Improvised Weapons of WWII

Welcome to Anti-Tank Chats. In this series, we will take you through the history of infantry anti-tank weapons. In this episode, we'll be looking at the development and use of improvised, thrown, and placed infantry anti-tank weapons, available to the British and Commonwealth forces during World War II. Please remember to like, subscribe, or click the little notification bell if you don't want to miss out on these videos. And I'd just like to say thank you to all our patrons for making this possible. Please join them if you can. 21st of September, 2005, Basra, Iraq. Dramatic photographs headlined newspapers around the world showing a British army warrior being hit by petrol bombs, with the turret crew battling flames to escape and exit the vehicle. A report by The Guardian relayed the crew's shock and the reaction of being hit by the improvised weapon, with Private Burton's Staffordshire Regiment giving immediate, first-hand insight into the experience. I jumped through the fire and got out. Basically, I couldn't breathe at all because of the fumes. I just needed to get out, just thinking about my life, basically. The warriors were there to provide support and protection to assist with the release of two SAS men, but inflamed tensions and confrontation with an angry crowd quickly escalated the situation, and petrol bombs were thrown. The items used to attack the warrior and its crew included rocks, bricks, metal bars, as well as petrol bombs. These weren't sophisticated, manufactured anti-tank weapons designed to knock AFVs out at long range, but cheap, improvised, short-range, thrown, flammable weapons capable of rendering expensive AFVs and its crew's order of combat out of action. Although no evidence has come to light on the use of petrol bombs against tanks during the Great War, British knowledge of the petrol bomb's capabilities appears to date back to at least May 1921, when the British government produced an Internal Memo on the Protection of Transport during the Irish Rebellion 1919-1921. This memo highlighted concerns that flammable bombs, such as petrol bombs, could be employed against British armoured vehicles, although again, so far, no evidence has come to light that the Irish Republican Army actually did so. Consequently, we have to go back to 1936 and the start of the Spanish Civil War to find the first documented use of the petrol bomb against tanks. This occurred at Sassena, Spain, on 29th October. Here in the streets of a small town, a marathon run south of Madrid, 15 T-26 Model 1933 tanks of the Republican's 1st Tank Battalion were engaged by Nationalist forces. In the ensuing street fighting, one of the tanks was confirmed as being set on fire by a direct hit from a flaming bottle of petrol. It appears that the Nationalist forces had reacted to the appearance of the Soviet-supplied and jointly-operated Republican tanks a few days earlier and had prepared a surprise. Given the complete lack of infantry anti-tank weapons available at this time to both sides, it's not surprising that the first recorded tactical action involving petrol bombs and tanks took place in an urban environment, providing the defenders with lots of close cover in which to draw the unsuspecting tank crews with their limited vision into throwing range and deadly ambushes. At the end of the engagement, three Republican tanks were knocked out and three damaged by petrol bombs and artillery. However, it's the use of the petrol bomb during the 1939-1940 Winter War between Finland and the Soviet Union where the petrol bomb becomes of age and gains its famous moniker, the Molotov cocktail, named by Finnish troops after the Soviet foreign minister. Here, Finnish forces, attacked and outnumbered in tanks and troops by its larger neighbour, were ably supported by their state liquor board, who utilised the Rejimaki distillery's bottling plant outside Helsinki to manufacture in excess of 500,000 Molotov cocktails to provide Finnish troops with a readily available infantry anti-tank weapon. Accounts suggest that the Finnish forces used around 70,000 Molotov cocktails against the Red Army invaders. But what is the Molotov cocktail? At its most basic, it's an incendiary weapon, historically consisting of a breakable receptacle, such as a glass bottle, a flammable liquid or mix, such as petrol, paraffin, ethanol, kerosene, etc., and an igniter, for instance a strip of cloth stuck, sometimes pre-soaked, in flammable liquid into the neck of the bottle. To use, the thrower ignites the cloth fuse and throws the Molotov cocktail bottle at the target. On impact, the bottle is designed to break, setting the target on fire, burning immediately and furiously, and creating smoke. Additives such as tar, oil, rubber, phosphorus, polystyrene, etc., have been used to thicken the mixture in order to prolong the incendiary effect, the burn time, and to increase its adhesion to surfaces and provide smoke. It can