# Talk:PIAT

[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) 

The PIAT was designed in the short period around 1940-41 when the shortcomings of the anti-tank rifle were becoming apparent and before the feasibility of using a rocket-powered projectile was certain, and when the warhead size of such a weapon's projectile if one was requested was also likely to be limited by the diameter of the tube used to fire it from. The Blacker Bombard OTOH was already in use and had proven itself capable of delivering a useful warhead to a reasonable and useful distance. The War Office therefore went for a development of a weapon that would be likely to be available quickly and that would be both usable and effective for what was required of it. Not for one that might or might not be available in two years, or be usable, or be effective.
When the PIAT was being designed the UK was already at war and had just faced the losses of equipment incurred at Dunkirk. The bazooka was designed in a country still at peace and in no particular hurry.
The PIAT probably did not enter service until 1943 simply because before that the only major area of British and Commonwealth land operations was in North Africa which was primarily a desert war with little or no cover from-which to operate a close-range anti-tank weapon. In addition, the style of warfare with towed anti-tank guns such as the 2-pdr and 6-pdr present meant that a close-in weapon was unlikely to be used by infantry, except as a last resort. In those circumstances in most cases the Boys .55 still sufficed.  It was also adequate against most Japanese tanks. The British also had the No. 68 AT Grenade.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.16 (talk) 10:36, 8 September 2017 (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.

I believe the range is considered extreme because of the odds of hitting anything at 100m rather than armor penetration.  The PIAT sights were primitive, the weapon kicked very hard when fired, the round was very slow "and then you fired it and looked up and saw the bomb lolloping along dead slow and you thought, 'My God the tank'll be gone before the bomb gets there'", and it had to be lobbed to reach that sort of range. --Schwern 05:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
One suspects the reaction of the person on the receiving end was likely to be more anxiety-filled, as it was quite likely to be his last thought.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.173 (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

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 Marlon203.11.81.235 (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes, that does seem odd and probably incorrect. --Schwern 05:06, 26 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)

I don't have a ref but this was my understanding too.
There were two issues. Firstly the self-recocking only worked if the launcher was firmly supported. In a typical combat situation, the firer was in a less than ideal pose and so energy was wasted as recoil against their shoulder, rather than going into the spring.
Secondly, as was the case for most of these short-ranged AT weapons, the firer could only survive beforehand by using cover and afterwards (once their position was blown) by a rapid shoot-and-scoot. It might have been possible for a hedge or shrub to reload for a second shot, but it wouldn't be survivable if the armour had its usual supporting infantry. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
IIRC, a Fusilier Jefferson knocked out three Panzer IV's in quick succession in North Africa using a PIAT fired from the hip. I believe he received the Victoria Cross for so doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.138 (talk) 10:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Frank Jefferson. Monte Cassino though, a bit later (the PIAT didn't appear until Sicily). Andy Dingley (talk) 12:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
According to that page it was only one tank (type not specified), although he did reload.Martinlc (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2019 (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)

It does make for interesting reading. --Schwern 12:15, 10 October 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)

French troops in some sectors were running from the sound of their OWN tanks, so no, it wouldn't have helped the situation. Binksternet (talk) 04:23, 2 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) 

The picture description on the picture page identifies them as part of Canadian airborne unit which explains the helmets and patch.GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:42, 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)

I'm rewriting this at the moment in my sandbox, and Ambrose actually got it wrong - it was a halftrack. In Neilland's account of the Normandy campaign, he quotes a member of 7th Para Battalion who states that it was a halftrack that got knocked out, as the remains were still there when his battalion arrived at the bridge. Skinny87 (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Well i cant say am surprised by the fact he got it wrong. Good to see there is a realiable source to support you to, although am implore you not to use the phrase "German armed halftrack" :).--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:30, 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".

