Military Review

The simplest anti-tank weapon ... but effective

61
The simplest anti-tank weapon ... but effectiveIncendiary bottles turned out to be an effective means of fighting melee armored vehicles


Flame-incendiary weapon refers to the conduct of chemical troops. However, one type of it in the years of the Great Patriotic War was used only by infantrymen. These are incendiary bottles.

Cheap and easy to manufacture “glass grenades” first found widespread use against tanks during the Spanish Civil War. The bottles were filled with a gasoline-based mixture and plugged with a cork wrapped in tow, which was set on fire before being thrown at the target. The best option was to hit the engine (engine-transmission) compartment of an armored vehicle on the air intake grill - then burning gasoline penetrated the engine, which led to a fire inside the tank and detonation of the ammunition. In the summer of 1939, Soviet tankers collided with the Japanese "bottle-makers" on Khalkhin Gol, and in the winter of 1939-1940 - with the Finnish on the Karelian Isthmus.

FIRE "Cognac"

The combat regulations of the infantry of the Red Army 1940 of the year already proposed the creation of groups of tank destroyers with grenades and incendiary bottles to fight against broken tanks in the depths of the defense. This recommendation was very useful at the very beginning of the Great Patriotic War. Marshal I. Kh. Baghramyan recalled the first weeks of the war on the South-Western Front: “There was not enough artillery - we met them (German tanks. - S. F.) with bundles of grenades. Unfortunately, the pomegranate was not always enough. Then they remembered the experience of Spanish Republicans, began to collect bottles, fill them with gasoline ... a simple weapon, but in bold and skillful hands is quite effective. "

The order of the Supreme Command Headquarters from 6 July 1941 of the year demanded: “... in order to intensify the fight against enemy tanks, immediately create in the regiments and battalions of the company and the team for the destruction of enemy tanks. These teams highlight the most courageous, brave and enterprising people. The teams should be armed with anti-tank grenades, bottles with burning liquid, packages with explosives and, in the presence of firing points, with flame-throwers of light tanks. ” And 7 July 1941, the State Defense Committee adopted a decree "On anti-tank incendiary grenades (bottles)", which read:

“1. To oblige the USSR People's Commissariat of Food Industry (t. Zotov) to organize with July 10 Equipment liter bottles of viscous flame thrower mixture (according to the recipe of scientific research institute-6 NCB) in the amount of 120 000 pieces per day, for which you must:

a) Glavneftesbyt (t. Donchenko) to ensure the supply of the USSR's National Commissariat of Food and Petroleum Products for the cracking of gasoline and kerosene by 50 tons of each per day from July 10. g .;

b) Narkomrezinprom (m. Mitrokhin) to ensure the supply of rubber rings to the Narkomishchepromy of the USSR (according to the drawings of the Scientific Research Institute-6 NKB) on 240 000 pcs. per day to July 10 with. g .;

c) USSR Commissariat (t. Saltykov) to ensure the supply of the USSR Commissariat of the USSR ignition devices for 120 000 kits (one grater and two fuses according to the drawings of scientific research institute-6 NKB) per day from July 10. g. "

Beer and vodka bottles with a capacity of 0,5-0,75 or 1 l were filled with flammable mixtures No. 1 and No. 3. For their preparation, they used automobile gasoline, non-aviation kerosene, naphtha, thickened with a special OP-2 powder based on aluminum naphthenate, developed in 1939 by A. P. Ionov in Scientific Research Institute-6 (People's Commissariat of Ammunition). Viscous fire mixtures were intended for jet flamethrowers, but they were also useful for incendiary bottles - when burning they gave the same large flame as uncombusted fuel, they burned for a long time, stably and well adhered to metal surfaces. In this, they were similar to napalm, which appeared in the US 1942 year. The burning time of No. 1 and No. 3 mixtures (usually having a dark brown color) is 40-60 seconds, the temperature developed is 700-800 С, black smoke was formed during combustion, and after burning a hard, opaque film.

3-grade military engineer K. Soldadze, who served in the NKVD Special Motorized Division for Special Purpose, developed a new, viscous BGS mix (according to the initial letters of the mixture components obtained from oil fractions - the benzene head and solvent), which, from 1941, also filled up inject bottles .

The effectiveness of their use depended not only on the content, but also on the type of fuse. Sometimes the bottle was plugged with a cork stopper, before the throw the fighter had to replace it with a rag plug dipped in gasoline, and the last one was set on fire. The operation took a lot of time and made the “glass grenade” less effective and dangerous. Two long matches covered with an incendiary composition along the entire length and secured to the bottle with an elastic band could serve as a fuse. The fighter ignited them before throwing a flop or a regular matchbox.

Since August, 1941, a more reliable chemical fuse has been used by A.T. Kuchina, M.A. Scheglov and P.S. Solodovnik: an ampoule with sulfuric acid, bertolet salt and powdered sugar was attached to the bottle with an elastic band - the development of the Kibalchich chemical “fuse” principle is evident ”, Which was installed on their bombs by the People. The mixture ignited as soon as the ampoule was broken together with the bottle, its action did not depend on the weather, the presence of matches, etc. In order to increase the reliability of ignition when it hit the target, four ampoules were attached to one bottle circumferentially. In Tula, G. A. Korobov developed a simple igniting mechanism based on the idle rifle cartridge and spring loaded drummer with a check: the check was held by a rope wrapped around the bottle when it broke, the drummer pierced the cartridge cap just in time for the incendiary spill. Chemical and pyrotechnic fuses increased the reliability of operation and the safety of handling incendiary bottles, but they still had to be prepared in the trenches immediately before use.

The most effective were “glass grenades” with a self-inflammable liquid KS - the pinnacle of the “evolution” of incendiary bottles. It was a yellow-green or dark brown solution containing carbon disulfide, white phosphorus and sulfur, which had a low melting point (according to the composition had the smell of rotten eggs). The burning time of such a liquid is 2-3 minutes, the temperature is 800-1000о C. The abundant white smoke released during the combustion also produced a blinding effect.