be manufactured at short notice, with little to no formal training required, just by following a basic recipe, using available ingredients and having a throwable receptacle. News footage taken shortly after Russia's invasion of the Ukraine in February 2022, clearly shows the improvised nature of the Molotov manufacturing process. With regard to the actual act of throwing Molotov cocktails, British sources advise that they were best thrown underarm and aimed high to hit the engine louvres or vents so that the burning liquid could flow downwards and be sucked into the tank or set it on fire. Successive bombs could then be thrown at the same target without lighting them. If the lighted fuel could get into hatches, vision ports, or could burn for enough time, then it could have an impact on the crew's morale and make them panic. Military training pamphlet 42, published in August 1940, recommended throwing at the front of the tank so that it continued to burn and produce smoke, although the same pamphlet was of the opinion that tanks were overrated and hunting them was akin to a sport, big game hunting at its best. A thrilling, albeit a dangerous sport, which is skillfully played, is about as hazardous as shooting a tiger on foot, and in which the same principles of stalk and ambush are followed. It is suggested that every soldier and every home guard should be trained in the methods of tank hunting and the use of special anti-tank weapons. The lessons of Spain and Finland show that tanks can be destroyed by men who have the bravery, resource and determination to do so, it continued. These were the dark days when fear of German invasion was so high a certain attempt at trying to devalue the threat from the tank can be understood, although the chances of the average Tommy having learnt to stalk tigers in his local woods was a tad optimistic. The problem with improvised weapons, especially ones manufactured in the field, is that it is difficult to gauge how many AFVs were knocked down by British and Commonwealth infantry using their Molotov cocktail concoctions, but it appears that they were actively used to combat Deutsche Afrika Corps panzers in the Western Desert during the April 1941 defence of Tobruk. Interestingly, and prescient of what was to occur a few weeks later in Finland, the Red Army conducted a series of trials with an A-20 tank prototype, a direct forerunner for the T-34, to determine what level of protection the hull and turret provided the tanking crew from being hit with flammable liquid thrown in bottles. It provides some insight into what damage a Molotov cocktail attack can have on a tank. In total, 11 bottles, about 6.5 litres worth of flammable liquid, aviation fuel and gasoline, were thrown at the tank, mainly on the engine compartment roof. The report stated that the intense burning of the fuel lasted for 15-20 seconds, but failed to create a general fire. An inspection revealed a scorching of the transmission compartment, engine compartment and radiators, but electric distribution system, hoses, pipelines and air purifier were OK. Recommendations were to modify the seals for compartments and hatches. As for the crew who were inside the A-20s, the driver reported seeing a large flame under the hatch cover that came to no physical harm. Many of the Red Army tank crews soon to invade Finland would not be so fortunate. As usual with weapons, improvements were made with more sophisticated versions introduced, utilising self-ignition devices such as taping matches and abrasives to the bottle, using self-igniting phosphorus, and the Red Army apparently even supplying sulphuric acid tubes which could be attached to the petrol bottles and which would react with the petrol once broken. Additionally, scoring the bottles to assist with the bottles breaking on impact was also utilised by some. As given the inherent dangers of throwing a Molotov cocktail at a tank, the Finns reckoned a casualty rate of between 60-70% during the Winter War. The feeling of seeing your bottle hit the tank and bounce off would have been especially annoying. By August of 1940, an improved petrol bomb, the No. 76 grenade, AW or Brian Wilson, subsequently called the SIP self-igniting phosphorus, had been introduced by the British. This negated the need for the user to pre-light the weapon. Using a mixture of yellow phosphorus, water, benzene and rubber, placed in a half-pint clear glass bottle, the rubber strip would dissolve in the bottle and render the mixture sticky. It weighed approximately one and a half pounds and could be thrown like a hand grenade. Training literature advised that it needed sharp contact with a hard surface, such as a tank, as the glass had to break immediately to ignite the contents. Once broken, the contents produced a dense cloud of choking fumes, phosphorus pentoxide and sulphur dioxide, and it was important for the thrower not to throw it so the wind could blow it back towards him. A