bazooka over modelled?

[roqf77]

well ive been reading this website and it says, that the piat penetrated about 102mm of german steel but the bazooka was only about 77mm. also has the a test and it said the panzershreck would penetrate a tiger frontaly at 250m!

Here is the link(its not all zook bashing it puts the piat into perspective).

http://p081.ezboard.com/fforumonwarfrm10.showMessage?topicID=39.topic

[flamingknives]

Well, you'd expect a 'schrek to get through a Tiger front plate.

The figures in game are generally well sourced, so I'd personally want more compelling evidence than what some bloke has posted on a discussion forum.

[roqf77]

true just saying. wondered if anyone else knew?

[Flenser]

Originally posted by roqf77:

well ive been reading this website and it says, that the piat penetrated about 102mm of german steel but the bazooka was only about 77mm. also has the a test and it said the panzershreck would penetrate a tiger frontaly at 250m!

Here is the link(its not all zook bashing it puts the piat into perspective).

http://p081.ezboard.com/fforumonwarfrm10.showMessage?topicID=39.topic

Minor point: the panzershreck uses a shaped charge, thus range is irrelevant when talking about penetrating power.

Major point: Never trust what you read in forums. Unless, of course, it's coming from me.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Well, you'd expect a 'schrek to get through a Tiger front plate.

Provided of course that you could hit it at that range.

Michael

[Guest Mike]

Basically - yes, everyone else knew that the 'shrek had better performance than the Bazooka - it's basically because it has a bigger warhead.

IIRC he post war 3.5" bazooka was a copy or development of hte 'shrek wasn't it? Or perhaps inspired by it? It's pretty much the same calibre - 3.5" = 88.9mm!

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by Mike:

IIRC he post war 3.5" bazooka was a copy or development of hte 'shrek wasn't it? Or perhaps inspired by it? It's pretty much the same calibre - 3.5" = 88.9mm!

The schreck was a copy of the bazooka (based on examples captured in N. Africa), but with a larger caliber; I don't think it's quite accurate to call the 3.5" bazooka a copy of the schreck just because the US later increased its caliber. Although I do wonder why 3.5".

[roqf77]

good stuff but i meant in comparison to the piat. i know the panzershreck was much better.

[SgtMuhammed]

It was found that the 90mm round was about the max size that the average soldier could handle repeatedly without wearing himself out. So the 3.5" gave good penetration, for its time, in a round that could be carried fairly easily. Or it would if it was the only thing you were carrying.

[V]

Is the bazooka in CMAK better than the PIAT?

I never play as the USA or UK in CMAK, so I have no idea...

[Other Means]

Originally posted by V:

Is the bazooka in CMAK better than the PIAT?

I never play as the USA or UK in CMAK, so I have no idea...

I imagine it's personal preference but I think the PIAT is the best infantry AT weapon in the game. It's less accurate than the shrek/zook but a lot more stealthy. You can often get a couple of turns firing from a PIAT from the least amount of cover. You've got to wait for side shots sometimes but I think this is outweighed by it's good points. With a zook or shrek you get the distinctive sound plus the exhaust plume and often get spotted mid turn.

[Soddball]

Not to mention that you can fire them in buildings with no risk of the buildings catching fire.

[aka_tom_w]

How does the PIAT and the shreck and the 'zook compare to today's "standard" RPG that you see in Black Hawk down and all over Afghanistan and Iraq?

what are there similarities and differences?

thanks

-tom w

[roqf77]

hmmmm wheres flaming knives when you need him?

[Gromit]

Well, it is hard to compare the PIAT to the Bazooka and Panzerschrek evenly because the PIAT wasn't rocket-powered like the latter two weapons.

IIRC, the PIAT was a "spigot" weapon that actually threw the projectile at the target. It was a REAL bear to load- not unlike medieval heavy crossbows- that spring mechanism had to be pretty heavy duty.

Also, in battle conditions, PIAT men were trained to wait until the very last moment to fire- under 50 yards was considered best "effective" range, although it was claimed to be good out to around 75 or 100 yards, I don't remember off the top of my head.

If you're curious, there is a great account of PIATs used with great effect on D-Day at Pegasus Bridge.

G.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Gromit:

Well, it is hard to compare the PIAT to the Bazooka and Panzerschrek evenly because the PIAT wasn't rocket-powered like the latter two weapons.

I have a couple of snippets on PIAT and Panzerfaust hit probability, but, for reasons that will become obvious, they do not provide a comparison between the two.

WO 291/1060, "The A45 flame gun versus the Panzerfaust", mentions that "As the campaign in NW Europe progressed the proportion of tank casualties due to hollow-charge weapons (mainly of the Panzerfaust type) increased from 10% to 35%."

An indication of Panzerfaust hit probability from operational experience is given as follows:

Range (yds)_hits__misses__% hits

0-20_________17_____15_____53%

21-40________13_____14_____43%

41-100_______10_____22_____31%

"...it has been impossible to trace all misses so that the figures are only comparative."

Given that the people on the receiving end were presumably aware of all hits, but not of all misses, these figures may be taken as an upper bound on peformance in the field.

"The disproportionally large number of misses at close range is thought to be due either to the fact that short-range firing is nerve-racking to the firer, or to the large angular velocities of the target as it reaches crossing point."

WO 291/153 "The effectiveness of PIAT shooting" reports trials shoots on a Covenanter. 3 serials were fired, one by "average" trained soldiers and 2 by above-average users, one of staff from AORS 6. The results should therefore be regarded as an upper bound on possible performance. The serials were fired using an inert bomb with identical ballistics to the HE/AT round. The target was a Covenanter tank moving at about 10 mph, either crossing at 70 to 110 yards, approaching at 110 to 65 yards, or receding at 35 to 110 yards.

