Michael Dorosh Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 Reprinted from CANADIAN ARMY TRAINING MEMORANDUM No. 20, November 1942 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conscript Bagger Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 "You can't miss." Whoever wrote these instructions was obviously some REMF who never played CM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Wacky Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 Man, you're on fire tonight Dorosh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gremlin Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 If you visit http://www.combat-missions.net (Manx's old site), and go to the Boot Camp section, you may find the "Panzerknacker" article of interest in this regard. It's a translation I did of a German field manual about close assaulting tanks on the Eastern Front. Unfortunately, the link to the original document no longer seems to work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 The US Army infantry board tested Molotov Cocktails, according to the memoir of Colonel Triplet 'A colonel in the armoured divisions' (book review at Der Kessel). He found them useless against tanks (I think they tried them on an M3, but can check next week). The use of language like 'that'll fix him' increases my distrust of the use of training manuals as corroborating evidence for anything. Does anyone know how many Panzer III/IV fell victim to Molotov Cocktails? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 Remember, the early radial engine M3/M4 had a sloping rear engine deck WITHOUT open intake grating, so there's be no place for the burning liquid to flow. Can't say the same for the M10 TD! The Panther engine had to be run super-rich to counter backfire problems. I've heard several stories of gasoline puddling at the bottom of the engine compartment catching fire and burning-out a vehicle. Sounds like a good candidate for M-cocktail attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 24, 2002 Author Share Posted January 24, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andreas: The US Army infantry board tested Molotov Cocktails, according to the memoir of Colonel Triplet 'A colonel in the armoured divisions' (book review at Der Kessel). He found them useless against tanks (I think they tried them on an M3, but can check next week). The use of language like 'that'll fix him' increases my distrust of the use of training manuals as corroborating evidence for anything. Does anyone know how many Panzer III/IV fell victim to Molotov Cocktails?<hr></blockquote> I highly doubt that Molotov cocktails were ever used in the field by the Canadians who read this memoranda, or any of their troops. Never seen reference to it in any books, which doesn't mean it never happened - but with the preponderance of stories about tanks being taken out by PIATs or supporting anti-tank guns, I kind of get the impression CW infantry felt that taking out armour "wasn't my job" and would more likely foot it then try any desperation measures. But that is a good point someone else raised - did they test them on a running M3 with gasoline pumping through the engine, or a burnt out range target? Kind of dumb to try it on a tank with no visible air intakes...weren't these located on the back of the tank, under the overhanging armour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 Michael Dorosh said: <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Kind of dumb to try it on a tank with no visible air intakes...weren't these located on the back of the tank, under the overhanging armour?<hr></blockquote> Yeah, the M4 and M4A1 Shermans had the air intake under an overhang at the very rear edge of the hull. But Shermans with other engines had some form of intake or radiator up top, with size and location varying with the type of engine. BTW, I find it very interesting that the PzIII had intakes on the front of the hull. That must have sucked on a rollbahn if you weren't leading the convoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgdpzr Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Bullethead: Michael Dorosh said: Yeah, the M4 and M4A1 Shermans had the air intake under an overhang at the very rear edge of the hull. But Shermans with other engines had some form of intake or radiator up top, with size and location varying with the type of engine. BTW, I find it very interesting that the PzIII had intakes on the front of the hull. That must have sucked on a rollbahn if you weren't leading the convoy <hr></blockquote> The intakes at the front of the Panzer III were for the brakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gremlin Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 If you're ever looking for technical details, drawings, and photos of German armor, you may want to check Walter Spielberger's Militärfahrzeuge series from Motorbuch Verlag. Most, if not all, of them are available in English translation from Schiffer as the "Spielberger German Armor & Military Vehicles Series." Jentz and Doyle's Tiger books from Schiffer are along the same lines: highly detailed works with lots of technical data and unusual photos. [ 01-24-2002: Message edited by: Gremlin ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts