Observation Anti-Tank Close Combat Weaponry WWII (no at-guns)

[Jopa79]

*All pictures (except Molotov's cocktail): SA-kuva
*Photos colorized (except Molotov's cocktail)

Early methods against tanks and armored vehicles in the WWII. A tank-killer in his snowy foxhole, armed with a hand grenade and a satchel charge. A tank ditch and "dragon tooth" cast in a shape.

While the first tanks appeared to the battlefields in the WWI, the only effective way to counter them was to use field artillery and land mines. Anti-tank warfare was needed to be developed against the tank threat. Tanks often present the greatest force projection in land and that's why military strategists have incorporated anti-tank warfare ever since the days of the Great War.

However, during the interwar era, due to the lack of consensus about tank use in warfare affected the countermeasure development. Also, while the German peacetime license considering the size in standing armies left Britain and France without challengers in Europe and both of the future Western Allies did very little considering anti-tank warfare. At the early phases of the WWII many nations were unprepared in their countermeasures against the tank threat. Tank ditches and tank traps usually existed nearby the other fortifications and defensive lines, but traps and ditches were slow to build, requiring a lot of manpower to complete. Traps and ditches usually were only obstacles for the tanks - although while a tank would be "wounded", stuck in a trap, it would be the close combat pioneers in need to completely destroy an immobile tank.

A Molotov's cocktail as it originally was.

Molotov's cocktail - Molly is a bottle-based, improvised incendiary weapon. Easy to produce, containing for example flammable petrol and alcohol. A 'Bengal-match' was attached into the side of bottle, a tank-killer ignited it and in order to destroy a tank the Molly needed to be thrown inside the immobile or a stuck-on tank through the air intake opening.

Satchel charge is a demolition device containing for instance dynamite. 2kg of TNT was needed to demolish tank tracks. 6kg was enough to destroy any tank of WWII era if the charge exploded on the deck of the tank's motor bay. To destroy a tank with a satchel charge the combat pioneer needed to stay in his foxhole, let the tank approach until the throwing distance, alternatively the pioneer could use cover, draw close the tank and place the charge on the tank deck.

Some of the WWII era anti-tank rifles were very accurate and while having also range capabilities they could be used at distances. A 20mm anti-tank rifle could penetrate armor of light tanks, but were in-effective against medium- and heavy tanks.

In principle some anti-tank rifles were excellent weapons with high accuracy and range. They first appeared in the late 1930's and were effective against any light tank existing. However, during same time light tanks were displaced by medium and heavy tanks. Even the best at-rifles were no-match with these medium and heavy-ones. The "Elephant Gun" (left picture) had high recoil, its magazine contained ten at-bullets and magazine alone weighted 2kg. The rifle was heavy and a pain for the two-men crew to move it in the battlefield. Still, the Elephant Gun had alternate uses like destroying enemy bunkers and also being used effectively as an anti-aircraft gun.

Late-war portable rocket-based anti-tank weapons were highly effective even against the heaviest tanks.

While entering the late-era of the WWII the development of the substitute for anti-tank rifles was running. Almost every army urged this research having a light-portable at-weapon in demand. RPG (rocket propelled grenade) is a shoulder-fired anti-tank weapon armed with a high-explosive anti-tank warhead. The best WWII re-loadable RPGs were capable to knock-out any tank as far as a radius of 200 meters. A WWII effective at-doctrine considering RPG-use was to place the at-teams in staggered trenches no further than 115 meters. Using this method the attacking armor would face at-fire from multiple directions at a distance of no more than 69 meters.

Short learning about weaponry available for close combat anti-tank crews in the WWII:

• At-mine
• At-grenade
• Molotov's cocktail
• Satchel charge
• At-rifle
• RPG

 

[Henry IX]

The confusion/disagreement about what tanks should be used for in the interwar period also led to an equivalent confusion in what the best type of AT weapons to employ are. If tanks are best used as breakthrough weapons, with a company supporting each main attack WWI style, then you need a small number of relatively heavy AT guns dispersed over your lines at an operational level and concentrated at key defensive positions at a tactical level.

