Thread 64498745

>PIAT
WHAT WERE THEY THINKING??

>>64498745 (OP)
sbring :D

>>64498745 (OP)
fat fuck warhead

>>64498745 (OP)
>oi m8, we 'av ta stop jerry an 'is tanks
>'old on guv, we'z gonna take dis here spring and throw a grenade roight at 'em

>>64498745 (OP)
boioioioioing

>Propel warhead without complicating charge

So? It worked. When it worked.

>>64498745 (OP)
You can save a lot of weight on your man carried weapon if you don't have to provide explosive propellant or a way to contain that blast. That means they can carry more ammunition for a given weight. Also, no big dust cloud kicked up by firing to give away your position. Also also, you can fire it from under cover without giving the gun team shaken baby syndrome via backblast.

It's sneaky for elite commandos

The spring is the recoil spring and also drives the firing pin. It does not launch the bomb.

>>64498745 (OP)
meme on it all you want but being able to fire an anti tank weapon from inside a room is a pretty good advantage especially if it's a multi story building.

>>64498745 (OP)
>WHAT WERE THEY THINKING??
basically, the PIAT was developed independently, the designers has just been told "make our rifle grenade less useless" and then they came back with the PIAT, because it was made by the infantry branch and their main expertise were in mortars
this wasnt even their first attempt, they already had made the blacker bombard

usually this is the point where they would tell them to go back and make something that didnt suck ass, but they had no choice but to accept it
they needed to replace the boys rifle yesterday, so anything with more penetration was urgent
they could buy the bazooka, but due to the way lend-lease worked, ordering more bazookas would mean less of other things more critical
so in the end, it was decided that the PIAT would be their main squad-level weapon

>>64498745 (OP)
>WHAT WERE THEY THINKING??
-I say chap, don't you think these new rocket weapons are a bit of a faff?
-Hmm, indeed. It appears so.
-Why not propel anti-tank grenades with a tried and tested spigot mortar instead?
-Hmm, yes that would work. But hitting Jerry's Panzers would be quite the bother, don't you think ol'chap?
-That's why we'll make a mortar that's aimed and fired from the shoulder! The King's own would surely make short work of the Jerry's panzers with one of those!!
-Good lord!? Surely firing a mortar from the shoulder would result in too much recoil for any man to handle?
-Indeed it would under normal circumstances, but we have just gotten word of a new invention known as the coil spring! With one of those in the weapon the recoil will be dampened to manageable levels!
-I say, I remain skeptical. While a big coil spring may reduce recoil, a mortar bomb fired from the shoulder would still produce outright dangerous recoil.
-Yes, that is probably the case. We'll have to reduce the propellant charge of the mortar bomb significantly.
-Hmm, that would reduce the recoil issue, but it would also drastically reduce the effective range of the weapon.
-Oh, don't let that bother you old chap, surely this will be a minor issue. The King's own are no doubt brave enough to charge Jerry's tanks as the light brigade charged the Russian guns in Crimea!
-Are you sure that's a good idea?
-Good idea??? Surely you aren't questioning the bravery and loyalty of our good lads in uniform!?
-Most certainly not good sir! It's a marvelous idea indeed!

>>64498805
100m effective range for ww2 anti-tank launchers was fine.

>>64498755
That's what they called my cock in high school

Wasn't the PIAT respected amongst the Brits?

>>64498911
>OI M8
>TEA
>CURRY
>CRUMPETS
>AND GOD SAVE THE QUEEN
Why would I care about anything they respect?

>>64498911
who is going to look a gift horse in the mouth
it's free AT

>>64498911
something that has the ability to penetrate a panzer IV at 100m, even if it dropped like a rock in flight, is still better than the boys rifle which would only penetrate the side armor of the panzer IV at 10m and only if there was no schurzen
and thanks to the soviets, panzer IVs had skirts as a rule by the time operation overlord commenced