It's also a load of rot; the PIAT had varying success, true, but in my rewrite I'm finding sources that state even Panthers could be knocked out by PIATs at close range. Sandbox is here if you want to take a look, though it's still a work in progress. Skinny87 (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
50th Div knocked out a disabled Panther with a Piat on 14 June from 15 meters range - give me a shout if you need further details or source info.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

Trying to locate this now, but can't find Mann in the VC winners list, which is odd; my airborne sources aren't mentioning him either. Skinny87 (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
the text mentions a US DSC rather than a VC. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
and the Battle of Arnhem article has blank sections for the 21st to 24th. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:25, 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)

Oh, I haven't written the lead yet - I always do that last because I find them so timeconsuming. But that'll be done in the next day or so! Skinny87 (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
And the prose is probably quite rough, I'll give it a run through in the next few days as well. Skinny87 (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that the strong focus on Victoria Cross actions is appropriate. By definition, these weren't typical ways in which the weapon was used. I'd suggest that you restructure this material as a single para which identifies the actions in which a PIAT was important and leave it as that. By the way, where should I stick the material I'm digging up? - here or at your sandbox? Nick-D (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Popping it into the sandbox'll be fine, thanks. That Australian stuff you alreadu put in there is great. I'll try and restructure the VC stuff into a single para - I did wonder if it was too long, but I didn't want IPs demanding that the VCs weren't recognized. But now I know, so I'll get on it. Apart from that, how does it look? Skinny87 (talk) 07:03, 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)

I've only had a quick look at your sandbox version with the ref error check tool. It picks up a couple of occasions where the are multiple refs with same content eg Khan pp2-3.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear - sorry, never used that tool before and I'm awful with refs. What does that mean? Skinny87 (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
When you add the tool at User:Mr.Z-man/refToolbar it gives you a tool to add various cite templates and a check tool. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:39, 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)

The sandbox article looks good. One minor point, the See also section should be above the footnote one and if possible and the WW2 portal should be included.
I personnaly think the operational section could be expanded a bit with a few examples of it actually being used in combat before hte VC stuff.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
PS when it says that the PIAT was replaced by the Bazooka, do we know which one? I presume the super bazooka and if we know that is the case prehaps mention that?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:34, 26 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)

fair enough. Prehaps we should use the See Also section to link to the articles with additional information on actual battle usage?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Now that's a good idea. I'll add in Operation Perch and the Battle for Ortona, for example. Skinny87 (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Might wanna throw in Operation Epsom to, there is a note within the article that talks about the 4 Panthers being knocked out by PIAT fire in one action.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Added that in, thanks for that, and moved the Commons and WWII Portal to the bottom as it was screwing up the See Also section.Skinny87 (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
A minor note, shoudnt the red ensign be used for Canada not the maple leaf?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Erm, I've no idea. I just used the same template and changed the country names. Any ideas? Skinny87 (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I do believe that this should be the right one Flag of Canada 1921.svg for the period. If it runs past '57 i think a slash and then displaying this one Canadian Red Ensign.svg as well.
As for other users of the PIAT one would also expect to see the Free Poles (Italy and NW Europe), South Africans (the armoured div in Italy) and possibly even the French (i.e. the Commando units), Belgiums and Dutch (both had a brigade in action iirc with 21st AG) to be in there. However my own sources are somewhat limited in these areas so i cant really help source it sadly.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, yes, that's true. Well, I guess South Africa could come under Commonwealth. Otherwise, I'll keep a look-out for sources for them so I can add them in. Skinny87 (talk) 13:03, 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)


### Officially moving
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)

None here - looks excellent to me.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Right, well, Keith264 says he doesn't oppose on my talkpage, so I'll transfer it now. It can always be reverted if there are problems, though hopefully there won't be. Skinny87 (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
And it's now been added in! Skinny87 (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Looks good - I've now started on Blacker so there's one less redlink. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
A tiny problem; Operation Crusader ended during December 1941 so the sentace in the article appears somewhat incorrect, unless this is suppose to be in the aftermath of Operation Battleaxe (an operation fought in the summer)?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Oops, my bad, I've corrected it now - it was during Crusader, not afterwards. Skinny87 (talk) 08:14, 27 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)

