Battle Experience Questionnaire

Discussion in 'Weapons, Technology & Equipment' started by Paul Reed, Nov 8, 2006.

  1. Paul Reed

    Paul Reed Ubique

    Now I now where Paul got these from.

    The Calgary Highlanders



    Battle Questionnaires
    John Campbell
    (Hill 67, Op Spring
    )
    RR Bacon (Hochwald)
    William Lyster



    Hi Owen - that's not where I got them from. They came from a friend in the Canadian Military who pulled them out of the archives. I understand there are numerous examples in their archives (Terry Copp makes references to them), but I have never seen them in British archives. However, they were a British War Office form so they must have existed at some point!!
     
  2. Paul Reed

    Paul Reed Ubique

    Why is it I wonder do we read descriptions totally at odds with the men on the grounds experiences?
    Sapper

    Hi Brian - I realise you have first hand experience on the PIAT, but with respect all the reasearch I do is based on contemporary documents or first hand accounts. The above quoted accounts are all by 'men on the ground' and looking at a large number of War Diaries the PIAT was much more extensively used than we seem to realise, and I would reject your comment that the 'infantry hated it'. It seems to have been used with some effect in Normandy, and 1st AB in Arnhem implimented it extensively to even more effect. These are my deductions as an historian based on the first hand accounts and primary sources I have looked at. However, I am happy to accept that not everyone liked it, and it had major defects, several of which you outline.
     
  3. Paul Reed

    Paul Reed Ubique

    I have certainly come across that form before, but can't for the life of me remember where. I will have to re-read some of my Regimental histories because I have seen them somewhere.

    Would be interesting to see if you find any more in your own references.
     
  4. sapper

    sapper WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    I can assure you that the PIAT was detested. Though I sometimes wonder where these approval opinions originate from?

    I read you posting with respect Paul. But I would seriously ask you to reserve your opinion till such times as you have tried to load it and get in a firing position....

    I doubt that it is possible to load a PIAT without standing up and putting your feet on the base while you pull to load. Standing up in a violent action is not to be Recommended.

    So before anyone accepts the praise for the PIAT Please try to find one and load it without showing yourself to the enemy.
    Cheers Sapper
     
  5. marcus69x

    marcus69x I love WW2 meah!!!

    Couldn't you just sit on the floor with your legs streched out, feet on the base and load it that way? Still the same amount of tension on your back.

    And I still need to know how you have a 99% chance of dying by firing one...

    marcus
     
  6. sapper

    sapper WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    A Spandau burst can cut you in half. It happened to a mate of mine. Now the last thing you want to do is show yourself. Me? I could not load the PIAT on my own, let alone sit down and do it. But there, if you want to dream? Most of you could not carry the damn thing.
    Sapper
     
  7. SABOT

    SABOT Junior Member

    Many thanks for posting these. Top notch information and of extreme value.
     
  8. sapper

    sapper WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    I am even more amazed at the suggestion that a PIAT is effective up to 400 yards. Surely someone is taking the mickey? For a Piat to have any chance at all of knocking out a tank, it has to be within a very close range.

    I also think that some of the claims for the ugly ungainly weapon come out of a fairy tale book. For some of what is printed here as fact, is quite honestly farcical....The only thing that projects the PIAT forward, is the spring. 4 hundred yards With a spring....better a catapult!

    I am sorry, can any of you imagine a spring throwing a heavy projectile 4 hundred yards? You do? but so much of what I read here presented as factual, is no more than a romantic view.
    So is the firing from the hip and running with it......The Projectile is just placed in the tray...Nothing holds it there, except gravity. Tip it up a couple of degrees, and it falls out the end. may even explode at you feet. What I want to know is how anyone stands up without losing the bomb out the front. Its not fixed it is loose.

    What brings this situation to mind is an egg and spoon race with a damn great heavy ungainly weapon with the added weight of the projectile in front.,The first step you take out slides the bomb.

    Now to back up my claim, I am willing to place a decent bet with anyone that can run (properly as in action) with a PIAt loaded with a loose projectile in its tray...Anyone got money to waste? I could do with a nice lunch on the proceeds? and an even bigger bet that it cannot be fired from the hip and hit a barn door.