>>64498911
The PIAT (Projector, Infantry, Anti-Tank) was a complex weapon with a mixed reputation among British and Commonwealth forces during WWII, but was ultimately respected for its effectiveness in its primary role. A contemporary (1944-1945) Canadian Army survey of officers leaving combat ranked the PIAT as the number one most "outstandingly effective" infantry weapon out of 31 types, followed by the Bren gun. Analysis during the initial Normandy campaign showed that 7% of all German tanks destroyed by British forces were knocked out by PIATs, compared to 6% by rockets fired from aircraft. Its shaped-charge projectile was powerful enough to penetrate the armor of virtually all standard German tanks of the era, provided the bomb hit squarely. Unlike the American Bazooka, the PIAT could be used to fire high-explosive bombs against "soft" infantry targets and fortifications (sometimes in an indirect, mortar-like role) and could be safely fired from inside buildings (due to having no back-blast), which was crucial in urban combat. Six Victoria Crosses (the highest military decoration for gallantry) were awarded to members of the British and Commonwealth forces for actions involving the use of the PIAT. Despite its effectiveness, it was not popular due to its physical and mechanical difficulties. The PIAT used a massive internal spring to launch the projectile. To cock the weapon for the first shot required significant physical effort, often involving the soldier bracing their feet on the buttplate and pulling upward with all their strength. While the recoil was designed to re-cock it automatically, this often failed, forcing the user to repeat the strenuous process, which was nearly impossible under fire. At about 32 pounds (14.5 kg), it was heavy and cumbersome for an infantryman to carry, especially along with its ammunition. It was often carried and operated by a two-man team.

>>64498963
Holy AI slop

>>64498979
Slop?

>>64498963
Thank you for your input Grok.

>>64498963
Peak ChatGPT-brain

>>64498745 (OP)
For all everyone shits on it, it was shockingly effective. Just a technological dead end meaning that post war there wasn't any practical refinement to be had. For its time though it did what it needed to do and anyone thinks that was bad is a retard.

>>64498763
*Frow

I would have liked to see HESH warheads used in WWII.

>>64498745 (OP)
>BOINNNNNGG
>BOOM
Simple as

>>64499184
Jesus fucking Christ that's just a shoulder-fired cannon that looks like it could go into space

>>64499184
HESH is just launching silly c4 at stuff, right?

>>64498772
Bruh what is that abomination of a tank?

>>64498769
>>64498763
it's a mortar. the projectile is still propelled using an explosive charge.

what the hell?
I did not expect /k/ to actually like the PIAT

>>64498772
are you shitposting or retarded? the PIAT projectile is a mortar round, it has a hollow tube with an explosive charge in it. the only difference is that you hit it with a spring loaded pin rather than dropping it on a fixed one.

the spring is so stiff because the propellant cocks it

What would a modern PIAT look like?

>>64499596
Dutch Leopard 1 made to look like a Panther.

>>64498745 (OP)
The bongs in ww2 had a similar experience to Russia in 2022, where all their best shit was wrecked and they were left to make do with second rate shit and what they could produce in a rush. This means corners were often cut and concessions were made to get things fielded asap. The most obvious example of this is the Sten being specifically designed to be produced by any regional workshop, but the piat also stands out. They could hypothetically have downsized the naval and anti-air rockets they used, but at what risk to cost, speed of production and reliability?

>>64499695
The sting is a ghetto softlaunch mechanism, without it the user would 'knee mortar' their collarbone

>>64499811
*Spring

>>64498745 (OP)
While it was an evolutionary dead end, it had some nifty features that rocket propelled anti tank weapons didn't.
>no back blast
>ability to fire indoors
>relatively quiet compared to rockets and AT-rifles
>more penetration than a bazooka
>ghetto mortar

Probably not worth the tradeoffs such as massive recoil, poor range and accuracy but it was better than sticky bombs and Boys rifles.

>>64498745 (OP)
It was really effective and quiet, a silent RPG launcher isn't something to ignore.

Let's compare with the Bazooka

>Penetration
Equal, maybe slightly better for post

>Concealment
Piat has no backblast

>Ergonomics
Piat is fucking heavy, bazooka is much lighter

>Range
140m for bazooka, 100m for piat

>Accuracy
Piat fires in an arc, bazooka is point and shoot

In urban terrain I'd want the piat every time
Everywhere else I'd want the bazooka

>>64499922
>Penetration
>Equal, maybe slightly better for post
I think the PIAT had around 100mm Vs 76mm for the bazooka M1 this was largely due to the diameter of the round which plays a large part in HEAT round effectiveness. It's also why the super bazooka in the Korean war had a larger diameter over the original M1.