The abbreviation of the COP was also interpreted as the “Koshkinskaya mixture” (by the name of the inventor N. V. Koshkin), and as “Kachurin-Solodovnik” (by the names of other developers of incendiary mixtures). However, the director of the Scientific Research Institute of Fertilizers, Insecticides and Fungicides, S. I. Volkovich, wrote in his memoirs: “The work of Kuzmin and Sergeyev, performed in the first period of the war, who proposed the self-igniting phosphorus-sulfur composition (CS), was of great importance. Mass production of bottles with this composition was first organized at the NIIUIF pilot plant N. N. N. Postnikov, K. I. Makar'in, A. S. Solov'ev, E. E. Zusser, N. D. Talanov ... As a result of deep physical chemical study of the properties of various compositions of the NIUIF staff developed activities that eliminated the danger of breaking glass and metal vessels from the CS (works by V. V. Illarionov, R. E. Remen and the author of these lines), for which they were awarded the Marshal of Artillery "(i.e. Chief of Artillery of the Red Army N. N. Voronov. - S. )..

A mixture of the COP was called and "old brandy", and "insidious mixture", and "cocktail of death." But her most famous nickname is the Molotov cocktail, which subsequently extended to all types of incendiary bottles. To protect the self-igniting liquid from contact with air, a layer of water and kerosene was poured from above, the plug was usually lubricated and fixed with tape or wire. Instead of the usual label, a simple application guide was put on the bottle (however, because of the haste of preparation, there were bottles with preserved Vodka or Port Wine labels). A thin-walled ampoule with a liquid KS could also be used as a fuse for a bottle of gasoline or ligroin.

CHECK ON FRONT

2 August 1941, Commissar of Defense Joseph Stalin approved the Instructions for the use of incendiary bottles. According to her, in the regiments and divisions began the formation and training of tank destroyers with incendiary bottles. The throwing range was set to 30 m, but in reality it was equal to 15-20 m.

The initial distrust of the infantry to the "glass" was soon replaced by surprise: "The tanks are burning bottles!". The commander of the 1 Guards Rifle Division, Major General I. N. Russiyanov, recalled how, after the first battle with the use of “manual glass artillery,” a captured German tank-tanker said: “If I knew that Russians have such powerful incendiary weapons, I would turn back. " When we showed him this "powerful incendiary weapon", he was very surprised. "

But "to undermine" the tank with only bottles was very difficult. From the memoirs of D.F. Medvedev, commissioner of the 2 battalion of the 30 regiment of the 13 th Rostokinsky national militia division, who fought in September 1941 on the Smolensk direction: "... We started to collect bottles of fuel, formed a group of 18 people and I was sent with these people to undermine the tanks. Let's go to the right, to the river, where there was a moat. We were supposed to cross tanks there. We had to light them there. When we crawled to the intersection, the Germans noticed, opened a mad fire on us from the tanks ... We still got into the anti-tank gap. At one of our people a bullet caught a bottle of fuel. He fired up. I had to rip off everything and leave him completely naked. There we stayed until dark. One soldier crawled and threw a bottle. The bottle caught fire, but the tank turned to the wind, set in motion, and the wind blew off the fire. It was not possible to damage the tank. ”

In the fall of 1941, tank destroyer groups began to form in all rifle units of the Red Army. Each group consisted of 9-11 people who had, in addition to the 14-16 small arms, anti-tank grenades and 15-20 incendiary bottles. The latter were used not only in defense. Thus, the instructions for organizing an offensive announced by the 29 troops of the 23 September 1941 army of the year said: “During the attack, the infantry attacks the enemy emplacement points, using as much as possible hand grenades, bottles of combustible mixture, and then goes on bayonets.”

Throwing bottles turned out to be successful from the trenches and crevices - especially into the stern of the tank or assault gun after their passage over the shelter. Getting a bottle in the front of the tank usually only "blinded" the crew. Throws outside the shelters or from shallow trenches led to large losses among the fighters. The bottle accidentally crashed in the hands during careless movement or from a bullet hit immediately ignited.

The best results were given by the use of bottles and grenades, along with other anti-tank weapons. Already in the autumn of 1941, near Moscow, a group of tank destroyers tried to attach 1-2 to the calculation of anti-tank guns. Such measures allowed the small units "during the period of the tank attack not only to cut off enemy infantry, but also to take an active part in the fight against the tanks themselves." “Anti-tank units” were practiced - armored soldiers and shooters with automatic weapons and incendiary bottles were placed near the anti-tank gun.

Directive of General of the Army G.K. Zhukov, Commander of the Western Front, from 19 of October, 1941 ordered “to put anti-tank detachments consisting of 1-2 PTO guns, platoon of fighters with grenades and KS bottles, platoon of sappers with mines, company” on rear borders and rear roads. shooters. " Two days later, the front's military council ordered the formation of “in each rifle regiment one fighter anti-tank unit consisting of one middle commander and 15 fighters, including a squadron unit ... 150 anti-tank grenades, 75 bottles of KS, PPSH-3, anti-tank mines , semi-automatic rifles ... In each rifle division there are two fighter squads ... three army mobile detachments. " At the same time, anti-tank strongholds on advanced and anti-tank areas began to appear in the depths of the defense. The order stated to all army commanders, division commanders and regiments of the Western Front: “Tank destroyers with anti-tank grenades, bundles of ordinary grenades and bottles of flammable liquid are an effective means of close combat against tanks. Tank fighter groups must be trained at each stronghold. "

During the Battle of Stalingrad, each rifle company created 2-3 tank fighter groups, usually as part of the 3-6 Red Army under the command of a sergeant, sometimes with the 1-2 PTR calculations. Each fighter had a rifle, a carbine or a submachine gun, two anti-tank grenades, 2-3 incendiary bottles. Experienced fighters spent an average 2-3 "glass" to defeat one tank. Usually a rifle division maintained a constant supply of incendiary bottles (2000-2500 units per division, no less than 700 — per rifle regiment).