red cap denoted that it was suitable for throwing only. Green cap bottles could also be fired from the Northover Projector, a bottle mortar, providing the Home Guard with a greater range and a greater sense of personal safety. The need for more potent infantry anti-tank weapons saw the involvement of dedicated scientific facilities to research, test and refine, and manufacturing bases to produce the weapons on a larger industrial scale, leading to more powerful throwing weapons but no less dangerous to the user. The No. 73 grenade is a case in point. Introduced in November 1940, it was obsolete as an anti-tank grenade by the following October. It weighed approximately 4 pounds, 1.8 kilograms, and the tin plate body was filled with polar ammon gelatin dynamite. The grenade was most effective if thrown against the AFV's tracks or suspension, but the weight and bulky design meant that the throwing distance was relatively short, 10 to 15 metres. It also advised that the thrower lay the grenade along their forearm with a fuse in their hand. A further drawback for the thrower was the need to be behind solid cover when throwing the grenade as it had a powerful explosive effect. This saw its use relegated to more static engagements, such as roadblocks and ambushes, and later as a dedicated demolition charge. Moving from thermos to sticky bomb, the No. 74 grenade was unusual in that once thrown, it was designed to stick to the target with adhesive, thereby concentrating the explosive. A Daily Mirror article in July 1942 gives a flavour of what the grenade provided. During the Battle of Tell al-Asa and Hammers Hill, a lone commando used three sticky bombs, the best weapon this war has produced for infantrymen against panzers. The lone Australian commando went out with his arms filled with sticky bombs. He made his way along the coast with his eye on three tanks which had taken cover a few hundred yards behind a sand dune, creeping and hiding behind camel-thorn bushes. In shell holes and in trenches, he pinned the bombs on each tank in quick succession. As the machines burst into flames, the crews jumped out, the Australian opened up with his Tommy gun and killed or wounded the lot. Early designs were focused on constructing a receptacle which could contain the explosives but also allow the weapon to stick to the target. The first prototypes used rubber tubing and a wooden handle and were ineffective, as were the second and third prototypes which used handles and triangular bodies with a cover to protect the adhesive. By April 1941, these failures led to a re-evaluation through a series of throwing trials of the design, leading to the conclusion that the optimum throwing shape was a weighted sphere with a handle. To complicate matters further, the sphere had to deform on impact but maintain its shape in flight. More trials with glass and Bakelite sphere designs led to a frangible glass sphere being selected, but the key was the adhesive sock developed by a firm of manufacturing chemists, Kay Brothers of Stockport. It was this adhesive impregnated knitted cover, the woollen sock, which stuck the sphere to the target as the glass sphere broke on impact. It was no mean feat, as Kay Brothers had to make the adhesive originally out of bird line and then adhesive B-17, capable of holding two pounds of weight when the sphere hit the target and being capable of operating in hot and cold conditions. The addition of a removable cover, along with a handle, made sure that the grenades would not stick to each other or the thrower. The explosive filling was supplied by ICI, who under Dr. White of their explosive research department, designed a special gelatinised nitroglycerin explosive, subsequently known as Noble's A23, to replace the original blasting gelatine. The new explosive was soft enough to deform against the target, providing the adhesive sock with enough area to adhere to. During trials at Woolwich Arsenal in June 1940, it was discovered that the grenade pulticed, that is squashed on the target, basically forming a splat. This would lead to the development of specific squash head munitions. The success of the trial saw the new Prime Minister Winston Churchill immediately order its production, given the threat of German invasion and the lack of anti-tank weapons that the British had. It started to be issued in August 1940 as Grenade Hand Anti-Tank Type ST, for Sticky Type. Modifications and improvements to design and production evolved it to become the Grenade No. 74 Anti-Tank Mark I and it was used by British forces in the Middle East and issued to the Home Guard and Auxiliary Units to stay behind sabotage teams who would be deployed in case of invasion. A Mark II version was approved for service in November 1942. The museum's example is a replica, but it shows the metal covering case in two hemispheres, which when released, falls away, revealing the impregnated adhesive sock covering the glass sphere, which