If tanks are light exploitation vehicles, replacing the role of cavalry, then AT guns should be light and mobile as well as being concentrated in reserve to counter the enemy's tanks after they are committed.

To add the difficulty the armour of tanks increased rapidly throughout the interwar period and particularly during the war, meaning that AT weapons that were fine when they were introduced rapidly became obsolete. For example, AT-rifles were sufficient to penetrate the armour of any axis tank prior to about 1938 but rapidly became largely useless against tanks by 1940. The Germans had the same problem with their AT guns (PAK 36) in 1941, where they could not knock out the T-34 or KV series tanks from the front, or even the flanks in the case of the KV-1. The PAK 36 had served the Wehrmacht well in France and Poland (although it couldn't deal with the French heavy tanks) but it was clearly obsolete by 1941. The Soviet army had the same problem with the Tiger in 1942.

It is also worth noting that AT guns also served a moral purpose. The Red army began to issue AT-rifles in 1941 because they found they significantly reduced 'tank shock'. As long as infantrymen didn't feel totally helpless against tanks they would generally hold their positions much longer even if their AT weapons were hopelessly obsolete.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

And the fun part is all the AT counters: such as Zimmerman Anti-Magnetic Mine Paste to counter Soviet AT magnetic tank killers

 

[Jopa79]

And the fun part is all the AT counters: such as Zimmerman Anti-Magnetic Mine Paste to counter Soviet AT magnetic tank killers

It would be nice to know which kind of process was installing Zimmerit coating on tanks? I've heard that Germany was the only country using this separation paste which created magnetic attached anti-tank mines fail to stick on the armor surfaces. But I also heard that in addition Germany was the only WWII country using magnetic anti-tank mines - like the hafthohlladung.

So, what I'm trying to say: It's kind of weird thing, Germany only user of Zimmerit and meanwhile only user of magnetic anti-tank mines. Do you have any source of info about this subject?

 

[Kovax]

From what I've read and seen about Zimmerit coatings, they were applied with a trowel, which was moved up and down to create ridges, giving no flat surface and a lot of height for the amount of material. It was apparently of some limited use against low-velocity shaped charges (bazookas, RPGs), but not against HEAT or HESH rounds delivered by AT guns or other tanks, which would simply shatter the coating.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

It would be nice to know which kind of process was installing Zimmerit coating on tanks? I've heard that Germany was the only country using this separation paste which created magnetic attached anti-tank mines fail to stick on the armor surfaces. But I also heard that in addition Germany was the only WWII country using magnetic anti-tank mines - like the hafthohlladung.

So, what I'm trying to say: It's kind of weird thing, Germany only user of Zimmerit and meanwhile only user of magnetic anti-tank mines. Do you have any source of info about this subject?

The cynical answer is only Germany used magnetic tank mines and were the only nation to develop Zimmerit paste which was a profit for the developer and a needless expense for the Reich.

 

[Jopa79]

The cynical answer is only Germany used magnetic tank mines and were the only nation to develop Zimmerit paste which was a profit for the developer and a needless expense for the Reich.

Hmh...how about those Germans and their inventions, I wonder...Well, at least they could blow up some enemy tanks not-prepared with Zimmerit-coating. Starting in 4:13 here.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Hmh...how about those Germans and their inventions, I wonder...Well, at least they could blow up some enemy tanks not-prepared with Zimmerit-coating. Starting in 4:13 here.

I read an article recently about the tactics of a six-man AT team using combinations of Teller mines and Magnetic mines to disable tanks. Rather interesting, and I imagine a very short lifespan.

 

[Mder1]

I think someone posted this video before.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

US Wartime filmmaking at its best!

 

[Henry IX]

I read an article recently about the tactics of a six-man AT team using combinations of Teller mines and Magnetic mines to disable tanks. Rather interesting, and I imagine a very short lifespan.