>>64499922
>>64499941
The PIAT was very quiet compared to other AT weapons and the lack of backblast let them fire them multiple times from the same position.

It wasn't great but it had it's use and served well.

>>64499941
>I think the PIAT had around 100mm Vs 76mm for the bazooka M1
it was upgraded to 96mm on the M6A1 rocket, the bazooka is just a tube to fire it

>>64498745 (OP)
>Brit*sh
>think
Anon.

I think the design process behind the PIAT was roughly the same as the thinking that was going through Brainy Smurfs mind when when he had the idea to put a bell on Azrael. It wasn't a bad idea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EA1uDPNf7U

>>64498745 (OP)
>Pre-war British antitank doctrine revolved largely around AT rifles
>The Battle of France showed them that that didn't really work any more
>FUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCK
>WE NEED A NEW, EFFECTIVE, ANTITANK WEAPON!
>WE NEED IT LAST WEEK!
>IF IT WORKS I DON'T CARE HOW RETARDED AND UGLY IT LOOKS OR HOW MUCH OF A PAIN IT IS TO ACTUALLY USE IT!
>GET IT IN PRODUCTION NOW!

>>64499922
>In urban terrain I'd want the piat every time
>Everywhere else I'd want the bazooka
Pretty much the conclusion that everybody came to at the time. By D-Day the PIAT was also equipped with HESH 'anti-structure' rounds specifically for that role, and the squaddies carrying them figured out how to guestimate high angle shots effectively enough to make it a semi-credible lightweight and short range urban mortar with those rounds.

It seems like it could also be used as a simple infantry gun or direct fire gun.
The bazooka was also useful for clearing pillboxes by dropping explosives into their openings from dozens of meters away.

it's a shame we don't have these cute little infantry guns
I know other countries had mountain guns, but I don't think anyone else did it quite like this during WW2
only 400kg, exceptionally light really

>>64499691
Stunning isn't it, warriortard?

>>64498745 (OP)
It just works

Bitching about the spring is just what every infantryman does for every weapon ever.

Better spring than winter I say!

>>64498745 (OP)
Probably "hey this thing fucking works but god damn is it heavy".

>>64499977
Those were ones with a copper cone liner and they didn't appear until late 1945 probably when copper was no longer as important for other things, before 1945 bazooka rockets and PIAT rounds used steel liners for the cone reducing their effectiveness compared to if they used the superior liner copper.

N O B A C K B L A S T
O

B
A
C
K
B
L
A
S
T

>>64498745 (OP)
"I need to fire an anti-tank warhead indoors."
It's a specialized tool for a specialized environment.

>>64500085
>Those were ones with a copper cone liner and they didn't appear until late 1945
the M6A1 was first issued alongside the M1 bazooka in mid-1943, the manual for the M1A1 bazooka already has the M6A1 rocket listed as its main round

>>64500133
Seems far less niche than infantry engaging tanks at close range OUTSIDE of an urban environment.
It's not like the alternatives had any real legs either.

>>64500125
Means you cannot cast Bakblast Clir, not sure if good.

>>64498772
lol what tank is that they tried dressing up as a panther?

>>64500603
Leo1 with some greebles taped on.

It had better penetration than the Bazooka. Only the M9 beat it.

>>64500597
I just now noticed that the white outline to the rocket launcher is shaped like a penis

>>64498745 (OP)
>WHAT WERE THEY THINKING??
Spring go boing

At the time AT weapons were very early in development, as in, early enough that anti-tank rifles were only just becoming obsolete and one of the primary means infantry had of defending themselves was taping a bunch of grenades together. The bongs had been messing with emplaced spigot mortars for some time so this was a natural development for them.

In terms of performance it was actually really good for the time. On top of what other people have covered about firing from cover, the PIAT was about as reliable as early bazookas, but critically was much MUCH faster to reload. If your first bomb failed getting another on target took seconds, ans was safer to do 'cause it didn't kick up as much of a firing signature.

