Improvised Weapons of WW2 | Anti-Tank Chats #8 | The Tank Museum
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 чер 2024
- Historian Stuart Wheeler is back with another Anti-Tank Chat. In this episode, he looks at the development and use of improvised, thrown and placed infantry anti-tank weapons, available to British and Commonwealth forces in World War II.
Consider becoming a Patreon Supporter today: / tankmuseum
00:00 | Intro
00:30 | Petrol Bombs
03:28 | The Molotov Cocktail
08:52 | S.I.P
09:53 | No.73 Grenade
10:57 | The Sticky Bomb
15:51 | Hawkins Grenade
#tankmuseum #antitankchats #improvisedweapons
Hi Tank Nuts! Let us know what you think of this Anti-Tank Chat in the comments below.
This was a very interesting change. I think the host might benefit from a couple more takes for greater confidence and clarity, though. I've found in the past that a little more gesticulation and interacting with the presentation objects can help with that. Er...just be careful not to drop those ones, I think it might make them angry.
I think a robot speaking with a robot voice would be more engaging. This guy could put dead people to sleep with his presentation.
I liked this presentation. I knew most of it but did learn new things. Left out were satchel charges in use during the Spanish Civil War. There was also tossing a petrol tin over a tank's engine grates, perforating the container with gunfire, and then lobbing something to ignite the petrol if engine heat didn't do it.
video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=AwrO.i9WVedjwO4NlQEPxQt.;_ylu=Y29sbwNncTEEcG9zAzEEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3BpdnM-?p=manner+gegen+panzer&type=fc_A30C76C6185_s58_g_e_d010123_n1005_c24¶m1=7¶m2=eJw1i90KgzAMRl8llwpSE6udq4%2BxqzF2UbW6YrXiD449%2FSJsBMI535f0rn1Uz9udEKXM5SN5TuxsBeNZISFlZ96wZDmDm09SSDorM02dlFq1SiusO93VptaEihc7H%2Fc28PW%2BMu6GaQwf571JC4EQHW5qw7HCtAGhwAo4UHkFb5XHYObZ28PWg9vSQl6EVBANr230CXg3WOhtM4QYmtcSRpsSXgWeA6vpzOL%2BL7btfx0VVIpL%2BQUol0XF&hsimp=yhs-2212&hspart=fc&ei=UTF-8&fr=yhs-fc-2212#id=4&vid=d00f201c080154f93df523dce2e2250a&action=view
The best improvised anti-tank weapon seems to have been the spade--dig a hole to hide from the tank, or dig a bigger hole to swallow up the tank.
If there was one thing a wise tanker feared, it was fire. "The sound of men trapped in a burning tank was one never forgotten."
Interesting. I knew of the various weapons, but not about the ideas behind some of them, or the actual effects they had.
Finnish state owned booze factory produced Molotovs. It was a mix of almost pure alcohol, left over spirits, petrol and tar, with 2 magnesium sticks on its side at the lenght of the bottle. Corks of the bottles carried name of the company ALKO-RAJAMÄKI so Russians bombed it, as a concequence Finns build large AA concrete towers to protect it, towers exists today.
Real self igniting Molotov cocktail: 50/50 mix of gasoline and concentrated sulphuric acid. Impregnate the label on the bottle with concentrated potassium chlorate.
Or, if you're rich and really angry dissolve white phosphorus in carbon disulphide.
it gives me emotional pleasure knowing there was actually a commercial molotov cocktail bottling operation. there is just something poetic about it.
@@kenbrown2808 😅
I wonder if they used in making alcohol what is the industry as tops and bottoms, which a small amount is going into the usable middle, the rest is a safe drinkable mix.The rest of the liquid could used to make up a Molitove Cotail.
@@christophersilsby7829 Something like that, all the leftovers were used in Molotovs.
I remember watching a training film for the Home Guard. It stressed the importance of walking briskly, not running, after the grenade was tossed onto the tank. The video had the man holding onto his hat (Very important, a gentleman must be well dressed).
The video portrayed the tank's destruction by having the tank (an old light cruiser AFAIR) being turned into a rain of bits.
What a shame and indignity would it be to loose your hat in front of the enemy!
