problematic PIATs

[GoofyStance]

I've located the relevant passage in The Battery Commander, his Batman, and a Cook where the Allied officer describes the use of a PIAT to knock holes in walls during house-to-house fighting:

"... the PIAT, whatever its merits as an anti-tank weapon, had previously been used for blowing holes in walls: in Ortona it was employed extensively in this secondary role, but it was soon discovered to be unsafe to discharge inside houses because of the heavy back blast and the danger of the roof collapsing...." (Chapter 102, "Every Conceivable Use," p. 316)

The source is listed as being REPORT NO. 165, OPERATIONS OF 1 CDN INF DIV AND I CDN ARMD BDE IN ITALY 25 NOV 43-4 JAN 44.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by GoofyStance:

"... the PIAT, whatever its merits as an anti-tank weapon, had previously been used for blowing holes in walls: in Ortona it was employed extensively in this secondary role, but it was soon discovered to be unsafe to discharge inside houses because of the heavy back blast and the danger of the roof collapsing...."

That's very odd, as it contradicts everything else I've ever read about the weapon. My impression was that the propellent charge was much too small to have that kind of effect. One has to wonder if he wasn't confusing the PIAT with the Panzerfaust or something else.

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GoofyStance:

"... the PIAT, whatever its merits as an anti-tank weapon, had previously been used for blowing holes in walls: in Ortona it was employed extensively in this secondary role, but it was soon discovered to be unsafe to discharge inside houses because of the heavy back blast and the danger of the roof collapsing...."

That's very odd, as it contradicts everything else I've ever read about the weapon. My impression was that the propellent charge was much too small to have that kind of effect. One has to wonder if he wasn't confusing the PIAT with the Panzerfaust or something else.

Michael </font>

[Ant]

but it was soon discovered to be unsafe to discharge inside houses because of the heavy back blast and the danger of the roof collapsing

He's talking about blowing holes in walls, so I'm assuming that he must mean the backblast from the shell actually hitting the wall and exploding, rather than the backblast of the weapon itself.

[dieseltaylor]

Good interpretation Ant. I had not considered that aspect .... wonderful how unclear writiing can lead to so much fun decades later! : )

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Ant:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> but it was soon discovered to be unsafe to discharge inside houses because of the heavy back blast and the danger of the roof collapsing

He's talking about blowing holes in walls, so I'm assuming that he must mean the backblast from the shell actually hitting the wall and exploding, rather than the backblast of the weapon itself. </font>

[dieseltaylor]

How far away from a wall can you get inside your house? : )

In my study - given the PIAT is slightly over three feet long the muzzle will be all of 3 metres [9 feet] from the target. Believe me I really really would not like to try it.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Originally posted by dieseltaylor:

How far away from a wall can you get inside your house? : )

In my study - given the PIAT is slightly over three feet long the muzzle will be all of 3 metres [9 feet] from the target. Believe me I really really would not like to try it.

Aw, ga-wannn.....it'd be fun!

Regards

Jim R.

[Lord Harmes]

I think there is a part of the book A Bridge Too Far that describes a certain para in Arnhem who was particularly successful with his PIAT... I'm pretty sure it describes how blackened and singed his face was after firing off so many shots...

I must look this up!!!

[Monty's Double]

George MacDonald Fraser (yes, the Flashman authour) gives a great first hand account of using the PIAT in "Quartered Safe out Here". Yes, it was bloody heavy and awkward, and very difficult to cock manually (which you didn't need to do if it worked properly!).

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by dieseltaylor:

How far away from a wall can you get inside your house? : )

In my study - given the PIAT is slightly over three feet long the muzzle will be all of 3 metres [9 feet] from the target. Believe me I really really would not like to try it.

I wouldn't want to blow a hole in the wall of a building that I was occupying. You have debris from the blast, danger of roof collapse, as well as making yourself a rather obvious aiming point. I can understand punching holes in other buildings for entrance, but for exit seems particularly reckless.

[GoofyStance]

I belatedly (as in, this morning) came to the same conclusion as Ant - that the Allied officer may have been describing the effects of the exploding shell, not any "back blast" from the propellant. Thanks to you folks for your input and comments; it's interest like this that makes the forum an educational delight to peruse, and the CM games an informative pleasure to play!

[Mr. Tittles]

I think that firing a weapon like the PIAT while in a building at your own building would be like throwing a granade at an enemy in the same room as yourself.

The PIAT could be used from a building if its trough was hung out a window (ie firing across the street). The blast would largely be external to the interior space. In this regards, it was much safer than a bazooka/shreck/faust. It also had a smaller signature/flash I suspect.

But the mechanics of the device would have a decidedly user-hostile effect. It is not deadly like some of the other LATW but it would be a bitch to fire. Has anyone been to the side of someone firing a revolver? That spritz of powder burn would be very similar. Get that in the eye and it would be pretty serious. This would tend to create the flinch-factor.

I doubt the spring added any velocity to the projectile but was just an igniter and a launching rod the bomb shot off of.

[Ant]

I have read accounts of Soviets using captured panzerfausts in the manner described, ie. to produce makeshift doors in buildings during house to house fighting. So such tactics aren't entirely unknown.

[dieseltaylor]

I think that in the situation of working along a typical European street of linked buildings, faced with going out of a front door and in at the next, or going through the walls. The latter is actually quite attractive - provided you can get far enough away from impact and you do not bring the roof down.

BTW I cam get 9 metres from my furthest wall and that would presumably be quite a reasonable distance to escape debris from the shell/bomb.

