problematic PIATs

[Mr. Tittles]

Brick walls are subject to fracture. WWII bazookas could open a mouse hole with a few shots.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by GoofyStance:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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? </font>

[MikeyD]

Modern tank HEAT ammo is most often listed as 'dual purpose' because though the cone at the front focuses a forward jet there's still the blast pattern from the total body to contend with. A Piat would punch a small HEAT hole to the front but the exploding body would have a sizable 'grenade' affect too.

If you were mouse-holing from building to building I'd imagine the Piat team would be firing through the hole in the first (brick?) wall straight at the room's opposite wall, relying almost entirely on the brick wall between rooms for protection. I wouldn't want to try this technique breaching simple wallboard and plaster!

[Mr. Tittles]

From lessons learned..Italy

To gain our first foothold in the town we used smoke and tanks

supported by infantry. The infantry under unobserved fire removed mines

and filled in anti-tank ditches to assist in the advance of the tanks. On

gaining the first foothold we got men in buildings and consolidated our

positions with particular attention to getting bazookas in large numbers

placed in the most forward positions. German tanks in this sector had

been giving us trouble, but the German armor didn't bother us in CASSINO

because we had so many bazookas well forward. The bazooka proved to be a

very effective weapon in street fighting. It was the squad leaders'

direct fire artillery and with very little instruction and experience can

be fired with surprising accuracy. Since all doors and lower windows were

covered by fire, at other times we had to make other entrances to these

buildings through thick stone walls. If tanks could be maneuvered to

shoot holes in these walls, it was done. Otherwise, the bazooka was used.

In one instance, it took nine rounds to get a hole big enough to go

through. After an entrance was found or made a grenade always preceded the

infantryman into the room if there was any possibility of Germans being

there. In cases where a house could not be approached, tank fire was used

to level the building to the ground. Of course, this gave the Germans

some wonderful rubble piles to build camouflage emplacements but they lost

the overhead cover for artillery and mortar fire. We also used an 8"

howitzer on some buildings. It can be fired with precision and changes as

small as ten yards can be made so we used it on targets within 50 yards of

our own troops. We called it sniping with an 8" how. Mortars are not too

effective against the buildings and are used mainly to harass and

interdict paths.

[Tacitus]

All in all I think it`s generally accepted that it was a ghastly weapon to use and rarely hit anything that wasn`t 10m away.Don`t know why we didn`t bin it and buy bazookas from you.Unless anyone knows different.

[flamingknives]

To the contrary, while it wasn't great, it was an acceptable weapon which was very flexible.

I've seen reports of PIATs killing every German tank from a Tiger I on down.

It has a small firing signature and is simple to produce. Probably a similar reason for using Sten guns or M3s rather than Thompsons.

[Michael Dorosh]

Sten Gun was considered a throwaway weapon by the powers that be. It also shared ammo with the 9mm Browning, which for the Canadians at least became the standard sidearm in late 1944 (though that may be a case of the chicken and the egg).

There are official reports I've linked to in other posts about the Sten Gun and how soldiers in the field were inclined to believe the worst of the weapon through not understanding the design intent (silly buggers, they only knew that their lives depended on them).

The Piat was similarly "sold" to the troops through constant reminders as to proper employment. I mentioned Smokey Smith - he took out a Panther with one, though admittedly, as even he said, "you can't miss from 20 feet away."

The lack of a backblast was a real advantage no other shaped charge projectile AT weapon seemed to have.

And for what it is worth, how big a problem did German armour really pose to Commonwealth infantry after 1943? There are many instances of them running amok through Allied infantry units, but I think these tend to represent the minority of infantry actions fought by British, Canadian, Polish, Free French, or New Zealand troops in Italy or NW Europe. Regimental and Divisional anti-tank units armed with 6 pounders and 17 pounders seemed willing and able to engage German armour, as was their job. Also Typhoons and Shermans, Cromwells and Churchills from the many armoured brigades.

They could have replaced the PIAT just as they could have replaced the Sherman, the only question was how long would it take, how much would it cost, and did it really matter in the long run.

