If you like what we do, you can support us on » patreon - www.patreon.com/join/mhv or » subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv Or if you like Army Regulations, you might want to take a look at this one: Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
Hi, just asking if you have ever came across sources relating to soviet propaganda artillary shells/airdrops? I was a bit suprised to find artillary airburst ammunition to be in the standard ammo listing of the russuian 122mm field gun. If possible, would you like ot do an episode on soviet propaganda leaflet tactics, the frequency of said attacks and so on? This seems pretty unique to the soviets since other countries seems to only deploy leaflets in a strategic way (prop. bombs used by the UK and US air forces).
Can you cover why the StugIII AUSF.A had such a cute snub cannon? Also... I can't help but be curious as to what the Fuhrer's thoughts were of such a cute looking "tank-destroyer"?
I kind of wonder if the early on development and introduction of Leichtgeschütze (Leichtgeschütz 40 and 42) with their effectively sized 10,5cm hollow charge shells would have eased the anti tank troubles. Those guns could have easily fit the Pak 36 carriage. And yes I am aware of the drawback that recoilless rifles give away their position quite prominently.
@@CommitPesticideWorldwide The Stug III was originally designed as a mobile assault gun to provide direct fire support to infantry and so was fitted with the low velocity 7.5 cm L/24 gun to maximise the effectiveness of the HE round. Only later was it fitted with a longer barreled high velocity 7.5 cm that enabled it to take on armour albeit with a loss of effectiveness in the HE round.
My Grandfather operated this gun in WWII on the eastern front. He called it PanzerAnklopfKanone. He told me that their gun was so precise (due to the Zeiss optics) that they once shot an enemy sniper out of a tree.
@@Born2Losenot2win I don't know. He died last year. He was not very talkative about the war. The German Wikipedia says about the PAK 36 that it was often used against infantry in cover if there where no enemy tanks to fight.
@@SirSilicon oh… my condolences. I can’t imagine how it felt like to leave this planet in 2020 when the world was turning upside down. And yeah I guess it makes sense for someone not to talk about something as depressing as war, especially if they experienced it firsthand. But I guess for spoiled brats like me war is just morbidly thrilling. And it’s interesting to know they used this against infantry when they also had machine guns. But I guess the range on it is far longer than a machine gun. And as you mentioned there’s also the accuracy to consider with their scopes on.
@@Born2Losenot2win He was 99 years old so, I think it was time for him to leave this world. For me, it's hard to say. I'm also interested in military history and all the aspects of war and I think it's kind of "natural" for men to have this urge for extreme situations. I think my grandfather always was ambivalent. He was 18 or 19 when he was drafted and he said it was so sucked in by the idea of a new Germany. There was a spirit of "something great is happening" and everybody wanted to be part of it. My Grandfather said once he wanted to join the Wehrmacht because he doesn't want to miss out on the war. I think propaganda did its work. But next to this feeling he saw all the cruelty. He also said that the Nazis stole the best 10 years of his life. (due to his time in POW-camps) Imagine only knowing war and imprisonment in your years between 18 and 28
@@SirSilicon I see. At least I’m glad he had the chance to experience a better life after all the terrible years in war and POW camp. I hope starting a new family helped him cope with his new life. As a 20 years old just trying to imagine what he went through is hard. It kind of makes me feel grateful to be in college rather than being in a POW camp. Although college life is hard it’s no where near what that man went through when he was my age. I guess war is an ambiguous event so being ambivalent about it makes sense. Different sides view it differently so if someone changes sides I guess being ambivalent about it is a given. Thanks for sharing, also thanks for making me feel less guilty about finding war and war games “fun” lol. Sometimes I can’t help but to question my own taste or my own personality. So a confirmation from someone helps a lot. That’s especially hard to find here in LA, it’s even more rare in colleges. Folks who took psychology and sociology for their general education units won’t even consider a different perspective to war, to a peaceful soul violence always remains violence.
That would be a problem, but in the case of relocating to a pre-planned secondary position I don't think that is the issue since it would presumably have been considered in planning the secondary position. There may be a bit of concern over the gun being temporarily out of action, however again that temporary issue is better than the gun being permanently removed because it didn't move away. But I would lean towards the suggested ideas in the video: maintaining morale (both from the other troops seeing the gun withdraw and fr the gun crew getting antsy and moving out early) and minimizing exposure.
My take: - the morale effect is important (not for nothing troops are told that individual tanks retreating in a battle does not mean they run away … low ammo happens, etc.) - the orders state that you move to a secondary fire position when you have fired (and therefore given away your position) or when you have been spotted prematurely (that would mean before firing) - as you have NOT been spotted, the incoming fire must be into the general area where the enemy is/might be. Driving you out of position or making you unable to fight the approaching tanks is the pointing the barrage, killing you is a bonus. - Besides, relocation means you are much easier to spot because you move (unless you hide 100% behind terrain all the way) … and a spotted AT is soon a dead AT. Which is why you move after shooting or detection.
That and I think it’s an admonishment not to reposition during a firefight but to keep firing. Fire volume may count (at least in the writer’s imagination) than chasing optimal positioning or withdrawal to a more tenable position.
Bigger problem is that you are more exposed and visible if you try to move from pre-planned position. If you cannot effectively shoot back, crew should hide in trench till worst passes, then asses situation. Support artillery generally do not shoot one target longer then 2-5min.
Finn here, from the country previously owning this individual gun. In Winter War we mostly used the Swedish 37mm gun, but in practical terms, I would assume them to be quite similar. This gun was in great demand during Winter War, as it was able to penetrate 99% of Soviet armor, mostly consisting of T-26 and BT series at the time. However, we had pitifully small amount of them available and Germans didn't do us any favours by teaming up with Soviets and preventing all aid from coming to Finland. After a relatively quick switch of relationship statuses, Germans became hostile to Soviets and friendly to Finland in a few years. We started to get these guns from Germany, as our previous experience had taught us they were pretty good. However Soviets made this funny little trick called producing T-34 and KV series of tanks now, which this gun couldn't penetrate anymore. However the 37mm gun still wasn't as obsolete as it was elsewhere; Plenty of forests and swamps meant only light tanks were able to operate in most parts of the Finnish fronts and it was regarded as a secondary front by the Soviets, so the big heavy new tanks were mostly a German headache and the older light tanks were dumped at the Finnish front. And of course the Lappland war, which Finland fought against Germans, didn't involve so much tanks, but the gun was used in its role of applying HE rounds against infantry, which it did as well as always. And like all absolutely obsolete weapons, it stayed in service in Finnish military for a long time after that.
My Opa told me that they would let the tanks drive by to get a flank shot or a rear shot with this gun. He said it was useless in France and really useless in Russia. At times his crew would mount this gun on the prime mover shooting over the cab. They were very happy to get the Marder
It was plenty good against the lighter tanks the Russians still fielded in large numbers, hence why those tanks had very high loss rates. Once all those tanks were destroyed though, the heavier tanks were difficult or nearly impossible to destroy with one of these. The heavier tanks still had high loss rates in the early parts of Barbarossa, however, because they broke down a lot and the inexperienced crews often didn’t even know how to do something as simple as change a track and so abandoned many tanks.
@@samiamrg7 not when you're yourself within a deadly envelope of more powerful 45mm gun. If you want to survive as AT gunner in those times, you'd better stay VERY low and quiet and do exactly as his gramps said, only engage in ambush.
No, this gun could easily penatrate things like the t-26,bt-7 and t-28 from the front, no need to ambush from the side to be effective. This was more likely done due to similar reasons machine guns are put in positions to 'flank' attacking enemies. When attacking in speed out lines diagonally 'flanking' the unit allows you to more easily switch to new targets (as less horistonal movement is needed) Also the armour of soviet tanks in this case was a negative not a positive. The restricted vision of the crew was a severe limitation. Remember also doctrinally Soviets fought with closed hatches. These tanks are essentially blind.
Reminds me of that movie, 'Winter War', or something like that. The Finns were getting hammered by enemy tanks, and the soldiers get told that some special anti-tank weapons are on the way. When it arrives, they're all shocked to see that it's a bunch of Molotov cocktails.