The 1942 infantry combat regulations of the year demanded that each fighter "be able to hit tanks. If tanks are attacked without infantry, it is necessary to hit them with anti-tank grenades, bottles of combustible mixture, fire at observation slots, throw up gangs of grenades and anti-tank mines under the tracks, destroy tankmen with fire ... If tanks are attacked with infantry, they must fight with tanks only specially appointed fighters, and all others are obliged to strike infantry with fire and grenades. ” The tank destroyers used such a method — throwing an anti-tank grenade or bundles of grenades into the tank's chassis, and after stopping it — throwing the bottle to the stern. Thus, for example, 18 July, 1943, near the village of Novaya Zhizn, the corporal of the 3 machine-gun company of the 290 rifle regiment PF Khramtsov set fire to two enemy tanks, and the 4 of the 1944 th regiment of the 2 th regiment of the 50 rifle division R.S. Smishchuk destroyed 6 tanks in a battle near Mount Roglui near Iasi.

The combination of hand-held anti-tank grenades and incendiary bottles lasted until the end of the war. Thus, 17-25 February 1945 of the year, when the enemy’s counter-attack by the enemy’s 7 troops reflected the counter-attack fighters destroyed by incendiary bottles on the bridgehead on the western bank of the river Hron (Czechoslovakia), 40 tanks, 6 armored vehicles, 3 masses, and the masses, 10 tanks, 1945 armored vehicles, 155 masses, and the masses, 57 tanks, XNUMX armored troop-carriers, XNUMX masses, and the masses. In Budapest, only on the day of January XNUMX battles of XNUMX, the assault groups and tank destroyers of the XNUMX Rifle Division used XNUMX incendiary bottles.

The “battle score” of the bottles is impressive: according to official data, during the period of the Great Patriotic War, with their help, the Soviet fighters destroyed 2429 tanks, self-propelled artillery systems and armored vehicles, 1189 pillboxes and bunkers, 2547 other fortifications, 738 vehicles and 65 military warehouses.

HOOPS AND SHOTS

Incendiary bottles were also used to destroy transport vehicles, pillboxes, bunkers, warehouses, airplanes at airfields, manpower, buildings, fire and combined barriers. Already in the defensive battles near Moscow and Leningrad, ramparts and fields appeared. Incendiary bottles were staggered in bottlefields, sometimes in combination with anti-tank mines. The calculation was made on the fact that a tank or an armored vehicle would crush the bottle, burning liquid would be spread along the undercarriage, forcing the crew to stop or turn around in order to bring down the fire and hit a mine.

The order for Western Front troops from 8 December 1941 of the year contains such examples: “The firing shaft put into 3.12.41 at the front of the 5 army burned for 4 hours, the height of the flame reached 2-3 meters, and in places 4-5 meters. Tanks of the enemy were forced to change the combat course and move along the front of defense, substituting the most vulnerable (side) part under fire of PTO, as a result of which artillery and anti-tank guns, bottles and flamethrowers in front of the shaft were destroyed to 20 enemy tanks. Obstacles made from bottles of flammable liquid, stopped the movement of enemy tanks, and some of them in these fields caught fire. Total bottlefields at the front of the 5 army were arranged 15 with a total consumption of bottles up to 70 000 pieces. "

In the middle of the war, the practice of creating “fire mine bombs” was spread - around the anti-tank mine there were about 20 COP bottles radially. The bombing of a mine was accompanied by the formation of a pillar of fire that hit the tank. Another example of the ingenuity of our compatriots was “tank rocking”: curved arches were attached to a frame made from metal pipes and buried in a structure so that when a tank hit, the rocking chair would overturn and threw bottles of CS onto the tank. It was not by chance that in September, in the 1942 Army's defense zone on the west bank of the Terek and the southern bank of the Baksan, in addition to 37 26 anti-tank mines, 250 anti-tank firefighters installed 250 tank tanks.

Throughout the four war years, various methods were developed to increase the range of the incendiary bottle. Already at the beginning of the war, the Red Army soldiers received a rifle mortar for shooting bottles, the creator of which is considered to be V. A. Tsukerman (later a famous physicist, Hero of Socialist Labor, laureate of Lenin and State Prizes). Mortirka was attached to the barrel with a bayonent connection. A bottle of KS inserted into it through a wooden wad rested on a perforated membrane, the shot was made by a blank (throwing) cartridge. Shooting was carried out with the emphasis of the butt into the ground. The target shooting range of the bottle was indicated in 80 m, the maximum - 180 m.

Near Moscow, the rifle squad had to have two such mortars, the rifle platoon — 6-8. They were used near Leningrad. Bottles for them were selected with thicker and durable glass and still often fought, shooting accuracy was low, which is why mortars were not popular. At the same time, they were used on the fronts for throwing termite slugs of delayed action or smoke bombs - in the shelling of pillboxes or bunkers.

Bottle wastes were a forced improvised remedy. It is characteristic that in 1941 on the NIABT test site in Kubinka mortars were tested for throwing incendiary bottles to small-caliber rifles and hunting rifles, which then armed the people's militia. Various "mechanical" bottles were also used.

Incendiary bottles were used not only by the Red Army, but also by other armies. During the war years, the US military spent more than 9 million incendiary grenades and bottles. Incendiary means of the British infantry passed their evolution. She also had bottles of gasoline or a more effective phosphorus-containing mixture. The use of incendiary bottles by the Wehrmacht can be judged by the instructions for conducting street fighting given by the commander of the 1 Guards Tank Brigade, Major General M. E. Katukov December 6 1941 of the year: "The enemy ... often skips the forward parts and then fires from the rear according to our troops, dumping bottles of fuel on our tanks. " In the German instructions mentioned bottles filled with gasoline, thickened oil and fitted with a fuse in the form of a wick or matches.

