Thanks, Dani!
Sorry I had almost a year work related internet abstinence.
Jan
Nº 74 grenade.
The Nº 74 Grenade (Sticky Bomb) was designed as an anti-tank grenade and was disliked by everybody who ever came across it.
The grenade consisted of a glass ball on the end of a bakelite (plastic) handle. Inside the glass ball was an explosive filling whilst on the outside was a very sticky adhesive covering. Until used, this adhesive covering was encased in a metal outer casing.
Due to the use of glass in this grenade, they were fragile and travelled badly. Quite often the glass would crack in transit, causing the explosive to start leaking out. This explosive which leaked out was not very sensitive to friction but was very sensitive to impact and detonation could occur if the exposed explosive received a blow due to careless handling.
To use the grenade, you remove the case release pin (not the pin marked ‘DANGER’). This allows the metal protective casing to fall free, exposing the adhesive coating. You then grip the handle and safety lever and remove the safety pin (marked ‘DANGER’). The grenade is now ready to either throw or attach to the target.
This is where the sticky bomb is most dangerous! Whilst attempting to throw it, the grenade could stick to the wearers’ clothing!
[ul]
[li]If the thrower has not let go of the safety lever, he has to try and remove the item of clothing without letting go of the lever.
[/li][li]If the thrower has let go of the lever, he has 5 second to remove the item of clothing and get a safe distance away from the bomb.[/ul]When this happened, it tended to end up stuck to the throwers’ trousers - with the uniform which was worn at the time, to remove his trousers (which were held up by braces) the thrower would have to remove any equipment (belt, ammunition pouches, etc.) followed by his Battle Dress blouse (jacket). He would then have to try and take his trousers off over his boots - all in less than 5 seconds! You may ask why the thrower could not just pull the grenade off of his clothing. They could try this but the adhesive coating was designed to allow the grenade, which weighed 2¼ lbs (1 Kg), to stick to the side of a tank. Extract from training manual:
[/li]
This grenade has been introduced for use against light A.F.Vs. It is designed to stick to a suitable target, thus ensuring that the high explosive has its maximum effect. The grenade will NOT stick should the surface be wet or muddy.
The grenade is suitable for use at road blocks, positions of ambush, or for dropping from upstairs windows on to tanks.
Although the effect of the explosion is localised, the thrower must take cover owing to the blast.
For night raids on tank parts, the grenade is an ideal weapon. It can be regarded as a portable demolition charge and planted by hand instead of thrown, so long as the operator retreats in such a direction that he is protected from the explosion. With practice and training, the grenade can be thrown up to about 20 yds.
the Number 74 Grenade was never used by the British army in battle, its only recorded use in combat was as a demolition device by partisans
Too bad, it would be interesting to see the real effect against a Pz III or IV.
The Piat may “have been a load of rubbish,” but in the hands of Sergeant Thorton of the 6th Airbourne Division, it was used to fire one of the most important shots of the War:
Thorton had taken his position as close to the T-intersection as he could get, because he wanted to shoot at the shortest possible distance. “And sure enough, in about three minutes, this bloody great thing appears. I was more hearing it than seeing it, in the dark; it was rattling away there, and it turned out to be a Mark IV tank coming pretty slowly…Only had two of the bombs with me. Told myself, ‘you mustn’t miss.’ Anyhow, although I was shaking, I took an aim and bang, off it went…I him round about right bang in the middle. I made sure I had him right in the middle. I was so excited and so shaking I had to move back a bit.”
Then all hell broke loose. The explosion from the Piat bomb penetrated the tank, setting off the machine-gun clips, which started setting off grenades, which started setting off shells.
From: Pegasus Bridge: June 6, 1944. By Stephen E. Ambrose, Simon & Schuster, 1985
His shot stopped the German armored counterattack cold as they were confused into thinking that they faced a much more powerful force…
Sure, it was better than nothing.
Video of the “sticky bomb”
Posted this on theh 1 Border thread, but thought it might also be useful to post here:
The anti-tank guns carried a supply of HE rounds, but most of the ammunition was armour-piercing. The main supply was carried in the towing jeep with two spare rounds on the inside of the gun shield.
The anti-tank teams were not a little agrieved back in the Uk to be issued with new ammunition called ‘Sabot’. Why? One might ask. This was solid shot of high-quality tungsten encased in a hard plastic, the shot being somewhat smaller than the bore of the gun. When the shot was fired bits of plastic fell away and the velocity was increased by some 35 per cent. The trouble was that the bits of plastic falling away were often mistaken by the gun-layer for the fall of shot, and corrections were made with totally inaccurate results. The gun-teams had been issued with the ammunition a week before Arnhem and had only one day on the ranges to practise with it. The gun-layers had reached a high degree of efficiency with the old ammuniton and to send them to war with this new ammuntion, they all believed, was an error of judgement.
The PIAT had two features that made it invaluable in close in fighting in built up areas
Although it had a short range Max Effective generally being 100m it had no backblast to give its position away (unlike the Bazooka, Panzershreck, Panzerfaust and in fact most post war Infantry AT weapons until fairly recently) this meant it could be fired from inside an enclosed area ie from inside buildings
That is true, even I think it used a small explosive charge to reload the spigot, most discrete than the Panzerfaust aniway.
The one complaint i recall about these was that the bomb was low velocity, and had a high trajectory, as opposed to the fairly straight trajectories of the rocket launchers. This i’m told made the aiming fussier.
See these in the horizontal plane, and it’s basically ( instead of |.
That’s my understanding: the trajectory was far more “long arc of parabola” so-to-speak than peak of parabola, and certainly nowhere “flat” as in Panzerfaust or Bazooka.
Velocity is almost a laughable term, in relation to a PIAT: one could literally watch the projectile in flight.
Info is from my uncle, who served alongside/with Brit 8th Army.
Regards, Uyraell.
AT grenade Mark 73.
Special device with 3/4 pounds of explosives and impact fuze, with some utility against top armor and tracks.
Declared obsolete in 1942 but used with good effect against bunkers and entrenchments until late war.
While straighter than the flight of a PIAT, the missiles of the Panzerfaust and Bazooka also suffered a considerable drop in their trajectory after leaving the tube
Velocity is almost a laughable term, in relation to a PIAT: one could literally watch the projectile in flight.
True enough, however the speed of the warhead had no effect on the effectiveness of these weapons, that relied on the amount of explosive in the HEAT warhead.
anti tank guns are so cool but ww2 stuff is ballooning in cost these days
That is soooo true. In the 70’s prices were very low compared to todays huge pricetags, A U.S. halftrack cost about $2,000-$3,000, and was ready to operate, and often came with a separate parts vehicle. A Sherman tank with some exceptions cost about $10,000 ready to drive, and lookin’ good. Ferret armored cars sold locally for $5,000 in very good condition, repainted, road ready.
As for firearms, Thompsons depending on who made it, sold for about $2,000, less for a military with little finish. I turned down Maxim 08/15 in very good condition because it cost $400. A Solothurn rifle might fetch quite a price as they were more rare, a complete gun with case, and all fittings sold for $1,000. A Suomi sub-gun was quite rare, and sold for $4,000. My dear old Lahti cost me $300. when I purchased it. M-1A rifles sold around $350. (Texas model) AR-15 for $250. English bolt military rifles went for mid $35-70.depending on details. Prices began to climb towards the end of the 70’s toward the fairly insane levels of today.
The PIAT is often subject to complaints, but in reality it was an excellent weapon - in many ways - compared to it’s counter-parts.
Let’s compare projectile velocity:
Panzerfaust Avg: 175 fps (30:98fps; 60:150fps; 100:200fps; 150:280fps)
Bazooka: 270 fps
Panzershreck: 345fps
PIAT: 450fps
Don’t forget that the other three were rocket based AT weapons. The unguided rockets of WWII were slow and horribly inaccurate.
The PIAT had a range of at least 350m (370m were marked on it’s site/elevation guide) but it was considered only able to hit a moving vehicle at 100m (it’s effective range). Which it did with consistency in trials and in combat.
The PIATs lack of backblast was a huge issue in actual combat. US soldiers considered it a death sentence to be assigned to the Bazooka.
Yes, the PIAT is as heavy as a pig at 35 to 40 pounds; but the Panzershreck weighed over 30 pounds and was called ‘the stovepipe’ by the Germans, because it looked like one, with a large pipe almost six feet long that spouted plumes of smoke, plus the large blast shield. Give me the smaller compact PIAT with it’s extra 5 pounds!
I think the PIAT fell victim to the British/allies tendancy to exagerate the power of their adversaries weapons, while being critical of their own. One of the problems with winning the war and writing most of the history books.
After the war, the British didn’t switch to the Panzershreck or the Bazooka, they kept the PIAT until 1950 when the super-Bazooka did prove to be a superior weapon.
A vid of 2 vickers AA guns who had some potential for antitank usage but never performed in that way, the 75mm export and 76 QF.
Very Nice my friend!
I could be wrong, but I believe the 3 inch AA gun (or the 3.7 inch) was used in a direct fire and anti-tank role in the defense of Tobruk. But if that’s correct, I think it may be the only time.
It was, however I think this lighter weapons had more antitank potential due its superior rate of fire and better mobility, if we were in 1941 or 1942 a “portee” variant of the 75mm AA firing HE and AP could be a good solution against the agressive usage of the 88mm flak by the germans.
Interestingly the italians had a truck with an ansaldo 76mm AAA piece wich was used sucessfully against cruiser tanks, even firing HE only.