Infantry antitank capability 1939-1940

[rebelyell2006]

Outside of antitank rifles and artillery, did any of the European combatants in 1939 and 1940 possess antitank weapons carried and used by typical infantry squads?

[Phil_Gray]

None spring to mind except for hand thrown anti-tank weapons like AT grenades, molotov cocktails, and clustered regular grenades...

[Golgotha]

Mortars and flamethrowers spring to mind...

British in the early war did have a grenade launcher the Northover Projector normally described as an Anti-Tank Gun / Grenade Launcher. http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/detail.asp?smallarms_id=728 Certainly would not have been the typical infantry squad but interesting non-the-less.

I think the answer may well be surprisingly no. But I look forward to seeing some answers to this excellent question. Bundled grenades, high calibre rifles and sustained machine gun fire seem most common.

[fraction]

This is quite interesting:

http://tankarchives.blogspot.de/2013/12/german-anti-tank-tactics.html

the document is from '41, but you can trace the stuff out which has been previously available. "SMK" ammo (APCR) for MG34 and K98 should have been issued to the german troops.

[emosbur]

Anti-tank rifle grenades:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle_grenade

[Rod Robertson]

Hi Rebelyell2006:
Are you asking about ranged weapons? If you are including close assault weapons, all manner of anti-tank grenades and bombs were employed and ad hoc Molotov cocktails were used too. As someone posted above, French anti-tank doctrine called for rifle grenades to be used against Armour.
Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

[rebelyell2006]

Rod Robertson,

I'm thinking more in terms of close assault, if the Poles, Norwegians, Belgians and Dutch had anything other than demolition charges and petrol bombs.

[Rod Robertson]

Rebelyell2006:
This might be of some use to you.
http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/ww2-anti-tank-weapons.asp
Cheers.
Rod.

[Verderer]

Mines obviously, although used mainly deployed by engineers/pioneers, they could be used and deployed by regular troops too in the heat of action?

[lou passejaire]

French troops :

Bouteilles incendiaires (Molotov cocktails) were  used by infantry ( to supplement the lack of AT Grenades )
Various AT mines ( 300 to 1000 mines were provided to each regiment )
Various Explosives Charges  called Petard ... ( used by engineers )
 and don't forget the smoke dispenders 

[dadlamassu]

Mortars and flamethrowers spring to mind...

I doubt flamethrowers.  They were rare in 1939-40 and virtually useless against armoured vehicles as they did not have enough fuel to do much damage except to the stowage tied on the outside or an exposed crew member or maybe some fittings in an open topped AFV.  However, the psychological effect was great.  There were a number of wartime trials which showed that the man pack did not carry enough fuel to overheat a tank, or enough to fill it with fire through a vision slit (available from the Public Record Office in London).  Just think - the 'thrower has a range of about 15 - 25 metres (roughly the same as a pistol), weighs about 30kg, has a capacity of about 1 jerrycan and may not actually fire.  It is VERY obvious and will draw a lot of MG fire from any supporting vehicles so the chap using it would need to be very stupid brave to stand for the 10-12 seconds to get in his shot and the tank crew equally daft to sit there and let it happen.

Now if you think that one jerrycan of petrol is enough to overheat a tank so that the crew abandon it, or the ammo "cooks" and explodes then think again.  Even if all of the fuel was directed at a vision slit for the few seconds of pressure available not much would get inside.  It may have more effect if he can get the blazing fuel inside the engine compartment.  That said, and as I said earlier, it would undoubtedly scare the crew into moving a few feet away to get out of range. 

BTW I've read hundreds of books on WW2 combat and have not found a single reference to a tank being knocked out by a flamethrower.  If anyone has a verified account I would be most grateful to add it to my files. 

[Golgotha]

Excellent points on flamethrower only reason thought it possible is that one does read of Molotov cocktails taking out Tigers and the like. 

[dadlamassu]

Macrae, Stuart, Winston Churchill's Toyshop (1971) Roundwood Press. SBN 900093-22-6  He was present at War Office trials.  He discusses the use of Molotov cocktails and quotes British tank crews who had them and Self Igniting Phosphorous (SIP) grenades thrown at their tanks "There was some concern that, if the tank drivers could not pull up quickly enough and hop out, they were likely to be frizzled to death, but after looking at the bottles they said they would be happy to take a chance."[page 120] The drivers were proved right, trials on British tanks confirmed that Molotov and SIP grenades caused the occupants of the tanks "no inconvenience whatsoever".[pages 84-85]

The Tigers destroyed by Molotovs may have been victims of a barrage in much the same way that the Finns used them on Russian tanks that had been "canalised" into a killing ground where the infantry could bombard them with dozens of the fire bombs.

From my reading it was very much the quantity of the Molotovs and their quality - bombs wrapped in heavy curtain or half a blanket soaked in petrol were the most effective in the trials.  But the thrower was likely to set himself on fire from any spillage and they needed the right circumstances to allow the throwers time to soak the covering, ignite the and then subject the target to a hail of Molotovs.  Street fighting, forests, gullies, road blocks, ravines etc all would make good killing grounds.  Things like rubber on wheels, tracks, lubricants, external fuel tanks, stowage etc are all vulnerable as are air intakes, exposed electrical wiring, antenna bases and cables.  In addition the burning material may force the crew to close vision slits (without armour glass or periscopes) and hatches effectively blinding them in that direction. 

Of course if a Molotov got inside through an open hatch then there is a high probability that the crew would evacuate especially anyone on fire! 

[pocoloco]

Logs, as used by the Finns during the Winter War, to throw off the tracks. Immobile tanks were easier to be destroyed by Molotov cocktails or AT guns (it might have taken a while to get one to that sector of frontline) or if the tank crew decided to leave the tank, well, I guess you get the point.

[cuprum]

For to destroy armored vehicles with the help of cocktail Molotov, it first necessary to immobilize. For example disrupt tank tracks.



Two destroyed, "Ferdinand" from the Headquarters Company 654 Battalion. Neighborhood station Ponyri, 15-16 July 1943. Left - headquarters "Ferdinand» № II-03. Self-propelled gun was burned bottles filled with kerosene mixture after, as an artillery shell in her damaged chassis.

This is the destruction of BTR on the Maidan in the past year with the help of a primitive cocktail Molotov.