Glad to know that someone has grasped this subject. A history of submarines without covering anti submarine warfare would be obviously inadequate, likewise the tank.
Jeremy Clarkson made a great documentary regarding the VC, and his father-in-law Major Cain in particular: "Jeremy Clarkson's The Victoria Cross: For Valour". Great watch. Also Military History Visualized had a nice episode / interview published earlier this weak discussing the workings of the PIAT. Good companion to this video.
My great-grandfather brought back a “Demilitarized” PIAT when he came back from Europe in late-‘46, and it was in the family until the mid-1990s. That’s when we donated his collection to the local Royal Legion. We all found out his unit’s armourer de-mil’d the PIAT, solely, by cutting off the end of the trigger. It was handed back to the Legion after it was properly demilitarized by the Canadian Forces, and is back to being displayed.
Odd that demil was even required, the device itself being inert and ammo non-existent at this point while being overly complex to produce. Bit like sawing the beam on an ancient trebuchet...
@@obfuscated3090 the worry was that ammo was made to be easily reproducible in small shops, and that Canada had never dealt with our own large fascist problem. Any “war booty” brought back by native soldiers had to be 100% demilitarized. While European-Canadian veterans were quite literally bringing back working Browning 30cal machine guns and other heavy weapons. My great-grandfather’s PIAT is displayed beside 2 Brownings MGs, and a Panzerfaust 60. Weapons that were only De-Mil’d after donation, to the Legion’s own very heavy costs. Canada even had to take a complete loss on a large Cold War bunker, in the last 1990s, because the only bidders near the asking were 2 self-described hate groups.
@@deusvult8251 The KKK, and Canada’s Hells Angels biker group were the 2 hate group bidders. Both localized groups with a now more loose national organization. They run the illegal drugs & human trafficking trade in W.Canada, and regularly come into conflict with other profit-based organizations, like the Yakuza & Chinese Mafia, in British Columbia’s port cities.
And all this time I thought the spring tension alone was what was launching the projectile..... Sigh. Of course, there would be a launching charge. How many coffee table ww2 books failed to mention that?
Good video guys, always pleased to see efforts to explain the much maligned PIAT wasn't as useless as is often thought. Glad the photographs of the design drawings I provided were useful!
I've been fascinated by the PIAT, ever since I saw the first picture. It's so uniquely British that you probably need to pronounce it with the right accent for the weapon to work.
@@ericpode6095 Yes; looks a bit like like he started off the developement with one of those spring-loaded toy cannons, and added a propellant as an afterthought.
This is the first time the operation of this weapon made sense to me. The virtual cutaway view of its operation was key in communicating how it worked.
Stewart Blacker was an amazing man, who led an incredible life of seeking solutions to the problems he encountered whilst having out of this world adventures. Definitely an Autobiography worth reading.
Excellently detailed explanation of the PIAT ams it’s use. Well done that man. It always reminds me of the mess left after PIRA decided to fire an RPG7 from inside a van…. No backblast can be very useful. Backblast in a confined tin box, perhaps less so.
100 cm of armor at 30 degree is very effective penetration. That's about the front of a Panther. I never knew that the P.I.A.T. was such a widely used and beloved weapon among British troops. Clear, understandable, well-informed, and enjoyable presentation by Prof. Wheeler. Hail to the heroes we wielded this brilliant weapon in combat.
I think 'beloved' might be stretching it a bit. It was certainly better than a petrol bomb or the Boys which were the only other options. I have had the privilege of speaking with a couple of Canadians that were in the service in the early '50s and I wouldn't say they loved the Piat or the Sten. The Bren on the other hand was very well liked
On the morning of June 6th British paratroopers defending the captured bridges over the river Orne and the Caen canal were engaged by two small German craft coming north down the canal. A PIAT was brought up and hit one which crashed into the bank, the other fled down towards the coast and the guns of the Royal Navy
@@wessexdruid7598 No. The panzerfaust had less range than the PIAT but could penetrate up to 200 mm of armor which is almost double the PIAT. The panzerschreck had more range and penetration than the PIAT. This information is available on the internet. I suggest you make use of it before making provably false statements.
@@ThatZenoGuy Don't put much stock in the theoretical ranges of panzerfausts. They had primitive sights. Hitting anything beyond 50 meters was pure luck. I lived in Germany in the 80s. I talked with many Wehrmacht veterans who told me that they would approach as close as possible before firing the panzerfaust for that reason. The panzerschreck was a different matter. They had good sights and had a good chance of hitting their target at 200 meters or more.
My dad was seconded to the British army in the later stages of WWII. He didn't talk much about this time, but when he did, the PIAT was almost always involved. That's good enough advertising for me.
Fascinating description of the PIAT. Thank you!. I also like the way PIAT was cocked, similar (I think) to how crossbows were cocked hundreds of years ago.
If you'd like to read a story of the PIAT being used in Burma, read the next to last chapter of George MacDonald Fraser's autobiography "Quartered Safe Out Here". He used it in an ambush of Japanese attempting to escape by river from being surrounded by 14th army. The rest of the book is quite good.
I have that book, thoroughly good read, from memory he wasn't too keen on getting that job, nor the PIAT itself. Mind you, I think he was more concerned about a mortar-man almost dropping a round in the wrong way right next to him!
They should do some more often and now that copson got moved up to doing the main tank chats bring back Stuart. I always liked Stuart doing the anti tank chats.
Blacker Bombard was used by NZ and Indian troops in North Africa at least - I have read reports from both nations about their use with the HE round in combat. In one some NZ troops were being bothered by an MG post in the day so at night they moved the Bombard up into position and lobbed a few rounds at the post, silencing it forever.
