Misplaced Pages

#669330

128-526: The Projector, Infantry, Anti Tank ( PIAT ) Mk I was a British man-portable anti-tank weapon developed during the Second World War . The PIAT was designed in 1942 in response to the British Army 's need for a more effective infantry anti-tank weapon and entered service in 1943. The PIAT was based on the spigot mortar system, and projected (launched) a 2.5 pound (1.1 kg) shaped charge bomb using

256-515: A slit trench . The PIAT was often also used in combat to knock out enemy positions located in houses and bunkers. It was possible to use the PIAT as an ad-hoc crude mortar by placing the shoulder pad of the weapon on the ground and supporting it. Despite the difficulties in cocking and firing the weapon, it did have several advantages. The Spigot mortar design allowed a large calibre powerful shaped charge bomb giving greatly increased penetration power over

384-449: A tandem warhead where the first stage of the warhead activates the reactive armor, and the second stage defeats the shell armor by means of a high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) shaped charge . During the Russian invasion of Ukraine , drones and loitering munitions have attacked and destroyed tanks. Anti-tank warfare evolved as a countermeasure to the threat of the tank's appearance on

512-493: A 57 mm QF 6 pounder Hotchkiss light naval gun in the hull barbettes . Hull and track engineering was largely dictated by the terrain —the need to cross wide trenches—although the relationship between ground pressure and soil-vehicle mechanics was not resolved until the Second World War. Turrets were later introduced on medium and light tanks to react to ambushes during the advance. The tank, when it appeared on

640-408: A cartridge in the tail of the projectile. It possessed an effective range of approximately 115 yards (105 m) in a direct fire anti-tank role, and 350 yards (320 m) in an indirect fire role. The PIAT had several advantages over other infantry anti-tank weapons of the period: it had greatly increased penetration power over the previous anti-tank rifles, it had no back-blast which might reveal

768-403: A considerable part of its anti-tank capable cannons. Anti-tank tactics during the war were largely integrated with the offensive or defensive posture of the troops being supported, usually infantry. Most anti-tank tactics depend on the range effectiveness of various weapons and weapon systems available. These are divided as follows: Ground-to-air cooperation was not yet systematic in any army of

896-529: A firing range, aimed it at an armoured target, and pulled the trigger; the Shoulder Gun pierced a hole in the target, but unfortunately also wounded the Warrant Officer when a piece of metal from the exploding round flew back and hit him. Jefferis himself then took the place of the Warrant Officer and fired off several more rounds, all of which pierced the armoured target but without wounding him. Impressed with

1024-548: A fixed spigot rod, for example the Blacker Bombard . The moving spigot rod in the PIAT design was unusual, and served to help reduce recoil sufficiently to make it a viable shoulder fired weapon. The PIAT was a little lighter by about 1 kg (2 lb 3 oz) and about 0.6 m (2.0 ft) shorter than its predecessor, the Boys anti-tank rifle , although it was heavier than the 18 lb (8.2 kg) bazooka . To prepare

1152-499: A great diversity, ranging from light tankettes and cavalry tanks to multi-turreted heavy tanks resembling bunkers, all of which had to be considered in training by the anti-tank artillery troops. The development of these doctrines was the most significant influence on the rapid development in anti-tank technology and tactics in the Second World War. Two aspects of how the Second World War commenced helped to delay development of anti-tank warfare: resignation and surprise. After Poland

1280-501: A greater range than the Panzerschreck could manage. The Hungarian 44M "Buzogányvető" was a successful unguided rocket used extensively in the Siege of Budapest . After the war, research on infantry anti-tank weapons continued, with most designers focused on two primary goals: first an anti-tank weapon that could defeat more heavily armored postwar tanks and fighting vehicles, and second

1408-468: A hand-held anti-tank weapon based on the spigot design, but found that the spigot could not generate sufficient velocity needed to penetrate armour. But he did not abandon the design, and eventually came up with the Blacker Bombard , a swivelling spigot-style system that could launch a 20-pound (9 kg) bomb approximately 100 yards (90 m). Although the bombs it fired could not actually penetrate armour, they could still severely damage tanks, and in 1940

SECTION 10

#1732844808670

1536-569: A high- velocity jet of metal flowing like a liquid due to the immense pressure (though x-ray diffraction has shown the metal stays solid ) which hydrodynamically penetrates the armor and kills occupants inside. The depth of the penetration, though proportional to the length of the jet and the square root of its density , is also dependent on the strength of the armor. With the development of this new ammunition begun more advanced research into steel manufacturing , and development of spaced armor that caused "jet waver" by detonating prematurely or at

1664-737: A higher velocity L.45 Model 1935 while also making a licensed copy of the German 3.7 cm PaK 36 . However, the Red Army was almost immediately taught a lesson about anti-tank warfare when a tank battalion sent to aid the Spanish Republicans in the Spanish Civil War was almost entirely destroyed in an engagement . At this time, the predominant ammunition used against tanks was the armor-piercing kinetic energy shell that defeated armor by direct pressure , spiking or punching through it. During

1792-570: A house-breaker". The PIAT was used in all theatres in which British and other Commonwealth forces served. It entered service in early-1943, and was first used in action in March near Majaz al Bab during the Tunisia Campaign. The 1944 war establishment for a British platoon , which contained 36 men, had a single PIAT attached to the platoon headquarters, alongside a 2-inch (51 mm) mortar detachment. Three PIATs were issued to every company at

1920-458: A large number of Blacker Bombards were issued to the Home Guard as anti-tank weapons. When Blacker became aware of the existence of shaped charge ammunition, he realized that it was exactly the kind of ammunition he was looking for to develop a hand-held anti-tank weapon, as it depended upon the energy contained within itself, and not the sheer velocity at which it was fired. Blacker then developed

2048-413: A maximum indirect fire range of 350 yards (320 m). It could be carried and operated by one man, but was usually assigned to a two-man team, the second man acting as an ammunition carrier and loader. The body of the PIAT launcher was a tube constructed out of thin sheets of steel, containing the spigot mechanism, trigger mechanism and firing spring. At the front of the launcher was a small trough in which

2176-464: A near miss from field artillery or an impact from a mortar could easily disable or destroy the tank: if the fuel tank was ruptured, it could incinerate the tank's crew. A large caliber gun was recognized as a tactical necessity to attack machine gun positions and defeat any infantry field pieces found in the trench lines which could easily disable tank track with the HE ammunition. This was achieved by mounting

2304-460: A pioneering example of taking on heavy enemy armor from a lightweight slow-flying aircraft. Field artillery were often the first ground combat arm to engage detected concentration of troops which included tanks through artillery airborne observers, either in assembly areas (for refueling and rearming), during approach marches to the combat zone, or as the tank unit was forming up for the attack. Conventional artillery shells were very effective against

2432-412: A recessed metal cone placed into an explosive warhead; when the warhead hit its target, the explosive detonated and turned the cone into an extremely high-speed spike. The speed of the spike, and the immense pressure it caused on impact allowed it to create a small hole in armour plating and send a large pressure wave and large amounts of fragments into the interior of the target. It was this technology that

2560-490: A recoil that was unsustainable by the mechanism or the rifleman. Stick grenades were used to destroy the tracks by individual pioneers, however this required accompanying machine-gunners to first separate the supporting Allied infantry line from the tanks, which proved difficult. Another tactic was to lure the tank beyond the German trench-line, re-establishing it just as the Allied infantry approached. The tank would then be engaged by

2688-414: A shaped charge bomb with a propellant charge in its tail, which fitted into a shoulder-fired launcher that consisted of a metal casing containing a large spring and a spigot; the bomb was placed into a trough at the front of the casing, and when the trigger was pulled the spigot rammed into the tail of the bomb and fired it out of the casing and up to approximately 140 metres (150 yd) away. Blacker called

SECTION 20

#1732844808670

2816-461: A single instance of a Boys knocking out a German tank. Due to these limits, a new infantry anti-tank weapon was required, and this ultimately came in the form of the Projector, Infantry, Anti-Tank, commonly abbreviated to PIAT. The origins of the PIAT can be traced back as far as 1888, when an American engineer by the name of Charles Edward Munroe was experimenting with guncotton ; he discovered that

2944-572: A surprise attack and delay any attack while the French Army was mobilized. With the relative numerical inferiority between the France and Germany, it was a more effective use of manpower. Within the line, passive anti-tank obstacles were supported by anti-infantry and anti-tank bunkers. After Belgium declared neutrality in 1936, France began work on extending the line along the Belgian border. Improved artillery

3072-479: A weapon lightweight and portable enough for infantry use. Regular fragmentation grenades were ineffective against tanks, so many kinds of anti-tank grenades were developed. These ranged from hollow charge designs (e.g., the British No. 68 AT Grenade ), to ones that simply contained a lot of explosive (the British No. 73 Grenade ). To increase their effectiveness, some grenades were designed so that they adhered to

3200-475: Is a rank of commissioned officers in the armies , most marine forces and some air forces of the world, above a major and below a colonel . Several police forces in the United States use the rank of lieutenant colonel . The rank of lieutenant colonel is often shortened to simply "colonel" in conversation and in unofficial correspondence. Sometimes, the term 'half-colonel' is used in casual conversation in

3328-567: The 1971 Indo-Pakistan war , they were used at the Battle of Longewala helping to halt the Pakistani armored division advance. World War II: 1948 Arab–Israeli War : Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 : Anti-tank Anti-tank warfare evolved rapidly during World War II , leading to infantry-portable weapons such as the bazooka , anti-tank combat engineering , specialized anti-tank aircraft and self-propelled anti-tank guns ( tank destroyers ). Both

3456-444: The 1⁄4-ton, 4×4 'jeep' ), French 25 mm and 47 mm guns, British QF 2-pounder (40 mm) , Italian 47 mm and Soviet 45 mm . All of these light weapons could penetrate the thin armor found on most pre-war and early war tanks. At the start of World War II , many of these weapons were still being used operationally, along with a newer generation of light guns that closely resembled their WWI counterparts. After

3584-459: The Allied invasion of Sicily , which was substantiated by trials conducted during 1944, demonstrated that this capability was often nullified by problems of accuracy and round reliability. During these trials, a skilled user was unable to hit a target more than 60% of the time at 100 yards (90 m), and faulty fuses meant that only 75% of the bombs fired detonated on-target. The PIATs' ammunition used

3712-503: The Bren gun in second place. An analysis by British staff officers of the initial period of the Normandy campaign found that 7% of all German tanks destroyed by British forces were knocked out by PIATs, compared to 6% by rockets fired by aircraft. However, they also found that once German tanks had been fitted with armoured skirts that detonated shaped charge ammunition before it could penetrate

3840-676: The French resistance used the PIAT in the absence of mortars or artillery. Six Victoria Crosses were awarded to members of the British and other Commonwealth armed forces for actions using the PIAT: The PIAT remained in service until the early 1950s, when it was replaced initially by the ENERGA anti-tank rifle grenade and then the American M20 "Super Bazooka" . The Australian Army briefly used PIATs at

3968-474: The Geballte Ladung ("Bundled Charge") of several stick grenades bound together by pioneers ; early attempts at the small-caliber anti-tank rifles like the bolt-action 13 mm Mauser 1918 T-Gewehr ; 3.7 cm TaK Rheinmetall in starrer Räder-lafette 1916 anti-tank gun on a light carriage which could destroy a tank using large-caliber armor-piercing ammunition issued in 1917 to special commands; and

PIAT - Misplaced Pages Continue

4096-536: The North African Campaign . Its experience therefore failed to influence the US Army's anti-tank doctrine prior to 1944. From 1941, German anti-tank tactics developed rapidly as a result of being surprised by the previously unknown Soviet tank designs, forcing introduction of new technologies and new tactics. The Red Army was also faced with a new challenge in anti-tank warfare after losing most of its tank fleet and

4224-565: The Spanish Civil War , as did the Bofors 37 mm developed in Sweden, and used by many early Second World War combatants. The British Army accepted for service the (40 mm) Ordnance QF 2 pounder , which was developed as a tank gun . The Soviet Red Army after the Russian Civil War also begun a search for an anti-tank gun with a French Hotchkiss 37 mm L.33 tank gun, but soon upgraded this to

4352-506: The Wehrmacht officers, and the anti-tank guns were incorporated into a system of obstacles that were constructed with the intent to stop an attack by tanks by slowing it down, separating them from supporting infantry (advancing on foot) with machine-gun and mortar fire, and forcing tanks to conduct deliberate head-on assaults with engineer support, or seek a less-defended area to attack. Minefields laid with purpose-designed mines were used for

4480-523: The Winter War , early tanks (such as the T-26 ) being very vulnerable to them, but later tanks required a well-thrown bottle directly over the engine compartment to have any effect at all. On the whole, thrown anti-tank weapons suffered from a variety of drawbacks. In addition to the inherently short range, they required careful aim to be effective, and those that relied on explosive force were often so powerful that

4608-419: The infantry tactics with which the tanks were intended to cooperate. However, there was no means of communication between the tank's crew and the accompanying infantry, or between the tanks participating in combat. Radios were not yet portable or robust enough to be mounted in a tank, although Morse Code transmitters were installed in some Mark IVs at Cambrai as messaging vehicles. Attaching a field telephone to

4736-489: The lift struts , against German armored fighting vehicles. During the summer of 1944, U.S. Army Major Charles Carpenter managed to successfully take on an anti-armor role with his rocket-armed Piper L-4. His L-4, named Rosie the Rocketeer , armed with six bazookas, had a notable anti-armor success during an engagement during the Battle of Arracourt on September 20, 1944, knocking out at least four German armored vehicles, as

4864-439: The Allied infantry would follow and secure the breach, and the cavalry would exploit the breach in the trench lines by attacking into the depth of German-held territory, eventually capturing the field artillery positions and interdicting logistics and reserves being brought up from the rear areas. Naval crews initially used to operate the installed naval guns and machine guns were replaced with Army personnel who were more aware of

4992-666: The British Army had abandoned them by 1942 and the Wehrmacht by 1943, while the US Army never adopted the weapon, although the USMC used Boys anti-tank rifles in the Pacific Theater. However, the anti-tank rifle remained in Soviet use during the conflict due to the importance it occupied in its doctrine of anti-tank in-depth defense, first demonstrated during the defense of Moscow and again during

5120-501: The British Army. Additionally, in the U.S. Army 'light colonel' has been used informally in the past. In the British military, it is customary to refer to either a Lieutenant Colonel or a Colonel by their first names when mentioning them, e.g "Colonel Tim will be at the parade". In the United States Air Force, the term 'light bird' or 'light bird colonel' (as opposed to a 'full bird colonel') is an acceptable casual reference to

5248-701: The Finnish Lahti L-39 (which was also used as a sniper rifle during the Continuation War ), the automatic Japanese Type 97 20 mm anti-tank rifle , the German Panzerbüchse 38 , Panzerbüchse 39 , the Polish wz.35 and the Soviet 14.5 mm PTRD and PTRS-41 . By 1943, most armies judged anti-tank rifles to lack combat effectiveness due to the diminished ability to penetrate the thicker armor of new tanks –

PIAT - Misplaced Pages Continue

5376-570: The First World War was that now an effective anti-tank weapon was available to support the defending infantry. However, the Soviet tanks armed with 45 mm guns easily destroyed the German light tanks. Ironically, in the early 1930s until the Spanish War, German officers were conducting secret testing of a new way of employing tanks, infantry and artillery offensively in the Soviet Union with

5504-455: The Kursk battles. This became particularly true later in the war when the Red Army assumed an almost constant offensive, and anti-tank in-depth defensive deployments were used for protecting flanks of the operational breakthroughs against German tactical counterattacks. By firing on the lighter armored infantry and support vehicles (e.g. artillery tractors ) the anti-tank rifle units helped to separate

5632-573: The M36 tank destroyer continued in service, and was used in combat as late as the Korean War . The third, and likely most effective kind of tank destroyer was the unturreted, casemate -style tank destroyer, known by the Jagdpanzer term in German service, or Samokhodnaya Ustanovka in Soviet service for their own designs. These generally featured a heavy gun mounted on an older or then-current tank chassis, with

5760-512: The Officer Corps , claiming many of the senior proponents of the new doctrine. Anti-tank artillery would be included in mobile tank-led Wehrmacht and Red Army units due to the possibility of encountering enemy tanks in a meeting engagement . The new doctrines of using the tank, were divided into infantry and cavalry schools of thought . The former regarded the tank as a mobile artillery system to be used for infantry support. This suggested that

5888-629: The PIAT and the Blacker Bombard to Jefferis. Blacker took exception to this and suggested to Jefferis that they should divide any award equally after his expenses had been deducted. The Ministry of Supply had already paid Blacker £50,000 for his expenses in relation to the Bombard and PIAT. Churchill himself got involved in the argument; writing to the Secretary of State for war in January 1943 he asked "Why should

6016-552: The PTRS-41, the weapons proved too inaccurate at sniping distances (800 m or more), and the recoil too much for effective use of the scopes. The development of light, man-portable, anti-tank weapons increased during the Second World War. Most were based on the Munroe effect which led to the development of the high-explosive shaped charge . These weapons were called high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT). The destructive effect relies fully on

6144-836: The RAF mounted two underwing pod-mounted 40 mm Vickers S cannon on the Hawker Hurricane (as the Mk. IID ), which saw service in North Africa in 1942 and the Hawker Typhoon was given HE rockets though these were more effective against other ground vehicles. From March 1943 the Red Army Air Force produced the more agile Yakovlev Yak-9 T (37 mm cannon) and K (45 mm cannon) bomber interceptor also used for ground attack, with one example of either gun in motornaya pushka mounts attached to

6272-534: The Red Army Air Force fielded the Soviet Ilyushin Il-2 armed with a pair of 23 mm cannons and unguided rockets, but armored to enable the pilots to approach German tanks at very low altitude, ignoring small arms, machine-gun and even small anti-aircraft cannon fire that usually provided tanks with protection against the bombers. Il-2s could also carry large numbers of 2.5 kg shaped-charge anti-tank PTAB bombs. To give it more firepower against tanks,