Mr. Tittles - given the spring had 200lbs/90 kgs of pent up energy I cannot agree with your:

" I doubt the spring added any velocity to the projectile but was just an igniter and a launching rod the bomb shot off of."

Might aswell just used the cartridge then!! : ) I suspect someone has the suitable formula for how far a 1.35kg projectile flies if you release 90 kg against it. I am guessing accurately approx 100metres : )

[Lord Harmes]

Originally posted by dieseltaylor:

I think that in the situation of working along a typical European street of linked buildings, faced with going out of a front door and in at the next, or going through the walls. The latter is actually quite attractive - provided you can get far enough away from impact and you do not bring the roof down.

Working your way through the walls of a series of linked building is called mouse-holing. You don't have to be in the same room as the bomb as it goes off, as you can fire it from inside the room next door. Then you could fire through the hole you just made to create a hole in the next room and so on. I belive the russians captured most of Berlin this way...

[Lord Harmes]

Originally posted by dieseltaylor:

I think that in the situation of working along a typical European street of linked buildings, faced with going out of a front door and in at the next, or going through the walls. The latter is actually quite attractive - provided you can get far enough away from impact and you do not bring the roof down.

Working your way through the walls of a series of linked building is called mouse-holing. You don't have to be in the same room as the bomb as it goes off, as you can fire it from inside the room next door. Then you could fire through the hole you just made to create a hole in the next room and so on. I believe the russians captured most of Berlin this way...

[flamingknives]

90kg => 9.81*90=883N

F=ma => 883=1.35*a

a=654m/s^2

Or

Assuming that the spring is linear, is drawn back about 0.2m and that 883N is the final force, the energy stored is 0.5*0.2*883=88.3J

Kinetic energy is 1/2*m*v^2 where m is 1.35

=> (88.3*2/1.35)^0.5 = 5.7m/s initial velocity

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Lord Harmes:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dieseltaylor:

I think that in the situation of working along a typical European street of linked buildings, faced with going out of a front door and in at the next, or going through the walls. The latter is actually quite attractive - provided you can get far enough away from impact and you do not bring the roof down.

Working your way through the walls of a series of linked building is called mouse-holing. You don't have to be in the same room as the bomb as it goes off, as you can fire it from inside the room next door. Then you could fire through the hole you just made to create a hole in the next room and so on. I belive the russians captured most of Berlin this way... </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

The point about the explosion of the bomb creating the "backblast" is a good one.

Mouseholing was being taught in England in 1942-43 and was used extensively by the Seaforth Highlanders of Canada and Loyal Edmonton Regiment in Ortona in December 1943. It is discussed in some detail in D-DAY DODGERS: THE CANADIANS IN ITALY 1943-45 by Daniel G. Dancocks, and in ORTONA by Mark Zuehlke. The history of the Seaforth Highlanders by Reginald Roy also discusses it. It is now believed that mouseholing was taught in England, at least according to one Edmonton officer, though some histories say it was made up on the spot by the Canadians.

I don't recall reading about PIATs being used, though, the usual explosive used was a demolition charge.

A PIAT was a shaped charge warhead, so I would have thought a PIAT round hitting a wall would be more likely to create a rather smallish hole rather than blowing a man-sized hole through which soldiers could crawl. I'm not an expert on PIAT munitions, though, and they did use them as mortars later on. Did they have different HE and HEAT projectiles?

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Did they have different HE and HEAT projectiles?

Yes, from what I have read.

[Mr. Tittles]

The real question is whether the spring actually imparts that energy to the bomb. The rod is more than likely thrust forward by the spring, but it must have a stopper to limit its forward travel (otherwise, it would come flying out like a spear.

The total throw of the rod and the depth of the hollow cylindrical part of the bomb needs to be known. In other words, for the spring energy to do anything besides detonate the propellent, it has to transfer to the bomb.

The energy of the propellent has to both send the bomb flying AND recock the weapon. If the rod could come out and lock at its percussion point (imagine a PIAT mounted to a vehicle lest we break the shoulder off the firer), then the range would be increased.

If the PIAT were to have a longer rod, and a bomb with a deeper cavity, it would be more accurate. But the whole thing gets quickly too large for a LATW.

[GoofyStance]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

A PIAT was a shaped charge warhead, so I would have thought a PIAT round hitting a wall would be more likely to create a rather smallish hole rather than blowing a man-sized hole through which soldiers could crawl. I'm not an expert on PIAT munitions, though, and they did use them as mortars later on. Did they have different HE and HEAT projectiles?

As I understand it, a shaped-charge warhead will leave a "smallish hole" only if the warhead is perfectly perpendicular to the surface being penetrated. If the warhead hits the surface (in this case, a wall) at a more acute angle, wouldn't the resulting hole be more elliptical, and wouldn't part of the blast be deflected back into the room?

[flamingknives]

Did they have different HE and HEAT projectiles?

I've seen that they did, but that the HE round was never issued.

On the occasion in Oosterbeck when Maj. Cain won his VC, he apparently injured himself when he hit the wall of the building he was sheltering behind with the PIAT he was using.

Detonate an explosive in a confined space and you'll get over-pressure which could take down a dodgy roof, even if it is a shaped charge. Add to that the youth of shaped charge technology at the time and you'll get a fair amount of blast to go along with the focused 'jet'.

[flamingknives]

Plus a brick wall is more brittle than a tank, so the shock of an explosive can do more damage to that than it would to a tougher material.