>PIATWHAT WERE THEY THINKING??
>>64498745sbring :D
>>64498745fat fuck warhead
>>64498745>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
>>64498745boioioioioing
>Propel warhead without complicating chargeSo? It worked. When it worked.
>>64498745You 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.
>>64498745meme 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>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 mortarsthis wasnt even their first attempt, they already had made the blacker bombardusually 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 itthey needed to replace the boys rifle yesterday, so anything with more penetration was urgentthey could buy the bazooka, but due to the way lend-lease worked, ordering more bazookas would mean less of other things more criticalso in the end, it was decided that the PIAT would be their main squad-level weapon
>>64498745>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!
>>64498805100m effective range for ww2 anti-tank launchers was fine.
>>64498755That'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 QUEENWhy would I care about anything they respect?
>>64498911who is going to look a gift horse in the mouthit's free AT
>>64498911something 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 schurzenand thanks to the soviets, panzer IVs had skirts as a rule by the time operation overlord commenced
>>64498911The 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.
>>64498963Holy AI slop
>>64498979Slop?
>>64498963Thank you for your input Grok.
>>64498963Peak ChatGPT-brain
>>64498745For 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>BOINNNNNGG>BOOMSimple as
>>64499184Jesus fucking Christ that's just a shoulder-fired cannon that looks like it could go into space
>>64499184HESH is just launching silly c4 at stuff, right?
>>64498772Bruh what is that abomination of a tank?
>>64498769>>64498763it'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
>>64498772are 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?
>>64499596Dutch Leopard 1 made to look like a Panther.
>>64498745The 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?
>>64499695The sting is a ghetto softlaunch mechanism, without it the user would 'knee mortar' their collarbone
>>64499811*Spring
>>64498745While 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 mortarProbably not worth the tradeoffs such as massive recoil, poor range and accuracy but it was better than sticky bombs and Boys rifles.
>>64498745It 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>ConcealmentPiat has no backblast>ErgonomicsPiat is fucking heavy, bazooka is much lighter>Range140m 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 timeEverywhere else I'd want the bazooka
>>64499922>Penetration>Equal, maybe slightly better for postI 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>>64499941The 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 M1it was upgraded to 96mm on the M6A1 rocket, the bazooka is just a tube to fire it
>>64498745>Brit*sh >thinkAnon.
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>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 bazookaPretty 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 gunsI know other countries had mountain guns, but I don't think anyone else did it quite like this during WW2only 400kg, exceptionally light really
>>64499691Stunning isn't it, warriortard?
>>64498745It just worksBitching about the spring is just what every infantryman does for every weapon ever.
Better spring than winter I say!
>>64498745Probably "hey this thing fucking works but god damn is it heavy".
>>64499977Those 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 TOBACKBLAST
>>64498745"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 1945the 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
>>64500133Seems 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.
>>64500125Means you cannot cast Bakblast Clir, not sure if good.
>>64498772lol what tank is that they tried dressing up as a panther?
>>64500603Leo1 with some greebles taped on.
It had better penetration than the Bazooka. Only the M9 beat it.
>>64500597I just now noticed that the white outline to the rocket launcher is shaped like a penis
>>64498745>WHAT WERE THEY THINKING??Spring go boingAt 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.
>>64499695Yes, 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.
>>64498745It 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 tanksThat spring sound followed by an explosion was peak
>>64500040I'm not warriortard just some Britbong tourist who likes taking a peek here every so oftenFrom 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.
>>64498745The Blackard Bomber was one of those stop-gap weapons developed in the post-Dunkirk environment. And it led to the PIAT.
>>64501801>BLACKARDrawThey were ahead of their time...
>>64501801>Blackard BomberClose, Blacker Bombard.
>>64501743We 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=1945Seriously 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 betterit 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
>>64502581That'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.
>>64499184I see where Batou got his weapon from.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGrZeDZBvkQ
>>64502890The 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 1943The 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 marginBut the fact remains that at the time of operation overlord, the PIAT had no power advantage over the bazooka
>>64502912The 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 gubbinsThe 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
>>64498745Men had the strength to load it back then.
>>64499922You're ignoring that the PIAT takes great physical effort to load while the bazooka does not.
>>64500038looks like my pp when I get out of a cold pool
>SPROING
>>64503441It took moderate effort. You just couldn't be a midget.
>>64499596>>64500603For shame, you anons need to watch a Bridge Too Far now!
>>64503258Are 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 stabilizationThe what? They're drag stabilised with straight fins.Are you thinking of the 58mm RR?
>>64503621i 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.
>>64503258>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 marginNo it isn't it specifically states that copper cones were adopted in 1945.What are the sources for your stuff I have at least provided documentation for the copper cores the only sources I have found for your numbers never actually give the original source and are just circular internet quoting.
>>64503882>copper cones were adopted in 1945.thats the M6A5but its irrelevant, because the earlier M6A3 already equalled the PIATs performance much earlier in mid-1943
>>64500038>The M116 is still used by the US military for ceremonial purposes as a salute gun firing blanks.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M116_howitzer
>>64503901Maybe on paper. The worrying implication is that the Brits were just better at using PIATs than US troops were at using bazookas then, because they didn't get much work done until Jerry got hold of one and improved them.
