Antitank weapons

Discussion in 'Weapons, Technology & Equipment' started by Warlord, Mar 30, 2009.

  1. Warlord

    Warlord Veteran wannabe

    After doing some interesting reading on the book "The New Breed", about USMC ops in Korea, I found many references to the 2.36 and 3.5in rocket launchers, with the bigger sibling always bagging the "Caviar Can" (T-34) on significantly fewer shots than the other. Did an inch make that much of a difference?

    Using that question as a reference, I dare to ask all you war nutties out there about the calibers and performance of the portable AT weapons used during WW2, from the Panzerfaust to the PIAT, and everything in between. Were they all battle-efective? I´ve read on another thread about the cum-ber-some-ness of the PIAT, but... ;)
     
  2. kfz

    kfz Very Senior Member

    Are you talking about M9 vs M20 Bazooka?

    Yes the wider the tube, the wider the warhead you can have. The penetration of shaped charged weapons is proportional to its width.

    Bit of an opposite to Kinetic rounds, where the smaller the warhead the higher the pressure and the greater the penetratrion.

    Of course none of this was lost on the Germans when they copied it.

    Kev
     
  3. razin

    razin Member

    The 3.5in M20 had about twice the penetrating power of a 2.35inch M1-M9 and better accuracy, but the firer still has to get within 150metres.

    2.35inch M1 penetration 120mm at 90degrees
    3.5inch M20 penetration 280mm at 90degrees

    The biggest problem against a T34 is the highly sloped hull which although is a mere 45mm at 30 degrees on the front - (the turret on the T34/85 was much better armoured but less sloped) 40mm at 45degrees on the sides, this slope tends to negate the effect of the Bazookas hollow charge as it causes problems with the fuse element. Even much later the Law 72 (a 66mm single use rocket launcher of the late 1960s) tended to loose its fuse on impact with a sloped target.
     
  4. Smudger Jnr

    Smudger Jnr Our Man in Berlin

    Warlord,

    Here is a link to Wiki about the PIAT.

    My father said that it was a real pig to reload in a prone position.

    The entry on Wiki also mentions this was sometimes a problem. Apparently the projectile, when ignited, was supposed to send back the spring, recocking it.

    It obviously did not always work.

    PIAT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Regards
    Tom
     
  5. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    hardly surprising the M20 claimed more kills.
    The M20/28 etc. are monsters compared to slimmer M1/M1A1/M9/M9A1 siblings.
    [​IMG]

    Panzerfaust
    Klein 30 - 100mm/3.9" - c.140mm @ 30 degrees
    30M - 150mm/5.9" - c.200mm
    60M - 150mm/5.9" - c.200mm
    100M - 150mm/5.9" - c.200mm
    150M - 105mm/4.1" - c.200mm

    PIAT - c.76mm(?) - c.100mm

    Interesting site: Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles - Appendix 4
     
  6. razin

    razin Member

    One reason why the M1 Bazooka (2.36in) was rated as ineffective in the inital stages of the Korean war was that the ammunition was old and time expired or badly stored rocket propelant means the projectiles flight is compromised.

    The Piat recock problem was more often as not down to the firer not holding the weapon firmly, the weapon itself moving rather than all the momentum forcing the spring back.

    Another thing about the Piat that needs explanation the projectile is fixed by a twin flange on the face of the spigot plate during loading. It does not fall out if the weapon is moved after loading -as has been said on other sites.
     
  7. Warlord

    Warlord Veteran wannabe

    Of course none of this was lost on the Germans when they copied it.

    Kev

    So Jerry wasn´t the father of the rocket-propelled AT´s? :huh:

    With the technical leadership the Nazis showed in several other fields, I always thought the Panzerfaust and family came first.

    Warlord,

    Here is a link to Wiki about the PIAT.

    My father said that it was a real pig to reload in a prone position.

    The entry on Wiki also mentions this was sometimes a problem. Apparently the projectile, when ignited, was supposed to send back the spring, recocking it.

    It obviously did not always work.

