problematic PIATs

[Mr. Tittles]

http://www.inert-ord.net/atrkts/bazoo/

[flamingknives]

From the same site (good find, BTW) on the PIAT

Pulling the trigger released the rod which slammed into the tail boom, detonating  the propelling charge as well as providing an additional kick assist.

Upon firing, the spigot was blown back and automatically re-cocked. This also helped absorb some of ferocious recoil.

It was absolutely violent to shoot,  heavy, bulky, and hard to operate but was an effective tank killer.

[GoofyStance]

What FK posted from that web site bears out what I suspected was the case with the PIAT - the propellant cartridge provided some (most?) of the energy to drive the bomb forward, but the rod/spring mechanism (the spigot) also added a bit of "oomph" to the bomb's momentum. Interesting site with some abstruse tidbits.

[Mr. Tittles]

The propellent provides the majority of the energy to accelerate the bomb to its velocity. Not some, mind you, but the majority (like in vast majority). Ooomph and Kick and whoosh aside, the math does not add up. Newton knows that the spring/rod also takes away as much as it gives. The propellent is doing double duty.

From a manufacturing standpoint, the bazooka is incredibly cheap compared to the PIAT. The PIAT spring is expensive, the rod must be machined, the bombs internal cavity must be within a tolerance (since it acts as a barrel). The whole thing is heavy and awkward and I suspect does not compare in accuracy with a bazooka beyond 25 yards or so.

The bazooka tube was not machined. In fact, later bazookas were two part barrels. The rockets were cheap to make also. the Brits could have made thier own or traded APDS for some.

[ April 30, 2004, 09:17 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[Mr. Tittles]

Dont believe everything you read on websites...

http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust13.htm

Firing the weapon is no less of a problem: the trigger can only be pulled using all four fingers. Then the firing pin hits the procectile in its rear, where a small charge of propellant is detonated. The latter makes for a recoil that will cock the spring automatically for the next shot - if the gunner can't take that recoil - which was reportedly not too seldom - he will have to load the weapon again in the way described above. The projectile leaves the weapon at a Vo of 135m/s but accelerates in flight.

Accelerates in flight? Yeah right!

[ April 30, 2004, 09:18 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[...................................]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

From the same site (good find, BTW) on the PIAT

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

It was absolutely violent to shoot,  heavy, bulky, and hard to operate but was an effective tank killer.

</font>

[Siege]

The Bombard and the PIAT were startlingly different weapons. For a start the Bombard was in a similar size range as the 2pdr ATG. IIRC, it was only used from fixed emplacements.

The design that they shared was called a spigot mortar, but the differenct between the two was similar to comparing a 60mm mortar with a 4.2" weapon.

In fact, the 290mm gun on the AVRE used a similar principle.

The Bombard was definitely not a man-portable weapon like the PIAT, but both were developed by Lt. Col. Blacker. But it was portable similar to a mortar, since it essentially was originally developed as a mortar. The PIAT is a scaled down version of the Bombard, and was originally even called the "baby bombard" with the emphasis on the anti-tank role rather than a mortar.. When you look at pictures of both, you can really see the resemblance between them. Other that the top loading cutout and the size, they are very very similar.

http://www.flamesofwar.com/Article.asp?ArticleID=194

It's interesting how they list the Bombard as a 29mm weapon everywhere that I have looked, I suspect they go by the size of the spigot rather than that of the warhead.

-Hans

[flamingknives]

Newton knows that the spring/rod also takes away as much as it gives. The propellent is doing double duty.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction?

The PIAT uses vastly less propellant than the 'zook.

Looking through the CMBB forum I find this:

Originally poste by Zitadelle:

Anyway, according to Steven Zaloga in The Red Army Handbook 1939-1945 the United States sent approximately 8,500 zooks to Russia.

A mere 8500 isn't going to equip much of the commonwealth forces.

Personally, I've found the PIATs in CMAK quite useful. Fairly cheap and plentiful, they're easy enough to get into position and once there, often get a few shots off before being spotted, unlike the 'zook. The downside is that, with low quality troops, the failure of the spring to recock is modelled, and it can take a full minute to reload.

[PS]

I think the following file contains some PIAT accuracy tests. If not I will try to find the site that does.

http://www.britwar.co.uk/files/phatfile/WW2pen14May02.PDF

By the way Maj. Cain won his VC for using a 2" mortar under his arm to repel a german counter attack. The 5, or was it 7, tanks he knocked out with the PIAT didn't count.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

The PIAT uses vastly less propellant than the 'zook.

There's a reason for that, found once again in Newton. Every rocket need a reaction mass, something which when accelerated in one direction will produce an equal and opposite reaction in the other. A bazooka has to carry all its reaction mass in its propellant, but the PIAT has that rod and spring to use as a reaction mass, not to mention the entire PIAT and the gunner's shoulder.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

A mere 8500 isn't going to equip much of the commonwealth forces.