>>64499695
Yes, it is a spigot mortar, which meansnrhat you don't need to design the weapon to contain a shit load of burning propellant like a mortar. Similarly, the ammunition only needs a related ively small amount of propellant in the tail tube. The PIAT could be built much lighter than a comparable recoilless rifle or mortar. Idk why you're pissing and shitting yourself, everything I said applies to a light spigot mortar.

>>64498745 (OP)
It just werks.

Also goes sproing.

I loved playing as the British in Close Combat: A Bridge Too Far and using the PIAT to ambush German tanks

That spring sound followed by an explosion was peak

>>64500040
I'm not warriortard just some Britbong tourist who likes taking a peek here every so often
From what I picked up over the years I thought the PIAT was just some crappy last ditch thing my ancestors made as a stop gap, was very difficult to operater and was a bit of a joke.

>>64498745 (OP)
The Blackard Bomber was one of those stop-gap weapons developed in the post-Dunkirk environment. And it led to the PIAT.

>>64501801
>BLACKARDraw
They were ahead of their time...

>>64501801
>Blackard Bomber
Close, Blacker Bombard.

>>64501743
We basically didn't have good squad-level anti-tank weapons until beam-riding missiles became a thing, so the PIAT was a pretty good option, really.

>>64500144
>Since copper became more available, considerable progress has been made in the development of copper liners, resulting in the adoption in April 1945 of copper cones for the 2.36-in. HEAT rocket (the Bazooka),
https://archive.org/details/DTIC_AD0221595/page/70/mode/1up?q=1945
Seriously they did not do copper cones in bazooka until 1945. Copper was saved for other uses.

>>64502516
>Seriously they did not do copper cones in bazooka until 1945.
the M6A3 achieved higher penetration through the use of a blunt nose that prevented slippage and allowed better penetration through keeping centered better
it was issued in 1943, and had already become standard issue in time for overlord, so the only time the PIAT had better penetration was for a short period of time in the closing days of north africa and midway through italy

>>64502581
That's not how HEAT warheads work, both the PIAT rounds and the Bazooka rockets had issues with "slipping" off steeper angles (both had this issue fixed with revisions) it is true that it was an issue but that has nothing to do with pure penetration numbers just how often the fuse would fail to activate.
The factors that contribute to a HEAT warheads penetration are standoff distance, liner material and the diameter.

>>64499184
I see where Batou got his weapon from.

>>64502890
The point is that the blunt nose increased the penetration from 76mm to 100mm without any other change to the warhead, which put it on par with the PIAT in 1943
The copper-lined warhead that post is talking about is a the M6A5 rocket which had 120mm of penetration and would have exceeded the PIAT by a sizeable margin

But the fact remains that at the time of operation overlord, the PIAT had no power advantage over the bazooka

>>64502912
The Japs were intimately familiar with the 106mm Recoilless rifle, so they almost certainly used that as inspo for Batou's weapon and then jazzed it up with SF gubbins
The same way the JSDF vehicles they used for Patlabor 2 are quite recognisable. The explanation for the "advanced" F16 is even quite accurate: LERXs, vector thrust nozzles, ECM antennae

>>64498745 (OP)
Men had the strength to load it back then.

>>64499922
You're ignoring that the PIAT takes great physical effort to load while the bazooka does not.

>>64500038
looks like my pp when I get out of a cold pool

>>64503441
It took moderate effort. You just couldn't be a midget.

>>64499596
>>64500603
For shame, you anons need to watch a Bridge Too Far now!

>>64503258
Are these numbers from live firings or just from testing the warheads? I recall reading that the bazooka didn't do as well in the field because the spin stabilization weakened the penetration. And if they're from live firings, how much more would the warheads penetrate without the spin?

>>64503613
>bazooka
>Spin stabilization
The what? They're drag stabilised with straight fins.
Are you thinking of the 58mm RR?

>>64503621
i think i've been had.

There were recoilless rifles similar to bazookas.
The shells rotated, but their high muzzle velocity and wide variety of ammunition would have been useful.