PIAT

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
giphy.gif


(But I get the principle of what you're saying)
Sorry, the first pic I saw!

Here's a clearer (but watermarked) version:
Fougasse-Cartoons-Punch-1918-11-09-167.jpg
 
Interestingly (or not) most if not all photos from the Geilenkirchen battle show troops fairly well loaded down:

101778_slice.jpg


British_infantry_in_action_in_the_streets_of_Geilenkirchen,_Germany,_December_1944_BU1335.jpg


But the 'light' loading during combat is also evidenced too, in other battles:

British_Infantry_of_3rd_Division_In_Lingen_1945.jpg
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
As I said, it's my impression that solders went 'light' on the tip of the spear, to use that horrible phrase, and even those who were just behind were still kitted up.
Good as far as you go but remember, those at the "tip" could rapidly be passed by those troops supporting them; and any general maxim ALWAYS has exceptions.

I'm a member of a military historian's group in London (HDD) with some well known authors as members; one thing that they are often missing is a worm's eye view of the action (which they freely admit, and free ranging discussion with drunk ex-squaddies can be quite valuable for them). One example a few years ago was a historian turning up with a set of 08 pattern webbing saying it was the best thing since sliced bread, far superior to anything soldiers used nowadays because it was so comfortable and nothing could fall out and why didn't we still use it?

The ex-squaddies then posed him a few questions: "How many mags can you carry? Does it shrink when it's wet? Where do you put the grenades, mortar rounds, belted ammo?" and so on. Most of what we asked he hadn't considered, because he'd never used it other than in his garden.

This is not to denigrate the historian, he's a very intelligent man with a huge depth of knowledge in his field, but he's never had to live what he studies.
 
We were in trade training for a year stuck with the patt 37 in 75, but the course (Everyone has be equipped the same) all paid up front and we went to Silvermans and we bought 12 beaten up sets of 58. Best purchase.

Hi PT 16-B!
 
Last edited:

Chef

LE
Good as far as you go but remember, those at the "tip" could rapidly be passed by those troops supporting them; and any general maxim ALWAYS has exceptions.

I'm a member of a military historian's group in London (HDD) with some well known authors as members; one thing that they are often missing is a worm's eye view of the action (which they freely admit, and free ranging discussion with drunk ex-squaddies can be quite valuable for them). One example a few years ago was a historian turning up with a set of 08 pattern webbing saying it was the best thing since sliced bread, far superior to anything soldiers used nowadays because it was so comfortable and nothing could fall out and why didn't we still use it?

The ex-squaddies then posed him a few questions: "How many mags can you carry? Does it shrink when it's wet? Where do you put the grenades, mortar rounds, belted ammo?" and so on. Most of what we asked he hadn't considered, because he'd never used it other than in his garden.

This is not to denigrate the historian, he's a very intelligent man with a huge depth of knowledge in his field, but he's never had to live what he studies.
Similar thing happened when a bloke joined our unit and we bimbled off to Germany for an exercise.

He was heavily into collecting WWII kit including a Jeep and rather nice MP's Harley. A group of them would visit the areas round the Ardennes offensive in vehicles and kit.

At the end of the German exercise he said it made him realise why we had SOPs and how they worked in a day to day environment.

Same thing when I looked at the decks of my wargame AFVs and saw how cluttered they were in the wrong places.
 
I came across these today. Is this for the PIAT in Russian service, it's dated 1944?
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2021-12-06 002036.jpg
    Screenshot 2021-12-06 002036.jpg
    120.3 KB · Views: 12
  • Screenshot 2021-12-06 002545.jpg
    Screenshot 2021-12-06 002545.jpg
    72.8 KB · Views: 13
  • Screenshot 2021-12-06 002436.jpg
    Screenshot 2021-12-06 002436.jpg
    59.8 KB · Views: 12
  • Screenshot 2021-12-06 002410.jpg
    Screenshot 2021-12-06 002410.jpg
    130.2 KB · Views: 12
  • Screenshot 2021-12-06 002327.jpg
    Screenshot 2021-12-06 002327.jpg
    86.7 KB · Views: 12
  • Screenshot 2021-12-06 002132.jpg
    Screenshot 2021-12-06 002132.jpg
    82.8 KB · Views: 11
  • Screenshot 2021-12-06 003232.jpg
    Screenshot 2021-12-06 003232.jpg
    66.2 KB · Views: 9
Last edited:
Ok, new question... why does it have a Bombard round on it?
It looks like a manual of some sort for both weapons. The spigot mortar 29mm is named on another page, as well as there being an illustration.
Perhaps the rumours of some sort of supply of the Bombard to the USSR are correct?