AT weapons of the Home Guard is a fascinating subject on its own. Their training was for a lot of petrol bombs - without 'fuses' - be thrown at a tank which would shatter and put plenty of petrol (usually thickened with rubber, sump oil, etc.) over the vehicle and which was then ignited by a WP bottle grenade. The HG had many tens of thousands of these bottles hidden in caches all over the countryside. An AW Grenades (for the chemical company that made them, Albright and Wilson) is shown in your pic at 8:40 - the troops are about to throw bottles of petrol, and the chap on the left has a standard white AW bomb, ready to throw to ignite the fuel.
Wasn’t an launcher made so didn’t have to throw it?
@@tomhenry897 Yes, it's shown briefly in the video. It worked, but had limitations, as if you are going to propel a glass bottle full of flammable fuel and white Phos then caution is advised! Thus for safety it was propelled by black powder, thus limiting velocity, and worked safely - but... the black powder gave off a large cloud of smoke, and the low velocity made its flight through the air very visible - so essentially a one-shot weapon when used against AFVs, rather like the recoilless rifle of later years (Anyone who has seen an M40 or Wombat fired live will probably agree!). I'd personally rather take my chance throwing them by hand, preferably from an upstairs window!
I always enjoy Stuart's presentations. This could be my favourite. I'd never realised how complex the Sticky bomb was. 👍
I think it was a Tank Chat where it was said that the T-26 manufacture was so poor, the fuel from a Molotov could run into the tank compartment through the missing welds...
BTs had the same issue. Communist workmanship sucks.
My dad was in North Africa and Italy, he said that some brave souls over run in slit trenches by tanks ( if they hadn’t been crushed) would smash the sticky bombs on the underside of the hull with devastating effect
That commando who took out three tanks with sticky bombs needs to be named! That’s an insane feat to get up close and use them in quick succession, especially with how bulky they are and sticky.
The UK's anti invasion plans in WWII are fascinating and under documented.
Even more so were the japs...
Perhaps there's a great deal of it still useful, it wouldn't be a great idea to tip the playbook.
Went the Day Well?
Probably more thorough than any plans we have today....
Well, you welcomed the latest invasion with open arms.
Thank you! I have found the whole series very interesting.
Great! Feel as if I’ve just sat through a class at Sandhurst.
Oooh, I picked up a few sticky bombs handles on Normandy beaches.
The EOD friend I was with explained to me then how they were supposed to be used. It's not hard understanding they werent popular !
0:34 I recall the BBC saying that old, inflamed with petrol car tyres were thrown on top of that warrior’s air vents. Causing the filters to ‘overload’ until the crew had to escape. It took around 20 minutes if I remember.
awesome channel and video, there's nothing like it
what an informative video that was , these are things most of us never knew about 👍👍
Love this series. One of the best in the Chats.
11:39 furious Aussie prepares to deal with Matilda II that refused to give him a lift into town.
Perhaps it was too busy Waltzing.
“… stand-off weapons, such as the PIAT” Ahh, savour this moment, dear PIAT! It’s not often you come up in this crowd, among NLAW, Hellfires and cruise missiles. About as stand-off as a game of cricket! :D
Love these anti tank chats, always excited when i see a new one is up.
Covers the ground in the time available. Thank you.
Very informative, thanks!
Great episode again. Thanks!
Awesome content as always! Keep up the good work
Fascinating the sticky bomb not something I would personally want to be using!
I've always been fascinated by the sticky bomb
since I first learned of it's existence. -Strange thing! (And could apparently be hazardous to use...or so I've heard. -You had to be careful not to let it touch your trousers etc. (You don't want a live bomb stuck to you). 😬
When I first read about HESH-munitions, I asked myself how the hell someone came up with something like that. Neat to learn it originated from the result of the British sticky grenade!
Great video! love the editing 👌 👏 😍
Ringo explains anti tank weapons, well done.
He looks like he's had a hard day's night.
Nice info, nicely presented. Well done. Looking forward to the German 88.
Re the pamphlet, it should be noted that hunting a tiger on foot is bloody dangerous.
Nice work guys :). Thanks
This was very informative. I learned a lot. Thank you.
Excellent talk. 😊
nowadays thrown weapons could be used as dropped weapons, utilising drones.
even completely obsolete and, as a thrown weapon, useless anti tank hand-grenades as the soviet RGK 3M, which has to hit the target face forward to have any effect and is only able to break through the top of a MBT, suddenly, with 3D printed fins to ensure face forward impact, becomes a usefull dropped weapon.
I saw a Hawkins grenade on my EOD course…it looked like a modified 37 pattern water bottle…none of us realised what it was at first :)
Thank you
Just best i want one every week!