Hi there! Thank you for the additions. As this is a WP:Good Article, all additions need citations, even ones which are mostly just basic physics, like yours. Whilst I have reverted the additions, I'm going to dig up my books on the PIAT and see if I can reference your text and place it back in. That might take a little while, however, as my books are in storage at the moment. Thanks again, however! Let me know on my talkpage if I can give you any more help. Skinny87 (talk) 09:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
That seems to me like an overly-harsh reading of the Good Article criteria, which require citations only for "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons".  The change I made seems like none of those.  Perhaps some people might find it counter-intuitive, but if they come along, it seems better to let them add a "citation needed" tag, and then worry about the issue.  In any case, this change, for me, isn't worth Wiki-lawyering about, so I leave it in your hands.  By the way, the general name for the principle is a "soft-recoil" system; there are some words about it on the recoil page. Norman Yarvin (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Thinking about this some more, the real place for an explanation like the one I wrote is on the recoil page, since it is a matter of general principles.  In that context it can be explained a lot better.  All that should be here is a brief mention that the PIAT is an example of such a system, with a link to that page. Norman Yarvin (talk) 03:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I edited the recoil page to include what I think is a decent explanation.  (Actually the entire section on recoil in mounted weapons badly needed a rewrite, which I gave it.)  Included is a mention of the PIAT as an example of a soft-recoil system; they may not have used that term at the time, but the way the weapon worked, it obviously falls into that category.  Norman Yarvin (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I looked it over - looks good! Skinny87 (talk) 08:30, 16 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.

1) The faulty fusing found during trials - was this satisfactorily solved, if so by when, and (long-shot) what did it the fail rate come down to?
2) does the 75% refer to bombs fired that hit the target and did explode, or bombs fired that did explode whether or not they hit the target?
3) Did accuracy improve, was it always about 60% at 100yds?
3a) Where the targets stationary or moving?
4) How was the accuracy at other ranges, eg 50 yd?
5) The theroretical performance was 100mm what sort of value did they achive in practice.
I think answering some of the above could be useful. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Very good questions, Graeme, and to be honest my response can be summed up as: I don't know. I got that info from French's book on the British Army, and although I don't have it with me, I'm fairly sure he got that info from original documents at The National Archives or the Imperial War Museum - most of his citations are like that. The sentence in his book certainly didn't go into any more detail, and neither did my other sources. I think I was fairly comprehensive in looking for sources on the PIAT, as there isn't much out there, especially for technical information. As such, I'm not sure what to say. It would be interesting to get those questions answered, but the only thing I could think of would be to dig up those TNA/IWM files, and that might be OR, I'm not sure. Skinny87 (talk) 09:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
A training manual or official report would be a reasonable source surely provided it was made clear. There may be other materials out there, a search of Scribd found me an interesting paper on the Shaped charge development in the UK and within it the interesting mention of a "Watts" who was involved in the PIAT development - barely a sentence and unreferenced, it reads to me that he and Jefferis both had a stab at putting Blacker's spigot system together with a HEAT bomb and then took the best of both for the final version.GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes...now why hadn't I thought about a training manual? I can't get to the TNA, but there might be an official manual floating around somewhere. Let's have a look around then, see what can be dug up. Skinny87 (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
More related to the recoil above an excerpted piece in a general article says "When the trigger action has released the spigot, a total weight of about 12 pounds travels forward for one tenth of a second before the round is fired" GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Three issues are raised in the above paragraph:
A. Penetration: Problems with its penetrative power (and says theoretical penetration of 100mm)
B. Accuracy: A skilled user could only hit a target 60% of the time at 100yds
C. Faulty Fuses: That only detonated 75% of the time
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!

1) The faulty fusing found during trials - was this satisfactorily solved, if so by when, and (long-shot) what did it the fail rate come down to?
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%.   

2) does the 75% refer to bombs fired that hit the target and did explode, or bombs fired that did explode whether or not they hit the target?
The 75% refers to bombs that hit the target, regardless of whether or not they exploded.

3) Did accuracy improve, was it always about 60% at 100yds?
3a) Where the targets stationary or moving?
4) How was the accuracy at other ranges, eg 50 yd?
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. 

