PIAT has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
[I] will find the W[ar]O[ffice] number of the report later. but the rounds that found the PIAT penetrating 102mm of armour only fired 75% of the time. The fuses used in combat fired about 90% of the time. as the figures were by the 50% penetration army limit, the 102mm probably does the PIAT a little discredit. - rich tea man.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.30.126 19:00, 20 September 2005.(UTC)
"At the start of World War II, all major armies were investing in research into HEAT projectiles..." This is very likely incorrect. The Soviet Union apparently was not working on a HEAT round at the start of the war. The Soviets did not bring any into service throughout the war (they did reuse captured German HEAT rounds such as the Panzerfaust).
"The Germans concentrated on recoilless weapons and the US on rockets, but in 1941 when the PIAT was being developed, rocket powered weapons were nowhere near ready for use." This very misleading. The PIAT was not ready for field service in 1941, either. Instead, it first saw service in 1943. However, the rocket powered US bazooka first entered service in 1942! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.65.52 ( talk) 23:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me or does the last part in the text "In general use the PIAT had a rated range of about 100 m, but that was considered the extreme and it was typically fired at much shorter ranges. The three pound (1.4 kg) HEAT warhead was able to penetrate about 55 mm of armor at 100 m." imply that range got anything to do with how much armor it could penetrate? Since the PIAT was a shaped charge weapon it didn't matter if it hit the target at 10 or 1000meters (assuming it could). It was still be able to penetrate just as much.
It states that the launcher is a 'one shot per confrontation weapon' due to the heavy force needed to compress the spring. Is it my imagination, but I was under the belief that when it was fired, it recocked itself, and you simply placed a projectile in the bay, and pulled the trigger again? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marlon 203.11.81.235 ( talk) 18:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
The drive charge was supposed to recock it, but if fired from an insufficient support the spring wouldn't be pushed back far enough to lock it. Shooting it in a "duel" was a one shot deal, since recocking it manually was rather difficult. Student342 ( talk) 06:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I removed a comment that the PIAT was considered a "one shot per confrontation" weapon due to the difficulties in cocking. Since the weapon recocked itself after firing this should not have been a problem. The recocking scheme had its flaws, but I've not heard the PIAT ever referred to as a one-shot weapon. Can anyone provide references? -- Schwern 05:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Among the awards for gallantry of the Canadian Army Relaesed today (?)by the Department of National Defense is Pte. Thomas Watkin who recieved the Millitary Medal. Pte. Watkin, Canadian Infatry Corps, was born on November 18, 1913, at Brandon , and was still a resident in this cityat the time of his enlistment in the Canadian Army on January 15, 1940 . He went overseas on June 25,1941. Prior to enlistment he was employed as a hospital attendant. His wife, Mrs. Florence Watkin , and three children , Murray, David and Marilyn, live at 862 First street. His Citation reads: "On April 27, 1945, 'C' Company of the Westminster Regiment (motor) was advancing in the vicinity of Woldendorp, Holland. No. 10 platoon of this company was caught in a heavy concentration of artillery and motar fire and unable to move because of crossfire from two cleverly concealed machine guns. Pte. Watkin volunteered to silence one of the machine gun posts. Disregarding the heavy shell and motar fire he worked his way forward over one hundred and fifty yards of completely exposed ground to within sixty yards of the enemy machine gun to a position from which he was able to use his PIAT . Quickly rushing the post after the crew had been stunned by the explosion of the PIAT bomb , Pte. Watkin killed the crew of three with his pistol. Using the enemy post to excellent advantage Pte. Watkin followed up his success by pinning down the crew of the other machine gun and enabled the remaider of his platoon to re-organize themselves and advance to the objective. "By his exemplary courage, coolness and resoucefulness, by his single-handed heroic action, Pte. Watkin undoubtedly saved his platoon from heavy casualties in a difficult situation , thus permitting it to quickly achieve its objective."
Is the majority of that section necessary? There is no similar section in any of the other entries about similar weapons (such as the Panzershreck, Panzerfaust or Bazooka) and it is quite redundant in an article about the weapon itself.-- 81.235.193.23 11:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I think I read somewhere that thePIAT or its predecessor had been suggested to the war office in 1935 - 37? and turned down.
If this is true, and it had been developed, presumably if troops had been armed with a reasonable anti tank weapon the course of the debacle in France in 1940 might have been avoided?... Engineman ( talk) 15:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The picture that is labelled "Canadian Soldiers Using PIAT" might be wrong. The shoulder patch appears to be that of the 1st British Airborne Division. The helmets that the soldiers are wearing are also not the typical British issued "Brodie" style helmet. They appear to be the rimless crash style helmets indicating at they are Para troops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.110.239.234 ( talk) 12:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I had found that this page and others on the samewebsite describe the numbers of PIAT issued to different types of British platoon. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 16:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
From the book 'From D-Day to VE-Day, The Canadian Soldier' by Jean Bouchery, there were 23 throughout each Canadian infantry battalion: 3 with the Admin platoon of HQ Coy, 4 with both the mortar platoon and AT platoon of support Coy and 3 the the HQ of each of the 4 rifle Coys. Mike McGregor (Can) ( talk) 20:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
A single PIAT used by men of Major John Howard's D Coy. Ox and Bucks was crucial in destroying the first German armed halftrack (by Sgt. Charles ('Wagger') Thornton) and an armed trawler (by Cpl. Claude Godbold) encountered during their defence of the Bénouville bridge following its seizure as one of the opening moves of the D-Day assault.
Am pretty sure when i read Pegesus Bridge by S.Ambrose that he state it was a tank they destroyed heading towards the bridge not a halftrack (although i dont have the book with me to confirm that atm). What do other sources say?-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 14:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
This was only just sufficient to defeat the frontal armour of the older German tanks, remaining more effective against their side and rear armour.
The Panzer IV made up quite a chunk, as in it was one of the most common tanks fought by the western allies, of the German armoured forces and was by no means one of the "older German tanks".
