"Can a PIAT really knock a Panther out at it's max distance?" Topic

"I was quite surprised to see my lowly green PIAT team knock out a veteran SS Panther at what appeared to be a reasonable distance. When I've been firing away all my 75mm AP at the same tank to no avail. I realise that any sort of charge can disable or destroy armour if you get close enough but this was pretty distant. It got me thinking, are there any accounts of PIATs destroying armour (Panther's in particular) in the open?…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

The Piat warhead is a HEAT round, so range is irrelevant to penetration.

If you can beat the low odds at max. range and get a hit, it will do the same damage as at point blank range.

Also, the Panther's side and rear armor are pretty weak, so if you can get a flank shot, it's dead.

Frontally, very unlikely. From the flank or rear highly possible.

Often, misidentifying the target can lead to some reports that don't match up with tests and armour values.

A VC cross winner's citation from Arnhem misidentified StuGs as Tigers – so pretty much anything is possible.

There possibly is a way in which range could sorta reduce the PIAT's effectiveness. If the round has to be fired with some elevation to reach the target, it may hit and go off at an oblique angle. If it tries to penetrate the armour at an angle, it will be defeated by a lesser thickness of it.

OTOH, firing at extreme range the round might come down at a sharp angle and hit the thin top armor of the tank and blast through easily. As Thresher points out a shaped charge will have the same penetration no matter how fast (or slow) it's going.

I played a game at a convention. Peter Gilder's rules.

One of my Tiger IIs was hit twice by a PIAT from the front while dug in. Both hits scored 'heavy damage' which meant it was knocked out.

I was inwardly aghast but hope the guys running it did not notice. They were nice guys and it's good of people to make the effort to put on games and encourage participation.

@ Skarper

Impossible outcome I'd have thought. A PIAT could blow the tracks off, but if it were dug in, the tracks wouldn't be exposed.

ISTR paratroopers at Arnhem firing PIATs at longish range that just glanced off or exploded in some direction other than through the armour, eg along it.

IMO with the basic sights on the PIAT, even being a HEAT rd., you'd best get as close as you can to get a "good" shot at the flank, top or rear.

Of course taking out the roads wheels and/or tracks would be another way to go. But if the crew does not abandon it, they could still stay in the tank and fire the weapons. Then of course you still may have to take it out with shot in a weaker armor location.

This is a bit of 'PIAT propaganda' taken from Progress Bulletin, Infantry, No.17 of December 1944.

"The following is a report of live firing practices and tests carried out with the PIAT by an infantry battalion in NORMANDY.

It had been hoped to fire at a Mk.V or Mk.VI tank, but as one could not be found in a suitable position it was necessary to make do with a SP gun on a Mk.II chassis. The armour basis of this was thin and did no more than provide a target except that one bomb hit the breech block of the gun and penetrated five inches of best quality hardened steel.

All members of PIAT teams and most officers of the battalion had the opportunity of firing at a tank at 80 yards and also in its other roles. The percentage of hits was very high indeed, and men who before firing had rather looked upon firing the PIAT as an ordeal immediately after firing successfully realised that there was nothing in firing it and that the weapon was well worth carrying".

Other uses tested included;

Firing into the bottom of a hedge, range starting at 100 yards and increasing to 370-400 yards. "At 200 yards seldom was more than one ranging round required".

Fired into tree tops as anti-sniper weapon. "A great deal of damage was done in each case, whole branches being blown off. A sniper would have had a very thin time indeed."

"The PIAT is an extremely accurate weapon as far as line is concerned. On windy days a good deal less allowance has to be made than for the 2" mortar owing to its flatter trajectory".

The introduction of the 426 fuze is the latter months of 1943 did appear to address a problem with the preceding 425 fuze.

PBI No.3, September 1943.

"The new graze fuze, No.426, has been designed with a two-way action. Should the fuze strike the target the striker is driven onto the cap by the blow of the steel ball at the end of the fuze in the normal way. Should the fuze miss the target but the projecting body of the bomb catch it a glancing blow the resultant sudden deceleration will cause the detonator of the fuze to run forward onto the striker of its own momentum. Detonation is thus guaranteed either way."