And yet the name “Molotov cocktail” remains common to the incendiary bottles - it is clear that a unique Russian recipe left a strong impression of itself.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.vpk-news.ru
61 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Ivan Denikin
    Ivan Denikin 5 October 2013 08: 17
    +1
    The most effective weapon in the short range. Now it is very relevant.
    1. Professor
      Professor 5 October 2013 12: 19
      +5
      Quote: Ivan Denikin
      The most effective weapon in the short range. Now it is very relevant.

      Not relevant. If they don’t throw in the open hatch, then this bottle will not do anything to the tank. Tzahal receives such a cocktail almost daily on armor and even on jeeps, the damage is minimal.

      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 5 October 2013 15: 26
        +8
        Quote: Professor
        Not relevant.

        Oleg, an incendiary bottle (or as they like to call it - a Molotov cocktail), is a very dangerous weapon in "skillful hands".
        It’s easy to be able to use them. And their plus (unfortunately) that they are made in an almost artisanal way "on the knee".

        Moreover, even non-combustible viscous oils are dangerous ... but we will not talk about that.

        Salvation is simple - cover with infantry. This is an axiom.
        wink
        1. Professor
          Professor 5 October 2013 19: 06
          0
          Quote: Aleks tv
          Oleg, an incendiary bottle (or as they like to call it - a Molotov cocktail), is a very dangerous weapon in "skillful hands".

          Statistics show that this is not such an effective weapon. I can still put a ton of such videos. Now, if it flies into the hatch ...
          1. svp67
            svp67 5 October 2013 23: 49
            -3
            Quote: Professor
            Statistics show that this is not such an effective weapon. I can still put a ton of such videos. Now, if it flies into the hatch ...
            Do you take into account the psychological effect? sometimes the enemy is just enough to scare ....
            1. Professor
              Professor 6 October 2013 09: 10
              +6
              Quote: svp67
              Do you take into account the psychological effect? sometimes the enemy is just enough to scare ....

              For those who are sitting on the forum and seen enough films about the Second World War, the psychological effect is achieved. For those who saw them in action, this effect will not be.

              A sniper is much worse ...
              1. svp67
                svp67 6 October 2013 09: 24
                +4
                Quote: Professor
                For those who saw them in action, this effect will not be.
                That is, do you think that the "Open, Brightly Flared Flame" does not cause fear in a living organism? Professor, you are not a stupid person, but start talking nonsense.
                A sniper is much worse ...
                do not deny. And the appearance of the first signs of the use of an agent or the "mushroom" that starts to rise before our eyes is even worse, but the conversation was not about the rating of horror, of this or that weapon, I raised the question that this weapon also has a "psychological effect" I had to burn in the tank, and although you know that there is a flame, there is behind the armor and you understand that in principle there is no particular threat, but the licking tongues of fire and warm air, mixed with smoke visible in the triplex, somehow made it "shiver" anyway ...
                1. Professor
                  Professor 6 October 2013 09: 27
                  +1
                  Quote: svp67
                  That is, do you think that the "Open, Brightly Flared Flame" does not cause fear in a living organism?

                  War is generally a terrible thing, but a piece of concrete slab dropped onto the roof of a jeep or BMP causes a greater effect than a Molotov cocktail.
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 6 October 2013 09: 34
                    0
                    Quote: Professor
                    War is generally a terrible thing, but a piece of concrete slab dropped onto the roof of a jeep or BMP causes a greater effect than a Molotov cocktail.

                    I tell you "about Thomas", you tell me "about Eremu". And a completely collapsed building burying tanks in its wreckage is even worse. You just answer - does the unexpectedly bright flames cause the "wall of fire" - the effect of fear? Let it pass, but still ...
                    1. Professor
                      Professor 6 October 2013 09: 42
                      +3
                      Quote: svp67
                      I tell you "about Thomas", you tell me "about Eremu". And a completely collapsed building burying tanks in its wreckage is even worse. You just answer - does the unexpectedly bright flames cause the "wall of fire" - the effect of fear? Let it pass, but still ...

                      I will expand my answer. In most cases, fighters in a tank, infantry fighting vehicle or armored personnel carrier do not even recognize that they have a Molotov cocktail. Damage to the cosmetic technique. Fighters in jeeps (like on the rollers that I brought) these bottles are not very scared. But when a piece of a plate weighing a couple of tens of kg is dropped from the roof of a building onto the roof of equipment, especially lightly armored vehicles, then the heart goes into heels. This is for you regarding the psychological effect first hand.
                      1. svp67
                        svp67 6 October 2013 09: 49
                        +3
                        Quote: Professor
                        But when a piece of a plate weighing a couple of tens of kg is dropped from the roof of a building onto the roof of equipment, especially lightly armored vehicles, then the heart goes into heels. This is for you regarding the psychological effect first hand.
                        I will see "where the hearts" of your soldiers will be, when in front of their jeeps, of any armor, the earth suddenly "opens up" and a flame bursts out of the hole, and the question is whether they will have time to slow down or not will remain open ... What is that stove ... that it is better to be overwhelmed or burned or suffocate alive, in my opinion, not the best ... but still ...
                      2. faraon
                        faraon 6 October 2013 10: 04
                        +5
                        All hearts will be in one place, in the heels, regardless of belonging to any army, nationality, etc.
                        Now the second is the protection of the tank crew, infantry fighting vehicles, patrol jeep.
                        Yes, a Molotov cocktail (Molotov cocktail) played a huge role in the Second World War. But now another time and the designers took this disadvantage into account when designing military equipment.
                      3. Professor
                        Professor 6 October 2013 10: 07
                        0
                        Quote: svp67
                        I will see "where the hearts" of your soldiers will be, when in front of their jeeps, of any armor, the earth suddenly "opens up" and a flame bursts out of the hole, and the question is whether they will have time to slow down or not will remain open ... What is that plate ...