It would be interesting to know whether the drawings were supplied by us and re-used by whoever created the manual, or whether they are new drawings. If the latter, that would imply the presence in the USSR of the objects drawn, which is interesting in the case of the Bombard.


Great find @wilfred.
 
It looks like a manual of some sort for both weapons. The spigot mortar 29mm is named on another page, as well as there being an illustration.
Perhaps the rumours of some sort of supply of the Bombard to the USSR are correct?

It would be interesting to know whether the drawings were supplied by us and re-used by whoever created the manual, or whether they are new drawings. If the latter, that would imply the presence in the USSR of the objects drawn, which is interesting in the case of the Bombard.


Great find @wilfred.

We know a small number of Bombards were sent. About 250 were sent by June of 1942. However, No one has been able to find out any more, not even ammo scales. We do know that the Russian military mission in the UK was shown a Bombard, but it was firing ammo built for development with an untrained crew, so the results were appalling, and the Russians figured it was a waste of time, and refused point blank to attended any more demonstrations.
So they didn't have much of a regard for that weapon.
 
We know a small number of Bombards were sent. About 250 were sent by June of 1942. However, No one has been able to find out any more, not even ammo scales. We do know that the Russian military mission in the UK was shown a Bombard, but it was firing ammo built for development with an untrained crew, so the results were appalling, and the Russians figured it was a waste of time, and refused point blank to attended any more demonstrations.
So they didn't have much of a regard for that weapon.
Thank you for that info.
The technical drawing of the round doesn't appear to be that used in Britain. Interesting to think of Soviet technicians taking everything apart. I would imagine there was quite a lot of technology/knowledge transfer in that way, during the war.
 
Thank you for that info.
The technical drawing of the round doesn't appear to be that used in Britain. Interesting to think of Soviet technicians taking everything apart. I would imagine there was quite a lot of technology/knowledge transfer in that way, during the war.

Less than you'd think. The Russians ere informed of Plastic Armour and given samples of Bombards, which were HESH rounds. Both appear to be utterly ignored by the Soviets, which was a bit of a mistake.
 
Less than you'd think. The Russians ere informed of Plastic Armour and given samples of Bombards, which were HESH rounds. Both appear to be utterly ignored by the Soviets, which was a bit of a mistake.
Perhaps a degree of Russian technical/national chauvinism? That did come over a bit in the translation of the Russian units' comments about the use of the PIAT.
 
Ok, new question... why does it have a Bombard round on it?
Ask a Russian speaker (there are a few on ARRSE) to translate it for you, or at least the cover page. It is quite likely part of a report on a Soviet evaluation of foreign weapons, made for the purposes of deciding what should be looked at for adoption or learning lessons from.

If this is such a report knowing that it existed and when it was created could be a nice bit of background information for you.
 
Perhaps a degree of Russian technical/national chauvinism? That did come over a bit in the translation of the Russian units' comments about the use of the PIAT.
There were a number of reasons why the Soviets didn't adopt various weapons that we thought were useful. Sometimes it was just they had different operating conditions which made them less useful in their circumstances. Sometimes it was that they already had something in service with a local supply of ammunition (keeping in mind the sporadic and tenuous nature of the Arctic supply convoys) that filled the same role in a different way. Sometimes their evaluation criteria were unrealistic and so the kit would fail testing. Sometimes they thought an idea was good but judged they couldn't set up production in a useful time frame.

The Soviets didn't get everything right, but they did have a very methodical and detailed evaluation process for looking at any and all kit they could get their hands on, whether Allied or German, with the intent of copying whatever ideas they thought were useful.

Their infantry anti-tank weapons through suffered from the problem that the testing body kept setting evaluation criteria which said that any new weapon must have at least as much range as their anti-tank rifles while also having greater penetration capability. This was unrealistic for the available technology, and as tanks got thicker range needed to be sacrificed in order to get useful penetration. Their anti-tank rifles would also fail the test criteria if they had been tested, but they were already in service from the days when tanks were thinner and so didn't have to pass through the process again for adoption.