Suomalaisena tiedän, että oli paniikkia. Mutta lopussa kiivettiin päälle ja aukaistiin luukut ja tehtiin homma selväksi. Inftr. Out climp On tank- clean IT. Old tank- cannot defence itself. Shoot in from every hole...and thats IT..🇫🇮🇫🇮🇫🇮🇫🇮🇫🇮🇫🇮🇫🇮🇫🇮🇫🇮🇫🇮🇩🇪🇪🇪🇪🇪🇪🇪🇪🇪🇪🇪🇪🇪🇪🇪
The last sentence of Punkt 84 could be in consideration to the philosophy of fire and manoeuvre. I was taught that sometimes your only protection is your own weight of fire and if you cease fire in order to get to more cover the enemy gets the initiative and might end up suppressing you so that you can’t get another shot off. In short we where told not to take cover, but instead return fire and protect ourselves with “lead in the air”. Does that make sense? So sometimes you have protection from the terrain, sometimes it is your movement that protects you and sometimes it is your own fire that protects you. Evading the enemies fire gives up the initiative.
Is the suspect reposition line (16:45) a reference/informative to the studying soldier how tanks are blind despite their firepower so you shouldn’t attempt to evade suppression fire and instead just keep pounding the enemy tanks in an effort to put the tank crew on the back foot? I remember chieftain said during his soviet armor doctrine about the Spanish civil war that the T-26 crews could hardly see the anti tank guns since they were so small, which would suggest the best thing for the crew isn’t to move but to stand and fight and try to understand the whole “they can’t see us that well” Staying hidden helps too with the lack of muzzle brake as you mentioned
I assume the last sentence should clear out any misunderstandings. Moving to alternate position hast to be carried out not when being engaged, but only before the firefight of the gun has been spotted oder afterwards. The purpose of „wechselstellungen“ is not to withdraw under pressure, but to avoid being spotted. So moving to the wechselstellung while under fire can be seen as pointless, becaus the gun can be tracked
@@redspark2009 haha :D yeah, but under certain circumstances wthdrawing under pressure can be a smart thing to to. Although, "Lösen vom feind" and "Kämpfend ausweichen" have slight but not insignificant differences (at least in modern tactics)
.....bleeding from his face and half deaf, Kanonier Müller smashed the button and hit the Sherman right into the lower plate, just as the tank was about to mill the Pak into the ground.......^^
@@LawtonDigital This would be an ideal case in a short break after a firefight, but during the firefight, the Pak must fire - even under worst conditions....The bridgehead of Abbeville was such an scenario....a terrible bloodletting for the Panzerjäger with their insufficient Pak 36 against heavy and medium French tanks...but they managed to hold partialy the positions and helped to prevent a burgeoning panic amongst the German infantery, until the famous two 8,8cm took over.....
I suspect the repositioning thing in the face of tanks is rather due to one of the holy principles of the german army (still in use today and the bane of poor recruits everywhere): "Keine Querbewegung zum Feind" - "no movement perpendicular to the enemy". Its such a commandment that its quite possible nobody remembers its origin, but its probably because such movement is very noticeable. Not good for ambushes.
Can't help but think about how movement perpendicular to the enemy is usually ideal in surface naval warfare and giggle, even though that fact is irrelevant to the doctrine's wisdom given the very different setting
Of course, the thing we must note is that this 1938 source is pre-war, when the Wehrmacht is still expecting the PAKs to be fundamentally a defensive weapon devoted to fighting tanks. As noted by the reports at 10:30, about how the PAK units liked the performance of the gun with high-explosive ammunition, PAKs were quickly employed as supplemental infantry guns, being moved up to support infantry attacks as leaving mobile weapons idle was generally frowned on by Germans on the attack. Indeed, fundamental to Rommel's success in the desert was the ability of PAKs to function as additional mobile direct-fire weapons, working in concert with Panzer movements to support each other with accurate shell-fire against targets of all kinds both static and mobile.
It may be simply a factor of no longer having the shield in front of you - lateral movement makes the shield no longer between you and the bullets - forward movement, you still need to lift the trails, tilting the shield downward while standing up straight and exposed. Also not as scary to infantry as the 20mm autocannons that could also be pushed around.
I was thinking that too as moving perpendicular creates excellent target to human eye, a giant pls shoot me sign if you will. I was taught to always retreat to concealment, then move perpendicularly before advancing to next position.. which might be bit hard to accomplish with Pak36 in timely manner (never mind bigger AT guns).
Exactly! It's a spigot mortar like the large 200 and 300mm engineering petard launchers, Panzergewehrgranate and the *enormous* versions fitted to the barrel of 150mm SIG 33 guns
Didn't even know this existed, I was watching yesterday band of brothers episode 3 and saw the projectile being fired, had no clue what it was. What a coincidence, I really appreciate the work you do.
That was a Püppchen, 8,8 cm rocket launcher, based on the 2.8 cm sPzB 41. Standard equipment of the Fallschirmjäger who defended Carentan. Same principle though.
I read an interesting account about the 195th panzer jager battalion in Russia around 1942. They engaged a T34 from the front with their "doorknocker" and scored a lucky hit on the driver's hatch, which being spring loaded, popped open. They then sent a quick follow-up shot through the opening, destroying the tank.
Was there a canister round for this gun? I didnt hear one mentioned. The Americans had good results with their 37mm on the Stuart in jungle terrain. It stripped the cover down to twigs and was very effective against enemy infantry. As one would expect.
Can you do something on the LeFh18 and Sfh18 in direct fire anti tank role? If it was even used in that role. There's very little information out there
@@EneTheGene But what the original word means is: "repaired to the specifications". 'Basic fixed' gives the feeling that only basic repairs were done which isn't the case. IMO, "overhauled" is the best translation as "Rebuild" implies actual building of some of the parts.
I think the Finnish language is a bit tricky in this case. I would say that the "perus" is actually more the short of "perustavanlaatuinen" or "perustava" which would then better translate to "major repair" or "base maintenance". Overhaul is in any case the correct translation.
Another great presentation. I liked the text from the training texts. Especially the warning regarding abandoning the gun during battle. You do a great job researching the topics. Thank you for your efforts.
18:20 This is still a common practice. With 105mm howitzers in Canada if there is no time to dig in the spades or the ground is hard the gun detachment members will apply their bodyweight to the draw bar and handspike on the end of the trails above the spades and "ride in the spades" to help them seat better into the ground. You can see the handspike and drawbar clearly hear when they run up the gun. ruclips.net/video/57lvD2MA-BY/видео.html
As a fellow “King of Battle” from Marine Corps of your neighbors to the south, just wanted to add that the Marine Corps Times (newspaper) rated 0811, Cannoneer, as the hardest job in the Corps. People don’t understand how beautiful, and how labor intensive, artillery is. It was funny to see all the gun crews drop in their spot asleep the second the gun line went cold!!
Greetings frrom Finland, thank you for great videos. About the effect of antitank guns changing position in Finland Stug crews reported that when they left the front to replenish their ammunition load in the summer of 1944 the infantry many times interpreted their leaving as a retreat eventhough they were only out of ammo.
16:00 There is the Morale impact. There is the vulnerability impact on other troops. But there is also the moral of the guncrew: If they could retreat, they might instead of staying and fighting. But then nobody else would engage the tanks. Meaning the tanks are not pinned down and could rush ahead, overrunning the tank teams. One of Tzun Tzus lessons is: "Sometimes to only way to win and thus survive, is to give up all hope of survival."
The 37mm HE round made this a precision long range " grenade " launcher. Nice weapon for shooting at a safe distance. The French Army had a "grenade" launcher weapon system. Can't recall the name. Maybe a video on it ?
No source I've seen says anything about it being retired from service. Evidently with the HE round it was a very good infantry support weapon. This isn't talked about enough.
The Soviets were the ones who did this. They trained on Soviet tanks and thus when released the dogs ran to Soviet tanks, completely backfiring the idea. But I guess some were effective considering that the Germans took notice of them enough to make a pamphlet.
Quite often, the PAK 36 was considered a mortar by Americans facing them. So, that probably was true due to use of high explosive rounds in close fighting. Another anti-personnel weapon a PAK36 could fire, was the “soft” round, which exploded while airborne scattering shrapnel over exposed troops. These tactics were employed in the Hurtgen forest during November 1944.
This is a very good presentation. I find it interesting that although you have a very heavy German accent, your English is very understandable for me. Keep up the great work!