    PIAT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Regards
    Tom

    A spring? The PIAT worked on the same principle as the Spigot mortar, but with a rocket propelled charge?

    hardly surprising the M20 claimed more kills.
    The M20/28 etc. are monsters compared to slimmer M1/M1A1/M9/M9A1 siblings.
    [​IMG]

    Panzerfaust
    Klein 30 - 100mm/3.9" - c.140mm @ 30 degrees
    30M - 150mm/5.9" - c.200mm
    60M - 150mm/5.9" - c.200mm
    100M - 150mm/5.9" - c.200mm
    150M - 105mm/4.1" - c.200mm

    PIAT - c.76mm(?) - c.100mm

    Interesting site: Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles - Appendix 4

    According to this, both the bazooka and the PIAT had smaller calibers -and penetration power - than those of their Nazi counterparts, a fact that coupled with the marked difference in armor quality, kept the Tommies and GI´s at an almost perennial disadvantage. Lack of industrial vision or a typical top brass snafu?

    By the way, did other contenders use rocket propelled AT´s?
     
  8. Smudger Jnr

    Smudger Jnr Our Man in Berlin

    Warlord,

    I only know what my late father told me about this weapon (PIAT) and the Wiki page explains the workings.

    I agree that there was a small rocket propellent charge, but there was also a large spring.

    Quote from Wiki.

    The British instead turned to a prewar weapon known as the Blacker Bombard, a large mortar, known as a "spigot discharger" or spigot mortar, invented by Lieutenant Colonel Stewart Blacker, Royal Artillery. The Bombard consisted of a heavy barrel containing a large spring. The spring pushed against a 12 lb (5 kg) steel canister and rod that rode up the barrel and struck the rear of the bomb, igniting a small propulsion charge. The heavy bolt and rod, known as the spigot, was used primarily to damp out the recoil of the round leaving the barrel. The charge was also intended to reset the spring, meaning that the weapon had to be cocked only once, by pulling up on the tube while standing on a handle mounted at the rear.
    The Blacker Bombard saw limited operational use, having been known to have destroyed only one tank, at the defence of Tobruk in June 1942. It was issued to the Home Guard in large numbers. However, the design was suitable for modification as the launcher for a HEAT round. The drop in size of the warhead (an effective HEAT shell was 3 lb compared to the 20 lb HE used on the Bombard) meant that the PIAT would be much lighter and more manoeuvrable than the Bombard. A section of the barrel was cut away on the top to form a tray for the round, which could be reloaded with fresh rounds with the operator remaining prone. The charge on the shell was small enough that it caused no real smoke or backblast, a significant advantage over the bazooka. However, the heavy duty spring and spigot increased the weight, resulting in a weapon that weighed 34 lb (15 kg) unloaded. Furthermore, if the charge failed to reset the spigot, which happened often (especially when the firer could not take the recoil), the operator had to retire behind cover to re-cock the weapon. This required a 200 pound-force (900 N) pull requiring the user to stand up or lie on his back.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-Hogg_0-0>[1]</SUP>
    In general use, the PIAT had a rated range of about 100 m, but that was considered extreme, and it was typically fired at much shorter ranges.


    Regards
    Tom
     
  9. kfz

    kfz Very Senior Member

    So Jerry wasn´t the father of the rocket-propelled AT´s? :huh:

    With the technical leadership the Nazis showed in several other fields, I always thought the Panzerfaust and family came first.



    A spring? The PIAT worked on the same principle as the Spigot mortar, but with a rocket propelled charge?



    According to this, both the bazooka and the PIAT had smaller calibers -and penetration power - than those of their Nazi counterparts, a fact that coupled with the marked difference in armor quality, kept the Tommies and GI´s at an almost perennial disadvantage. Lack of industrial vision or a typical top brass snafu?

    By the way, did other contenders use rocket propelled AT´s?


    No the Bazooka was first and the Shrek was a copy (improvement some would say). Its actually quite an interesting story the iinventor (whose name escapes me) Took some convincing of the US Army. Where this silly man with a drain pipe was going to oust the almighty AT rifle. First used in Tunisia as far as know where it was till a bit bnot trusted by the troops. If I remember right it was stil lquite rare and most practicing happened on the boat to Torch, Probably not ideal. Its a great story.

    Kev
     
  10. Warlord

    Warlord Veteran wannabe

    Warlord,

    I only know what my late father told me about this weapon (PIAT) and the Wiki page explains the workings.

    I agree that there was a small rocket propellent charge, but there was also a large spring.

    Quote from Wiki.