    Though knowing the KICK from a PIAT. I would have to have an ambulance handy to rush you off to hospital after you try firing it from the hip.
    Now you may think I am joking...Not a bit of it... I am deadly serious.I also wonder sometimes who writes some of theses facts. The same person that had the Canadians landing on sword and the British not even there.
    sapper
     
  9. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Senior Member

    I have to agree with those who say the PIAT was a piece of crap. It might fire to 100 yards and probably less if someone wanted any chance of hitting anything. Watching the bomb wobble through the air on its way to the target likely didn't inspire any confidence either.
    Given its weight and odd shape with lots of projecting bits it probably was more often dispised as a load and ditched at first chance. The US infantry frequently did the same with bazookas that weighed far less as they prefered the M9A1 rifle grenade as it was just as effective, didn't require a special launcher just the little rifle grenade attachment that fit in your pocket, and left a far smaller signature meaning less chance of retaliation.
    I would bet the Commonwealth soldier would have gladly traded the PIAT for either the bazooka or M9 in a heart beat.
    As it was it took something on the order of 100 pounds pull to actually cock a PIAT. The thing weighed like 30 + pounds (as an exercise to see what that load is like, carry a standard cinder block around for a day....they weigh about 30 lbs too) as a load not including the bombs. It kicked like a mule....I suspect the Boys was easier on the shoulder...
    Not a weapon a foot soldier could love.
     
  10. sapper

    sapper WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    Absolutely right Mr Gardener. having been saddled with the PIAT in action. I am amazed at the claims for it. IT was clumsy, heavy, and you had to get so very close to have any chance at all of hitting anything. then it would be a suicide mission. But leave that aside/
    The weapon was best left were it could not be found...And often was/

    I am deadly serious about the sizable bet about firng it from the hip, or running with it under battle conditions without the bomb falling out.

    Just trying to imagine what would happen to you should you fire it from the hip, as has been claimed. In practice it takes two of you to do the job anywhere near right.
    What I find so odd is the ideas that are spread around about what took place,,Some of them are to say the least...fanciful. But perhaps the truth is not wanted.

    Sapper
     
  11. sapper

    sapper WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    Just think about standing up firing a PIAT from the hip....What happens after firing when the 100 pound spring load recoil comes.......Any chance of getting a busted Femur mended?
    sapper
     
  12. Kyt

    Kyt Very Senior Member

    As regards the range of 300-400 yards for the PIAT, it did say if used as a morter. The arc of flight would mean that this was a possibility
     
  13. sapper

    sapper WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    A Mortar??? A spring driven bomb? 300/400 yards??? Does anyone here know anything about the projectile?
    Then let me tell you. The projectile is so designed, that when it hits a hard surface. The front casing fuses into a solid shot that penetrates steel or anything hard.

    If fired as a mortar, the only danger to the enemy is if it actually falls on his head. For on firing. if it fires at all? will fire the solid shot straight down into the ground. The fin will fly up in the air...Thats it.

    Precious little danger to anyone ...Unless it falls on your head. If you fire it from the hip with the 100 pound pressure recoil, you will probably be carried away on a stretcher. A battle casualty! If you are an American? you just won the purple heart. For stupidity.... Doubt me? Ask Ron.
    Sapper
     
  14. Michael Dorosh

    Michael Dorosh Junior Member

    Now I now where Paul got these from.

    The Calgary Highlanders


    Battle Questionnaires
    John Campbell
    (Hill 67, Op Spring
    )
    RR Bacon (Hochwald)
    William Lyster

    You are correct, Owen, thank you for properly identifying the source of this information.



    Hi Owen - that's not where I got them from. They came from a friend in the Canadian Military who pulled them out of the archives. I understand there are numerous examples in their archives (Terry Copp makes references to them), but I have never seen them in British archives. However, they were a British War Office form so they must have existed at some point!!

    Hello all; realize this is two years after the fact, but I did want to voice an opinion here.

