Talk:Molotov cocktail

Article cleanup

I just did a major reworking of this article and removed the {{cleanup}} tag. I tried to use as much as of the original text as possible, but I did change a few things that appeared to be somewhat inaccurate. I added some details about the origin of the term as well. I also omitted mention of using crushed styrofoam cups as an additive because I could not discern their purpose and therefore which of the categories of weapon enhancement this would be placed under. I believe I left out some words in what is now the Handling section because I couldn't easily fit them into prose-worthy sentences, and didn't feel they were critical (unless the goal of this article was to ensure that people making Molotov cocktails do it correctly, which troubles me a bit, I admit).

I'm still not especially happy about the flow of the resulting sections. I felt that the two main purposes of the article were to explain what a Molotov cocktail was and how it came to be called that, and that the legality and safe-handling topics should follow these, even though the handling portion is in some ways closely connected to the Composition section. But I thought this was the best arrangement for the current text. I leave subsequent edits to others. ☺ — Jeff Q 03:03, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Ever put gasoline on styrofoam?? They react very quickly, depending on the purity of the gas. The styrofoam thickens the gas at a very high (10-1, styro/gas) ratio.

---

I have heard tell that the Cypriot military (in the South), recommends the use of styrofoam "peanuts" for Molotov cocktails. Can anyone substantiate this? eddiuny 04:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

---

I re-added the info on stryofoam and some more safe-handling information. The information I provided is accurate, but not particularly safe in the hands of morons (you know who you are). Please use this for informational purposes only, or at least for a really good cause (read: one that I agree with). If you just want to see stuff blow up and catch fire, rent a Schwarzenegger movie and save yourself or a friend a trip to the burn ward. Understand that a minor additive can have a MASSIVE impact on the reaction and a little understanding of chemistry/oxidation is very helpful. -Legomancer

---

My apologies for making somewhat of a mess while trying to revert vandalism - if someone knowledgeable could double-check, it would be great. FreplySpang (talk) 4 July 2005 00:40 (UTC)

The last known-good version seems to be "Revision as of 23:09, 26 June 2005, by Mtz206". After that it is a series of petty vandalisms and partial reverts. --Shaddack 4 July 2005 00:58 (UTC)

Oh good. Thanks! FreplySpang (talk) 5 July 2005 15:17 (UTC)

---

What happened to all of the information on this article? Before it had some information on basic ingredients and safety and now it just has the history of and legality. I know there was some discussion on the appropriateness of having what some called "bomb recipes" on a freely accessible webiste - but that doesn't mean the content should just be removed! Information should be available, even when it's unpopular. People should be educated enough to know when said information is just interesting and when it should be applied. Censoring and hoping nobody finds out leads to ignorance. Getting partial or inaccurate information is much more likely to get somebody injured. Legomancer (talk) 25 July 2005 11:23 (UTC)

There is some confusion about the origin of the name. One edition of the Oxford Dictionary even says Molotov ovesaw production of the device in WW2! On balance the connection with the Winter War seems well-established, but should there be acknowledgement of the controversy...? Jack Upland

---

I understand that Wikipedia aspires to being the greatest volume of complete knowledge yet created, but that Godly role should come with a bit of Godly parenting as well. This article needs to be rewritten responsibly. How about adding horror stories, casualty stats, insurance stats, burn pictures to make a better balance. And how can you argue against more information for Wikipedia!?! I agree ignorance is bad, but this article is also ignorant of not telling the whole story. Failing this we should remove the entire recipe to balance it out. If some one is smart enough to study chemistry properly themselves so they can make bombs, and THEN suddenly dumb enough that they want to make one... then more power to them!

Anonymous 28 Oct 2005 00:58 (AWST)

Image request

I think we should get a freely lisensed ilustration of a molotov coctail for this article. Either a drawing of some kind or a photo of one (it should be easy enough to make a "mock up" of one). Once we have that we can loose the "fair use" image. --Sherool 22:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Lol doesent look like the guy in the pic has shoved a cork in the top!

My opinion (on the inclusion of safe handling/construction instructions)

I re-added the information on safe-handling, it's as relevant to the article as history and basic construction. Shaddack and Gfad1 had previously mentioned doubts about flour and whether this was an arson's manual respectively.

To Shaddack: flour is nothing more than carbohydrates, it is a WONDERFUL oxidizer. If you have access to an *outside* fire (like a campfire) and a scoop of unbleached flour, you'll see what a delightful accelerant simple flour can be. Off topic but interesting, a calorie is the amount of energy something releases when burned. Asbestos has a very low caloric rating, gasoline has a very high caloric rating. Things with high caloric ratings release large amounts of energy and contribute to the overall efficiency/heat of a fire. Seriously, throw a cup of flour on an open fire, and be amazed at the awesome flammability - which leads me to my next point.