    The British instead turned to a prewar weapon known as the Blacker Bombard, a large mortar, known as a "spigot discharger" or spigot mortar, invented by Lieutenant Colonel Stewart Blacker, Royal Artillery. The Bombard consisted of a heavy barrel containing a large spring. The spring pushed against a 12 lb (5 kg) steel canister and rod that rode up the barrel and struck the rear of the bomb, igniting a small propulsion charge. The heavy bolt and rod, known as the spigot, was used primarily to damp out the recoil of the round leaving the barrel. The charge was also intended to reset the spring, meaning that the weapon had to be cocked only once, by pulling up on the tube while standing on a handle mounted at the rear.
    The Blacker Bombard saw limited operational use, having been known to have destroyed only one tank, at the defence of Tobruk in June 1942. It was issued to the Home Guard in large numbers. However, the design was suitable for modification as the launcher for a HEAT round. The drop in size of the warhead (an effective HEAT shell was 3 lb compared to the 20 lb HE used on the Bombard) meant that the PIAT would be much lighter and more manoeuvrable than the Bombard. A section of the barrel was cut away on the top to form a tray for the round, which could be reloaded with fresh rounds with the operator remaining prone. The charge on the shell was small enough that it caused no real smoke or backblast, a significant advantage over the bazooka. However, the heavy duty spring and spigot increased the weight, resulting in a weapon that weighed 34 lb (15 kg) unloaded. Furthermore, if the charge failed to reset the spigot, which happened often (especially when the firer could not take the recoil), the operator had to retire behind cover to re-cock the weapon. This required a 200 pound-force (900 N) pull requiring the user to stand up or lie on his back.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-Hogg_0-0>[1]</SUP>
    In general use, the PIAT had a rated range of about 100 m, but that was considered extreme, and it was typically fired at much shorter ranges.

    Regards
    Tom

    So, a spring-powered weapon, much like a toy gun, to fight an enraged Panther (or Tiger), in the middle of the war where ballistic missiles and the jet fighter were born... :huh:

    No wonder Tommies "loved it".
     
  11. Smudger Jnr

    Smudger Jnr Our Man in Berlin

    Warlord,
    I remember my late father once saying that he practiced a shot against an already knocked out Panzer, not sure if a Panther or a Mk IV, but the shot bounced off without causing much damage.

    My father said he just hoped he never had to use it at close quarters in anger with a tank!

    Regards
    Tom
     
  12. Warlord

    Warlord Veteran wannabe

    No the Bazooka was first and the Shrek was a copy (improvement some would say). Its actually quite an interesting story the iinventor (whose name escapes me) Took some convincing of the US Army. Where this silly man with a drain pipe was going to oust the almighty AT rifle. First used in Tunisia as far as know where it was till a bit bnot trusted by the troops. If I remember right it was stil lquite rare and most practicing happened on the boat to Torch, Probably not ideal. Its a great story.

    Kev

    By the way, now that you mention AT rifles, I recently read the story of an engagement that took place here in my country during the 1944 coup, the so called "Revolution of October ´44", where M3 Stuart crews just laughed at .50 ammo bouncing off their front armor; what was then the likeable part of the Boys and counterparts, if they were mostly .55 caliber?
     
  13. razin

    razin Member

    Warlord
    So, a spring-powered weapon, much like a toy gun


    No the spring was there to absorb recoil, without it firing a Piat would be similar to shoulder firing a 60 to 81mm mortar.

    When a Piat was fired the Spigot threw forward hitting a charge in the staft of the projectile causing the charge to explode, at this point the projectile broke free of the the retainment by bending the flange on the base of the projectile, most of the recoil energy passing into the forward moving spigot instnatly reversing its direction and forcing reward, hopefully and more often than not overriding the trigger disconnector holding it in the cocked position.

    Because unlike its larger brothers, the 29mm Spigot mortar and the Petard mortar, the Piat was not fixed to something large like a concrete base or a Churchill tank any suplus recoil was transmited to the firer- so a poorly trained or fearful firer could well suffer, the idea like firing a SMLE is to hold it firmly.

    As I mentioned previously the Piat rould like many hollow charge weapons could if the point of impact was not square snap off the fuse element and send the round bouncing away harmlessly into space. But the same thing happend with the LAW 72 which is probably still in service somewhere.

    My father tried out the Piat during training in India, he said it had a kick but about the same as a Boys A/T. He also said that it was a shame that it did not get used by his batallion in Far East service as it might have been useful in destroying Japanese bunkers, rather than have some happless s*d deal with them by using a bangalor charge.

