Infantry Against Tanks 1941

[Ratzki]

When petrol bombs had been first used in Abyssinia they had been simply filled with alcohol or petrol and had been used by first throwing the bottle and then throwing burning piece of fabric tied to stick after it.

[Bear]

The facts about the Molotov in history and in Combat Mission have already been mentioned here. The use of the Molotov is two fold:

• Kill the vehicle
  
• Force the vehicle into a retreat or detour
  

The experience of the unit using the Molotov and that of the Leader will determine a Molotov KO. The psychological effect on the vehicle for a retreat/detour away is based on that crew failing a morale check when the Molotov hits or comes close. i.e. an Elite tankers will react differently than Green crews. But an Elite tank crew will react when a Molotov hit is made and/or mulitple Molotovs come close. The name of the game is hit or miss, the crew will take a morale check and they add up towards a crew possibly Abandoning the vehicle. Another benefit of the Molotov hit is that the crew Buttons Up and that is a good thing if Close Assault is in the cards or a friendly AT gun is following up.
Lastly, the Molotov hit or miss will cause any infantry riding or providing close up security to lose their Ready status and either go to ground or run like hell. Similar to a small flamethrower attack, eh.

The Molotov is not a "stand alone" type of weapon. It seems that is the root of differences in the talk here. The Molotov is only as good as the unit, Leader and player make of this asset.

[Mad Russian]

I agree Bear. Just how good are your Russian units and leaders in 1941? Mine were never very good.

In fact, far from being good they we close to being the worst units and leaders of any army, at any time period in the entire war. Not the best of times to use the Molotov Cocktail. Of course that's when they were most prevalent.

CMBB gives them to the Russians all the way to 1945. That's a long stretch. If you are a scenario designer you can limit that use to better effect.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Bear]

I agree Bear. Just how good are your Russian units and leaders in 1941? Mine were never very good.

In fact, far from being good they we close to being the worst units and leaders of any army, at any time period in the entire war. Not the best of times to use the Molotov Cocktail. Of course that's when they were most prevalent.

CMBB gives them to the Russians all the way to 1945. That's a long stretch. If you are a scenario designer you can limit that use to better effect.

Good Hunting.

MR

I suggest reading Karl Schmidt aka Paul Carell, Hitler's War On Russia. U.S. Dept of the Army Pamphlet 20-269. German Defensive Doctrine on the Russian Front, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College. Manstein, Lost Victories and Guderian's, Panzer Leader. Geographia Atlas of the Second World War. i.e. 1.Moscow Motorized Division, equivalent to a Guards Division of hard core veterans stopped and bleed the 12.+17.Pz.Divisions (AGN + Center) for a week in July. Yeremenko had distributed over 10,000 Molotov Cocktails along the Borisov - Orsha front line units in July. Matter of fact, in rare form, Stalin PROMOTED the commander of 1.Moscow Motor, General Kreyser (yes, Prussian heritage). Guderian was taken aback after the German debacle at Shlobin on 6 July 1941 when German tanks advanced into Shlobin without recon or strong infantry support. And then there's Brest - Litovsk, the Soviet troops there fought from June to August 1941; someone forgot to tell then it was a lost cause? German field officers are unified in their view that the Russian infantry were the most dangerous troops they'd ever encountered. "They fought on even after their commanders had surrendered". Model, Manstein, Guderian all mentioned that by September 1941 the Russian soldier was holding the line, fighting behind German lines and even infiltrating, they agreed separately that Barbarossa was not going to succeed. This is before the winter and mud which is the often used scapegoat. All those scenarios with green and conscript OB do a disservice to our Soviet allies and historical truth in general. And it important remember that we're talking about a glass bottle holding gasoline with or without "improvements" and throwing it ten meters or less at a tank and sometimes under fire...a very ballsy thought, eh. "The more the merrier", I'd carry a Molotov from S'grad to Berlin, just in case.

[Mad Russian]

They also surrendered in droves. At times without a single shot being fired.