16:43 I think it might be that be because while you are moving the gun you are not firing. When the AT guns are not firing the enemy tanks don't feel threatened. So the enemy tanks can advance more quickly, use their weapons more effectively and generally make less misstakes. You lose the suppression element.
I think it's more than that. In the moving state, it vunerable to any vehicle as to deploy the gun takes some time whether short or long. Not only can they usually not fire the gun but they might have to set up wasting precious time to fire the gun. I know is some cases it's can fire without deploying those legs but those legs are there for a reason. In the moving state, they are much more vulnerable to infantry so that's another thing.
I'm a bit late to the party but hopefully you see this. In regards to 12:40 I came across this when reading 11th Army Anlagen 23.3 - 31.3.42 in regards to the Stielgranate 41 (I presume!) - Stielgranate für 3,7 cm Pak einschl. Merkblatt muß unbedingt gemeimgehalten werden und darf keinesfalls in Feindeshand fallen. Hierzu wird befohlen: 1.) Höchstausstattung je Geschütz in jedem Fall 3 Granaten. 2.) Vernichtung der Munition bei Feindbedrohung falls Vershuß durch Ausfall des Geschützes night möglich (Handgranate!) 3.) Eingehende Belehrungen der Geschützbedienungen aller unterstellter Pz.Jäger-Einheiten uber besondere Geheimhaltung der Munition und Durchführung der Vernichtung gem. 2.)... AOK 11, 1a Nr. 1252/42 geh
Another good video. Thank you. I had the pleasure of running one of these guns some decades ago at a meet in West Germany. As a machinist, I was a bit surprised at how smooth and controllable the gearing in the aming controls was. They wouldn't let me fire it, dang!
i think the hollow charge round would be a good weapon to keep around its always good to have AT option even if your gun is primarily good agonist hard targets
I think that in order to understand the part about no Stellungswechsel during the firefight it might help to think of the 13th and in this case 14th company as remnants or inheritors of the world war one Feldartillerie detachements that were send forward to help the infantry if it couldnt win fire superiority by itself. In my eyes this commandement is about fire superiority, too. Stellungswechsel in this case would equal being supressed and a supressed defence is ripe for the assault. On the contrary an attack that has to engage in a firefight is an attack not moving forward and in the case of tanks in plain sight of heavy artillery forward observers you can imagine the rest. So in the greater scheme your PAK being shot at might be considered a good thing (not by the guns crew obviously but hence the order not to evade). The thoroughly designed gun shields of PAK 36 and IG 18 speak for themselves when evaluating 1930s german imagination of the infantry regiment in combat.
I like the explanation of the evolution of the term "Panzer." I wish you'd do what you did in the older videos where you'd read the German text first and then the translation.
So good to hear German military words and phrases pronounced correctly. If slightly disturbing. I could also listen to the word Vehicle all day. Outstanding series by all accounts. Some of my family actually used this stuff.
13:20 that's some strenght user ap 0 damage 1 +1 attacks weapon level of penetration not the best but i'll take it over most other weapons of the same class
My own experience in WW2OL was thus: Yes, the Pak36 is useless when used against tanks. However, when facing armored cars, armored trucks and other light vehicles it can't be beat because it actually has the manuverability needed to operate against and track fast moving targets. It's low profile and small size also makes it good at ambushes; in fact it could almost be considered a "hit and run" ATG, as crazy at that sounds.
Help! I have yet to find out why some of the German AT guns (75mm or PAK 40 ) had 2 crew shields, one behind the other? Was this spaced armor or was it for something else? Please answer if you know.
I want to note that ineffectiveness of Pak 36 against T-34 is often overstated. This reputation was most likely caused by the fact that Soviet light tanks were vulnerable to AT fire at most viable combat ranges while T-34s and KVs weren't. But in the same time Soviets collected data from 1941 and early 1942 was that around 15 to 20% of examined T-34s had penetrations from 37 mm shells (mostly to the lower side hull behind the road wheels, so presumably relatively close range shots). They also noted that driver hatch was vulnerable to 37 mm shells as it tended to flew of hinges after a hit or two. So I tend to read 'ineffectiveness' as not 'cannot penetrate armor' but as 'close range engagements and careful position was required to engage heavier armor'.
The USA also had a "doorknocker"- the 155 mm Gun Motor Carriage M12, so named because when fired at the front of a bunker it would smash the bunker and knock down the back door.
16:47 just guessing here, but maybe it is prohibited to move the gun while under fire because it is much more efficient to keep up the fire. Move before to have better field of fire, move after to prevent counter battery fire.
16:40 I think that's it. Basically, if you are under fire from an enemy tank attack, there's no point in moving the gun since either it can deal with the tanks, or if not, the gun is most likely lost anyway.
Nice, thanks for the vid informative as always. For a future video how about a video on the Raketenwerfer, would be interesting to see how they used Rockets for AT?
I think we see one of these with the panzerfaust tip in the 3rd episode of BoB, where Corporal Lipton gets hit with one (must have an armored groin) in Carentan. Am I right?
Interesting...the AT gun the Germans were using at the end of WW1 was the 3.7cm TaK 1918, which was also made by Rheinmetall. I wonder how much mechanical similarity there was between the two guns?
Almost certainly none, since the WW1 TAK was essentially a conversion of a single barrel taken from an old 3.7cm Revolverkanone (a hand-cranked five-barreled 19th century weapon for the close defence of fortresses). Its mounting was likewise a conversion, based on a light Minenwerfer carriage. The gun was directly fixed to the carriage, with no recoil system and simple iron sights! Perfectly adequate in 1918, but nothing to emulate in a gun produced under non-emergency conditions in the 1920s...
@@capion5014 No, in the Carentan Episode they used a PaK 35 with Stielgranate 41 ammunition. They may have use what you linked at some point as well but they definitely used this.
At 9:45, you state that the Pz II had no HE rounds for its 20mm cannon in Poland. What is the source for this? Since the gun used the same ammunition as the 20mm FlaK 30, I assume this deficiency was due to planning errors in the Panzer arm of the Wehrmacht. Did other vehicles using the same cannon lack HE early on, like the SdKfz. 222 and 231?
A lot of the Inter-war development was based on 1st generation Tank technology and Trench Warfare from the first World War. So basically, this was designed with the British "Landships" in mind, while the Germans were developing more advanced Panzers at the same time. They also had a close eye on the French inter-war development, due to resentment over the Versailles Treaty. Those were mostly small with heavy armor (For the time) and 2 man crews. A driver in the bow, and the Commander in the turret. So, he had to act as Gunner, and Loader (Basically the same 37mm guns were standard at the time) as well. Since this is an Anti-tank gun, specifically. The Tanks you expect to be shooting at are crucial for the development. The biggest gun isn't always the best gun, especially when you have to tow it to the battlefield, supply it with ammunition, dig in emplacements for it, and it's crews. Again, the dominance of Trench Warfare on the Eastern Front influenced their early weapon, and strategic development, so if given the chance, the French might dig in, with Tanks mostly for breaking the stalemate. This is why the original name indicated it was for Defense against Tanks.
The AT-4 is generally pretty obsolete as an anti-tank weapon, but it is still widely used because it is highly capable against a variety of targets that aren't heavily-armored battle tanks The PaK 36 is the same way, as was the US/British 57mm
@Military History Visualized as a retired Master Gunner (Royal Australian Artillery) and son of an AT Gunner (QF 2pr and QF 6pr) during WWII I can say that AT Guns are not normally deployed close to infantry, they are usually deployed adjacent to infantry on the flank or in such a position as to maximise their field of fire. Alternate gun positions are a normal part of deployment. The gun commander would announce the move as loudly as he can such as "Move to Alternate position". Infantry would know this if employed near a gun (of any type) as they may also move to an alternate position as well. Artillery pieces are a bullet and projectile magnet. Other things to note: only pneumatic tyres are suspension on Artillery pieces. Any other form of suspension would cause inaccuracies in gun lay. You can have both spars and trails on Artillery pieces, the trail has a spade attached so it can be dug in or self digging spades which don't need to be dug in. Spars are detachable. If you need any further assistance don't hesitate to contact me.
@@comentedonakeyboard Probably either one. One of the largest issues with the early T-34 was the overworked crew and lack of proper radio equipment. Given that circumstance, you're more likely to have an exposed flank or side that could be penetrated by the 37mm PaK round.
