How to use a PIAT

let me reiterate what I stated earlier...That bloody PIAT was an abortion. You could only load it with hands and feet. The recoil was likely to fracture something. You make sure there was nothing behind you when you fired, or you may find you had no future love life. Then roll sideways as the fin is driven straight back .Its accuracy? Well there was none, for the bomb just lies in the tray loose and can take off in any direction.

Then the effect... It is designed so that the metal on the front of the bomb is formed into a solid steel as it explodes, that drives the "Bullet" through the tank and the explosive force follows through spreading the occupants around the inside like strawberry jam. The hole it makes is about three quarters of an inch in diameter and looks like someone had used an acetylene torch.

All the force of the explosives is driven forward There is sideways blast,but precious little. ifused as a mortar the bomb would land and drive the "Bullet into the ground Simple as that......Hide the bloody thing where it cannot be found.

I have fired it. and I could not load it ..It took two of us.... I have also been on my own in an outpost to stop the leading tank. Thank God they went the other way.
NOT recommended if you enjoy your sex life if you happen to have a tree sapling behind you when you fire.... Bg Grin!

 

In 1944 the British infantryman used the PIAT (Projector, Infantry, Anti-Tank) to fight tanks. In theory, this high explosive projectile could penetrate 100 millimeters of armour from 100 yards. The weapon, however, was difficult to use and unreliable. A skilled PIAT shooter could normally hit a 100 yard target in only six out of ten attempts.Of those hits, one out of every four did not detonate. To counter the PIAT, German Tanks installed light armoured skirts around their tanks, detonating the PIAT before it hit the hull or tracks of the tank. Extracted from report of 50th UK Inf Div.

 

Ths skirts around the side would work for any ww2 hollow charge or similar e.g Panzerfaust and bazooka too, not just the PIAT.

 

Then the effect... It is designed so that the metal on the front of the bomb is formed into a solid steel as it explodes, that drives the "Bullet" through the tank and the explosive force follows through spreading the occupants around the inside like strawberry jam. The hole it makes is about three quarters of an inch in diameter and looks like someone had used an acetylene torch.


So when it did work, it was an effective tank killer. Balanced by the near suicidal tendancy of the user to actually get a kill.

 

I fired something that might just have been as bad. 15 year old cadet, we had been used as enemy during a TA escape and evasion exercise on Salisbury Plain - usual TA ex -in those days fight a war on Saturday and still be home for tea on Sunday . As the ex was in progress other training was being carried out, Staff QMS Pat Cracknell ex REME armourer and now TAVR armourer- you lad how tall are you? 6 foot sir, come on then lad, shown what to do I found myself with an SLR butt tucked under my armpit with a 94 grenade (plastic chalk filled cap) standing on the road at Imber, aiming at was once a window. big bang a recoil that lifted my left leg (front) as I was forced back onto my right. The regular army had stopped using the Energa the TA were probably using up stocks. This was also a hollow charge anti tank or for buildings. The Sights if memory serves were in 25/50 and 75 yards increments. Magic days,we believed it all too!

 

Great story Diane - Thanks for sharing it. I love the way your father speaks about his war.

 

"A weapon that seems to have come into its own at Ortona was the PIAT anti-tank projector, of dubious value in its intended role, but nonetheless described by the Canadians as ‘invaluable.’ They employed them to fire into houses to silence strong points and to make entries, and for blasting rubble piles containing mines or concealed German machine guns. "

Military History

 

Another PIAT using VC winner.
Pte. Ernest Alvia Smith

 

I fired something that might just have been as bad. 15 year old cadet, we had been used as enemy during a TA escape and evasion exercise on Salisbury Plain - usual TA ex -in those days fight a war on Saturday and still be home for tea on Sunday . As the ex was in progress other training was being carried out, Staff QMS Pat Cracknell ex REME armourer and now TAVR armourer- you lad how tall are you? 6 foot sir, come on then lad, shown what to do I found myself with an SLR butt tucked under my armpit with a 94 grenade (plastic chalk filled cap) standing on the road at Imber, aiming at was once a window. big bang a recoil that lifted my left leg (front) as I was forced back onto my right. The regular army had stopped using the Energa the TA were probably using up stocks. This was also a hollow charge anti tank or for buildings. The Sights if memory serves were in 25/50 and 75 yards increments. Magic days,we believed it all too!

Fired two of those in an exercise on my Platoon Commander's course at Warminster in January 1963 (remember that winter?). First one I was first kicked for not firing since the tank was out of range; I cocked the thing up and very nearly landed the grenade on the back decks. The second one, I heard the tank coming; loaded up and hit it smartly on the turret side. Target was a modified Comet.

Incidentally, the Energa had remarkable penetration; on another range, firing at a turretless Ram, one bomb hit the inside of the turret ring on the far side of the tank, and penetrated right through about a foot of armour to come out the far side of the tank!

Chris

 

1963 - Now that was a winter:


Snow (1963) - YouTube

 

Just came on to this. I was trained as an Infantryman in 1944, at 2I, ITC Derring Lines, Brecon, Wales. I was 127 lbs in weight and 5'5 3/4 inches tall or short, some men or rather boys were either taller or shorter. For cocking the PIAT, it could be done either standing or lying down by one man, and no one found that a problem. To fire it, one would would take hold of the front of the trigger guard with one hand, then place the other hand with the thumb around with the rear of the trigger guard and place two fingers on the trigger. When ready to fire, pull the hand in the forward position as hard as you could to your body, sight, then close your hand squeezing the trigger. Properly trained it was never a problem firing even when standing, but we always fired it from the shoulder using the support of the mono-leg, doubtful if it could be held and fired accurately standing without support of the mono-leg, or frontal support. We first fired it using dummy rounds, a weighted piece of steel containing a Blast Charge, that would re-cock the PIAT. The first firing was done in the prone position, later we fired it from a trench. The target was a sack or like material about 6 foot long twisted vertically, stretched from the ground to a top bar, there were I believe 6 targets in a row. When we fired it laying down it was on a slight vertical rise covered in ice, and even trying to dig a purchase by trying to break through the ice, the ground below was frozen, however we all got on alright and fired the PIAT successfully. It could be loaded by one person.

Many illustrations show the person ready to fire having his hand around the PIAT near the shoulder pad, like a Bren, I can assure you, if using a live round he would end up in the next county, because to does have a push more of a violent long shove than a kick, you have to use the whole of your body to restrain it, hold it right tight to your shoulder and keep it there to be successful, and that's the whole of the reason using it.

We had a Tank to practice on, I was told to aim for the turret, on that exercise your mate would put the bomb in the cradle for you, and you done the same when he fired. A live bomb has a Ballast Charge for propulsion plus to re-cock the PIAT so it would be ready to use again. I aimed and fired and saw the results, when it hit there was a large black cloud of smoke and the Tank disappeared for a moment, I saw a small red dot in the centre of the smoke before it disappeared, and the Turret had a large circular light dust, just as if it had been hit with a women's powderpuff. On exercises we used the PIAT against stone built machine gun embankments, into stone house etc, a very effective weapon in hand of a well trained soldier. We were told it only made a small hole about pencil size in armour but it would flake off the steel on the inside and be very lethal. I always found it accurate when I fired it, we used it as a problem solver.

 

While realizing the flaws of the weapon and the problems that users experienced, I feel I should point out that the PIAT was a great step forward from the anti-tank weapons previously available to the infantry: the Boys rifle, the No. 68 AT grenade, and the sticky bomb. By 1942 the Boys was close to useless. I have seen 9th Australian Division reports about the No. 68 and the sticky, and while you could hurt enemy tanks with these (tracks, running gear, rear decking), you had to get VERY close indeed.

Reference has already been made to successful use of the PIAT by 1st Airborne Division. I have read accounts of similar actions by VIII Corps in Operation EPSOM. The 9th DLI of 50th Division made good use of the PIAT in its famous fight at Lingevres.

There is no doubt that the PIAT was not a popular weapon. The weight, in particular, was a major objection. Possibly for this reason, the PIAT was one of the items of equipment that troops threw away most often. The 50th Div lost a good deal of equipment in its first weeks in Normandy and there is little doubt that many of the PIATs lost were simply discarded by their users. This reckless disposal of an unpopular but important weapon could have disastrous consequences. On several occasions, 50th Div units were caught by German armor without their PIATs because of this. Essex Wood was, I believe, was one such occasion and there were others. In Lingevres, a disgusted John Mogg found that several men who were supposed to know how to use the weapon either said they did not or declined to assist.

