Early War British Equipment

[Goblin]

A spigot usually is refering to a water hose hook up, I believe.

Goblin

[Buzzard45]

The rod driving forward sets off an explosive charge that propels the main charge forward. Much like a Mortar round works. Instead of dropping the charge down a tube, the rod moves. The back pressure from the explosion is supposed to reset the spring loaded rod. But, It didn't always work and has a helluva kick.

I don't know where the Spigot comes in. Likely a name derived from a water pipe.

Is this right John?

[Belisarius]

Originally posted by Goblin
A spigot usually is refering to a water hose hook up, I believe.

Goblin

A quick check on dictionary.com:

Spigot;

1. A faucet.
2. A wooden faucet placed in the bunghole of a cask.
3. The vent plug of a cask.

So yep, a spigot is a water hose hook up, but I guess in the case of mortars that it refers to the spike used to plug the bunghole (uhh-huhuh-heheheh) in casks? :p

[Belisarius]

Also;

A spigot mortar is NOT a spring-loaded PIAT type weapon.

The spigot mortar is a tube with a spike in the bottom that sets off the primer of the round when dropped down the tube. In essence, all mortars are spigot type, although they're quite refined. The spigots were old in WWI, even. :p

[Griefbringer]

I guess I will need to go and study a bit more how mortars work - just realized that I don't know the details. I know that you drop them into the tube, and when they hit the bottom something makes the propelling charge detonate (instead of rifles, cannons, howitzers etc. where the shot is stationary and an external moving rod hits the detonator).

So what makes the mortar round propelling charge detonate when it hits the bottom of the tube - I presumed that it is somehow armed before being dropped, so that after that any strong impact can make it go boom. But based on what Belisarius said, there is a spike on the bottom of the tube - this is sensible in that thus higher impact can be required to set off the charge, but isn't such spike rather vulnerable to wear and tear - getting it misaligned would make the tube incapable of detonating the rounds, and this would be hard to notice.

And if the AVRE has a spigot mortar - does that mean that someone has to go and lift that 290mm round (must be pretty heavy) up to the tube, and drop it down so that it can be launched - doesn't sound like the most effective design to me (but then, we are talking of (WWII) heavy weaponry that is not known for user-friendliness).

And then again, I am reminded of that scene on Saving Private Ryan, where they arm the mortar shells by hitting them hard (on the mortar bottom plate I think), and then throw them like grenades. How would that have been possible in reality?

Griefbringer

[john g]

Originally posted by Belisarius
Also;

A spigot mortar is NOT a spring-loaded PIAT type weapon.

The spigot mortar is a tube with a spike in the bottom that sets off the primer of the round when dropped down the tube. In essence, all mortars are spigot type, although they're quite refined. The spigots were old in WWI, even. :p

Incorrect, the tube for a spigot mortar round is built into the ammunition. A spigot mortar in its pure form is just a steel rod, the round is set on the rod and then launched off of it. A tube mortar is the reverse where the round is put inside the launcher instead of outside the launcher.

If you have ever seen the rifle grenade attachment for the m1 rifle which is a hollow rod that fits on the end of the rifle barrel that is what a spigot mortar is like. US WWII rifle grenades were loaded on the outside of the laucher and then fired off of it.

The UK cup launcher for firing mills grenades is more like a tube mortar, the round is put inside and then lauched.

A spigot mortar especially those with a fixed firing pattern is the ultimate cheap weapon, a steel rod set into a cement base that could sit out exposed to the weather with nothing happening to it. When needed you just fixed a round to it and launched it off, a tube mortar used cheaper ammo but it was much more expensive and required maintenance.
thanks, John.

[john g]

Originally posted by Griefbringer

And if the AVRE has a spigot mortar - does that mean that someone has to go and lift that 290mm round (must be pretty heavy) up to the tube, and drop it down so that it can be launched - doesn't sound like the most effective design to me (but then, we are talking of (WWII) heavy weaponry that is not known for user-friendliness).

And then again, I am reminded of that scene on Saving Private Ryan, where they ar, the mortar shells by hitting them hard (on the mortar bottom plate I think), and then throw them like grenades. How would that have been possible in reality?

Griefbringer

The avre petard was loaded by the loader standing up thru a hatch next to the driver loading the weapon from the outside of the vehicle. The front of the turret was a block with the rod that the round was mounted on totally exernal to the vehicle.

