PIAT: Better than the Panzerfaust?

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

1) Be sure to check out Matthew's Channel: kzbin.info/door/gvKdxHf2bJOaZA4TtabjdA 2) Can you spot the error in the cover?

[@TheArmourersBench]

Thank you again for inviting me on to chat about the PIAT!

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

I have read many books and articles since 1970 regarding WWII. Admittedly I prefer personal experience, but I do read detailed technical information as well. I have never come across a detailed explanation of the PIAT and its operation. I knew there was a heavy spring in the rear, and vaguely how to cock it. I assumed there was no issue of back blast, so it could be fired from confined spaces. I had no idea how much about this nifty weapon I didn't know. Thank you for this great video. Given the relative small noise foot print, a vehicle mounted array of an upgraded version might be quite useful in asymmetric warfare today. Once again thank you for a great and informative video!

[@TheArmourersBench]

@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer glad you enjoyed it John, not a perfect weapon by any means but much misunderstood so always pleased to talk about it. Have done some videos looking at it on my channel too but it was great to chat like this and present a round up.

[@kirotheavenger60]

@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer funny you should mention vehicle mounts as several were used. Even going as far as nailing a bunch of them together on the back of a Universal Carrier as a sort of mortar-barrage!

[@jordanthomas4379]

“Better” is not a good word to use, the Piat took a lot of strength to load a single round, especially when you’re doing it by yourself, it was also a lot more dangerous to use than other anti-tank weapons, there are people who have badly injured themselves and even gotten themselves killed using this thing in battle, Major Robert Henry Cain VC TD almost killed himself using a piat.

[@jon-paulfilkins7820]

By 1944, every British Battalion in Europe had a carrier platoon at hand, 3 PIATs, 3 Vickers MMGs and 3 light Mortars, each in a Universal Carrier. The intention give each battalion commander a high mobility high firepower unit. So while a platoon may only have one, if things got pressing, they might find themselves backed up by the carrier platoon.

[@TheArmourersBench]

Yes exactly! They were often grouped into offensive tank hunting battle groups too.

[@501Mobius]

The size of the platoons were down quite a bit from the size at the start of the war. They had to make up for the decrease in firepower of the unit.

[@Jojotheowl1]

My friends dad has one of the universal carriers. And it’s functional. It’s so cool to ride in.

[@00yiggdrasill00]

That is a shit ton of firepower for the time.

[@abysswalker2594]

And some Brens for covering fire

[@z_actual]

Im well travelled with British weapons history and hadnt heard of 75% of the information provided today/ So thanks very much for the span on the PIAT, and went the day well

[@TheArmourersBench]

Glad you found it interesting!

[@brianreddeman951]

Spigot mortars are an interesting topic by itself.

[@rflameng]

The Russians recently developed a 82mm mortar using the spigot principle. The setup allegedly reduces the noise signature to something like a 7.62x39 round being fired.

[@simonmorris4226]

Indeed. Was used on the Churchill A.V.R.E lovingly known as the flying dustbin as it could Chuck massive demolition charges against fortified positions. So it wasn’t exactly a dead end!

[@howardchambers9679]

@@simonmorris4226 a dustbin would be fired at a bunker and then the crocodile would flame it. The napalm like burning liquid would work it's way down the cracks. The Germans usually surrendered at that point.

[@allanbryan-tansley6010]

I seem to recall an old story, about a soldier in Italy, who was awarded the Victoria cross for destroying two tanks, by firing a Piat from the hip. The general opinion at the time, was that he deserved the medal for firing a piat from the hip, let alone destroying two tanks with it.

[@chrisvickers7928]

I think that sounds like Smokey Smith.

[@swiftnicknevison4848]

Major Robert Henry Cain did this at the battle of Arnhem. One of many mental things he did in that battle to earn the VC. Good documentary about it here. kzbin.info/www/bejne/iJO2ZXysoZ1ofbM

[@allanbryan-tansley6010]

I've just looked it up, the soldier was Francis Jefferson, of the Lancashire fusiliers. The incident took place in 1944, during the battle of Monte Casino.

[@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-]

@@allanbryan-tansley6010 Firing from the hip? Sounds like that Robert Henry Cain

[@jimfrodsham7938]

@@allanbryan-tansley6010 I don't remember the name, but my late father was a LF and I remember him telling us boys about that.

[@genericpersonx333]

Mind, the main issue with the comparison between Panzerfaust and PIAT is that they are not equivalent weapons. PIAT is a counterpart to Panzerschreck and Bazooka, a crew-served weapon carried by a physically fit adult male for the most part. Panzerfaust was a disposable weapon intended to augment squad firepower by being carried in addition to other weapons. Thus, neither is "better" than the other because the two don't really compete with each other.

[@username_3715]

like the at 4 vs carl g

[@openfly4u]

This, so much this.

[@vladimirpecherskiy1910]

Well those definitely compete with each other. Function for 2 was the same and in that role pretty definitely Panzerfaust was a better weapon. PIAT been crew-served simple because it was not possible to use it single-handed. Same reason PIAT was not used as squad weapon - it was just not possible base on weight. And Panzerfaust provided that ability.

[@genericpersonx333]

@@vladimirpecherskiy1910 I agree the language I used is somewhat vague but I really was trying not to write a whole essay so I apologize for any confusion. I shall stipulate further. By compete, I mean the two didn't serve the same purpose within the TO&E of their respective armed forces. The PIAT was a specialist weapon, a weapon whose user was devoted to using it. Same with the Boys Antitank Rifle that PIAT replaced. The Panzerschreck and the antitank rifles it replaced were similarly specialist weapons within the German TO&E. If you were a PIAT or Panzerschreck operator, your job was to use your bomb-thrower first and your small-arms, if any, for personal protection only. Panzerfaust's place in the German TO&E was as a replacement (or supplement) to the antitank grenade, a non-specialist-user weapon. It was a "munition" to be handed out to any and all soldiers as circumstances suggested in addition to their other weapons. A rifleman handed a panzerfaust was still a rifleman. He was just now one that could engage tanks if necessary as part of his mission as a rifleman. Panzerfausts, in other words, simply augmented an infantryman's individual firepower in the performance of their normal mission; it didn't change their mission. Does that help clarify what I mean?

[@vladimirpecherskiy1910]

@@genericpersonx333 I argue statement, that "neither is "better" than the other". All what you mention is quite correct, but - who cares? If today somebody somehow would create weapon with firepower and range of 155mm howitzer and weight and price tag of M4 carbine - it would be a better weapon then 155mm howitzer, period. Nobody would care how that evolve - from carbine or howitzer side and what was initial thoughts about tactical niche. Nobody would care to use 155mm howitzer after that - because no point.

[@Ratkill]

Its an odd tool. Any "weapons of WW2" style text I read is really harsh on the PIAT, calling it essentially useless. However I'm also confronted time and time again in firsthand accounts of it being a stellar weapon, being used very effectively in key areas, with the largest criticism being the small amount of ammunition the average operator had access to.

[@vksasdgaming9472]

PIAT was technological dead end. It couldn't be made more powerful. It served well enough and like Panzerschreck it's power was completely in projectile.

[@MultiKommandant]

Further proof that any weapon that seems stupid but works isn't that stupid after all.

[@A.Mardle]

There is no such thing as a popular anti-tank weapon. The Charlie G and LAW 90 were both pigs. Unpleasant to carry and brutal to use.

[@2adamast]

​@@vksasdgaming9472 spigot hollow charges are still popular years after the war as rifle grenades. And bullet trap rifle grenades use a positive impulse (last patent 2013) As for more powerful, the Pak 36 with Stielgranate 41 or current day low-recoil mortars.

[@vksasdgaming9472]

@@2adamast Those are generally smaller projectiles than PIAT bomb.

[@mattosborne2935]

Shotgun recoil is a good analogue. Another might be the M-1. Guys who shoot those at the range wear padding and it had a reputation for bruising up shooters.

[@briangarvey6895]

I can confirm that for the M-1. The day after the first time I got to spend a day at the range with one, I had a vivid, buttplate-shaped bruise on my shoulder. Far more kick than anything else I fired.

[@MrSolLeks]

@@briangarvey6895 same, also my k98k, 03 and psl54c do that to me lol. The worst iv felt was a friends light weight hunting bolt gun in 30 06 though, no mass to take recoil and no cycling action eaither. My 03 was not as bad, noe my k89k, both a good bit heavier than the hunting rifle.

[@jaym8027]

Shooting the M1 Garand is much more forgiving if it's shot from field positions: standing, sitting, kneeling, or prone. Its much more punishing from the bench in my experience. I have a Winchester Model 70 in 30-06 that recoils much harder than my M1.

[@MrSolLeks]

@@braccereve9271 being a bolt action heavy rifle, m1 has a tad less recoil.

[@chemistryofquestionablequa6252]

The Piat recoil is closer to a shotgun than a rifle. It's more the slow push type than sharper like a rifle.

[@coppernail2593]

Excellent presentation, enjoyed it. A couple of notes: I did some research a while back on the PIAT with the NFC in Leeds. The word we came up with most about the PIAT was “weird”. Pretty much everything about it was unusual. Hence a fertile ground for misunderstandings and urban myths. The 1943 manual emphasised the need for thorough training as “the projector differs radically from other small arms”. It you look at the internal dynamics of the PIAT, the point about the overall weight and the spring and moving spigot is it is all about recoil control. At the moment that the bomb propellant fires the spigot is in free motion forwards and the spring is at its most relaxed, hence essentially the spigot is not connected to the body of the weapon or the gunner. By the time the recoiling spigot re-compresses the spring, re-cocks and imparts the recoil into the gunner the bomb is long gone and thus the recoil has no impact on accuracy. Effectively the recoil has been delayed and then spread out. Cunning. There is no significant transfer of energy from the spring to the bomb. The vast majority of the energy required comes from the propellant, it is a firearm. And … and … and … it’s weird!

[@2adamast]

It's also common, (bullet trap) rifle grenades are very similar to PIAT grenades. And some mortars have low-recoil mechanism, the PIAT being based on a mortar.

[@jimboAndersenReviews]

Very fine inteview; and it has changed my view of the PIAT. Brilliant.

[@stevefriswell5422]

I never knew about the indirect fire role. Thanks for that.

[@TheArmourersBench]

A little known capability which adds some real tactical flexibility.