    I am the Regimental Webmaster of The Calgary Highlanders. It appears Paul posted these questionnaires from our regimental website without crediting us for it. The information was put on the site for the edification of others, so there is no complaint about others using the information, and I am pleased that it generated discussion, but it is unfortunate that the Regiment did not receive the proper credit it was due.

    How do I know it was taken from our website? He didn't change the formatting, which is font-for-font, word-for-word identical to that used on our site. I should know; I'm the one who formatted it.

    If Paul has other examples of these questionnaires, however, I would be very interested in seeing him post some other examples, as I obviously find them fascinating reading.

    More to the point- I recently unearthed the map that Major Campbell refers to in his battle questionnaire and gives reference to in his account. I am in the process of having it scanned and hope to make it available online. Or at least, I was thinking of doing so. If people are simply going to steal our resources and not even credit us, perhaps I will wait and publish it in a book instead. The map is quite spectacular; it is a 1:25:000 scale "Defence Overprint" with all the known and suspected German positions around St. Andre-sur-Orne on it, and illustrates Major Campbell's very detailed After Action Report quite nicely.

    Paul, your friend in the Canadian military who told you he pulled these from an archives is obviously confused about where he found them. There's simply no other way it could have ended up on this forum in exactly the same format as it was placed onto our website. Either way, in future, if you are going to use our work in public, a credit would be appreciated. We certainly did not write the questionnaires, but I did format it and I did place it online for others to make use of in the manner in which you did here.
     
  15. Paul Reed

    Paul Reed Ubique

    Hello all; realize this is two years after the fact, but I did want to voice an opinion here.

    I am the Regimental Webmaster of The Calgary Highlanders. It appears Paul posted these questionnaires from our regimental website without crediting us for it. The information was put on the site for the edification of others, so there is no complaint about others using the information, and I am pleased that it generated discussion, but it is unfortunate that the Regiment did not receive the proper credit it was due.

    Michael you need to get your facts right before you start making allegations like this and using words like 'lie' (which you did when "reporting" this post).

    I did not take these from your website, and I resent your suggestion that I would do such a thing and not credit the source. In fact I have never visited the website in question.

    It is so long ago now, but according to the copies I have on my desktop these were mailed to me in Word format by a friend in Canada. I also believe that you also once sent me one of them by email! It is so long ago, but I do remember having somewhat more friendly exchanges with you than this unwarranted and ill-informed attack.

    I look forward to your apology.
     
    Drew5233 likes this.
  16. Michael Dorosh

    Michael Dorosh Junior Member

    Michael you need to get your facts right before you start making allegations like this and using words like 'lie' (which you did when "reporting" this post).

    I did not take these from your website, and I resent your suggestion that I would do such a thing and not credit the source. In fact I have never visited the website in question.

    It is so long ago now, but according to the copies I have on my desktop these were mailed to me in Word format by a friend in Canada. I also believe that you also once sent me one of them by email! It is so long ago, but I do remember having somewhat more friendly exchanges with you than this unwarranted and ill-informed attack.

    I look forward to your apology.

    Paul, whether or not you took them from the website yourself or not is irrelevant. Once it was pointed out to you from Owen what the source of the material was, it should have been acknowledged. In fact, if you look at your own post (#1) you can see in the first paragraph that reference is made to a "webmaster." The material clearly comes from a website, and not the National Archives. It's clearly a simple error and no one is accusing you of theft; I would simply appreciate it if the Regiment's generousity in sharing this material was given a glimmer of public appreciation. For you to paste the word "webmaster" into post 1, to have the website pointed out to you, and to now have the webmaster himself point out the actual source of the material, and yet still claim that the material did not originate with us, seems crass.

    Why does it matter? I've had this conversation with several of my fellow webmasters, and the general consensus is that abuses of copyright inevitably lead to restrictions on the free exchange of material to the point that material simply stops flowing at all, as it becomes no longer worth anyone's time to provide it free of charge. The abuses don't have to be deliberate - they can be well-intentioned as I'm sure yours are, hence the hasty edits of my post on sober second thought. Apologies for any harsh feelings caused by the email notice of my original draft, but I stand firm on my desire for our material to receive the proper acknowledgement. Your friend clearly took it from our website and provided it to you uncredited. Frankly, in a scholarly sense, you are not relieved of the burden of checking your own sources or being aware of where your information was obtained. I can't think of anything more important among serious historians. What if the questionnaires were simply fabrications, for example? How would you know?