6400-529: The Second World War, the British Army possessed two primary anti-tank weapons for its infantry: the Boys anti-tank rifle and the No. 68 AT Rifle Grenade . However, neither of these was particularly effective as an anti-tank weapon. The No. 68 anti-tank grenade was designed to be fired from a discharger fitted onto the muzzle of an infantryman's rifle, but this meant that the grenade was too light to deal significant damage, resulting in it rarely being used in action. The Boys

6528-582: The Soviet Red Army and the German Army developed methods of combating tank-led offensives, including deployment of static anti-tank weapons embedded in in-depth defensive positions, protected by anti-tank obstacles and minefields , and supported by mobile anti-tank reserves and by ground-attack aircraft. Through the Cold War of 1947-1991, the United States, Soviet Union and other countries contemplated

SECTION 50

#1732844808670

6656-571: The War Office, Blacker was working for a government department known as MD1 , which was given the task of developing and delivering weapons for use by guerrilla and resistance groups in Occupied Europe. Shortly after the trial of the Baby Bombard, Blacker was posted to other duties, and left the anti-tank weapon in the hands of a colleague in the department, Major Millis Jefferis . Jefferis took

6784-457: The West. The British were preparing the stop lines and the anti-tank islands to slow enemy progress and restrict the route of an attack. The Red Army however was fortunate in having several excellent designs for anti-tank warfare that were either in final stages of development for production, or had been rejected earlier as unnecessary and could now be rushed into production. The relative ease with which

6912-841: The Western Front in September 1916, was a surprise to German troops, but not the German General Staff . The French Army Staff was highly critical of the British Army's early fielding of the Mark I vehicles in small numbers because the French trials showed the armored vehicles to be highly unreliable. They judged that large numbers had to be employed to sustain an offensive despite losses to mechanical failure or vehicles foundering in intractable no man's land terrain. These losses, coupled with those from enemy artillery fire, later amounted to as high as 70% of

7040-504: The advantage of a reduced silhouette, allowing the crew to more frequently fire from defilade ambush positions. Such designs were easier and faster to manufacture and offered good crew protection, though the lack of a turret limited the gun's traverse to a few degrees. This meant that, if the TD became immobilized due to engine failure or track damage, it could not rotate its gun to counter opposing tanks, making it an easy target. This vulnerability

7168-411: The air. One solution adopted by almost all European air forces was to use bomb loads for conventional bombers that were composed from small bombs allowing a higher density during bombing. This created a greater chance of causing a direct impact on the thinner top armor of the tank while also having the ability to damage track and wheels through proximity detonation. The first aircraft able to engage tanks

7296-702: The anti-tank role. By the time of the Invasion of Normandy , the British had the 3 in (76 mm) calibre QF 17 pounder , which design had begun before the 6 pounder entered service, in general use which proved to be a highly effective anti-tank gun and was also used on the Sherman Firefly tank, the Archer self-propelled gun , and on the 17-pdr SP Achilles As towed anti-tank cannon guns grew in size and weight, they became less mobile and more cumbersome to maneuver, and required ever larger gun crews, who often had to wrestle

7424-467: The battlefields of the Western Front of the First World War. The tank had been developed to negate the German system of trenches , and allow a return to maneuver against enemy's flanks and to attack the rear with cavalry . The use of the tank was mainly based on the assumption that, once they were able to eliminate the German trench lines with their machine gun and infantry support gun positions,

7552-464: The blocks having the manufacturing letters recessed (vs. raised) cut an imprint of the manufacturing letters into the armor plate—the birth of the shaped-charged explosive which focuses the blast energy caused by an indentation on the surface area of an explosive. Although shaped charges are somewhat more difficult to manufacture, the advantage is that the projectile does not require as high velocity as typical kinetic energy shells, yet on impact it creates

7680-401: The body of the weapon upwards, thereby pulling the spring back until it attached to the trigger sear and cocking the weapon. Once this was achieved, the body was then lowered and quarter-turned to reattach it to the rest of the weapon, and the PIAT could then be fired. Users of a small stature often found the cocking sequence challenging, as they did not have the sufficient height required to pull

7808-427: The body up far enough to cock the weapon; it was also difficult to do when lying in a prone position , as was often the case when using the weapon in action. Note, however, that troops were trained to cock the PIAT before expected use, and "in action the projector will always be carried cocked" (but unloaded). Unless a stoppage occurred, it would not normally be necessary to manually re-cock the weapon in action. When

SECTION 60

#1732844808670

7936-428: The bomb was placed, and the movable spigot ran along the axis of the launcher and into the trough. Padding for the user's shoulder was fitted to the other end of the launcher, and rudimentary aperture sights were fitted on top for aiming; the bombs launched by the PIAT possessed hollow tubular tails, into which a small propellant cartridge was inserted, and shaped charge warheads. Conventional spigot mortar designs have

8064-552: The bomb was pushed down onto the spigot, which exploded the propellant charge and blew the bomb into the air. By effectively putting the barrel on the inside of the weapon, the barrel diameter was no longer a limitation on the warhead size. Blacker eventually designed a lightweight mortar that he named the 'Arbalest' and submitted it to the War Office , but it was turned down in favour of a Spanish design. Undeterred, however, Blacker continued with his experiments and decided to try to invent

8192-553: The cooperation of the Red Army. In Germany, these developments eventually culminated in tactics that later came to be known as Blitzkrieg , while in the Soviet Union they formed the core of the deep battle operational doctrine. The successful test of the latter was during the Battles of Khalkhin Gol although the Red Army foundered on the Mannerheim Line in 1940, largely due to the purge in

8320-419: The divisional 7.7 cm guns brought forward, that would try to disable the tracks with ordinary HE shells (and later AP ammunition). If the crews of the disabled tanks refused to surrender, they were engaged with flamethrowers, or a mortar would be fired on the stricken vehicle until a direct hit was achieved on the top surface, usually resulting in an internal fire. Finally, anti-tank obstacles were prepared on

8448-415: The early 1950s. PIATs were supplied to or obtained by other nations and forces, including the Soviet Union (through Lend Lease ), the French resistance , the Polish Underground , and the Israeli Haganah (which used PIATs during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War ). Six members of the British and other Commonwealth armed forces received Victoria Crosses for their use of the PIAT in combat. At the beginning of

8576-512: The engine's gear reduction unit, that had either one of them firing through a hollow-center propeller shaft. Following Operation Overlord in 1944, the military version of the slow-flying Piper J-3 Cub high-wing light civilian monoplane, the L-4 Grasshopper, usually used for liaison and artillery-spotting, began to be used in a light anti-armor role by a few U.S. Army artillery spotter units over France; these aircraft were field-outfitted with either two or four bazooka rocket launchers attached to

8704-499: The existing 77 mm field guns (such as the 7.7 cm FK 16 ) of the infantry division's artillery regiment were also eventually issued with special armor-piercing (AP) ammunition. With the appearance of Allied tanks, the German Army were quick to introduce new anti-tank defense detachments within the pioneer battalions of the infantry divisions. These were initially issued 13 mm caliber long barrel rifles firing solid shot. However, these suffered from fouling after 2–3 rounds and had

8832-407: The explosive would yield a great deal more damage if there were a recess in it facing the target. This phenomenon is known as the ' Munroe effect '. The German scientist Egon Neumann found that lining the recess with metal enhanced the damage dealt even more. By the 1930s Henry Mohaupt , a Swiss engineer, had developed this technology even further and created shaped charge ammunition. This consisted of

8960-404: The first time, destroying tank tracks, and forcing combat engineers to clear them on foot. Delay meant that Nationalist field artillery could engage the lightly armored Soviet tanks . This meant a change in Republican operational and eventually strategic planning, and a more protracted combat operations, with more casualties at a greater cost. The only change to the German anti-tank tactics of

9088-514: The form of top-attack shells , and shells that were used to saturate areas with anti-armor bomblets . Helicopters could be used as well to rapidly deliver scattered anti-tank mines. Since the end of the Cold War in 1992, new threats to tanks and other armored vehicles have included remotely detonated improvised explosive devices (IEDs) used in asymmetric warfare and weapon systems like the RPG-29 and FGM-148 Javelin , which can defeat reactive armor or shell armor. Both those weapon systems use

9216-408: The gun into position while under heavy artillery and/or tank fire. As the war progressed, this disadvantage often resulted in the loss or destruction of both the antitank gun and its trained crew. This gave impetus to the development of the self-propelled, lightly armored " tank destroyer " (TD). The tank destroyer was usually based on the hull of existing tank designs, using either a gun integrated into

9344-435: The gun pointing forward with a limited degree of traverse. Casemate tank destroyers often had the same amount of armour as the tanks they were based on. The removal of the turret allowed for greater room to mount a larger gun with a larger breech and leave room for crew. Many casemate tank destroyers either originated as, or were dual-purpose vehicles with the duty of a self-propelled gun, which share many (but usually not all) of

9472-472: The headquarters level for issuing at the CO discretion – allowing one weapon for each platoon. British Army and Royal Marines commandos were also issued with PIATs and used them in action. In Australian Army service, the PIAT was also known as "Projector Infantry Tank Attack" ( PITA ). From 1943, one PIAT team was allocated to each infantry platoon in a jungle division – the tropical light infantry formation that

9600-717: The hull or a fully rotating turret much like that of a conventional tank. These self-propelled (SP) AT guns were first employed as infantry support weapons in place of towed antitank guns. Later, due to a shortage of tanks, TDs sometimes replaced the former in offensive armored operations. Early German-designed tank destroyers, such as the Marder I , employed existing light French or Czech design tank chassis, installing an AT gun as part of an armored, turret-less superstructure. This method reduced both weight and conversion costs. The Soviet Union later adopted this style of self-propelled anti-tank gun or tank destroyer. This type of tank destroyer had

9728-421: The infantry needed to be armed with integral anti-tank weapons. The latter advocated use of tanks in the traditional cavalry way of high-tempo attacks intended to outflank the enemy infantry and sever its communication lines. This approach suggested that the tank was the best anti-tank system, and only limited anti-tank troops were required to accompany them. For this reason the late 30s tank configurations came in

9856-481: The kinetic energy of the explosion rather than the ballistic speed of the round on the damage inflicted to the armor. The effect was also concentrated and could penetrate more armor for a given amount of explosives. The first HEAT rounds were rifle grenades, but better delivery systems were soon introduced: the British PIAT was propelled in a manner similar to the spigot mortar with a blackpowder charge contained in

9984-423: The late 1930s shaped charge ammunition was experimented with that used chemical energy for armor penetration. The shaped charge concept is officially known as the "Munroe Effect" and was discovered by accident decades earlier by Professor Charles E. Munroe at the U.S. Torpedo Station, Providence, RI. Professor Munroe was detonating different manufactured blocks of explosives on a sheet of armor plating and observed

10112-464: The likely approaches by deepening and widening existing ground cratering, the precursors of the anti-tank trench . Finally in early 1917 the 3.7 cm TaK from Rheinmetall was rushed to the frontline, and proved effective in destroying the tanks despite limited elevation and traverse. Lack of consensus on the design and use of the tank after the First World War also influenced the development of its anti-tank countermeasures. However, because Germany

10240-832: The longer term. Because tanks were usually accompanied by infantry mounted on trucks or half-tracked vehicles that lacked overhead armor, field artillery that fired a mix of ground and air-burst ammunition was likely to inflict heavy casualties on the infantry as well. Field guns, such as the Ordnance QF 25 pounder , were provided with armor-piercing shot for direct engagement of enemy tanks. Anti-tank guns are guns designed to destroy armored vehicles from defensive positions. In order to penetrate vehicle armor, they fire smaller caliber shells from longer-barreled guns to achieve higher muzzle velocity than field artillery weapons, many of which are howitzers . The higher velocity, flatter trajectory ballistics provide terminal kinetic energy to penetrate