The manual for the PIAT also says to try engage the enemy from the sides or rear. The exact same as the Soviet’s mid-war anti-tank rifle, which would go through the side of Pz4 at double the distance. The 1943 PIAT’s contemporary Bazooka was also a much more versatile weapon; with its upgraded HEAT warheads(89-102mm of pen), and added Incendiary & White Phosphorus rounds. That’s all on top of being basically half (8.2kg) the weight of the PIAT (15kg), and not ever needing to be cocked by hand.
@@GoatPopsicle To say nothing of the fact that it's a lot easier to get away with the shot when you're not looking down the bow gunner's barrel, and when you're sitting in the driver's blind spots...
Interesting and very good video 🙂 .. the video of the troops training on the PIAT are shooting at the Stug III that Jon Philips later restored, turns out it was one of only three ever sent to North Africa with the DAK and there are photos of it captured there ... he left the holes in it ;-)
Thanks for a very comprehensive and thorough chat on this interesting weapon. I like that you've broadened your coverage & look forward to seeing more like this.
George Macdonald Frazier, in his memoir: 'Quartered Safe Out Here,' describes using the PIAT against Japanese river barges during the Burma campaign. He had no complaints.
Good to see footage from “Theirs is the Glory”. Also given an alternate expansion of the PITA acronym (pain in the a***) I’m not too surprised by my forebears.
I learned fro history that the PIAT was an effective anti-tank weapon, but i had never heard of it's role against bunkers and as a mortar. This has raised my appreciation for the weapon and it's role in WWII.
I have an Army training memorandum from 1943 that mentions the PIAT's utility as a "house breaker" in a section on lessons learned in the Italian campaign. Its portability and lack of back blast is noted as being of great benefit in restricted urban environments and the bomb was capable of making a decent, man-sized entry hole in the average building wall from a safe distance.
Great insight-thanks. My late father received the training on the PIAT fairly late in the war either in the Middle east or Germany- he was not impressed- ' a boingy thing with a spring' was his view. Mind you he had until shortly before been a cavalryman ! Wish I'd asked him more but isn't that always the way.....
He's fun with cars, but he's absolutely in his element giving his all to heart-felt documentaries. Or even stories: like the time he explained why he's fond of the Porsche 928. A man who's man enough to choke up on camera is the kind of man society needs.
@@TeddyBear-ii4yc Well, I'm sorry for taking that in the wrong direction. Let's be honest here though, the part a lot of people would take umbridge with is not the fact he's a bit of an abrasive prick with a lot of wrong-headed opinions on matters he has less grasp of than I do of rocket science, but the fact I suggested men being a bit more honest about their emotions, is beneficial. And I'm far more used to dealing with that kind of people on this site, especially from someone with no avatar and a semi-randomized username. To set things on the most even keel though: That's precisely why I didn't say HE was the sort of man society needs more of, just people with this one trait he has more of than most men his age.
While it's heavier than the Bazooka that is the only downside in exchange for many advantages: + Larger projectile (shot at the same velocity as Bazooka) + smaller and easier to camouflage + able to be shot while prone + able to be shot from enclosed spaces and with troops nearby + No visible flash or smoke when firing + Much faster reload, especially with an assistant (5 hits in 20 seconds on a moving target!) + Can be used in an indirect-fire role However, the PIAT was a dead-end design, it could not be scaled up as it was already the upper limit of carrying weight, nor could lighter materials be used as it needs the mass of the PIAT was needed to absorb recoil. Both of these principles would be used on the M20 Super Bazooka, as that used a larger rocket that also allowed a higher velocity to be used which extended range. And the overwhelming desire was for an infantry direct-fire weapon with more range, which required a higher velocity. The British accepted the 84mm Carl Gustav which was just as heavy and fired a projectile just as large but at 4x the velocity and rifled for additional accuracy and about 2x the velocity of the Super Bazooka. The Carl-G would eventually be lightened even more over time as it could since it was recoil-less it only needed to contain the pressure with composite materials. Bazooka had a few advantages: + light enough to be fired from very awkward positions like leaving out around cover + the rockets can be set as booby traps to be fired without the tube, which exists only to protect who fires it + many bazookas can be attached together and easily fired in volleys (see "Bazooka Charlie") the electrical ignition was key to this. + it's just a cheap metal pipe, they could be mass produced in astonishing numbers + the bazooka was less likely to have a round skip off slanted surfaces without properly detonating
A tiny bit disingenuous not to state that neither Carl Gustaf nor M20 Super Bazooka were available during WW2 so could confuse people as to what was available to the infantry of that time.
@@calessel3139 The bazooka and PIAT had almost identical muzzle velocity and muzzle velocity is almost the sole determining factor in range. However, most versions of the Bazooka at least allowed the sights to be adjusted to much farther range (300 yards) while the PIAT sights only allowed adjustment up to 110 yards for direct fire. However, the PIAT could be used like a mortar in the indirect fire role to a similar range. This makes comparisons difficult, 300 yards direct fire vs 370 yards indirect fire using a quadrant. Which was more practical? Both were pretty good direct fire weapons though weight is the SINGLE determining factor I'd say it matters more than the long laundry list of extra features as weight is such a huge problem for infantrymen.
"...only swapping to a 2 inch mortar when the PIAT''s ammo ran out." Just hold on there. You mean to say he started firing a HE platoon support weapon point blank from the hip? From The Hip Just so he could keep hunting Nazi tanks. ( I think even Chuck Norris trembled the tiniest bit hearing that.)
Not from the hip. He put the baseplate on the ground and fired it directly in a low arc. This was an absolutely standard and recommended way of using the 2 inch mortar to fire the H.E. bomb.
Most shaped charge antitank weapons doubled (and still do) as miniature artillery. There have probably been more of them fired at houses, pillboxes etc than at armour. It was and is one of the advantages of using shaped charges rather than high-velocity penetrators.
Ganju Lama, 1/7 Gurkha Rifles, received the VC for destroying 2 Japanese tanks during the Imphal fighting. It appears that his was the 3rd Victoria Cross awarded for using the PIAT.Thank you for covering this uniquely British Weapon. Were any Blacker bonbards used in the field against German or Italian armour?
