Eclaireur | 30 Jun 2015 2:33 p.m. PST |
In addition to the big tube, did that guy normally get issued with a personal weapon? Pistol? Sten? |
andysyk | 30 Jun 2015 2:51 p.m. PST |
In an Rifle Company, 3 PIATS were held in the Coy HQ and given out as deemed necessary, so the Gunner would still be armed with his normal weapon. |
Doms Decals | 30 Jun 2015 2:53 p.m. PST |
Lee Enfield – the PIAT wasn't allocated a permanent crew, but rather each company headquarters had 3 of them to dole out. The usual arrangement was for one to go to each platoon HQ, with one of the riflemen there (often the ostensible number 3 of the 2" mortar crew) using it, but the PIAT wasn't part of the TO&E, so whoever got lumbered with it retained their usual personal weapon. |
Doms Decals | 30 Jun 2015 2:53 p.m. PST |
I gotta type faster…. ;-) |
Fatman | 30 Jun 2015 3:24 p.m. PST |
Old age is a bitch Dom. ;-) Fatman |
jgibbons | 30 Jun 2015 5:02 p.m. PST |
I would not want to carry a PIAT and an Enfield (or a PIAT and anything else for that matter :-). ) |
hocklermp5 | 30 Jun 2015 6:51 p.m. PST |
In "Quartered Safe Out Here", George MacDonald Fraser's WWII memoir of his time in Burma He describes in detail using a PIAT. It is worth a read for the detail of using the beast but more so as the entire episode is hilarious. He also has much to say about the soldier's load as in Burma it was 30 pounds and seeing how soldiers are loaded down today puzzled him no end. He hated the Thompson gun and "lost" it in a canal crossing so he could go back to his Lee-Enfield Mk-4 he considered the greatest battle rifle ever. Great book all through and God how I wished he had lived long enough to get Flashy through the War Between the States. |
willthepiper | 30 Jun 2015 10:57 p.m. PST |
Smokey Smith used a PIAT and a Tommy gun when he won his VC in Italy. Citation In Italy on the night of 21st–22nd October 1944, a Canadian Infantry Brigade was ordered to establish a bridgehead across the Savio River. The Seaforth Highlanders of Canada were selected as the spearhead of the attack, and in weather most unfavourable to the operation they crossed the river and captured their objective in spite of strong opposition from the enemy.Torrential rain had caused the Savio River to rise six feet in five hours, and as the soft vertical banks made it impossible to bridge the river no tanks or anti-tank guns could be taken across the raging stream to the support of the rifle companies. As the right forward company was consolidating its objective it was suddenly counter-attacked by a troop of three Mark V Panther tanks supported by two self-propelled guns and about thirty infantry and the situation appeared hopeless. Under heavy fire from the approaching enemy tanks, Private Smith, showing great initiative and inspiring leadership, led his P.I.A.T. Group of two men across an open field to a position from which the P.I.A.T. could best be employed. Leaving one man on the weapon, Private Smith crossed the road with a Private James Tennant and obtained another P.I.A.T. Almost immediately an enemy tank came down the road firing its machine-guns along the line of the ditches. Private Smith's comrade, Private Tennant was wounded. At a range thirty feet and having to expose himself to the full view of the enemy, Private Smith fired the P.I.A.T. and hit the tank, putting it out of action. Ten German infantry immediately jumped off the back of the tank and charged him with Schmeissers and grenades. Without hesitation Private Smith moved out on the road and with his Tommy gun at point-blank range, killed four Germans and drove the remainder back. Almost immediately another tank opened fire and more enemy infantry closed in on Smith's position. Obtaining some abandoned Tommy gun magazines from a ditch, he steadfastly held his position, protecting Private Tennant and fighting the enemy with his Tommy gun until they finally gave up and withdrew in disorder. One tank and both self-propelled guns had been destroyed by this time, but yet another tank swept the area with fire from a longer range. Private Smith, still showing utter contempt for enemy fire, helped his wounded friend to cover and obtained medical aid for him behind a nearby building. He then returned to his position beside the road to await the possibility of a further enemy attack. No further immediate attack developed, and as a result the battalion was able to consolidate the bridgehead position so vital to the success of the whole operation, which led to the capture of San Giorgio Di Cesena and a further advance to the Ronco River. Thus, by the dogged determination, outstanding devotion to duty and superb gallantry of this private soldier, his comrades were so inspired that the bridgehead was held firm against all enemy attacks, pending the arrival of tanks and anti-tank guns some hours later. |