10368-624: The morale of the infantry by providing a weapon that could actually defeat a tank. Anti-tank rifles were developed in several countries during the 1930s. By the beginning of WW2, anti-tank rifle teams could knock out most tanks from a distance of about 500 m, and do so with a weapon that was man-portable and easily concealed. Although the AT rifle performance was negated by the increased armor of medium and heavy tanks by 1942, they remained viable against lighter-armored and unarmored vehicles, and against field fortification embrasures. Notable examples include

10496-544: The moving/static target's armor at a given range and contact's angle. Any field artillery cannon with barrel length 15 to 25 times longer than its caliber was able also to fire anti-tank ammunition, such as the Soviet A-19 . Prior to World War II , few anti-tank guns had (or needed) calibers larger than 50 mm. Examples of guns in this class include the German 37 mm , US 37 mm (the largest gun able to be towed by

10624-546: The name Jefferis shoulder gun be changed to PIAT? Nobody objected to the Boys rifle, although that had a rather odd ring." Churchill supported Jefferis claims, but he did not get his way. For his part Blacker received £25,000 from the Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors . The PIAT was 39 inches (0.99 m) long and weighed 32 pounds (15 kg), with an effective direct fire range of approximately 115 yards (105 m) and

10752-599: The older models of Red Army's tank fleet were destroyed by German anti-tank weapons, using tactics already seen in Spain, once and for all focused Stavka attention on anti-tank warfare as Soviet armies were repeatedly encircled by panzer-led strategic pincer maneuvers. Of the major iconic Soviet weapons of the Second World War, two were made exclusively for anti-tank warfare, the T-34 and the Ilyushin Il-2 Shturmovik . The former

10880-657: The opportunity to even reach combat. Field artillery was particularly effective in firing against tank formations because although they were rarely able to destroy a tank by direct penetration, they would severely crater the area preventing the tanks from moving therefore causing them to become nearly stationary targets for the ground attack aircraft, or disrupting the enemy schedule and allowing own troops more time to prepare their defense. Lieutenant Colonel Lieutenant colonel ( UK : / l ɛ f ˈ t ɛ n ən t ˈ k ɜːr n əl / lef- TEN -ənt KUR -nəl , US : / l uː ˈ t ɛ n -/ loo- TEN - )

11008-408: The period, but given sufficient warning ground attack aircraft could support ground troops even during an enemy attack in an attempt to interdict the enemy units before they come into tactical combat zone. Various bomb loads can be used depending on what type of tank unit is engaged in at the time or who its accompanying troops are. This is an indirect form of anti-tank warfare where the tanks are denied

11136-452: The position of the user or accidentally injure friendly soldiers around the user, and it was simple in construction. However, the device also had some disadvantages: powerful recoil, a difficulty in cocking the weapon, and early problems with ammunition reliability. The PIAT was first used during the Tunisian campaign in 1943, and remained in use with British and other Commonwealth forces until

11264-406: The possibility of developing a lightweight platoon mortar . However, rather than using the conventional system of firing the mortar shell from a barrel fixed to a baseplate, Blacker wanted to use the spigot mortar system. Instead of a barrel, there was a steel rod known as a 'spigot' fixed to a baseplate, and the bomb itself had a propellant charge inside its tail. When the mortar was to be fired,

11392-534: The possibility of nuclear warfare. While previous technology had developed to protect the crews of armored vehicles from projectiles and from explosive damage, now the danger of radiation arose. In the NATO countries, little if any development took place on defining a doctrine of how to use armed forces without the use of tactical nuclear weapons . In the Soviet sphere of influence the legacy doctrine of operational maneuver

11520-444: The previous anti-tank rifles the muzzle blast was minimal, also a potential concealment issue. However, the weapon did have drawbacks. It was very heavy and bulky, which meant that it was often unpopular with infantry required to carry it. There were also problems with early ammunition reliability and accuracy. Although the PIAT was theoretically able to penetrate approximately 100 millimetres (4 in) of armour, field experience during

11648-404: The previous anti-tank rifles, allowing it to remain effective for the rest of the war; its construction was relatively simple and robust without a conventional barrel; there was no back-blast (unlike the contemporary American bazooka ) that might endanger friendly troops and give the user's position away, this also meant that the PIAT could be used in confined spaces as in urban warfare; compared to

11776-526: The prototype Baby Bombard apart on the floor of his office in MD1 and rebuilt it, and then combined it with a shaped charge mortar bomb to create what he called the 'Jefferis Shoulder Gun'. Jefferis then had a small number of prototype armour-piercing high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) rounds made, and took the weapon to be tested at the Small Arms School at Bisley . A Warrant Officer took the Shoulder Gun down to

11904-548: The rear would become a practice only during the next war. With greater use of tanks by both sides it was realized that the accompanying infantry could be forced to ground by ambush fire, thus separating them from the tanks, which would continue to advance, eventually finding themselves exposed to close-assaults by German infantry and sappers . The early tanks were mechanically rudimentary. The 6-to-12-millimetre (0.24 to 0.47 in) thick armor generally prevented penetration by small arms fire and shell fragments . However, even

12032-529: The same features and layout. Some examples are the German Sturmgeschütz III – the most-produced German armored fighting vehicle of WW II — and the Soviets' SU-100 , itself based on the T-34 tank 's hull and drivetrain. Anti-tank rifles were introduced in some armies before the Second World War to provide infantry with a stand-off weapon when confronted with a tank assault. The intention was to preserve

12160-431: The shaped charge principle, which, if the often unreliable early round design delivered it correctly to the target, allowed the warhead to penetrate almost all enemy armour types at close range. The following ammunition types were available in 1943. Rounds were supplied in three-round ammunition cases with the propellant cartridge fitted and the fuses separate. Getting the bomb to detonate reliably against angled targets

12288-692: The standard M4 Sherman tanks, but with more powerful cannon. A 76 mm long-barrel tank cannon was fitted to the Sherman-based M10 GMC and all-new design M18 designs, with the M18 being the fastest-moving American AFV of any type in World War II. Late in 1944, the Sherman-origin M36 appeared, equipped with a 90 mm cannon. With rotating turrets and good combat maneuverability, American TD designs generally worked well, although their light armor