@@comentedonakeyboard Ambushing would seem to be the standard approach used by all AT guns. Overworked crews are much more likely to stumble into one. Especially if you have less than stellar combined arms doctrine, tactics and implementation.
I think there are some more reasons, why the gun wasnt allowed to change its position during tank engagements: - the crew could be more easily been spotted from the enemy during movement - during movement their firepower is limited to the personal weapons of the crew - possible exposure to enemy fire for the pulling vehicle - opening of a gap in the firing line - tactical thinking of the enemy: "They stopped shooting us now- engage them to get them out!"
Really impressive contribution, as such it was a good idea in itself to improve the gun so that you could do something with the Doorknocker, something else with the rest of the guns, but you drove with the 7.5 cm Pack 40 caliber Of course better, the range and penetration line are much higher and you could fight all common Ally Tank with.
The US bought a few examples of the PaK 36, then produced an equivalent weapon. Out in the Pacific Theater, it was perfectly adequate vs Japanese armor. The HE and canister shells were also handy.
The Pak 36 was pretty effective in the Spanish Civil War against the Soviet T-26 encountered there. Since Franco's side was short of tanks, and the tankettes the Italians brought were quite vulnerable, this was just as well.
At 09:00 you translate "Schützen" as "Riflemen", but I think they didn´t mean the classic "Gewehrschütze". On a modern Leopard 2 you have the "Richtschütze" and the "Ladeschütze", which you wouldn´t call "Aim rifleman" and "Loading riflemen". You would call them "gunner" and "loader" and I believe it is the same thing here: The regulation describes different tasks and combines them under the word "Schütze".
In ww2 terms and when used is referred to as a schützen. It's should not be compared to the modern counterpart as much since some terms changed, some differed
see 8:19 I noted also "Canoneer" and at 09:00 I put "crew member" in []. The Heer basically called almost everyone "Schütze": Fallschirmschütze, Panzerschütze, etc. depending on the branch and then also by function as well, as you can see I translated "Ladeschütze", "Munitionschütze" with various other names not "rifleman".
Wire guided missles are best defeated by hanging lots of loose razor wire, it's quite easy for a tow or any other wire guided weapon to break the wire(s) or lose connection between the missle and launcher...power lines, fencing, heavy vegetation can all cut the wire and cause the missle to go off target...but if the wire doesn't break, the tow gunner can use it to control and aim the missle in flight, so tows can follow moving targets or change targets in a split second, they're relatively fast missles too, not much you can do to either run or hide, and the only way to avoid it would be extreme speed, but you're not going to out run a missle unless you have a really great head start! The tow is still in use today, even though it's so old, because of how effective it is, and how difficult it is to evade Every once in a while, a tow will drift off target, drop straight to the ground, explode in midflight, or otherwise malfunction and misfire, but because you can keep adjusting and aiming the missle up until impact, it's pretty hard to miss with a tow!
Of course they can miss if the gunner makes a mistake, they are still effected by the human element after all. Additionally if the tank notices the launch, it can deploy a smoke screen and then move away. Lastly there are active systems that basically jam the guidance unit of the missile, leading to it loosing control if tried to fly towards a tank using such systems.
A consistent observation in tank diaries and regulations are that AT guns are "practically invisible" until they open fire. If a gun is to be moved it loses this protection.
Another brilliant technical review. Can I suggest a future topic? The production but non-deployment of battlefield chemical weapons in WWII. I never understood why in the dying months of their regimes the Nazis and Japanese death-cultists did not deploy Sarin etc...thank you.
Pure speculation on my part; the Germans didn't employ it because Hitler was delusional and thought he could still win the war until the final days. The Japanese I feel would have used any weapon available in defense of the home islands but never got the opportunity with the sudden and unexpected end to the Pacific war.
Finland received the first examples (50 pcs.) of the gun in the spring of 1940, 100 pcs. at September 1940 and 100 pcs. in June 1941. That gun has been overhauled (essentially rebuilt), or supply depot repaired, in Feb. 1944. It may have been later used in June-July of 1944 to counter massed Soviet attacks, but it also might have been in storage or in training use after the repair.
4:09 Just a small side note: Hitler himself (I had noticed this when I first heard it) in his accidentally recorded conversation with Mannerheim spoke of 35000 "tanks" that Russia had brought up. He also was not very consistent with the panzer/tank thing. Edit: Here the source for those who don't know this imo interesting conversation: /watch?v=P9AVu6KupNg Great video btw! As always :)
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
If you like what we do, you can support us on » patreon - www.patreon.com/join/mhv or » subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
Or if you like Army Regulations, you might want to take a look at this one: Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
Hi, just asking if you have ever came across sources relating to soviet propaganda artillary shells/airdrops? I was a bit suprised to find artillary airburst ammunition to be in the standard ammo listing of the russuian 122mm field gun. If possible, would you like ot do an episode on soviet propaganda leaflet tactics, the frequency of said attacks and so on? This seems pretty unique to the soviets since other countries seems to only deploy leaflets in a strategic way (prop. bombs used by the UK and US air forces).
Can you cover why the StugIII AUSF.A had such a cute snub cannon? Also... I can't help but be curious as to what the Fuhrer's thoughts were of such a cute looking "tank-destroyer"?
I kind of wonder if the early on development and introduction of Leichtgeschütze (Leichtgeschütz 40 and 42) with their effectively sized 10,5cm hollow charge shells would have eased the anti tank troubles. Those guns could have easily fit the Pak 36 carriage.
And yes I am aware of the drawback that recoilless rifles give away their position quite prominently.
Next the 8.8 cm pak 43 and 12.8 cm pak 44 pls
@@CommitPesticideWorldwide The Stug III was originally designed as a mobile assault gun to provide direct fire support to infantry and so was fitted with the low velocity 7.5 cm L/24 gun to maximise the effectiveness of the HE round. Only later was it fitted with a longer barreled high velocity 7.5 cm that enabled it to take on armour albeit with a loss of effectiveness in the HE round.
My Grandfather operated this gun in WWII on the eastern front. He called it PanzerAnklopfKanone. He told me that their gun was so precise (due to the Zeiss optics) that they once shot an enemy sniper out of a tree.
AP shell or anti personnel shell? And with that recoil? Damn… that’s more skill than scope…
@@Born2Losenot2win I don't know. He died last year. He was not very talkative about the war. The German Wikipedia says about the PAK 36 that it was often used against infantry in cover if there where no enemy tanks to fight.
@@SirSilicon oh… my condolences. I can’t imagine how it felt like to leave this planet in 2020 when the world was turning upside down. And yeah I guess it makes sense for someone not to talk about something as depressing as war, especially if they experienced it firsthand. But I guess for spoiled brats like me war is just morbidly thrilling. And it’s interesting to know they used this against infantry when they also had machine guns. But I guess the range on it is far longer than a machine gun. And as you mentioned there’s also the accuracy to consider with their scopes on.
@@Born2Losenot2win He was 99 years old so, I think it was time for him to leave this world. For me, it's hard to say. I'm also interested in military history and all the aspects of war and I think it's kind of "natural" for men to have this urge for extreme situations. I think my grandfather always was ambivalent. He was 18 or 19 when he was drafted and he said it was so sucked in by the idea of a new Germany. There was a spirit of "something great is happening" and everybody wanted to be part of it. My Grandfather said once he wanted to join the Wehrmacht because he doesn't want to miss out on the war. I think propaganda did its work. But next to this feeling he saw all the cruelty. He also said that the Nazis stole the best 10 years of his life. (due to his time in POW-camps) Imagine only knowing war and imprisonment in your years between 18 and 28
@@SirSilicon I see. At least I’m glad he had the chance to experience a better life after all the terrible years in war and POW camp. I hope starting a new family helped him cope with his new life. As a 20 years old just trying to imagine what he went through is hard. It kind of makes me feel grateful to be in college rather than being in a POW camp. Although college life is hard it’s no where near what that man went through when he was my age. I guess war is an ambiguous event so being ambivalent about it makes sense. Different sides view it differently so if someone changes sides I guess being ambivalent about it is a given. Thanks for sharing, also thanks for making me feel less guilty about finding war and war games “fun” lol. Sometimes I can’t help but to question my own taste or my own personality. So a confirmation from someone helps a lot. That’s especially hard to find here in LA, it’s even more rare in colleges. Folks who took psychology and sociology for their general education units won’t even consider a different perspective to war, to a peaceful soul violence always remains violence.
If anti-tank positions are heavily pre-planned, then individual guns readjusting on the spot may compromise the anti-tank network, making blind spots.
That would be a problem, but in the case of relocating to a pre-planned secondary position I don't think that is the issue since it would presumably have been considered in planning the secondary position.
There may be a bit of concern over the gun being temporarily out of action, however again that temporary issue is better than the gun being permanently removed because it didn't move away.
But I would lean towards the suggested ideas in the video: maintaining morale (both from the other troops seeing the gun withdraw and fr the gun crew getting antsy and moving out early) and minimizing exposure.
Alternative fire positions which are supported as part of a defence in depth scheme is always best.
My take:
- the morale effect is important (not for nothing troops are told that individual tanks retreating in a battle does not mean they run away … low ammo happens, etc.)
- the orders state that you move to a secondary fire position when you have fired (and therefore given away your position) or when you have been spotted prematurely (that would mean before firing)
- as you have NOT been spotted, the incoming fire must be into the general area where the enemy is/might be. Driving you out of position or making you unable to fight the approaching tanks is the pointing the barrage, killing you is a bonus.
- Besides, relocation means you are much easier to spot because you move (unless you hide 100% behind terrain all the way) … and a spotted AT is soon a dead AT. Which is why you move after shooting or detection.
That and I think it’s an admonishment not to reposition during a firefight but to keep firing. Fire volume may count (at least in the writer’s imagination) than chasing optimal positioning or withdrawal to a more tenable position.
Bigger problem is that you are more exposed and visible if you try to move from pre-planned position. If you cannot effectively shoot back, crew should hide in trench till worst passes, then asses situation. Support artillery generally do not shoot one target longer then 2-5min.
That is a very Nice little Kanone . That would fit right on the Front Porch ,easy to move around , Thank you for the Video .
*perfect for home defense*
Good for home defense against bad guys in a car
@@Whatisthisstupidfinghandle Hahah "fox 1" that's what I do when driving behind slow people on interstate. One of those would be great!
Finn here, from the country previously owning this individual gun.
In Winter War we mostly used the Swedish 37mm gun, but in practical terms, I would assume them to be quite similar. This gun was in great demand during Winter War, as it was able to penetrate 99% of Soviet armor, mostly consisting of T-26 and BT series at the time. However, we had pitifully small amount of them available and Germans didn't do us any favours by teaming up with Soviets and preventing all aid from coming to Finland.
After a relatively quick switch of relationship statuses, Germans became hostile to Soviets and friendly to Finland in a few years. We started to get these guns from Germany, as our previous experience had taught us they were pretty good. However Soviets made this funny little trick called producing T-34 and KV series of tanks now, which this gun couldn't penetrate anymore.
However the 37mm gun still wasn't as obsolete as it was elsewhere; Plenty of forests and swamps meant only light tanks were able to operate in most parts of the Finnish fronts and it was regarded as a secondary front by the Soviets, so the big heavy new tanks were mostly a German headache and the older light tanks were dumped at the Finnish front.
And of course the Lappland war, which Finland fought against Germans, didn't involve so much tanks, but the gun was used in its role of applying HE rounds against infantry, which it did as well as always.
And like all absolutely obsolete weapons, it stayed in service in Finnish military for a long time after that.
My Opa told me that they would let the tanks drive by to get a flank shot or a rear shot with this gun. He said it was useless in France and really useless in Russia. At times his crew would mount this gun on the prime mover shooting over the cab. They were very happy to get the Marder
It was plenty good against the lighter tanks the Russians still fielded in large numbers, hence why those tanks had very high loss rates. Once all those tanks were destroyed though, the heavier tanks were difficult or nearly impossible to destroy with one of these. The heavier tanks still had high loss rates in the early parts of Barbarossa, however, because they broke down a lot and the inexperienced crews often didn’t even know how to do something as simple as change a track and so abandoned many tanks.
@@samiamrg7 not when you're yourself within a deadly envelope of more powerful 45mm gun. If you want to survive as AT gunner in those times, you'd better stay VERY low and quiet and do exactly as his gramps said, only engage in ambush.
No, this gun could easily penatrate things like the t-26,bt-7 and t-28 from the front, no need to ambush from the side to be effective. This was more likely done due to similar reasons machine guns are put in positions to 'flank' attacking enemies. When attacking in speed out lines diagonally 'flanking' the unit allows you to more easily switch to new targets (as less horistonal movement is needed)
Also the armour of soviet tanks in this case was a negative not a positive. The restricted vision of the crew was a severe limitation. Remember also doctrinally Soviets fought with closed hatches. These tanks are essentially blind.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 It didn't help that for much of the early war the TC was tasked with loading the gun.
@@politenessman3901 for the soviets, its mostly firing the gun
"...especially in more backwater regions of the front."
Yep, that's Finland
Reminds me of that movie, 'Winter War', or something like that. The Finns were getting hammered by enemy tanks, and the soldiers get told that some special anti-tank weapons are on the way. When it arrives, they're all shocked to see that it's a bunch of Molotov cocktails.
@@hisdudeness8328 jep
Suomalaisena tiedän, että oli paniikkia. Mutta lopussa kiivettiin päälle ja aukaistiin luukut ja tehtiin homma selväksi. Inftr. Out climp On tank- clean IT. Old tank- cannot defence itself. Shoot in from every hole...and thats IT..🇫🇮🇫🇮🇫🇮🇫🇮🇫🇮🇫🇮🇫🇮🇫🇮🇫🇮🇫🇮🇩🇪🇪🇪🇪🇪🇪🇪🇪🇪🇪🇪🇪🇪🇪🇪
Dr. Roman Töppel needs his own symbol in videos.
The last sentence of Punkt 84 could be in consideration to the philosophy of fire and manoeuvre. I was taught that sometimes your only protection is your own weight of fire and if you cease fire in order to get to more cover the enemy gets the initiative and might end up suppressing you so that you can’t get another shot off. In short we where told not to take cover, but instead return fire and protect ourselves with “lead in the air”. Does that make sense?
So sometimes you have protection from the terrain, sometimes it is your movement that protects you and sometimes it is your own fire that protects you. Evading the enemies fire gives up the initiative.
I figured out "fire and maneuver" a few years ago while playing paintball.
Is the suspect reposition line (16:45) a reference/informative to the studying soldier how tanks are blind despite their firepower so you shouldn’t attempt to evade suppression fire and instead just keep pounding the enemy tanks in an effort to put the tank crew on the back foot?
I remember chieftain said during his soviet armor doctrine about the Spanish civil war that the T-26 crews could hardly see the anti tank guns since they were so small, which would suggest the best thing for the crew isn’t to move but to stand and fight and try to understand the whole “they can’t see us that well”
Staying hidden helps too with the lack of muzzle brake as you mentioned
My late great Uncle had his Sherman knocked out by one of the HEAT rounds in mid-November 1944.. He was injured but later returned to duty.
As a long-time WW2 buff, I learn the most from your review of tactics + manuals.
This is usually omitted in history books and games. Thanks!!
I assume the last sentence should clear out any misunderstandings. Moving to alternate position hast to be carried out not when being engaged, but only before the firefight of the gun has been spotted oder afterwards.
The purpose of „wechselstellungen“ is not to withdraw under pressure, but to avoid being spotted. So moving to the wechselstellung while under fire can be seen as pointless, becaus the gun can be tracked
yes, breaking cover in the middle of an attack and exposing the crew seem like a bad idea.
@@redspark2009 haha :D
yeah, but under certain circumstances wthdrawing under pressure can be a smart thing to to. Although, "Lösen vom feind" and "Kämpfend ausweichen" have slight but not insignificant differences (at least in modern tactics)
.....bleeding from his face and half deaf, Kanonier Müller smashed the button and hit the Sherman right into the lower plate, just as the tank was about to mill the Pak into the ground.......^^
One of the characteristics of a good alternate firing position is that it enables the crew to relocate their gun while remaining under cover.
@@LawtonDigital This would be an ideal case in a short break after a firefight, but during the firefight, the Pak must fire - even under worst conditions....The bridgehead of Abbeville was such an scenario....a terrible bloodletting for the Panzerjäger with their insufficient Pak 36 against heavy and medium French tanks...but they managed to hold partialy the positions and helped to prevent a burgeoning panic amongst the German infantery, until the famous two 8,8cm took over.....