Read George MacDonald Frazers book "Quartered Safe out Here", as a young LCpl he was assigned to a special force detachment in Burma to instruct the locals in the use and to use it in an ambush. Great book, well worth a read
Alan Pearson, a small point. Quartered Safe is not only a magnificent read, but probably the best personal memoir of an infantryman in any conflict since the Boer War
An informative video that helped my understanding of how the weapon worked and complimented the souvenir brochure I received at Tankfest ‘23. I had always believed this was an unpopular weapon that wasn’t particularly effective. Thanks for presenting a factual and balanced account of its development and employment. 👍
Found that really interesting. When I got interested in military history and particularly tanks in the 70s ; the PIAT was always treated as a joke and every reference I recall suggested it was spring launched, limited range and ineffective. Thank you
Nice to hear a true account of the PIAT. I have so many claiming it rubbish. 60 rounds launched at short notice as a Mortar. So it worked reliably and the squash head round could smash/shatter the frontal armour of a German Heavy tank when bazookas could and small calibre anti tank guns could not.
There is a Panther tank in the Museum at Overloon recovered from the battlefield of the same name. It has some grooving on the glacis from antitank fire but it was disable and the dismounting crew killed by small arms fire through damage to a road wheel on the right side. The damage was caused by a piat according to the reports.
There's an interesting description of using the Piat against IJA river boats in Burma by George MacDonald Fraser in his book Quartered Safe Out Here. He gives a very clear description of how quirky, awkward, and heavy it was to carry and use, yet it seemed to work somewhat effectively.
The mortar sight on the PIAT is designed to allow the PIAT to hit at the same range from either a low Angle of Attack or a high angle of attack so you can shoot the same spot from the front or the top. Pretty cool.
Overlooked the famous use of a PIAT at Pegasus Bridge during D-Day. In that action, British glider commandos seized Pegasus Bridge to cut the beachheads off from German reinforcement. Later that night a combat Engineers from a Panzer division tried to cross the bridge to investigate reports of paratroopers in the area. The commandos fired on the lead tank, "brewing it up." The tank crew died and severely wounded the tank commander, also the Engineer unit company commander. The Germans withdrew, so impressed by the tank's violent destruction they claimed the bridge was defended by numerous 6 lb anti-tank guns. They postponed the operation until daylight, by which time it was too late and no German vehicle could move in the open without massive allied tactical air attacks. So the commandos, using a PIAT, prevented an entire Panzer division from sweeping the D-Day beaches.
The unit that seized what became known as Pegasus Bridge was D Company, 2nd (Airborne) Battalion, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry, not a Commando unit.
Slight exaggeration. The lead 'tank' was a half track. The crew survived. (Movies make it a tank that gets brewed up) The Germans did think they were under attack by 6 pounder cross fire from long range because they didn't see the PIAT due to its low launch signature.
Hey, we need a new antitank weapon. The Boys isn't getting the job done. How about we make a shoulder fired mortar with a giant AT round? And the crazy thing is . . .that idea worked!
I really like these anti-tank chats. I hope you continue to more unconventional weapons, as well as some of the Anti-Tank guns. There isn't nearly as much attention given to these weapons as there is to tanks themselves.
Seen quite a few still in place in England. Usually found with the wriggly tin trench wall supports still in place and the steel pin centrally set into the concrete pillar for the Bombard to be traversed.
Breath of fresh air to hear someone who knows what they are talking about and does not pretend that the spring actually projected the projectile without any other propelent involved requiring the weapon to be cooked after every shot.
My recollection from the mass of books I've read on the battles and campaigns where it was available were generally pretty negative owing to its extremely short range and poor accuracy outside of those last ditch close range defensive uses.
I think my grandfather fairly criticised it. Mainly because he was trained on them for airfield defence at an aircraft factory in the UK. Being around 5'6" and an aircraft engineer, he struggled with cocking it. And apparently struggled even more getting the spring back in after he'd taken it apart to see how it worked.
I always remember Anthony Hopkins in a bridge too far "bring up the PIAT!" And then it's a spring loaded Rube Goldberg bazooka substitute. Sprrroouiiinnnnggg!
The PIAT is such a British weapon. I mean how much more eccentric and finicky could you make an infantry weapon? I'm surprised the damn thing didn't come with a sextant attached.
even the name is very british not like the usa calling their anti tank weapon a bazooka and the germans using panzerschreck the british going with its exact designation as its name.
My grandfather, who fought in Italy said that Canadian troops would throw a loaded sten into a room, close the door and let Sten clear the room. He told me that everyone was nervous about using Stens because they could cook off easily.
Superb again. I was really looking forward to this. A dead end in anti armour warfare but the best outcome for the mid 40's. Am I correct in thinking the AVRI bunker buster was a spigot mortar aswell? Can anybody let me know a good source/book about Major Cain. Really like to hear a bit more about this chap. What a bloke.
On the subject of controlling back-blast: the IRA used readily available items from the kitchen to make The Prig. Soup cans filled with HE for a warhead and to control recoil it blew out the back a packet of crushed digestive biscuits!
My mate’s dad fought in Italy anf had many a tale to tell. One day he and his no.2 were stalking a Tiger, took the shot to see the projectile bounce off the glacis and go vertical. At which point they quickly retired.
I noticed you mentioned a few 6 pounder anti-tank guns at Arnhem. Will there be a talk about Lance Sergeant Jack Baskeyfield VC of the South Staffordshire Regiment? Jack's grave has never been found sadly.