Meanwhile the Soviet army were issuing instructions to their troops to round up all the Panzerfausts they could lay their hands on which were left in large numbers by retreating German troops and hand them in for re-use. The army clearly saw a use for them, but the testing and procurement offices couldn't come to a decision recommending one for production.

The Americans kept going through this same dysfunctional procurement process with respect to their infantry rifles and possibly other kit since the 1960s. They keep wanting to adopt a new rifle but also keep setting unrealistic testing criteria for it. As a result the rifles keep failing to meet the criteria and so fail testing and nothing new gets adopted despite the fact that their existing rifle wouldn't pass the test either. It doesn't have to, because it was already adopted.
 
There were a number of reasons why the Soviets didn't adopt various weapons that we thought were useful. Sometimes it was just they had different operating conditions which made them less useful in their circumstances. Sometimes it was that they already had something in service with a local supply of ammunition (keeping in mind the sporadic and tenuous nature of the Arctic supply convoys) that filled the same role in a different way. Sometimes their evaluation criteria were unrealistic and so the kit would fail testing. Sometimes they thought an idea was good but judged they couldn't set up production in a useful time frame.

The Soviets didn't get everything right, but they did have a very methodical and detailed evaluation process for looking at any and all kit they could get their hands on, whether Allied or German, with the intent of copying whatever ideas they thought were useful.

Their infantry anti-tank weapons through suffered from the problem that the testing body kept setting evaluation criteria which said that any new weapon must have at least as much range as their anti-tank rifles while also having greater penetration capability. This was unrealistic for the available technology, and as tanks got thicker range needed to be sacrificed in order to get useful penetration. Their anti-tank rifles would also fail the test criteria if they had been tested, but they were already in service from the days when tanks were thinner and so didn't have to pass through the process again for adoption.

Meanwhile the Soviet army were issuing instructions to their troops to round up all the Panzerfausts they could lay their hands on which were left in large numbers by retreating German troops and hand them in for re-use. The army clearly saw a use for them, but the testing and procurement offices couldn't come to a decision recommending one for production.

The Americans kept going through this same dysfunctional procurement process with respect to their infantry rifles and possibly other kit since the 1960s. They keep wanting to adopt a new rifle but also keep setting unrealistic testing criteria for it. As a result the rifles keep failing to meet the criteria and so fail testing and nothing new gets adopted despite the fact that their existing rifle wouldn't pass the test either. It doesn't have to, because it was already adopted.

Thank god for Churchill then. There's a few weapon systems he personally forced through in the face of the Army screaming 'But we've not got a requirement for it! So how can we test it against that?!'
 
Thank god for Churchill then. There's a few weapon systems he personally forced through in the face of the Army screaming 'But we've not got a requirement for it! So how can we test it against that?!'
I believe that Winny was very keen on the Thompson, and ensured it came into service. The Army was not keen, calling it a 'gangster gun'.
 
Experimental Soviet Anti-Tank Weapons

"May 7th, 1942
The work on fin-stabilized rocket propelled anti-tank rifle grenades being developed at your institute would be useful if the following performance is reached:
  1. Range: 200-250 meters.
  2. Trajectory: as flat as possible. The trajectory must not be higher than a tank's height at this distance.
  3. The dispersion at 200 meters must not cover an area greater than one square meter.
  4. The explosive filler weighs no less than 700 grams.
As soon as you receive satisfactory results, contact me, so that a representative may be sent in order to review the project and make a conclusion regarding further work.

Head of the 5th Department of GAU KA
Engineer-Lieutenant-Colonel Emets.

Senior assistant to the head of the 5th Department of GAU KA
Major Zarovskiy"
 
Experimental Soviet Anti-Tank Weapons

"May 7th, 1942
The work on fin-stabilized rocket propelled anti-tank rifle grenades being developed at your institute would be useful if the following performance is reached:
  1. Range: 200-250 meters.
  2. Trajectory: as flat as possible. The trajectory must not be higher than a tank's height at this distance.
  3. The dispersion at 200 meters must not cover an area greater than one square meter.
  4. The explosive filler weighs no less than 700 grams.
As soon as you receive satisfactory results, contact me, so that a representative may be sent in order to review the project and make a conclusion regarding further work.

Head of the 5th Department of GAU KA
Engineer-Lieutenant-Colonel Emets.

Senior assistant to the head of the 5th Department of GAU KA
Major Zarovskiy"

So a Bazooka?

Although as we know the Bazooka had inferior behind armour effect than, say a PIAT.
 
Top