PDA

View Full Version : British Antitank weapons.



Panzerknacker
10-26-2006, 09:35 AM
The Stanchion Gun cal .55

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3197/boys9oz.jpg[/URL]


The idea of a rifle, which could challenge the armour of tanks, was not new when the threat of a second world war was becoming reality. Already during WWI an increased performance of specially designed rifles enabled the soldiers to pierce the armour of tanks with the help of an easily portable anti-tank rifle.Originally called the Stanchion, it was renamed to honour one of its principal designers, Captain Boys, to become the Boys Anti Tank rifle. A nightmare for beginners, it proved to be a quite easy to handle if the firer that it had to be gripped tightly.

Its use was wide-spread over most theatres of war, being used both as a portable infantry anti-tank rifle and a weapon fitted into armoured cars, but had the greatest success in North Africa, where it could handle the front armour of most Italian tanks. The mobile style of European warfare with the mailed fist of massed tanks, introduced by the Wehrmacht and aptly called 'blitzkrieg', did not give the firer enough time to wait and let its prey approach, therefore its success on the battlefields of Europe was limited. It was last used in 1942 in the Far East.

French officer shooting the Boys.

http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/6997/franchute1um.jpg

The Boys also had a Mk. 2 airborne variant, with a shorter barrel, feather-filled butt pad and some aluminium parts. However, the side effects prevented it from any kind of greater success - the short barrel turned up the volume of the already deafening report, while decreasing the penetration of the round. Fortunately by the time it came around there was However, the inter-war period saw a gradual increase in thickness of tank armour, demanding a concurrent development of anti-tank rifles.


The British designers began their work in 1934 and within two years the result of their work was complete. The callibre was .55 inch, giving the gun a mighty recoil. In attempt to reduce it, a muzzle break was another option in view, the P.I.A.T.fitted and the whole mechanism mounted into a cradle, buffered by a powerful spring. As this could not of course solve the problem completely, the butt was thickly padded in addition. The whole rifle was 63.5in or 162cm long, weighing 36 pounds or 16.3 kilograms. It was fed from a 5-round box magazine, had a muzzle velocity of 810metres per second and could puncture 21mm of armour at 200 meters.


This gun was also adquired by the URSS and the U.S.M.C (marines) wich have several succeses agaist the lesser armored japanese tanks in the Pacific.

Boys of the U.S.M.C.

http://www.usmcraiders.com/LP24.jpg


Russian Bren Carrier with the .55 ATR Kursk July 1943.

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/7799/brencarrierconboys3pr.jpg[URL="http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/7799/brencarrierconboys3pr.jpg"] (http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3197/boys9oz.jpg)

Panzerknacker
10-26-2006, 09:40 AM
Nice plate of ospreys "Men-at-Arms"

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c257/MGuastoni/brit01-1.jpg

redcoat
10-27-2006, 03:50 PM
The Boys anti-tank rifle is one of those weapons which often gets mentioned in worst weapons of WW2 threads, which is quite unfair because it was one of the best anti-tank rifles of ww2.
Its problem was one which all anti-tank rifles suffered from,the large increase in armor of the tanks designed from 1938.

Panzerknacker
10-27-2006, 07:00 PM
It wanst a bad gun but also was not particulary powerful until the introduction of the tugsten core ammo.



The weapon was effective to about 300 yards (300 m) as an anti-tank and anti-vehicle weapon. There were two main service loads used during WWII, the W Mark 1 (60 g AP at 747 m/s) and the W Mark 2 ammunition (47.6 g AP projectile at 884 m/s). Later in the conflict, but too late for service use, a much more effective high velocity round was developed, this fired a tungsten (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tungsten) cored Armour-Piercing, Composite Rigid (APCR) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_%28projectile%29#Armour-piercing_.28AP.29) design at 945 m/s. The W Mark 2 projectile was able to penetrate up to 3/4 inch (20 mm) of armour at 100 yards (~91 m). The armour plate inclined at 70° from the horizontal ie 20 degrees from the direct line angle of fire - the effective thickness being ~21.5 mm. Its effective range against unarmoured targets (e.g. infantry), was much further. Although useful against the early tanks, the increases in vehicle armour during WW2 left it largely ineffective for anti-tank duties and it was replaced in service by the PIAT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIAT) anti-tank weapon. It still saw some use against bunkers, machine gun nests, and lighter vehicles. In the Western Desert the large bullet could throw up splinters from rocks to cause casualties and it continued to be used in the Pacific theatre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_theatre) against Japanese tanks; the Japanese did not replace their older lightly armoured tanks, spread out across the Pacific and South East Asia, with newer ones until later in the war. The weapon had been designed with these lighter tanks in mind.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle,_Anti-Tank,_.55_in,_Boys


APC ammo:

http://www.municion.org/55boys/14x99.gif


http://www.municion.org/55boys/Wii.jpg



http://www.municion.org/55boys/55boys.htm

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/5774/baoyshd0.jpg

mrseagull
10-28-2006, 05:51 AM
Going back quite a few decades now..