I remember humping the 84mm Carl Gustav at that time weighing in at 36lb loaded with a round, so in total approx 44lb,, add approx 9lb for your rifle, that’s a hefty load, without counting in the rest of your kit & equipment , in a tactical situation it should be carried in an upright position down the side of the body with the sling over the one shoulder leaving both hands free to handle your rifle, if you were moving up day with the Pl Sgt or with the rear section you could usually get away with it held horizontally across the body with the sling over the back of your neck & 99% of the time you the round you were carrying never even went bang ! Hated the thing. Happy days !
Really good video, nice and informative. Please do more like this. Maybe the bazooka, panzerfäust, Panzerschreck. Would love to see. Also A opioned comparison of the avalible anti tank weapons would be nice.
Major Cain's bravery is an example of a model officer. He and his men had their backs to the wall without support and enemy tanks that had to be taken care of with whatever means were available. He did exactly what he needed to do and dealt with them until he ran out of ammunition. I read several books on the Battle of Arnhem in my youth and if memory serves the remaining British Paras only surrendered when they had run out of ammunition and could no longer put up any meaningful resistance. Like most close range anti-tank weapons used in WWII the PIAT could be highly effective in intimate fighting locations such as the Bocage and urban environments but was otherwise a last ditch defence against closing armour. It sure beats a Boys anti tank rifle in such situations. The Russians probably had little use for the PIAT as they were busy grinding through the mass of the Nazi forces in the east in offensive operations. It would have been a welcome weapon during the battle of Stalingrad. I must say, I also prefer the unscripted tanks chats where you know the person discussing the tank or weapon is a certifiable grognard who could wax lyrical on their weapon of interest all day long. *grin*
The more I learn about the PIAT the more ingenious it seems to be. Had an impression it was just awful for some reason. Stens and PIATS, simple but effective. Plus Brens and no.4 Lee Enfields... pretty good infantry kit I must say. All nations had pretty good kit overall. Everyone had strengths and weaknesses
Cain's story sounds a lot like the story of Sgt Reynolds of the Lake Superior Regiment (Motor), 4th Canadian Armoured Division. At the battle of the Falaise Gap, Reynolds knocked out at least two German tanks, losing his number 2 in the process. He returned to HQ, grabbed more bombs, and said "I think I saw two more of them." Unfortunately for Sgt Reynolds, there weren't two more: there were three. Reynolds knocked out two more tanks, but was cut down by machine gun fire from the third tank.
Any ideas about how much did it cost to produce a PIAT, in decimal £ ? Ive been looking and I can’t find an estimate or an actual amount from the time.
Until now , other than some brief mentioning of its lackluster performance yet state of the art for its time . The base of my knowledge regarding PIAT was learned from , wait for it ,,,,, a Bridge to Far, a great movie .
Hello, Tank Nuts! We hope you enjoy this weeks Anti-Tank Chat with Stuart Wheeler, do let us know your thoughts in the comments.
Been 5 months since one of these, more please!
@@ahmiv8825 yes yes yes
Thank you and thank Stuart Wheeler!
Glad to know that someone has grasped this subject. A history of submarines without covering anti submarine warfare would be obviously inadequate, likewise the tank.
Only need to get these out faster is what we need...... These things r fun for me at least.
Major Cain is such a character, winning a VC in Arnhem, living his life after the war and never telling anyone he actually won the VC.
Real Hero's never brag about their achievements.
Its our Duty to tell their stories and pass them on to future generations.
His daughter was married to Jeremy Clarkson.
Just from the footage I've seen, I'm sure he wished to never speak of Arnhem again.
@@willallen7757 I know of a lot of veterans who didn't speak about their experiences during the war.
Jeremy Clarkson made a great documentary regarding the VC, and his father-in-law Major Cain in particular: "Jeremy Clarkson's The Victoria Cross: For Valour". Great watch.
Also Military History Visualized had a nice episode / interview published earlier this weak discussing the workings of the PIAT. Good companion to this video.
My great-grandfather brought back a “Demilitarized” PIAT when he came back from Europe in late-‘46, and it was in the family until the mid-1990s. That’s when we donated his collection to the local Royal Legion.
We all found out his unit’s armourer de-mil’d the PIAT, solely, by cutting off the end of the trigger. It was handed back to the Legion after it was properly demilitarized by the Canadian Forces, and is back to being displayed.
Odd that demil was even required, the device itself being inert and ammo non-existent at this point while being overly complex to produce. Bit like sawing the beam on an ancient trebuchet...
@@obfuscated3090 the worry was that ammo was made to be easily reproducible in small shops, and that Canada had never dealt with our own large fascist problem. Any “war booty” brought back by native soldiers had to be 100% demilitarized. While European-Canadian veterans were quite literally bringing back working Browning 30cal machine guns and other heavy weapons.
My great-grandfather’s PIAT is displayed beside 2 Brownings MGs, and a Panzerfaust 60. Weapons that were only De-Mil’d after donation, to the Legion’s own very heavy costs.
Canada even had to take a complete loss on a large Cold War bunker, in the last 1990s, because the only bidders near the asking were 2 self-described hate groups.
@@GoatPopsicle what is a hate group lmao
@@deusvult8251 The KKK, and Canada’s Hells Angels biker group were the 2 hate group bidders. Both localized groups with a now more loose national organization. They run the illegal drugs & human trafficking trade in W.Canada, and regularly come into conflict with other profit-based organizations, like the Yakuza & Chinese Mafia, in British Columbia’s port cities.
And all this time I thought the spring tension alone was what was launching the projectile..... Sigh. Of course, there would be a launching charge. How many coffee table ww2 books failed to mention that?
You're not the only one
Me too.
Me too
Me too
Yup, me too 🥴
Good video guys, always pleased to see efforts to explain the much maligned PIAT wasn't as useless as is often thought. Glad the photographs of the design drawings I provided were useful!
I've been fascinated by the PIAT, ever since I saw the first picture.
It's so uniquely British that you probably need to pronounce it with the right accent for the weapon to work.
"How can we knock our a a tank? First get a VERY big spring.....".
Heath-Robinson in real life!
@@ericpode6095 Yes; looks a bit like like he started off the developement with one of those spring-loaded toy cannons, and added a propellant as an afterthought.
"an effective Infantry AT weapon against tanks operated by Fools! "
Always loved the Scottish voice acting for the British sappers in Company of Heroes. "Ready those PIATs lads!", "Use the PIAT only if ye haff to!"
This is the first time the operation of this weapon made sense to me. The virtual cutaway view of its operation was key in communicating how it worked.
Stewart Blacker was an amazing man, who led an incredible life of seeking solutions to the problems he encountered whilst having out of this world adventures. Definitely an Autobiography worth reading.
Also key in the development of the Churchill A.V.R.E. Aka the flying dustbin. Another spigot mortar designed to obliterate enemy pill boxes!
This is going to be good “Bring up the PIAT” 👍
I like the part of the movie when they bring up crawling barrage more tho.
Excellent work. A long delayed but super comprehensive exposition on the much maligned PIAT. Thank you.
Excellently detailed explanation of the PIAT ams it’s use. Well done that man. It always reminds me of the mess left after PIRA decided to fire an RPG7 from inside a van…. No backblast can be very useful. Backblast in a confined tin box, perhaps less so.
I remember seeing the photos of that incident with NITAT….. Well hand n Pistol Grip ;-)
100 cm of armor at 30 degree is very effective penetration. That's about the front of a Panther. I never knew that the P.I.A.T. was such a widely used and beloved weapon among British troops. Clear, understandable, well-informed, and enjoyable presentation by Prof. Wheeler. Hail to the heroes we wielded this brilliant weapon in combat.
100mm = 10 cm = 0.1 m.
I think 'beloved' might be stretching it a bit.
It was certainly better than a petrol bomb or the Boys which were the only other options.
I have had the privilege of speaking with a couple of Canadians that were in the service in the early '50s and I wouldn't say they loved the Piat or the Sten.
The Bren on the other hand was very well liked
On the morning of June 6th British paratroopers defending the captured bridges over the river Orne and the Caen canal were engaged by two small German craft coming north down the canal. A PIAT was brought up and hit one which crashed into the bank, the other fled down towards the coast and the guns of the Royal Navy
Id love to know where you read that, so i can read it myself?....
The Canadian Smokey Smith won the VC in a similar story in Italy.
Impressive how much armour penetration it had for the time.
Hello Liam
@Peter T it was perfect for the highly urban battlefields of the ww2.
No other ww2 anti tank could be fired inside
More lethal than the Panzerfaust, Panzerschrek or Bazooka.
@@wessexdruid7598 No. The panzerfaust had less range than the PIAT but could penetrate up to 200 mm of armor which is almost double the PIAT. The panzerschreck had more range and penetration than the PIAT.
This information is available on the internet. I suggest you make use of it before making provably false statements.
@@ThatZenoGuy Don't put much stock in the theoretical ranges of panzerfausts. They had primitive sights. Hitting anything beyond 50 meters was pure luck. I lived in Germany in the 80s. I talked with many Wehrmacht veterans who told me that they would approach as close as possible before firing the panzerfaust for that reason. The panzerschreck was a different matter. They had good sights and had a good chance of hitting their target at 200 meters or more.
That was another good anti tank chat as always. Looking forward to the Panzerfaust for comparison
My dad was seconded to the British army in the later stages of WWII. He didn't talk much about this time, but when he did, the PIAT was almost always involved. That's good enough advertising for me.
Fascinating description of the PIAT. Thank you!. I also like the way PIAT was cocked, similar (I think) to how crossbows were cocked hundreds of years ago.
If you'd like to read a story of the PIAT being used in Burma, read the next to last chapter of George MacDonald Fraser's autobiography "Quartered Safe Out Here". He used it in an ambush of Japanese attempting to escape by river from being surrounded by 14th army. The rest of the book is quite good.
I have that book, thoroughly good read, from memory he wasn't too keen on getting that job, nor the PIAT itself. Mind you, I think he was more concerned about a mortar-man almost dropping a round in the wrong way right next to him!
This is the most complete and detailed PIAT documentary i have ever seen. Well done Tank Museum. Really good.
These anti tank chats are really interesting. I just wish they were released on a more regular basis.
They should do some more often and now that copson got moved up to doing the main tank chats bring back Stuart. I always liked Stuart doing the anti tank chats.
Blacker Bombard was used by NZ and Indian troops in North Africa at least - I have read reports from both nations about their use with the HE round in combat.
In one some NZ troops were being bothered by an MG post in the day so at night they moved the Bombard up into position and lobbed a few rounds at the post, silencing it forever.
Its ability to knock out German tanks frontally was pretty impressive, at a time when bazookas and AT rifles had to engage from the side.
From what I understand the main advantage was being able to use from cover, both bazookas and panzerfaust having potentially deadly blowback.
The manual for the PIAT also says to try engage the enemy from the sides or rear. The exact same as the Soviet’s mid-war anti-tank rifle, which would go through the side of Pz4 at double the distance.
The 1943 PIAT’s contemporary Bazooka was also a much more versatile weapon; with its upgraded HEAT warheads(89-102mm of pen), and added Incendiary & White Phosphorus rounds. That’s all on top of being basically half (8.2kg) the weight of the PIAT (15kg), and not ever needing to be cocked by hand.
@@GoatPopsicle To say nothing of the fact that it's a lot easier to get away with the shot when you're not looking down the bow gunner's barrel, and when you're sitting in the driver's blind spots...
that`s a good one !!
engaging any tank frontally with very short-range weapon is a stupid idea
Some of your best content in terms of information density and overall communication. Thanks for posting.
I served in anti-tanks, I was a 95mm recoilles gun loader, and 112mm APILAS gunner, and off course 66mm LATW was as familiar as my RK-62
Great description of the PIAT and how it works and how it was used.
Interesting and very good video 🙂 .. the video of the troops training on the PIAT are shooting at the Stug III that Jon Philips later restored, turns out it was one of only three ever sent to North Africa with the DAK and there are photos of it captured there ... he left the holes in it ;-)
What a superb chat. Thank you very much Stuart.
Love these anti-tank chats!!! Keep em coming!
Thanks for a very comprehensive and thorough chat on this interesting weapon. I like that you've broadened your coverage & look forward to seeing more like this.
George Macdonald Frazier, in his memoir: 'Quartered Safe Out Here,' describes using the PIAT against Japanese river barges during the Burma campaign. He had no complaints.
An Excellent book.
@@benwilson6145 It is indeed.
He did when he had to carry the bloody thing on a forced march at night through jungle!
Good to see footage from “Theirs is the Glory”. Also given an alternate expansion of the PITA acronym (pain in the a***) I’m not too surprised by my forebears.
I learned fro history that the PIAT was an effective anti-tank weapon, but i had never heard of it's role against bunkers and as a mortar. This has raised my appreciation for the weapon and it's role in WWII.
I have an Army training memorandum from 1943 that mentions the PIAT's utility as a "house breaker" in a section on lessons learned in the Italian campaign. Its portability and lack of back blast is noted as being of great benefit in restricted urban environments and the bomb was capable of making a decent, man-sized entry hole in the average building wall from a safe distance.
Been looking forward to more of this series
Great insight-thanks. My late father received the training on the PIAT fairly late in the war either in the Middle east or Germany- he was not impressed- ' a boingy thing with a spring' was his view. Mind you he had until shortly before been a cavalryman ! Wish I'd asked him more but isn't that always the way.....
Thank you for the best review of this weapon I have seen.
There is a PIAT used in the Polish film “Kanal” in one scene. A Goliath remote control bomb was also used.
Very informative and well done. Glad I could help!
Major Robert Henry Cain was Jeremy Clarkson's Father in Law, Clarkson does an excellent documentary 'War Stories'.
He's fun with cars, but he's absolutely in his element giving his all to heart-felt documentaries. Or even stories: like the time he explained why he's fond of the Porsche 928. A man who's man enough to choke up on camera is the kind of man society needs.
@@Morgan_Sandoval "Needs"? Steady on...
@@TeddyBear-ii4yc I stand by what I said, coward.
@@Morgan_Sandoval calm down. JC has some outspoken views on a wide array of matters.
@@TeddyBear-ii4yc Well, I'm sorry for taking that in the wrong direction.
Let's be honest here though, the part a lot of people would take umbridge with is not the fact he's a bit of an abrasive prick with a lot of wrong-headed opinions on matters he has less grasp of than I do of rocket science, but the fact I suggested men being a bit more honest about their emotions, is beneficial. And I'm far more used to dealing with that kind of people on this site, especially from someone with no avatar and a semi-randomized username.
To set things on the most even keel though: That's precisely why I didn't say HE was the sort of man society needs more of, just people with this one trait he has more of than most men his age.
Great talk well done. Would like to hear more chats from this chap.
Absolutely loving this series, and it's nice to see and hear from some new faces.
While it's heavier than the Bazooka that is the only downside in exchange for many advantages:
+ Larger projectile (shot at the same velocity as Bazooka)
+ smaller and easier to camouflage
+ able to be shot while prone
+ able to be shot from enclosed spaces and with troops nearby
+ No visible flash or smoke when firing
+ Much faster reload, especially with an assistant (5 hits in 20 seconds on a moving target!)
+ Can be used in an indirect-fire role
However, the PIAT was a dead-end design, it could not be scaled up as it was already the upper limit of carrying weight, nor could lighter materials be used as it needs the mass of the PIAT was needed to absorb recoil. Both of these principles would be used on the M20 Super Bazooka, as that used a larger rocket that also allowed a higher velocity to be used which extended range.
And the overwhelming desire was for an infantry direct-fire weapon with more range, which required a higher velocity. The British accepted the 84mm Carl Gustav which was just as heavy and fired a projectile just as large but at 4x the velocity and rifled for additional accuracy and about 2x the velocity of the Super Bazooka. The Carl-G would eventually be lightened even more over time as it could since it was recoil-less it only needed to contain the pressure with composite materials.
Bazooka had a few advantages:
+ light enough to be fired from very awkward positions like leaving out around cover
+ the rockets can be set as booby traps to be fired without the tube, which exists only to protect who fires it
+ many bazookas can be attached together and easily fired in volleys (see "Bazooka Charlie") the electrical ignition was key to this.
+ it's just a cheap metal pipe, they could be mass produced in astonishing numbers
+ the bazooka was less likely to have a round skip off slanted surfaces without properly detonating
Good points.
The Bazooka also had a better effective range.
A tiny bit disingenuous not to state that neither Carl Gustaf nor M20 Super Bazooka were available during WW2 so could confuse people as to what was available to the infantry of that time.
@@DraigBlackCat That was an advantage of the design, that's the only point here.
@@calessel3139 The bazooka and PIAT had almost identical muzzle velocity and muzzle velocity is almost the sole determining factor in range.
However, most versions of the Bazooka at least allowed the sights to be adjusted to much farther range (300 yards) while the PIAT sights only allowed adjustment up to 110 yards for direct fire.
However, the PIAT could be used like a mortar in the indirect fire role to a similar range.
This makes comparisons difficult, 300 yards direct fire vs 370 yards indirect fire using a quadrant. Which was more practical?
Both were pretty good direct fire weapons though weight is the SINGLE determining factor I'd say it matters more than the long laundry list of extra features as weight is such a huge problem for infantrymen.
"...only swapping to a 2 inch mortar when the PIAT''s ammo ran out." Just hold on there. You mean to say he started firing a HE platoon support weapon point blank from the hip?
From
The
Hip
Just so he could keep hunting Nazi tanks.
( I think even Chuck Norris trembled the tiniest bit hearing that.)
Watch Clarkson's video to learn more. th-cam.com/video/RbS4Ivl85GQ/w-d-xo.html
Utter rubbish
@@wessexdruid7598 I've now gained a new hero. Turns out that chap isn't someone you want to make "...bloody angry."
Not from the hip. He put the baseplate on the ground and fired it directly in a low arc. This was an absolutely standard and recommended way of using the 2 inch mortar to fire the H.E. bomb.
Yep, eye witness reports said, from the hip.
Hadn't realised that the PIAT was so versatile beyond it's anti tank role, but it made good sense.
Most shaped charge antitank weapons doubled (and still do) as miniature artillery. There have probably been more of them fired at houses, pillboxes etc than at armour. It was and is one of the advantages of using shaped charges rather than high-velocity penetrators.
The best video I've seen in a long time. Thank you.
This part of the Tank Museum's content really is "an untold story"; one of the best things on youtube.
Ganju Lama, 1/7 Gurkha Rifles, received the VC for destroying 2 Japanese tanks during the Imphal fighting. It appears that his was the 3rd Victoria Cross awarded for using the PIAT.Thank you for covering this uniquely British Weapon. Were any Blacker bonbards used in the field against German or Italian armour?
Read George MacDonald Frazers book "Quartered Safe out Here", as a young LCpl he was assigned to a special force detachment in Burma to instruct the locals in the use and to use it in an ambush. Great book, well worth a read
Alan Pearson, a small point. Quartered Safe is not only a magnificent read, but probably the best personal memoir of an infantryman in any conflict since the Boer War
@@allanshort8264 Can't argue with that, thanks
Excellent presentation. Thank you
An informative video that helped my understanding of how the weapon worked and complimented the souvenir brochure I received at Tankfest ‘23. I had always believed this was an unpopular weapon that wasn’t particularly effective. Thanks for presenting a factual and balanced account of its development and employment. 👍
Found that really interesting. When I got interested in military history and particularly tanks in the 70s ; the PIAT was always treated as a joke and every reference I recall suggested it was spring launched, limited range and ineffective. Thank you
Nice to hear a true account of the PIAT. I have so many claiming it rubbish. 60 rounds launched at short notice as a Mortar. So it worked reliably and the squash head round could smash/shatter the frontal armour of a German Heavy tank when bazookas could and small calibre anti tank guns could not.
Awesome. I like this bloke.
Excellent job, as always.
Yesss at last! Love the PIAT
There is a Panther tank in the Museum at Overloon recovered from the battlefield of the same name. It has some grooving on the glacis from antitank fire but it was disable and the dismounting crew killed by small arms fire through damage to a road wheel on the right side. The damage was caused by a piat according to the reports.
Excellent presentation of this weapon! Fascinating video.
There's an interesting description of using the Piat against IJA river boats in Burma by George MacDonald Fraser in his book Quartered Safe Out Here. He gives a very clear description of how quirky, awkward, and heavy it was to carry and use, yet it seemed to work somewhat effectively.
Kiwis seemed to think quite highly of them in Italy, including using them in the mortar role.
I honestly hadn't heard of the secondary mortar capability but it makes sense!
The mortar sight on the PIAT is designed to allow the PIAT to hit at the same range from either a low Angle of Attack or a high angle of attack so you can shoot the same spot from the front or the top. Pretty cool.
Excellent. Thank you.
Overlooked the famous use of a PIAT at Pegasus Bridge during D-Day. In that action, British glider commandos seized Pegasus Bridge to cut the beachheads off from German reinforcement. Later that night a combat Engineers from a Panzer division tried to cross the bridge to investigate reports of paratroopers in the area. The commandos fired on the lead tank, "brewing it up." The tank crew died and severely wounded the tank commander, also the Engineer unit company commander. The Germans withdrew, so impressed by the tank's violent destruction they claimed the bridge was defended by numerous 6 lb anti-tank guns. They postponed the operation until daylight, by which time it was too late and no German vehicle could move in the open without massive allied tactical air attacks. So the commandos, using a PIAT, prevented an entire Panzer division from sweeping the D-Day beaches.
The unit that seized what became known as Pegasus Bridge was D Company, 2nd (Airborne) Battalion, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry, not a Commando unit.
Slight exaggeration. The lead 'tank' was a half track. The crew survived. (Movies make it a tank that gets brewed up) The Germans did think they were under attack by 6 pounder cross fire from long range because they didn't see the PIAT due to its low launch signature.
it's like firing a musket, pull the trigger and wait for the launch. brilliant,
What a great series! Excellent work!
I really like these anti-tank chants keep up the good work mate.
That was so very interesting. Thank you! 👍
Hey, we need a new antitank weapon. The Boys isn't getting the job done.
How about we make a shoulder fired mortar with a giant AT round?
And the crazy thing is . . .that idea worked!
I really like these anti-tank chats. I hope you continue to more unconventional weapons, as well as some of the Anti-Tank guns. There isn't nearly as much attention given to these weapons as there is to tanks themselves.
Have a Blacker Bombard concrete base at the bottom of my garden with excellent sight lines of a river bridge
Seen quite a few still in place in England. Usually found with the wriggly tin trench wall supports still in place and the steel pin centrally set into the concrete pillar for the Bombard to be traversed.
Breath of fresh air to hear someone who knows what they are talking about and does not pretend that the spring actually projected the projectile without any other propelent involved requiring the weapon to be cooked after every shot.
PIAT has been the victim of a lot of unfair criticism stemming from misinformation and false rumors. It was a good weapon.
I'd take the bazooka or panzerschreck
I've read that the PIAT was responsible for 7% of armoured vehicles destroyed in Normandy - air attack accounted for 2%
My recollection from the mass of books I've read on the battles and campaigns where it was available were generally pretty negative owing to its extremely short range and poor accuracy outside of those last ditch close range defensive uses.