5) The theroretical performance was 100mm what sort of value did they achive in practice.
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)


### 1.“a steel tube, a trigger mechanism and firing spring”,
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)

As a general rule, introductions or 'ledes' in wikipedia articles are used to outline the rest of the article; as how the weapon was operated is part of the article, this is in the lede. --Skinny87 (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I understand leads.  The article on 'ledes' says this “and summarize the most important points”. 
Is this long explantion 'important or a summary':
It consisted of a steel tube, a trigger mechanism and firing spring, and was based on the spigot mortar system; instead of using a propellant to directly fire a round, the spring was cocked and tightened. When the trigger was pulled, it released the spring which pushed the spigot forward into the rear of the bomb. This detonated the propellant in the bomb itself, which was then thrown forward off the spigot.
The explantion takes up the bulk of the first paragraph!
Even if it was important (which it's not ;-) it’s certainly not a summary. It should just say something like "the PIAT used the spigot mortar system to propell a 2 ½ lb bomb”.  Then go into the range…  --MoD Research (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


### 2.“When the trigger was pulled, it released the spring which pushed the…”
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)

If you have a suggestion for a rewritten lede then please add it here; but please read WP:LEDE before doing so. --Skinny87 (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
You're right, I will write an alternative for you to look over, and give me feedback :-). --MoD Research (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


### 3. An inexpensive barrel!
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)

That is the term that the source used, but in this case I agree - rewriting or modifying the text would be a good idea. --Skinny87 (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
There's a lot of rubbish sources out there. --MoD Research (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Barrel may be a case of writing for the general reader, not the specialist in the lede summary. The design is explained in detail further down. regarding sources Verifiability, not truth is the watchword.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


### 4. difficulty in cocking the weapon
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)

Numerous sources commented on this, as have other accounts I've come across from veterans. As such, and given that is a citable and apparently important fact, it is in the article. --Skinny87 (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I have read some complaints, but figured it was soldiers whining.  --MoD Research (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


### 5. the bruising the user received when firing it
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)

I have no idea - I believe the Bazooka article might. However, other wikipedia articles are not being discussed; and secondly, severe bruising from the weapon is commented upon in several reliable sources, thus its inclusion here. --Skinny87 (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. But please re-read the RECOIL section above, and perhaps the manuals claim below should be added as a balance to soldiers complaints.
The manual says this (pg. 6):
When fired the weapon is automatically recocked.  The working parts being forced to the rear by the spent cartridge.  A strong mainspring eases the chock of recoil on the firer’s shoulder... --MoD Research (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


### 6. and problems with its penetrative power
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)

They are cited and sourced in the rest of the article; please read WP:LEDE for why this is not done in the lede itself (short version: the lede is a small summary and not for specific details)  --Skinny87 (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, found it, it say 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.
I have a MoD document that says the penetration varied but averaged 115mm.  Perhaps I'll this info with a reference. --MoD Research (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


### 7. List of nations using PIAT
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)

Ledes in articles should act as summary of the article and in the cases of weapons, military aircraft etc normally mention major users as par tof establishing context, mention of British Commonwealth ought to be a definite inclusion but other lesser uses could probably be left to the operational history areas of the article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


### 8. the Boys anti-tank rifle and the No. 68 AT Rifle Grenade. However, neither of these were particularly effective as anti-tank weapons.
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) 

This is mentioned but I agree some more details could be included.  --Skinny87 (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


### 9. It (the Boys) was heavy, which meant that it was difficult for infantry to handle effectively
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)

Again, this is cited to a reliable source. If you have your own to add, please list it here  --Skinny87 (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Well sources often spout complete rubbish.  The weight of the Boys is not disputable. Common sense and logic dictates the weight of the Boys was not the problem; or why did they replace it with a weapon of the same weight? --MoD Research (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Weight of Boys compared to effectiveness, perhaps? So long as it does the job and is man-portable perhaps the weight is not so important.  Comparison with a towed weapon is not useful - the QF 2-pounder was replaced by a weapon twice the weight and that one by one twice the weight again.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Some AT rifles were 7 feet long and weighed over 100lbs.  Like this one used by Germany and Italy et al:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solothurn_S-18/1100  It could only penetrate 15mm at 300yds.  In comparison the Boys was light (36lbs) and effective (pen 21mm at 300yds). MoD Research (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


### 10. by 1940 it (the Boys) was only effective at short ranges, and then only against armoured cars and light tanks
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)