I was working in a well known auction house, during one of the 'firearms amnesties' A chap arrived at the door, saying he was bringing in a few old guns for disposal (you were allowed to sell the things if you didn't want to just jhand them in to the police.

An interesting collection that his father had kept from Home Guard days, mostly fairly ordinary, but included was one of the above mentioned Anti tank rifles - complete with three rounds as I recall.

Panzerknacker
10-28-2006, 07:10 PM
Disposal a Boys ?...too bad.

Another of the weird antitank weapons of the Home Guard.

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/9430/northoverey7.jpg


Extracted from enciclopedya of WW2 weapons- Chris Bishop/Barnes Noble.

Nickdfresh
10-29-2006, 12:53 PM
I bet the white phosphorus bomb would have been very effective against infantry, and possibly against armor with a lucky hit...

Man of Stoat
10-30-2006, 08:39 AM
Up towards the end of the war, Boys rifles were used to sink a number of German midget submarines which were running very close to the Belgian shore, a few hundred yards off it in fact. A single hit at the waterline on the conning "tower" would cause it to fill with water and sink.

Not a lot of people know that, and unfortunately I have given the magazine which recounts the story to a friend in England.

Panzerknacker
10-30-2006, 04:24 PM
Interesting, another use I have read fopr this weapon is knocking out light flak mountings and their crew in the Operation Jubilee by the british commandos.

Firefly
10-30-2006, 05:15 PM
I have nothing to bring to this debate except some wiki specs of the Boys, although I always though it was called the Boyes.

http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/2500/2577.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyes_rifle

redcoat
10-30-2006, 05:28 PM
I have nothing to bring to this debate except some wiki specs of the Boys, although I always though it was called the Boyes.


No it was named in honour of a Captain Boys, who was a member of the development team, who died just before its final acceptance by the British army

2nd of foot
11-15-2006, 09:29 AM
Spigot mortar

As normal looking for something else turned up the spigot AT weapon. Now having looked at the pictures I have seen the implement before but thought they were AA positions. The pivot is what stood out, as it seemed to be made of excellent steel that had not tarnished over 60 years. This was outside Apple Pie RE depot Longmoor. Look at the one below, this has been in the sea!

http://www.pillbox-study-group.org.uk/Wintertonspigotmortarbase.jpg


It would seem that it is very easily concealed and moved, but not a one man band.
http://www.brookmans.com/news/may03/spigot.jpg

http://www.staffshomeguard.co.uk/BlackerBombard.jpg

As to its effectiveness I could not say.

Panzerknacker
11-15-2006, 05:05 PM
Quiet weird. It have an hollow charge.?

Man of Stoat
11-16-2006, 09:22 AM
The PIAT was actually also a spigot mortar.

spotter
11-23-2006, 10:07 AM
This image shows the Head of the blacker bombard 29mm spigot mortar they came in 2 sizes 14lb and 20lb.The 14lb was nose fuzed and the 20lb was base fuzed

Gen. Sandworm
11-23-2006, 10:16 AM
Uhhh the PIAT........of all the things that came out of the UK during WW2........many absolutly brilliant. The PIAT has to take the taco on being the worst of things. I put in on the level of the WW1 French Cho Cho. Blah

1000ydstare
11-23-2006, 12:33 PM
Oh I don't know, have you ever heard of the "Smith gun"?

Specifically designed for the Home Guard. Very wierd idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Gun

http://www.waffenhq.de/infanterie/smithgun-01.jpg

A smith gun in position for firing, note it has been upended on to one of the it's traveling wheels, and the tow eye on the end of the barrel. The limber carrying the ammunition is similarly upended to the rear.

http://www.waffenhq.de/infanterie/smithgun-02.jpg

http://www.waffenhq.de/infanterie/smithgun-03.jpg

same again.

http://www.waffenhq.de/infanterie/smithgun-05.jpg

Note the five "ready" ammunition carriers next to the barrel.