In Saving private Ryan the reason they were smacking the mortar rounds on the ground was to arm the fuse supposedly. In real life it takes more force than that to arm a mortar round, otherwise there would be a lot more accidents with rounds going off after they were subjected to shock.

The Japanese did use time fuses in one model of their knee mortar, those could be used this same way using the shock to start the time fuse.
thanks, John.

[Griefbringer]

This starts to sound interesting - I need to go and find some pictures on those things to figure out how they actually work.

As an unrelated issue, I recently noticed that the Japanese have a weapon called Molotov Projector - I had the misfortune of having one of my Crusaders hit with this thing, with rather devastating results.

Any idea how this device was like? From the name I could guess that it employed some way of lobbing Molotov Cocktails or similar incendiary devices at the enemy, but I am wondering what was the propelling mechanism.

Griefbringer

[Belisarius]

Originally posted by john g
Incorrect, the tube for a spigot mortar round is built into the ammunition. A spigot mortar in its pure form is just a steel rod, the round is set on the rod and then launched off of it. A tube mortar is the reverse where the round is put inside the launcher instead of outside the launcher.

If you have ever seen the rifle grenade attachment for the m1 rifle which is a hollow rod that fits on the end of the rifle barrel that is what a spigot mortar is like. US WWII rifle grenades were loaded on the outside of the laucher and then fired off of it.

The UK cup launcher for firing mills grenades is more like a tube mortar, the round is put inside and then lauched.

A spigot mortar especially those with a fixed firing pattern is the ultimate cheap weapon, a steel rod set into a cement base that could sit out exposed to the weather with nothing happening to it. When needed you just fixed a round to it and launched it off, a tube mortar used cheaper ammo but it was much more expensive and required maintenance.
thanks, John.

Thanks for the clarification, john. I got that mixed up.

My point was, it's not spring loaded. I get partial credit?

[Voriax]

Originally posted by Griefbringer
.... but I am wondering what was the propelling mechanism.

Griefbringer

Rubber band?

Voriax
(imagines a large slingshot...)

[Belisarius]

Originally posted by Voriax
Rubber band?

Voriax
(imagines a large slingshot...)

OK, that's it! No more coffee for you!

[Voriax]

Originally posted by Belisarius
OK, that's it! No more coffee for you!

I prefer tea anyways

But seriously, it was a Soviet weapon. Somewhat of a bazooka lookalike that fired a spherical container filled with flammable liquid, possibly white phosphorus. Propellant was supposed to be black powder.

So it's been pinched into japanese oob..

Voriax

[john g]

Originally posted by Buzzard45
The rod driving forward sets off an explosive charge that propels the main charge forward. Much like a Mortar round works. Instead of dropping the charge down a tube, the rod moves. The back pressure from the explosion is supposed to reset the spring loaded rod. But, It didn't always work and has a helluva kick.

I don't know where the Spigot comes in. Likely a name derived from a water pipe.

Is this right John?

The spring drives forward the spigot rod which acts as both the firing pin to set off the round and the rod also acts as the lauch rod that the round lauches off of.

Contrary to what some think, the spring doesn't launch the round, it just drives the spigot rod forward.

Instead of being fired out of a barrel, it is launched off the rod.
thanks, John.

[john g]

For those who have never seen a spigot mortar, or Blacker Bombard as some were also known, I found pictures on the net.

http://uk.geocities.com/pillboxesuk/spigot.html

In the picture you can see it looks nothing like a tube or Stokes mortar.
thanks, John.

[arethusa]

Hello

Well, a Bren carrier is IMO most useful when it tows an AT gun. Of course there are those specialist variants like the one armed with that great Boys rifle, or the mortar carrier. As an infantry carrier...well in rl that thing is so small you can almost step over it You could carry a recon team with it though.

And yes, the Boys AT-rifle is the sorryest excuse of an AT-rifle used during WW2. I guess you could harass trucks with them....*light* trucks that is.

Voriax

I've found the Bren carrier to be an excellent gun-tractor for the 2 & 6 pdr BR. ATG's. It can also tow the US 37mm, 57mm, 76mm and 3in ATG's which makes it useful to have in combined ops with the US.

The advantage of using a Bren carrier over a jeep or lt truck is that it's at least partially armoured and so can withstand some small arms fire. It also has some defensive MG's to take care of nearby infantry. Compared to a HT, it's much smaller and easier to hide so that I've often had an Bren carrier sitting unseen within a hex or two of an enemy.

In RL, a Bren carrier should be smaller than it is in the game. I saw one once at a display and they're only a little more than waist high. A HT is the at least the size of minivan and some of them, like the Sdkfz-7 are much bigger. I think it would be more realistic if Bren carriers were only size '1' instead of size '2'. They're only half the size of jeep for crying out looud BTW, the armour on the Brens, IIRC, was about 1/4" or maybe a bit more. Thicker than anything on any truck or jeep but not proof against anything more than leg-unit weapons.

The reason Brens can be taken out easier than HTs is again because of their small size. Even though the armour is the same thickness as a HT, the sides are much shorter so the heads of the passengers stick up over the top of the carrier. In a HT, the men are hidden from view. To hit the men in a HT, you have to get higher than they are and fire down into it but not so with a Bren carrier.

Bren carriers also make excellent vehicles for transporting scouts and PIAT or bazooka teams behind enemy lines. If you don't know how valuable recon is, try playing Buzzard. He managed to completly outclass me in a couple of river crossings and proved to me the value of spending a reasonable amount of points to spread small units around the map.

Bren carriers are also good with mortars and as Wasps.

I haven't been a fan of Boyes ATRs either. They seem to be able to take out HT's and soft vehicles, but that's about it. My father did fire a Boyes ATR in training during WWII though (he was with the RAF so never used it in RL) and he says that they never actually penetrated a tank. What they did do was spall off a flake of armour on the inside of the tank. The piece of armour then richochetted around the inside of the tank. I guess the theory was that it either made hamburger out of the crew or set of an explosion of some of the tank's own shells inside. Since the target he got were empty tank wrecks, he never saw that happen but did get to look inside after and saw all kinds of scratches in the interior paint. I guess then that even if the Boyes ATR does get through the armour, the game rolls the dice to see if the flake actually hits any of the crew since it has no warhead as such.

[Frank W.]

nice info here.

i generally hope for the british that their oob,morale + exp is reviewed
in the new version, from the big nations they are the weakest IMHO.

that´s not realy historic or do you think the brits sucked in fighting
that much like in the game ? also the bren is considered by many as
the best LMG in ww2, but in the game it rarely hits anything. like
the US BAr, too btw.

[VikingNo2]

Ok FranW how about you Germany me UK in the destert, care to tangle with Monty

The british aren't that bad but are difficult to play

[rbrunsman]

V2, they are difficult to play with their HE or AP only tanks, but come on, if you look at their infantry cross-eyed they'll run away. They are almost as bad as your favored Italians.

[Frank W.]

Ok FranW how about you Germany me UK in the destert, care to tangle with Monty

The british aren't that bad but are difficult to play

nope.

can not take any games anymore.

but i would later play 1 more game against
you. you lie in front so if i not got at leastl
a good draw in our next game i´m give in in fighting
you.

[RobW]

Several months ago, someone posted a website that went into detail about how PIATs worked. It was interesting reading and worth the search I think. There was a story there about the lowly PIAT having changed the course of WWII due to a brave soldier that took out a Tiger (?) with one during the Normandy invasion, thus stopping a counter attack by the Germans.

I have just finished reading a history of the British 78th Division. They fought in Tunisia and Italy - winning a number of VCs and battle honours. One of the VCs was for a regimental (I thik) runner who, while his unit was being attacked by German armour, watched the PIAT crew killed. He managed to get the PIAT, lie in wait and then ambush the first PZ IV from close range. He destroyed the Panzer and forced the others to withdraw.

For this he was awarded the VC (and rightly so) - sinle handedly stopping a German assault. And, IIRC, his only comment was that he was "sorry, he didn't mean to make a spectacle of himself".

Ok, have found the guy I was after.....

16 May 1944 during an attack on the Gustav Line, Monte Casino, Italy, the leading company of Fusilier Jefferson's battalion had to dig in without protection. The enemy counter-attacked opening fire at short range, and FusilierJefferson, on his own initiative, seized a P.I.A.T. gun and, running forward under a hail of bullets, fired on the leading tank. It burst into flames and all the crew were killed. The fusilier then reloaded and went towards the second tank which withdrew before he could get within range. By this time our own tanks had arrived and the enemy counter-attack was smashed.