Talk:PIAT

Comments

[I] will find the W[ar]O[ffice] number of the report later. but the rounds that found the PIAT penetrating 102mm of armour only fired 75% of the time. The fuses used in combat fired about 90% of the time. as the figures were by the 50% penetration army limit, the 102mm probably does the PIAT a little discredit. - rich tea man.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.30.126 19:00, 20 September 2005.(UTC)

Dubious Statements

"At the start of World War II, all major armies were investing in research into HEAT projectiles..." This is very likely incorrect. The Soviet Union apparently was not working on a HEAT round at the start of the war. The Soviets did not bring any into service throughout the war (they did reuse captured German HEAT rounds such as the Panzerfaust).

"The Germans concentrated on recoilless weapons and the US on rockets, but in 1941 when the PIAT was being developed, rocket powered weapons were nowhere near ready for use." This very misleading. The PIAT was not ready for field service in 1941, either. Instead, it first saw service in 1943. However, the rocket powered US bazooka first entered service in 1942! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.65.52 (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Penetration and distance

Is it just me or does the last part in the text "In general use the PIAT had a rated range of about 100 m, but that was considered the extreme and it was typically fired at much shorter ranges. The three pound (1.4 kg) HEAT warhead was able to penetrate about 55 mm of armor at 100 m." imply that range got anything to do with how much armor it could penetrate? Since the PIAT was a shaped charge weapon it didn't matter if it hit the target at 10 or 1000meters (assuming it could). It was still be able to penetrate just as much.

I believe the range is considered extreme because of the odds of hitting anything at 100m rather than armor penetration. The PIAT sights were primitive, the weapon kicked very hard when fired, the round was very slow "and then you fired it and looked up and saw the bomb lolloping along dead slow and you thought, 'My God the tank'll be gone before the bomb gets there'", and it had to be lobbed to reach that sort of range. --Schwern 05:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Recocking

It states that the launcher is a 'one shot per confrontation weapon' due to the heavy force needed to compress the spring. Is it my imagination, but I was under the belief that when it was fired, it recocked itself, and you simply placed a projectile in the bay, and pulled the trigger again? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marlon203.11.81.235 (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes, that does seem odd and probably incorrect. --Schwern 05:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

One shot per confrontation?

I removed a comment that the PIAT was considered a "one shot per confrontation" weapon due to the difficulties in cocking. Since the weapon recocked itself after firing this should not have been a problem. The recocking scheme had its flaws, but I've not heard the PIAT ever referred to as a one-shot weapon. Can anyone provide references? --Schwern 05:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Pte. Thomas Watkin Gets Millitary Medal (1946, The Brandon Sun )=

Among the awards for gallantry of the Canadian Army Relaesed today (?)by the Department of National Defense is Pte. Thomas Watkin who recieved the Millitary Medal. Pte. Watkin, Canadian Infatry Corps, was born on November 18, 1913, at Brandon , and was still a resident in this cityat the time of his enlistment in the Canadian Army on January 15, 1940 . He went overseas on June 25,1941. Prior to enlistment he was employed as a hospital attendant. His wife, Mrs. Florence Watkin , and three children , Murray, David and Marilyn, live at 862 First street. His Citation reads: "On April 27, 1945, 'C' Company of the Westminster Regiment (motor) was advancing in the vicinity of Woldendorp, Holland. No. 10 platoon of this company was caught in a heavy concentration of artillery and motar fire and unable to move because of crossfire from two cleverly concealed machine guns. Pte. Watkin volunteered to silence one of the machine gun posts. Disregarding the heavy shell and motar fire he worked his way forward over one hundred and fifty yards of completely exposed ground to within sixty yards of the enemy machine gun to a position from which he was able to use his PIAT . Quickly rushing the post after the crew had been stunned by the explosion of the PIAT bomb , Pte. Watkin killed the crew of three with his pistol. Using the enemy post to excellent advantage Pte. Watkin followed up his success by pinning down the crew of the other machine gun and enabled the remaider of his platoon to re-organize themselves and advance to the objective. "By his exemplary courage, coolness and resoucefulness, by his single-handed heroic action, Pte. Watkin undoubtedly saved his platoon from heavy casualties in a difficult situation , thus permitting it to quickly achieve its objective."

Combat Use

Is the majority of that section necessary? There is no similar section in any of the other entries about similar weapons (such as the Panzershreck, Panzerfaust or Bazooka) and it is quite redundant in an article about the weapon itself.--81.235.193.23 11:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It does make for interesting reading. --Schwern 12:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

pre war history

I think I read somewhere that thePIAT or its predecessor had been suggested to the war office in 1935 - 37? and turned down.

If this is true, and it had been developed, presumably if troops had been armed with a reasonable anti tank weapon the course of the debacle in France in 1940 might have been avoided?...Engineman (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

French troops in some sectors were running from the sound of their OWN tanks, so no, it wouldn't have helped the situation. Binksternet (talk) 04:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Picture?

The picture that is labelled "Canadian Soldiers Using PIAT" might be wrong. The shoulder patch appears to be that of the 1st British Airborne Division. The helmets that the soldiers are wearing are also not the typical British issued "Brodie" style helmet. They appear to be the rimless crash style helmets indicating at they are Para troops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.110.239.234 (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The picture description on the picture page identifies them as part of Canadian airborne unit which explains the helmets and patch.GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

service use - who got what

I had found that this page and others on the samewebsite describe the numbers of PIAT issued to different types of British platoon.GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

From the book 'From D-Day to VE-Day, The Canadian Soldier' by Jean Bouchery, there were 23 throughout each Canadian infantry battalion: 3 with the Admin platoon of HQ Coy, 4 with both the mortar platoon and AT platoon of support Coy and 3 the the HQ of each of the 4 rifle Coys. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Pegasus Bridge

A single PIAT used by men of Major John Howard's D Coy. Ox and Bucks was crucial in destroying the first German armed halftrack (by Sgt. Charles ('Wagger') Thornton) and an armed trawler (by Cpl. Claude Godbold) encountered during their defence of the Bénouville bridge following its seizure as one of the opening moves of the D-Day assault.

Am pretty sure when i read Pegesus Bridge by S.Ambrose that he state it was a tank they destroyed heading towards the bridge not a halftrack (although i dont have the book with me to confirm that atm). What do other sources say?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm rewriting this at the moment in my sandbox, and Ambrose actually got it wrong - it was a halftrack. In Neilland's account of the Normandy campaign, he quotes a member of 7th Para Battalion who states that it was a halftrack that got knocked out, as the remains were still there when his battalion arrived at the bridge. Skinny87 (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well i cant say am surprised by the fact he got it wrong. Good to see there is a realiable source to support you to, although am implore you not to use the phrase "German armed halftrack" :).--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

effectivness statement

This was only just sufficient to defeat the frontal armour of the older German tanks, remaining more effective against their side and rear armour.

The Panzer IV made up quite a chunk, as in it was one of the most common tanks fought by the western allies, of the German armoured forces and was by no means one of the "older German tanks".

It's also a load of rot; the PIAT had varying success, true, but in my rewrite I'm finding sources that state even Panthers could be knocked out by PIATs at close range. Sandbox is here if you want to take a look, though it's still a work in progress. Skinny87 (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

50th Div knocked out a disabled Panther with a Piat on 14 June from 15 meters range - give me a shout if you need further details or source info.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

L/Cpl Mann

The Airborn Recce Sqdn war diary here mentiosn a L/Cpl Mann with a PIAT against a "self-propelled gun" on the 21st at Arnhem. Is this what is included in the article as a "tank"? GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Trying to locate this now, but can't find Mann in the VC winners list, which is odd; my airborne sources aren't mentioning him either. Skinny87 (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

the text mentions a US DSC rather than a VC. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

and the Battle of Arnhem article has blank sections for the 21st to 24th. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Rewritten article in Sandbox

I have completely rewritten and expanded this article in my sandbox, and would welcome any and all constructive criticism - I hope to replace the current article with it. I would note that the 'Operational history' is intentionally small; after careful consideration, it didn't seem worth adding in every time a tank was disabled or destroyed with a PIAT during the conflict, as that would have taken up so much room. Otherwise, I think it's all quite straight-forward, but like I said any comments are welcome. I would ask that people don't edit the sandbox just yet, as I'm still tweaking it, and place comments here - if that's okay. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I haven't written the lead yet - I always do that last because I find them so timeconsuming. But that'll be done in the next day or so! Skinny87 (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

And the prose is probably quite rough, I'll give it a run through in the next few days as well. Skinny87 (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the strong focus on Victoria Cross actions is appropriate. By definition, these weren't typical ways in which the weapon was used. I'd suggest that you restructure this material as a single para which identifies the actions in which a PIAT was important and leave it as that. By the way, where should I stick the material I'm digging up? - here or at your sandbox? Nick-D (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Popping it into the sandbox'll be fine, thanks. That Australian stuff you alreadu put in there is great. I'll try and restructure the VC stuff into a single para - I did wonder if it was too long, but I didn't want IPs demanding that the VCs weren't recognized. But now I know, so I'll get on it. Apart from that, how does it look? Skinny87 (talk) 07:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

(od)Right, well, the VC stuff has been put into a single paragraph; some more cites have been added, the odd pic moved around. The lede will soon be written (hopefully), and once that's done I'd like to officially replace the current article with my sandbox version. I again state that any comments are welcome, and if any users are opposed to such a move. Skinny87 (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I've only had a quick look at your sandbox version with the ref error check tool. It picks up a couple of occasions where the are multiple refs with same content eg Khan pp2-3.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear - sorry, never used that tool before and I'm awful with refs. What does that mean? Skinny87 (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

When you add the tool at User:Mr.Z-man/refToolbar it gives you a tool to add various cite templates and a check tool. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

(od)Well, two users just combined all the refs, and I've also written the lede. hopefully the article is now ready. Skinny87 (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The sandbox article looks good. One minor point, the See also section should be above the footnote one and if possible and the WW2 portal should be included.

I personnaly think the operational section could be expanded a bit with a few examples of it actually being used in combat before hte VC stuff.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

PS when it says that the PIAT was replaced by the Bazooka, do we know which one? I presume the super bazooka and if we know that is the case prehaps mention that?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

(od)See, I thought that, but there's not that much I can find, and I think that more detailed examples should go in articles on the battles in which they were used - otherwise it would just get crammed in with examples; I think the section as it is now is about the size it should be. And I'm not sure about which bazooka - the magazine I cite for that fact doesn't mention it, sorry. Skinny87 (talk) 11:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

fair enough. Prehaps we should use the See Also section to link to the articles with additional information on actual battle usage?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that's a good idea. I'll add in Operation Perch and the Battle for Ortona, for example. Skinny87 (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Might wanna throw in Operation Epsom to, there is a note within the article that talks about the 4 Panthers being knocked out by PIAT fire in one action.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Added that in, thanks for that, and moved the Commons and WWII Portal to the bottom as it was screwing up the See Also section.Skinny87 (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A minor note, shoudnt the red ensign be used for Canada not the maple leaf?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Erm, I've no idea. I just used the same template and changed the country names. Any ideas? Skinny87 (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I do believe that this should be the right one Flag of Canada 1921.svg for the period. If it runs past '57 i think a slash and then displaying this one Canadian Red Ensign.svg as well.

As for other users of the PIAT one would also expect to see the Free Poles (Italy and NW Europe), South Africans (the armoured div in Italy) and possibly even the French (i.e. the Commando units), Belgiums and Dutch (both had a brigade in action iirc with 21st AG) to be in there. However my own sources are somewhat limited in these areas so i cant really help source it sadly.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, that's true. Well, I guess South Africa could come under Commonwealth. Otherwise, I'll keep a look-out for sources for them so I can add them in. Skinny87 (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

(od)Sorry, can't seem to get that 1921 flag to go in without it being massive; if you could do that once I've moved the article, I'd be greatful. Skinny87 (talk) 13:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Officially moving

Would anyone object if I were to now replace the current article with the one in my sandbox? Further changes can of course be made to it afterwards if and when required. Skinny87 (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

None here - looks excellent to me.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, well, Keith264 says he doesn't oppose on my talkpage, so I'll transfer it now. It can always be reverted if there are problems, though hopefully there won't be. Skinny87 (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

And it's now been added in! Skinny87 (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good - I've now started on Blacker so there's one less redlink. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A tiny problem; Operation Crusader ended during December 1941 so the sentace in the article appears somewhat incorrect, unless this is suppose to be in the aftermath of Operation Battleaxe (an operation fought in the summer)?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops, my bad, I've corrected it now - it was during Crusader, not afterwards. Skinny87 (talk) 08:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Recoil

I just changed the Design section, to say how the PIAT's system of operation reduced felt recoil. Unfortunately I don't have any references for this, as I'm making the statement on grounds of basic physics. Norman Yarvin (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi there! Thank you for the additions. As this is a WP:Good Article, all additions need citations, even ones which are mostly just basic physics, like yours. Whilst I have reverted the additions, I'm going to dig up my books on the PIAT and see if I can reference your text and place it back in. That might take a little while, however, as my books are in storage at the moment. Thanks again, however! Let me know on my talkpage if I can give you any more help. Skinny87 (talk) 09:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That seems to me like an overly-harsh reading of the Good Article criteria, which require citations only for "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". The change I made seems like none of those. Perhaps some people might find it counter-intuitive, but if they come along, it seems better to let them add a "citation needed" tag, and then worry about the issue. In any case, this change, for me, isn't worth Wiki-lawyering about, so I leave it in your hands. By the way, the general name for the principle is a "soft-recoil" system; there are some words about it on the recoil page. Norman Yarvin (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about this some more, the real place for an explanation like the one I wrote is on the recoil page, since it is a matter of general principles. In that context it can be explained a lot better. All that should be here is a brief mention that the PIAT is an example of such a system, with a link to that page. Norman Yarvin (talk) 03:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I edited the recoil page to include what I think is a decent explanation. (Actually the entire section on recoil in mounted weapons badly needed a rewrite, which I gave it.) Included is a mention of the PIAT as an example of a soft-recoil system; they may not have used that term at the time, but the way the weapon worked, it obviously falls into that category. Norman Yarvin (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I looked it over - looks good! Skinny87 (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Performance