1000ydstare
11-23-2006, 12:34 PM
And finally the Smith Gun in transit.

http://www.waffenhq.de/infanterie/smithgun-06.jpg

(Wasn't allowed to put in more than 5 pics in a post. What a load of wnak!!!!)

Nickdfresh
11-23-2006, 04:23 PM
Interesting, another use I have read fopr this weapon is knocking out light flak mountings and their crew in the Operation Jubilee by the british commandos.


This was a highly effective weapon when used by special operations no doubt.

Panzerknacker
11-23-2006, 05:38 PM
This image shows the Head of the blacker bombard 29mm spigot mortar they came in 2 sizes 14lb and 20lb.The 14lb was nose fuzed and the 20lb was base fuzed

It seems to be a "blast effect" only, I did not see any hollow charge in that picture.



The PIAT has to take the taco on being the worst of things.


Agree completely.

Gen. Sandworm
11-23-2006, 09:48 PM
http://www.waffenhq.de/infanterie/smithgun-02.jpg




Caption should read "Churchill debates surrender"

LOL This thing look like a portable snow cone launcher. :D

1000ydstare
11-24-2006, 01:35 AM
I always wondered how it would balance on a road given the state of its' wheels.

Tony Williams
11-24-2006, 02:34 AM
It seems to be a "blast effect" only, I did not see any hollow charge in that picture.
The British preferred "squash head" shells at that time, and that seems to be one of them. The principle is that the shell walls are made very thin so that on impact the HE is spread over the target before being ignited by the base fuze. This creates a shock-wave through the armour, causing the inner surface to "scab off" and fly through the target at high velocity.

Shells of this type are still in Briitish service today, as the backup to APFSDS in the Challenger tank. The British call this type of shell HESH, the US calls it HEP (HE Plastic).

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

redcoat
11-24-2006, 12:42 PM
Uhhh the PIAT........of all the things that came out of the UK during WW2........many absolutly brilliant. The PIAT has to take the taco on being the worst of things. I put in on the level of the WW1 French Cho Cho. Blah
Mind you, in the hands of a determined man it would do what it was supposed to do, stop a tank ;)

Nickdfresh
11-24-2006, 04:05 PM
The PIAT seemed to have been effective, if not optimal, to me...

Panzerknacker
11-24-2006, 05:44 PM
The British preferred "squash head" shells at that time, and that seems to be one of them. The principle is that the shell walls are made very thin so that on impact the HE is spread over the target before being ignited by the base fuze. This creates a shock-wave through the armour, causing the inner surface to "scab off" and fly through the target at high velocity


Thanks for the info, but I think that this sistem is defeated with a high quality steel armor. Not sure about the quality of the german armor in late war ( when the plates became thicker)

Tony Williams
11-24-2006, 06:27 PM
Thanks for the info, but I think that this sistem is defeated with a high quality steel armor. Not sure about the quality of the german armor in late war ( when the plates became thicker)
I don't think so: certainly the British rate this type of ammo highly (it's the main reason they've stuck to rifled barrels in their 120mm tank guns up to now), and have used it in tank v tank engagements in Iraq (sadly, on one occasion knocking out another Challenger in a "blue on blue").

Composite armour is much more likely to be effective against HESH. The luckless Challenger suffered because the shell virtually dropped down its open hatch at very long range.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

Panzerknacker
11-25-2006, 05:59 PM
Well, I guess that if a challenger with his advanced armor was vulnerable, a Panzer can be destroyed for sure.


2 pounder (40 mm) AT gun.

http://www.dockmuseum.org.uk/archive/images/archive/large/2698.jpg



http://www.dockmuseum.org.uk/archive/images/archive/large/4288.jpg

BigD353
12-20-2006, 03:00 PM
I have recently acquired a Boys 55 AT Mk1 with both the .55 in and a .50 BMG barrels. I have the original steel magazine box (still has canvas strap), including 8 magazines.

Since I want to sell it, I'm looking for any help in determining its value, as I've never seen one before. Any help would be appreciated.

Regards,
BigD353 :cool:

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j270/bigd353/Boys800.jpg

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j270/bigd353/Boys800a.jpg

Panzerknacker
12-21-2006, 07:11 PM
You maybe could try sending a e-mail to the experts in this site.

http://www.gunsandammomag.com/

GermanSoldier
01-27-2007, 03:48 PM
There are some weird wepons. Good pictures and information.