Did the bazooka really offer any major advantages over the PIAT, and were these advantages really apparent when the change would had to have been made - ie early 1943 before PIAT production went into full swing (or even earlier)? Bazooka continued to evolve during the war and the 44 and 45 models did improve, but that wasn't known in 1943 either.

[Mr. Tittles]

I would give the accuracy to the bazooka over this PIAT. The bazooka rocket travels the length of the tube giving it an acceleration path that is much longer than the short lenth of rod the nose heavy bomb pops off of.

Did commonwealth use shrecks and fausts?

I saw A Bridge too Far last night and the movie weapon seemed unbelievably slow in flight. It did look cool firing off that balcony.

[Siege]

Of course you all have missed the other fun factor of the PIAT. Aim it down and the round falls out! From what I have read, the actual projectile was such a loose fit in the trough that they issued them with thin straps that went across the muzzle to hold the thing in place until firing.

But then again, they were derived from an oddball mortar design and it took a couple major revisions before they were considered ready for combat. I don't remember the name of the earlier version of the PIAT that was only issued to home guard units as it wasn't considered suitable for front-line use.

-Hans

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Siege:

[QB] Of course you all have missed the other fun factor of the PIAT. Aim it down and the round falls out!

Outside of Arnhem, how often was this necessary?

But then again, they were derived from an oddball mortar design and it took a couple major revisions before they were considered ready for combat. I don't remember the name of the earlier version of the PIAT that was only issued to home guard units as it wasn't considered suitable for front-line use.

Blacker Bombard IIRC.

[Michael Emrys]

It strikes me that lack of a backblast would be such a positive feature, especially in urban fighting, which is likely to become increasingly common in the years ahead, that I am somewhat surprised that no one has tried to develop an arm with that capability. Or have they? I know that you can take out light armor with the M79 and M203 grenade launchers, but is there anything that will work against heavier armor?

Michael

[flamingknives]

The Germans have developed a LAW type weapon called an Armbrust (Crossbow) that can be fired safely with your back to a wall.

Javelin ATGW has a soft launch feature that means that it can be safely launched from inside a structure.

[Monty's Double]

A while ago someone on this forum posted a link to a weapon testing video - it was a 76mm rifle type weapon. The recoil was absorded through a series of dampeners, and it did seem to work, though one guy didn't lean forward enough and was sent flying backwards. Having the equivalent of a Sherman main gun at squad support level (with no rocket-style backblast) would seem to be useful.

[Mr. Tittles]

I forget the weapons name but there is a way to use small particles in a recoiless type weapon. These slivers are launched backwards as the weapon propels the bomb forward. They are packed in tight and give the propellent something to push against (the typical recoiless rifle just vents the charge backwards).

This had two features; a very small backblast danger area (the small particles quickly scrubbed thier velocity) and a smaller report/flash than a recoiless weapon. It could be fired from within a room (but like any weapon, opening a window would be a good idea).

This may have been the initial stage to just get the warhead going, a rocket propulsion taking over from there.

[MikeyD]

"Did commonwealth use shrecks and fausts?"

According to the book 'Deathtraps" G.I.s happily picked up spare throw-away Fausts lying around, and found them quite useful. discarded Shreks, I suppose, were a bit more awkward to stow in the back of a jeep and needed two men to operate.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

I forget the weapons name but there is a way to use small particles in a recoiless type weapon. These slivers are launched backwards as the weapon propels the bomb forward. They are packed in tight and give the propellent something to push against (the typical recoiless rifle just vents the charge backwards).

This had two features; a very small backblast danger area (the small particles quickly scrubbed thier velocity) and a smaller report/flash than a recoiless weapon. It could be fired from within a room (but like any weapon, opening a window would be a good idea).

This may have been the initial stage to just get the warhead going, a rocket propulsion taking over from there.

From the description, I'd guess that this is the German Armbrust.

[Mr. Tittles]

I would fault the PIAT with being heavy and probably innaccurate. It needed that spring which is certainly expensive to make (compared to a tube). Some sources claim firing took multiple fingers. This cant lead to any precision shooting. Its much cited 'lack' of backblast (but not a top blast) does not make up for its weight. Unless its penetration was significantly better than the bazooka, then the commonwealth troops should have used the bazooka.