Enjoyable video + presenter. Pleased to see you more, Mr Wheeler,
Knowledge of such weapons can help us know the bravery of the users & the tankers.
Now I get our obsession with HESH
Regimaki is a really interesting way to pronounce Rajamäki.
The Russians conducting a test of Molotovs against a tank WITH THE CREW INSIDE! (8:00 mark) is astounding, to say the least.
16:45 Here in the US, the restaurant chain "Taco Bell" also coincidently have explosive filing in their burritos.
I served in anti tanks. During my days we had T 72s, BTRs,BMBs before the Leopards, so I have a good walkthrough of their weaknesses. I was a 95mm recoiless gun loader and offcourse we were trained to be teams with SLATW 66mm and HSATW APILAS 112mm. We also were trained to use satchel charges to ambush tanks, and daisy chains. Dense forest is not a tank country.
Judging by the WW2 casualty-numbers infantry has no business trying to tackle tanks with infantry-operated improvised weapons unless they have a deathwish.
@@MarktheRude You might need to take out immobilized tank. But jeap, its desperate measure.
Everyone knows that to make a sticky bomb all you need is some Comp B, a fuse, a standard GI issue sock, and axel grease.
"It's in the manual".
talk about make do , this chaps excellent
The gasoline bottle was called a Cocktail for Molotov, not a Molotov cocktail!!! 🔥🍾
I wish the Hell Let Loose developers were subscribed to this channel.
Bring on everyone's fav WW2 anti tank gun, the Pak 40!
How about that scene in "Saving Private Ryan" where the Americans make a sticky bomb with a sock, axle grease, explosives and a burning fuse ? Capt. Tom Hanks said it was in the infantry training manual.
True or false ?
I think that started in north Africa by the SAS as an improvised anti-vehicle weapon around 1941 or 1942, so the timing is right to have it put in the US infantry manual. But if it actually was I can't say.
and that one dude gets turned into red mist by it too lol
2 very big thumbs up
As Honorable mentions, I would include the german improvised AT -grenades consisting of multiple stickgrenade heads tied around an intact one, and similar Finnish AT and bunkerbuster grenades which resembled the same idea, but instead of a grenade head, a big block of explosive material was attached, later within a metalic canister, which were awkwardly heavy but had a big blast.
The german thing was called ,Geballte Ladung'.
Amazing that all that metal, all that technology, all the advances to keep the crew inside safe…can be rendered ineffective by some gasoline in a glass bottle.
Tanks are actually designed against this problem starting before WW2.
@@captiannemo1587 Enough petrol will do the job. Everyone needs to breathe!
Look at how many locks,can be picked by a safety pin
@@bobfry5267 It may take an awfull lot of petrol in the case of a modern tank.
The engineers designing those things aren't stupid. Mushroom domes over air intakes trap liquids and prevent them from getting further in, airfilters designed to prevent fire from spreading further in, positive air pressure NBC system and emergency rebreathers for the crew. ect...
Quite a number of those systems were already used in WW2 era tanks.
@@Bird_Dog00 Indeed. For a modern tank. Independent air supplies for the crew are a must. But fire destroys oxygen at source. And engines use such a lot. It would take a lot of Molotovs, but it's do-able. It doesn't have to penetrate.
It seems that there would be at least one drawback for tank crews, when faced with Molotov cocktails or incendiary grenades: if the flammable liquid could heat up the outside of metal plate, surely the heat transferred rather quickly through to the inside of the armor plate. If a persistent agent was used, wouldn't things heat up very quickly inside the tank?
Not really a M1 Abrams has a turbine engine. Those things run way hotter than a Molotov can hope to get. And most tanks have multi-layer composite armor so getting through one plate isn't enough to heat up the tank.
Even now a $1 Molotov Cocktail can take out a million dollar tank.
Not really. Most modern tanks have diesel engines so Molotovs aren't that effective against it. And the M1 Abrams' turbine engine runs hotter than Molotov ever could.
Please do a video on French tank doctrine
Oh god the tank is on fire.
Two more used by the Finnish army army in the WW2: A simple log, put between the tracks. A very dangerous practice. And the satchel charge.
i never understand why the rag is stuck in the bottle top. Surely a cap is safer, easierto use/transport, with a burning rag attached in some way . after all the bottle is intended to smash on impact
Because if you lit a dry rag, the flame might be too weak after the flight for the fuel to ignite.
Molotov cocktail? don't mind if I do.
Shaken, not stirred.
