Panzerabwehrwerfer

[dy031101]

Wikipedia entries on the 81mm version and 105mm version respectively.  They are AT guns designed to be lighter and easier to handle than contemporary towed artilleries and to use shells derived from mortar warheads.

They (or at least the 81mm version) also seemed compact alright; but what about the recoil?

Okay, the motivation behind the question is that...... I wonder if such a weapon would have been usable in vehicles with small turrets......

[Maverick]

Donny, given the weapons relied on the low-pressure principle and the 10.5cm weapon was to be mounted on a 5cm weapons carriage, I'd think that the recoil impulse would be quite reduced.  Another example of this (although not exactly the same) is the 40mm M79 which allows a relatively large shell to be comfortably fired from a shoulder weapon with minimal recoil.

I'd think that the weapon could be suited to smaller turrets as the French fielded 60mm mortars on their armoured cars without issue.

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

The PAW weapons were the first to use what was called the "High-Low" recoil principle.  Basically the cartridge case is divided in two.  In the base is the charge.  The plate dividing the two chambers has a series of holes through it which are covered by a thin sheet of metal (brass usually).  When the round is fired, the charge ignites and burns and builds up pressure behind the dividing plate until it ruptures the thin sheet of metal.  This allows the gases to expand suddenly into the other chamber through the holes and then in turn propel the round along the barrel.  The result is a short, sharp recoil impulse which is then smoothed out and lasts longer.  This duel impulse "High-Low" system allows the recoil system on the carriage to be lighter than normal and the carriage itself in turn to be lighter.  It also allows the round that is fired to be of lighter construction.

The PAW-800 utilised a modified 81mm mortar round.  The PAW-1000 a modified 105mm mortar round.  Both were HEAT warheads which didn't rely on muzzle velocity but rather chemical energy for penetration.
The number after PAW in the designation was basically their ranges, rather than their calibres.  Both were quite an interesting solution to problem of ever increasing calibres and weights in infantry AT guns.

Today, the High-Low pressure system is widely used in the various 40mm grenade launchers which are usually slung under standard infantry assault rifles.   When you fire one, you feel the sharp impulse followed by a much lower one, against your shoulder.   The first time its a little disconcerting but it's quickly adapted to (by the time you feel it, the round has left the barrel already).

[dy031101]

Curiosity- Wikipedia entry says that the US tested the prototypes but did not go further with the idea until the 40mm grenade launcher.

Nevertheless, did the Allies have anything that was similar in terms of features (breech-loading, smoothbore, and low-recoil- those kinds of qualities) if not size?

[rickshaw]

Curiosity- Wikipedia entry says that the US tested the prototypes but did not go further with the idea until the 40mm grenade launcher.

Nevertheless, did the Allies have anything that was similar in terms of features (breech-loading, smoothbore, and/or low-recoil- those kinds of qualities) if not size?

Not really.  They had a few emergency weapons during the dark days after Dunkirk.  The Smith Gun, it was ingenious but not terribly successful.  There was also the Northover Projector, again a not terribly successful (or safe) emergency weapon.  Finally there was the Blacker Bombard.  Of the three, only the Blacker Bombard went onto to be developed further as the PIAT.   What must be understood is that the weapon of choice against the tank was the gun.  In order to penetrate a tank's armour you needed a high velocity weapon.  As armour increased in thickness, so did the gun in weight to defeat it.  With the rediscovery of the rocket and the development of the Monroe Effect, a means was found to circumvent the massive growth in gun weight and provide a simple, light-weight means of projecting a shell which could defeat enemy armour.

In 1940 the British were desperate though for AT weapons so they explored a lot of hare-brained, desperate schemes to get some quickly and cheaply.  By 1945, the Germans were in the same spot so they were also looking desperately for a way to increase the number of AT weapons in the hands of their soldiers.   The result was a lot of old crap being trotted out and some new weapons being developed like the PAW.   When you're on the verge of defeat or think you are, you tend to be desperate.

[Maverick]

It's said that the PIAT was able to defeat most German armour, especially earlier in the war, but that the gunner had to be suicidially close to  make the shot.  Doesn't really make for confidence building, but then man vs tons of metal is always a dodgy proposition at the best of times.

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

It's said that the PIAT was able to defeat most German armour, especially earlier in the war, but that the gunner had to be suicidially close to  make the shot.  Doesn't really make for confidence building, but then man vs tons of metal is always a dodgy proposition at the best of times.