Panzerknacker
01-31-2007, 09:45 PM
Loading the PIAT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj76mfiIa34

Panzerknacker
02-07-2007, 08:53 PM
Fanstastic videos of how to fire and aim the Boys .55 caliber rifle, with cartoons and all. :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rODm7HF5lFU


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9lIO8AL3ds


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsifcQnSv94

2nd of foot
02-08-2007, 06:12 AM
An excellent find. Very good film once you are passed the first half. I am not overly keen on the unload drill I can see NDs happening.

Nickdfresh
02-10-2007, 11:05 PM
Okay, when do we get to the PIAT?

Panzerknacker
02-15-2007, 05:57 PM
The PIAT, not my favorite , there you have some info.

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/9202/piat22ee9.jpg

Walther
04-09-2007, 10:29 PM
Concerning the PIAT:
A while ago I had the opportunity to handle one owned (I can't remember) either the Belgian or Dutch Army museum. While it is quite heavy and cumbersome (but weightwise in about the same class as a Bren gun), cocking it wasn't the nightmare it was described to be (abourt a year before i had another one in my hands, which unknown to me was deactivated by having the firing rod pinned and welded into position and I almost broke my back trying to cock it), it was certainly doable and I'm not Superman's brother.

Obviously the PIAT had a relative short range, about 50 meters, but the early versions of the Panzerfaust did not have more range either.
The shaped charge warhead of the PIAT was quite big though and could finish off any German tank (which was the problem with the original Bazooka, the warhead was too small, a defect only rectified with the Super Bazooka of the Korean war). It was also extensively used as a bunker buster or to take out machine gun positions, even as a makeshift mortar. The PIAT soldiered on until the Korean war, when it was replaced in the British Army by the Super Bazooka and later the Carl-Gustav.

Jan

Dani
04-10-2007, 05:10 AM
Off-topic: Welcome back Jan!

Walther
04-10-2007, 06:16 AM
Thanks, Dani!

Sorry I had almost a year work related internet abstinence.

Jan

Panzerknacker
07-31-2007, 07:49 PM
Nº 74 grenade.

The Nº 74 Grenade (Sticky Bomb) was designed as an anti-tank grenade and was disliked by everybody who ever came across it.
The grenade consisted of a glass ball on the end of a bakelite (plastic) handle. Inside the glass ball was an explosive filling whilst on the outside was a very sticky adhesive covering. Until used, this adhesive covering was encased in a metal outer casing.

http://i15.tinypic.com/6ev9h8z.jpg

Due to the use of glass in this grenade, they were fragile and travelled badly. Quite often the glass would crack in transit, causing the explosive to start leaking out. This explosive which leaked out was not very sensitive to friction but was very sensitive to impact and detonation could occur if the exposed explosive received a blow due to careless handling.
To use the grenade, you remove the case release pin (not the pin marked 'DANGER'). This allows the metal protective casing to fall free, exposing the adhesive coating. You then grip the handle and safety lever and remove the safety pin (marked 'DANGER'). The grenade is now ready to either throw or attach to the target.

This is where the sticky bomb is most dangerous! Whilst attempting to throw it, the grenade could stick to the wearers' clothing!

If the thrower has not let go of the safety lever, he has to try and remove the item of clothing without letting go of the lever.
If the thrower has let go of the lever, he has 5 second to remove the item of clothing and get a safe distance away from the bomb.When this happened, it tended to end up stuck to the throwers' trousers - with the uniform which was worn at the time, to remove his trousers (which were held up by braces) the thrower would have to remove any equipment (belt, ammunition pouches, etc.) followed by his Battle Dress blouse (jacket). He would then have to try and take his trousers off over his boots - all in less than 5 seconds! You may ask why the thrower could not just pull the grenade off of his clothing. They could try this but the adhesive coating was designed to allow the grenade, which weighed 2¼ lbs (1 Kg), to stick to the side of a tank. Extract from training manual:

This grenade has been introduced for use against light A.F.Vs. It is designed to stick to a suitable target, thus ensuring that the high explosive has its maximum effect. The grenade will NOT stick should the surface be wet or muddy.
The grenade is suitable for use at road blocks, positions of ambush, or for dropping from upstairs windows on to tanks.
Although the effect of the explosion is localised, the thrower must take cover owing to the blast.
For night raids on tank parts, the grenade is an ideal weapon. It can be regarded as a portable demolition charge and planted by hand instead of thrown, so long as the operator retreats in such a direction that he is protected from the explosion. With practice and training, the grenade can be thrown up to about 20 yds.

http://www.home-guard.org.uk/hg/gren74.html

redcoat
08-01-2007, 07:37 PM
Nș 74 grenade.

