Petard Mortar

Discussion in 'Weapons, Technology & Equipment' started by raider, Jan 9, 2009.

  1. raider

    raider Temporarily Suspended account.

    Hello every one , need some help please.
    I am reading a book about the normandy landings, and a referance to a Petard Morter has come up twice but i cannot find any referance to this
    any were , so would like some please , have found ref,s . to the funnies that were used is this a part of these ? .
    if any one can help please , no pic,s please as i cannot see them , just a description ,ie, size weight and how they were fired .
    my books are in braille so could be these have been missed out ,
    Thank you for any help.

    raider.......:poppy:...for our today they gave there tommorow..
     
  2. Warlord

    Warlord Veteran wannabe

    Sorry to add to the confusion here, but even though I´ve seen the Petard Funny-mounted several times, I can´t quite understand what everybody means when they talk (or write) about the gun as a "demolition charge projector" :huh:.

    What´s the difference between a demolition charge and your everyday shell in this context?
     
  3. Warlord

    Warlord Veteran wannabe

    Sorry to add to the confusion here, but even though I´ve seen the Petard Funny-mounted several times, I can´t quite understand what everybody means when they talk (or write) about the gun as a "demolition charge projector" :huh:.

    What´s the difference, in this context, between a demolition charge and your everyday shell?
     
  4. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    The Petard Mortar is most likely a reference to the weapon fitted to the Churchill AVRE, otherwise known as the 'Flying dustbin'.

    A 'Projector' is a spigot mortar, like the PIAT, Blacker Bombard, or ship-mounted 'Hedgehog'. The 'demolition charge' aspect is the projectile being a a 40 lb shaped charge rather than a conventional shell. The Spigot launching means the motive charge can be carried by the projectile, or even discarded completely in favour of a pure spring powered launch, and so larger weapons (with limited range) can be fired from much lighter mountings:


    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  5. sapper

    sapper WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    its rather like a dustbin fitted on the front of a tank. The projectile is used as a demolition weapon. The tank would lumber up to a concrete emplacement, lob the bloody great charge ..... BINGO Concrete gun placement GONE!.
    Used by the tank Corps and the AVREs.
    Perfect!
    sapper
     
  6. Warlord

    Warlord Veteran wannabe

    Didn´t the short range risk the Funnies too much to counterfire? I mean, Panzerfausts and 88´s were no small deal to expose yourself to without a bloody good reason.
     
  7. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    'Specialist' is the key word for the funnies - the AVRE is an engineer weapon for smashing up bunkers and other emplacements. Other more conventional tanks, artillery, etc., would be expected to deal with long-range threats, and hopefully infantry screening the short-range, Panzerfausts etc.

    It may look like a tank, but it's primarily a bloody great engineer charge that happens to be carried about by an armoured vehicle to ease 'placement'.
     
  8. Owen

    Owen -- --- -.. MOD

    So to reload the AVRE would have to pull back to safety, the crew get out & put a new charge in the projector, I asume.
    Isn't this hard trying to explain something without using visual aids?
     
  9. plant-pilot

    plant-pilot Senior Member

    The engineers have always had to get closer that most in order to remove obstacles, in front of even the infantry.... nothing new there. What was new with the AVRE was that they had some armour protection in order to do so. Without support and cover of infantry, armour and artillery they wouldn't have been able to get close, let alone the job done. Brave men all.
     
  10. plant-pilot

    plant-pilot Senior Member

    By the way, a Petard has always been a charge placed at the gates of a fortification in order to breech the obstacle and enter the fortification. So the 'Petard Mortar' was a modern 'stand off' equivalent of the same engineer idea.
     
  11. Drew5233

    Drew5233 #FuturePilot 1940 Obsessive

    From ATB D-Day page 195:

    A series of conversions to the Churchill transformed in into what was called the AVRE-the Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers. Each tank was provided with attachments to enable special equipment to be added on in a variety of ways like the SBG and the Bobbin. The 'Petard' was the primary weapon on all AVRE's, and was used to deal with pillboxes and enemy strong points. It had the ability to lob a 26ib expolsive charge over 200 yards from its stubby 1-inch diameter barrel, the only drawback being that it had to be reloaded from outside the turret by 'breaking' the barrel like an air rifle.

    Cheers
    Andy
     
  12. Bodston

    Bodston Little Willy

    So to reload the AVRE would have to pull back to safety, the crew get out & put a new charge in the projector, I asume.