One of the main reasons they considered Russian infantry so dangerous, is they would shoot the Germans in the back, after either having surrendered, or waiting until the Germans had moved past them, before opening fire. Nobody else they had fought did that. The Germans considered that an extremely dangerous situation as you might expect.

The Russians certainly weren't the French. But they were extremely fickle. Fight like a lion one minute and be working for the Germans as Hiwi's the next.

I can quote as many passages to support either side of the argument. Carell is only one author. One from a Soviet perspective would be David Glantz. Or Steven Zaloga. Would you like quotes from them about how often Soviet infantry just folded up and went home? Or did human wave attacks?

Your carrying a molotov cocktail all the way to Berlin brings up another point. Would you carry a glass bottle filled with gasoline all over the Ukraine and into Prussia and finally to Berlin? I wouldn't. Glass breaks. If it breaks near fire YOU BURN. No, I think I'll go with the other more effective, less user lethal, weapons developed for killing the tanks I have to assault.

The last six months of 1941 were a tumultuous time. The longer the war went on, the better the Soviets got in both infantry, and armored, combat tactics. They were also holding the line because the Soviets were replacing their losses and the Germans were not. Less attackers, same number or greater number of defenders...hmmm...easier on the defense. No wonder they were holding the line better.

Molotov cocktails were at best a stop gap measure. If they were such great weapons why did any nation develop any other means for infantry to attack armor?

Good Hunting.

MR

[Bear]

They also surrendered in droves. At times without a single shot being fired.

One of the main reasons they considered Russian infantry so dangerous, is they would shoot the Germans in the back, after either having surrendered, or waiting until the Germans had moved past them, before opening fire. Nobody else they had fought did that. The Germans considered that an extremely dangerous situation as you might expect.

This seems to be a paraphrase of an article from SIGNAL magazine, Goebbels propaganda media. The Slavs are inferior, sub humans and do not surrender quietly. The Czechs, Yugoslavs and Greeks fought on with gusto and panache.
I am willing to say many ANZACS shot Axis troops in the back. Are you implying that Sharpshooters and Snipers are unethical violating what...Geneva Convention or just the Nazis Propagand Ministry?

The Russians certainly weren't the French. But they were extremely fickle. Fight like a lion one minute and be working for the Germans as Hiwi's the next.

This is an entirely different issue, how to survive, resist and infiltrate in enemy occupied territory.

I can quote as many passages to support either side of the argument. Carell is only one author. One from a Soviet perspective would be David Glantz. Or Steven Zaloga. Would you like quotes from them about how often Soviet infantry just folded up and went home? Or did human wave attacks?

Paul Carell is the only secondary source. All others I referred to are primary sources. The U.S. Army stuff comes from years of interviews, interrogations and German and Russian data and statistics. Most notably the large book from the War College.

Your carrying a molotov cocktail all the way to Berlin brings up another point. Would you carry a glass bottle filled with gasoline all over the Ukraine and into Prussia and finally to Berlin? I wouldn't. Glass breaks. If it breaks near fire YOU BURN. No, I think I'll go with the other more effective, less user lethal, weapons developed for killing the tanks I have to assault.

If the bottle breaks I'll get another unless we find something better on the road to Berlin, eh.

The last six months of 1941 were a tumultuous time. The longer the war went on, the better the Soviets got in both infantry, and armored, combat tactics. They were also holding the line because the Soviets were replacing their losses and the Germans were not. Less attackers, same number or greater number of defenders...hmmm...easier on the defense. No wonder they were holding the line better.

The surveys of the combat starting in September 41 tells us that the Soviet Army had better trained and disciplined men. The delaying actions of July-August paid off, whole corps lost only to buy time. By September, around Vyzma salient the German field commanders found out that Barbarossa was over and done.

Molotov cocktails were at best a stop gap measure. If they were such great weapons why did any nation develop any other means for infantry to attack armor?

Great is relative to the purpose behind the weapon, eh.
The Molotov was an incendiary bomb, it could kill a tank, pill box, bunker, houses, good shyt like that.