The Nș 74 Grenade (Sticky Bomb) was designed as an anti-tank grenade and was disliked by everybody who ever came across it.

the Number 74 Grenade was never used by the British army in battle, its only recorded use in combat was as a demolition device by partisans

Panzerknacker
08-01-2007, 07:51 PM
Too bad, it would be interesting to see the real effect against a Pz III or IV.

Nickdfresh
08-02-2007, 12:37 PM
The PIAT, not my favorite , there you have some info.

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/9202/piat22ee9.jpg

The Piat may "have been a load of rubbish," but in the hands of Sergeant Thorton of the 6th Airbourne Division, it was used to fire one of the most important shots of the War:



Thorton had taken his position as close to the T-intersection as he could get, because he wanted to shoot at the shortest possible distance. "And sure enough, in about three minutes, this bloody great thing appears. I was more hearing it than seeing it, in the dark; it was rattling away there, and it turned out to be a Mark IV tank coming pretty slowly...Only had two of the bombs with me. Told myself, 'you mustn't miss.' Anyhow, although I was shaking, I took an aim and bang, off it went....I him round about right bang in the middle. I made sure I had him right in the middle. I was so excited and so shaking I had to move back a bit."

Then all hell broke loose. The explosion from the Piat bomb penetrated the tank, setting off the machine-gun clips, which started setting off grenades, which started setting off shells.

From: Pegasus Bridge: June 6, 1944. (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pegasus-Bridge-Daring-British-Airborne/dp/074345068X) By Stephen E. Ambrose, Simon & Schuster, 1985

His shot stopped the German armored counterattack cold as they were confused into thinking that they faced a much more powerful force...

Panzerknacker
02-12-2009, 10:02 AM
Sure, it was better than nothing.

Video of the "sticky bomb"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N9y5nW4Z2Y

32Bravo
02-12-2009, 01:15 PM
Posted this on theh 1 Border thread, but thought it might also be useful to post here:


The anti-tank guns carried a supply of HE rounds, but most of the ammunition was armour-piercing. The main supply was carried in the towing jeep with two spare rounds on the inside of the gun shield.

The anti-tank teams were not a little agrieved back in the Uk to be issued with new ammunition called 'Sabot'. Why? One might ask. This was solid shot of high-quality tungsten encased in a hard plastic, the shot being somewhat smaller than the bore of the gun. When the shot was fired bits of plastic fell away and the velocity was increased by some 35 per cent. The trouble was that the bits of plastic falling away were often mistaken by the gun-layer for the fall of shot, and corrections were made with totally inaccurate results. The gun-teams had been issued with the ammunition a week before Arnhem and had only one day on the ranges to practise with it. The gun-layers had reached a high degree of efficiency with the old ammuniton and to send them to war with this new ammuntion, they all believed, was an error of judgement.
__________________

leccy
02-15-2009, 01:55 PM
The PIAT had two features that made it invaluable in close in fighting in built up areas

Although it had a short range Max Effective generally being 100m it had no backblast to give its position away (unlike the Bazooka, Panzershreck, Panzerfaust and in fact most post war Infantry AT weapons until fairly recently) this meant it could be fired from inside an enclosed area ie from inside buildings

Panzerknacker
02-15-2009, 06:10 PM
That is true, even I think it used a small explosive charge to reload the spigot, most discrete than the Panzerfaust aniway.

http://wwii.ca/photos/italy/piat_ortona_10jan44.jpg

tankgeezer
02-15-2009, 10:47 PM
The one complaint i recall about these was that the bomb was low velocity, and had a high trajectory, as opposed to the fairly straight trajectories of the rocket launchers. This i'm told made the aiming fussier.

Uyraell
02-16-2009, 12:59 PM
See these in the horizontal plane, and it's basically ( instead of |.
That's my understanding: the trajectory was far more "long arc of parabola" so-to-speak than peak of parabola, and certainly nowhere "flat" as in Panzerfaust or Bazooka.
Velocity is almost a laughable term, in relation to a PIAT: one could literally watch the projectile in flight.
Info is from my uncle, who served alongside/with Brit 8th Army.