                        Have we switched to a landmine? let's discuss the consequences of exposure to the jeep of the damaging factors of a nuclear explosion. Why not? From bottles to nuclear weapons? wink

                        Quote: svp67
                        The question of what is better to be littered or burned or suffocated alive in my opinion is not the best ... but still ...

                        Guess how many burned and suffocated in the same Israel from tens if not hundreds of thousands of used Molotov cocktails? In less than a day, the Arabs did not use them. This does not even fall into the news bulletins. But from the cobblestones people really die. This is about efficiency.
                      4. svp67
                        svp67 6 October 2013 10: 14
                        0
                        Quote: Professor
                        Have we switched to a landmine?
                        What kind of explosive devices are you talking about? Just a ditch is made, in which the ground is saturated with a fire mixture, and from above, the whole thing is covered up and at the right moment, when the "game" falls into this trap, everything is set on fire and the chance that a perfectly armored armored vehicle will not save the life of its crew is very high, so how such traps are usually covered by snipers, in short, the "thing" is not very pleasant ... As far as I remember, in the history of Israel, especially during its formation, there were cases when your people died in a similar way. It seems in Jerusalem when I broke through to the "hospital mountain", I can be wrong with the names, but I remember exactly that in armored buses, many people were killed, suffocated and burned, in most of the doctors, and that the British were to blame, who could, but did not want to stop the Arabs ...
                      5. Professor
                        Professor 6 October 2013 10: 18
                        0
                        Let's get back to the article under discussion: The simplest anti-tank weapon ... but effective. So, now it is not at all effective. hi
                      6. svp67
                        svp67 6 October 2013 10: 27
                        0
                        Quote: Professor
                        So, now it is not at all effective.
                        God grant that this confidence would not be refuted by practice. It still saves your army that your opponents are disunited and you can concentrate forces and means in threatened areas, that is, there is always support. And in this case, the "Molotov cocktails" really have more psychological effect than practical. But if you are forced to "spray" and some of the patrols will be without support and in isolation from the main forces, it is possible that these "cocktails" can increase the level of efficiency. The same armored jeep is immobilized in any way and begins to be thrown with bottles. And sooner or later, but the crew will be destroyed, as the burning fire mixture will either find "cracks" in the sealing and begin to flow inside, setting fires and burning out oxygen, or it will heat the air inside the armored object to temperatures at which they do not survive ...
                      7. Professor
                        Professor 6 October 2013 10: 35
                        +1
                        Quote: svp67
                        Your army is still very much saved by the fact that your opponents are divided and you can concentrate your forces and assets on the threatened areas, that is, there is always support.

                        Quite the opposite. They are attacking Israel in an organized manner. But this is not about that, but about the Molotov Cocktail "

                        Quote: svp67
                        The same armored jeep is immobilized in any way and begins to be thrown with bottles. And sooner or later, but the crew will be destroyed, as the burning fire mixture will either find "cracks" in the sealing and begin to flow inside, setting fires and burning out oxygen, or it will heat the air inside the armored object to temperatures at which they do not survive ...

                        You confirm my words that this weapon is not effective and proceed to the extensive method of its use. Of course, you can burn any equipment if you lock it in a dead end and throw dozens of bottles or pour a barrel of gasoline and set it on fire.
                        I had to talk with a former border guard (magaw), he was well versed in these bottles. During the service he saw them at sea. So he even learned to classify them and "derived the formula" for the most flammable. Of course, I will not post this recipe on the Internet.
                      8. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 6 October 2013 10: 48
                        +6
                        There is a chronicle of the Second World War with the use of French "poppies" bottles with the mixture against a German half-track conveyor. One bottle, burning soldiers.
                        The system is quite effective against open cars. Especially if you ensure greater adhesion of the fuel.
                  2. svp67
                    svp67 6 October 2013 11: 35
                    0
                    Quote: Professor
                    . So, now it is not at all effective.

                    It's just that you need to be able to use any weapon effectively. and even a nuclear weapon may turn out to be "down the drain ..."
                  3. faraon
                    faraon 6 October 2013 12: 26
                    +4
                    Of course you can’t discount the use of Molotov cocktails in the next confrontation. Yes, it’s whatever the weapon that causes damage to those who use it, and in any case brings some kind of imaginary effect. But what was good during the Second World War , this does not mean that it’s good in this period of time. I would call the Molotov cocktail a weapon of despair of the defending side, when there is nothing else that could be opposed to the attacking enemy. Easy to manufacture, does not require large mater other investments, as well as easy to operate, but not reliable in use. (unfortunately no one kept statistics of victims of the misuse of this type of weapon on the part of the defenders and making this cocktail)
                  4. svp67
                    svp67 6 October 2013 12: 55
                    0
                    Quote: faraon
                    .I would call the Molotov cocktail a weapon of despair of the defending side when there is nothing else that could be opposed to the attacking enemy.

                    And at ALL times he was ONLY PRESENTED. As soon as the troops were saturated with a sufficient number of anti-tank weapons, the "bottles" were forgotten as a nightmare. Since the infantry was simply afraid to use them at the front, due to the fact that it was not uncommon for throwers to die from their own "bottles", in which a splinter or a bullet fell, or they simply broke from careless handling - once a burn was received, for life makes to handle the flame at YOU ...
  • Russ69
    Russ69 6 October 2013 00: 35
    0
    Quote: Professor
    Statistics show that this is not such an effective weapon. I can still put a ton of such videos. Now, if it flies into the hatch ...

