Piats

Great picture, nice bit of innovation there

They were thinking about a better way to hunt moose when they got home!

 

A demo of the loading process.

Watch PIAT British Antitank Weapon In WW2 Online - VideoSurf Video Search

 

Canuck,
There is no way that I would hunt for beaver or moose with the contraption shown in your thread. It reinforces that fact that Jerry Tech was years ahead of Allied Tech when it came to anti tank weapons.

cheers from the hinterlands....

 

‪PIAT Antitanque de 1943.‬‏ - YouTube


Live Firing - Notice they do not show the reload



‪Kithurst Hill Churchill WW2 Tank 09‬‏ - YouTube And a PIAT target (another location)



Small Arms Training Vol. I, Pamphlet No. 24 Projector, Infantry, Anti-Tank (PIAT) - 1934

Missprint, it is of course 1943





Another A/Tk weapon



Small Arms Training Vol.I, Pamphlet No.13 Supplement No.1 No.68 Anti-Tank Grenade (Rifle) No.69 Bakelite Grenade (Hand) - 1937


Fired a later version the 94E - Energa A/Tk grenade from 7.62mm SLR -Recoil - not half!

 

I suspect if you find the original instructions for the weapon it will give its use as anti-tank function capable of perforating current model armoured vehicles and reinforced concrete at a range up to 100 yds and also as a mortar up to 350 yds. (It may be 'Notice No. 24 (1943)')

I've got a copy of the 'original instructions for the weapon' if anyone want owt chasing up?

 

LiveLeak.com - PIAT.Projector Infantry Antitank.

 

Here we have David Robinson trying to bring down a German aircraft buzzing their position in Ranville with a piat. It's the second incident in on the audio.



David Robinson discusses defending the Ranville drop zones after D-Day

 

Any Vet that fire a PIAT would find that quite laughable. Had the back end been a bit closer, it would fractured his spine...The PIAT? Was a bloody horrible abortion. A dogs breakfast of a weapon more danger to the firer that the enemy.....
Ask any Vet and most will tell you the best place for the weapon was hidden under a sheet of canvas, where hopefully it would never be found again.

 

I know PIAT was spring operated but were there criticisms of similar German AT weapons of the time by their operators?

All infantry troops have the right to moan about their weapons and, at times, tactics.

Despite the problems with PIAT is seems to have been effective at e.g. Arnhem. Could this be due to extraordinary courage and the close-quarter nature of the battle?

 

In much the same way that a bicycle with no tires is great transportation, when you have nothing else to ride.

 

Did not German troops complain of the jet of heat and blast that issued from the rear of the Panzerschreck and the Panzerfaust when fired, to say nothing of the general disturbance of nearby dust, soil, rocks and branches that gave away their position? Although I suppose if you've got a good chance of success, that lessens the risk....

 

If you look on the net for high speed film of a shaped charge round exploding you will see that its body fragments much like any other HE Proj. Its the liner that collapses to form the so called penetrating rod. Schematics do not show a true picture of the functioning of a shaped charge.

 

Two vehicles on the receiving end of HEAT projectiles. The B/W is an M113 struck by a 57mm HEAT round of WWII vintage the coloured one is an American Abrams from the last Gulf conflict. Both show very clearly the actual penetration and the effects of the fragment spray around this, which is exactly what would be expected from a base initiated projectile.

This link http://www.oocities.org/augusta/8172/panzerfaust4.htm takes you to a very interesting site about the Panzerfaust. It shows that during a four month period in 1944 656300 Panzerfausts where issued and knocked out a total of 262 armoured vehicles. Unfortunately no source is given.

 

Out of curiosity do you know what that Abrams was hit with?

 

Other than an HEAT projectile no. I suspect we're not looking at a "kill", no fire damage and the turrets still in place. We read of the fantastic armour penetrating powers of HEAT warheads but they often fail to have significant effects behind the armour. During WW11 there were numerous incidents of British tanks being hit by multiple Panzerfausts and the crews being unaware of this until they leaguered up for the night and spotted the holes on the outside of the armour. After WWII we, the Canadians and the Americans ran a lot of experiments which determined that an HEAT warhead needed a significant amount of "overkill" to guarantee effectiveness. This is why we developed infantry rocket launchers of 4.5 and 5 inch calibre and specified a 60 lb HESH warhead for the Malkara AT missile. Of course the effectiveness of HEAT as been improved over the years but there is still a significant overmatch between the penetration claimed for modern missiles and the protection of their targets.

 

Large Hollow charge trials 1957 (FVRDE) against Conqueror tank, with reports, diagrams and photographs:




http://www.scribd.com/doc/33834491/Trials-Against-Conqueror-Tanks-With-Additionnal-Ballistic-Protection-Use-of-Large-Hollow-charge-Warhead-UK-1957