And again, cited to a reliable source. If you have more to add, please list it here.  --Skinny87 (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
My main concern here is the wording of the sentence. Perhaps it should be changed to "The Boys was only effective against light tanks and armoured cars at ranges of less than 500yds".  I can add the Boys manual 1942 as a source. --MoD Research (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I think in the context (anti-tank weapons) in which it appears, the comment on the Boys effectiveness would be taken as being against armoured vehicles - but a rephrasing to clarify would not hurt. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


### 11. The origins of the PIAT can be traced back as far as 1888, when an American engineer
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)

The state of other articles is not an issue here, though I agree the HC page could be improved. I think this is enough detail for the article, although if you wished to add some detail from the above I would not oppose.  --Skinny87 (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Of course other articles are not the issue.  I'm saying this article has too much info about the history of shaped charges, so I don't think adding even more is sensible.  I'm saying it should be cut back. --MoD Research (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


### 12.It was carried and used by a two-man team
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)

If you have a source, please cite it.  --Skinny87 (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I already did, in point 2 where I quoted the manual's introduction it says:
i. Mobility. It can be carried by one man.
And if you read the detailed accounts of the VC winners you cited in this article, you will find that they acted alone. --MoD Research (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Is this a case of unclear phrasing based on organization rather than operation. The PIAT was aimed and fired by one man (as was the Bren) but another aided him by carrying extra ammo and loading the bombs - that is what I would call a "two-man team". VC actions are generally out-of-the-ordinary so are probably not a good basis to describe usual practice. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Evidence from a PIAT man:
"On this occasion, i was No. 1 on the PIAT ... the PIAT bombs being carried by the No. 2."
Baverstock, Breaking the Panzers, p. 41
Hope it helps.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm completely aware that the PIAT was usually assigned to a two man team.  My concern is with the wording that makes it sound like the PIAT could only be carried and operated by a two man team.  Plenty of infantry weapons (like some mortars and HMGs) required at least two men to physically carry the weapon and it's base or tripod; this was not the case with the PIAT, but the current wording of article suggests it required two men.MoD Research (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


### 13. The PIAT launcher was a tube constructed out of thin sheets of steel, and contained the trigger mechanism and firing spring.
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)

Personal opinions cannot be used, unfortunately; however, this again is cited to a reliable source.  --Skinny87 (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Of course personal opinion cannot be used, that's why I said it was personal opinion.
The source is mistaken.  As anyone who's ever picked up a PIAT will tell you.  The fact that the PIAT weighed the same as the Boys that your other source said was "too heavy" but the PIAT is about the same weight and 2 feet shorter, should give you an idea of its construction. --MoD Research (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Interesting, the following excerpt from the Wiki article:
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've given up on wikipedia and the articles I once attempted to maintain. Inevitably they will be poked, prodded, altered and eventually become a morass of poor writing and bad sourcing. So please, feel free to make whatever changes you wish - I won't be around to protest. Skinny87 (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Thin sheets of metal is a reasonable way of describing construction - as opposed to a wire-wound built up gun barrel, machined forging or as an extrusion.GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Graeme, 'thin sheets of metal' is a reasonable description of the Bazooka and Panzerschreck, but is a misleading description of the PIAT.  If you think 'thin sheets' is reasonable for the PIAT, how would you describe the Bazooka's construction?  Anyway, my point was that the article's source that describes the construction as "thin sheets" was talking about the prototypes NOT the production PIAT, which is what this article is supposed to be about.  Therefore, the description of 'thin sheets of metal' should be taken out, or it should say the description is of the prototype construction.MoD Research (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Skinny, sorry you feel that way.  That is the nature of Wiki.  The purpose of discussions like these is to poke, prod and improve the writing and sourcing.  I'm aware that good work has often been undone, but I can assure you my intent is to correct errors and improve the quality of the sources and writing. All the best.MoD Research (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
No, "sheets of steel" is OK, but "thin sheets of metal" is firstly a subjective measure of thickness. What is "thin"? 1/4"? 1/8"?
Besides which, a PIAT just isn't made of steel that's especially thin - the weight point, as already noted, is a good one. A bazooka made of a similar gauge sheet would be too heavy to carry. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