Currently the article has this

"There were also problems with its penetrative power; although the PIAT was theoretically able to penetrate approximately 100 millimetres (4 in) of armour, field experience during the Allied invasion of Sicily, which was substantiated by trials conducted during 1944, confirmed otherwise. 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."

I was initially thinking about rephrasing. Eg on faulty fuses phrasing it as one-quarter failing to detonate, however looking at it I see questions which could do with answering if possible.

• 1) The faulty fusing found during trials - was this satisfactorily solved, if so by when, and (long-shot) what did it the fail rate come down to?
• 2) does the 75% refer to bombs fired that hit the target and did explode, or bombs fired that did explode whether or not they hit the target?
• 3) Did accuracy improve, was it always about 60% at 100yds?
• 3a) Where the targets stationary or moving?
• 4) How was the accuracy at other ranges, eg 50 yd?
• 5) The theroretical performance was 100mm what sort of value did they achive in practice.

I think answering some of the above could be useful. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Very good questions, Graeme, and to be honest my response can be summed up as: I don't know. I got that info from French's book on the British Army, and although I don't have it with me, I'm fairly sure he got that info from original documents at The National Archives or the Imperial War Museum - most of his citations are like that. The sentence in his book certainly didn't go into any more detail, and neither did my other sources. I think I was fairly comprehensive in looking for sources on the PIAT, as there isn't much out there, especially for technical information. As such, I'm not sure what to say. It would be interesting to get those questions answered, but the only thing I could think of would be to dig up those TNA/IWM files, and that might be OR, I'm not sure. Skinny87 (talk) 09:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

A training manual or official report would be a reasonable source surely provided it was made clear. There may be other materials out there, a search of Scribd found me an interesting paper on the Shaped charge development in the UK and within it the interesting mention of a "Watts" who was involved in the PIAT development - barely a sentence and unreferenced, it reads to me that he and Jefferis both had a stab at putting Blacker's spigot system together with a HEAT bomb and then took the best of both for the final version.GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes...now why hadn't I thought about a training manual? I can't get to the TNA, but there might be an official manual floating around somewhere. Let's have a look around then, see what can be dug up. Skinny87 (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

More related to the recoil above an excerpted piece in a general article says "When the trigger action has released the spigot, a total weight of about 12 pounds travels forward for one tenth of a second before the round is fired" GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Multiple Errors or Misleading Statements

In an attempt to improve this article, I'm going to list some problems. If you're the author, please see this as contructive criticism.

1.“a steel tube, a trigger mechanism and firing spring”,

Virtually all weapons consist of “a steel tube, a trigger mechanism and firing spring”, why is this in the introduction?

2.“When the trigger was pulled, it released the spring which pushed the…”

This should also not be in the intro. The article should not describe the complexities of how a spigot mortar works, in the introduction. The introduction should briefly describe the weapon, it’s relevance and it’s uniqueness. The introduction in the manual says this (pp.2,6) :

Introduction

The weapon is called the Projector, Infantry, Anti-Tank. It is a light self-cocking weapon that is designed to stop and knock out enemy A.F.V.s. It is shoulder-controlled and fires an HE (shaped charge) bomb.

It’s chief characteristics are:

i. Mobility. It can be carried by one man.

ii. Short range. The maximum range against tanks is 115yds. It can, however, be used against buildings up to 350yds.

iii. Excellent Penetration. The bomb can penetrate the armour of the latest (June 1943) known types of enemy A.F.Vs. and a considerable thickness of reinforced concrete.

---

3. An inexpensive barrel!

This weapon didn’t even have a barrel, the bomb is placed in and launched from a tray, trough or ‘bomb support’. The tube that contained the mainspring is called the 'mechanism casing'.

4. difficulty in cocking the weapon

This weapon was not difficult to cock (for soldiers) you could even do it lying down or standing up. Compared to cocking a submachinegun, yes, compared to loading a 6 pounder anti-tank gun, no, not difficult to 'cock'.