If I was an old man in a home guard I reckon I’d be slightly less perturbed if I was handed a panzerfaust than a Molotov
The issue with a Molotov cocktail is the chemical fluid.
A sticky petrol won't do vs. a modern tank unless you can cover the tank with 200 kg.
There are variants of Napalm that contain "P" and "O" and that burn without an atmosphere.
These fluids can be made to burn into and violently corrode metal, while avoiding an explosion.
Top thickness and engine bay is 30 to 300 mm and with a special Napalm this can be penetrated with a 2 kg bottle. Or. You can opt for an aerial bombing with Napalm B. A less aggressive fluid but proven to destroy all vehicles and tanks because of the total weight of the bombardment.
Incendiaries is the future of warfare.
Not much has been developed since WW2 and the Vietnam War because of regulations and the risk for collateral damage. There is a revival of the technology in Ukraine and from a grass roots level. Some of the improvised drone grenades contain C4 and an incendiary. These grenades are superior vs. dugouts and to set fire to ammo dumps. There is no substitution for chemical fire. Sad but true fact.
I am curious about the photos in the piece of the Australian attacking with the stick bomb. I presume they are library photos, because the tank appears to be a Matilda 2 A12
Probably training them to use sticky bombs. It is rare you have intact enemy tanks to use for anti-tank training so most nations used their own tanks for training. The infamous Soviets anti-tank dogs failed because they did this when the Soviets used Diesel and the Germans didn't.
@11:47 - errr? isn't that a Matilda?
Absolutely right, a Matilda II.
Yes. Probably training on damaged tank.
A still from a training film.
What A.T. grenade was used to ambush Heydritch ?
You never wanna use a bottle without a cap because you will pour burning flammable liquid all over yourself when you go to throw it
I think the tops were sometimes sealed with wax. Jam a rag into the opening tightly then seal with wax.
@@Alakazzam09 typically people just tie the rag around the neck
I wonder how wartime T-34s faired if many, as I have heard, had the hatch seals deleted during production.
Petrol bombs are still used in Northern Ireland
It'd be interesting to see the progress
of fire mitigation systems against
items like molotov cocktails.
As they could be so simple &
light weight as an empty air tank,
air compressor hooked up to the
exhaust, & tubing to disperse
around the exterior.
I would take the guy destroying 3 panzers with sticky bombs with a barrel of salt. We'd know his name if it were true as he'd certainly be decorated. The Daily Mail would not be the only paper covering the story either. No doubt the soldiers were having fun with a gullible reporter.
While tales do grow in the telling and are often misreported, there was an Australian Thomas Currie "Diver" Derrick, VC, DCM (20 March 1914 - 24 May 1945) who was at the battle at Tel el Eisa and was awarded a Distinguished Conduct Medal for amongst other things on the 11th of July 1942 destroying two German tanks using the No.74 grenade. The Victoria Cross he got later. Sometimes the stories are mostly right, even if a little embelished.
@@bettongmi4340 If that's the guy, even whatever source you used blew it out of proportion. According to the Australian War Memorial website, he did not destroy the tanks and kill the crews (as Wiki says). He damaged the tanks. The citation for the Distinguished Conduct Medal reads: "Later that same night, in a counter-attack on enemy tanks and infantry at the TEL EL EISA Ry.Sta. [railway station] Sgt. DERRICK was outstanding in fighting qualities. He attacked two German tanks with sticky bombs, damaging both, and was a great factor in the successful counter-attack which restored the Sta. to our forces."
@@lmyrski8385 Well at least we've moved away from "bored soldiers lying to reporters". The facts are, there was an Australian there, it was on or about the right time, he did use the stated weapon, it was against German tanks. As you expected we do know his name, and he was decorated, so you should be happy as you were right about that. If you want to argue semantics over the term damaged, go right ahead. You did however bring up the AWM and if you look up the photo under accession number P01393.009 you should see a "Damaged" German tank near Tel el Eisa, it doesn't have a turret any more. That should not be taken to mean that Cpl Derrick or the No.74 was involved it that case, only that the word "damaged" really can mean an awful lot of damage.
Stuart Wheeler in this video does not claim the Aussie "destroyed" three panzers. Starting at 11:09 reading from a July 1942 copy of the Daily Mirror [not the Daily Mail], Wheeler says the newspaper reports that three panzers were lit up by sticky bombs set by the lone commando & the crews were all shot & killed as they emerged by the same lone guy. The final status of the tanks isn't reported. The event seems to be broadly true although the details are probably incorrect. Also this report is very soon after the event [within two weeks] & there would have been a heavy censor's blue pencil. Then the Daily Mirror has to make a story from what's left.