The Airborn Recce Sqdn war diary here mentiosn a L/Cpl Mann with a PIAT against a "self-propelled gun" on the 21st at Arnhem. Is this what is included in the article as a "tank"? GraemeLeggett ( talk) 15:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I have completely rewritten and expanded this article in my sandbox, and would welcome any and all constructive criticism - I hope to replace the current article with it. I would note that the 'Operational history' is intentionally small; after careful consideration, it didn't seem worth adding in every time a tank was disabled or destroyed with a PIAT during the conflict, as that would have taken up so much room. Otherwise, I think it's all quite straight-forward, but like I said any comments are welcome. I would ask that people don't edit the sandbox just yet, as I'm still tweaking it, and place comments here - if that's okay. Cheers, Skinny87 ( talk) 00:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
(od)Right, well, the VC stuff has been put into a single paragraph; some more cites have been added, the odd pic moved around. The lede will soon be written (hopefully), and once that's done I'd like to officially replace the current article with my sandbox version. I again state that any comments are welcome, and if any users are opposed to such a move. Skinny87 ( talk) 18:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
(od)Well, two users just combined all the refs, and I've also written the lede. hopefully the article is now ready. Skinny87 ( talk) 21:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
(od)See, I thought that, but there's not that much I can find, and I think that more detailed examples should go in articles on the battles in which they were used - otherwise it would just get crammed in with examples; I think the section as it is now is about the size it should be. And I'm not sure about which bazooka - the magazine I cite for that fact doesn't mention it, sorry. Skinny87 ( talk) 11:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
(od)Sorry, can't seem to get that 1921 flag to go in without it being massive; if you could do that once I've moved the article, I'd be greatful. Skinny87 ( talk) 13:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Would anyone object if I were to now replace the current article with the one in my sandbox? Further changes can of course be made to it afterwards if and when required. Skinny87 ( talk) 12:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I just changed the Design section, to say how the PIAT's system of operation reduced felt recoil. Unfortunately I don't have any references for this, as I'm making the statement on grounds of basic physics. Norman Yarvin ( talk) 03:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Currently the article has this
"There were also problems with its penetrative power; although the PIAT was theoretically able to penetrate approximately 100 millimetres (4 in) of armour, field experience during the Allied invasion of Sicily, which was substantiated by trials conducted during 1944, confirmed otherwise. During these trials, a skilled user was unable to hit a target more than 60% of the time at 100 yards (90 m), and faulty fuses meant that only 75% of the bombs fired detonated on-target."
I was initially thinking about rephrasing. Eg on faulty fuses phrasing it as one-quarter failing to detonate, however looking at it I see questions which could do with answering if possible.
I think answering some of the above could be useful. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 09:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The paragraph introduces "problems with its penetrative power", but doesn't go on to tell you what they are. Instead the paragraph changes the issue to 'accuracy' and 'detonation' problems!
Yes, it was solved. The original fuse was fuse No.425 and only had a detonation rate of about 75%, but this was not because the fuse was 'faulty', the fuse performed exactly as designed, it was because it was the wrong type of fuse for the application. Fuse No.425 required a close to square impact in order to activate. In early 1944 the fuse was replaced by a graze fuse, No.426 in the Mark III bomb. The graze fuse was detonated by deceleration when the bomb struck something, even obliquely. There is offical speculation that the graze fuse detonation rate would be about 90%.
The 75% refers to bombs that hit the target, regardless of whether or not they exploded.
The target was a Covenanter tank moving across the firers postion (from left to right) at about 10MPH. The PIAT operater would fire 3 shots (in 35 seconds), the first and third shot were at about 90-110yd range, scoring 57-55% hits, the second shot at about 70-90yds range scored 80% hits.
When the Covenanter was moving away from the PIAT at 10MPH, the first shot (35-60yds) had 80% hits, the second shot (60-85yds) had 79% hits, the third shot (85-110yds) had 53% hits.
In a test with the Covenanter moving towards the PIAT, they only scored 35% hits, which they concluded was because the firer was too hurried, having to fire 3 shots in 9 seconds.
The average penetration was 115mm, or 100mm of armour at 30deg (115mm), but penetration varied quite widely, so sometimes it would penetrate significantly more than 115mm. Some of the Mark IA bombs experienced a lower penetratrion due to filler quality deteriotion. During WW2 there were 4 marks of bomb: Mark I, Mark IA, Mark II, Mark III. Mark III was introduced in early 1944 and had the new graze fuse No.426. I'm not certain when the Mark IV bomb was introduced, but don;t think it was during WWII. MoD Research ( talk) 19:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
In an attempt to improve this article, I'm going to list some problems. If you're the author, please see this as contructive criticism. -- MoD Research ( talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Virtually all weapons consist of “a steel tube, a trigger mechanism and firing spring”, why is this in the introduction? -- MoD Research ( talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
This should also not be in the intro. The article should not describe the complexities of how a spigot mortar works, in the introduction. The introduction should briefly describe the weapon, it’s relevance and it’s uniqueness. The introduction in the manual says this (pp.2,6) :
Introduction
The weapon is called the Projector, Infantry, Anti-Tank. It is a light self-cocking weapon that is designed to stop and knock out enemy A.F.V.s. It is shoulder-controlled and fires an HE (shaped charge) bomb.
It’s chief characteristics are:
i. Mobility. It can be carried by one man.
ii. Short range. The maximum range against tanks is 115yds. It can, however, be used against buildings up to 350yds.