[@miketogwell1000]

There's a picture of a Canadian carrier with about a dozen piats mounted on the back like a mini katushya for indirect fire

[@gwoody4003]

Yeah I am surprised other ammunition types were not developed for it. Being able to chuck a giant fragmentation or incendiary grenade 300 yards would be pretty useful. It could do the job of a mortar but be instantly set up and oriented. You can't fire a Bazooka over a wall or hill. And that set-up with the bank of PIATs on a carrier, each with a slightly different angle, could produce a rolling thunder barrage that cleared a whole football field. Especially if they had a mix of frag and incendiary loads.... presuming they were actually developed for the PIAT. And they can be reloaded pretty quick to keep it a sustained barrage. I actually did not know the PIAT cocked itself with the recoil.thats better than a mortar cus it could be loaded ahead of time and triggered by cable or something, rather than needing a man standing next to it to drop a round down the tube.

[@gwoody4003]

​@@TheArmourersBenchthe video game nerd in me really wants a PIAT in an FPS game now. 😂

[@stevefriswell5422]

@@gwoody4003 good points

[@bored383]

TIL - indirect fire from a PIAT. It makes perfect sense and I kind of kick myself for never having noticed that it is kind of perfect for that

[@RaderizDorret]

It really does make sense in that role as a supplement to the usual mortar sections. You'd be trading sustained fire rate, accuracy, and so on, but you'd be gaining rapid deployment and high mobility when compared to a typical mortar. 350 yards for a mortar is pretty short ranged, but given the direct fire capability and you only need a 2 man crew to use it? Quite the versatile piece of kit that was well-suited for its era.

[@michaelpielorz9283]

pleasedo not believe in every "heroic" story

[@morriganmhor5078]

Great work. It just shattered all I think I know (or better say, I was informed about) about the Spigot device.

[@jon-paulfilkins7820]

In the UK there was an Artist/cartoonist at the time called Heath Robinson... For our American cousins, he's in the same school as Rude Goldberg... His cartoons are all humorously overcomplicated ways of doing something. The Piat manages to be both a Heath Robinson device and actually functional.

[@justiron2999]

I think that his name was Rube, which might also be the origin for the insult rube, an akward unsophisticated person.

[@GaudiaCertaminisGaming]

It’s fairer to say that Goldberg largely copied Robinson. I think he even said so himself.

[@Yuri_NM]

As a kid, we got one of these at our local surplus store, no rounds of course, just the launcher. It was a bear to cock, (compress) the spring. I failed then to see how useful it would be with the cocking process. Strong spring, we would load cans with concrete. It could toss the cans many yards. Oh was it heavy!

[@nickjung7394]

I can remember many ex army things...sten guns included...being sold by a bloke from his place under the railway arches in Leyton, NE London in the '50s. Army surplus was, I think, sold to such people by the lorry load, including the lorry!

[@petegarnett7731]

When fired, it re-cocked itself. (usually) That would not work with cans as ammo.

[@OTDMilitaryHistory]

Great and informative video! I'm always happy to learn more about the PIAT.

[@mikely4920]

While working some years ago with EOD in Germany I came across a PIAT round buried quite deep down but in a vertical position and thought it might have glanced of something and gone straight up and down but now the you mention that it was used like a mortar could explain why it was found in that position……… Mike

[@whatdothlife4660]

I definitely was guilty of the common bias against the PIAT. This was very informative!

[@crumpetcommandos779]

sten gun also gets the same negative treatment from most when it when the gun worked fine

[@LegerRon]

Whenever I see a PIAT, and I picture the large spring that (helps) fire the projectile, I cannot help but imagine it as something the coyote might order from ACME.

[@skepticalbadger]

It fires the munition, but just to be clear, it doesn't contribute any motive force at all. That all comes from the propellant charge in the bomb. Love the Wile E. Coyote image :)

[@rogersmith7396]

If the Coyote fired it it would remain stationary and he would shoot off the back. Then hit a brick wall, then the shot would blow up in his face.

[@glaslynx123]

🤣🤣🤣 Wily Coyote firing a PIAT stuck in my mind now

[@simonmorris4226]

@@glaslynx123 me too mate. Or him setting his tail on fire with a bazooka. Beep beep!

[@MURDOCK1500]

@@glaslynx123 Yeah, the projectile would stay still while the PIAT and Coyote would shoot backwards over a cliff edge 😂

[@druid799]

As a former British soldier who thought he is pretty clued up on our modern and historical weapons I’d just like to say you both have taught me so much more than I thought I knew about the PIAT ! I didn’t know a quarter of what you’ve just shown us so thank you , really appreciate this new knowledge I’ve now gained .👍

[@TheGrandslam89]

It's worth remembering, there were anti tank rifle grenades, so it's indoor shooting capability at short ranges wasn't near as unique as it's often made out to be.

[@lutherburgsvik6849]

Is the *British* PIAT better than the *German* Panzerfaust? I know, let's ask Lindybeige. He is bound to give an impartial and honest answer to such a question... ;-)

[@noobster4779]

Lindybeige: "You see to anwser this question, despite the british technological superiority beeing obvious, we have to go way back. First, there was the Spandau..."

[@kored8688]

Britain won the war, not Germany, so obviously the PIAT is far superior.

[@jrd33]

One is a disposable one-man squad weapon, the other is a two-man platoon weapon. Panzerschreck is a better comparison.

[@alganhar1]

@@jrd33 A very pertinent fact that so many of the commenters are utterly failing to take into account.....

[@sugarnads]

And a correct one.

[@neilwilson5785]

I'm sure most of us view the Armourer's Bench channel already, but if you don't, it's another great military rabbit hole to jump into.

[@TheArmourersBench]

Thanks so much Neil.

[@mattheweagles5123]

Ganju Lama famously got his VC for crawling under fire while injured to within about 30m of two Japanese tanks before destroying them both with his PIAT and then attacking the escaping crews.

[@anselmdanker9519]

Thanks for mentioning Ganju Lama of the 1/7 Gurkhas action during the Imphal battle on the Tiddim road.

[@mattheweagles5123]

@@anselmdanker9519 he was an incredibly brave and tough man even by the high standards of the Gurkhas.

[@dermotrooney9584]

Great Guy!

[@AirsoftTipsandReviews]

I have seen a few videos on the PIAT and I always understood that the spring launches the projectile. But now I' know better :) And Matts channel is very good as well Thanks guys

[@grahamlloyd7157]

Wow! I learned a lot watching this. I have a totally different outlook on the PIAT now. Great vid!

[@eagleclaw899]

Nothing is more appropriate than discussing the PIAT at We Have Ways fest. Judging by the amount of VC stories they’re involved with, it seems some troops loved them and were proficient with them whereas others may not have liked it as much but was all they had for anti tank as infantry. I had no idea about it’s potential rate of fire

[@lib556]

Very informative. There seems a bit of confusion over platoon size and organization. I don't have an exact reference with me and I know that these organizations were amended as needed.... However, generally, an infantry platoon would be approximately 30 soldiers. Typically it would be sub-divided into 3 sections each being 8 - 10 men. In modern platoons, we have the 3 sections and a weapons detachment. The weapons det would handle the GPMG, 60 mm mortar or anti-tank weapon depending on the need.

[@88porpoise]

To be fair the official strength varied over the war and could vary but type of unit. Plus in practice they didn't necessarily have the allotted number of men For the latter part of WWII the standard British infantry company would officially have 127 officers and other ranks. Split between the headquarters (16) and rifle platoons (37 each). Each platoon would have a 7 man headquarters (including mortar detachment of three men) and three sections each with a three man Bren gun group and a seven man rifle group. There were three PIATs per company that headquarters could allocate among the platoons. So, basically one per platoon but the HQ could reallocate them if one platoon is more vulnerable to tanks or something. Of course there were also various battalion level assets that could be attached to a company (such as snipers, which had been part of the company until 1944, etc). In contrast the US Army, in the late war period, had three 12 man rifles squads, 41 men per rifle platoon, and 193 men total per company. Per official standards.

[@TheArmourersBench]

@@88porpoise spot on Shaun, I had a bit of heat induced Brain fade when it came to Platoon numbers on the day haha.

[@thequeensowncameronhighlan7883]

Yeah, the strength of the platoons and sections could be all over the place. One thing that often gets missed is the LOB policy too for Canadian units. Left Out of Battle policy could vary, but it often meant 1 or more guys from the sections as well as a PL HQ member, and the same at Coy level to rebuild the PL if they had a very bad day. I remember sitting at regimental reunions and other evenings with my regiment's vets of Normandy and them talking about how they went into battle with only 5 guys for a 10 man section. 2 on the Bren, 3 in the Rifle group. Guess why those attacks didn't get far. In another regiment I served with, one guy's tank Sqdn in Normandy was only 9 Shermans & 1 Firefly for a lot of the fighting because of the loss rate vs replacement rate. The Regt also had to amalgamate 2 sqdns into a single Sqdn. The unit history reports when they finally managed to keep the Sqdn at a higher strength. Of course the higher level histories (as opposed to the regimental ones) talk about the army being at "full strength" for some of the "pushes", and units being brought up to strength. Sadly those replacements often didn't last very long.

[@michaelbevan1081]

Thank you. I appreciate your collaboration, this video really debunked the myths or other sources that which emphasised these misconceptions, thank for sharing your knowledge. Both of you.

[@duncanhamilton5841]

My grandfather was a pre-war regular and served all the way through. He actually preferred the Boys, but that mainly seems to be because they weren't using in the A-T role by '41, but as a harassing/sniper rifle (because .55 rounds occasionally clanging into your position makes everyone keep their heads down). Mind you, I think his 30 years of service had institutionalised him - he even seemed to be quite fond of his Webley and Sten when he moved into Gds Amd with 9 Coldstream in '44.

[@hazzardalsohazzard2624]

I imagine he'd have changed his mind if he was up against armour. The thought of taking down a tank with an overly large rifle is terrifying

[@duncanhamilton5841]

@@hazzardalsohazzard2624 that's what the 2/6/17pdr was for... once you'd had a 25pdr stonk dropped on it to clear the supporting infantry away. He never really spoke about combat as such, or mentioned tanks - but would say it was house clearances they really hated doing the most.

[@michaelpielorz9283]

you know AT guns were absoluteinaccurate above 200/300 meters they could not be used as sniper rifles .let alone fittig a scope on them. Nice myth.butjust a myth.

[@duncanhamilton5841]

@@michaelpielorz9283 I didn't mean they were sniping with it in the modern sense, but using it more as annoyance/harrassing weapon. Never said anything about a scope or claiming he killed anyone with it. Either way, I'll take what my grandfather said with a pinch of old soldier's salt. As I said, he claimed to like the Webley and Sten... it could as much have been about him not shattering his grandson's binary world of British stuff Good/German stuff Bad. Although that said, I do recall him going completely off his handle about the 'Flimsy' 🤣

[@johnburns4017]

Sten was a great weapon after the gremlins were ironed out.

Thank you both for this video. So far my main point of contact with the PIAT was "A Bridge to far", and I too thought it was entirely spring based. I am definetly going to use this knowledge to one up my tank nut friends in the future :)

[@TheArmourersBench]

Yes! I actually have a full video breaking down that famous scene on my channel.

@@TheArmourersBench thx for the tip. I just had a look at it. Intersting topic. I have a small military history channel in in German and I think at some point I will do a video about the PIAT. There are probably many more Krauts like me who need a better perspective on the PIAT 🙂 thx for the inspiration

[@TheArmourersBench]

@ Drop me a line if you need any help with it. Always happy to help.

@@TheArmourersBench Thx. I will come back to you on that one day :)

[@ArthurWright-uv4ww]

Very interesting, made me reassess my view of the PIAT.

[@Conn30Mtenor]

The Canadian VC winner, Smokey Smith took out two Panthers and a Stug with one, if I recall correctly.

[@HandGrenadeDivision]

It was one Panther and a platoon of men. A second Panther was involved in the fight but wasn't destroyed, merely "driven back."

[@alanredmond88]

I was definitely under the impression that while the spring offered no backblast in needed to be re-cocked each time. Interesting that that's not necessarily the case.

[@alanlawson4180]

Next, please - the Blackr Bombard! Mainly used by the Home Guard, it was used in combat, I believe, in both the desert and far East. That's a pretty weird one indeed.....

[@randyhavard6084]

Haven't seen much about the piat, glad to see this on your channel.

[@TheArmourersBench]

I've quite a few videos over on my channel, with a deep dive to come. Feel free to take a look.

[@HandGrenadeDivision]

After-action questionnaires by Canadian infantry officers mentioned the use of the PIAT as an extemporaneous mortar but I didn't get the impression they were doing it all that often. Usually if the enemy was inside a small building and you could get the HEAT round to fire through the roof.

[@officialromanhours]

One of my favorite oddball weapons, thanks to you and Moss for the analysis

[@the_loch_ness_monster4201]

So, it seems that people loved having a PIAT with their unit. As long as someone else got to carry it

[@CthulhuInc]

ian hogg, in his book "grenades and mortars" discusses how, if improperly positioned when trying to cock the piat, one could do a mischief to one's back 😊

[@rogersmith7396]

I always heard you were supposed to lie down and use your leg muscles to cock it. The self cocking feature like a Fosbury would only work if you kept the device planted ridgidly. Cocking under fire is no good.

[@thestoicsteve]

An amazingly detailed and thorough explanation of this unusual weapon. Thanks.

[@frankgulla2335]

Nice video of an unusual, misunderstood weapon. Thanks

[@rwcowell]

Interesting video on the piat. I really enjoyed the breakdown and history of the piat. I learned a lot from it. Especially its use for indirect fire combat, being used to function in a mortar like role. I wonder if the UK had more time to develop the piat, they would've experimented with stronger, lighter weight metal alloys that could reduce the weight of the recoil spring. Thus making it a more suitable, lightweight AT weapon for the infantry. Thank you for sharing. Cheers!

[@Alakazzam09]

From what I understand these had a very useful smoke round.

[@allanbryan-tansley6010]

col. Blacker, who helped to develop the piat, was also one of the first people to fly over Mount Everest.

[@TheArmourersBench]

He was, an incredibly interesting man!

[@Treblaine]

PIAT has to be the most misunderstood infantry weapon of WW2. For example, it's velocity is just as fast as a 60mm Bazooka Rocket and faster than all the Panzerfaust rockets, combined with shooting from prone and the fire rate this was a very good option in WW2. The recoil mechanism was also quite advanced for its time as the recoil mechanism effectively worked double for the same mass. If the spigot was fired with the spring in the forward position then then all the force of firing would go to accelerating the mass backwards and the spring had to try to decelerate all of that force. But by firing the spigot forward when the round ignited it had to decelerate the forward momentum of the spigot before it could accelerate the spigot backwards. The problem was this was (as said at around 14:00) a dead end technology, the future was bigger projectiles that have more penetration and with bigger rockets you can also get much higher velocity which increases stand-off range but with PIAT trying to go bigger was at the cost of lower velocity. And unlike a recoil-less design such as a Panzerfaust/RPG-2 it couldn't easily have a rocket motor added to the base of the projectile (RPG-7). It was generally better to be more effective with a single hit from longer range. But in WW2, the PIAT was a worthy alternative to the Bazooka, one was bulkier but lighter, great for hit and run attacks, the PIAT was more sneaky and better when you're trying to maximise fire rate.

