What do you think about the German Pak 40 of World War Two? Do you think it was the best Anti-Tank gun of the war? Welcome back! If you are new here make sure to hit subscribe to expand your knowledge on Military History and join the growing Premier History Community!
It's hard to describe anything as "the best" in warfare. You will ultimately always have things that have advantages/disadvantages according to their purpose, their situation, and outside factors. For example: was Yamato on paper the strongest battleship? Yes. Would it have performed well in a BB vs. BB fight? Also yes. Did it historically perform well, or is it ever considered "the best battleship"? No. This is why I would say that the Pak 40 was the best *German* anti-tank gun. It has a balance of firepower, penetration, reloading and maneuver. However, it would have been much less useful in, say, the pacific. It's the same with the MG-42, for example. Was it extremely efficient at killing people and supressing infantry? Yes. However, it would have been less useful as, say, a coaxial machine gun, due to things like it's relative complexity. It was great as a support and defensive weapon, but in offense and other roles, a somewhat slower, less complex and lighter weapon might have been preferrable - depending on the situation, of course.
Can you point to a single weapon that the Pak40 influenced post-war? Anything? And can you do so in the context of the switch to ATGM and recoiless rifles? Anything at all?
The MG 42 was everything but not a complex weapon, no single fire, a flawless lock, proved in cold and hot surrounding and good enough to be in use until today (in a slightly modernized form)! Guess you consider the MG 34!
Three was a Flemish SS Unterscharfuhrer volunteer called Remy Schrijnen, a member of the 27th SS division "Langemarck" he used a PAK 40 all alone (his man were al death) he singelhandedly destroyed 4 T34's and 3 JS 2's. He was heavely wounded after this but survived and recieved the knight's cross for his action. There is a book about him called "The last knight of Flanders"
@@MrJenslandbo He shot some Shermans before he was badly wounded and lost one leg at age of 19 fighting at the bridgehead of Anzio on the 24th January 1944. His best friend died during the same attack with a shot right in the heart laying beside him.
@@Migo1963 Thanks for the answer. Sounds much in line and just as horrible as the recent account I have read about the 3 gebirgsjäger divisions retreat through Ukraine, Hungary and Slovakia through the eyes of a soldier from Austria. One thing is the horror suffering and death, but losing the war, and not seeing these brave soldiers being celebrated and honored for their service afterwards... Well, we can't change history and the winner writes it. We who did not experience it, can only research and try to get a grasp what really happened.
My father was the Geschuetzfuehrer (commander) of a PAK 40 sited in a bunker overlooking the beach in "Festung Hoek van Holland" in 1944/45. Fortunately for him and his crew, there never was any D-Day on that Dutch beach.
Both the German 88 and the British 17 pounder were better ballistically. However, both were much heavier and harder to move around. The British 6 pounder was lighter and more mobile but less effective ballistically, especially at longer ranges. An argument could be made that the Pak 40 was the best compromise available.
The Pak40 was much lighter than the Flak 36 and could be towed by horses if necessary. The Flak 36 was gigantic, and very distinct when it fired. The big issue is that the dual purpose mounting the Flak 18/36 used had to accommodate the requirements for both an AAA gun, and an anti-tank gun, and was correspondingly heavy and tall. It could not be towed by just any vehicle and required dedicated prime movers/half tracks to be moved. If given a bit of time-the Pak40s crew had enough time to limber up again-even to an Opel Blitz-and move out. The Americans saw the Germans do this so much in North Africa they actually concluded that towed anti-tank guns were better than self-propelled ones and started to replace M10 batteries with 3inch guns. These guns and crews got absolutely trampled during the Ardennes Offensive. The Germans never towed a single gun during the war by choice-absolutely anything they could have slid a set of tracks or wheels under they would have hence the Marder, Grille, Wespe etc. Incidentally the Pak40 was indeed the same gun as the KwK 40 on the Panzer IV-but a bit longer so it could fire more powerful rounds. The only issue with the Pak40 was that-it was still too heavy. The German Army's chronic shortage of vehicles meant that once discovered-there was virtually no prospect of moving or evacuating the gun-and most were lost when outflanked or attacked by artillery. Some commanders still preferred the lighter Pak38 for this reason (50mm) because the crew could move it around on their own.