12416-484: The start of the Korean War alongside 2.36-inch (60 mm) bazookas , but quickly replaced both weapons with 3.5-inch (89 mm) M20 "Super Bazookas". The Haganah and the emerging Israel Defence Force (IDF) used PIATs against Arab armour during the 1947–1949 Palestine war . PIATs were also used by French and Việt Minh forces during the First Indochina War . The Indian Army was still using PIATs by

12544-535: The starters during some operations. Deploying small numbers of tanks would therefore cause the Allies to lose the element of surprise , allowing Germans to develop countermeasures. Because the German Army was the only force in need of anti-tank weapons, they were first to develop a viable technology to combat the armored vehicle. These technologies took three ammunition approaches: use of grenades by infantrymen, including

12672-429: The supporting infantry ( panzergrenadiers ) and artillery of the German tanks and so forced the tanks to halt at short distances from the concealed anti-tank guns leaving them exposed to fire from larger, longer ranged anti-tank guns. PTRS-41 semi-automatic anti-tank rifles were also used for sniping since an additional tracer round enabled rapid fire adjustment by the gunner. Although optical sniper scopes were tried with

12800-585: The tailfin assembly, the US bazooka and the German Panzerschreck used rockets, and the German Panzerfaust was a small recoilless gun . The HEAT warhead was retroactively used to give more power to smaller calibre weapons such as in the conversion of the otherwise limited German 37 mm PaK guns to fire a large shell, called Stielgranate 41 , that fitted over the barrel rather than down in it, to

12928-502: The tank – for instance 30 feet (9.1 meters) or less – it might be impossible for the tank crew to see the attacker. Anti-tank tactics developed rapidly during the war but along different paths in different armies based on the threats they faced and the technologies they were able to produce. Very little development took place in UK because weapons available in 1940 were judged adequate for engaging Italian and German tanks during most of

13056-675: The tank either through an adhesive ( sticky bomb ) or with a magnet. The Germans used a magnetic grenade, the Hafthohlladung to ensure that the shaped charge would fire at the optimal 90° angle to the armor. There was also a special type of grenade called the Nebelhandgranaten or Blendkörper ("smoke hand grenades"), which was supposed to be smashed over an air vent and fill the tank with smoke, widely used by both sides in World War II . Molotov cocktails also saw much use, especially in

13184-634: The tank's armour, the weapon became much less effective. As part of the Anglo-Soviet Military Supplies Agreement , by 31 March 1946 the Soviet Union had been supplied with 1,000 PIATs and 100,000 rounds of ammunition. The PIAT was also used by resistance groups in Occupied Europe . During the Warsaw Uprising , it was one of many weapons that Polish Underground resistance fighters used against German forces. In occupied France,

13312-477: The tank's thinner top armor if fired in appropriate density while the tanks were concentrated, enabling direct hits by a sufficiently powerful shell. Even a non-penetrating shell could still disable a tank through dynamic shock, internal armor shattering or simply overturning the tank. More importantly the tanks could be disabled due to damage to tracks and wheels, and their supporting vehicles and personnel could be damaged and killed, reducing unit's ability to fight in

13440-847: The traditionally defensive role used in the Great Patriotic War (1941–1945), becoming more mobile. This led to the development of improved guided anti-tank missiles , though similar design work progressed in Western Europe and the United States. Both sides in the Cold War also recognized the utility of light anti-tank weapons, and this led to further development of man-portable weapons for use by infantry squads, while heavier missiles were mounted on dedicated missile tank-destroyers , including dedicated anti-tank helicopters , and even heavier guided anti-tank missiles launched from aircraft . Designers also developed new varieties of artillery munitions in

13568-441: The trigger was pulled, the spring pushed the spigot rod (which has a fixed firing pin on the end) forwards into the bomb, which aligned the bomb, ignited the propellant cartridge in the bomb and launched it along the rod and into the air. The recoil caused by the detonation of the propellant blew the spigot rod backwards onto the spring, similar to that of a blowback operation ; this reduced the shock of recoil and automatically cocked

13696-413: The user had to take cover immediately. Additionally, with hand-thrown grenades, the requirement for the attacker to get close to the tank made the attacker exceptionally vulnerable to counter-attack from the tank (typically by machine gun), or from infantry – mounted or dismounted troops – accompanying the tank. However, if the attacker were very low to the ground, and in very close proximity to

13824-692: The war. By late 1942, the Germans had an excellent 50-mm high-velocity design , while they faced the QF 6-pounder introduced in the North African Campaign by the British Army, and later adopted by the US Army . By 1943 Wehrmacht was forced to adopt still larger calibers on the Eastern Front , the 75 mm and the famous 88 mm guns. The Red Army used a variety of 45 mm, 57 mm , and 100 mm guns, and deployed general-purpose 76.2 mm and 122-mm guns in

13952-417: The weapon for firing the spigot mechanism, which was operated by a large spring, had to be cocked, and to do this was a difficult and awkward process. The user had to first place the PIAT on its butt , then step on both sides of the shoulder padding (a la Pogo stick ) and quarter-turn the weapon to unlock the body and simultaneously lock the spigot rod to the butt; the user would then have to bend over and pull

14080-446: The weapon for subsequent shots, eliminating the need to manually re-cock. Tactical training emphasized that it was best used with surprise and concealment on the side of the PIAT team, and where possible enemy armoured vehicles should be engaged from the flank or rear. Due to the short engagement distances and the power of the bomb, the crew could be in the bomb blast zone so hard cover was desirable; on open training grounds this might be

14208-421: The weapon the 'Baby Bombard', and presented it to the War Office in 1941. However, when the weapon was tested it proved to have a host of problems; a War Office report of June 1941 stated that the casing was flimsy and the spigot itself did not always fire when the trigger was pulled, and none of the bombs provided exploded upon contact with the target. At the time that he developed the Baby Bombard and sent it off

14336-534: The weapon, the Ordnance Board of the Small Arms School had the faults with the ammunition corrected, renamed the Shoulder Gun as the Projector, Infantry, Anti Tank, and ordered that it be issued to infantry units as a hand-held anti-tank weapon. Production of the PIAT began at the end of August 1942. There was disagreement over the name to be given to the new weapon. A press report in 1944 gave credit for both

14464-437: The well-armoured Soviet T-34 medium and KV heavy tanks were encountered, these guns were recognized as ineffective against sloped armor , with the German lightweight 37 mm gun quickly nicknamed the "tank door knocker" ( German : Panzeranklopfgerät ), for revealing its presence without penetrating the armor. Germany introduced more powerful anti-tank guns, some which had been in the early stages of development prior to

14592-454: The wrong angle to the surface of the main armor. The only significant attempt to experiment in the use of tanks in the late 1920s was that of the British Army's Experimental Mechanized Force that influenced future development of tanks, armored troops and entire armies of both its future enemies and allies in the next war. In Spain, the anti-tank defense of the Nationalists was organized by

14720-454: Was theoretically examined to understand how a tank-led force could be used even with the threat of limited use of nuclear weapons on prospective European battlefields. The Warsaw Pact arrived at the solution of maneuver warfare while massively increasing the number of anti-tank weapons. To achieve this, Soviet military theorists such as Vasily Sokolovsky (1897–1968) realized that anti-tank weapons had to assume an offensive role rather than

14848-462: Was also inadequate in the anti-tank role. It was heavy, which meant that it was difficult for infantry to handle effectively, and was outdated; by 1940 it was effective only at short ranges, and then only against armoured cars and light tanks . In November 1941 during Operation Crusader , part of the North African Campaign , staff officers of the British Eighth Army were unable to find even

14976-558: Was attacked, its allies in the West were resigned to its defeat by a numerically superior Wehrmacht. The little information that was brought out about the conduct of combat during that campaign did nothing to convince either France, Britain or the USSR of the need for improved anti-tank technology and tactics. The reliance on the Maginot Line, and the subsequent surprise of the German offensive left no time to develop existing abilities and tactics in

15104-500: Was breached with tank support during the battles of Cambrai and St. Quentin Canal , although German Command was more impressed by the surprise achieved by the Canadian troops at the Battle of the Canal du Nord . This came to influence their planning in 1940. The Maginot line defenses – up to 25 km (16 mi) deep from the forward positions to the rear line – were intended to prevent

15232-514: Was considered to be the Maginot Line which replaced infantry-filled trenches with artillery-filled bunkers , including casemates housing 37 or 47 mm anti-tank guns, and steel turrets armed with a pair of machine guns and a 25 mm anti-tank gun, although Germany was forbidden to produce tanks. The construction was partially based on the Allied experience with the Hindenburg Line which

15360-415: Was later exploited by opposing tank forces. Late in the war, it was not unusual to find even the largest and most powerful tank destroyer abandoned on the field after a battle, having been immobilized by one high-explosive shell to the track or front drive sprocket. US Army pre-war infantry support doctrines emphasized the use of tank destroyers with open-top fully rotating turrets, featuring less armor than

15488-493: Was no match for enemy tank cannon fire during one on one confrontations. Another disadvantage proved to be the open, unprotected turret, and casualties from artillery fire soon led to the introduction of folding armor turret covers. Near the war's end, a change in official doctrine caused both the self-propelled tank destroyer and the towed antitank gun to fall from favor in U.S. service, increasingly replaced by conventional tanks or infantry level antitank weapons. Despite this change,

15616-444: Was one of the most manufactured tanks in history, and the latter, itself dubbed the 'flying tank', was one of the most manufactured aircraft. The war also saw the creation and almost immediate abandonment of the self-propelled tank destroyer which would be replaced post war by the anti tank guided missile. As tanks were rarely used in conflicts between the two World Wars, no specific aircraft or tactics were developed to combat them from

15744-598: Was restricted by the Treaty of Versailles in its military capability, and there were no other challenges to France and Britain, very little development took place in anti-tank warfare until the 1930s. The Interwar period was dominated by the strategic thinking with fortified borders at its core. These included obstacles consisting of natural features such as ditches , streams and urban areas , or constructed obstacles such as anti-tank ditches, minefields , dragon's teeth , or log barriers. The pinnacle of this strategic thinking

15872-500: Was seen as the quickest solution to anti-tank defense, and one of the earliest post-war anti-tank gun designs was the 25 mm Hotchkiss model from France. It was intended to replace an Atelier de Puteaux 37 mm weapon designed in 1916 to destroy machine gun positions. Rheinmetall commenced design of a 37 mm anti-tank gun in 1924 and the first guns were produced in 1928 as 3.7 cm Pak L/45, later adopted in Wehrmacht service as 3.7 cm Pak 36 . It made an appearance during

16000-557: Was the Junkers Ju 87 "Stuka" using dive bombing to place the bomb close to the target. Some French and German fighters fitted with 20 mm cannon were also able to engage thinner top armor surfaces of the tanks early in the war. The Stuka was also given cannons for anti-armor role though it was obsolete by 1942, and was joined by the Henschel Hs 129 that mounted a podded 30 mm (1.2 in) MK 101 cannon beneath its fuselage, while

16128-567: Was the standard front-line Australian division in the South West Pacific theatre . It was used against Japanese tanks, other vehicles and fortifications during the Borneo campaign of 1945 . A contemporary (1944–45) Canadian Army survey questioned 161 army officers, who had recently left combat, about the effectiveness of 31 different infantry weapons. In that survey the PIAT was ranked the number one most "outstandingly effective" weapon, followed by

16256-449: Was troublesome and was addressed with revised fusing. See also the bazooka , which had similar early problems. The 1943 manual simply describes the service bomb as "H.E." or "HE/AT" and does not mention shaped charge as such. It notes that the bomb has "Excellent penetration. The bomb can penetrate the armour of the latest known types of enemy A.F.Vs. and a considerable thickness of reinforced concrete". It also notes that it may be used "as

16384-501: Was used in the No. 68 AT grenade . Although the technology existed, it remained for British designers to develop a system that could deliver shaped charge ammunition in a larger size and with a greater range than that possessed by the No. 68. At the same time that Mohaupt was developing shaped charge ammunition, Lieutenant Colonel Stewart Blacker of the Royal Artillery was investigating

#669330