Michael Dorosh Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Originally posted by warspite: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tagwyn Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Thanks for the good explanation Dorosh. The sarcasm was, as usual, not warranted. Tag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Michael, mayber this answers your question. From my own forum, by David Gordon, author of WEAPONS OF THE BRITISH TOMMY: http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=28173&messageid=1110338354 </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The large spring in the PIAT absorbs most of the recoil of the bolt/spigot with firing pin and allows the weapon to recock in the process. Without the spring, the PIAT would be a shoulder fired mortar, which would likely break you in half in the process.(emphasis added)</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warspite Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Wow, Dorosh, that'll leave few people here who can post. My MISTAKE. We're allowed to make those, aren't we? I assume we can't all be omniscient gods like you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Originally posted by warspite: Wow, Dorosh, that'll leave few people here who can post."Few" is subjective, however, I think most people (in fact, a majority somewhat greater than 50% +1) who post here do take the time to ensure they know what they're talking about, be it tactics, history, strategy, or recipes for biscuits. Quite the sweeping generalization on your part. Pity you hold the rest of the board in such low regard - or did you somehow subscribe to the theory that we all post here with misinformation for the fun of it? Or something? :confused: My MISTAKE.Quite. We're allowed to make those, aren't we? Allowed? Nothing in the rules against it. Check with the board admin, I guess. :confused: Just curious that you would rush in with a pronounciamento without having any clue as to how incorrect you were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: ... as the PIAT was continued in use for some time after the war, ... Michael It may have been in service for some time after the war, but I don't believe it was used much, even in training. It was felt to be too dangerous to the user, so an order came out shortly after the end of hostilities that it wasn't to be fired anymore. Regards Jon P.S. please don't ask for a source [ July 01, 2005, 08:44 PM: Message edited by: JonS ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Originally posted by Tagwyn: The sarcasm was, as usual, not warranted. Tag Well, but as he doesn't charge for it, it doesn't really need a warranty, now does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Originally posted by warspite: Wow, Dorosh, that'll leave few people here who can post.Oh, it leaves hundreds. Originally posted by warspite: My MISTAKE.No problem, really. One should always couch these things in 'qualifiers', such as: I thought, I believe so, If I recall correctly, it was my understanding, things like that. Then you don't look like you're handing down the revealed word of God. One should save the 'Revealed Word of God' pronouncements for things that all know to be true and inarguable, like 'Grog Dorosh is a vicious swine', things like that. Originally posted by warspite: We're allowed to make those, aren't we? I assume we can't all be omniscient gods like you. Really, you can't let Michael get to you. It's just his crusty way. I mean, if you take offense at his demeanour, you'll probably burst an aneurism, or something. Just do what I do. When he comes down too heavy on you, imagine that you're floating in a quiet pool filled with lily pads. Well, actually, I mercilessly satirize the man. But I bet the 'lily pad pool' thing is almost as relaxing and fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Originally posted by Seanachai: Just do what I do. When he comes down too heavy on you, imagine that you're floating in a quiet pool filled with lily pads.Reinforcing my basic belief that you are a toad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Originally posted by JonS: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys: ... as the PIAT was continued in use for some time after the war, ... Michael It may have been in service for some time after the war, but I don't believe it was used much, even in training. It was felt to be too dangerous to the user, so an order came out shortly after the end of hostilities that it wasn't to be fired anymore.</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Originally posted by Berlichtingen: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Seanachai: Just do what I do. When he comes down too heavy on you, imagine that you're floating in a quiet pool filled with lily pads.Reinforcing my basic belief that you are a toad </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skolman Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 If I remember correctly there has been a HE charge for the PIAT as well. Right ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Originally posted by JonS: It may have been in service for some time after the war, but I don't believe it was used much, even in training. It was felt to be too dangerous to the user, so an order came out shortly after the end of hostilities that it wasn't to be fired anymore. Regards Jon P.S. please don't ask for a source I am going to beg to differ slightly, based on that well-known source, the Man in the Pub -- slightly better than that, in fact, the landlord, specifically of, ooh, strains memory, the Queen's Head in Horsham (or it might have been the Hornbrook). This bloke (John? Peter? Can't even recall his name), having overheard the PIAT being mentioned in a grog discussion over grog in his pub, told us that he had fired the PIAT in Palestine, which must have been 1947 or 48. As he told it, his platoon was bushwhacked by three Haganah blokes in a bunker, and he, being the poor sap who was carrying the PIAT at the time, was told to deal with it. He fired 14 rounds (an odd number, given that the carrier holds three bombs) because that was all the ammunition they were carrying, and he was so dazed after the first couple of rounds that he kept on mindlessly following the firing drill until he couldn't any more, oblivious to the repeated shouts of "cease fire" from the platoon sergeant. He claimed that he finished up two yards behind the firing position he'd started in because of the effect of the recoil. Enough of the rounds hit that there was very little left of the bunker or the blokes in it (they had to count the toes and divide by 10) , and he was duly put on a charge for "wasting ammunition". My own slightly cynical impression of the British Army in the late 1940s suggests to me that if firing the PIAT was dicouraged, it was more likely to have been on grounds of expense rather than safety (remember Crown Immunity?) The PIAT was eventually replaced by the 3.5-in Bazooka, with which another pub acquaintance of mine (back bar of the Stout House this time) once demolished a small house in training; I think he managed to avoid being put on a charge for destroying government property. All the best, John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacobs_ladder2 Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Originally posted by John D Salt: The PIAT was eventually replaced by the 3.5-in Bazooka, with which another pub acquaintance of mine (back bar of the Stout House this time) once demolished a small house in training; I think he managed to avoid being put on a charge for destroying government property. All the best, John. Well, one thing is certain. Your pubs are infinitely more interesting than our own. Cheers Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 John, I should have qualified slightly (and to be honest, I didn't even consider Palastine) - as I recall it was something along the lines of "not to be used unless someone is shooting at you". Great stories I happen to have a copy of Infantry Training, Vol I, Infantry Platoon Weapons, Pam 9, Pt II, 3.5-Inch Rocket Launcher floating around here somewhere ... Editted in a bid to defeat evil. [ July 02, 2005, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: JonS ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 I believe those of you with access to good Israeli source material from the 1948 war will find an account of an attack on a kibbutz mounted by an Arab armored column composed, as I recall, of Hotchkiss R-39s (or was it Somuas?) and improvised armored cars. The attack was stopped by a PIAT and a WWI? or earlier 75mm field gun. I think the footage ran on the History Channel here in the U.S. and distinctly recall my shocked feeling when I realized the nature of the tanks I was seeing. Ring any bells? Might make an interesting scenario! Regards, John Kettler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Originally posted by JonS: ... "not to be used unless someone is shooting oat..."Shooting oats? Is that like projectile vomiting? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Not quite... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Originally posted by Skolman: If I remember correctly there has been a HE charge for the PIAT as well. Right ? The PIAT was successfully used as a mortar in NW Europe on occasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llama Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Originally posted by John D Salt: I am going to beg to differ slightly, based on that well-known source, the Man in the Pub -- slightly better than that, in fact, the landlord, specifically of, ooh, strains memory, the Queen's Head in Horsham (or it might have been the Hornbrook). Depends how far back you go. Might well have been the Queen's Head. The landlord there in my time was ex-forces (finished in 22nd regiment at Hereford). Age wise he would have been right to have seved there but I never heard him mention Palestine. Had a beatutiful Alasation bitch. He went on to run the Dog & Bacon, retired and died a few years ago. Mind you I never met anyone interesting in the Stout House, back or front bar. It must have come up in the world since my day. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: What's more, he doesn't reply to e-mails. The swarn.Toads don't write Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Originally posted by llama: [snips]Depends how far back you go. In Horsham, I go back to 1967, and for legal drinking, to 1978. Originally posted by llama: Might well have been the Queen's Head. The landlord there in my time was ex-forces (finished in 22nd regiment at Hereford). Age wise he would have been right to have seved there but I never heard him mention Palestine. Had a beatutiful Alasation bitch. He went on to run the Dog & Bacon, retired and died a few years ago. Yes, I know the man, and my memory wants to say he was called Paul, but I'm not sure -- had an SPG crest behind the bar 'cos his son was in it, if my memory fails me correctly. Anyhow, not him, someone else. Originally posted by llama: Mind you I never met anyone interesting in the Stout House, back or front bar. It must have come up in the world since my day. You're bloody lucky you didn't run into me. John and Margaret who were there since ever I could remember went on to run the Tanner's Arms, they must be retired by now, I had my last pint off them there a few years ago. Another interesting bloke from the back bar of the Stout House was Major Frank Mumblemumble, who was always griping about his tin hips and tiny pension and trying to get you to buy him whisky. He got the MC (and his hips shattered by a Japanese grenade) leading a sneaky-beaky attack through the sewers into Fort Dufferin in Burma. Now the really interesting pub to drink in, that was the Wheatsheaf at Plummer's Plain, when Jerry King was the landlord... All the best, John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warspite Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Just curious that you would rush in with a pronounciamento without having any clue as to how incorrect you were. Hardly curious, were you? I fail to see how telling me to stop posting is a sign of curiosity. And obviously, if I'd KNOWN I was incorrect, or if I'd had reason to doubt my claim before this, I wouldn't have posted with such authority, would I? It's not like I was a dick to you and argued your counter-claim, was I? So why were you a dick to me? Like I said, we obviously can't all be the omniscient Michael Dorosh. You'll just have to live with that fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Originally posted by Seanachai: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by warspite: Wow, Dorosh, that'll leave few people here who can post.Oh, it leaves hundreds. Originally posted by warspite: My MISTAKE.No problem, really. One should always couch these things in 'qualifiers', such as: I thought, I believe so, If I recall correctly, it was my understanding, things like that. Then you don't look like you're handing down the revealed word of God. One should save the 'Revealed Word of God' pronouncements for things that all know to be true and inarguable, like 'Grog Dorosh is a vicious swine', things like that. Originally posted by warspite: We're allowed to make those, aren't we? I assume we can't all be omniscient gods like you. Really, you can't let Michael get to you. It's just his crusty way. I mean, if you take offense at his demeanour, you'll probably burst an aneurism, or something. Just do what I do. When he comes down too heavy on you, imagine that you're floating in a quiet pool filled with lily pads. Well, actually, I mercilessly satirize the man. But I bet the 'lily pad pool' thing is almost as relaxing and fun. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Quite apart from anything else, stating that a 200lb spring will propel a 3lb bomb at much over 10m/s is nonsense. Out of curiousity, why were you so sure that the PIAT had no propelling charge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts