PIATs in Burma Campaign

Discussion in 'Burma & India' started by Skoyen89, Jan 3, 2018.

  1. Skoyen89

    Skoyen89 Senior Member

    I am just reading about the clearing of the Kohima Ridge (DIS, Jail Hill etc) in May 1944. Enormous problems were encountered here (as elsewhere) in clearing Japanese bunkers but there is no mention of the use of PIATs or flame-throwers. Both of these were available in Europe for the D-Day landings at this time. Were they used and if not why not?
     
  2. Owen

    Owen -- --- -.. MOD

    This on wiki, they had them in Burma in June 44.
    PIAT - Wikipedia
    • On 12 June 1944 Rifleman Ganju Lama of the 7th Gurkha Rifles used a PIAT to knock out two Japanese tanks attacking his unit at Ningthoukhong, Manipur, India (given as Burma in the official citation). Despite sustaining injuries, Ganju Lama approached within thirty yards of the enemy tanks, and having knocked them out moved on to attack the crews as they tried to escape.[34] When asked by his Army Commander, William Slim, why he went so close, he replied he was not certain of hitting with a PIAT beyond thirty yards.[35]

    Ganju Lama - Wikipedia
     
  3. bamboo43

    bamboo43 Very Senior Member

    Both weapons were part of the Chindit armoury during the second operation in March-July 1944, so they were definitely in theatre.
     
  4. Skoyen89

    Skoyen89 Senior Member

    Thanks. I should have recalled the VC to Ganju Kama in Ningthoukhong. So why weren't they used against bunkers as I understand the warhead would be effective? Was it a lack of imagination as they were anti_tank weapons or that they were there but scarce?
     
  5. Tricky Dicky

    Tricky Dicky Don'tre member

    UK, Victoria Cross Medals, 1857-2007
    Name: Lama Ganju
    Birth Date: 22 Jul 1924
    Birth Place: Sangmo, Busty, Sikkim, India
    Death Date: 1 Jul 2000
    Death Place: Sangmo, Skkim
    40104_258646-n1273.jpg

    TD
     
    Chris C likes this.
  6. sol

    sol Very Senior Member

    On the evening of 26th May a very different tack has been tried by the 4/1st Gurkha Rifles, commanded by Lt.-Colonel Derek Horsford, that successfully infitrated onto Gun Spur (commanding the reverse slopes of Church Hill and Hunter's Hill), after patrols found gaps in the enemy defences. Two positions were occupied without incident, but a third was eventually only captured after pole charges, flamethrowers and most importantly Lee-Grant tanks were used to destroy bunkers at point-blank range.

    "The Jungle, Japanese and the British Commonwealth Armies at War, 1941-45" by Tim Moreman

    The Queens especially, who had just moved forward, had a miserable time of it; and movement was more difficult than ever. However, soon after dawn, the Gurkhas and the company of Royal Scots detailed to clear the remaining bunkers on G.P.T. Ridge began preparations for the attack. A bazooka barrage went down on the Gurkhas' objective, from forty yards range, but had little apparent effect. P.I.A.T.s (a form of spring mortar) were tried, grenades and concentrated machine-gun fire, after which the 2-inch mortars put down a smoke screen and, under cover of this, Captain R. F. Gibson-Smith, his company officer, 2nd-Lieutenant Rae, a havildar and eight sepoys charged the first bunker.

    "The Battle of Kohima" by Arthur Swinson

    At least some units of 2th Infantry Division like 2nd DLI received P.I.A.T.s before they went to Kohima. But I doubt they have much effect against very strongly fortified positions. By 1944 almost all infantry units were equipped with P.I.A.Ts but I don't know if at that time flamethrowers were available on the battalion level or just lent to them for particular operations.
     
    Owen, bamboo43 and Tricky Dicky like this.
  7. Tricky Dicky

    Tricky Dicky Don'tre member

    "The large (3.25″, 83mm) projectile was able to defeat almost any tank that would be developed during the war, as it could burn through 3-4 inches of hardened armor. However, it had a terrifyingly short effective range – 110 yards on paper and more like 50 yards in practice."


    "The PIAT made use of a "hollow charge" projectile which was launched from a spring-loaded, tube-shaped launcher and became a proven commodity against all known enemy armor types of the day"

    I guess it couldnt burn through earth/tree trunks etc - ie it wasnt designed, or at least the charge wasnt designed to take out earth fortifications it was designed to have an affect on armour plating

    TD

    added:
    PIAT - Wikipedia
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2018
  8. Skoyen89

    Skoyen89 Senior Member

    Thanks Sol. Reading 'Fighting Through to Kohima' by Michael Lowry about the Queens in 33rd Brigade on Jail Hill etc. I guess the appertures in the bunkers would have been very small and one would have had to have been close and in front to have got a projectile through them. I would have thought one would have seen more mention of them in War Diaries rather than just grenades and pole charges.
     
  9. sol

    sol Very Senior Member

    Here and there you can find a mention of P.I.A.T.s. For example Lt. David Fountaine Little from 2/5th Royal Gurkha Rifles was awarded with MC for the action in which he used P.I.A.T. From Grant's "Burma - Turning Point"

    They were just in time. Shortly after 5am on the 12th the Japanese began a concentrated artillery and mortar bombardment. All their weapons that could be brought to bear were used including many 105mm guns and one or two 150mm. Tanks hidden in the cover some two to three hundred yards south of the stream joined in the chorus. One of the two British anti-tank guns was knocked out by a direct hit. Directly the barrage stopped the Japanese assault began. It was supported by one light and four medium tanks firing at point-blank range. The attack fell on the junction of 'B' and 'D' Companies and the inner platoon of each company was overrun and driven back some two hundred yards. However, the surviving anti-tank gun team now proved its worth by shooting the barrel off the gun of the leading tank and setting the second one of fire. The other three tanks got themselves bogged trying to take a different line. However they continue to fire and cause casualties. One tank was isolated from the others and Captain Little stalked it with a PIAT and silenced it. Later it came to life and Lieutenant Robertson, who commanded the anti-tank gun detachment, repeated the performance, finally silencing it.

    You can find his recommendation in other thread on the forum:

    Capt d f little m.c

    In "Quartered Safe Out Here", George MacDonald Fraser also mention P.I.A.T.

    ... I went off to renew acquaintance with projector, infantry, anti-tank, commonly called the Piat. It was the British counterpart of the American bazooka, and might have been designed by Heat Robinson after a drunken dinner of lobster au gratin. It's easy to describe, and I may have forgotten some of its finer points, such as its exact measurements, but I'll do my best.

    From memory, then, it consisted of about four feet of six-inch steel pipe, one end of which was partly cut out to leave a semi-cylindrical cradle about a foot long, in which you laid the bomb. At the other end of the pipe was a thick butt pad which fitted into your shoulder when you lay on the ground in a firing position, the body of the pipe being supported on a single expanding leg. The bomb, a sinister black object fifteen or so inches overall, had a circular tail fin containing a propellant cartridge, a bulging black body packed with high explosive, and a long spiked nose with a tiny cap which, when removed, revealed a gleaming detonator.

    Within the body of the pipe was gigantic spring which had to be cocked after each shot:you lay on your back and dragged the Piat on top of you, braced your feet against the projecting edges of the butt pad, and heaved like hell at something or other which I've forgotten. After immense creaking the spring clicked into place, and you crawled out from under, gamely ignoring your hernia, laid an uncapped bomb gently in the front cradle, resumed lying firing position, aligned the barleycorn sight with gleaming nose of the bomb, pressed a massive metal trigger beneath the pipe, thus releasing the coiled spring which drove a long steel plunger up the tail fin of the bomb, detonating the propellant cartridge, you and the Piat went ploughing backwards with recoil, and the bomb went soaring away - about a hundred yards, I think, but it may have been farther. The whole contraption weighed about a ton, and a bombs came in cases of three; if you were Goliath you might have carried the Piat and two cases.

    My guess is that terrain and lot of foliage make their use in Burma quite difficult and restricted. Japanese bunkers where usually very hard to notice and very strongly built. I remember reading about cases when solders noticed bunkers only when they are on top of them or at point blank ranges. But when there were tanks or other sorts of vehicles involved, like on the Bishenpur road during the Battle for Imphal they where used as already mentioned previously.
     
    J1M, canuck, RosyRedd and 2 others like this.
  10. idler

    idler GeneralList

    Later on, use was made of the American M9A1 antitank rifle grenade which was obviously a lot more portable than the PIAT or 2" mortar.
     
  11. canuck

    canuck Closed Account

    Surprisingly, Canadian officers who completed the lengthy Battle Experience Questionnaires in NW Europe almost unanimously rated the Piat as very effective. But, as Dicky noted, the terrain and fighting conditions were much different and may have negated the effectiveness seen on on hard targets in a more urban battlefield.

    "Sometimes the PIAT is used as a mortar, by holding it at a very high angle. The blast and morale effect on the enemy is great, and it is particularly useful for firing over buildings, in street fighting....is also good for use in dead ground. it has been successfully used on snipers, by firing through walls and roofs. Any improvement on this weapon would only increase its usefulness, such as greater range and lighter weapon."
    Battle Experience Questionnaire
     
  12. bamboo43

    bamboo43 Very Senior Member

    On Chindit 1, the Piat was used most effectively against Japanese river traffic. As sol says, not so useful in jungle terrain where your target is obscured.
     
  13. sol

    sol Very Senior Member

    Before his VC, Ganju Lama was awarded the Military Medal for action on the Tiddim Road

    On 17 May 44 two Coys moved forward to Mile 33 on the Imphal - Tiddim Road to secure a road block position in that area. B Coy was operating on the East of the main road and located an enemy position with many bunkers. The leading platoon attacked and cleared the outlying bunker area and on reaching the nala came under heavy machine gun fire from 3 enemy tanks which were harboured there. Rfn Ganju Lama was No 1 of the P.I.A.T. attached to the forward platoon and on seeing their difficulty immediately stalked forward and secured a position for his weapon, although by this time the enemy tanks had opened fire at 60 yards range and with his second bomb scored a direct hit on a tank which was later seen to be on fire. The platoon was later recalled on orders from the Coy comdr and Ganju Lama remained to cover their withdrawal. Throughout this action this Rifleman displayed remarkable resource, coolness and entire disregard for his personal safety, setting a high example to all in his vicinity.
     
  14. Shiny 9th

    Shiny 9th Member

    I know that flamethrowers were taken to The Arakan in Burma in the spring of 1944. Cyril Grimes mentions using one on 29th March in his diary, (see below) near the entrance to the Tunnel that the 9th Royal Sussex helped to take a few days earlier. He had spent some days learning how to operate this weapon in India and regarded them as a pretty fearsome weapon.
     
  15. Skoyen89

    Skoyen89 Senior Member

    So plenty of evidence that they existed in theatre - less evidence on why they were both not used more often against bunkers etc. Thanks for all the inputs.
     
  16. Tricky Dicky

    Tricky Dicky Don'tre member

    To be honest I would guess they were ineffective against bunkers because the ammunition (basically armour piercing) was not designed for use against earthworks or tree trunks only against armour - which is why they seem to have been excellent againt tanks.
    Change the ammo for high explosive impact and you may have had a different scenario

    TD
     
  17. Aeronut

    Aeronut Junior Member

    I've read an Operation Research report on the 77 Infantry Brigade Henu roadblock operation and the use of both the PIAT and flamethrowers are mentioned.
    The PIAT was considered to be 'useful and effective' against Japanese transports whilst the 'Lifebouy flamethrower' was effective but mechanically unreliable.
     
  18. sol

    sol Very Senior Member

    Well mention of P.I.A.T.s, with notable exception of Ganju Lama's action, was quite scarce. I found this in the "Sepoys against the Rising Sun" by Kaushik Roy:

    The PIAT, with effective range of 150 yards, proved effective in Sicily, especially against the pillboxes and the German Mark III tanks and the captured French R-35 tanks which were used by the Wehrmacht. India Command rightly assumed that the Japanese had no heaver tanks than those models. So, PIAT would prove effective against the Nipponese 'tin cans'. Sometimes, the PIAT projectile failed to detonate when used against the bunkers. For this, experimentation with graze fuze was conducted, but it was accepted in December 1943 that it would take some time to supply the frontline units with these new fuses.

    If I find anything else I'll post it here.
     
    Skoyen89 and Tricky Dicky like this.
  19. RosyRedd

    RosyRedd Senior Member

    Not sure if this is of any interest but have just come across this whilst reading about REME providing support for the chindit operations in 1943-44. The time frame is post-March 1944:

    "The columns forcing their way through the jungle could have only armourers with them so the main REME support had to be provided from the airbases...As the columns established their strongholds, which included an airstrip, the demand for heavy weapons grew and eventually the ready-use stock contained such diverse items as assault boats, British and American small arms and mortars of every kind, flamethrowers, PIATs and bazookas, 25-pounder field guns, 20-millimetre and 40-millimetre AA guns, anti-tank guns, and wireless sets and charging engines in great numbers. Wireless batteries by the hundred were kept on charge ready for supply drop. Many of these equipments, particularly those from the USA, were new to the troops and were without any explanatory literature. Our artificers, having discovered how the equipment worked, had to initiate gunners and infantry in its basic operation; they were soon skilled at this but it all took time. Every opportunity was taken to obtain from returning columns, and from wounded and stronghold personnel, information about equipment performance and serviceability. Operational Research type reports were sent back to GHQ and to the War Office."

    Forgot to add source:

    Craftsmen of the Army (page 272)
     
    Skoyen89 and Tricky Dicky like this.
  20. sol

    sol Very Senior Member

    From new Osprey book about P.I.A.T. It was tested by US Army for use against Japanese field fortifications and bunkers

    The US Infantry Board at Fort Benning, Georgia, carried out testing against a recreated Japanese bunker using earth and hard and soft woods. The report from October 1943 noted that while the PIAT had accuracy comparable to that of the M9A1 rifle grenade, its penetration was superior when fired against solid targets. The PIAT was, however, found to be unsuited to jungle work as it had to be fired from the prone position and so might not clear ground vegetation. The report also suggested that almost 100 per cent of the rounds fired failed to detonate when striking soft earth. It is worth noting that the report was written before the improved No. 426 graze fuze was introduced. The Infantry Board’s report concluded that the PIAT was ‘not a suitable jungle warfare weapon’

    Australians also conducted their own testing for same purpose

    By December, Australian Army troops at the New Guinea Force training school had tested the PIAT against a replica Japanese earthwork bunker. It was found that ‘the PITA is NOT a suitable weapon’ for use against Japanese field defences because it had to strike the target cleanly and the target also had to have a sufficiently hard surface to detonate the bomb ... Results found that the majority of the bombs fired against the bunker failed to detonate or ricocheted, with only a handful of successful detonations which created 2in-diameter holes, but the blast effect inside the bunker was minimal.
     
    PackRat likes this.

Share This Page