contains 2.2 pounds of Noble's A23 explosive. The black handle contains a striker lever, described as Mills Type Release, with a cap, 5-second safety fuse, detonator and primer located in the main body. A safety pin would also be supplied, which was not to be removed until the user was ready to throw the grenade. The mouldy retaining ring secured the handle to the sphere. It looks like a big large toffee apple with a sock on it. The thrower was warned that the adhesive was very tacky and that they should not let the exposed grenade near anything as it would stick to it. Training photographs of the time suggest that the grenade was thrown in an overarm motion. On throwing, the Mills Type Release activated the striker and the grenade's 5-second delay would commence. The thrower was warned that as soon as they had thrown the grenade, they should take cover as the handle would be blown back towards them. It was not only in throwing the ST grenade that could be hazardous. Leaking explosives were an issue as the semi-liquid was also colourless and the skin contamination could result in severe headaches or poisoning if it contaminated food and was ingested. Careful storing and handling of the grenade was advised. To supplement the Sticky Bomb, an additional grenade was introduced in June 1942. This was the No. 75 grenade, known as the Hawkins Grenade. It was a departure from the Sticky Grenade as it was designed as an anti-tank mine that could be thrown under the tractile hull of light AFVs. As the museum's example No. 75 Mark I Drill Grenade shows, the Hawkins Grenade was a tin plate construction and was commercially produced by the self-opening Tin Box Company Ltd. as a liquid polish container. It weighed 2 pounds 2 ounces or 1 kilogram. The white cap denotes that it was a drill version for training. Attached to one side is the detonator holder. Two tinned plates designed to allow the insertion of the detonator to hold them in position. The striker is secured to the bracket at each end by the metal tabs. Three types of explosive filling were provided. Noble's Explosive No. 704B, Burrow White or a combination of both of these with exploders. A detonator or igniter could be fitted into each pocket of the detonator holder with the metal tabs flattened after they had been inserted so that the glass capsules were positioned directly below the striker plate. Pressure on the grenade would cause the striker plate to collapse, breaking the capsules, producing a chemical reaction and flash which would ignite the exploders and the filling. Three marks of the grenade were manufactured, but it went out of use in August 1946 with the Chief Inspector of Ammunition stating that it is proposed to produce an entirely new design of light anti-tank mine which can also be used as a demolition charge. The view was that the detonator located outside the case was a weak point of the design so as a thrown grenade it doesn't appear to have been a great success. How much use the grenade saw as a thrown device is not easy to say. It would have been quite easy to throw underarm, but it's likely that the detonators might fail when landing. Also, if the thrower missed lining it up with the tracks, it's hard to see how any pressure from a vehicle that doesn't touch it could activate the detonator. Consequently, it was seen as a more successful anti-tank mine. In assessing the use of improvised and thrown anti-tank grenades used by British and Commonwealth forces during World War II, it is necessary to understand the desperate need for any anti-tank weapons at the early to mid part of the war. The essence of improvisation was using whatever was available to create what you urgently required, regardless of how crude it would look. And the ingredients for a Molotov cocktail were available pretty much anywhere. All these thrown weapons required bravery to use. To get in close to a tank required courage in the first place, even more so to then throw a burning bottle or stick a grenade at a moving vehicle. These weren't all heroic charges. Most attacks would be well planned, using and involving coordination with other units to help suppress the tank and supporting infantry so that the thrower had a better chance of survival. Until the evolution of stand-off weapons, such as the PIA, the infantry relied on their anti-tank defence and their ability to get near enough to a tank to throw an anti-tank grenade or Molotov cocktail. The anti-tank rifle was already proving fairly useless. In most cases, thrown anti-tank weapons were not through choice, but through desperation. For tank crews, the Molotov cocktail confronted them with a flame weapon, which, whilst not capable of knocking them out, could have devastating effects on their morale, potentially forcing them to panic and run as the tank sat there roasting. Thank you for watching. If you enjoyed this, please support the Tank Museum by subscribing on YouTube and supporting us through Patreon.