind of sticky bomb or other AT grenade/device. He might be able to throw some light on the subject eh?

Even though I am convinced that the CW forces have been shortchanged in CMAK...

[K_Tiger]

I think we will find also a succesfull use of toothpicks...

[JasonC]

The other side of all of this is that CM infantry can kill any tank within 25m or so with "grenades" aka close assault, while actual incidents of infantry KOing fully functional AFVs without some kind of special AT weapon are extremely rare (Finns and their toothpicks notwithstanding).

[JonS]

Originally posted by Simon Fox:

No.74, No.75, No.68 even No.82 consigned to impotency. Not to mention No.36 cup discharger

Simon,

could you explain this cryptic comment please. Are you talking about in CMAK or IRL, and what are you basing you comments on. I'm sure there is an interesting point in there, but I'm also sure I can't figure it out.

Regards

JonS

[John Kettler]

Troops,

I just noticed something in Michael Dorosh's original evidence quote that we somehow missed, "anti-tank grenade rifle." If I had to guess, this would be a grenade discharger cup equipped Enfield

dedicated to antitank work (firing No. 68 Grenade?) and probably fitted with a wire reinforced stock. Since only one weapon, the mortar, is identified as being of foreign origin, it seems reasonable to posit that the anti-tank grenade rifle was a CW issue item. Thoughts?

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Troops,

I just noticed something in Michael Dorosh's original evidence quote that we somehow missed, "anti-tank grenade rifle." If I had to guess, this would be a grenade discharger cup equipped Enfield

dedicated to antitank work (firing No. 68 Grenade?) and probably fitted with a wire reinforced stock. Since only one weapon, the mortar, is identified as being of foreign origin, it seems reasonable to posit that the anti-tank grenade rifle was a CW issue item. Thoughts?

Regards,

John Kettler

I think you'll find that the Spandau was also of foreign origin. Just to be a nitpicker!

[Simon Fox]

Originally posted by JonS:

but I'm also sure I can't figure it out.

Don't be so hard on yourself. Have a bash and I'll give you a mark out of 10.