[@monty5692]

Good stuff! If I'm nit-picking, you just need to correct the understanding of what an infantry platoon consisted of, and how sections made that up, but great to set the record straight on the utility and value of this much-maligned weapon. To my mind, one of the most important shots in history was fired with a PIAT - Sgt 'Wagger' Thornton destroyed the lead tank in the German counter attack on Pegasus bridge in the early hours of 6th June 1944. The resulting 'brew up' convinced the local German command that we were already there in great strength with heavy weapons (in fact Thornton's PIAT was the only serviceable weapon we had other than rifles and Brens!), and so they held back from counter attacking again for many hours. This allowed us to hold the bridge, and so flanking attacks on the beach landings were averted; thus 'D-Day' was a success and whilst we didn't really beat the Germans (the Russians did that in truth), we DID drive them out of western Europe and so prevented the soviets from pushing on all the way to the channel!!

[@robertmoyse4414]

When my Dad’s ship visited Edinburgh, he was demonstrating a PIAT to visitors when he met the lady who he married - my Mum. He was a solidly built physical training instructor, but even he found the PIAT hard work. Subsequently he gained experience of the original American 2.36 inch bazooka in Korea in 41 Independent Commando Royal Marines at the battle of Chosin with 1 Div USMC. The US Marines told him the bazooka was useless against the T-34. Maybe the PIAT would have done the job, albeit at closer range.

[@Idahoguy10157]

The WW2 bazooka was found ineffective against the T-34. As soon as the Korean war started. The “Super Bazooka” was the replacement. I’ve not seen any description of using the super bazooka against a T-34. How effective they were, or weren’t.

[@kanrakucheese]

My understanding is the issues the bazooka had in Korea were due in large part to ammo degrading in storage.

[@Idahoguy10157]

@@kanrakucheese …. That wouldn’t surprise anyone. The American garrison in Japan was not ready for a war

[@KnifeChatswithTobias]

I heard these were very popular with the Partisans in Yugoslavia simply because of the lack of back blast and it being relatively quiet. And they really liked using it as a mortar!

[@mikeromney4712]

How can that be quiet?......If all goes according to plan, there should be an explosion at the end.....:)

[@KnifeChatswithTobias]

@@mikeromney4712 the same way hand grenades are quiet. You don’t hear it until the big boom. And because there is no significant back blast or flash at the originating point you can’t pin point where the attack was launched from. It had more range than a typically thrown hand grenade so the partisans could fire a couple rounds into guard posts with great effect, causing mayhem and fear and then melt into the night. You’re thinking of using the PIAT in a major fight. Partisans used them in ambushes and small raids on much softer targets than Panthers and Tigers. Then broke engagement before the Germans knew what hit them.

[@mikeromney4712]

@@KnifeChatswithTobias So the firing sound has to be quiet so that the bang 1-2 seconds later is a complete surprise?.....:)

[@KnifeChatswithTobias]

@@mikeromney4712 , you would possibly hear the report of a large caliber rifle a 3/4 second befor something, possible the car, truck, building etc. that you’re in blows up. Those who were not hit would probably not see a flash or no the exact direction of fire. This would be case if the PIAT shot was made from 250-300 feet. A bazooka or Panzershrek would leave a much larger signature with its back blast. And throwing a hand grenade 300 feet was not really feasible. This was the weapon that filled the distance void between hand thrown grenades and mortars. And it could take out a tank.

[@mikeromney4712]

@@KnifeChatswithTobias Sir, in all honesty, you underestimate the spectacle that a PIAT puts on when fired. KZbin is helpful there. Indoors, fired out of the window, both the bazooka and the recoilless German close-in anti-tank weapons have a much lower muzzle flash due to the recoilless principle. But that doesn't really matter. Have you received any military combat-related training? In urban areas, identifying the shooter who ambushed armored vehicles is completely irrelevant anyway. In general, shots are taken from an elevated position on the 2nd or 3rd floor from the side or at an angle from behind. This area can only be fired back from below by light infantry weapons in diagonal line of sight in a quick reaction. So relatively safe for the ambusher (if he immediately withdraws into the room or further back). Until a tank is far enough away to elevate the gun barrel at the window - ideally the ambusher is no longer in the house, or somewhere nearby. For example, you can see in the latest Syrian war how the IS used exactly these old tactics again. Movement only above the line of sight and line of fire of the tanks. Stay close. Only attack from the side or diagonally from behind....and what we are talking about?.....^^

[@willwallacetree]

Now this is the kind of "Bringing up the PIAT" that we all need :)

[@robertsansone1680]

Thank You so much. This answered many questions.

[@ericamborsky3230]

There's this glorious photo of some monstrous contraption some soldiers made where they made a rack for 8 PIATs and mounted it on the back of a Universal Carrier as some sort of knock-off Katyusha.

[@anselmdanker9519]

Great show thanks

[@theidahotraveler]

Wow cool what a great video to see in real life for all the video game players i play strategy games but it's still really cool to see because you use it also thank you

[@chamberpot969]

Great discussion guys.