It was very common to leave names out of British/Commonwealth newspaper WWII action reports for obvious reasons - i.e. partly because it can help the enemy to reconstruct OOBs, weapons, tactics. Incidentally it is not true that "he'd certainly be decorated" - more often than not awards for valour and leadership were not awarded - it requires witnesses [for higher awards the witness has to be an officer] & it requires a CO to prepare the paperwork with a recommendation & pass it up the chain of command. The turnover of junior officers was so high that many units were run entirely by NCOs for weeks & it was normal to downgrade recommendations to prevent awards inflation [something that was unchecked by the Germans who must have had a factory making Iron Crosses 24/7].
@@nightjarflying Your response is childish. He states "the machines burst into flames" and the crews jumped out. Your juvenile contortions of English do nothing to add credit to the claim which is either wrong or grossly misleading. Also, I never said the paper would have printed his name, but that we'd know it. Further, your gratuitous attack on the Germans shows your lack of maturity and your bias. Go back to playing videos.
What about the lunge mine ?
Che Guevara, in his book,. '' Guerrilla Warfare '' ,. Illustrated AT weapon
Shotgun, dowel. Cocktail.
Petrol bombs versus modern adequately maintained modern IFVs is questionable at best. Frankly I am rather dubious of the guardian's account.
I always find it nearly impossible to imagine the sticky bomb in action. Even when seeing it up close and dismantled like here.
The UK will have had 48 F-35B delivered by the end of 2025. 3 of those are non-combat capable test aircraft based at Edwards AFB, and 1 has been lost crashing off HMS QE.
So that means there are 44 combat capable F-35B in total by end 2025.
Good presentation but he is not looking at the camera. Looks like he is reading as opposed the other two presenters who are more camera friendly :-). I don't mind, just and observation.
Given the weight of tanks & armour at the time, were sudden sinkholes a known hazard while trotting around the English countryside with such machines, or are they just a recent thing caused by modern living? : )
Sinkholes are not a dangerous feature of the "English countryside" - not one report of anyone dying by sinkhole
@@nightjarflying - Phew, that's a relief! : )
Hunting tanks is as dangerous as shooting tigers on foot... considering most British guys had never shot a tiger at all most likely did nothing to alleviate anxiety.
Spontaneus Tankphobia for everyone
Tank = Iron coffin!
Stewart needs to change museums, he really should be at a Anti-Tank museum, he does not like tanks.
At least learn to spell his name...
Usually the Irish rebellion , ( 1919-21) is called the Irish war of Independence.. because of the outcome 0
Poor logistics could also be described as an anti tank weapon?
Good one.
Could modern Active Protection Systems neutralize the molotov or is it traveling too slow? If it can, I can't imagine what would happen to the thrower.
Active Protection systems react only to very fast moving missiles - a system that reacted to a petrol bomb would kill everyone nearby & would be counterproductive in an urban area. A good way to make more enemies. The trick is NOT to operate in urban areas without infantry protection.
Unless a tank has an independent air supply for both crew and engine, a large encompassing petrol fire is still a problem. There is a limit to what an air filter can do.
It may be a problem for the tank.
But in case of a modern tank, it will probably take an impractically large ammount of fuel.
If all else fails, the crew of most modern tanks have emergency rebreathers (originally intended for emergency evecuation during deep fording).
imo, the biggest threats to a modern, buttoned-up tank posed by the kind of fire to be expected from a throwable fire bomb are obstructed vision by flames and smoke and damage to external equipment and viewports.
based iraqi crowd
Ok four eyes 😂😂😂
Straighten that tie and do trim that beard.
I would think using dirty motor oil would have been a better option than alchohol or gasoline.
Not that flammable
Need to mix with gas
Content 10 / 10 but I’m afraid the presentation leaves a lot to be desired, should have learned the script and used more eye contact the side view shots look a bit weird as the presenter is looking to one side (reading the script?)
Japanese stick bombs.
Really? Is it too indelicate to ask where they stick them? 😮
@@AtheistOrphan Probably where the Rising Sun doesn't shine.
@@scockery - 😆👏
Irish rebellion? You mean the War of Independence?
I've never understood the objection. Rebellion is not a negative thing unless you're in charge of the government being rebelled against. The Rebel Alliance in Star Wars are the good guys. Why would you care about being called Rebels by your (former) enemy?
