Anti-tank weapon PIAT demonstrated (1944)
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 11. 2020
- GAUMONT BRITISH NEWSREEL (REUTERS)
To license this film, visit www.britishpathe.com/video/VL...
New weapon, PIAT (Projector, Infantry, Anti Tank) is tested by British soldiers
Full Description:
ENGLAND: Surrey: Bisley:
EXT
GUNS. P.I.A.T. demonstrated at Bisley
World War II, WWII, Second World War, War, WW2, recoiless rifle, infantry weapons, armour, armoured vehicles, HEAT
Background: New weapon, PIAT (Projector, Infantry, Anti Tank) is tested by British soldiers
FILM ID: VLVAYV4KLZ33UZJ4G6SHOI2AOQJG
To license this film, visit www.britishpathe.com/video/VL...
Archive: Reuters
Archive managed by: British Pathé
They’re really close to that vehicle, what happens when attacking something with a machine gun mount?
From the looks this was probably staged at a training range at a base in England. The PIAT was good but firing at the frontal armor would have been avoided. The crews were trained to set up were they could ambush them from the side as they went past. It's also unlikely they would have been used in wide open fields like this. In this area the ground would have been covered by full sized AT guns like the 2 and later 6 pounder guns.
@@silverjohn6037 Don't forget England was desperately trying to rearm their army, this and the sten were their answer to a shortage of supplies.
@@auntie_Slayer Indeed. Once adopted they both worked reasonably well so they were kept in service throughout the war. The PIAT in particular had the advantage over the American bazooka and German panzerfaust in that it had no backblast so it could be safely fired from inside a building.
What makes it designed to target armor?
It used a shaped charge capable of penetrating 4 inches of armour.
they are panzer elite
Born to compete
Never retreat
Ghost division
Living or dead,always ahead
@@plaguecrow754 FED BY YOUR DREAD
Haha so close in Front of a stug...hahaha
It actually happened in one of the real life battles and the guy stood up to fire. He was more lucky than he had any right to be IMO but he did knock it out. Fastest trigger finger wins.
@@danielc2701yea ppl have to remember that it was not easy to operate early tanks. You had multiple ppl inside who needed to communicate vs one person with split-second decisiveness and the capability. It is the infantry's job to spot and flush before the tank gets danger-close to AT weapons.
@@will.roman-rossure, but you have to wait for the tank to be within 50 yards of you before attacking, and before then the tank is much more dangerous to you than you are to it
@@randbarrett8706 not w AT emplacements that tons of infantry had, but yes, indeed, when infantry had to assault positions w dug-in tanks. But the downside of being dug-in is infantry could spot and call for artillery or air support (if applicable) to knock out the position. So again those tank positions needed plenty of infantry to keep enemy infantry from spotting the armor before tanks came in to get ambushed by the dug-in ones.
For example, tanks rolled over in blitzes and at the Bulge due to surprise, therefore inefficient tank counters. But in well dug-in lines like at Khursk, all tanks became mince-meat bc the quantity of large AT guns, artillery, mines, tank traps, and air support brought to bear. AT killed more tanks than tanks did. Artillery killed more infantry than tanks. Tanks needed support to get through minefields, but they played their role in assaults, crushing trenches, MG nests, artillery positions, and wire to pave the way for infantry to continue supporting the tanks.
Tanks have never been a solo show, except when they were first used in WW1: before combined arms became doctrine, before more efficient AT weapons were mass-produced, and before rocket equipped and accurate dive bombing aircraft. Late WW2 saw tanks w/o support only bc the Germans lacked the manpower to support them, and Hitler believed heavy/super heavy tanks were nearly unstoppable: he was wrong.