    So no one says that the incendiary bottle is 100% a panacea for technology. However, like a grenade launcher.
    Any weapon has a destruction coefficient, in this case it is small of course, but it’s cheap and manufactured on the knee, as they say ...
  • svp67
    svp67 5 October 2013 23: 53
    0
    Quote: Aleks tv
    Salvation is simple - cover with infantry. This is an axiom.
    And if you cover the tank with mattresses or mats? how many hosh throw your bottles, but they won’t beat on the soft ...
    1. Aristocrat
      Aristocrat 7 October 2013 22: 33
      0
      Netting from old beds. It was used as protection against bottles, and against hand grenades, and against "faust cartridges".
    2. Mooh
      Mooh 1 November 2013 02: 05
      0
      This is definitely the invention of the century. An urgent need to patent. I also figured out how to improve it - you need to use mattresses with refractory vanadium springs to defocus the cumulative jet.
  • Xroft
    Xroft 5 October 2013 23: 48
    -2
    Hitting a car grill will automatically cut it off and force the crew to leave it (the temperature in the cabin will jump) and possibly detonate the gasoline in the engine. What you show cannot be called the use of the COP, especially since it is not an ordinary bush (I don’t say anything about the Israelis’s protection of transport, they go like idols even on the roofs) it makes no sense to throw cars on the roof.
    1. Professor
      Professor 6 October 2013 09: 07
      -1
      Quote: Xroft
      throwing a car on the roof makes no sense

      Throw where it gets. It falls into the lattice, zero sense.

      By the way, they are scammers who are so brave because they know that it is forbidden to shoot at them. I would look at these heroes when there would be a danger for them to grab a bullet.
  • postman
    postman 9 October 2013 18: 20
    -1
    Quote: Professor
    Not relevant.

    Some opponents of Tsakhal-NON-POSITIVE, such as these revolutions:

    I would have burned for a sweet soul.
    I will not give 6 (! And there are more) the most beautiful chemical reactions of combustion and explosion? Okay?
    So harmless (but cool):

    well, or basic:


  • Aristocrat
    Aristocrat 5 October 2013 12: 21
    +7
    "But the men don't know that!" Here is the idiot! They knock out MBTs from RPG-7 and disposable grenade launchers from 50-250 meters! Instead of going up to 15-20 and throwing a bottle on the armor! :)
    1. Denis
      Denis 5 October 2013 15: 09
      +3
      Quote: Aristocrat
      But the peasants do not know that! "Here is the idiot!
      I agree with the definition!
      To know:
      RPG-7 grenade launcher (GRAU index - 6Г3) - Soviet / Russian reusable hand-held anti-tank grenade launcher for firing with active-reactive grenades. Designed to combat tanks, self-propelled artillery and other enemy armored vehicles, can be used to destroy enemy manpower in shelters, as well as to combat low-flying air targets. Designed by GSKB-47 (now GNPP Basalt) and Adopted in 1961
      Of course, this is more difficult than fooling around as mentioned and.
      Doesn’t interfere with knowing either
      Cheap and easy to manufacture “glass grenades” first found widespread use against tanks during the Spanish Civil War
      1. Aristocrat
        Aristocrat 5 October 2013 22: 41
        +1
        I agree with the definition!
        To know:
        Of course, this is more difficult than fooling around as mentioned and.
        Doesn’t interfere with knowing either

        Honestly could not decipher clearly what you were trying to convey. Just wanted to conduct an educational program?
        Personally, I always knew and even applied (I'm talking about RPGs), but the word didn’t bring a word with a bottle of ches :)

        My "acting the fool" is written to the following:

        The most effective weapon in the short range. Now it is very relevant.

        Or do you agree that a bottle is the most effective weapon? If so, how much (or how many) times more effective than RPG?
        1. Denis
          Denis 5 October 2013 22: 51
          +1
          Quote: Aristocrat
          Or do you agree that a bottle is the most effective weapon? If so, how much (or how many) times more effective than RPG?
          The bottle is always effective drinks
          Did not have THEN RPG-7 fought available
          Let's open the argument whether the motorized rifle division will stop the Macedonian phalanx
          Quote: Aristocrat
          I agree with the definition!
          To know:
          Of course, this is more difficult than fooling around as mentioned and.
          Doesn’t interfere with knowing either

          Honestly could not decipher clearly what you were trying to convey. Just wanted to conduct an educational program?
          Personally, I always knew and even applied (I'm talking about RPGs), but the word didn’t bring a word with a bottle of ches :)

          My "acting the fool" is written to the following:

          The most effective weapon in the short range. Now it is very relevant.

          Or do you agree that a bottle is the most effective weapon? If so, how much (or how many) times more effective than RPG?
          I just didn’t quite understand, you didn’t specify a quote
          1. Aristocrat
            Aristocrat 6 October 2013 09: 27
            +4
            There was THEN RPG-7, fought the available
            Let's open the argument whether the motorized rifle division will stop the Macedonian phalanx

            You put a plus sign but you still did not understand me and that guy. He claims that:
            The most effective weapon in the short range. Now it is very relevant.

            He claims to be NOW! Apparently with his slogan and first post he hoped to catch pluses :)
            In addition, during the Second World War, the bottle was not the most effective weapon. This is all just a surrogate and a forced measure with insufficient means of vocational training. Less effective but better than nothing. And even more so, it’s not bad as an addition to grenades, PTR and guns.
            1. Denis
              Denis 6 October 2013 12: 27
              0
              Quote: Aristocrat
              He claims to be NOW!
              I managed to find who we are talking about
              Quote: Ivan Denikin
              Now it is very relevant.
              About it?
              Then he didn’t add for whom, although the peasants just know. For various dirty fighters, it’s very effective now. When buying RPGs, they can just throw it, and it’s not very small, or even for ... opa and in an envelope. And here the components are simple and affordable, not long to do. And then boldly mess with the roof or around the corner
              Then this is clear. Give a quote!
  • AVV
    AVV 5 October 2013 21: 48
    0
    A good inexpensive tool at hand, easy to manufacture and handle, applicable against any mobile vehicle, tank, car, bmp, dugout, or any structure !!! Everything is new, it’s a well-forgotten old !!!
  • MrFYGY
    MrFYGY 5 October 2013 09: 25
    +2
    I didn’t know about fire bombs and mines, thanks!
    1. shasherin_pavel
      shasherin_pavel 5 October 2013 20: 35
      +3
      Also mixed when a box or canister with a CS was buried on top of a land mine. A fountain of fire fell on the tank from above and made a candle out of it. Even with great success it was used against large infantry groups.
  • asadov
    asadov 5 October 2013 10: 57
    +2
    Thank you for the article. As they say, the need for inventions is cunning. And once again I was convinced that the most ingenious and effective is banal simple.
    1. Avenger711
      Avenger711 5 October 2013 13: 32
      -6
      2000+ tanks are negligible compared to their total number. A gun is by definition better. In many cases, the tank was clearly only temporarily disabled.
      1. Stas57
        Stas57 5 October 2013 15: 55
        0
        Mines, artillery, etc. that's good