Source? Everything you said is cap. Why would the 88 and 17 pounder be better? Just the caliber? Then the 12,8 from the Jagdtiger would be better. The 6 pounder was an excellent gun. Mobilitywise not different from the Pak 40. You can argue the long 88 to be best, but not much needed, the most practical probably being the long 75
You must first define YOUR idea of 'ballistically', for from a standpoint of accuracy and trajectory, your examples are NOT, 'better'. That is especially true of the 17, it's accuracy was subpar to the Germans 7.5 & 8.8, and the American 76.
@@d4r1us58 The 88mm gun was a far bigger gun than the 75mm, or the British 77mm ''seventeen pounder'' gun . I would have thought this was obvious, to be honest . So , yes ''the caliber'' . So, yes , the 128 mm gun was incomparably a better anti tank gun than a 75mm gun , obviously . The six pounder gun was only 57mm bore and fired a ,.. 6 pound shot. Oh , Ok,.. bigger , heavier shells are intrinsically better than smaller, lighter shells. That's literally how it works. But lighter guns are easier to move than heavier guns. Heavier objects weight more and are harder to move than lighter objects.. Hmmmm,...
The 7,5 cm PaK 40: decent penetration, relatively low profile, relatively mobile. There's a reason it was mounted on practically any mobile platform later in the war.
because it was the standard issue german anti tank gun and they couldn't stop or change production, but this doesnt change the fact that the british 6 pounder with sabot had the same penetration characteristics
The impact the PAK 40 had on the future of anti-tank guns was to prove the era of towed anti-tank guns was effectively over. Outside of the Soviet Union, development of such weapons all but ceased post-war. The PAK 40 was the last practical infantry anti-tank gun.
@@ИванМатвеев-й2р - _Outside of the Soviet Union, development of such weapons all but ceased post-war_ _The PAK 40 was the last practical *infantry* anti-tank gun
Best overall anti-tank gun that actually was abundant in numbers. About 23k of them were produced. Very powerful even by the end of the war to threaten practically every armor it can encounter. The Pak 43 was the powerful 88mm gun but very rare. Only 2k of them were made. The Flak versions of the 88 were more likely needed for AA duties. Even the 50mm Pak 38 that preceded the Pak 40 had only 9.5k produced. Their performance dropped off early in the war. Once we get into 75mm and larger anti-tank guns, they all become cumbersome. British 17-pounders, German 88s, the Pak40, whatever. But the lighter, easier to handle guns became worse as the tanks improved. So it was inevitable they gravitated to larger, more powerful, worse to handle guns. Bazookas, Panzerschrecks, Panzerfausts, PIATs, and other hand held anti-tank weapons needed to be real close to do their work. The anti-tank gun could do the work further away and cover larger areas. But their mobility was awful. They were basically stuck there. Men with the hand held anti-tank weapons can move around and not be stuck. You aren't limbering, unlimbering an anti-tank gun under fire. You'll get shot and shelled apart before that is completed. The Germans became even more dependent on the anti-tank gun as their number of Panzers dwindled. That's why the Pak 40 was produced in large numbers. Even then by 1945 there was not enough of them, and the hand-held weapons became organizational replacements for the anti-tank guns, which was not up to the task.
The Pak 36 after 1940 under german soldiers was known as "Heeresanklopfgerät", translated eventually as "army knocking device" bc it did not more to newer tanks as knocking on a door.
They didn’t have the industrial capabilities to be fully motorized. Or the fuel for that matter. Something one needs when deciding to take on the entire world!
@@pigmanobvious If Hitler had stuck to his original grand plan, Germany would just have invaded and conquered the Soviet Union. First however, they had to neutralize the Allied forces (British and French). And after Great Britain would not surrender, German U-boats started sinking American ships, as the British and Americans had made a deal where US ships would escort British merchant shipping. There might have been a way for Nazi Germany to win World War 2 though. If they had just strangled Britain first using many more U-boats than they had in their Navy, Britain would have surrendered before the USA would come into play. However, there were not that number of U-boats at the beginning of WW2. Because Hitler had pre-war dreams of a powerful German surface fleet, leading to the production of the 'Pocket Battleships' like the Bismarck and Tirpitz.
It's not just about the size of the gun, it's also about how it was employed. The American Army used 57mm anti tank guns during the Battle of the Bulge. However, these were used in two sections of two. Two guns on the left of the road, two guns on the right. A decent commander would have one section fire first (from the left), after which the enemy armour would turn their vehicles into the direction the fire came from. Then the second section (from the right) would fire, which now had a perfect target, the enemy tanks' side.
It was the best AT gun available to German forces. The Pak 43 was much better at penetration and range but was to heavy. The PaK 40 was light enough to be bolted on to a symphony of German vehicles in the later stages of the war. So by default it was the best.
Watching the Forgotten Weapons video of firing an actual PaK 40 shows how incredibly difficult it would have been to conceal once fired. Not only does the propellant kick out tons of smoke, just the vibration kicks up dust for 10 feet around and throws everyone’s hair in the air. No wonder there’s so many sad photos of PaK 40s with dead crewmen laying around them from WW2
as much as people talk about german guns, I would like to see how good their gunnery training was compared to everyone else. Also they seem to have had very good optics.
At the age of 15 and a half I joined the Junior Leaders Regiment Royal Artillery Bramcote, Gamecock Barracks for two years of military training to prepare us to become future NCO's in the Royal Artillery, they had a number of old guns on the base and one of them from what I could gather was a Pak 40 it looked very threatening just siting there in front of the hanger.
The 88 was the most feared cannon of ww2. Very universal cannon. Used as anti aircraft gun originally but put into anti tank roll when they first encountered the t-34 and kv-1. First use as anti tank gun was in France when a bunch of char-b French tanks tryed pushing the German's back. The rounds would hit before you heard the gun go off.
The PaK 40 IMHO acheived the optimal balance of an anti-tank gun in its time of service. Sure you could find more powerful guns, but they were also so much heavier and/or bulky that their practical usefullness was limited. You could also find guns much easier to conceal or move, but they would lack the power to be optimal. That the PaK 40 achieved this without access (beyond a very few rounds) to tungsten ammo is impressive but the question also is - if the Germans had widespread access to tungsten ammo would a slightly smaller/lighter design have been optimal? Anyway this also leads me to conclude that the only competitor for the title would be the 6 pdr, but that wasn't so much for gun design but for the availability of superior ammo (APCR and APDS).
Maybe the best gun is the one that can be produced in the highest numbers and still do the job. Compared to the 88, it cost one third to produce it, it cost half the men to operate it and it was produced in larger numbers. The 88 was deployed in a variety of roles, not only as an anti tank gun. Both guns had their strengths.
The 88 was the most feared cannon of ww2. Very universal cannon. Used as anti aircraft gun originally but put into anti tank roll when they first encountered the t-34 and kv-1. First use as anti tank gun was in France when a bunch of char-b French tanks tryed pushing the German's back.
Think it was British Matildas Against the 7th Panzer division. But Germans actually thought about an antitank role for the 88 which was why they had AP ammo available
A bit reductionist, it traded added ballistic performance at the expense of tactical mobility, it no longer could be moved by teams and began requiring crew served vehicles, not really an upgrade for a country running out of gas
Ok seeing the footage of the Pak40 horse limber is fantastic. I knew that the Germans actually used horses for a lot of their logistics, but that footage was amazing
@@charlesburgoyne-probyn6044 well yes, but Nazi propaganda was really good about only filming the 10-20% of the army that was Mechanized, So it's really rare to see footage of horse based logistics on RUclips.
The Pak 36 37mm came to be known as the "German Door Knocker", as all it did by 1942 was kind of knock on the door (ricochet off) and let tanks know someone was shooting at them.
the thing is that that is often all you need to do. because just hearing a round bonk off the armour doesn't tell you which gun is actually firing, for all you know it could be a PAK-40 just out of effective range, or just a poorly placed shot, either way most tank commanders wouldn't want to stick around to find out or advance into the effective range of whatever just landed a hit on them.
Had tungsten NOT been so rare, the 7.5 Pak 40 would have been the perfect gun, period. The ONLY reason to go to a bigger caliber was for explosive effect, as explosives were cheaper, and more prevalent, compensating for the lack of tungsten for penetration. Of course, bigger is NOT better from a standpoint of storage, round handling by the loader, and battlefield load and time in battle. No, the 7.5 COULD have outweighed the feared and mighty '88', had it not been for tungsten shortage.
If but for the tungsten shortage the Germans would have deployed more than 150 units of the 7.5 cm Pak 41 (41 = 1941 acceptance into service) which was a squeeze bore gun. It outperformed the Ordnance QF 17 pounder in range and penetration without the accuracy and dispersion issues but at only 1390kg was less than half the weight.
@@Mattamaza Certainly. More powder in the shell as well as in the casing means greater velocity and explosive potential, overcoming the tungsten advantage of penetration by sheer physical and kinetic power. The Americans overcame a LOT of German tanks with massive artillery barrages using 155 and 203 mm heavy guns. No tank could take that kind of firepower.
Most of Germany's Tungsten came from China where it was initially bought from the nationalists whom they were allies with then when allied with Japan via the precarious blockade runners but the loss rate was severe. Hence had to conserve Tungsten for machine tools, one can't have modern metal machining without tungsten, it's also a steel hardener as they were using about a tonne a day and when they surrendered only had about 30 tonnes left unused. Some also came from Spain. Indeed I remember reading that Germany made a major oversight in not organising more Tungsten shipments from China pre 1939 , limited foreign exchange, not anticipating a protracted conflict, a sense of we know better this time so the outcome will be different, although possibly prosaic default like much of life actually, perhaps limited amounts available on the market at the time after all it takes time to mine the ore from the ground and smelt it into powder or ingots ready for use. Nevertheless I find it indulgent all this intense and detailed postulating about various WW2 weapons when our present and future will be decided by the weapons of today although in some cases weapons from that era are having an encore in Ukraine. Indeed it's only years afterwards that such matters at the can be evaluated to the 'nth degree by which time it's loosing much of its relevance..
The German AT guns were: PaK.36 37mm. L.45 PaK.37 50mm. L.42 (only 2,600 built before production was halted in 1941) PaK.38 50mm. L.60 PaK.39 75mm. L.48 PaK.40 75mm. L.46 PaK.42 75mm. L.70 PaK.43 88mm. L.71 PaK.50 75mm. L.30 (Sawn off PaK.40 on PaK.38/39 chassis) PaK.97 75mm. L.36 (PaK.38/39 carriage with French 75mm. L.36 field gun barrel & breech)
@@rogersmith7396 Everyone had horse cavalry w/ sabers at the start of the war, too. lol And the Russkis still had whole divisions at the end of the war...
A more direct comparison would be to the Pak 43, which was around 10,000 lbs. Your point still stands though: It was much heavier. And not many Pak 43s were made anyway.
Definitely the best overall anti-tank gun. Good penetration and accuracy against armour at range, with a decent HE round for soft targets. Compact and relatively light, making it easy to haul into position and conceal. Rugged and inexpensive to produce.
Seems like they should take an obsolete tank chassis, like a Panzer III or a Czech 38T, mount these guns in a casemate. Maybe even use a bigger gun if it becomes available.
Did these guns also incorporate an anti-personnel shell or smoke? The reason I ask is that I was trained on the 34mm Karl Gustaf Medium anti-tank weapon.Although designed as an anti-tank weapon it could also fire a anti personnel round. Just wondering.
Yes, 7.5cm PaK 40 had high-explosive, high-explosive hollow-charge (HEAT), and smoke rounds available in addition to two or three armor-piercing types (depending on time and place). Pretty much all conventional German guns had impact-fused high-explosive and smoke as standard options. German doctrine for antitank gunners was not for the guns to sit idle while others attacked, waiting for tanks to show up. To the best of their ability, PaKs were expected to move with the attacking force, engaging bunkers and foxholes if there were no tanks to shoot at instead. The term you want to look for if you are seeing German data on their HE shells is Sprenggranate.
There is no doubt that the Pak 40 was an excellent gun. But when one reads allied autobiographies of WW2, they always mention their fear of the 88mm, and seldom do they write of the Pak 40. Or at least from the books I read.
The allies reported any incoming fire as 88’s, and tanks encountered as tigers, as these weapons where most feared where front of mind. But in reality mostly they were nearly always encountering PAK40’s and Pz IV’s and STUG’s.
It was nearly the end of the PAK as such. Till 1943 it was very successful against tanks. Later the allieds and as well the soviets learned to deal with PAK. It was very vulnerable against artillery, mortar fire and as well high explosive grenades of >75mm calibre. Due to its low mobility it was usually lost during the retreats of 1944/45. The followers were such tank hunters as the 38T Hetzer, Jagdpanzer Kanone and guided missiles from other nations. Only the Soviet Union used widely PAK (100mm) after ww2.
