Talk:PIAT

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Penetration and distance 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, that does seem odd and probably incorrect. --Schwern 05:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recocking 

message: 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)
replies: text: It does make for interesting reading. --Schwern 12:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combat Use 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: pre war history

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wrong Picture? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  service use - who got what 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pegasus Bridge 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  effectivness statement 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: the text mentions a US DSC rather than a VC. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: and the Battle of Arnhem article has blank sections for the 21st to 24th. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  L/Cpl Mann 

message: 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)
replies: text: None here - looks excellent to me.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: And it's now been added in! Skinny87 (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good - I've now started on Blacker so there's one less redlink. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Oops, my bad, I've corrected it now - it was during Crusader, not afterwards. Skinny87 (talk) 08:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Officially moving

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Hey, I looked it over - looks good! Skinny87 (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recoil 

message: Currently the article has this 
"There were also problems with its penetrative power; although the PIAT was theoretically able to penetrate approximately  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 , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Performance 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: 2.''“When the trigger was pulled, it released the spring which pushed the…”''

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: There's a lot of rubbish sources out there. --MoD Research (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: 3. ''An inexpensive barrel''!

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I have read some complaints, but figured it was soldiers whining.  --MoD Research (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 4. ''difficulty in cocking the weapon''

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: 7. List of nations using PIAT

message: 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)
replies: text: This is mentioned but I agree some more details could be included.  --Skinny87 (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 8. ''the Boys anti-tank rifle and the No. 68 AT Rifle Grenade. However, neither of these were particularly effective as anti-tank weapons.''

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:   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)
thread_title: 9. ''It (the Boys) was heavy, which meant that it was difficult for infantry to handle effectively''

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: 11. ''The origins of the PIAT can be traced back as far as 1888, when an American engineer'' 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: 15. PIAT ammunition

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Contemporary or WW2? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Israeli naming of home-produced PIATs? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Combat use limited to AT work? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Conversion of 115 yards to 110 metres is incorrect.  

message: 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)
thread_title:  First use 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm certain it can be trimmed down into a briefer account.GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  More detailed description of the PIATs firing cycle 

message: 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 . 124 boxes could be carried by a 3-ton lorry.
* Cartridge propellant for P.I.A.T. a box of 450 weighs .  131 boxes could be carried by a 3-ton lorry.
Source:  -- Toddy1 (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The weight of the bomb should not be described as the cartridge