Particularly during the urban defensive fighting in late '41and early '42 the German army used this method extensively due to the inability of other methods to actually penetrate the armour of the T-34 and KV series tanks (aside from the 88 which was in limited supply and vulnerable to artillery). Standard tactics seem to involve either dropping the mine from a window onto a tank or popping out of a doorway to drop the mine in front of the tank while in a blind spot. Given the number of Soviet tanks disabled during these fights and relatively modest casualties suffered by the defenders in these engagements these tactics seem to have been less suicidal than they sound (although against a better trained opponent with more sophisticated doctrines they probably are).

 

[Jorlaan]

Particularly during the urban defensive fighting in late '41and early '42 the German army used this method extensively due to the inability of other methods to actually penetrate the armour of the T-34 and KV series tanks (aside from the 88 which was in limited supply and vulnerable to artillery). Standard tactics seem to involve either dropping the mine from a window onto a tank or popping out of a doorway to drop the mine in front of the tank while in a blind spot. Given the number of Soviet tanks disabled during these fights and relatively modest casualties suffered by the defenders in these engagements these tactics seem to have been less suicidal than they sound (although against a better trained opponent with more sophisticated doctrines they probably are).

Even the wackiest of tactics can work if the enemy isn't expecting them. Only lasts for a little while though. War is one hell of an educator.

 

[Henry IX]

I read an article recently about the tactics of a six-man AT team using combinations of Teller mines and Magnetic mines to disable tanks. Rather interesting, and I imagine a very short lifespan.

Also, at least in the Red Army the survival chance was very, very low for the AT gunners. It was normal for most of the guns in an AT company to be destroyed in single engagement against enemy armour. In addition, the AT guns were also expected to provide direct fire support to the infantry, which inevitably involves exposing themselves to enemy return fire. In the Soviet forces even the riflemen felt sorry for the AT gunners due to their casualty rate! Tying to destroy a PzIV with a Molotov cocktail is suicidal but trying to do the same with a 45mm obr 1941 AT gun is hardly any better (it was accepted that you rarely got a second shot if you didn't knock it out).

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

It's worth noting that the molotov was a weapon of very varied effectiveness depending on the tank. The Finnish pre-war thinking didn't even envision using them to knock out tanks, it was to be a harassing weapon. It just turned out that the most common Soviet tank of the war, the T-26, burned very easily and on top of that sucked the fire from the engine deck right into the crew compartment. It's perhaps not coincidence the weapon is best remembered from SCW and Winter War? Later Soviet tanks were nowhere near as vulnerable and it ceased to be effective weapon.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

It's worth noting that the molotov was a weapon of very varied effectiveness depending on the tank. The Finnish pre-war thinking didn't even envision using them to knock out tanks, it was to be a harassing weapon. It just turned out that the most common Soviet tank of the war, the T-26, burned very easily and on top of that sucked the fire from the engine deck right into the crew compartment. It's perhaps not coincidence the weapon is best remembered from SCW and Winter War? Later Soviet tanks were nowhere near as vulnerable and it ceased to be effective weapon.

The Finns may have coined the term 'Molotov Cocktail', but as I'm sure you know the weapon did not disappear at the end of the war. It is ubiquitous at any riot you can possibly imagine, a weapon of insurgency and rebellion. Video evidence shows them being used in Hong Kong recently, at least prior to the outbreak of the Hunan Seafood Market Plague which sent everyone scurrying for cover.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

The Finns may have coined the term 'Molotov Cocktail', but as I'm sure you know the weapon did not disappear at the end of the war.

I do. But as a serious military weapon, it became far more marginal when deprived of it's matching foe that it had first encountered in Spain. If Soviets had used a different tank design that had been resilient to it, it would have came out with far less of a fanfare.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

I do. But as a serious military weapon, it became far more marginal when deprived of it's matching foe that it had first encountered in Spain. If Soviets had used a different tank design that had been resilient to it, it would have came out with far less of a fanfare.

Yes. The name stuck.