I suspect the repositioning thing in the face of tanks is rather due to one of the holy principles of the german army (still in use today and the bane of poor recruits everywhere): "Keine Querbewegung zum Feind" - "no movement perpendicular to the enemy". Its such a commandment that its quite possible nobody remembers its origin, but its probably because such movement is very noticeable. Not good for ambushes.
Can't help but think about how movement perpendicular to the enemy is usually ideal in surface naval warfare and giggle, even though that fact is irrelevant to the doctrine's wisdom given the very different setting
@@fluffly3606 Germans traditionally were land powers, be it Austrians, Prussians, or Germans.
Of course, the thing we must note is that this 1938 source is pre-war, when the Wehrmacht is still expecting the PAKs to be fundamentally a defensive weapon devoted to fighting tanks. As noted by the reports at 10:30, about how the PAK units liked the performance of the gun with high-explosive ammunition, PAKs were quickly employed as supplemental infantry guns, being moved up to support infantry attacks as leaving mobile weapons idle was generally frowned on by Germans on the attack. Indeed, fundamental to Rommel's success in the desert was the ability of PAKs to function as additional mobile direct-fire weapons, working in concert with Panzer movements to support each other with accurate shell-fire against targets of all kinds both static and mobile.
It may be simply a factor of no longer having the shield in front of you - lateral movement makes the shield no longer between you and the bullets - forward movement, you still need to lift the trails, tilting the shield downward while standing up straight and exposed. Also not as scary to infantry as the 20mm autocannons that could also be pushed around.
I was thinking that too as moving perpendicular creates excellent target to human eye, a giant pls shoot me sign if you will. I was taught to always retreat to concealment, then move perpendicularly before advancing to next position.. which might be bit hard to accomplish with Pak36 in timely manner (never mind bigger AT guns).
Ok, I snorted my drink at the "Cavalry branch" icon... 🤣
That caught me off guard
6:39: Rainbow Dash.
@@suisid4202 yep that is rainbow dash
"Regenbogen-Strich".
13:00 so it it is an oversized rifle grenade, thats an image.
Exactly! It's a spigot mortar like the large 200 and 300mm engineering petard launchers, Panzergewehrgranate and the *enormous* versions fitted to the barrel of 150mm SIG 33 guns
Just like how tank ammo is oversized rifle bullets, yeah
The chainsword=penetration symbol is an underrated highlight
Thats what I like so much....all that funny eastereggs in the symbols......:)
@@mikeromney4712 agree. Excellent, professional content with a serious tone, yet still finds room for some good quality meme
Hans, this is a Panzerabwehrkannon. It abwehrs panzers.
Yes, Kruger.
Although the poopenfartenpanzerkampfwagonmarkenfünf is still superior.
😸
"Zis is a Panzerfaust. It fausts panzers."
This hurts me
Zis ist ein Panzershutzenkannon. It shutzes panzers.
Didn't even know this existed, I was watching yesterday band of brothers episode 3 and saw the projectile being fired, had no clue what it was. What a coincidence, I really appreciate the work you do.
yeah, I remember that scene, well, kinda. It was in / next to Carentan right?
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized It was during American assault on Carentan, few minutes after clearing Cafe.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized I thought it was PAW600, and they just overblown the size of the projectile for better visual effect.
That was a Püppchen, 8,8 cm rocket launcher, based on the 2.8 cm sPzB 41. Standard equipment of the Fallschirmjäger who defended Carentan. Same principle though.
@@capion5014 It was a 36 ruclips.net/video/MFvQjDx0Z0k/видео.html
These videos are so informative and educational! I learn something new every time I watch one! You’re the greatest ever Bernhard!!!!!
I read an interesting account about the 195th panzer jager battalion in Russia around 1942. They engaged a T34 from the front with their "doorknocker" and scored a lucky hit on the driver's hatch, which being spring loaded, popped open. They then sent a quick follow-up shot through the opening, destroying the tank.
Was there a canister round for this gun? I didnt hear one mentioned. The Americans had good results with their 37mm on the Stuart in jungle terrain. It stripped the cover down to twigs and was very effective against enemy infantry. As one would expect.
not that I know of.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized ok, thanx.
"So, How did you learn German?"
-its...complicated
Watch his video on German infantry anti tank tactics, it's even better.
I married a German girl that speaks English.
its easy he didn´t learned german, because it is his mother language.
Why complicated? Ist doch einfach!
Can you do something on the LeFh18 and Sfh18 in direct fire anti tank role? If it was even used in that role.
There's very little information out there
planned at one point
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized looking forward to it
to translate "peruskorjattu", "OVERHAULED" or "REBUILD" would be better fit, imo. Renovation sounds something you do a 500 year old painting. :P
The direct translation would be "basic fix(ed)"
@@EneTheGene But what the original word means is: "repaired to the specifications". 'Basic fixed' gives the feeling that only basic repairs were done which isn't the case.
IMO, "overhauled" is the best translation as "Rebuild" implies actual building of some of the parts.
@@alaric_ well put.
Basic repairs serviced
I think the Finnish language is a bit tricky in this case. I would say that the "perus" is actually more the short of "perustavanlaatuinen" or "perustava" which would then better translate to "major repair" or "base maintenance". Overhaul is in any case the correct translation.
Another great presentation. I liked the text from the training texts. Especially the warning regarding abandoning the gun during battle. You do a great job researching the topics. Thank you for your efforts.
I watched for interest in antique artillery. I left with a lesson in Deutsch. Danke! Always love your vids for the depth.
18:20 This is still a common practice. With 105mm howitzers in Canada if there is no time to dig in the spades or the ground is hard the gun detachment members will apply their bodyweight to the draw bar and handspike on the end of the trails above the spades and "ride in the spades" to help them seat better into the ground. You can see the handspike and drawbar clearly hear when they run up the gun.
ruclips.net/video/57lvD2MA-BY/видео.html
As a fellow “King of Battle” from Marine Corps of your neighbors to the south, just wanted to add that the Marine Corps Times (newspaper) rated 0811, Cannoneer, as the hardest job in the Corps. People don’t understand how beautiful, and how labor intensive, artillery is. It was funny to see all the gun crews drop in their spot asleep the second the gun line went cold!!
Just visited the museum today and saw all the Pak guns. It was awesome! Thanks for the extra info on the topic.
Greetings frrom Finland, thank you for great videos. About the effect of antitank guns changing position in Finland Stug crews reported that when they left the front to replenish their ammunition load in the summer of 1944 the infantry many times interpreted their leaving as a retreat eventhough they were only out of ammo.
16:00 There is the Morale impact. There is the vulnerability impact on other troops.
But there is also the moral of the guncrew: If they could retreat, they might instead of staying and fighting. But then nobody else would engage the tanks. Meaning the tanks are not pinned down and could rush ahead, overrunning the tank teams.
One of Tzun Tzus lessons is: "Sometimes to only way to win and thus survive, is to give up all hope of survival."
The 37mm HE round made this a precision long range " grenade " launcher. Nice weapon for shooting at a safe distance.
The French Army had a "grenade" launcher weapon system. Can't recall the name. Maybe a video on it ?
No source I've seen says anything about it being retired from service. Evidently with the HE round it was a very good infantry support weapon. This isn't talked about enough.
went from "yeah why did they called them paks?" to "antitank dogs what!?"
The dogs were basically kamikazes. The dog was loaded up with a bomb and trained to run under the tank. The bottom of the tank was lightly armored.
The Soviets were the ones who did this. They trained on Soviet tanks and thus when released the dogs ran to Soviet tanks, completely backfiring the idea. But I guess some were effective considering that the Germans took notice of them enough to make a pamphlet.
MHV in 2040: I was at the @Daspanzermuseum in 2020, now let's have a look at this Panzer :D
Great video tho, keep it up!
Quite often, the PAK 36 was considered a mortar by Americans facing them. So, that probably was true due to use of high explosive rounds in close fighting. Another anti-personnel weapon a PAK36 could fire, was the “soft” round, which exploded while airborne scattering shrapnel over exposed troops. These tactics were employed in the Hurtgen forest during November 1944.
that was probably the IG 18 gun
This is a very good presentation. I find it interesting that although you have a very heavy German accent, your English is very understandable for me. Keep up the great work!