"There is no great difference between the percentage of hits with first, second and third shots, although the proportion is slightly greater with the second."

Percentages of hits at different ranges were:

Crossing target: 70% under 85 yds, 48% over 85 yds.

Approaching target: 42% under 85yds, 24% over 85 yds

Receding target: 80% under 65 yds, 68% over 65 yds.

"The effect of range on the percentage of hits is not very great; about two thirds as many shots hit above 85 yards as below. It is certainly not possible to obtain a hit with certainty by waiting until the tank is within say 70 yards. The reason for the unexpectedly poor performance at short ranges is presumably the increase in angular movement of the target, combined, perhaps, with the 'sense of hurry' already mentioned."

Of particular note was the high proportion of fuze failures in these trials:

"From these figures it can be seen that about 75% of hits detonate with the DA Fuze 425. No DA Fuzes 426 were available for trial, but it is assumed that a greater proportion of them, perhaps as much as 90%, would detonate."

I have no information on the expected angular dispersion of the projectiles from any hand-held anti-tank weapons, and so cannot do any P(hit) calculations based on their intiial velocity. However, it is a rule of thumb in the world of OA that the effective range of a hand-held anti-tank projector, in metres, is approximately equal to its initial velocity in metres per second.

All the best,

John.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

How does the PIAT and the shreck and the 'zook compare to today's "standard" RPG that you see in Black Hawk down and all over Afghanistan and Iraq?

what are there similarities and differences?

thanks

-tom w

and

Originallt posted by roqf77

hmmmm wheres flaming knives when you need him?

You called?

The standard RPG-7 used by insurgent forces the world over is, for the most part, a 1970's model with an effective range of 500m (300m vs. a moving target) and are able to penetrate ~300mm of Rolled Homogenous Armor (RHA)*. It uses an over calibre warhead, where the warhead is larger than the launcher tube, like the Panzerfaust, which is not surprising as it is derived from late-model panzerfausts.

So, we've got twice the range of everything and a 50% improvement on the German weapons, (warhead calibre is similar to the 'shrek) and 300% on the Allied ones.

There are further differences too. The extra range is due to a two stage launch The projectile is launched out of the tube by a change that burns completely within the tube, the rocket travel a safe distance (10-20m) before a rocket motor ignites, propelling it out to max range. The fin stabilisation and propulsion of the projectile means that in a cross wind the projectile will weathercock (turn to point into the wind) and it will deviate from the target in the opposite way to that expected.

Early RPG-7 projectiles (1960s) had problems with the fuse such that only 1 in 7 hits would result in a decent performance of the warhead. In addition the fuse was so sensitive that, once armed, it was liable to be set off by foliage. More modern warheads (1970s) do not suffer from this, but have a unique method of fusing and as such can be easily defeated by slat armour or something like chickenwire. Other HEAT weapons are not as sensitive to these defensive techniques.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Gromit:

Well, it is hard to compare the PIAT to the Bazooka and Panzerschrek evenly because the PIAT wasn't rocket-powered like the latter two weapons.

IIRC, the PIAT was a "spigot" weapon that actually threw the projectile at the target. It was a REAL bear to load- not unlike medieval heavy crossbows- that spring mechanism had to be pretty heavy duty.

The round was actually launched by a ballistite cartridge in the tail of the bomb. The spring did not launch the bomb on its own.

The weapon in theory recocked itself after each shot. Drop the bomb in and you're ready to go. However, the weapon often failed to recock itself, in which case the heavy duty spring mechanism you describe did prove to be bothersome - especially if under fire, as the only way to recock it was either standing up (optimally, not great to do under fire) or if possible lying prone.

[flamingknives]

Supine, surely?

[Michael Emrys]

I have a question about the PIAT. Why was that damn spring made so heavy? If all it is intended to do is to ignite the cartridge, one would think something lighter would have sufficed. There must have been a reason for this design choice, and I'm wondering what it was. Also, as the PIAT was continued in use for some time after the war, was there any thought of modifying the weapon with a lighter spring?

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Supine, surely?

Position Grog. I bet you sleep on your back, too. :mad:

[flamingknives]

Like I'd tell a deranged mannequin fancier that.

[warspite]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

I have a question about the PIAT. Why was that damn spring made so heavy? If all it is intended to do is to ignite the cartridge, one would think something lighter would have sufficed. There must have been a reason for this design choice, and I'm wondering what it was. Also, as the PIAT was continued in use for some time after the war, was there any thought of modifying the weapon with a lighter spring?

Michael

It's the spring launches the charge. It's a ~200lb pull pressing on a 3lb warhead. There's no chemical propellant of any kind.

As someone else said, it's probably the best infantry AT weapon in the game due to the lack of noise and smoke trail. In some respects it feels a little overmodeled (using it repeatedly should tire out infantry rather quickly, and I think reload times could be longer - but this is merely opinion and not sourced), but other advantages, like the ability to fire from an enclosed space, are not modeled, so it all balances out IMO.

[flamingknives]

You might want to check that, warspite:

The PIAT is a spigot mortar, and hence has a small charge.

It simply cannot re-cock itself, which it did, without some form of propellant. Furthermore, a 200lb spring cannot propel the bomb at a sufficient speed.

[Michael Emrys]

FK is right. But still, nobody's answered my question. Why was such a bloody heavy spring used in the first place?

Michael