    Steve
     
  14. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Very Senior Member

    where M3 Stuart crews just laughed at .50 ammo bouncing off their front armor; what was then the likeable part of the Boys and counterparts, if they were mostly .55 caliber?


    Well, the Stuart had two inches (51mm) of armour, but the early-war tanks the Boys was expected to be used against, like the Italian L6/40 light, had only 6-30mm, and the M13/40 medium had only 6-42mm - or the CV33 MG carrier had 15mm!!! Even the PzII Ausf.F had only a max of 35mm of armour, and the Pz.III the same!!!

    So against THAT sort of target, the Boys was not totally outclassed. The M3 was light in weight at 12 tons...but had the armour and hitting power of an early-war "medium"...
     
  15. Warlord

    Warlord Veteran wannabe

    He also said that it was a shame that it did not get used by his batallion in Far East service as it might have been useful in destroying Japanese bunkers, rather than have some happless s*d deal with them by using a bangalor charge.

    So much for "Germany First"... :mad: Even this kind of oversized peashooter would have been better than nothing, just like your father said.

    Did the Nip have any portable AT weapons, other than a satchel charge on the back of a Kamikaze wannabe?
     
  16. Jamie Holdbridge-Stuart

    Jamie Holdbridge-Stuart Senior Member

    The poor old PIAT always gets hammered in these types of discussions. If memory serves was it not an 'umble PIAT bomb that nobbled Wittmann's Tiger in Villers Bocage and a handsome tally of Stugs at Arnhem?

    :m1:
     
  17. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    I do hope this isn't going to descend into yet another PIAT fixated thread - there's plenty of those on here already. (& I wouldn't be so sure that PIATs knobbled Wittman's Tiger Jamie ;) ).

    By the way, did other contenders use rocket propelled AT´s?
    Not much, the Soviets received a smallish shipment (c.8,500) of Bazookas (and c.1000 PIATs) but it seems likely the ammunition supply was used up very very quickly, if they were deployed at all. They had been very early researchers into man-portable rocket weapons but dropped the ball pre-war and had to restart research into RPG1&2 too late for them to see service.
    (Interesting side-note - Schurzen armour mounted around German tanks as first seen in the east is often cited as being fitted to protect against shaped charge Infantry weapons... an odd conclusion to draw in a theatre where such enemy weapons barely existed. Look to AT rifle fire for schurzen's inspiration).

    Soviet & Japanese Infantrymen were issued with a variety of 'hand-mines', along with thrown & rifle initiated AT grenades. Few of which could be considered truly worthwhile weapons by the second half of the war.
    Interesting page on Japanese gear here, (book looks intriguing) :
    Imperial Japanese Grenade Launchers
    And the usual fine contemporary coverage from Lone sentry:
    Lone Sentry: New Weapons for Jap Tank Hunters (U.S. WWII Intelligence Bulletin, March 1945)

    Anyone for a 'lunge-mine'?
    Didn't think so...
     
  18. razin

    razin Member

    von Poop
    the Soviets received a smallish shipment (c.8,500)


    A few Piats were air dropped to resistance groups, notably to the WP in Warsaw.

    With regard to the Soviets, one of the credit sequence on the World War series (Thames TV c1973) dealing with Soviet war effort shows Soviet troops in assault boats carrying Bazookas, if genuine they would be M1s. Of course it could be a re-enactment with B40s or RPG 7 without the warhead.

    I really don't want to go over the Piat thing again, but this spring thing is like a perenial weed:)

    Steve
     
  19. Warlord

    Warlord Veteran wannabe

    (Interesting side-note - Schurzen armour mounted around German tanks as first seen in the east is often cited as being fitted to protect against shaped charge Infantry weapons... an odd conclusion to draw in a theatre where such enemy weapons barely existed. Look to AT rifle fire for schurzen's inspiration).

    Soviet & Japanese Infantrymen were issued with a variety of 'hand-mines'

    Didn´t the Nazis develop a kind of "anti-mine" paint for Panzer protection in close-quarter fighting? I sort of remember a thread about it...

    And could the magnetic mines it was supposed to defeat, be the "shaped charge weapons" this note refers to?
     
  20. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    There's a problem with that theory too, as magnetic mines don't seem to have been exactly common in Soviet Arsenals either, and those supplied were not really a major panzer-threat. Zimmerit was not usually applied to Schurzen either (that I can recall :unsure: ), more for the main plate.

    Thread here:
    'zimmerit'
     

Share This Page