iii. Excellent Penetration. The bomb can penetrate the armour of the latest (June 1943) known types of enemy A.F.Vs. and a considerable thickness of reinforced concrete. -- MoD Research ( talk) 15:40 19 July 2011 (UTC)
This weapon didn’t even have a barrel, the bomb is placed in and launched from a tray, trough or ‘bomb support’. The tube that contained the mainspring is called the 'mechanism casing'.-- MoD Research ( talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
This weapon was not difficult to cock (for soldiers) you could even do it lying down or standing up. Compared to cocking a submachinegun, yes, compared to loading a 6 pounder anti-tank gun, no, not difficult to 'cock'. -- MoD Research ( talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
To say the user receives a bruising is a bit silly when we’re talking about a military weapon. I even get bruises from shooting a shotgun. Do recoil bruises get mentioned regarding other weapons on Wiki? -- MoD Research ( talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
If there were problems with it’s penetrative power, then be specific, and then cite references and sources. -- MoD Research ( talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
7. Shouldn’t a list of specific nations that used the PIAT be in the USERS section, not the introduction? You can mention that many nations or about a dozen nations used the PIAT, in the intro, and then reference/link the USERS section. -- MoD Research ( talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
This should say why the Boys and No.68 were “ineffective”, because they were both excellent weapons with one major flaw: the Boys could only penetrate 19mm at 500yds, and the No.68 rifle grenade 52mm at 100yds; and by 1940 tank armour was becoming too heavy for them to penetrate. -- MoD Research ( talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The weight of the Boys wasn’t the problem. It only weighed 36lbs. It’s replacement, the PIAT, weighed the same, so the problem clearly wasn’t the weight of the weapon. Compare the this to the weight of a 2 pounder anti-tank gun: 1,794lbs ! -- MoD Research ( talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
This is not right. The Boys had an extreme range of 7000yds! and could KO soft vehicles and penetrate wood and stone buildings at extraordinarily long ranges. -- MoD Research ( talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The Origins of the PIAT can be traced back much further than 1888, if we think ‘shaped charges’ are the origin of the PIAT.
This is from a MoD document, Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment:
The cavity effect in explosives has been the subject of intermittent investigations for well over 150 years and has been discovered by many people during that time. The earliest available reference is to the work of Baader, a Norwegian mining engineer, who towards the end of the 18th century advocated leaving a conical or mushroom-shaped air space under the forward end of a blasting charge. This space increased the explosive effect and at the same time saved a considerable amount of explosive. Hausmann (Ref 2) took the idea from Norway to Germany early in the 19th century, but it appears not to have flourished in the Harz mines according to Combes (Ref 3). In 1874 Davey and Watson took out a British Patent (No2641) in which they claimed as a new invention, "the use of a cylindrical charge with a central hole below and in the middle".
In 1883 Max von Foerster in Germany discovered a similar effect, as did the better known Munroe in Washington. Munroe's work, first mentioned in an article published in 1885, showed that any pattern forming an indentation in the base of an explosive charge was reproduced as an indentation in an underlying metal plate when the charge was detonated. From this he extended his investigations to establish the effect of different sized holes in wet guncotton cylinders. The deeper and wider the holes in the guncotton, the deeper and wider the holes bored in the iron plate. When there was a hole completely through the guncotton cylinder (and at least half of the weight of explosive had been removed), the iron plate was completely perforated when the charge was detonated."
---
I think just a brief mention of the PIAT utilizing a shaped charge (aka. hollow charge) that had been under development since the 18th century, is all that’s needed for this article. As long as there’s a link to a hollow charge article! And the hollow charge article doesn’t even go into the detailed history of hollow charges as much this article does. lol! Perhaps this hollow charge history should be moved there. -- MoD Research ( talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
It was carried and used by one man, but a second man was often used as an ammo carrier and assistant loader. -- MoD Research ( talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
There was nothing “thin” about the steel used to make the PIAT. The PIAT was a very solid sturdy construction, particularly when compared to the Panzerfaust, Panzershreck or Bazooka. My personal opinion is that the steel used was heavier than needed. But some claim the weight made for a better firing platform. -- MoD Research ( talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The PIAT launcher was a tube constructed out of thin sheets of steel, and contained the trigger mechanism and firing spring. At the front of the launcher was a small trough in which the bomb was placed, and the spigot ran down the middle of the launcher and into the trough.[6] Padding for the user's shoulder was fitted to the other end of the launcher, and rudimentary aperture sights were fitted on top for aiming
was taken from a Ministry of Defense document (almost verbatim), but's it's been misunderstood and misquoted. The MoD document is referencing the two prototype PIATs built by Jeffries and Watts. The eventual production version was a composition of both weapons, and was NOT made of thin sheets of metal, nor were the sights "rudimentary". The sights were typical of WW2 aperture sights, and the PIAT was constructed of far heavier steel than than the Bazooka, Panzerfaust and Panzershreck. MoD Research ( talk) 16:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I think a picture or diagram would be worth a thousand words here. -- MoD Research ( talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
15. This may be a good place to add a section about the PIAT bombs, marks and types. -- MoD Research ( talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
There are other problems and errors with the rest of the article, but this is enough for now. -- MoD Research ( talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
No need to apologise. Just make a list of those points that you disagree with, and let me know why, when you get a chance. Thanks. MoD Research ( talk) 19:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Which version best serves the article:
1. A WW2 Canadian Army survey questioned over 150 army officers, who had recently left combat, about the effectiveness of 31 different infantry weapons, in that survey the PIAT was ranked the number one most “outstandlingly effective” weapon, followed by the Bren gun in second place.[23]
2. A survey conducted in 1944-45 by the Canadian Army questioned over 150 army officers, who had recently left combat, about the effectiveness of 31 different infantry weapons, in that survey the PIAT was ranked the number one most “outstandlingly effective” weapon, followed by the Bren gun in second place.[23]
3. A contemporary Canadian Army survey questioned over 150 army officers, who had recently left combat, about the effectiveness of 31 different infantry weapons, in that survey the PIAT was ranked the number one most “outstandlingly effective” weapon, followed by the Bren gun in second place.[23]
My contention is that using the word "contemporary" at the begining of a paragraph/sentence where there is NO reference to WW2, could suggest that the survey was conducted recently. At best, using the word "contemporary" in the context above places the survey in the time period of 1942 to the 1950s because the PIAT continued to be used during the Korean War by Commonwealth nations.
In light of this, why would you change a known narrow factual time period, and expand it to a far less specific time period of possibly even more than 10 years? Don't you think people should know WHEN the survey was conducted?
Thanks, MoD Research ( talk) 22:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I suggest a compromise: Let's leave the word 'contemporary' in the text, but just add "(1944-45)" which gives the reader a more precise date when the survey was conducted, leaving no doubt that it was not a Korean War survey. MoD Research ( talk) 13:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
As was common for Israel in 1948, they were using a lot of UK weaponry. Their was also some indigenous production of such weapons, particularly for the simpler stuff, such as stens.
