Fire anyone?

[Kuokkanen]

Glass bottle filled with pitch and gasoline was the most or the second most antitank weapon used by Finnish Defense Force in Second World War. Today are more efficient ways to burn tanks, but are they used and what's their effectiveness compared to modern AT weapons? Would missile loaded with (for example) napalm be more effective way to put tank out of commission than ... I really don't know modern AT missiles here other than already outdated TOW [8|]

[Twotribes]

Except "civilized" countries have banned such weaponry. We all know how good "laws" are concerning warfare. Well on second thought I guess we DONT.

The old adage " all's fair in Love and War" is only 1/4 correct now adays. As a man I wouldnt suggest you test the "love" part in any western nation.

[Smead]

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen

Glass bottle filled with pitch and gasoline was the most or the second most antitank weapon used by Finnish Defense Force in Second World War. Today are more efficient ways to burn tanks, but are they used and what's their effectiveness compared to modern AT weapons? Would missile loaded with (for example) napalm be more effective way to put tank out of commission than ... I really don't know modern AT missiles here other than already outdated TOW [8|]

WW2 AT weapons, bazooka, PF and similiar, and modern weapons from RPG to AT-4's to guided missiles like TOW and the misc Russian weapons use shaped charges to penetrate armor.

Against a tank, even in WW2, molotov cocktails were an annoyance weapon. I'm sure that they could be effective against the open topped half-tracks of that era though.

[BailChannis]

Do modern tanks carry any oxygen internally, or could the crew theoretically be suffocated by a fire on the exterior which was intense enough to draw the oxygen out of the interior? Could a small thermobaric weapon be used as an antitank weapon?

Except "civilized" countries have banned such weaponry. We all know how good "laws" are concerning warfare. Well on second thought I guess we DONT.

They have?? There are a whole range of thermobaric weapons out there, which, while technically different than simple napalm or Molotovs, are essentially the same thing: fire bombs.

Against a tank, even in WW2, molotov cocktails were an annoyance weapon.

Unless buttoned down, tanks were extremely vulnerable to Molotovs. Also many tanks of the period were gas-powered rather than diesel, so the fuel tanks could be set off as gas has a fairly low flashpoint relative to diesel. Early Soviet tanks, I believe, were particularly susceptible.