I think my grandfather fairly criticised it. Mainly because he was trained on them for airfield defence at an aircraft factory in the UK. Being around 5'6" and an aircraft engineer, he struggled with cocking it. And apparently struggled even more getting the spring back in after he'd taken it apart to see how it worked.
@@brolohalflemming7042 lol - classic engineer taking it apart.
I certainly learned more from this than I have elsewhere . Super.
A great video about a fantasic anti-tank weapon.
Excellent presentation
Really interesting video. Thanks.
I always remember Anthony Hopkins in a bridge too far "bring up the PIAT!" And then it's a spring loaded Rube Goldberg bazooka substitute. Sprrroouiiinnnnggg!
THank You that was Great!
Woo! I'm enjoying these chats
The PIAT is such a British weapon. I mean how much more eccentric and finicky could you make an infantry weapon? I'm surprised the damn thing didn't come with a sextant attached.
even the name is very british not like the usa calling their anti tank weapon a bazooka and the germans using panzerschreck the british going with its exact designation as its name.
My grandfather, who fought in Italy said that Canadian troops would throw a loaded sten into a room, close the door and let Sten clear the room. He told me that everyone was nervous about using Stens because they could cook off easily.
The indirect fire sight is a sextant.
Anybody see the PIAT in Combat Dealers (Bruce Crompton)
They came up with several anti tank weapons to demonstrate for a film maker.
Thank you.
Really enjoyable and informative video.
Cheers
Superb again. I was really looking forward to this. A dead end in anti armour warfare but the best outcome for the mid 40's. Am I correct in thinking the AVRI bunker buster was a spigot mortar aswell? Can anybody let me know a good source/book about Major Cain. Really like to hear a bit more about this chap. What a bloke.
It was.
On the subject of controlling back-blast: the IRA used readily available items from the kitchen to make The Prig.
Soup cans filled with HE for a warhead and to control recoil it blew out the back a packet of crushed digestive biscuits!
My mate’s dad fought in Italy anf had many a tale to tell. One day he and his no.2 were stalking a Tiger, took the shot to see the projectile bounce off the glacis and go vertical. At which point they quickly retired.
They mentioned that the piat was used in East Asia. There is a great photo showing a veitminh, two man team using a captured one.
I noticed you mentioned a few 6 pounder anti-tank guns at Arnhem. Will there be a talk about Lance Sergeant Jack Baskeyfield VC of the South Staffordshire Regiment? Jack's grave has never been found sadly.
Well presented.
I remember humping the 84mm Carl Gustav at that time weighing in at 36lb loaded with a round, so in total approx 44lb,, add approx 9lb for your rifle, that’s a hefty load, without counting in the rest of your kit & equipment , in a tactical situation it should be carried in an upright position down the side of the body with the sling over the one shoulder leaving both hands free to handle your rifle, if you were moving up day with the Pl Sgt or with the rear section you could usually get away with it held horizontally across the body with the sling over the back of your neck & 99% of the time you the round you were carrying never even went bang ! Hated the thing.
Happy days !
Love these. Tanks are fantastic, but the weapons designed to combat them are no less so.
Really good video, nice and informative. Please do more like this. Maybe the bazooka, panzerfäust, Panzerschreck. Would love to see. Also A opioned comparison of the avalible anti tank weapons would be nice.
They've done the bazooka already.
If you want to know more about Robert Cain, I recommend the Jeremy Clarkson documentary on the VC. It was his father in law.
Thanks for your advice, it's a very good watch.
A great presentation by Stuart, as always.
Major Cain's bravery is an example of a model officer. He and his men had their backs to the wall without support and enemy tanks that had to be taken care of with whatever means were available. He did exactly what he needed to do and dealt with them until he ran out of ammunition. I read several books on the Battle of Arnhem in my youth and if memory serves the remaining British Paras only surrendered when they had run out of ammunition and could no longer put up any meaningful resistance.
Like most close range anti-tank weapons used in WWII the PIAT could be highly effective in intimate fighting locations such as the Bocage and urban environments but was otherwise a last ditch defence against closing armour. It sure beats a Boys anti tank rifle in such situations. The Russians probably had little use for the PIAT as they were busy grinding through the mass of the Nazi forces in the east in offensive operations. It would have been a welcome weapon during the battle of Stalingrad.
I must say, I also prefer the unscripted tanks chats where you know the person discussing the tank or weapon is a certifiable grognard who could wax lyrical on their weapon of interest all day long. *grin*
Fantastic presenter & series.
WAHEY! been waiting for this one for ages
Great content!
The more I learn about the PIAT the more ingenious it seems to be. Had an impression it was just awful for some reason. Stens and PIATS, simple but effective. Plus Brens and no.4 Lee Enfields... pretty good infantry kit I must say. All nations had pretty good kit overall. Everyone had strengths and weaknesses
Italy managed to produce some garbage despite being brilliant gunsmiths usually.
Cain's story sounds a lot like the story of Sgt Reynolds of the Lake Superior Regiment (Motor), 4th Canadian Armoured Division.
At the battle of the Falaise Gap, Reynolds knocked out at least two German tanks, losing his number 2 in the process. He returned to HQ, grabbed more bombs, and said "I think I saw two more of them."
Unfortunately for Sgt Reynolds, there weren't two more: there were three. Reynolds knocked out two more tanks, but was cut down by machine gun fire from the third tank.
Any ideas about how much did it cost to produce a PIAT, in decimal £ ?
Ive been looking and I can’t find an estimate or an actual amount from the time.
Until now , other than some brief mentioning of its lackluster performance yet state of the art for its time . The base of my knowledge regarding PIAT was learned from , wait for it ,,,,, a Bridge to Far, a great movie .