If I had to haul a PIAT around with me I wouldn't like it one bit, and the loading procedure sounds like a contortionist's nightmare. But given my choice between no portable anti-tank defense at all and a PIAT, I would take the PIAT any day. Better that than be naked to the panzers lurking nearby. Would troops rather have had the Boys rifle back?

 

My research work confirms what has been said thus far. I've found detailed descriptions of men hating it, and others praising it.

Interestingly enough it certainly performed VERY well with 6% of armour destroyed by PIAT vs 7% by aircraft - which shows its a terribly cost effective weapon. Some units had it bought up by U/C or Jeep during an action as it was too bulky to lump around, 1 East Lancs learned this lacked flexibility... at cost in Normandy and then carted it with them everywhere. I've found many accounts of enemy vehicles being taken out by PIAT where the bazooka or Faust would have had the operators killed by return enemy fire.

I've handled PIATs and Boys and can say I'd rather have the former as it can actually tackle German armour, and that when it was used it certainly was (very arguably) superior to the Faust and bazooka for keeping those who used it alive, and for taking out German vehicles - and when occasionally used for infantry support. A true marmite weapon...

 

Great photos here of the Piat in Canadian use.

http://www.perthregiment.org/rperth16.html

 

Great pics canuck, never seen that experimental carrier with 15 PIATs in a row before - that must have been interesting.

 

I think you're spot on - you need to look at it relatively. It was an unpopular weapon, but it was better than what had gone before.

11 Canadian Infantry Brigade war diary for 31 May 1943 in England:

"A demonstration team demonstrated the effectiveness of the PIAT to various units in the Brigade. This demonstration was so successful that all ranks look forward to fighting armour with much more confidence than has been the case to date."

I once spoke to a Dunkirk veteran who had been told that the Boys .55 round would penetrate any German armour; he found out the hard way in France that it did no such thing!

I've also seen Battalion Orders and other documents emphasizing that the rumours about the performance of various weapons are to be quashed forthwith. I have seen it for the Boys Rifle, Sten Gun, 2-pounder anti-tank gun and Blacker Bombard spigot mortar - all deny whatever negative press is being passed among the ranks.

I've not seen similar cover-up excuses for the PIAT. Even the death of a young Canadian in Sussex due to the richochet of bomb parts in March 1944 is described as an "unfortunate accident". Another company witnesses their first live bombs being fired the same day and are said to be "quite impressed by its destructive power".

It was heavy and a brute to load and fire, but it gave the infantry something that they previously had not had.

- Pete

 

Holding those PIATs like a Bren as illustrated ready to fire, I would like to view the result. One has to hold it as close to one's shoulder as hard as one can, that would mean having to have the free hand on the front of the trigger guard, pulling it towards you and leaning slightly forward so as to have as much weight of your body to help restrain the thrust Holding it as a Bren would have negative force to prevent the backward thrust. (simple mechanics. 'Moments of a Force'). I am not stating it has not been fired that way, I would like to know the outcome.

Probably we were trained on the latest edition, when loading were instructed to avoid striking the front of the bomb against the top front ring of the trough as it was very touchy, one would take the bomb and before placing it in the trough feed the fin into are retainer a kind of clip so as to prevent the bomb sliding forward. You could load it yourself, but to save time during training two went into the firing pit together, one loaded, so after one fired he'd load. Like a Bren one can have a number two to change magazines, or do it yourself, as when firing on the Range.

We had one casualty, one of the boys had his face cut open from the point of his chin to his ear, at first it was though that he had released his hold after firing and the backsight sliced his face, but on closer examination it was found a piece of shrapnel a small piece of tin caused it, and it was thought it came off the tail unit. It turned out not too deep thankfully.

 

Canadian Report No 135 - page 18 para 45: 'fired three PIAT rounds which failed to explode':




http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/his/rep-rap/doc/cmhq/cmhq135.PDF

 

January 1944: Major-General Rowcroft, Director of Mechanical Engineering being shown how to use a PIAT