Regards, Uyraell.

Panzerknacker
03-08-2009, 08:51 AM
AT grenade Mark 73.

Special device with 3/4 pounds of explosives and impact fuze, with some utility against top armor and tracks.

http://i42.tinypic.com/4ut92s.jpg

Declared obsolete in 1942 but used with good effect against bunkers and entrenchments until late war.

redcoat
03-08-2009, 01:38 PM
See these in the horizontal plane, and it's basically ( instead of |.
That's my understanding: the trajectory was far more "long arc of parabola" so-to-speak than peak of parabola, and certainly nowhere "flat" as in Panzerfaust or Bazooka.
While straighter than the flight of a PIAT, the missiles of the Panzerfaust and Bazooka also suffered a considerable drop in their trajectory after leaving the tube

Velocity is almost a laughable term, in relation to a PIAT: one could literally watch the projectile in flight.
True enough, however the speed of the warhead had no effect on the effectiveness of these weapons, that relied on the amount of explosive in the HEAT warhead.

peopleselbow
03-08-2009, 03:25 PM
anti tank guns are so cool but ww2 stuff is ballooning in cost these days

tankgeezer
03-08-2009, 04:55 PM
That is soooo true. In the 70's prices were very low compared to todays huge pricetags, A U.S. halftrack cost about $2,000-$3,000, and was ready to operate, and often came with a separate parts vehicle. A Sherman tank with some exceptions cost about $10,000 ready to drive, and lookin' good. Ferret armored cars sold locally for $5,000 in very good condition, repainted, road ready.
As for firearms, Thompsons depending on who made it, sold for about $2,000, less for a military with little finish. I turned down Maxim 08/15 in very good condition because it cost $400. A Solothurn rifle might fetch quite a price as they were more rare, a complete gun with case, and all fittings sold for $1,000. A Suomi sub-gun was quite rare, and sold for $4,000. My dear old Lahti cost me $300. when I purchased it. M-1A rifles sold around $350. (Texas model) AR-15 for $250. English bolt military rifles went for mid $35-70.depending on details. Prices began to climb towards the end of the 70's toward the fairly insane levels of today.

Saxon
03-13-2009, 10:32 AM
The one complaint i recall about these was that the bomb was low velocity, and had a high trajectory, as opposed to the fairly straight trajectories of the rocket launchers. This i'm told made the aiming fussier.

The PIAT is often subject to complaints, but in reality it was an excellent weapon - in many ways - compared to it's counter-parts.

Let's compare projectile velocity:

Panzerfaust Avg: 175 fps (30:98fps; 60:150fps; 100:200fps; 150:280fps)
Bazooka: 270 fps
Panzershreck: 345fps
PIAT: 450fps

Don't forget that the other three were rocket based AT weapons. The unguided rockets of WWII were slow and horribly inaccurate.

The PIAT had a range of at least 350m (370m were marked on it's site/elevation guide) but it was considered only able to hit a moving vehicle at 100m (it's effective range). Which it did with consistency in trials and in combat.

The PIATs lack of backblast was a huge issue in actual combat. US soldiers considered it a death sentence to be assigned to the Bazooka.

Yes, the PIAT is as heavy as a pig at 35 to 40 pounds; but the Panzershreck weighed over 30 pounds and was called 'the stovepipe' by the Germans, because it looked like one, with a large pipe almost six feet long that spouted plumes of smoke, plus the large blast shield. Give me the smaller compact PIAT with it's extra 5 pounds!

I think the PIAT fell victim to the British/allies tendancy to exagerate the power of their adversaries weapons, while being critical of their own. One of the problems with winning the war and writing most of the history books.

After the war, the British didn't switch to the Panzershreck or the Bazooka, they kept the PIAT until 1950 when the super-Bazooka did prove to be a superior weapon.

Panzerknacker
02-22-2010, 04:58 PM
A vid of 2 vickers AA guns who had some potential for antitank usage but never performed in that way, the 75mm export and 76 QF.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkDeFcj2NBo

tankgeezer
02-22-2010, 09:26 PM
Very Nice my friend!

Saxon
02-23-2010, 03:55 PM
A vid of 2 vickers AA guns who had some potential for antitank usage but never performed in that way, the 75mm export and 76 QF.