### 14.  Saying it contained the trigger mechanism and firing spring is moot.
I think a picture or diagram would be worth a thousand words here. --MoD Research (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

A description is still good for those with vision problems, and the existing phrase is probably more a place to start with a description.GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


### 15. PIAT ammunition
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)


### Other comments
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)

Well, all of the facts in the article, which I primarily wrote, are backed up by reliable sources listed at the bottom of the article. If you'd like to try and 'improve' the article, then might I suggest writing a version of your own in a sandbox on your user page? We could then compare versions and merge them together to create n improved version. Skinny87 (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Specific replies interspersed with original comments. Skinny87 (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I added some specific reponses to comments on the issues I raised. --MoD Research (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I think you are going to have to find a better way to format discussion of these points. It's getting tricky to follow. But to echo Skinny87, the article is thoroughly referenced to verifiable sources. And it has been reviewed- hence its GA rating. Are these genuine material errors or questions over subtleties of phrasing? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Graeme,
Some of it is the way sentences are phrased, or too wordy or TMI, some are factual errors due to genuine but poor sources.  I have no doubt that info has been referenced, but some of the references are just dead wrong.  For example the "heavy Boys", the range of 750yds (now corrected), "carried and used by two men", the PIAT doesn't have a barrel, constructed from thin sheets of steel.  My info is also sourced, but at least my sources are from the MoD and War Office. --MoD Research (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
It's rather late at my end, and Graeme is right, this is getting rather hard to follow. I would suggest you copy and paste the article into a WP:Sandbox on your user page, and make the changes you think would improve the article. Then we can compare the two and see what needs to be done. Otherwise things are going to get even more complicated. I don't agree with all of your points, but I'm grateful that you've started a dialogue here instead of making a mass of changes. Hopefully we can work together to improve the article. Skinny87 (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Skinny. That's what I was hoping for too.  I'm not trying push an agenda or personal opinion.  I have done a lot of in-depth research into the PIAT, and have found that there is a ton of misinformation from poor sources.  The more solid (government) sources are usually obscured or rarely cited.  I think those sources deserve to be heard.  For example I have a Battle Experiences Survey, where Canadian officers who had been in battle, filled out surveys about weapons and training etc.  Out of 31 different infantry weapons, including the Bren, 3in Mortar, 6 Pdr, flame thrower, No.36 Grenade, Mines, 20mm gun etc. guess which weapon was rated the highest as "outstandingly effective" by Canadian officers?  Yes the PIAT! It easily beat the closest runner up: the Bren gun.  That's not the PIAT we're reading about in this article, or many other articles. With authorative sources this article can be more balanced and give a more truthful picture of the successes and limitations of the PIAT. --MoD Research (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Skinny, It would be useful if you could tell me which points you disagree with and why.  Then I can either provide convincing evidence to defend the point, write in such a way as to provide readers with both points of view, or retract the assertion.  Thanks. --MoD Research (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, RL means I can't get to this until Monday/Tuesday. And more importantly, the points, responses and counter-responses are getting confusing. If you feel like making a smaller list of the major sticking points you have with the article below, that would be fine. Or if you'd like to wait a few more days, I can make up a list to examine. Apologies, but I'm afraid having a job has to take precedence! Skinny87 (talk) 18:28, 22 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)

Contemporary.  The point is that it was a survey conducted at much the same time, whilst their experience was fresh. This is significant, and it is conveyed by contemporary in a way that is not conveyed by WWII.  Nor is contemporary credibly confusable with its possible meaning as 'modern' (i.e. contemporary to the reader). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
It follows a sentence referring to 1943 which also establishes context. It is possible that the phrase "who had recently left combat" might be interpreted as not referring to Second World War officers fresh from the front, but (eg) back from Kandahar; however that strikes me as unlikely.GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
The survey information is completely independent information, therefore it's a new paragraph, and as a new paragraph there is no 1943 context.  1943 was mentioned in the previous paragraph.  If '1943' was in the same paragraph then maybe context would be established; if 1943 was mentioned in the same sentence then there would definately be context for the word 'contemporary'.MoD Research (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Like I said before, at best 'contemporary' narrows the time period to 1943 to 1953.  If 'contemporary' means "at much the same time" or "whilst their experience was fresh" it could mean the Korean War, while 'WW2' narrows the survey to a period of 1943 to 1945.  Why is this significant? 1. The ten year period of circa 1940 to 1950 probably saw the most rapid advance in anti-tank technology in the history of the world.  Therefore, a survey where officers praising the PIAT in 1944 would be vastly different from officers praising the PIAT in 1952.  2. The reader deserves to know WHEN the survey was conducted.MoD Research (talk) 13:19, 18 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)