Canadian experience is seemingly documented in the 'Canadian Operations in Mediterranean Area' series, but I don't know if those are online anywhere. Issue/part 30 of the series appears to describe the effectiveness of the PIAT against the Tiger tank.

Gary

What they do not mention is the problem with reloading it!

No, I have to admit, they do seem to bypass that particular aspect in the reports the above quotes are taken from. (Cue CSM admonishing a complainant by pointing out if he could hit the bl**dy tank the first time, he wouldn't need to reload it now would he…)

Thanks!.

Amicalement
Armand

… range could sorta reduce the PIAT's effectiveness. If the round has to be fired with some elevation to reach the target, it may hit and go off at an oblique angle. If it tries to penetrate the armour at an angle, it will be defeated by a lesser thickness of it.

In the case of the OP I would expect quite the opposite. The OP suggests the shot was at the PIAT's max range, so the round would indeed have been fired with some elevation. In fact, given its low velocity, it would have had to be at a significant elevation. So the round would have been on a falling trajectory.

The target was a Panther. The front of a Panther, for all its defensive value, was only about 80mm of armor (depending on which sub-model and when built). But of course that armor was sloped at about 55 degrees, giving that 80mm of plate an effective thickness of about 145mm for shots coming at it horizontally.

But at range the PIAT should far from horizontal. It should be falling at a fairly steep angle. Every degree below the horizontal of the PIAT round's path of flight is a degree less of the slope of the Panther's armor. At or near the PIAT's max range, the effective protection of the Panther's front plate may well have been closer to the actual 80mm.

But, as stated, that's all based on being able to get a hit at all, not a small challenge with PIAT at anything more than a few dozen meters.

What they do not mention is the problem with reloading it!

What problem with reloading it?

When it worked correctly, all you had to do to reload a PIAT was place a new round in the tray at the front. That doesn't seem so hard to me.

Loading it the first time involved cocking it first, which was a bit of a b!tch. But it was designed to re-cock itself with each shot, which seems to have worked at least reasonably well.

This video gives a pretty quick explanation of the system:
YouTube link

Does not seem to offer a high opinion of the PIAT, but does explain the cocking mechanism, and seems to demonstrate quick and easy reloading for second shots.

Of course, I have never even touched, much less fired, a PIAT. In fact I've never fired any mortar from my shoulder. (Not like there are a wide variety of shoulder-fired mortars out there to sample ….)

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

The rear sight was set for 50, 80 and 110 yds. Some sights had only two settings. Based on the elevation for firing at those distances I don't think the angle of descent is much over 20 degrees but would negate some of the sloped armor protection but give some increased protection if hitting a vertical armor surface. Recocking was the equivalent of lifting 200lb 12 inches.

In the video on the left side of the sights was a bevel and indirect fire sight out to 370m functioning like a mortar which is not shown. It has a low angle and high angle setting. I doubt if you'd use it to shoot at a tank.

This video gives a better illustration of it at 10:06.
YouTube link

Six Victoria Crosses were awarded to members of the British and other Commonwealth armed forces for actions using the PIAT:

On 16 May 1944, during the Italian Campaign, Fusilier Frank Jefferson used a PIAT to destroy a Panzer IV tank and repel a German counterattack launched against his unit as they assaulted a section of the Gustav Line.

On 6 June 1944, Company Sergeant Major Stanley Hollis, in one of several actions that day, used a PIAT in an attack against a German field gun.

On 12 June 1944 Rifleman Ganju Lama of the 7th Gurkha Rifles used a PIAT to knock out two Japanese tanks attacking his unit at Ningthoukhong, Manipur, India (given as Burma in the official citation). Despite sustaining injuries, Ganju Lama approached within thirty yards of the enemy tanks, and having knocked them out moved on to attack the crews as they tried to escape. When asked by his Army Commander, William Slim, why he went so close, he replied he was not certain of hitting with a PIAT beyond thirty yards.