I could be wrong, but I believe the 3 inch AA gun (or the 3.7 inch) was used in a direct fire and anti-tank role in the defense of Tobruk. But if that's correct, I think it may be the only time.

Panzerknacker
02-23-2010, 04:06 PM
It was, however I think this lighter weapons had more antitank potential due its superior rate of fire and better mobility, if we were in 1941 or 1942 a "portee" variant of the 75mm AA firing HE and AP could be a good solution against the agressive usage of the 88mm flak by the germans.

Interestingly the italians had a truck with an ansaldo 76mm AAA piece wich was used sucessfully against cruiser tanks, even firing HE only.

R Mark Davies
02-26-2010, 06:46 AM
The panzerfaust was not a rocket weapon. The projectile was propelled by a black-powder charge in the tube itself - the propellant was not carried with the projectile, as it would with a rocket. Effectively, the panzerfaust is a mortar. The Panzerfaust suffered from a much more curved trajectory than the PIAT - just look at the length of the panzerfaust's sights if you don't believe me.

As has been said above, the PIAT suffers very much from traditional Army ('ours is crap, while theirs is brilliant!') syndrome. Yes, it was (reltively) difficult to cock, but it is almost invariably forgotten that it was designed as a blowback-operated, self-cocking weapon (although that sometimes didn't work, according to one old PIAT gunner of my acquaintance).

As has been said, it had the advantages of no back-blast and a very low firing signature - Louis Hagen, in 'Arnhem Lift' describes how he repeatedly fired one from the attic of a house at SP guns passing beneath, without being detected (however, he didn't hit very much due to his lack of training!).

This also brings us to another myth - it is often said that the PIAT could not be fired at a downward angle, due to the bomb falling out. This is completely untrue - a retaining clip held the bomb in place until fired (as proved by Hagen's account above).

The warhead was sufficient to destroy even Tiger tanks and there are numerous examples of them doing so. It didn't have as much punch as a Panzerfaust, but it had more oomph than a Bazooka. In the Far East, the weapon also saw sterling service as a bunker-buster, being infinitely preferable to having to crawl up to the bunker's aperture with a grenade or satchel charge. The infrequently-encountered Japanese tanks were also easy meat for the PIAT, as demonstrated by Thapa VC at Imphal.

However, early versions of the PIAT bomb did not work well when striking a glancing blow against the target and according to my acquaintance, the bombs tailfin would come flying straight back at you when the bomb detonated (this side-effect actually killed his best friend in Normandy).

HE and smoke rounds were also supplied for the PIAT, though evidence for their use is scant.

The Historian
03-01-2010, 04:09 PM
I'd think that the higher trajectory of the PIAT and Panzerfaust would make it a better anti-tank weapon--easier to hit the engine deck or turret roof with a plunging shot than a direct-line shot with an AT rifle or rocket

The Historian
03-01-2010, 04:14 PM
the Number 74 Grenade was never used by the British army in battle, its only recorded use in combat was as a demolition device by partisans

The British Army claimed 6 German tanks in North Africa to the Sticky Bomb, and the Australians used them in New Guinea. Their real problem was the adhesive tended to lose its effect in dusty or humid conditions. They weren't officially issued to Regular Army units, but some were issued for training and a few were smuggled into combat areas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticky_bomb

Saxon
03-11-2010, 12:12 PM
The panzerfaust was not a rocket weapon. The projectile was propelled by a black-powder charge in the tube itself - the propellant was not carried with the projectile, as it would with a rocket. Effectively, the panzerfaust is a mortar. The Panzerfaust suffered from a much more curved trajectory than the PIAT - just look at the length of the panzerfaust's sights if you don't believe me.



Thank you for this correction, and the additional information. The black-powder explains the large smoke signature of the Panzerfaust.

The Panzerschreck was also very smokey, and did fire a rocket. It was dubbed the 'stove pipe' by the troops, because it looked like one even before the smoke.


Here's a gif of a PIAT I put together from a video:

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/8026/piat9.gif (http://img294.imageshack.us/i/piat9.gif/)



cheers,
Saxon

Panzerknacker
03-11-2010, 04:35 PM
The British Army claimed 6 German tanks in North Africa to the Sticky Bomb, and the Australians used them in New Guinea. Their real problem was the adhesive tended to lose its effect in dusty or humid conditions. They weren't officially issued to Regular Army units, but some were issued for training and a few were smuggled into combat areas

I read in an Australian site that it was used in the first battle of El alamein, I suppose that was the place were the 6 kills happen.