How did this affect the PIAT? Were they produced in Israel? Were these named "PIAT" or (as I suspect) the "Etzel"?
It's in relation to this edit, where an "Israeli PIAT image" was renamed from PIAT to Etzel. If this Etzel name was used for indigenous production though, I'd suggest that we keep the name and expand coverage of it. Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
It's fair to say that, though very different in operation, the PIAT and the Bazooka filled the same role in their respective armies. I've also seen ample evidence that bazookas weren't just used against tanks (including footage of one being fired through the window of a German house). My question then, is whether or not the PIAT was also employed more, shall we say, "broadly" than just being fired at enemy AFVs?-- 172.191.204.222 ( talk) 10:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
While the conversion of 350 yards to 320 metres for maximum distance is an accurate approximation (350 yards is 320.4 metres), the yard/metre conversion for direct, anti-tank use of the PIAT is incorrect. 115 yards does not approximate to 110 meters. It is closer to 105 metres (115 yards is actually 105.16 metres). Arthurneddysmith 07:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurneddysmith ( talk • contribs)
I was about to start a new talk page about this, the conversion immediately looked incorrect to me, a yard being about 91cm. However, the remark is sourced so it may be taken verbatim and correcting it may violate Wikipedia's policy on original research.
Has the source been checked? Stefanzi ( talk) 05:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
"here were also problems with ammunition reliability and accuracy. Although the PIAT was theoretically able to penetrate approximately 100 millimetres (4 in) of armour, field experience during the Allied invasion of Sicily, which was substantiated by trials conducted during 1944, meant that this advantage was often nullified by the problems of accuracy and round reliability. During these trials, a skilled user was unable to hit a target more than 60% of the time at 100 yards (90 m), and faulty fuses meant that only 75% of the bombs fired detonated on-target. [1]"
I reverted this to an older version because this phrasing makes no sense: look, let's streamline:
"Although the PIAT was theoretically able to penetrate approximately 100 millimetres (4 in) of armour, field experience during the Allied invasion of Sicily meant that this advantage was often nullified by the problems of accuracy and round reliability"
How does field experience make a weapon unreliable? Bones Jones ( talk) 05:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
References
I have always read that one of the main problems with the PIAT is that it had to be used from very close range (practically), which was difficult and dangerous for the operator. Shouldn't this be one of the primary drawbacks listed? Compared to other AT weapons, one had to be very close to the tank to get a good chance at a kill.
John Keegan, Six Armies in Normandy, pg. 180 "...the PIAT's short range required [the two man crew] to attack from very close quarters." (And yes, he specifies a two man crew for normal operations. A mortar CAN be fired by a single man; most weapons can, an exception bein maybe an AA gun that as a man on the elevation wheel and a man on the traverse wheel. But most at least require two or more to be utilized as designed, or at maximum effectiveness.) AnnaGoFast ( talk) 04:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes but its range was similar to all other one man infantry anti-tank weapons of the latter part of the Second World War so when saying this is a disadvantage you should also mention that the Panzerfaust, Panzerschreck, and Bazooka (maybe the RPG 7?) weren't much better in terms of effective range. Sitalkes ( talk) 03:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
In this video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xzG_rRngs8 the Tank Museum at Bovington claims that a PIAT was fired at its Tiger 131 tank in Tunisia. This would make that the first use of the PIAT in action. Who is correct? Sitalkes ( talk) 03:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello and thank you for adding a description to my kinematics. Never the less I feel an urge to describe the weapons firing cycle in more detail.
Figure 1: The weapon is cocked an loaded with a projectile. The firing assembly (red) is kept under spring tension.
Figure 2: The shooter presses the trigger, releasing the firing assembly. The spring forcing the firing assembly forwards into the hollow shaft of the projectile (brown). There it hits the primer of the propelling charge. At this time the firing assembly acts like the spigot of a spigot mortar providing a enclosed combustion chamber as well as a guide to give the projectile is future direction.
Figure 3: The propelling charge is ignited and the propelling gases are acting on the projectile and the firing assembly at the same time. This is do to the physicac of Pascal's law. Contradicting common superstition gas is not intelligent and knows were to act force upon. The projectile is therefore pushed forwards while the firing assembly is pushed backwards with the same force at the same time.
Figure 4: Projectile and firing assembly are getting accelerated by the gas pressure. According to the second half of the third Newton's laws of motion sive corporum duorum actiones in se mutuo semper esse quales et in partes contrarias dirigi, there are counter reactions in the opposite direction of the two moving bodies. It is imported not only to calculate the counter reaction of the moving projectile but also for the moving firing assembly. Because this is the trick the PIATs designer used to reduce and reshape the kick of the weapon. Both of these counter reaction counter each other out, therefore eliminating the classical projectile recoil directly transferred to a weapons frame. Instead the rearward movement of the firing assembly is transferred to the weapons frame via the large spring, that is cocks in the process. Using this method of Impulsebalance replaces the abrupt harsh recoil with more gentle push stretched over a longer period of time, much more bearable for the shooter.
Figure 5: The projectile leaves the spigot of the firing assembly, that has been pushed back in the weapons housing and in held cocked there by the sear. The weapon in ready to be loaded with another projectile. Expect the case that the shooter did not support the weapon properly, in that case the firing assembly could not bee cocked by the gas pressure driving it backwards against the spring, but moving the whole weapon backwards instead without reaching the sear and therefore driving back forwards under spring tension, as soon as the backwards momentum of the firing assembly under powers spring tension.
I'm not sure if this description fits in the article but I thought I leave it here for other do decide and for people in search for deeper information about the PIATs action. Grasyl ( talk) 12:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
The following weights are packed weights - i.e. they include the weight of the box and other packing material:
Source: "Royal Army Ordnance Corps Statistics 1943, Pamphlet No 2, Weights and Measurements of Explosives", The War Office, p. 25, 21 June 1943 -- Toddy1 (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
PIAT has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
[I] will find the W[ar]O[ffice] number of the report later. but the rounds that found the PIAT penetrating 102mm of armour only fired 75% of the time. The fuses used in combat fired about 90% of the time. as the figures were by the 50% penetration army limit, the 102mm probably does the PIAT a little discredit. - rich tea man.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.30.126 19:00, 20 September 2005.(UTC)
"At the start of World War II, all major armies were investing in research into HEAT projectiles..." This is very likely incorrect. The Soviet Union apparently was not working on a HEAT round at the start of the war. The Soviets did not bring any into service throughout the war (they did reuse captured German HEAT rounds such as the Panzerfaust).
"The Germans concentrated on recoilless weapons and the US on rockets, but in 1941 when the PIAT was being developed, rocket powered weapons were nowhere near ready for use." This very misleading. The PIAT was not ready for field service in 1941, either. Instead, it first saw service in 1943. However, the rocket powered US bazooka first entered service in 1942! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.65.52 ( talk) 23:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me or does the last part in the text "In general use the PIAT had a rated range of about 100 m, but that was considered the extreme and it was typically fired at much shorter ranges. The three pound (1.4 kg) HEAT warhead was able to penetrate about 55 mm of armor at 100 m." imply that range got anything to do with how much armor it could penetrate? Since the PIAT was a shaped charge weapon it didn't matter if it hit the target at 10 or 1000meters (assuming it could). It was still be able to penetrate just as much.
It states that the launcher is a 'one shot per confrontation weapon' due to the heavy force needed to compress the spring. Is it my imagination, but I was under the belief that when it was fired, it recocked itself, and you simply placed a projectile in the bay, and pulled the trigger again? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marlon 203.11.81.235 ( talk) 18:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
The drive charge was supposed to recock it, but if fired from an insufficient support the spring wouldn't be pushed back far enough to lock it. Shooting it in a "duel" was a one shot deal, since recocking it manually was rather difficult. Student342 ( talk) 06:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I removed a comment that the PIAT was considered a "one shot per confrontation" weapon due to the difficulties in cocking. Since the weapon recocked itself after firing this should not have been a problem. The recocking scheme had its flaws, but I've not heard the PIAT ever referred to as a one-shot weapon. Can anyone provide references? -- Schwern 05:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Among the awards for gallantry of the Canadian Army Relaesed today (?)by the Department of National Defense is Pte. Thomas Watkin who recieved the Millitary Medal. Pte. Watkin, Canadian Infatry Corps, was born on November 18, 1913, at Brandon , and was still a resident in this cityat the time of his enlistment in the Canadian Army on January 15, 1940 . He went overseas on June 25,1941. Prior to enlistment he was employed as a hospital attendant. His wife, Mrs. Florence Watkin , and three children , Murray, David and Marilyn, live at 862 First street. His Citation reads: "On April 27, 1945, 'C' Company of the Westminster Regiment (motor) was advancing in the vicinity of Woldendorp, Holland. No. 10 platoon of this company was caught in a heavy concentration of artillery and motar fire and unable to move because of crossfire from two cleverly concealed machine guns. Pte. Watkin volunteered to silence one of the machine gun posts. Disregarding the heavy shell and motar fire he worked his way forward over one hundred and fifty yards of completely exposed ground to within sixty yards of the enemy machine gun to a position from which he was able to use his PIAT . Quickly rushing the post after the crew had been stunned by the explosion of the PIAT bomb , Pte. Watkin killed the crew of three with his pistol. Using the enemy post to excellent advantage Pte. Watkin followed up his success by pinning down the crew of the other machine gun and enabled the remaider of his platoon to re-organize themselves and advance to the objective. "By his exemplary courage, coolness and resoucefulness, by his single-handed heroic action, Pte. Watkin undoubtedly saved his platoon from heavy casualties in a difficult situation , thus permitting it to quickly achieve its objective."
Is the majority of that section necessary? There is no similar section in any of the other entries about similar weapons (such as the Panzershreck, Panzerfaust or Bazooka) and it is quite redundant in an article about the weapon itself.-- 81.235.193.23 11:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I think I read somewhere that thePIAT or its predecessor had been suggested to the war office in 1935 - 37? and turned down.
If this is true, and it had been developed, presumably if troops had been armed with a reasonable anti tank weapon the course of the debacle in France in 1940 might have been avoided?... Engineman ( talk) 15:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The picture that is labelled "Canadian Soldiers Using PIAT" might be wrong. The shoulder patch appears to be that of the 1st British Airborne Division. The helmets that the soldiers are wearing are also not the typical British issued "Brodie" style helmet. They appear to be the rimless crash style helmets indicating at they are Para troops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.110.239.234 ( talk) 12:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I had found that this page and others on the samewebsite describe the numbers of PIAT issued to different types of British platoon. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 16:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
From the book 'From D-Day to VE-Day, The Canadian Soldier' by Jean Bouchery, there were 23 throughout each Canadian infantry battalion: 3 with the Admin platoon of HQ Coy, 4 with both the mortar platoon and AT platoon of support Coy and 3 the the HQ of each of the 4 rifle Coys. Mike McGregor (Can) ( talk) 20:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
A single PIAT used by men of Major John Howard's D Coy. Ox and Bucks was crucial in destroying the first German armed halftrack (by Sgt. Charles ('Wagger') Thornton) and an armed trawler (by Cpl. Claude Godbold) encountered during their defence of the Bénouville bridge following its seizure as one of the opening moves of the D-Day assault.
Am pretty sure when i read Pegesus Bridge by S.Ambrose that he state it was a tank they destroyed heading towards the bridge not a halftrack (although i dont have the book with me to confirm that atm). What do other sources say?-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 14:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
This was only just sufficient to defeat the frontal armour of the older German tanks, remaining more effective against their side and rear armour.
The Panzer IV made up quite a chunk, as in it was one of the most common tanks fought by the western allies, of the German armoured forces and was by no means one of the "older German tanks".