Perhaps they should have been issued with a Bren Gun PIAT-Tripod?

[flamingknives]

Actually, I would assume that the Bazooka tube needed to be machined in order to get any accuracy, whereas the PIAT tube is sheet metal, so the PIAT might still have an edge, though without a cost comparison between the two, it isn't possible to make a definate decision.

Simply saying that the commonwealth should have bought bazookas is silly unless you know that there were bazookas to be bought. Notably though, the Commonwealth forces switched for the 3.5" bazooka for the Korean war and, IIRC, the PIAT was restricted from use following WWII as it was considered too dangerous. The latter I think was sonmething to do with the ammunition, so possibly PIAT ammo costs less than Bazooka rockets?

[Michael Dorosh]

Re Bazooka use in Korea - after WW II Canada planned to switch entirely to US weapons - M-1 Garand, Browning MGs, Thompson SMG - and the design of 1951 Pattern web gear was part of that process. Unfortunately, the Korean War interceded and the Canadian Army needed to rearm in a hurry. The answer? Brens, Stens and Lee Enfields, and the older 1937 Pattern field gear - all WW II war stocks - were used extensively ("officially"). Unofficially, Canadian units acquired US weapons in large numbers, some battalions having up to 50% of their small arms replaced by US weapons. The M1 carbine was a favourite.

I can't recall if the bazooka was an in-theatre replacement of the PIAT, but it is possible it was the start of the pre-Korean War changeover to US weapons.

Because of Korea, the changeover never took place - the Lee Enfield was replaced by the FN C1 in 1957 or so, the Bren Gun by the FN C2, and the Sten by the Sterling SMG (produced in Canada as the SMG C1). The C1 Rifle and C2 LMG both used the new "NATO" round, 7.62 x 51, as did the US M-60, M-14, etc.

So the PIAT possibly wasn't replaced, at least in Canada, due to dis-satisfaction but rather as an overall move to standardize weapons in the Canadian Army on the US pattern, no doubt as part of our membership in NATO (formed 1948, yes?)

[ April 28, 2004, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Mr. Tittles]

I doubt that the bazooka tube was machined. It was probably a sheet of metal that was rolled to a diameter. Since there is no rifling, it would only need a semi-crude finish.

The PIAT rod and bomb relationship is a close tolerance. Its very similar to an unrifled gun. The bazooka and rocket relationship is just a guide tube. The PIAT needs some assurance of sealing to get a repeatable velocity performance. The rocket in a bazooka produces its own velocity and the tube merely provides a guide for forward acceleration.

The PIAT would have to outperform the bazooka in penetration to justify itself and its weight.

[ April 28, 2004, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

"Did commonwealth use shrecks and fausts?"

According to the book 'Deathtraps" G.I.s happily picked up spare throw-away Fausts lying around, and found them quite useful. discarded Shreks, I suppose, were a bit more awkward to stow in the back of a jeep and needed two men to operate.

Off-topic, but I'll comment on this anyway. In his memoir, Gen. James Gavin mentions that right before the Battle of the Bulge he re-equipped the 82nd. Airborne with Panzerfausts. IIRC, they had captured a warehouse full of them and since they had been dissatisfied with the performance of the bazooka ever since Sicily, they seized upon these as a replacement.

Michael

[Sergei]

What do G.I.'s and the 82nd have to do with the Commonwealth?

[Michael Emrys]

Nothing. That's why I said it was off-topic. Blame MikeyD, he started it.

PS: Referring to paratroopers as GIs could get you in a whole lot of trouble in some quarters.

Michael

[aka_tom_w]

this issue came up LONG ago in the CMBO forum

so some of us have be "around the block" with this issue

here is a GREAT web page:

http://www.6th-airborne.org/piat.html

link does not go straight to the piat page

on the left side click the GEAR link

and at the bottom of hte GEAR page

go to:

The Projector Infantry Anti-Tank (PIAT) !)

I recall finding it in the days of CMBO

EVERYTHING including the training manual is on that page

enjoy !

-tom w

[ April 29, 2004, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[MikeyD]

GREAT PIAT site! My shoulder and collar bone ache just looking at that weapon!