British Antitank weapons.

World War II British Military
#61

The panzerfaust was not a rocket weapon. The projectile was propelled by a black-powder charge in the tube itself - the propellant was not carried with the projectile, as it would with a rocket. Effectively, the panzerfaust is a mortar. The Panzerfaust suffered from a much more curved trajectory than the PIAT - just look at the length of the panzerfaust’s sights if you don’t believe me.

As has been said above, the PIAT suffers very much from traditional Army (‘ours is crap, while theirs is brilliant!’) syndrome. Yes, it was (reltively) difficult to cock, but it is almost invariably forgotten that it was designed as a blowback-operated, self-cocking weapon (although that sometimes didn’t work, according to one old PIAT gunner of my acquaintance).

As has been said, it had the advantages of no back-blast and a very low firing signature - Louis Hagen, in ‘Arnhem Lift’ describes how he repeatedly fired one from the attic of a house at SP guns passing beneath, without being detected (however, he didn’t hit very much due to his lack of training!).

This also brings us to another myth - it is often said that the PIAT could not be fired at a downward angle, due to the bomb falling out. This is completely untrue - a retaining clip held the bomb in place until fired (as proved by Hagen’s account above).

The warhead was sufficient to destroy even Tiger tanks and there are numerous examples of them doing so. It didn’t have as much punch as a Panzerfaust, but it had more oomph than a Bazooka. In the Far East, the weapon also saw sterling service as a bunker-buster, being infinitely preferable to having to crawl up to the bunker’s aperture with a grenade or satchel charge. The infrequently-encountered Japanese tanks were also easy meat for the PIAT, as demonstrated by Thapa VC at Imphal.

However, early versions of the PIAT bomb did not work well when striking a glancing blow against the target and according to my acquaintance, the bombs tailfin would come flying straight back at you when the bomb detonated (this side-effect actually killed his best friend in Normandy).

HE and smoke rounds were also supplied for the PIAT, though evidence for their use is scant.

#62

I’d think that the higher trajectory of the PIAT and Panzerfaust would make it a better anti-tank weapon–easier to hit the engine deck or turret roof with a plunging shot than a direct-line shot with an AT rifle or rocket

#63

The British Army claimed 6 German tanks in North Africa to the Sticky Bomb, and the Australians used them in New Guinea. Their real problem was the adhesive tended to lose its effect in dusty or humid conditions. They weren’t officially issued to Regular Army units, but some were issued for training and a few were smuggled into combat areas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticky_bomb

#64

Thank you for this correction, and the additional information. The black-powder explains the large smoke signature of the Panzerfaust.

The Panzerschreck was also very smokey, and did fire a rocket. It was dubbed the ‘stove pipe’ by the troops, because it looked like one even before the smoke.

Here’s a gif of a PIAT I put together from a video:

](http://img294.imageshack.us/i/piat9.gif/)[/IMG]

cheers,
Saxon

#65

The British Army claimed 6 German tanks in North Africa to the Sticky Bomb, and the Australians used them in New Guinea. Their real problem was the adhesive tended to lose its effect in dusty or humid conditions. They weren’t officially issued to Regular Army units, but some were issued for training and a few were smuggled into combat areas

I read in an Australian site that it was used in the first battle of El alamein, I suppose that was the place were the 6 kills happen.

Here’s a gif of a PIAT I put together from a video:

Very good one.

#66

Aditional information about the N 68 AT bomb thrower.

#67

Pray tell me, if these ‘glass’ grenades were issued alot, surely under field conditions many of them would be broken. And carrying a willie petter glass grenade would scare me!

Deaf

#68

The few references I have, including Purnell’s series, say that many were issued as “troop trials” weapons, but note little if any operational employment.
This would seem to align with the prevalent opinion that any operational usage was of an extremely limited and unofficial nature.
Personally, I’d regard that as the most likely, it being that even the logistics of transporting such exotic items would essentially be counterproductive in terms of the amount of trained personnel and specialised packaging it would require. The logistics factor alone would argue against any but the most clandestine usage of exotic weapons, and as such, would again align with prevalent opinion as to limited employment.

Kind Regards, Uyraell.

#69

Hello,
the RKKA used ampulets.


This is a quotation from an other forum…

"Sorry for a lot of grammar and spelling mistakes, this is an article from one of the russian sites, I just used on-line translator(don’t have time at the moment to translate it more accuratley), hope it is clear enough to understand the general meaning.

Ampulomety Main > Used for setting fire facilities > Originally used for stationary fire weapons by RKKA, those weapons were so-called «ampulomets», often used for a fight against manpower, destroying or blinding the tanks, armoured cars and cars of the opponent, burning out the infantry from shelters and fixed structures.

Ampulomet consisted of barrel with ammo-store, breech-block-bolt, shooting adaptation, aiming adaptations and gun-carriage with a fork. A barrel consisted of a pipe, made from sheet of 2-мм iron. Aiming adaptations included beauty-spot and folding bar of breech-sight. A barrel was fastened with pins in the fork of gun-carriage - tripod, wooden log or frame on ski. A tin ampoule served as a shell AZH-2 or with 1 l mix up a glass ball “KC”, popped the hunting blank of 12th caliber. Mass of ampulometa made 10 kg, gun-carriage are from 5 to 18 kg, aiming distance of firing is 100-120 m, maximal are 240-250 m basic and to 400 m with an additional charge, a calculation is 3 men, rapidity of fire - 6-8 shot/min.

Loading was made by two men - the first one numbered calculations, inserted from a treasury a vyshibnoy cartridge, the second one inserted in a barrel from muzzle part an ampoule. Ampulomety were very simple and cheap “flame-thrower mortars”, the special ampulometnye platoons were armed with them - Training regulations of infantry 1942 mention ampulomet as a regular fire weapon of infantry. In the fight of ampulomet often served as the kernel of group of destroyers of tanks.

Use of it in a defensive operations on the whole justified itself, but the attempts of using ampulemeti in offensive resulted in the severe losses of calculations from small distance of firing. They were utillized by the assault groups in city fights - in particular, in Stalingrad. At the end of 1942 ampulomety were taken off from production and the list of officially used weapons in the Red Army.
In 45 years principle of percussion “cap ognemetaniya” will be incarnated at a new level in the soviet infantry flame-thrower of RPO Bumble-bee . Among the “ancestors” of RPO it is possible to mention the German easy non-permanent recoilless flame-thrower of “Einstossflammenwerfer 44”, “Pantserfaust”, but throwing out in place of grenade the stream of burning liquid on distance to 27 м.Unlike ampulomets, this flame-thrower remained experimental.
from: Corporate Ignorance - Pskov Russia"

regards:
TGR

#70

Interesting Tiger205, I ve seen footage of the ampulet repeatedly always witout knowing exactly what it was.

British used Bofors 37mm AT in the firing grounds

http://www.archivioluce.com/archivio/jsp/schede/videoPlayer.jsp?tipologia=&id=&physDoc=18379&db=cinematograficoCINEGIORNALI&findIt=false&section=/