        but unfortunately each fighter was given the anti-tank weapon only in our time, and when a tank rides at you, you’ll be glad for the cop.
        1. Avenger711
          Avenger711 5 October 2013 19: 03
          0
          Now the means of VET is one per platoon and it’s not a fact that you will hit it in the forehead. Just do not overestimate the effectiveness of primitive weapons. Not so long ago there was an article about flamethrowers, it was described how in a city a couple was shot at a tank, one pours fuel from above, the other burns, and this is much more serious than a bottle.
      2. lelikas
        lelikas 5 October 2013 18: 41
        +2
        Quote: Avenger711
        2000+ tanks are negligible compared to their total number.

        On September 1, 39, Germany had 3200 tanks.
        So look - it is a lot or a little.
        1. shasherin_pavel
          shasherin_pavel 5 October 2013 20: 44
          +3
          On September 3200, Germany had 40 German tanks. Manstein wrote everywhere and everywhere that there were no German tanks in the Crimea, and everyone began to "quote" that Manstein had no tanks at all. But in the "Memoirs of the commander of the anti-tank crew" the officer and the commander of the PRT battery himself writes about 22 brand new "French" tanks that followed his battery and none of them returned from this battle. This question haunted me for a long time, since at every step they said that all tanks and German and captured ones were taken into account, but the mathematics did not add up to the results of the end of the battles near Moscow and the beginning of the war on June 1941, XNUMX.
  • Stas57
    Stas57 5 October 2013 11: 44
    +7
    yes, one must have a steel character in order to let the tank reach the throwing distance, knowing that at the same time the tank crew will obviously treat you with chocolate.
    Here is an example of the use of this weapon http://hranitel-slov.livejournal.com/64163.html
    1. Walking
      Walking 5 October 2013 18: 22
      +5
      The film "They Fought for the Motherland" shows how these bottles were used, even though it is a feature film.
      1. Stas57
        Stas57 5 October 2013 22: 06
        0
        is there a tank in the trenches unfolding, which in life did not?
        And as I really used, I gave the link.
  • Vital 33
    Vital 33 5 October 2013 12: 09
    +6
    On his first Watch of Remembrance (20 years ago), he "raised" a shooting cell, and among other things, he found two bottles of them. There was already half of the mixture, but it smelled incredibly. It's good that the shovel slipped and didn't break the bottles, as our chef later said, there could be a self-igniting liquid ... that would be fun)))
    And after all, the mine detector does not see them ...
  • Aristocrat
    Aristocrat 5 October 2013 12: 23
    +7
    The weapon of the proletariat. Like a cobblestone. It may well come in handy in the absence of anti-tank weapons, but of course in a last resort without a case ...
  • mithridate
    mithridate 5 October 2013 12: 44
    +1
    the enemy casualties from this makeshift weapon are impressive
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 5 October 2013 15: 34
      -3
      Quote: Mithridates
      the enemy casualties from this makeshift weapon are impressive

      This is propaganda, no more ... No one knows for sure how many COPs were destroyed.
      1. shasherin_pavel
        shasherin_pavel 5 October 2013 20: 52
        0
        Given the loss of 45 mm anti-tank guns that were discontinued to replace them with 76 mm guns, and the lack of anti-tank systems (Rukavishnikov’s guns were withdrawn from the troops, it was believed that the enemy tanks would have armor up to 70 mm), then why did the tanks stop them? Most of the losses of the Wehrmacht tanks were from bottles, only by the year 42 was a decree issued to shoot tanks until they catch fire, and after the battle at the first opportunity to lay down damaged tanks that could not be removed from the neutral strip for complete destruction. Only by the year 42 did they realize that the Germans were just rebuilding the wrecked tank in a few days. But the COP destroyed primarily the motor part.
        1. Stas57
          Stas57 5 October 2013 22: 16
          0
          Most of the losses of the Wehrmacht tanks were from bottles,
          I will annoyingly ask about confirmation by the report of the GABTU, the Oberkquartiermeister, or some "experience of using the COP in the Second World War"
  • psyholirik
    psyholirik 5 October 2013 13: 55
    +3
    in war all means are good
    1. Shumer
      Shumer 5 October 2013 20: 23
      +1
      That's right, in war all means are good.
      In the words of my foreman on an urgent basis, in skillful hands a stool can turn into a weapon of mass destruction wink
      1. George
        George 6 October 2013 01: 01
        +5
        Quote: Shumer
        in skilled hands and a stool can turn into a weapon of mass destruction