Even allowing for wastage and some extras being held at various levels within the division that's still on the order of 10-20 divisions worth isn't it? How many divisions did the Commonwealth have committed in the ETO? And I expect the reason the Soviets didn't get more is because they didn't ask for them.

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

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

A mere 8500 isn't going to equip much of the commonwealth forces.

Even allowing for wastage and some extras being held at various levels within the division that's still on the order of 10-20 divisions worth isn't it? How many divisions did the Commonwealth have committed in the ETO? And I expect the reason the Soviets didn't get more is because they didn't ask for them.

Michael </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

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

A mere 8500 isn't going to equip much of the commonwealth forces.

Even allowing for wastage and some extras being held at various levels within the division that's still on the order of 10-20 divisions worth isn't it? How many divisions did the Commonwealth have committed in the ETO? And I expect the reason the Soviets didn't get more is because they didn't ask for them.

Michael </font>

[flamingknives]

PIATs are given as 302 in an armoured division, 436 in an infantry division and 392 in an airbourne division by Forty's "British Army Handbook"

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

PIATs are given as 302 in an armoured division, 436 in an infantry division and 392 in an airbourne division by Forty's "British Army Handbook"

I forgot to include the Recce Regiment, which no doubt had some. Certainly in Armoured Recce Regiments, the PIAT was commonly carried in Stuart Recce vehicles.

David Gordon lists 80 per Brigade, or 240 per Division without counting the recce and divisional units in his new book EQUIPMENT OF THE WW II TOMMY.

Still, at 400 per division that is 21.25 divisions for 8500 weapons.

[ May 01, 2004, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Mr. Tittles]

Was the bazooka ammo that much heavier than the PIAT? Arent they both about the same? The extra weight of the PIAT bomb probably came from needing stronger, more expensive, construction to withstand being speared by that rod.

I think the later model bazooka with the two part barrel, advanced copper cone HEAT round with rounded nose, magneto firing was a much better LATW.

[flamingknives]

Bazooka Projectile: 2.8kg

PIAT Projectile: 1.35kg

I'd hazard that most of that difference is propellant.

[Mr. Tittles]

http://www.arnhemarchive.org/Photos/PicPiat1.htm

Comparing the rod at full throw in this pic with the cutaway of the bomb in a previous post, it seems that the rod may barely make contact with the bomb body. Iy may just extend enough so as to crush into the propellent itself.

So a loaded PIAT weighs in at 35 pounds and a loaded bazooka is 24 pounds? A bazooka man could carry two extra rounds and be at the same weight then. Note: The bazooka round may actually weigh less. See later post.

[ May 02, 2004, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[Mr. Tittles]

I have seen different penetration figures for the PIAT. The bazooka is said to have 3 inch penetration in the early rockets and 4 inch in later rockets. Is the PIAT penetration 75mm?

[flamingknives]

The figures for the PIAT range from 3" to 4"

[PS]

It is often stated that the PIAT was used as a short range mortar. Was this with the HEAT round or could it fire 3" mortar rounds? The fuse on the PIAT was very sensitive as foliage could set it of when it was used to flush snipers out of the trees in Normandy.

[flamingknives]

The horror of the thought of a 3" stokes mortar round being set off in the open tray of a spigot mortar would be enough to put anyone off trying it. Anyone not put off would only try it once.

I've no direct evidence that it wouldn't have worked, but going on the principles of the two weapons, the results would be unpleasant

[Mr. Tittles]

2.36 inch H.E.A.T. rocket, M6A3—standard: range

600 yds. , 3.4 lbs. weight of round, fired from M1A1,

M9, and M9A1 launchers propellant was 0.136 lbs.

solvent extruded double base powder, 0.375 inch

O.D. by 0.08 in. I.D. by 4.15 inches long (Drawing

in 1944 Catalogue, p. 594)

(Above is from an unexploded ordanance report.)

http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/arms.htm#weapons

Rocket: M7A1 shaped charge,rocket motor ignited electrically

3.5-pound (1.6-kilogram), length 19 inches.

(Above is from Korean War website. This is an improved rocket supposedly)

In any case, its around 3.5 pounds from these sorces. Its caliber was 60mm and it had a hollow charge warhead. I think that 6 pounds is not correct for the weight.

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

The horror of the thought of a 3" stokes mortar round being set off in the open tray of a spigot mortar would be enough to put anyone off trying it. Anyone not put off would only try it once.

I've no direct evidence that it wouldn't have worked, but going on the principles of the two weapons, the results would be unpleasant

Ive never heard of anyone doing that when they say the PIAT was used as a ad hoc mortar. They basically are saying it was used with its assigned round in a high trajectory.

The US did have a method of using 60mm mortar rounds from rifle grenade launchers. I imagine that the warhead was not propelled by the mortar rounds own charge but just fixed onto the grenade launcher tail and it would detonate on target. Short range but very effective at house busting, etc.

[flamingknives]

Yes, the Yanks did use the rifle grenade launcher to fire 60mm mortar warheads, among other things such as communications wire (there are mulitple references in the "Combat Lessons" pamphlets). They did remove the mortar propellant first, however.