Fortunately, Soviet tanks are hardened against NBC and watertight and thus impervious to petrol bombs. US and British tanks are extremely vulnerable to petrol bombs, as well as NBC threats.
I wonder how many poor young men were killed after believing that BS about hunting tanks as a sport.
I must say I love your videos and deeply appreciate the free content you provide us. But my god could you have picked a less enthusiastic presenter? Dude was putting me to sleep talking about improvised anti-tank weapons, that shouldn't be possible.
Please, it is "Ukraine," not "The Ukraine," the latter implicitly claims that Ukraine belongs to Russia.
Lovely name... I gass it stuck around longer than the "Obama phone"
The warrior was taken out because British soldiers were forbidden to kill their attackers. The UK government killed the warrior.
There was an issue with wear in the hatch seals which failed to keep the burning fuel out. They were intended to cope with burning petrol but wear, ageing and damage in normal use allowed ingress. I imagine a replacement and attention to hatch seals immediately followed in the Warrior fleet. In an open warfare situation the Warriors would have been shooting bomb throwers away from each other. The ROE did not allow that.
@@johnfisk811
Meaning Ubique2927 is right.
Very in-depth chat, good information here. However, the speaker is no Mr. Fletcher / Mr. Willey. I wonder if it boils down to sheer charisma or if it's simply a case of reading off a prompter as opposed to freestyling it from memory.
You are right. His name is Mr Wheeler. Not Mr Fletcher, not Mr Willey, but Mr Wheeler. Learn it, and GTFO if you don't like it.
@@marrs1013 - do you own The Tank Museum, sir? If you do, alienating your fanbase when they comment constructively (as you asked them to) isn't very good business practice. If you don't own The Tank Museum, please refer to my initial question.
@@AdrianSilea
You didn't have an initial question.
You do know things like the Sticky Bomb and Northover are not Improvisational Weapons at all.
Yeah, we watched the video. Cant hardly call it improvisation if there are several models right ?
@@herrhaber9076 3 out of 4 are serious, mass produced, fully developed weapon systems. Northover had several hundred thousand bombs produced per month... for years... Which is as far from Improv as you can get.
@@captiannemo1587 Clearly, it would be inappropriate to call them that way.
You could say "last resort" though :)
I wouldnt want to run to a tank in the hopes of smashing a gelled NG flask against its flanks !
speaking as s complete amateur and non serving person isn't a petrol bomb only effective if it gets inside? surely in that case the answer is to floor it out of the zone PLEASE don't hammer me I was only speculating
Correct, it would hardly have other effect if spalshed upon the outer shell of a tank than to blind it with flames and smoke, Germans later developed grenades with this purpose in mind, called Blendkörper 2H.
Petrol bombs were and are still instructed to be thrown ontop of the tank or armore vehicles, where the engines air intakes and sometimes open cooling grids are located. If the burning fuel gets into the engine block, it can set the engine oil on fire, followed by dominoeffect of fuel lines and electrical cable burning up, disabling the vehicle. By then the crewcompartment would start to feel like an oven if the flames haven't spread into there yet.
Most effective location to throw a incendiary bomb is into the crewcompartment, but if hatches are closed and locked, it's usually the previously mentioned spots that would be targetted then to coax the crew to open the hatches.
Many tanks during and after ww2 started to be designed to repel petrol bomb attacks with better protected engine access and crew compartments, but as seen in Ukraine, these kinds of countermeasures can be useless if the tank crews are incompetent.
@Derforst thank you for that but I remember the soldier that got the VC had to drive two burning Warriors out of danger but available information doesn't say whether they were buttoned down or not IF they were perhaps the Warrior needs a tweak or two
And away from your infantry
Well, imo a fire burning on the outside is in most cases no direct threat to the vehicle or the crew (unless the hatches are wide open or the vehicle has a serious design flaw).
However, fire and smoke can obstruct vision. Rendering the crew incabable of engaging the enemy, spotting other threats or seeing where they are going.
Fire may also damage viewports and other externaly mounted equipment, forcing the vehicle crew to amandon their mission and returning home for repairs (Mission Kill).
"Flooring it out of the danger zone" when done blind can also lead to all kinds of disasters, like running over your own infantry, running into the next ambush or driving into a ditch...
And even if it works and you are our of the danger zone and there's no damage to the vehicle, the enemy will still have succeded in knocking you out of the fight for a while.