    People will always abuse the generousity of others where the internet is concerned, and from running my personal website, I can't count the number of times I've seen images show up on other sites, or answered queries only to receive not a word of thanks in reply. It wears one down. We are working on a Centennial History for publication in 2010 and perhaps Major Campbell's map will find a better home there. You may have made that decision much easier, so thank you for that.
     
  17. Paul Reed

    Paul Reed Ubique

    Michael, I don't think your first two posts here do you any credit, which is a shame. Why you have chosen to take on a public brawl, rather than mail me direct I - and others here - can only wonder at.

    Once it was pointed out to you from Owen what the source of the material was, it should have been acknowledged.

    I would only repeat that you are one of the people who sent me this material, so my answer to Owen was correct and the source of what I posted was acknowledged. I had, and still do not have, any knowledge of your website.

    Paul, whether or not you took them from the website yourself or not is irrelevant.

    It is when you accuse me of stealing it from your site.

    Apologies for any harsh feelings caused by the email notice of my original draft, but I stand firm on my desire for our material to receive the proper acknowledgement.

    Absolutely... and I am happy to acknowledge the source of the material I posted was a friend in Canada and YOU. I am also happy to acknowledge that you have posted these on a website, but without any knowledge of this action on my part.

    Endex as far as I am concerned. Good first posts there, Michael. ;)
     
  18. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    Michael,
    Paul's at the forefront of insisting people cite where material came from, this old thread seems to be based on a misunderstanding where information was shared via a different source to the website it also went to. Paul is our driving force in encouraging the polite & proper use of referencing in order to improve people's access to the sometimes obscure sites stuff can come from, and increase information exchange between often isolated parts of the Internet.

    He's even in the last week or so asked for a new set of 'guidelines' to post up to discourage the random uncredited quoting that can build up in a fast-expanding forum and on the web as a whole. This seems as good a place as any to begin stating that all of us on the administration team here don't like massive quotes or intentionally unreferenced information.

    This one is a misunderstanding based on previous contacts, I'm sure of it.

    The primary thing is that we take the history forward, I hope this one can be settled over a 'handshake' as I know full well both of you chaps are interested in the serious and sensible advancement of WW2 History, Paul's record here (& on the Internet as a whole, among other places) and Michael's excellent site surely confirm this.

    Cheers,
    Adam.
     
    Paul Reed likes this.
  19. Paul Reed

    Paul Reed Ubique

    I hope this one can be settled over a 'handshake' as I know full well both of you chaps are interested in the serious and sensible advancement of WW2 History, Paul's record here (& on the Internet as a whole, among other places) and Michael's excellent site surely confirm this.

    Cheers,
    Adam.

    Absolutely... but the nearest I can get to a virtual handshake here is this one...
    :cheers:

    No hard feelings as far as I am concerned. Now let's get back to the history.
     
  20. Tom Canning

    Tom Canning WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    No matter who originated the story - it's still a good one .....the arguement for and against the PIAT is relevant and I would have to go along with Sapper as it was a heavy ungainly piece of... er... metal and had to be fired VERY close to an enemy tank to do any damage...and the fin almost always came back to the firing point -it was significant that - as I seem to recall - four at least of the V.C.'s awarded in Italy were for handling the PIAT and demolishing Tanks - certainly Smokey Smith of the Seaforth's used it to great effect on a troop of panthers on the Savio in October '44.

    Another interesting part of that analysis was the infantry trying to attract the attention of a tank crew which was always difficult in the noise around - we solved that problem - or at least a Canadian engineer did - by welding a phone to the back of our tanks and connecting it through our inter comm - worked first class and gave us a speedier resolution to many of the Infantry's problems - strangely - the recently late then Colonel Syd Thompson of the Seaforths often talked to us via this phone ....as for the Sten ...sheeesh
    Cheers
     

Share This Page