Martin Rapier | 30 Jun 2015 11:11 p.m. PST |
As noted above, PIATs were issued as required. In the 1937 regs, all the platoons heavier weapons, 2" mortar, ATR and the Bren were carried on the platoon truck and issued as required (in 1943 iirc The Bren was designated an individual weapon and permanently allocated). |
uglyfatbloke | 01 Jul 2015 2:11 a.m. PST |
Some unfortunate soul had to carry the ammo as well, so a team of two me with PIAT and half a dozen rounds were lugging 50 pounds (more or less) in addition to their usual kit. |
Skarper | 01 Jul 2015 2:35 a.m. PST |
True. PIAT was a heavyweight. But it could be passed around the platoon so the same poor chaps didn't have to carry it all the time. And even with the 30 lbs of regular kit and 32lbs of PIAT it is still a lot less than modern infantry are burdened with. |
Martin Rapier | 01 Jul 2015 3:30 a.m. PST |
Modern infantrymen don't wear wool long johns under a wool shirt under a wool uniform though:) |
andysyk | 01 Jul 2015 7:02 a.m. PST |
|
Skarper | 01 Jul 2015 7:54 a.m. PST |
True enough, but times were harder and they were used to it…. Also – the kind of action the British were involved in did not involve long marches carrying all their gear day after day – the fighting in Burma being an exception. |
Eclaireur | 01 Jul 2015 8:01 a.m. PST |
Thanks guys – excellent responses!! I think I might give my little guy a Thompson like Smokey. Thanks for that detail @willthepiper. @hocklermp5 – I've read Quartered Safe Out Here – it's a great book. I recall his comments about Thompson & Enfield but didn't remember about PIAT. As for the weight… As a young officer cadet I got given the GPMG (our modern Bren) on our final exercise. The (sadistic) colour sergeant asked the rest of my platoon if anyone knew why he'd given me the GPMG? No, came the answer. "Because we're not taking the Carl Gustav [equivalent of PIAT and significantly heavier than GPMG!] on this exercise" was his reply… |
Martin Rapier | 01 Jul 2015 8:09 a.m. PST |
"Also – the kind of action the British were involved in did not involve long marches carrying all their gear day after day – the fighting in Burma being an exception." Very true, all the lorries were there to lug gear around. In the 'Purple Primer' (regs for interwar armoured formations) it amused me how many lorries were specifically designated for carrying greatcoats. |
Weasel | 01 Jul 2015 10:03 a.m. PST |
Those old fashioned coats probably got pretty heavy with rain and water :-) Does any place sell nice reproduction British ww2 great coats? |
andysyk | 01 Jul 2015 10:22 a.m. PST |
They were magnificent garments, very popular and cheap surplus after the war. RAF in grey or RN in blue very good for civvy street. They stopped issuing them because they were so expensive to make. They were the cold weather garment, meant to be fought in worn and slept in being wool kept you warm even if a bit wet. |
ScottWashburn | 01 Jul 2015 10:49 a.m. PST |
Interesting that the PIATs were handled exactly the same way as the American bazookas: given out from HQ as needed. One would think that having designated teams who became experts in handling the weapons would make more sense, but apparently not. |
Weasel | 01 Jul 2015 11:05 a.m. PST |
ScottWashburn – I suppose it could be: A: A reflection on them being an additional weapon added into the formation and nobody feeling they had enough spare riflemen. B: A reflection on tanks being engaged by infantry relatively rarely. I'd be curious if commanders didn't have "preferred men" for PIAT/Bazooka duty. (Likely whoever first managed to actually hit a target with the bloody thing)
|
andysyk | 01 Jul 2015 11:17 a.m. PST |
Even post war everybody in a Rifle battalion was expected to be able to fire a anti-tank Company weapon but their was a designated Gunner and NO.2 I was given the CG 84mm because I was the smallest bloke and it was the heaviest Platoon weapon…………. |
Starfury Rider | 01 Jul 2015 1:07 p.m. PST |
The only British WEs I've ever seen identifying personnel specifically as PIAT men were the 1943 Commando and the Inf Bn Type "C", which sounded really interesting, but turned out to be the Apr45 WE used by RA Regts converted to the inf role for occupation duties. Atk rifles didn't have specific gunners either. The only US example I've seen for Bazooka operators is the USMC Inf Bn Assault Pl. |
Jemima Fawr | 01 Jul 2015 10:52 p.m. PST |
In theory, the three PIATs were to be kept in the Company Carrier until required, hence the lack of an officially-designated PIAT bloke. However, this led to farcical situations such as the one experience by a battalion of the DLI at Lingevres, when the Battalion 2IC took the nearest man, together with a PIAT and two cases of ammo, off to hunt Panthers. Spotting a Panther lurking in a barn, they stalked it and the Major ordered his companion to fire… "But I don't know how, Sir! I thought you did…" Needless to say, the Major didn't know either… Louis Hagen, a glider pilot at Arnhem, also lamented the fact that their Guards intructors had spent an awful lot of time teaching foot drill, but no time at all on PIAT drill… From speaking to veterans and from the odd personal account, it would seem that permanent PIAT-blokes were assigned on a local and unofficial basis. |
Martin Rapier | 01 Jul 2015 11:13 p.m. PST |
Wrt Greatcoats, I used wear my fathers to school back in early 70s when such things were fashionable. There are plenty of originals still around, my current one is 42 dated with just one tiny moth hole in the collar. 50 quid. |
Skarper | 01 Jul 2015 11:43 p.m. PST |
It does make sense that someone would unofficially get the job of lugging around and occasionally firing the PIATs – whatever the regulations said. But given the rate of attrition in WW2 infantry battalions that role would probably rotate quite often. |
Andy P | 02 Jul 2015 4:25 a.m. PST |
AS i once time signaller in a Post War rifle Battalion i was trained in the use of the Charlie "G"along with teh 51mm Mortar and GPMG which was my favourite weapon. In training used to stick Shermullie's (para Flares) down the barrel and set them off to simulate loading and firing. |
Dagwood | 02 Jul 2015 12:57 p.m. PST |
If I remember correctly, the PIAT used by GM Fraser was the only one to ever reach Burma, and while he was using it he had a jeep to ride around in ? So none were carried around Burma at all ….. PS I second the advice to read that bit of the book, very funny, |
Doms Decals | 02 Jul 2015 1:43 p.m. PST |
No it certainly wasn't – they were never common in Burma, but it was far from unique. Indeed there was at least one Victoria Cross issued for using one over there: link |
Jemima Fawr | 02 Jul 2015 9:57 p.m. PST |
GMF was selected to take the PIAT to the loony Major because he was freshly returned from the PIAT course, complete with PIAT and ammo. In the book he says that some historians state that 'there were no PIATs in Burma', but he then points out that there was at least one, because he had it. As Dom says, there were plenty of PIATs in Burma. For example, the Chindits used them extensively during Operation 'Thursday', with the Nigerians using them very effectively to destroy a Japanese truck convoy. They were also used very effectively against the Japanese 14th Tank Regiment during the 3rd Battle of Bishenpur, on the southern fringe of the Imphal battlefield (I'm guessing that's Dom's link?). They were also reported as being very effective for bunker-busting; giving the infantry the ability to post HE through a bunker aperture from some distance. |
x42brown | 03 Jul 2015 2:34 a.m. PST |
I was playing 'Nuts' yesterday with Shugie, who used a PIAT in WW2 and asked about carrying it. He said that they never carried it more than about 100yds from the buffalo and he was designated to use it probably because he was the newest person in the unit and hadn't learned how to duck said duties yet. x42 |
typhoon2 | 03 Jul 2015 4:22 a.m. PST |
I recall reading an account – I forget which source – of British infantry in Normandy holding a hill against attacking German forces at night. Tanks were heard approaching so the PITA was ordered forward. The operator apparently apologised and admitted that the PIAT was heavy and so it had been left at the bottom of the hill! Patrick Delaforce in Black Bull (history of the British 11th Armoured Div) wrote of resting infantry units – between the Normandy set-piece attacks such as Epsom and Bluecoat – were practicing shooting with PIATs against KOed and abandoned German armour. Presumably dedicated men would have done so, rather than giving everyone in the unit a go? |
Jemima Fawr | 03 Jul 2015 5:47 a.m. PST |
Tiffe, Yes, the five or so 12th SS Panthers that had been knocked out by the Elgin Regt at Bretteville-l'Orgueilleuse were used to familiarise recently-arrived units in the appearance of Panthers. They would also then get a chance to shoot PIATs at them – partly to practice firing at real targets but also to demonstrate that the PIAT was capable of penetrating the armour and thus instilling confidence (which, despite the myths, it actually did – the Panthers were apparently riddled by the end of the campaign). |
Eclaireur | 03 Jul 2015 7:42 a.m. PST |
Thread deviation or hijacking often gets my goat – but this has been most excellent :-) EC |
Jemima Fawr | 03 Jul 2015 8:03 a.m. PST |
I didn't even know you had a goat… |
Jemima Fawr | 03 Jul 2015 8:21 a.m. PST |
Coming back to the original point: I think the reason that there was no permanently-assigned crew in the WE is purely down to the weight of the weapon plus ammo. The decision was made at some point to keep the things in the Company Carrier until needed, so that the company's constituent platoons wouldn't be unnecessarily burdened. If you look further at the WEs, you'll see that PIATs turn up in the strangest places, such as the Bn Mortar Platoon. The reason is simple – the Mortar Platoon had lots of Carriers and therefore had the mobility and capacity to carry PIATs around as a secondary role. The intention here does not simply seem to be a case of using them to defend the mortar position. |
Starfury Rider | 03 Jul 2015 10:30 a.m. PST |
The Mortar Pl did have atk rifles on the WE as far back as 1938, and I think even late 1936 prior to that. The 1938 WE had one atk rifle with the Mrtr Pl, and 22 in the Inf Bn as a whole. The earlier 1936 WE (which introduced the Bren) had 23 atk rifles, but annoyingly doesn't list the distribution. If you reverse engineer a bit it does work out the Mrtr Pl could well have been authorised atk defence a long way back. When the Mrtr Pl was increased to three Secs in 1941 they went up to three atk rifles, and when the PIAT replaced the Boys the same scale was kept. The atk rifles as shown as being transported on the three 15-cwt ammn trucks rather than the 3-in mortar carriers. When the Motor Bn added 3-in mortars to its Motor Coys in early 1942, the accompanying 15-cwt truck had an atk rifle listed with it. Again that carried across to the 1943 Motor Bn, with a PIAT for each Motor Coy Mrtr Sec on the 15-cwt. Gary |
Griefbringer | 03 Jul 2015 11:23 a.m. PST |
Issuing anti-tank weapons to the battalion support companies also meant that you would have a level of anti-tank defense in depth, so that if the enemy tank assault would manage to penetrate through the front line rifle companies they would then be confronted by the anti-tank weapons held by the rear area units, rather than just easily running over defenseless units there. And knowing that they had means of defense provided to them would hopefully also boost the morale of the units in question. Similarly the US infantry division TOE provided plentiful supply of bazookas all over the place, with battalion HQ and heavy weapon companies having a bazooka or two per platoon. And regimental and divisional units would have also their own, so an enemy tank unit would be confronted by a lot of bazookas through the depth of the division. Whether these rear area anti-tank assets are usually taken into account in our wargames is another issue. |
Starfury Rider | 03 Jul 2015 4:01 p.m. PST |
That's an interesting point, British and later US Divs (with Bazookas) had a surprisingly high number of inf atk weapons held by other than Rifle Coys. Pretty much every subunit had something on the books to counter tanks, though how many had the necessary training and capability is another matter. Contrast that with German Divs, who only had atk rifles (and later RPzB54s) with Rifle or Recce Coys, nothing I can recall seeing with Arty or supply and transport troops, but sometimes with Pioneers. |
Griefbringer | 04 Jul 2015 11:32 a.m. PST |
I would presume that after the first couple of years of war many military planners had realised the need to provide defense in depth in order to stop or slow down enemy armour breakthroughs. Providing rear area troops with infantry anti-tank weapons and training would be one way, providing divisional artillery with armour piercing ammunition could be another way. As regards the Germans, remember that they had lots of anti-tank weapons that would not show up on TOEs, such as various anti-tank grenades, hand-held anti-tank weapons and (in late war) Panzerfausts. I have no idea what was the official approach to those in the rear echelon units, but Germans themselves should have been particularly aware of the threat of the armoured breakthrough, after having been in delivering end for a number of times. |
Starfury Rider | 06 Jul 2015 11:14 a.m. PST |
I've seen some figures for rifles grenades in the late war German Inf Divs, and they were found with the Inf Regts, Fus and Pio Bns, and the Arty Regt and Atk Bn. None are shown for the various supply units. Panzerfausts aren't shown on these summaries, but I've at least seen a mention of them with Pz Bdes, which had six each for the Wksp and the 60-ton tpt column. |