Regards,

Mav

The real killer with the PIAT was recocking.  It ruined many a soldier's back trying to do that.  You had to place the buttplate between your feet, grasp the monopod support and straighten up.  The spring needed about 100 lbs pull to recock it.  Imagine trying to do that in the middle of a firefight and lying down!  A friend of mine has tried one and he found it nigh on impossible.  I suppose desperation might have helped!

As to the round, I've seen various figures for its penetration ranging from about 60-100+mm.  I do know its fusing was very unreliable which is one of the reasons it was pretty much abandoned immediately after the war.  Dodgy fusing is never liked by soldiers but it was accepted as a necessary evil by the need to get an effective AT weapon into the hands of the infantry.  Its effective range was comparable to the Bazooka - about 100 metres. Rockets promised a much easier route which is why the British adopted the 3.5in Rocket Launcher pretty much as soon as it was developed and deployed by the US Army.

Unlike the Bazooka, the PIAT could be used as a mortar and fired indirectly.  A tactic which was exploited to the point that that the Canadians put a large number on the back of a Universal Carrier and used it as a bombardment weapon.  Must have been hell to recock them all if they failed to recock automatically.

[Maverick]

I've heard that recocking the PIAT was 'troublesome' to say the least.  Definitely almost makes one think that it was a 'one shot' to a point, given the gunner's difficulty to recock it for a second shot and the fact that its effective range was on 100yds.  It could punch out to 750yds, but I'd think that in that instance it would be almost an area weapon, which confirms Brian's mentioning of its indirect fire capabilities.

A couple of interesting points from Wikipedia:

"Training for using the PIAT emphasized that it was best utilized from a slit trench with surprise and concealment on the side of the PIAT team, and where possible the flanks or rear of enemy armour were to be targeted."  Sounds like pointing out the obvious to me, but I suppose that's a given because it's training.

"It was possible to use the PIAT as a crude mortar by placing the shoulder pad of the weapon on the ground and supporting it with a monopod, giving the weapon an approximate range of 300 yards (270 m). The PIAT was often also used in combat to knock out enemy positions located in houses and bunkers."

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

I've heard that recocking the PIAT was 'troublesome' to say the least.  Definitely almost makes one think that it was a 'one shot' to a point, given the gunner's difficulty to recock it for a second shot and the fact that its effective range was on 100yds.  It could punch out to 750yds, but I'd think that in that instance it would be almost an area weapon, which confirms Brian's mentioning of its indirect fire capabilities.

In theory, the weapon recocked itself when it fired.  Obviously that didn't happen every time but more often than not, it would recock itself.  For firing indirectly, it had no sights as such and it was a matter of practice, just as the 2 in mortar was (I've been told by a good friend who served in Borneo attached to the British SAS that a well trained 2in mortar gunner could put up to seven rounds into the air and have them all fall about the same time on the same target).

The PIAT like all infantry AT weapons got used against what ever enemy strongpoint was resisting the advance.  Be it a tank, a bunker or a house, it was brought to bear.   In the Falklands, Milan ATGW missiles were used against Argentine positions.  In Iraq, Javelin ATGW missiles were used against bunkers and houses.  If you've got it, it will tend to be (mis)used. 

[Old Wombat]

Brian, you should know that if it works it ain't misuse, it's a "field expedient" usage.

[rickshaw]

Brian, you should know that if it works it ain't misuse, it's a "field expedient" usage.

Unfortunately the bean counters take a very different and serious view on the matter for some reason.  Perhaps if we put them in uniform, in the field, they might understand things better.

[Maverick]

One could almost quote the old adage: "Those who can do, those who can't teach", although I'd replace 'teach' with 'make the rules' as veterans can still teach.

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

One could almost quote the old adage: "Those who can do, those who can't teach", although I'd replace 'teach' with 'make the rules' as veterans can still teach.

Regards,

Mav

I've always disliked that adage.  Invariably those who can and have done, make the best teachers.  Having both experience and passing it one makes for good instructors - one reason why at least in the Australian Army, all NCOs and Officers are taught how to instruct.  Doesn't necessarily make them all good instructors but it does mean they can pass on their experience.

Bean counters OTOH tend to be "penny wise but pound foolish" and focus too much on the small picture without realising there is a bigger picture as well.  A good example is in "Thud" by Terry Pratchett.  Sam Vimes takes the auditor that The Patrician forces on him and puts him on the front line.  Gives him a whole new perspective on things. 

[Maverick]

Ah Pratchett.  Brilliant stuff without equal.  Haven't read anything recently, but did tape 'Going Postal' for myself & Dad.

Regards,

Mav

[Old Wombat]

Terry Pratchett is my God!

Bean Counters should have experience on the front-lines of any service/business/industry for which they are working so they have an understanding of what they are counting, not just that they are counting it.