AIUI, no (or at least hardly ever).  The bazooka had a flatter trajectory, thus was more easily aimed at longer ranges. This led to it being used as "pocket artillery" in CQB (something that continues to this day with the LAW). This was impractical with the PIAT: the trajectory meant that it became harder to hit things (especially as the PIAT was even more sensitive to the firer's posture) and it also placed the firer closer to what was presumably dug-in infantry. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Makes sense, appreciate the response. I guess it was daunting enough to fire the thing at tanks.--172.190.132.249 (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Although on the pages on "mouse-holing" and the related "Battle of Ortona", the PIAT is said to have been used to knock holes in walls. Primal buddhist (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
There was no back-blast with the PIAT which meant it could be used indoors, for clearing buildings, etc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.9 (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2018 (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)

The convert template was set to "-1" decimal places, so it was rounding too much. I have adjusted it. (Hohum @) 20:26, 4 January 2018 (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."
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)

It doesn't, but it does make a pre-existing unreliability more obvious.
Not that I'd call this "unreliability", except in a very general, system-wide sense. My Dad's view of these things was that the accuracy was the problem, and this lack of accuracy due to the high trajectory of such a low velocity weapon made the fuzing unreliable (as an overall system) because off-axis contact would often not detonate it, then if it was off-axis the HEAT warhead wouldn't be working at its best either. The overall effect was to leave duds lying around to clear up afterwards - at which time the fuze was exquisitely sensitive. He liked them about as much as the Italian impact-fuzed 'red devil' handgrenades. Also (as British army serving in Mandatory Palestine) he saw the Haganah using them in the civil war (Palestine) period, not just in the post-independence 1948 war, as WP suggests.  Andy Dingley (talk) 09:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

"Close range", as compared to what?  A hand-placed magnetic mine? A Molotov cocktail?
The PIAT was developed at a time when there was just no other portable shaped-charge thrower, of any range. Various spigot mortar ideas were around, and the US eventually went for the bazooka (but fluffed its deployment so badly that the Germans had their copied version into useful service before the US did).
A more plausible criticism is that the PIAT should have been replaced by D-Day, in favour of a super-bazooka (The Germans had already recognised the need for a larger projectile, the US didn't get it until Korea). But it's hard to criticise the PIAT in 1943. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
The PIAT was adequate, if it had urgently needed a longer range the cartridge within the bomb would have been made more powerful, and if the bomb had had insufficient power to defeat the armour, a larger-diameter bomb, in conjunction with the more powerful cartridge, would have been designed, together with a deeper tray to accommodate the larger bomb. These changes may well have made the weapon even more unpleasant to fire but effectiveness over-rides pleasantness, especially when you have a man in a tank trying to kill you. The PIAT wasn't designed for hunting tanks, it was intended to allow infantry a means of escaping unavoidable close engagements with enemy tanks when no towed anti-tank guns such as the 6 pdr were available for support. It wasn't the infantry man's role to fight tanks except when they could not avoided.
If the war had gone on longer the PIAT would most likely have been replaced by the Burney 3.45 in which was being developed for use in Burma, although that weapon had the disadvantage of creating a considerable back-blast when fired.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.173 (talk) 15:46, 27 March 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)

I'm certain it can be trimmed down into a briefer account.GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The following weights are packed weights - i.e. they include the weight of the box and other packing material:

Bombs H.E.A.T. a crate of 9 weighs 54 lb (24 kg). 124 boxes could be carried by a 3-ton lorry.
Cartridge propellant for P.I.A.T. a box of 450 weighs 51 lb (23 kg).  131 boxes could be carried by a 3-ton lorry.
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)