Glad you liked it!
A friend of mine built a full size firing copy of the pak37. For ammo he fired Chevrolet v8 pistons. Worked great!
I lived at Unnenkamp, next door to the Panzer Museum in late 70s. i used to love hearing the tanks starting up and running!
16:43 I think it might be that be because while you are moving the gun you are not firing. When the AT guns are not firing the enemy tanks don't feel threatened. So the enemy tanks can advance more quickly, use their weapons more effectively and generally make less misstakes. You lose the suppression element.
I think it's more than that.
In the moving state, it vunerable to any vehicle as to deploy the gun takes some time whether short or long. Not only can they usually not fire the gun but they might have to set up wasting precious time to fire the gun. I know is some cases it's can fire without deploying those legs but those legs are there for a reason.
In the moving state, they are much more vulnerable to infantry so that's another thing.
I'm a bit late to the party but hopefully you see this. In regards to 12:40 I came across this when reading 11th Army Anlagen 23.3 - 31.3.42 in regards to the Stielgranate 41 (I presume!) -
Stielgranate für 3,7 cm Pak einschl. Merkblatt muß unbedingt gemeimgehalten werden und darf keinesfalls in Feindeshand fallen. Hierzu wird befohlen:
1.) Höchstausstattung je Geschütz in jedem Fall 3 Granaten.
2.) Vernichtung der Munition bei Feindbedrohung falls Vershuß durch Ausfall des Geschützes night möglich (Handgranate!)
3.) Eingehende Belehrungen der Geschützbedienungen aller unterstellter Pz.Jäger-Einheiten uber besondere Geheimhaltung der Munition und Durchführung der Vernichtung gem. 2.)...
AOK 11, 1a Nr. 1252/42 geh
Another good video. Thank you. I had the pleasure of running one of these guns some decades ago at a meet in West Germany. As a machinist, I was a bit surprised at how smooth and controllable the gearing in the aming controls was. They wouldn't let me fire it, dang!
Outstanding video and presentation.
i think the hollow charge round would be a good weapon to keep around its always good to have AT option even if your gun is primarily good agonist hard targets
I think that in order to understand the part about no Stellungswechsel during the firefight it might help to think of the 13th and in this case 14th company as remnants or inheritors of the world war one Feldartillerie detachements that were send forward to help the infantry if it couldnt win fire superiority by itself.
In my eyes this commandement is about fire superiority, too. Stellungswechsel in this case would equal being supressed and a supressed defence is ripe for the assault.
On the contrary an attack that has to engage in a firefight is an attack not moving forward and in the case of tanks in plain sight of heavy artillery forward observers you can imagine the rest.
So in the greater scheme your PAK being shot at might be considered a good thing (not by the guns crew obviously but hence the order not to evade).
The thoroughly designed gun shields of PAK 36 and IG 18 speak for themselves when evaluating 1930s german imagination of the infantry regiment in combat.
Excellent video as always
'The loader had to expose himself' means something slightly different in colloquial English lol. Great detailed video as always
lol
At 15:48, I assume "recognized ahead of time" means the "need to move gun recognized ahead of time", not "gun detected by enemy"?
Yup, this seems correct.
Superbe video.
Very informative, as allways.
Glad you liked it!
I like the explanation of the evolution of the term "Panzer." I wish you'd do what you did in the older videos where you'd read the German text first and then the translation.
So good to hear German military words and phrases pronounced correctly. If slightly disturbing. I could also listen to the word Vehicle all day. Outstanding series by all accounts. Some of my family actually used this stuff.
13:20 that's some strenght user ap 0 damage 1 +1 attacks weapon level of penetration
not the best but i'll take it over most other weapons of the same class
Well done. I've always wondered about the Pak 36 if it's infamous reputation was deserved.
My own experience in WW2OL was thus: Yes, the Pak36 is useless when used against tanks. However, when facing armored cars, armored trucks and other light vehicles it can't be beat because it actually has the manuverability needed to operate against and track fast moving targets. It's low profile and small size also makes it good at ambushes; in fact it could almost be considered a "hit and run" ATG, as crazy at that sounds.
Peruskorjattu means basic maintenance has been done/it has been repaired. Probably meaning it was broken before the repair
Help! I have yet to find out why some of the German AT guns (75mm or PAK 40 ) had 2 crew shields, one behind the other? Was this spaced armor or was it for something else?
Please answer if you know.
I want to note that ineffectiveness of Pak 36 against T-34 is often overstated. This reputation was most likely caused by the fact that Soviet light tanks were vulnerable to AT fire at most viable combat ranges while T-34s and KVs weren't. But in the same time Soviets collected data from 1941 and early 1942 was that around 15 to 20% of examined T-34s had penetrations from 37 mm shells (mostly to the lower side hull behind the road wheels, so presumably relatively close range shots). They also noted that driver hatch was vulnerable to 37 mm shells as it tended to flew of hinges after a hit or two.
So I tend to read 'ineffectiveness' as not 'cannot penetrate armor' but as 'close range engagements and careful position was required to engage heavier armor'.
The USA also had a "doorknocker"- the 155 mm Gun Motor Carriage M12, so named because when fired at the front of a bunker it would smash the bunker and knock down the back door.
16:47 just guessing here, but maybe it is prohibited to move the gun while under fire because it is much more efficient to keep up the fire. Move before to have better field of fire, move after to prevent counter battery fire.
Antitank positions are heavily camouflaged and has highest priority . Moving gun around is like painting the target on their backs.
Imagine that some years later the MK-103 was firing 3 cm shells at 400 rounds/min with even higher velocity.
God job in terms of pronounciation of the finnish words on that fella, i just love to see a piece of history from my country in a foreign museum 😎🇫🇮🇫🇮
That Cavalry Branch logo at 6:39...Mein Gott!
Meine Kleine Pony: Wehrmacht is Magische
Wonderfull, is'nt it?
But it is kinda weird to calvary branch logo as they put rainbow dash
Would be nice if you did a series about the Roman Manual, Strategikon
Nice Video
Die Aussprache is so viel besser als bei den ganzen anderen Englischen Videos.
Greetings from Germany
Could you do a video on the E series tanks? I want to know how something like that could have been produced, maybe on your second channel
16:40 I think that's it. Basically, if you are under fire from an enemy tank attack, there's no point in moving the gun since either it can deal with the tanks, or if not, the gun is most likely lost anyway.
Great video
Nice, thanks for the vid informative as always. For a future video how about a video on the Raketenwerfer, would be interesting to see how they used Rockets for AT?
You mean the _Puppchen?_
I think we see one of these with the panzerfaust tip in the 3rd episode of BoB, where Corporal Lipton gets hit with one (must have an armored groin) in Carentan. Am I right?
Ref 06:43 (top right) I didn't know they had air cavalry units in WW 2;).
Interesting...the AT gun the Germans were using at the end of WW1 was the 3.7cm TaK 1918, which was also made by Rheinmetall. I wonder how much mechanical similarity there was between the two guns?
Almost certainly none, since the WW1 TAK was essentially a conversion of a single barrel taken from an old 3.7cm Revolverkanone (a hand-cranked five-barreled 19th century weapon for the close defence of fortresses). Its mounting was likewise a conversion, based on a light Minenwerfer carriage. The gun was directly fixed to the carriage, with no recoil system and simple iron sights! Perfectly adequate in 1918, but nothing to emulate in a gun produced under non-emergency conditions in the 1920s...
The text on the gun is Finnish and says "peruskorjattu" directly translated that would be basically fixed but it means basic maintenance.
I always wondered what this was in Band Of Brothers, when they stormed that French town. Nice!
almost, but that was this: de.wikipedia.org/wiki/8,8-cm-Raketenwerfer_43
It wasn't Nice, it was Carentan :)
@@capion5014 No, in the Carentan Episode they used a PaK 35 with Stielgranate 41 ammunition. They may have use what you linked at some point as well but they definitely used this.
At 9:45, you state that the Pz II had no HE rounds for its 20mm cannon in Poland. What is the source for this? Since the gun used the same ammunition as the 20mm FlaK 30, I assume this deficiency was due to planning errors in the Panzer arm of the Wehrmacht. Did other vehicles using the same cannon lack HE early on, like the SdKfz. 222 and 231?
see Pz II video
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Thanks! I have missed that video completely, somehow.