The Airborn Recce Sqdn war diary here mentiosn a L/Cpl Mann with a PIAT against a "self-propelled gun" on the 21st at Arnhem. Is this what is included in the article as a "tank"? GraemeLeggett ( talk) 15:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I have completely rewritten and expanded this article in my sandbox, and would welcome any and all constructive criticism - I hope to replace the current article with it. I would note that the 'Operational history' is intentionally small; after careful consideration, it didn't seem worth adding in every time a tank was disabled or destroyed with a PIAT during the conflict, as that would have taken up so much room. Otherwise, I think it's all quite straight-forward, but like I said any comments are welcome. I would ask that people don't edit the sandbox just yet, as I'm still tweaking it, and place comments here - if that's okay. Cheers, Skinny87 ( talk) 00:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
(od)Right, well, the VC stuff has been put into a single paragraph; some more cites have been added, the odd pic moved around. The lede will soon be written (hopefully), and once that's done I'd like to officially replace the current article with my sandbox version. I again state that any comments are welcome, and if any users are opposed to such a move. Skinny87 ( talk) 18:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
(od)Well, two users just combined all the refs, and I've also written the lede. hopefully the article is now ready. Skinny87 ( talk) 21:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
(od)See, I thought that, but there's not that much I can find, and I think that more detailed examples should go in articles on the battles in which they were used - otherwise it would just get crammed in with examples; I think the section as it is now is about the size it should be. And I'm not sure about which bazooka - the magazine I cite for that fact doesn't mention it, sorry. Skinny87 ( talk) 11:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
(od)Sorry, can't seem to get that 1921 flag to go in without it being massive; if you could do that once I've moved the article, I'd be greatful. Skinny87 ( talk) 13:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Would anyone object if I were to now replace the current article with the one in my sandbox? Further changes can of course be made to it afterwards if and when required. Skinny87 ( talk) 12:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I just changed the Design section, to say how the PIAT's system of operation reduced felt recoil. Unfortunately I don't have any references for this, as I'm making the statement on grounds of basic physics. Norman Yarvin ( talk) 03:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Currently the article has this
"There were also problems with its penetrative power; although the PIAT was theoretically able to penetrate approximately 100 millimetres (4 in) of armour, field experience during the Allied invasion of Sicily, which was substantiated by trials conducted during 1944, confirmed otherwise. During these trials, a skilled user was unable to hit a target more than 60% of the time at 100 yards (90 m), and faulty fuses meant that only 75% of the bombs fired detonated on-target."
I was initially thinking about rephrasing. Eg on faulty fuses phrasing it as one-quarter failing to detonate, however looking at it I see questions which could do with answering if possible.
I think answering some of the above could be useful. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 09:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The paragraph introduces "problems with its penetrative power", but doesn't go on to tell you what they are. Instead the paragraph changes the issue to 'accuracy' and 'detonation' problems!
Yes, it was solved. The original fuse was fuse No.425 and only had a detonation rate of about 75%, but this was not because the fuse was 'faulty', the fuse performed exactly as designed, it was because it was the wrong type of fuse for the application. Fuse No.425 required a close to square impact in order to activate. In early 1944 the fuse was replaced by a graze fuse, No.426 in the Mark III bomb. The graze fuse was detonated by deceleration when the bomb struck something, even obliquely. There is offical speculation that the graze fuse detonation rate would be about 90%.
The 75% refers to bombs that hit the target, regardless of whether or not they exploded.
The target was a Covenanter tank moving across the firers postion (from left to right) at about 10MPH. The PIAT operater would fire 3 shots (in 35 seconds), the first and third shot were at about 90-110yd range, scoring 57-55% hits, the second shot at about 70-90yds range scored 80% hits.
When the Covenanter was moving away from the PIAT at 10MPH, the first shot (35-60yds) had 80% hits, the second shot (60-85yds) had 79% hits, the third shot (85-110yds) had 53% hits.
In a test with the Covenanter moving towards the PIAT, they only scored 35% hits, which they concluded was because the firer was too hurried, having to fire 3 shots in 9 seconds.
The average penetration was 115mm, or 100mm of armour at 30deg (115mm), but penetration varied quite widely, so sometimes it would penetrate significantly more than 115mm. Some of the Mark IA bombs experienced a lower penetratrion due to filler quality deteriotion. During WW2 there were 4 marks of bomb: Mark I, Mark IA, Mark II, Mark III. Mark III was introduced in early 1944 and had the new graze fuse No.426. I'm not certain when the Mark IV bomb was introduced, but don;t think it was during WWII. MoD Research ( talk) 19:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
In an attempt to improve this article, I'm going to list some problems. If you're the author, please see this as contructive criticism. -- MoD Research ( talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Virtually all weapons consist of “a steel tube, a trigger mechanism and firing spring”, why is this in the introduction? -- MoD Research ( talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
This should also not be in the intro. The article should not describe the complexities of how a spigot mortar works, in the introduction. The introduction should briefly describe the weapon, it’s relevance and it’s uniqueness. The introduction in the manual says this (pp.2,6) :
Introduction
The weapon is called the Projector, Infantry, Anti-Tank. It is a light self-cocking weapon that is designed to stop and knock out enemy A.F.V.s. It is shoulder-controlled and fires an HE (shaped charge) bomb.
It’s chief characteristics are:
i. Mobility. It can be carried by one man.
ii. Short range. The maximum range against tanks is 115yds. It can, however, be used against buildings up to 350yds.