[@scrubsrc4084]

It was a piat that knocked a tank out down the road from pegasusnbridge and stopoed the panzers heading to the beaches. Larger spigots that were fixed emplacements to defend the uk were monsters, the hesh rounds they fired were tested on king tigers post war and tore them to peices

[@damianousley8833]

One thing about the piat is that the recoil recocking of the weapon ment you could fire off a second of even third round if you failed to hit or damage the tank or armoured vehile the first time. Given the exhaust plume of rocket projectile weapons which give away the fire teams position, the piat could be used in combat and have the enemy sometimes confused and guessing where the fired round was coming from. I could imagine the Canadians using this weapon if supplied by sufficient ammunition in house to house or close quarter fighting to give themselves an edge. Rapid deployment and use could lead to suprise and help you overcome a defensive position. Hasn't the range of a mortar but you don't have to go through all the trouble of setting it up and having people watch the fall of the mortar rounds to direct the fire onto the target. You may also get lucky and take out the defended position in one shot whereas a motor may use 3 or more rounds to hit a target like a defensive position. Though as a antitank weapon like the panzerfaust or rocket antitank weapons, you either move to get close to the tank and fire or wait for the tank to approach within range to fire, a nerve wracking experience with any of these infantry antitank weapons.

[@ludeman]

This was great because the only information I know came from the manual of the board game Squad Leader which stated it was as much devastating to armor as it was to the brave person firing it

[@fryaduck]

My research results showed and confirmed by the ORO T-117 states the average range of effective "Bazooka" hollow charge weapons being; British - 35 yards, USA - 55 yards. The disparity in range would correlate with the British using the PIAT and not the Bazooka of course both weapons being the hollow charge type. Interestingly the PIAT being more effective than the Bazooka because the bomb was a larger calibre comparatively.

[@tedarcher9120]

Sounds about right, also both had penetration around 4 inches

[@rogersmith7396]

I watched a video of a Bazooka being fired. I assumed they were very inaccurate and who knows where it goes once it leaves the barrel. They were at least 100 yards from their target which was a 3 foot square of two inch steel. They fired it and it went straight as an arrow and hit the target. It punched a 2 or 3 inch diameter hole in the thick steel. I was impressed. Definitely not a toy.

[@haraldsamson1869]

2:12 "little bit of a bang and a puff of smoke" 😅 I heard stories of piat shooters beeing very much stunned by firing this weapon because of the big BOOM when it goes off

[@tomfeng5645]

Much less stunned, I would imagine, than a poor soul being caught in the backblast of a rocket launcher, or one who fired said weapon in too neclosed of a space!

[@Stray03]

Not a big boom, 10 gauge is louder.

[@Rickinsf]

At 10:29 you can see the "Penguin pocket" on the uniform trouser leg. Paul Fussell said that this was was so-named because it was just the right size to carry a Penguin paperback book.

[@Bagledog5000]

Every time I hear PIAT I think of Robert Henry Cain, he'd most likely have a tip or two on it's use. Jeremy Clarkson has a fantastic documentary about him, the VC, and other VC winners. It's worth watching.

[@simonmorris4226]

Too damn right! The man who hid his VC in a desk drawer and never thought to mention it! Hope these sceptered isles still have a few left like him!

[@matydrum]

Woaoooow I have to admit that I fall in the category that thought there wasn't any propellant and that it was only the spring that did the launching!

[@RasEli03]

4:13 is there a place in italy called pearl river?

[@seanmorris]

Po river

[@ashleybishop9937]

At the 13 minute mark, three sections to a platoon and about 30 pers, not two sections or about 50 pers. However very interesting talk on how it works, I didn't know about the propellant.

[@HarryPrimate]

When I was young I saw one of those in a military surplus store, here in the US. I always assumed that it used that big spring in throw the bomb. Thank you for explaining how it works.

[@chemistryofquestionablequa6252]

I've talked to a few guys who have Piats and they were surprised how accurate they are.

[@Charles-t1e7p]

Thanks, very well done!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Glad you liked it!

[@snaek2594]

A german and a brit discussing how the PIAT is underrated. There's a joke here. Neat video.

[@xendk]

Yes, the PIAT is the joke

[@TheArmourersBench]

@@xendk it really isn't. ;)

[@xendk]

@@TheArmourersBench No you are right, it was more of a crime to equip the troops with a horrible weapon like that

[@TheArmourersBench]

@@xendk hahah. Needs must I guess!

[@StrangelyBrownNo1]

He’s Austrian!

[@MrWolfstar8]

Very interesting. I’ve always wondered about the piat.

[@derekwalker4956]

I fired a PIAT once, in the Home Guard. Scored a hit on the target at about 30 yds. We were instructed to hug it hard, to ride with the recoil, and I had no problem in that regard. However, it did not recock, nor did we expect it to.do so. The drill was to recock while lying on your back & using yor feet against the butt to compress the spring. Needed practice to do it swiftly.

[@RMMilitaryHistory]

Another great video!

[@Hansmann69]

Hello Mr. Military History Visualized, I actually do know one guy who partially broke his collar bone with the MG3. But he was quiet stupid and not the ideal MG guy. He wanted to show off before the new conscripts and payed for it :D

[@alienheadgear1161]

Didn't mention the HE bomb which, from the sound of it, may have got more use than the AT. Interesting vid.

[@De_Wit]

Oh man, I didn't know it was semi auto. Nice, that improves it quite a lot. Thanks!