Between 19 and 25 September 1944, during the Battle of Arnhem, Major Robert Henry Cain used a PIAT to disable an assault gun that was advancing on his company position, and to force another three German Panzer IV tanks to retreat during a later assault.

On the night of 21/22 October 1944, Private Ernest Alvia ("Smokey") Smith used a PIAT to destroy a German Mark V Panther tank, one of three Panthers and two self-propelled guns attacking his small group. The self-propelled vehicles were also knocked out. He then used a Thompson submachine gun to kill or repel about 30 enemy soldiers. His actions secured a bridgehead on the Savio River in Italy.

On 9 December 1944, Captain John Henry Cound Brunt used a PIAT, amongst other weapons, to help repel an attack by the German 90th Panzergrenadier Division.

Wolfhag

that armor was sloped at about 55 degrees, giving that 80mm of plate an effective thickness of about 145mm for shots coming at it horizontally.

Well, yes and no. As long as the shots were coming from dead ahead the effective thickness is 145mm. If they're coming from 20 degrees to one side of dead ahead, the effective thickness is more, about 155mm.

If the PIAT round is likewise being fired from an offset position, it's got more than the 80mm absolute thickness of armour to penetrate, plus it may hit reverse-sloping rear armour, or some curving surface such as the mantlet. If the round is descending at 20 degrees it may hit the adjacent hull top at 20 degrees as opposed to a hull side at 70 degrees. In those cases there's got to be a good chance that the round will start to glance off, meaning the explosion will either vent into empty space, or will take a longer path through the plate and not penetrate.

The old Bruce Quarrie rules I started gaming with 40 years ago gave a PIAT an attack value of A at one range and B at longer ranges. So it's not a novel idea, although personally I'd have thought that range having this effect would be the exception rather than the rule. I can sorta see how it could happen, but it would have to depend on what you were firing at.

The Panther's mantlet could deflect AP fire down onto the very thin armour over the drivers compartment.

I think doing this with a PIAT round while possible is going to be a very rare event.

I seem to remember a story from the Oosterbeek fighting of a 2" mortar round landing on the engine deck of a tank [Tiger II] and setting it on fire.

A PIAT kill versus a Panther/Tiger from the front is a similar freak event. It COULD happen.

How we handle these freak one-offs in our games is a vexed question.

When tested against a captured Tiger I in 1943, the PIAT could penetrate the turret but not the front hull, though spalling occurred on the inside of the hull.

Report on Functioning of PIAT During the Instructional Tour of North Africa by Captain F.W. Burton

Some very interesting bits of history posted ! And some really very brave soldiers too ! 💂‍♂️👍👍

That US YouTube video is fascinating. I thought one had to re-cock that 200lb pull spring every time it was fired, instead it turns out to be just sometimes!

I seem to remember a story from the Oosterbeek fighting of a 2" mortar round landing on the engine deck of a tank [Tiger II] and setting it on fire.

That would not be uncommon. The Tigers and Panthers had a very open and unprotected engine deck and gasoline leaks. WP rounds could do the same thing. Later in the war, they had these covered over by light armor over the deck to protect against strafing fighters. The .50cal API and 20mm HE would set the engines on fire too.

How we handle these freak one-offs in our games is a vexed question.

I use a Critical Hit Chart. I roll a D20 for the Hit Location. A 20 is a Critical Hit (5% chance) and a D20 roll on the Critical Hit Chart. No tank is 100% safe from a hit and no tank has a 100% chance of being destroyed.

To simulate the Panther curved mantlet shot trap: When the front turret is hit (the mantlet covers almost all of it) roll a D6, a 1-2 it hit the top of the mantlet and ricocheted off for no damage, a 3-4 it hit the center with 100mm of armor, on a 5-6 it hit the bottom of the mantlet and ricochets into the turret ring or hull roof.

Wolfhag

It should reload after the first shot, however it was dependent upon the firer being prepared and holding the weapon correctly.

"There was a art in holding the PIAT because it lurched forward when first fired under the influence of the spring and then recoiled violently under the influence of the bomb. If the firer was resolute and ready all was well but if he let the shock push him backwards it often happened that the residual recoil was not enough to recock the weapon which then had to be done manually".

