That wasn't just any british officer, that was Sir Anthony Hopkins. I didn't know it automatically re-cocks , hard to believe but much cooler to me now. Your Awsome Tom!
Can’t wait for the British hating comments to come out. To counter the main points made by PIAT critics: 1. The PIAT was effective against almost all German armour including the Tiger and Panther. The 2.5 inch Bazooka couldn’t do the same. 2. The PIAT could be used as a mortar in the indirect fire role. The PIAT was often used to bombard German positions. The front leg was extended to be a mortar leg. Ian from Forgotten Weapons talked about this in a video on the PIAT. 3. The PIAT had no back blast so could be fired in enclosed spaces . It was used in urban combat to take out armour and also demolish walls etc. 4. Multiple VC were awarded to users of the PIAT for taking out German armour including the Panther and Tiger. 5. DDay was saved at Pegasus Bridge over the River Orne when a single shot from a PIAT hit and destroyed a Panzer IV at the head of an armoured column heading for the beaches. 6. There three PIAT issued per infantry company or one per platoon. The Canadians and British often used all three as tank hunter units stalking and killing German armour. Michael Wittman’s attack on UK forces was broken in part by such hunter killer teams.
The Brits really did miss the opportunity of a lifetime to name it the PITA instead of PIAT 😂 "Winston, what on earth is that contraption?!" "Well chap, this is a big ol' Pain In The Ass!"
Tom the PIAT is a spigot mortar!! the best range against tanks was 40 yards and the rounds were a danger due to being way too damn easy to set off by accidently banging it!! frankly the Brits would have been better off using rifle grenades than thta steaming pile!!
It’s not a rocket. There is a spring inside the projector! It was a real paint to recock it. Range was meant to be out to 100 yards but reality was more like thirty yards. Does not shoot one after the other. Try Wikipedia.
They weren't crappy and were very effective. Piat was also more effective at emplacements and fortifications. Voted one of the most effective weapons of WW2 by the Canadian armed forces veterans.
@@Panzermeister36 no, and have you? BTW, it was before my time. This ancient anti armour weapon was decommissioned in the 50s; I was in the military in the late 80s. Supposedly the PIAT has a bad reputation as being too heavy as an anti-tank weapon when compared to the American bazookas and German Panzerfaust. I don't know about you, but lugging heavy stuffs in the battlefield tend not to be a good thing. Moreover, based on the design of the PIAT, no wonder it was decommissioned. Look at the Panzerfaust and the RPG-7, do they draw similar design? In a way yes, and many countries still uses the RPG-7 till this day.
As is often the case with real world applications and technical questions, the real answer probably is - It Depends. If I were fighting in a built-up area like Arnhem were you want to shoot from windows or down from above onto light top armor into open-topped vehicles I would prefer no backblast Piats to be able to shoot out of windows and not require shooting from a more open space with less cover. Probably for general use in unknown terrain having every man carry a single Panzerfaust would distribute load well and fit most terrain and tactical situations well. Then of course in a grinding attritional world war production cost and input materials availability are hidden to the soldier but extremely important. So for example is a simple black powder propellant charge easier and cheaper to manufacture (for your own countries current resources) than casting a solid mini rocket motor in a more sophisticated projectile. I think ultimately cheap large scale mass production of Panzerfausts was more efficient than either Piat or Bazooka. But of course Germany was also more indifferent than the democracies to using up another of their resources (the soldiers lives). Anyhow, I don't think soldiers memoirs are overly harsh about the Piat other than the standard griping about the initial cocking effort. No rocket backslash was also be a real plus in any nighttime ambush situation where having a rocket plume highlight your location would get you dead - of course all sides generally minimized night fighting most of the time in WW II. So just another example of where "best" depends on the tactical situation.
Thank you for another great video Tom
That wasn't just any british officer, that was Sir Anthony Hopkins. I didn't know it automatically re-cocks , hard to believe but much cooler to me now. Your Awsome Tom!
They used to always say she had big bazookas
Can’t wait for the British hating comments to come out. To counter the main points made by PIAT critics:
1. The PIAT was effective against almost all German armour including the Tiger and Panther. The 2.5 inch Bazooka couldn’t do the same.