Oh trust me, as someone who plays War Thunder, I can tell ya the Panzer II is definitely good enough for anti-tank usage.
battle rating make it so
A lot of the Inter-war development was based on 1st generation Tank technology and Trench Warfare from the first World War. So basically, this was designed with the British "Landships" in mind, while the Germans were developing more advanced Panzers at the same time. They also had a close eye on the French inter-war development, due to resentment over the Versailles Treaty. Those were mostly small with heavy armor (For the time) and 2 man crews. A driver in the bow, and the Commander in the turret. So, he had to act as Gunner, and Loader (Basically the same 37mm guns were standard at the time) as well. Since this is an Anti-tank gun, specifically. The Tanks you expect to be shooting at are crucial for the development. The biggest gun isn't always the best gun, especially when you have to tow it to the battlefield, supply it with ammunition, dig in emplacements for it, and it's crews. Again, the dominance of Trench Warfare on the Eastern Front influenced their early weapon, and strategic development, so if given the chance, the French might dig in, with Tanks mostly for breaking the stalemate. This is why the original name indicated it was for Defense against Tanks.
The AT-4 is generally pretty obsolete as an anti-tank weapon, but it is still widely used because it is highly capable against a variety of targets that aren't heavily-armored battle tanks
The PaK 36 is the same way, as was the US/British 57mm
I liked the "Warhammer Chainsword" icon used for Penetration! I also seriously consider to change my name to dr. Roman Töppel.
I am here from Band of Brothers part 3 where Sgt. Lipton was wounded by the Pak36 shell
The fact its nicknamed 'the doorknocker' is kinda hilarious but scary at the same time like imagine people knocking your door with this
@Military History Visualized as a retired Master Gunner (Royal Australian Artillery) and son of an AT Gunner (QF 2pr and QF 6pr) during WWII I can say that AT Guns are not normally deployed close to infantry, they are usually deployed adjacent to infantry on the flank or in such a position as to maximise their field of fire. Alternate gun positions are a normal part of deployment. The gun commander would announce the move as loudly as he can such as "Move to Alternate position". Infantry would know this if employed near a gun (of any type) as they may also move to an alternate position as well. Artillery pieces are a bullet and projectile magnet.
Other things to note: only pneumatic tyres are suspension on Artillery pieces. Any other form of suspension would cause inaccuracies in gun lay. You can have both spars and trails on Artillery pieces, the trail has a spade attached so it can be dug in or self digging spades which don't need to be dug in. Spars are detachable.
If you need any further assistance don't hesitate to contact me.
I loved the Rainbow Dash cameo! Though wouldn’t Pegasi be Luftwaffe?
I faintly remember a video by the chieftain about the gun being fairly effective against early t34
Me too, albeit i'm not sure if he was refering to the PaK or the tank version (KWK).
@@comentedonakeyboard Probably either one. One of the largest issues with the early T-34 was the overworked crew and lack of proper radio equipment. Given that circumstance, you're more likely to have an exposed flank or side that could be penetrated by the 37mm PaK round.
@@SlavicCelery like ambush tactics? Well given it's small size the Pak 36 seems usefull.🤔
@@comentedonakeyboard Ambushing would seem to be the standard approach used by all AT guns. Overworked crews are much more likely to stumble into one. Especially if you have less than stellar combined arms doctrine, tactics and implementation.
Knock knock
Who's there?
Pak 36
Pak 36 who?
PANZERABWEHRKANONE 36
A pleasure as always with your insightful explorations. From a skeptical A Hole ;p )
I think there are some more reasons, why the gun wasnt allowed to change its position during tank engagements:
- the crew could be more easily been spotted from the enemy during movement
- during movement their firepower is limited to the personal weapons of the crew
- possible exposure to enemy fire for the pulling vehicle
- opening of a gap in the firing line
- tactical thinking of the enemy: "They stopped shooting us now- engage them to get them out!"
Professionally made.
Compact enough for home defence!
Really impressive contribution, as such it was a good idea in itself to improve the gun so that you could do something with the Doorknocker, something else with the rest of the guns, but you drove with the 7.5 cm Pack 40 caliber Of course better, the range and penetration line are much higher and you could fight all common Ally Tank with.
The US bought a few examples of the PaK 36, then produced an equivalent weapon. Out in the Pacific Theater, it was perfectly adequate vs Japanese armor. The HE and canister shells were also handy.
The Pak 36 was pretty effective in the Spanish Civil War against the Soviet T-26 encountered there. Since Franco's side was short of tanks, and the tankettes the Italians brought were quite vulnerable, this was just as well.
At 09:00 you translate "Schützen" as "Riflemen", but I think they didn´t mean the classic "Gewehrschütze".
On a modern Leopard 2 you have the "Richtschütze" and the "Ladeschütze", which you wouldn´t call "Aim rifleman" and "Loading riflemen". You would call them "gunner" and "loader" and I believe it is the same thing here: The regulation describes different tasks and combines them under the word "Schütze".
In ww2 terms and when used is referred to as a schützen. It's should not be compared to the modern counterpart as much since some terms changed, some differed
@@jerryudonneedtoknow3903 yeah but it´s more or less clear they didn´t mean a rifleman like in an infantry squad, so rifleman would be wrong here.
see 8:19 I noted also "Canoneer" and at 09:00 I put "crew member" in []. The Heer basically called almost everyone "Schütze": Fallschirmschütze, Panzerschütze, etc. depending on the branch and then also by function as well, as you can see I translated "Ladeschütze", "Munitionschütze" with various other names not "rifleman".
I remember seeing this in episode 3 of Band of brothers
*Knock Knock*
Who's there?
*PAK*
PAK who?
*no response, the door just explodes*
Hey buddy, quick question in case you know the answer.
Can TOW guided missiles miss or be evaded?
Wire guided missles are best defeated by hanging lots of loose razor wire, it's quite easy for a tow or any other wire guided weapon to break the wire(s) or lose connection between the missle and launcher...power lines, fencing, heavy vegetation can all cut the wire and cause the missle to go off target...but if the wire doesn't break, the tow gunner can use it to control and aim the missle in flight, so tows can follow moving targets or change targets in a split second, they're relatively fast missles too, not much you can do to either run or hide, and the only way to avoid it would be extreme speed, but you're not going to out run a missle unless you have a really great head start!
The tow is still in use today, even though it's so old, because of how effective it is, and how difficult it is to evade
Every once in a while, a tow will drift off target, drop straight to the ground, explode in midflight, or otherwise malfunction and misfire, but because you can keep adjusting and aiming the missle up until impact, it's pretty hard to miss with a tow!
Of course they can miss if the gunner makes a mistake, they are still effected by the human element after all. Additionally if the tank notices the launch, it can deploy a smoke screen and then move away. Lastly there are active systems that basically jam the guidance unit of the missile, leading to it loosing control if tried to fly towards a tank using such systems.
A consistent observation in tank diaries and regulations are that AT guns are "practically invisible" until they open fire. If a gun is to be moved it loses this protection.
Another brilliant technical review. Can I suggest a future topic? The production but non-deployment of battlefield chemical weapons in WWII. I never understood why in the dying months of their regimes the Nazis and Japanese death-cultists did not deploy Sarin etc...thank you.
Pure speculation on my part; the Germans didn't employ it because Hitler was delusional and thought he could still win the war until the final days. The Japanese I feel would have used any weapon available in defense of the home islands but never got the opportunity with the sudden and unexpected end to the Pacific war.
@@bitteroldman wise old man👍
Finland received the first examples (50 pcs.) of the gun in the spring of 1940, 100 pcs. at September 1940 and 100 pcs. in June 1941. That gun has been overhauled (essentially rebuilt), or supply depot repaired, in Feb. 1944. It may have been later used in June-July of 1944 to counter massed Soviet attacks, but it also might have been in storage or in training use after the repair.
everybody's a badass until a 3.7cm round hits them in the kneecap...
"I used to be an adventurer like you...."
4:09 Just a small side note: Hitler himself (I had noticed this when I first heard it) in his accidentally recorded conversation with Mannerheim spoke of 35000 "tanks" that Russia had brought up. He also was not very consistent with the panzer/tank thing.
Edit: Here the source for those who don't know this imo interesting conversation: /watch?v=P9AVu6KupNg
Great video btw! As always :)