Here's a gif of a PIAT I put together from a video:



Very good one.

Panzerknacker
03-23-2010, 05:53 PM
Aditional information about the N 68 AT bomb thrower.
http://i41.tinypic.com/6fz0uh.jpg

Deaf Smith
03-23-2010, 09:22 PM
Pray tell me, if these 'glass' grenades were issued alot, surely under field conditions many of them would be broken. And carrying a willie petter glass grenade would scare me!

Deaf

Uyraell
03-23-2010, 11:42 PM
The few references I have, including Purnell's series, say that many were issued as "troop trials" weapons, but note little if any operational employment.
This would seem to align with the prevalent opinion that any operational usage was of an extremely limited and unofficial nature.
Personally, I'd regard that as the most likely, it being that even the logistics of transporting such exotic items would essentially be counterproductive in terms of the amount of trained personnel and specialised packaging it would require. The logistics factor alone would argue against any but the most clandestine usage of exotic weapons, and as such, would again align with prevalent opinion as to limited employment.

Kind Regards, Uyraell.

Tiger205
03-24-2010, 09:00 AM
Hello,
the RKKA used ampulets.

http://img0.tar.hu/tiger205/size2/73640831.jpg
http://img0.tar.hu/tiger205/size2/73640830.jpg


This is a quotation from an other forum...

"Sorry for a lot of grammar and spelling mistakes, this is an article from one of the russian sites, I just used on-line translator(don't have time at the moment to translate it more accuratley), hope it is clear enough to understand the general meaning.

Ampulomety Main > Used for setting fire facilities > Originally used for stationary fire weapons by RKKA, those weapons were so-called «ampulomets», often used for a fight against manpower, destroying or blinding the tanks, armoured cars and cars of the opponent, burning out the infantry from shelters and fixed structures.

Ampulomet consisted of barrel with ammo-store, breech-block-bolt, shooting adaptation, aiming adaptations and gun-carriage with a fork. A barrel consisted of a pipe, made from sheet of 2-мм iron. Aiming adaptations included beauty-spot and folding bar of breech-sight. A barrel was fastened with pins in the fork of gun-carriage - tripod, wooden log or frame on ski. A tin ampoule served as a shell AZH-2 or with 1 l mix up a glass ball "KC", popped the hunting blank of 12th caliber. Mass of ampulometa made 10 kg, gun-carriage are from 5 to 18 kg, aiming distance of firing is 100-120 m, maximal are 240-250 m basic and to 400 m with an additional charge, a calculation is 3 men, rapidity of fire - 6-8 shot/min.


Loading was made by two men - the first one numbered calculations, inserted from a treasury a vyshibnoy cartridge, the second one inserted in a barrel from muzzle part an ampoule. Ampulomety were very simple and cheap "flame-thrower mortars", the special ampulometnye platoons were armed with them - Training regulations of infantry 1942 mention ampulomet as a regular fire weapon of infantry. In the fight of ampulomet often served as the kernel of group of destroyers of tanks.

Use of it in a defensive operations on the whole justified itself, but the attempts of using ampulemeti in offensive resulted in the severe losses of calculations from small distance of firing. They were utillized by the assault groups in city fights - in particular, in Stalingrad. At the end of 1942 ampulomety were taken off from production and the list of officially used weapons in the Red Army.
In 45 years principle of percussion "cap ognemetaniya" will be incarnated at a new level in the soviet infantry flame-thrower of RPO Bumble-bee . Among the "ancestors" of RPO it is possible to mention the German easy non-permanent recoilless flame-thrower of "Einstossflammenwerfer 44", "Pantserfaust", but throwing out in place of grenade the stream of burning liquid on distance to 27 м.Unlike ampulomets, this flame-thrower remained experimental.
from: Corporate Ignorance - Pskov Russia"


regards:
TGR

Panzerknacker
05-12-2010, 04:19 PM
Interesting Tiger205, I ve seen footage of the ampulet repeatedly always witout knowing exactly what it was.

British used Bofors 37mm AT in the firing grounds

http://www.archivioluce.com/archivio/jsp/schede/videoPlayer.jsp?tipologia=&id=&physDoc=18379&db=cinematograficoCINEGIORNALI&findIt=false&section=/