5. the bruising the user received when firing it

To say the user receives a bruising is a bit silly when we’re talking about a military weapon. I even get bruises from shooting a shotgun. Do recoil bruises get mentioned regarding other weapons on Wiki?

The manual says this (pg. 6):

When fired the weapon is automatically recocked. The working parts being forced to the rear by the spent cartridge. A strong mainspring eases the chock of recoil on the firer’s shoulder...

6. and problems with its penetrative power

If there were problems with it’s penetrative power, then be specific, and then cite references and sources.

7. Shouldn’t a list of specific nations that used the PIAT be in the USERS section, not the introduction? You can mention that many nations or about a dozen nations used the PIAT, in the intro, and then reference/link the USERS section.

8. the Boys anti-tank rifle and the No. 68 AT Rifle Grenade. However, neither of these were particularly effective as anti-tank weapons.

This should say why the Boys and No.68 were “ineffective”, because they were both excellent weapons with one major flaw: the Boys could only penetrate 19mm at 500yds, and the No.68 rifle grenade 52mm at 100yds; and by 1940 tank armour was becoming too heavy for them to penetrate.

9. It (the Boys) was heavy, which meant that it was difficult for infantry to handle effectively

The weight of the Boys wasn’t the problem. It only weighed 36lbs. It’s replacement, the PIAT, weighed the same, so the problem clearly wasn’t the weight of the weapon. Compare the this to the weight of a 2 pounder anti-tank gun: 1,794lbs !

10. by 1940 it (the Boys) was only effective at short ranges, and then only against armoured cars and light tanks

This is not right. The Boys had an extreme range of 7000yds! and could KO soft vehicles and penetrate wood and stone buildings at extraordinarily long ranges.

11. The origins of the PIAT can be traced back as far as 1888, when an American engineer

The Origins of the PIAT can be traced back much further than 1888, if we think ‘shaped charges’ are the origin of the PIAT.

This is from a MoD document, Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment:

The cavity effect in explosives has been the subject of intermittent investigations for well over 150 years and has been discovered by many people during that time. The earliest available reference is to the work of Baader, a Norwegian mining engineer, who towards the end of the 18th century advocated leaving a conical or mushroom-shaped air space under the forward end of a blasting charge. This space increased the explosive effect and at the same time saved a considerable amount of explosive. Hausmann (Ref 2) took the idea from Norway to Germany early in the 19th century, but it S appears not to have flourished in the Harz mines according to Combes (Ref 3). In 1874 Davey and Watson took out a British Patent (No2641) in which they claimed as a new invention, "the use of a cylindrical charge with a central hole below and in the middle". In 1883 Max von Foerster in Sirmany discovered a similar effect, as did the better known Munroe in Washington. Munroe's work, first mentioned in an article published in 1885, showed that any pattern forming an indentation in the base of an explosive charge was reproduced as an indenta- tion in an underlying metal plate when the charge was detonated. From this he extended his investigations to establish the effect of different sized holes in wet guncotton cylinders. The deeper and wider the holes in the guncotton, the deeper and wider the holes bored in the iron plate. When there was a hole completely through the guncotton cylinder (and at least half of the weight of explosive had been removed), the iron plate was completely perforated when the charge was detonated."

---

I think just a brief mention of the PIAT utilizing a shaped charge (aka. hollow charge) that had been under development since the 18th century, is all that’s needed for this article. As long as there’s a link to a hollow charge article! And the hollow charge article doesn’t even go into the detailed history of hollow charges as much this article does. lol! Perhaps this hollow charge history should be moved there.

12.It was carried and used by a two-man team

It was carried and used by one man, but a second man was often used as an ammo carrier and assistant loader.

13. The PIAT launcher was a tube constructed out of thin sheets of steel, and contained the trigger mechanism and firing spring.

There was nothing “thin” about the steel used to make the PIAT. The PIAT was a very solid sturdy construction, particularly when compared to the Panzerfaust, Panzershreck or Bazooka. My personal opinion is that the steel used was heavier than needed. But some claim the weight made for a better firing platform.

14. Saying it contained the trigger mechanism and firing spring is moot. I think a picture or diagram would be worth a thousand words here.

15. This may be a good place to add a section about the PIAT bombs, marks and types.

There are other problems and errors with the rest of the article, but this is enough for now.

MoD Research (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, all of the facts in the article, which I primarily wrote, are backed up by reliable sources listed at the bottom of the article. If you'd like to try and 'improve' the article, then might I suggest writing a version of your own in a sandbox on your user page? We could then compare versions and merge them together to create n improved version. Skinny87 (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)