>>64501152>Yes, it is a spigot mortar, which meansnrhatit still has explosive propellant, retard. it still has a barrel, too. The barrel is just in the bomb itself. The spigot goes up the barrel, triggers the propellant charge, then the bomb pushes itself off the spigot which is blocking the tube.>you don't have to provide explosive propellantIt has explosive propellant>or a way to contain that blastIt has a way to contain the blast (the barrel in the shaft of the bomb)You're backtracking now and pretending you always understood how a spigot mortar works but you clearly thought it was a pure spring-loaded mechanism in the original post ( >>64498772 )
>>64499562Keeps the Moon Nazi's honest bro
>>64503955>because they didn't get much work done until Jerry got hold of one and improved them.the bazooka was consistently one of the hardest working weapons in the US arsenal with eisenhower calling it a war winning weaponit got work done from the moment it entered GIs hands up until the end of the war
During tests in 1944 it turns out the bazooka was unable to penetrate the side of the Panzer VI Tiger, could pen the Panther though. The larger diameter really helped the German 88mm copy of the bazooka.
>>64498772The PIAT weighed 8 pounds more than a panzershreck and 14 pounds more than a bazooka. They were not saving any weight with that design.
>>64498963George McDonald Fraser, the author of the wonderful Flashman series of military history/rogue novels also wrote the book "Quartered Safe Out Here" about his experiences as an enlisted soldier in the British Army in Burma (as the sole Scotsman in a Northumberland unit) and in that book also describes the use of the PIAT in training and in combat, pretty extensively so. Highly recommended reading. The guy is an excellent writer.
>>64499596nobody except annoying sperglords gives a fuck.
>>64499697>What would a modern PIAT look like?It would have a carbonfiber spring and a powered cocking mechanism with an electric motor and a battery, and an integrated laser range finder because of the very curved trajectory.
>>64504012Yeah I'd do a bunch of propaganda too if the Germans turned around an improvement that fast.I'm sure it was fine for yeeting some explosives at nip infantry, but it was shit at its actual job. You can tell because it was immediately replaced.
>>64498745Probably that they just needed to fire as many of these fat fucking warheads as possible and to hell with the tradeoffs.
>>64505481>You can tell because it was immediately replaced.the bazooka wasnt replaced until the introduction of the super bazooka after the warthe M1 and M9 bazooka served until the end in europe
>>64499184Huh, never realized the funny rocket nozzles were based off a real thing.
In Japan, it was featured in a cheap book about heavy weapons, so it must have caught the attention of mecha designers.
>>64498745>>PIAT>WHAT WERE THEY THINKING??It worked. Brit paras were taking out tigers with them at arhnem with hip shotshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bl6j7I8FWT4
>>64498745What was wrong with it compared to contemporary AT?It was cheap as fuck and gave infantry AT capabilities against the vast majority of kraut armor they would face, that sounds good to me, so what the fuck are you thinking?
>>64507883>What was wrong with it compared to contemporary AT?heavy, fragile, extremely pronounced bullet drop, and chunky recoil>that sounds good to meit is better than using the boys anti-tank rifle, but thats hardly anything to be proud of
>>64507888The FN MAG is a heavy bitch but it has been a glorious piece of equipment for 70 years nowThe rest is a valid critique, fragility being the main one, but it was effective AT that the troops got on fine with and let infantry take out the vast majority of armor they faced (besides reliability) everything else is a luxury
>>64507906>but it was effective AT that the troops got on fine with and let infantry take out the vast majority of armor they facedthat puts in the realm of better than nothing, or in this case better than almost nothing, but its still a weapon that only really exists because the guy they trusted to produce an anti-tank weapon was obsessed with spigot mortars
>>64507909Yeah and as other anons have said it was a dead end evolutionary track, but at the time, compared to contemporaries it really wasn't that had, it certainly doesn't deserve a reputation of being a piece of shitIt's not just better than nothing, it just had no future
I really feel like this thread didn't turn out how the OP was hoping and he's seething mad about it. Instead of everyone shitting on the bongs like he hoped, the old boingboi seems to have been taken to heart by /k/.
>>64507932/k/ is more matured and nuanced nowadays and able to accept a position of "yeah it wasn't perfect but it was good enough at the time"let's hope it stays here unlike the wehraboo / shermaboo pendulum, forever swinging back and forth>somewhere in the future, /k/ glazes the shit out of the Boulton-Paul Defiant and the Blacker Bombard
>>64507932Probably because the Bong arsenal from WW2 is full of whacky shit that somehow managed to be surprisingly effective and the PIAT is almost like a poster child for if its stupid but it works then is it really stupid?
>>64501149>but critically was much MUCH faster to reload.Assuming of course that the spring had automatically recocked itself like it was supposed to. If that didn't work... well, better hope you've got some good arms on you.
>>64508281>If that didn't workand how often did it fail to work?>well, better hope you've got some good arms on youjust duck behind cover and cock the damn thing the same way you did before the fur began to fly, it's not actually that difficultthese are flaws sure but they're overblownnobody bitches as much about having to connect wires on every fucking shot you take on the M1 bazooka
>>64508369Personally I think anon is just repeatedly outing himself as a manlet who doesn't even lift
>>64498745Indigenous British stuff sucks ass. The Spirfire example was the only good plane Supermarine ever made because it was a copy of the He 70. Same can be said about the Bren, Sten etc. Even the only good thing about the Lancaster was copied from German airships. Even the Sea Fury/Tempest II was a copy of the Fw 190, although no flak to Camm (PBUH)