Good Hunting.

MR

Talk to you later old friend. G'day

[Ratzki]

I have to agree with you MR. I am just 2/3's through Colossus Reborn by David Glantz, what an eye opener. The Russians did have small victories in 41 and early 42 but it seems they came on the heels of poor German logistics, or timely German delays, to name a few. Not to take away anything from the Russian soldiers that fought, I am sure they did the best they could under severe conditions, but at no time did they ever stand toe to toe with their German counterparts in 41 and early 42 and fight them to a stand still. There was just not enough combat moxie in the Russian command to get a favourable result consistantly. Small victories here and there by the occaisional formation did not stop any determined German punches.
I checked C.D. Pettibone's OOB books on Russian divisions as well as some of Glantz's stuff, it would seem that this division was kept at near full strength in order to be used as more of a fire brigade and therefore it's strength was kept up at around the 10,000 man level. This is a giant division at this time of the war for the Russian side. Also, I could not find the battle that would honour the division with the "Guards" title, as well it is documented that this divisions early commander's performances bordered on attrocious. It would seem that this title was given when the division was reformed into a mech. division from a rifle division. With the amount of titles given including Proltarian-Minsk, Moscow Proletarian, Moscow-Minsk, Guards Moscow, Guards Mech., it kinda leads me to believe that this division in it's various forms might have been given the Guards title amung others in order to keep up morale, more so then from great battle performances. Now, I did just take a quick look, so I very well could be mistaken. MR, you will for sure have more information at your fingertips then do I.
MR is also correct, that the amount of new men and equipment entering on the Russian side was absolutely dwarfing any German reinforcements at the time. From early fall through winter in 41 the Russians were spitting whole divisions into the fight at a staggering pace. It was only German attrition that stopped the advances, not Russian battleworthiness, and still the Germans greatly outperformed the Russian soldiers, the Russian tanks, the Russian artillery, the Russian supply system, The Russian commanders at all levels, and in just about every way possible, all while German numbers decreased and the Russian numbers increased.
I think that if the Russians had been performing so greatly and consistantly across the fronts and that the mighty molotov was indeed so mighty, the Germans would have picked up the weapon and produced it in great numbers instead of investing research into the Pzfaust and other AT weapons. As well, there should be Russian formations that are common knowledge of everyone, that are well know for combat greatness like many German formations such as the GD and several SS divisions, to name a few.

[Bear]

Who, when and where did anyone call the Molotov Cocktail a "mighty" and "powerful" weapon?

What is that about? :jaw:

I'm beginning to feel like Sisyphus.

"One can lead the horse to water but we cannot make it drink."
Primary references were provided to enlighten. Why then fall back to the same second hand authors as if they are exclusive guardians of historical honesty and truth...it seems literary dogma has entered this space, a pity.

[Mad Russian]

Bear,

Carell was a primary author about 45 years ago. And from the German side.

Glantz and Zaloga are researchers that go into the Soviet archives in the past 10 years. Let's don't go by what the Geman's thought of the while idea but what the Soviets themselves thought of how it went. Time to look through the right side of the telescope. Puts a whole new perspective on things.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Splork]

Not a clue on the historical aspects of Molotovs, but was interested in the gameplay aspects of this, so I ran a quick test:

Soviet vet inf. platoon, in buildings close around a Panzer IIIJ. First couple times, armed the Sov's with 4 Molotovs apiece, and let them have at it. After absorbing 20 Molotovs over about a turn and a half, the Panzer was generally routed, sometimes had lost a crewman, once was GD'ed, but was never knocked out by a Molotov.

Then I ran the same trial, with the Sov's having grenades, but no Molotov's. The first trial, the tank was KO'ed in 11 seconds. The rest were pretty similar in their results.

So if you are facing armor, you are, as MR suggests, probably much better off with your troops sipping from their Molotovs and hucking grenades (I'm not sure if there's a hotkey for that).

Also worth noting - troops that are supressed to any degree become extremely reluctant to use AT weapons.