    In practice, probably. However it was theoretically possible to reload the weapon from inside the AVRE. The projector could be swung vertically upward to open the breech and a new charge inserted from below via the hull machine gunners open hatch.
     
  13. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    It had the ability to lob a 26ib
    That's odd - as every other reliable reference I have states the Dustbin round at 40lb, wonder if they mean just the charge/warhead and are disregarding the propellant.
    Having tried to pick an inert one up at the RE museum I'd go with the heavier weight!

    Nice pic from IWM collections (with apologies to raider for visual nature) :
    [​IMG]
    "40lb bombs as used by the 29cm Petard spigot mortar on a Churchill AVRE of 79th Squadron, 5th Assault Regiment, Royal Engineers, under command of 3rd Infantry Division, 29 April 1944. "

    David Fletcher in 'The Universal tank' captions the same picture:
    "A member of a Churchill AVRE crew attaching the propulsion unit to a flying dustbin warhead"

    Projectile also visible in this frontal shot of the same vehicle:
    [​IMG]

    Fletcher also states the preferred range was was the lowest 50 yds as the weapon was not that accurate - There's also a note that it was originally intended as an air-burst mine clearance device, clearing a 28 ft wide path during trials.
     
  14. Gerard

    Gerard Seelow/Prora

    was it a successful design??
     
  15. Drew5233

    Drew5233 #FuturePilot 1940 Obsessive

    That's odd - as every other reliable reference I have states the Dustbin round at 40lb, wonder if they mean just the charge/warhead and are disregarding the propellant.

    I noticed you had quoted a heavier weight and only assume you are right ref the weight that ATB are quoting the explosive only.

    I've copied it verbat' from the book and the reason for the page no. was because of the difference in suggested weight.

    Its funny that a thread should have been started today about this....I read that piece tonight.

    Cheers
    Andy
     
  16. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    was it a successful design??
    Yes.

    There are many accounts of it's exceptional effectiveness against bunkers & fortifications.



    Just a couple of examples, can't confirm their overall veracity but they give a flavour of most reports of it's use:
    • "On June 11 the 48th RM Commando tried to take the radar post. But the attack went no where and was cancelled. The final attack came on 17 June with the help of the 22nd Dragoon, 41st RM Commando and the 26th Assault Squadron RE. With the assistance of four mine sweeping tanks and twelve AVRE's to shoot mortars into the bunkers the complex was finally taken. With eight tanks lost and 'only' twelve casualties on British side, eleven days of struggle came at last to an end. " - follow-up British
    • At Ouistreham just off the DDay beaches they were used for an hour long bombardment of the town described in Perret's Churchill book as "a terrifying rain of murderous flying dustbins, smashing buildings around their defenders with a ferocious simplicity".
    The Churchill AVRE vehicle that carried the weapon also proved a wider success - not just as a bomb-thrower but in fulfilling a variety of other exceptionally useful engineer roles. The concept and execution proved sound and was continued in the 50's by the Centurion AVRE, some of which served on into the 90's - No Petard on the Cent but a very similar concept large calibre 64pdr. The later AVRE Chieftains dispensed with a main armament altogether (though their origins were somewhat more extemporised than the preceding designs).

    Loaded Petard here:
    http://www.ilnprints.co.uk/product_info.php?products_id=2447

    There's a great picture of a hand sticking out from a Churchill's hatch demonstrating loading the Petard from inside somewhere - can't seem to find it now.
     
  17. ken griffin

    ken griffin Senior Member

    If any of you have a copy the "The story of the 79 armoured Division" which I know Paul Reed has on his bookself, then look at pages 15, 29, 31, 36, 37, 42, etc etc all the way up to 271. will explain how the Petard was used.

    Ken
     
  18. militarycross

    militarycross Very Senior Member

    Raider,
    Has your original question about the Petard in regards to the Normandy Landings been answered to your satisfaction and understanding?
    phil
     
  19. Warlord

    Warlord Veteran wannabe

    was it a successful design??

    IMO, VP´s mention of the armor casualties during the attack on the Wurtzburg site (50% of the assault force) shows that even though the Petard-equipped Funny was a marked improvement from assault pioneers on foot, the short range of the weapon exposed the coffin to much too heavy and accurate counterfire.

    However, let´s remember that during a war, if it gets the job done, it deserves to stay on the production lines, no matter how many friendly-side widows it leaves on its path. Remember the Ronson?
     
  20. sapper

    sapper WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    Was it successful? You bet it was. Where else could you get such destructive power.
    Just imagine being a German in a concrete pillbox and seeing one of those heading your way...
    sapper
     

Share This Page