2. The PIAT could be used as a mortar in the indirect fire role. The PIAT was often used to bombard German positions. The front leg was extended to be a mortar leg. Ian from Forgotten Weapons talked about this in a video on the PIAT.
3. The PIAT had no back blast so could be fired in enclosed spaces . It was used in urban combat to take out armour and also demolish walls etc.
4. Multiple VC were awarded to users of the PIAT for taking out German armour including the Panther and Tiger.
5. DDay was saved at Pegasus Bridge over the River Orne when a single shot from a PIAT hit and destroyed a Panzer IV at the head of an armoured column heading for the beaches.
6. There three PIAT issued per infantry company or one per platoon. The Canadians and British often used all three as tank hunter units stalking and killing German armour. Michael Wittman’s attack on UK forces was broken in part by such hunter killer teams.
BTW Effective range of up to 115yds, not 50yds.
He said most effective up to 50 yards and mentioned it can be effective up to 300 yards
@@WhiteBirdPlays direct fire mode is effective and accurate to 115yds. Indirect fire is 300yds. (I wrote the notes for Tom)
@@Guntaku_Gaijingood luck trying to hit a 115 yard shot with this thing, there’s a reason he said “most accurate”. stick to writing
Why would anyone want a deactivated PIAT? i mean maybe for 50$ but even then itd probably be better as scrap
The Brits really did miss the opportunity of a lifetime to name it the PITA instead of PIAT 😂
"Winston, what on earth is that contraption?!"
"Well chap, this is a big ol' Pain In The Ass!"
The hollow tube on the projectile also tended to seal on impact and came back at the firer. Thet had to shoot and scoot to keep from bring hit.
Tom the PIAT is a spigot mortar!! the best range against tanks was 40 yards and the rounds were a danger due to being way too damn easy to set off by accidently banging it!! frankly the Brits would have been better off using rifle grenades than thta steaming pile!!
It’s not a rocket. There is a spring inside the projector! It was a real paint to recock it. Range was meant to be out to 100 yards but reality was more like thirty yards. Does not shoot one after the other. Try Wikipedia.
Crappy weapon. Prefer the American bazookas or the German Panzerfaust or Panzershriek
Panzerschreck, that is.
They weren't crappy and were very effective. Piat was also more effective at emplacements and fortifications. Voted one of the most effective weapons of WW2 by the Canadian armed forces veterans.
Have you used all four in combat? How do you know it's crappy and have a preference?
@@Panzermeister36 no, and have you? BTW, it was before my time. This ancient anti armour weapon was decommissioned in the 50s; I was in the military in the late 80s. Supposedly the PIAT has a bad reputation as being too heavy as an anti-tank weapon when compared to the American bazookas and German Panzerfaust. I don't know about you, but lugging heavy stuffs in the battlefield tend not to be a good thing. Moreover, based on the design of the PIAT, no wonder it was decommissioned. Look at the Panzerfaust and the RPG-7, do they draw similar design? In a way yes, and many countries still uses the RPG-7 till this day.
As is often the case with real world applications and technical questions, the real answer probably is - It Depends. If I were fighting in a built-up area like Arnhem were you want to shoot from windows or down from above onto light top armor into open-topped vehicles I would prefer no backblast Piats to be able to shoot out of windows and not require shooting from a more open space with less cover. Probably for general use in unknown terrain having every man carry a single Panzerfaust would distribute load well and fit most terrain and tactical situations well. Then of course in a grinding attritional world war production cost and input materials availability are hidden to the soldier but extremely important. So for example is a simple black powder propellant charge easier and cheaper to manufacture (for your own countries current resources) than casting a solid mini rocket motor in a more sophisticated projectile. I think ultimately cheap large scale mass production of Panzerfausts was more efficient than either Piat or Bazooka. But of course Germany was also more indifferent than the democracies to using up another of their resources (the soldiers lives). Anyhow, I don't think soldiers memoirs are overly harsh about the Piat other than the standard griping about the initial cocking effort. No rocket backslash was also be a real plus in any nighttime ambush situation where having a rocket plume highlight your location would get you dead - of course all sides generally minimized night fighting most of the time in WW II. So just another example of where "best" depends on the tactical situation.
lousy weapon