Flour is fundamentally a mixture of polysaccharides and proteins. There's nothing oxidizing in it, save perhaps few PPMs of residues of flour bleaching agents. From strictly chemical sense, flour is NOT an oxidizer (if we omit the border laboratory cases of making it react with powerful reducing agents, but we talk about normal oxygen-grade burning here). However, it still may be a pretty effective "performance enhancer". (Re open fire, you can pour some gasoline on it and see a nice visual effect as well, but this does not make the gasoline an oxidizer as well. On the other hand, pouring some LOX in a fire is pretty magnificent.) --Shaddack 13:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Shaddack, you're right. Flour by itself is not an oxidizer. There are some impurities/additives in flour that are oxidizers (potassium bromate and chlorine cause oxidative changes in carotenoid pigments) though I can't find anything that asserts it would work to oxidize a fire. I should have been more careful in my phrasing and said something to the effect of "Flour is extremely combustible, and can increase the burning temperatures of fires when used as a fuel additive. Care should be taken because small amounts of airborn flour can create suitable conditions for a flash fire." Thanks for keeping me on the straight and narrow. --Legomancer 16:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

To Gfad1: Removing information simply because it could be used for less than honorable purposes is crap. Plain and simple. If somebody has it in their sick heads to do damage to person or property, I very seriously doubt an article on Wiki is going to be the final push they need. On the other hand, if Wikipedia is trying to be a grand consortium of information, it's going to have to contain information some people consider "unsavory." I am a firm believer in complete freedom of information. I'd rather have unihibited access to all information than censored access to some - even information I disagree with or information that could harm myself and others. The thought that information corrupts people and drives them to savage acts is completely baseless. Wikipedia is here to inform, without passing judgement. I'm tempted to go into a much longer rant about how I parent my children from reading things they don't need to see and how adults should be free to read anything, even if someone disagrees with it, but I think I've made my point.--Legomancer 08:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that people should have access to this information if they want it, but I'm not sure we're trying to accumulate all human knowledge here - we're just trying to make an encyclopedia - and by extension I'm not sure this is the place for that information. Personally, I was a but suprised when the article went from saying "overfilling the bottle is a common mistake" to saying "for optimal damage the bottle should be a half to two thirds full". My personal opinion is that the second part of that isn't what I'd expect to find in an encyclopedia. 137.205.148.32 10:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

question

I have a question that might seem obvious to most people but has always confused me. Ok, so a cocktail weapon is made with a bottle of gasoline and then a gas soaked rag stuffed into the opening of the bottle or wrapped around the neck right? Since gas ignites so quickly wouldn't this design mean that the rag would always burn up before hitting the target? rvinall 08:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I fixed a spelling. Even if the gas burns quickly, the rag would not necessarily be consumed (think candle wick).

answer

First off, you light the wick right before throwing. Even if you're a major league pitcher, it's only going to be in the air a second or two - nowhere near long enough to consume a rag's worth of gasoline.

Secondly, most useable cocktails have sealed bottles with a burning somethingorother attached to the outside (rubber banding a kerosene soaked tampon works really well, and you don't douse yourself in flaming gas when you wind up and pitch the device).

Thirdly, liquid gasoline is not even flammable. Take a glass container full to the brim with gasoline outside on a windy day. You can extinguish as many matches as you like into it. Gasoline evaporates very readily in air, though. It's those vapors that are more than flammable: they're explosive. In a simple gasoline bomb, after the device is thrown, the fuel spills on the ground creating a large surface area for evaporation. The wick (burning rag, flaming tampon rubber-banded to outside of sealed bottle, etc) then ignites the evaporated gasoline that has mixed with the air in the right proportion. The heat from the burning gaseous gasoline/air mixture continues to evaporate more of the liquid gasoline feeding the fire. Hope that helps.--Legomancer 07:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Mongolia

Does it not seem farfetched that gasoline would ignite on contact with a Soviet tank? Since when has the climate of an arid desert been enough to ignite gasoline? If this was the case, would Soviet tanks not simply combust regardless of Japanese resistance; I believe Soviet tanks ran on gasoline? --Daniel 19:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree, it does certainly seem like a farfetched claim that the gasoline would spontaneously combust just because of the hot conditions. I mean surely it takes a few hundred degrees at-least to cause petrol to burn, right?

So was this what actually happened our just the stories of some of the soldiers?

--Hibernian 18:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible that due to the hot, dry conditions, the gasoline rapidly evaporated into a combustible mixture, and was ignited by the engine exhaust of the tanks? The exhaust systems of a tank will certainly be hot enough to ignite gasoline vapors. --Syonyk

Tanks can be destroyed by Molotov Cocktails?

There's allot in the article about Molotov Cocktails being used to destroy tanks, but I think this needs to be clarified much more. Firstly, can a Molotov really "destroy" a tank, i.e. cause it to explode or be immobilized. Or does the cocktail just affect the crew of the vehicle? (By burning them or causing them to get out, etc.)?

Secondly, surely modern tanks would be immune to this, as they have sealed environments? (NBC protection systems etc.) So I don't see how the burning liquid could get inside a modern Armoured vehicle. If this is so, then I think it should be made clear that only old-fashioned tanks can be taken out by Molotov’s. --Hibernian 19:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It could get in through open hatches, happend so in Iraq to the british not so long ago. And the burning gasoline blocks the thermal imaging systems. I don´t know, but I think the NBC protection systems could be blocked or even disabled by burning gasoline, too. I don´t think they are capable of handling the heat and the smoke. --83.171.165.23 23:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I remember the British Vehicle that was set alight in Iraq (I think it Was an IFV), but like I said, the vehicle wasn't destroyed was it? It was just that the Crew had to evacuate. So does that really qualify as Destroying the Tank/Vehicle?

The point I was trying to make is that there is a difference between Destroying or Disabling a Tank, and Attacking the crew. I doubt that Molotov Cocktails can do the former, but they may well be able to do the latter (at-least for Modern Tanks). In the same sense that Chemical or Biological weapons cannot Destroy Tanks but they can kill the crews. --Hibernian 19:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are right, a molotov cocktail can not cause damage beyond repair. It can cause serious damage when you manage to detonate the ammunition inside. And at least a disabled crew is a mission kill and burning gasoline or oil should do vital damage to the controls and other systems. Hitting the air supply for the engines would cause a mobility kill. --83.171.178.40 20:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)