iii. Excellent Penetration. The bomb can penetrate the armour of the latest (June 1943) known types of enemy A.F.Vs. and a considerable thickness of reinforced concrete. -- MoD Research ( talk) 15:40 19 July 2011 (UTC)
This weapon didn’t even have a barrel, the bomb is placed in and launched from a tray, trough or ‘bomb support’. The tube that contained the mainspring is called the 'mechanism casing'.-- MoD Research ( talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
This weapon was not difficult to cock (for soldiers) you could even do it lying down or standing up. Compared to cocking a submachinegun, yes, compared to loading a 6 pounder anti-tank gun, no, not difficult to 'cock'. -- MoD Research ( talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
To say the user receives a bruising is a bit silly when we’re talking about a military weapon. I even get bruises from shooting a shotgun. Do recoil bruises get mentioned regarding other weapons on Wiki? -- MoD Research ( talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
If there were problems with it’s penetrative power, then be specific, and then cite references and sources. -- MoD Research ( talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
7. Shouldn’t a list of specific nations that used the PIAT be in the USERS section, not the introduction? You can mention that many nations or about a dozen nations used the PIAT, in the intro, and then reference/link the USERS section. -- MoD Research ( talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
This should say why the Boys and No.68 were “ineffective”, because they were both excellent weapons with one major flaw: the Boys could only penetrate 19mm at 500yds, and the No.68 rifle grenade 52mm at 100yds; and by 1940 tank armour was becoming too heavy for them to penetrate. -- MoD Research ( talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The weight of the Boys wasn’t the problem. It only weighed 36lbs. It’s replacement, the PIAT, weighed the same, so the problem clearly wasn’t the weight of the weapon. Compare the this to the weight of a 2 pounder anti-tank gun: 1,794lbs ! -- MoD Research ( talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
This is not right. The Boys had an extreme range of 7000yds! and could KO soft vehicles and penetrate wood and stone buildings at extraordinarily long ranges. -- MoD Research ( talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The Origins of the PIAT can be traced back much further than 1888, if we think ‘shaped charges’ are the origin of the PIAT.
This is from a MoD document, Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment:
The cavity effect in explosives has been the subject of intermittent investigations for well over 150 years and has been discovered by many people during that time. The earliest available reference is to the work of Baader, a Norwegian mining engineer, who towards the end of the 18th century advocated leaving a conical or mushroom-shaped air space under the forward end of a blasting charge. This space increased the explosive effect and at the same time saved a considerable amount of explosive. Hausmann (Ref 2) took the idea from Norway to Germany early in the 19th century, but it appears not to have flourished in the Harz mines according to Combes (Ref 3). In 1874 Davey and Watson took out a British Patent (No2641) in which they claimed as a new invention, "the use of a cylindrical charge with a central hole below and in the middle".
In 1883 Max von Foerster in Germany discovered a similar effect, as did the better known Munroe in Washington. Munroe's work, first mentioned in an article published in 1885, showed that any pattern forming an indentation in the base of an explosive charge was reproduced as an indentation in an underlying metal plate when the charge was detonated. From this he extended his investigations to establish the effect of different sized holes in wet guncotton cylinders. The deeper and wider the holes in the guncotton, the deeper and wider the holes bored in the iron plate. When there was a hole completely through the guncotton cylinder (and at least half of the weight of explosive had been removed), the iron plate was completely perforated when the charge was detonated."
---
I think just a brief mention of the PIAT utilizing a shaped charge (aka. hollow charge) that had been under development since the 18th century, is all that’s needed for this article. As long as there’s a link to a hollow charge article! And the hollow charge article doesn’t even go into the detailed history of hollow charges as much this article does. lol! Perhaps this hollow charge history should be moved there. -- MoD Research ( talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
It was carried and used by one man, but a second man was often used as an ammo carrier and assistant loader. -- MoD Research ( talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
There was nothing “thin” about the steel used to make the PIAT. The PIAT was a very solid sturdy construction, particularly when compared to the Panzerfaust, Panzershreck or Bazooka. My personal opinion is that the steel used was heavier than needed. But some claim the weight made for a better firing platform. -- MoD Research ( talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The PIAT launcher was a tube constructed out of thin sheets of steel, and contained the trigger mechanism and firing spring. At the front of the launcher was a small trough in which the bomb was placed, and the spigot ran down the middle of the launcher and into the trough.[6] Padding for the user's shoulder was fitted to the other end of the launcher, and rudimentary aperture sights were fitted on top for aiming
was taken from a Ministry of Defense document (almost verbatim), but's it's been misunderstood and misquoted. The MoD document is referencing the two prototype PIATs built by Jeffries and Watts. The eventual production version was a composition of both weapons, and was NOT made of thin sheets of metal, nor were the sights "rudimentary". The sights were typical of WW2 aperture sights, and the PIAT was constructed of far heavier steel than than the Bazooka, Panzerfaust and Panzershreck. MoD Research ( talk) 16:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I think a picture or diagram would be worth a thousand words here. -- MoD Research ( talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
15. This may be a good place to add a section about the PIAT bombs, marks and types. -- MoD Research ( talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
There are other problems and errors with the rest of the article, but this is enough for now. -- MoD Research ( talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
No need to apologise. Just make a list of those points that you disagree with, and let me know why, when you get a chance. Thanks. MoD Research ( talk) 19:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Which version best serves the article:
1. A WW2 Canadian Army survey questioned over 150 army officers, who had recently left combat, about the effectiveness of 31 different infantry weapons, in that survey the PIAT was ranked the number one most “outstandlingly effective” weapon, followed by the Bren gun in second place.[23]
2. A survey conducted in 1944-45 by the Canadian Army questioned over 150 army officers, who had recently left combat, about the effectiveness of 31 different infantry weapons, in that survey the PIAT was ranked the number one most “outstandlingly effective” weapon, followed by the Bren gun in second place.[23]
3. A contemporary Canadian Army survey questioned over 150 army officers, who had recently left combat, about the effectiveness of 31 different infantry weapons, in that survey the PIAT was ranked the number one most “outstandlingly effective” weapon, followed by the Bren gun in second place.[23]
My contention is that using the word "contemporary" at the begining of a paragraph/sentence where there is NO reference to WW2, could suggest that the survey was conducted recently. At best, using the word "contemporary" in the context above places the survey in the time period of 1942 to the 1950s because the PIAT continued to be used during the Korean War by Commonwealth nations.
In light of this, why would you change a known narrow factual time period, and expand it to a far less specific time period of possibly even more than 10 years? Don't you think people should know WHEN the survey was conducted?
Thanks, MoD Research ( talk) 22:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I suggest a compromise: Let's leave the word 'contemporary' in the text, but just add "(1944-45)" which gives the reader a more precise date when the survey was conducted, leaving no doubt that it was not a Korean War survey. MoD Research ( talk) 13:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
As was common for Israel in 1948, they were using a lot of UK weaponry. Their was also some indigenous production of such weapons, particularly for the simpler stuff, such as stens.