[@antonialeitz9179]

Really interesting history on the PIAT

[@michaelguerin56]

Thank you. It is my understanding that the PIAT technology was adapted to create the forward-firing Hedgehog weapon system which was used by naval escorts to take out U boats. The bombs only went off when they hit something and the ASDIC (nowadays called SONAR) and hydrophones could track the U boat right up to the explosion.

[@Usmodlover]

I see the Bloke on the Range cloning program is going well...

[@TheArmourersBench]

Haha!

[@Old8604]

My father was not a fan he said they were heavy had a nasty recoil and the first loading was a nightmare , obviously people used them but he reckoned they were over rated

[@charlesthepaperman]

I remember a computer game where the character would occasionally taunt whilst reloading its PIAT. With a thick scottish accent: "Who invented those fucking things?!"

[@chrisjones6002]

Seems better that what I've heard previously. I would say the fact that no one else used a similar idea and it doesn't have a more modern version answers the question of which system is better. There are still modern weapons that are similar to the bazooka or pazerschreck.

[@tedarcher9120]

British rifle platoon always consisted of three line sections + command section with attach radios, anti-tank, mortars and snipers, about 50 guys all together

[@roryokane5907]

I’d love to see you do a breakdown of the armour piercing capability of this weapon, and compare it to the bazooka and panzerschreck!

[@JayM409]

The Canadian Army Questionnaire is in 'Canadians Under Fire: Infantry Effectiveness in the Second World War,' by Robert Engen.

[@blorblor5438]

Was somewhere in the video stated, if there was different types of ammunition for that weapon? Did they just use the shaped charge for raining (rather spitting) them on infantry as well? Was there a dedicated HE warhead?

[@TheArmourersBench]

They looked at other types of round but only ever produced the HEAT round.

[@dogsnads5634]

As TAB says they looked at other rounds, including an adapted 3 inch mortar HE warhead. Now that would have been useful in urban warfare or as a mortar...

[@501Mobius]

My friend fired an inert one. He said it is not something he ever wants to do again. It really hurt his shoulder.

[@graemesydney38]

13:15 A British '43-'45 was 36 - Pl HQ 6 and 3 sections of 10.

[@PassportToPimlico]

I did read that during Normandy, the PIAT was a favourite for removing snipers from up in trees by taking out the base of the tree.

[@STScott-qo4pw]

🤣🤣😂😂

[@mikeromney4712]

So you sneak up into a comfortable range for the PIAT at a possible sniper on a tree?.......^^

[@PassportToPimlico]

@@mikeromney4712 I think that was specifically in the Bocage where everything was close up.

[@mikeromney4712]

@@PassportToPimlico Okay.....I give you that point.

[@MrOhms13]

It's essentially an anti-tank / indirect-fire "Glock"? That is pretty cool.

[@thurbine2411]

Would be interesting to get a video on different armies artillery counterbattery tactics

[@onogrirwin]

Seems like it would have been handy to have some blast fragmentation rounds, perhaps illumination as well.

[@wimmeraparanormal6581]

In British and Commonwealth forces, a Platoon is around 30+ men, 3 sections of 8-10 men each.....plus support group (MG, mortar or A/T) give or take. The Company is around 90-100 men at full strength..... 3 Platoons.

[@ldmitruk]

A great example of the PIAT in action is the VC won by Ernest "Smokey" Smith in Italy. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Smith

[@triangulan]

Interesting, never heard of the indirect use before!

[@steveswitzer4353]

My dad was in Italy 44 and his lot the sherwood foresters used them to mousehole through buildings and avoid the streets in towns

[@TheArmourersBench]

That's brilliant to hear, I've been looking for accounts that discus just that.

[@scottperry7311]

Back in the 1990s my neighbor had a PIAT. It was not complete but it was in good condition. I remember it was pretty heavy.

[@raywhitehead730]

After WW2 the British Army did a study on the PIAT, Panzerfaust and the Bazooka. Their finding, to sum up, was that given the cost to.manufactur, they were all effective.

[@saltycanadian6190]

My grandfather fought from North Africa through Sicily. He said that the MG42 was disgustingly scary to hear fire. He’d just hit the ground and pray while he skull dragged forward.

[@MURDOCK1500]

Did they use the anti-tank-shaped charged round in the mortar roll too, or was there a dedicated mortar round?

[@jeffyoung60]

A comparison of the British PIAT, American bazooka, and German Panzerfaust always invites heated controversy. Let me start by reminding all that the three anti-tank weapons worked and worked well for their purpose and intent. Otherwise, an ineffective anti-tank weapon would not have gone into mass production. At the end of WW2, current tanks and envisioned future tanks had thicker armor. The PIAT and the M9/M9A1 bazooka had reached the end of their usefulness. But the Americans were fortunate in that the bazooka design and rocket were amenable to upgrading. Thus came about the 3.5 inch, M20 Super Bazooka, capable of stopping the T-34/85 Soviet-built tank in the Korean War. The British Army was sagacious enough to adopt the M20 as an interim anti-tank infantry weapon until indigenous anti-tank British weapons could be designed, tested, and adopted. In the meantime, the British Army possessed a proven, effective anti-tank weapon if ever conflict with the Soviet Union broke out.

[@wacojones8062]

One caution: Shoulder it very firmly so it recocks itself. Hold it loosely you will be recocking it repeatedly until you learn to hold it very firmly.