        Fact!
        The consequences of the defeat of our army stool for a long time to disentangle.
  • Luga
    Luga 5 October 2013 14: 00
    0
    Thank you for the article. hi
    I never thought about the possibility of using bottles in an offensive battle, and why not? And information about bottlenecks is generally a revelation.
    Thanks again.
  • Denis
    Denis 5 October 2013 15: 00
    +5
    Tank fighters used this technique - throwing an anti-tank grenade or a bunch of grenades into the chassis of the tank, and after stopping it - throwing a bottle to the stern
    It was heard that such a tactic was used by groups of 2 people: who moved forward with the bottle, the rear immobilized the tank with grenades, and the front fry
    Quote: Avenger711
    2000 + tanks are negligible compared to their total number. A gun is by definition better
    Competently! For elementary school. This is a clear miscalculation of the evil I. Stalin of course, which is not each fighter armed with an anti-tank gun
    In the middle military commander would tell how many grenade launchers in the company, but canceled the NVP, but in vain
    Comparison of human and material costs for the production of incendiary bottles and anti-tank guns, then generally only for the university
    And the fact that the weapon somehow needs to be moved is still a military secret
  • Nayhas
    Nayhas 5 October 2013 15: 43
    +2
    It must be understood that both KS bottles and anti-tank rifles are just an ersatz that had to be used due to the gigantic losses of anti-tank artillery. If with the help of anti-tank artillery it was possible to fight tanks regardless of whether the infantry was cut off or not, then it would be deadly to use CS bottles against tanks when the infantry was not cut off ...
    1. REZMovec
      REZMovec 5 October 2013 16: 49
      0
      In fact, war itself is deadly.
    2. shasherin_pavel
      shasherin_pavel 5 October 2013 21: 05
      +1
      In such cases, the computer writes that the proposal has not been agreed upon: in fact, to fight tanks "with the help of anti-tank artillery." ATRO is not help in the fight against tanks, but the main means of fighting tanks, since before the start of battles on the territory of the USSR, the tank did not act against the tank, this contradicted all the regulations of the world. The Germans, even on tanks from the factory, had a towing device for towing large-caliber artillery up to 105 mm. As soon as they met with the tanks, they detached the guns and retreated inland, leaving the ATRO to fight, according to the regulations, with the enemy tanks. German tankers did not go on the attack if there was no infantry support, and it was the COP that became the main argument for this.
  • igordok
    igordok 5 October 2013 17: 57
    +6
    In this, they were similar to napalm, which appeared in the USA in 1942.

    Why are similar. This is napalm. Thickeners - Aluminum Salts ATfenovoy and PALьМitinic acid.
    The KS mixture had another convenient property. It is well wetted and penetrates into all cracks, even upwards, through cracks in a closed hatch. This is when the COP in the bottle was not as arson, but filled into the bottle in full, covered from spontaneous combustion with a thin layer of kerosene.
    As mentioned above, in the hands of the pros is a terrible weapon. And the ignoramus will most likely burn himself.
  • shasherin_pavel
    shasherin_pavel 5 October 2013 21: 12
    +7
    In Spain, the Molotov cocktail was not named in any way, but in the war between the USSR and Finland in 39, a cry from the Finns first appeared: "Cocktail for Molotov". When they themselves had to use this specific remedy en masse, the Germans renamed it "Molotov's Cocktail" and it stuck in literature and cinema. But it was only at 39-40 that "Cocktail for Molotov" sounded for the first time.
  • Asan Ata
    Asan Ata 6 October 2013 00: 21
    +1
    I heard that too. Hota who knows him for so many years?
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 6 October 2013 17: 51
    +1
    I was always surprised by the name of this effective and now in street riots means. Why is it exactly "... Molotov?" This comrade did not even come close either during battles or during development. "Cocktail of Stalin? Ivanov? Petrov? ...
    1. GHOST
      GHOST 7 October 2013 17: 17
      0
      sounds prettier ...
    2. Marek Rozny
      Marek Rozny 7 October 2013 17: 17
      +2
      The name "Molotov's Cocktail" was invented by the Finns during the Winter War. After the USSR, represented by People's Commissar Molotov, falsely called its bombing of Finnish settlements "dropping humanitarian aid and food," the witty Finns wrote in their newspapers that they were ready to treat Comrade Molotov with a return treat - a cocktail of incendiary cocktails.
      "Molotov's cocktail" originally meant "Molotov cocktail". And then the meaning was gradually distorted.
  • Tanysh
    Tanysh 10 October 2013 16: 12
    +1
    Quote: Thus, for example, on July 18, 1943, the corporal of the 3rd machine gun company of the 290th rifle regiment, P. F. Khramtsov, set fire to two enemy tanks on the village of Novaya Zhizn, and on June 4, 1944, the private of the 2nd regiment of the 50th rifle division R. S. Smishchuk in the battle near Mount Roglui near Iasi destroyed 6 tanks.


    Try to imagine yourself in their place.
    The victory of the fortitude of the Russian soldier
  • grapefruit
    grapefruit 14 October 2013 21: 58
    0
    By the nature of my work, I have to deal a lot with the documents of the Second World War - cases of operational departments, awards ... I have no right to post them on the network, they will soon be made more accessible. Therefore, when I read that the use of some primitive weapon, in this case, Molotov cocktails, in the Second World War - propaganda, inventions, then anger takes me to such a "pest of pestrini". I myself saw operational reports of burnt out tank companies (no need to weave the current here that they say they embellished in the reports) of the enemy. Presentations for awards with a description of the creation of a shaft of fire ... A bottle on the tower - and the tank commander is "blind". A bottle under the tower in front (and a throw is possible from the side, out of sight) - the mechanic will immediately begin to get bored. The simpler the weapon, the higher its mass character and, as a consequence, the higher the impact on the enemy.
  • SS68SS
    SS68SS 28 October 2013 18: 25
    0
    Goal for fiction is cunning. Well, it was necessary to at least somehow fight back from nemchury. Well done our ancestors.
  • SS68SS
    SS68SS 28 October 2013 18: 26
    0
    Goal for fiction is cunning. Well, it was necessary to somehow fight back from nemchury. Glory to the RUSSIAN SOLDIER!
  • samoletil18
    samoletil18 1 November 2013 19: 44
    0
    God forbid! So that this weapon does not become the main means of combating enemy armored vehicles.