How did this affect the PIAT? Were they produced in Israel? Were these named "PIAT" or (as I suspect) the "Etzel"?
It's in relation to this edit, where an "Israeli PIAT image" was renamed from PIAT to Etzel. If this Etzel name was used for indigenous production though, I'd suggest that we keep the name and expand coverage of it. Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
It's fair to say that, though very different in operation, the PIAT and the Bazooka filled the same role in their respective armies. I've also seen ample evidence that bazookas weren't just used against tanks (including footage of one being fired through the window of a German house). My question then, is whether or not the PIAT was also employed more, shall we say, "broadly" than just being fired at enemy AFVs?-- 172.191.204.222 ( talk) 10:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
While the conversion of 350 yards to 320 metres for maximum distance is an accurate approximation (350 yards is 320.4 metres), the yard/metre conversion for direct, anti-tank use of the PIAT is incorrect. 115 yards does not approximate to 110 meters. It is closer to 105 metres (115 yards is actually 105.16 metres). Arthurneddysmith 07:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurneddysmith ( talk • contribs)
I was about to start a new talk page about this, the conversion immediately looked incorrect to me, a yard being about 91cm. However, the remark is sourced so it may be taken verbatim and correcting it may violate Wikipedia's policy on original research.
Has the source been checked? Stefanzi ( talk) 05:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
"here were also problems with ammunition reliability and accuracy. Although the PIAT was theoretically able to penetrate approximately 100 millimetres (4 in) of armour, field experience during the Allied invasion of Sicily, which was substantiated by trials conducted during 1944, meant that this advantage was often nullified by the problems of accuracy and round reliability. During these trials, a skilled user was unable to hit a target more than 60% of the time at 100 yards (90 m), and faulty fuses meant that only 75% of the bombs fired detonated on-target. [1]"
I reverted this to an older version because this phrasing makes no sense: look, let's streamline:
"Although the PIAT was theoretically able to penetrate approximately 100 millimetres (4 in) of armour, field experience during the Allied invasion of Sicily meant that this advantage was often nullified by the problems of accuracy and round reliability"
How does field experience make a weapon unreliable? Bones Jones ( talk) 05:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
References
I have always read that one of the main problems with the PIAT is that it had to be used from very close range (practically), which was difficult and dangerous for the operator. Shouldn't this be one of the primary drawbacks listed? Compared to other AT weapons, one had to be very close to the tank to get a good chance at a kill.
John Keegan, Six Armies in Normandy, pg. 180 "...the PIAT's short range required [the two man crew] to attack from very close quarters." (And yes, he specifies a two man crew for normal operations. A mortar CAN be fired by a single man; most weapons can, an exception bein maybe an AA gun that as a man on the elevation wheel and a man on the traverse wheel. But most at least require two or more to be utilized as designed, or at maximum effectiveness.) AnnaGoFast ( talk) 04:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes but its range was similar to all other one man infantry anti-tank weapons of the latter part of the Second World War so when saying this is a disadvantage you should also mention that the Panzerfaust, Panzerschreck, and Bazooka (maybe the RPG 7?) weren't much better in terms of effective range. Sitalkes ( talk) 03:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
In this video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xzG_rRngs8 the Tank Museum at Bovington claims that a PIAT was fired at its Tiger 131 tank in Tunisia. This would make that the first use of the PIAT in action. Who is correct? Sitalkes ( talk) 03:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello and thank you for adding a description to my kinematics. Never the less I feel an urge to describe the weapons firing cycle in more detail.
Figure 1: The weapon is cocked an loaded with a projectile. The firing assembly (red) is kept under spring tension.
Figure 2: The shooter presses the trigger, releasing the firing assembly. The spring forcing the firing assembly forwards into the hollow shaft of the projectile (brown). There it hits the primer of the propelling charge. At this time the firing assembly acts like the spigot of a spigot mortar providing a enclosed combustion chamber as well as a guide to give the projectile is future direction.
Figure 3: The propelling charge is ignited and the propelling gases are acting on the projectile and the firing assembly at the same time. This is do to the physicac of Pascal's law. Contradicting common superstition gas is not intelligent and knows were to act force upon. The projectile is therefore pushed forwards while the firing assembly is pushed backwards with the same force at the same time.
Figure 4: Projectile and firing assembly are getting accelerated by the gas pressure. According to the second half of the third Newton's laws of motion sive corporum duorum actiones in se mutuo semper esse quales et in partes contrarias dirigi, there are counter reactions in the opposite direction of the two moving bodies. It is imported not only to calculate the counter reaction of the moving projectile but also for the moving firing assembly. Because this is the trick the PIATs designer used to reduce and reshape the kick of the weapon. Both of these counter reaction counter each other out, therefore eliminating the classical projectile recoil directly transferred to a weapons frame. Instead the rearward movement of the firing assembly is transferred to the weapons frame via the large spring, that is cocks in the process. Using this method of Impulsebalance replaces the abrupt harsh recoil with more gentle push stretched over a longer period of time, much more bearable for the shooter.
Figure 5: The projectile leaves the spigot of the firing assembly, that has been pushed back in the weapons housing and in held cocked there by the sear. The weapon in ready to be loaded with another projectile. Expect the case that the shooter did not support the weapon properly, in that case the firing assembly could not bee cocked by the gas pressure driving it backwards against the spring, but moving the whole weapon backwards instead without reaching the sear and therefore driving back forwards under spring tension, as soon as the backwards momentum of the firing assembly under powers spring tension.
I'm not sure if this description fits in the article but I thought I leave it here for other do decide and for people in search for deeper information about the PIATs action. Grasyl ( talk) 12:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
The following weights are packed weights - i.e. they include the weight of the box and other packing material:
Source: "Royal Army Ordnance Corps Statistics 1943, Pamphlet No 2, Weights and Measurements of Explosives", The War Office, p. 25, 21 June 1943 -- Toddy1 (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)