From 'Modern Small Arms' (as of 1978 anyway) by Major Frederick Myatt (MC, Burma).

That's the eventuality I thought deephorse was referring to. Also if the firer failed to cock the PIAT correctly in the first instance, he must 'lower the outer casing under control' or risk causing damage to the mechanism.

Gary

"That would not be uncommon".

Actually, that would be incredibly uncommon to get a direct hit on a tank's engine area, with a mortar. Probably like 1,000:1 odds, if not worse.

Starting a fire afterwards due to that, I agree, would not be uncommon.

Hmmm, first I've evern heard of the Piat recocking itself. I always assumed you'd have to do that manually, like a crossbow.

"From September 1944, a slightly redesigned mantlet with a flattened and much thicker lower "chin" design started to be fitted to Panther Ausf G models, the chin being intended to prevent such deflections. Conversion to the "chin" design was gradual, and Panthers continued to be produced to the end of the war with the rounded gun mantlet.[62]"

link

@Thresher01 much less uncommon than you'd think. When we live fire with mortars here in the UK the range targets are generally tank hulks and getting a second or third round hit at 2k plus is a regular occurrence. You just need a decent MFC. I would agree with your odds of 1000:1 against a moving target but if it's stationary you can hit it.

As for the PIAT, it was a to cock for the first round so the SOP was to carry it cocked. If held properly the recoil would recock the weapon so that firing subsequent rounds meant just laying another bomb in the tray and pulling the trigger.

I do agree with Windy's assessment as I was an 81mm Mortar Plt Ldr for a time in the US ARMY.

I suspect 2 direct PIAT hits on a Tiger's front would be enough to cause significant spalling and force eh tank to withdraw or the crew abandon it.

PIATs could penetrate up to 100mm of armour. Tiger IIs had significantly more.

You'd need to score some kind of critical hit to do more than annoy the beast. It's POSSIBLE but unlikely in the extreme. Maybe a 1% chance.

Track damage would be quite possible, but in the case I mentioned my tanks were dug in. I didn't make a fuss. I was playing against 2 young kids – maybe 10-11 year olds – and the guys running it were friendly and generous.

The late Peter Gilder did a lot for the hobby, but his rules have been superseded long ago.

Piat penetration and tigers

link

Armand

By the way, did we ever decide how to pronounce "PIAT"? Does it rhyme with Wyatt, or with Fiat?

Might be an officers and other ranks divide…

Gary

Kills aren't just KOs. The crew doesn't know its "only" a PIAT. It could be all sorts of superficial damage the crew has panicked about.

Fairly sure it was pronounced pee at by veterans i talked to.
It's over 40 years since i did those interviews though.

Yes, I had hear the same …

Is that PEE-at or p'YAT?

PEE-yat. Always was….Emphasis on the first syllable.

I will bet much delended on the county origin of the user. Was he a Scouser, a Brummie, a Geordie, a Cockney, a Canuck, a Highlander, even a Paddy like me?

Must be PEE-yat. The letters are P. then ….oh heck…. I

So it could have been a Pee-Aye-A-Tee. But that takes so long to say that…well you know the rest

There's a newsreel from the period where the voice over says each letter pee eye aye tee.

Yeah, but really. Would any soldier not choose to say he was going to Pee At an enemy tank in order to kill it?

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

When will wargamers learn that armour penetration is not necessary to knock out a tank.

When will wargamers learn that armour penetration is not necessary to knock out a tank.

All the wargamers I know that are interested in such things already know this.

Deephorse, given the perpetual references to armour penetration on social media like this particular thread, it is clear most wargamers still think armour penetration is the be all and end all determinant of tank warfare

Someone posted a link to a document in the online Canadian archives over on WW2talk a while back. It was penned by Weapons Technical Staff Field Force (nicknamed Wheatsheaf I think) and outlined where to aim to obtain 'best results'.

It does reference the problems caused by skirts (Schurzen) and spare wheels when using hollow charge bombs, which might read into this other thread.

TMP link

link

Gary