Great Gun. Easily as versatile as the 88 though not as powerful. Made up for it's lesser power being more mobile. Unfortunately the Germans made many Great weapons. Thank God they didn't focus on a better battle Rifle until near the end of the war. This was a very enjoyable video. Thanks
Greatly feared by the allied tankers. It’s low silhouette made it highly concealable . The Germans had such great weaponry but fiddle fucked around too much on multiple designs. Build one good tank and stick with it like the Panther or the upgunned Panzer IV. Forget those huge and hard to maintain Tigers and king tigers not to mention that monstrous Maus! Going to the Stugs was a good idea as well. Don’t get me started on those huge rail road guns when aircraft should have been the priority. Hitler meddled way too much in weapon design and caused both the MG-44 as well as the possibility war winning ME 262 jet fighter to be delayed by over a year! Just another arm chair historians two cents worth!
Hitler's meddling was the convenient part of the story, shortage of cobalt, the 300 tonnes of Japanese occupied Philippine cobalt that was lost aboard the Rio Grande in January 1944 was a blow to their cause. The engine turbine blades were not suitable quality as a result and would wear out in no time at all
During Operation Barbarossa, when the Heer first encountered that armored beast, the Soviet JV1 and the shell had zero effect, I read the PAK 36 earned the sobering sobriquet "Hitler's Door knocker" did it not?
This gun score a IS-2 kill frontally from 500m+. It's show how powerful this gun is at the time. I think British 17 pounder is better overall but it get the job done.
A 75mm gun that can kill nearly all of the allied tanks in one shot and being cheep hell yeah the only down side to it is how heavy it was the whole thing is made of complete metal
The 17 pdr was too big and too heavy - it had all the same problems as the 88mm Pak 43 whilst being significantly less powerful so any argument that elevates the 17 pdr over the Pak 40 simultaneously elevates the Pak 43 over the 17 pdr. In most applications the 6 pdr was actually better because of the lightness and concealability of the gun. The Pak 40 represented the best compromise of hitting power and lightness, with the 6 pdr or the Soviet ZiS-2 probably being the second best.
This video looks nice but contains many broad statements that have no supporting evidence. It's claim that the gun influenced post-war designs is just silly, since AT guns were no longer used after WW2.
Most videos kinda sorta brought up the fact that the Wehrmacht realized how ineffective Pak 36 was when they encountered Soviet tanks in 41(T 34, KV 1 series). The reality was Germans faced heavy tanks that the Pak 36 was incapable of effectively engaging all the way back to Battle of France when it had difficulties penetrating both the french made Char series tanks and the British Matilda's, almost a year before the invasion of Soviet Union and did nothing to rectify their shortcomings. Had the allies had better co ordination and tactics they'd have given the German army a run for their money as none of the German equipments were in any terms better than their allied counterparts.
Not true, the 50mm AT gun was introduced in autumn 1940 and would have been used in the invasion of Britain by a few units if that had happened. It was first used in the invasion of Yugoslavia. Hitler insisted that all tank guns be upgraded to 50mm prior to the invasion of Russia, though that took a while to implement and only a short version used.
@@christopherwebber3804 I couldn't find any reference of the Pak 38 being used before 1941(Eastern front). If you have some detailed info I'd love to hear it. Also it begs the question that had the Wehrmacht already introduced Pak 38 to frontline services, why were they not deployed in the opening months of Barbarossa.
This is complete rubbish. The 50mm Pak 38 was ordered before the war even started - the clue is in the name, as it was ordered in 1938. However, you can't just magic new guns into existence - they need to be designed, tested, approved, put into mass production and distributed to the troops, all of which takes time. The Pak 38 was not available for the battle of France, but was in service (though not very widespread) by the time of the Operation Barbarossa. Further, as the name implies, the Pak 40 was ordered in 1940, also before the invasion of the Soviet Union, and the first guns were entering service only a few months after the operation began. Clearly the Germans were alive to the limitations of their Anti-tank weapons, were in fact working hard to "rectify their shortcomings" and the fact that both the Pak 38 and Pak 40 were only just around the corner at the moments they were needed shows that the Germans were mostly on top of their Anti-tank requirements which is something you absolutely cannot say about the Western Allies.
@@mattbowden4996 The 2 pounder stayed in production for so long only because of the crisis of 1940, when the British army lost most of its anti-tank guns in France and any gun was better than none. The 6 pounder could have gone into production much earlier but it would have meant a period when few guns were available to defend Britain at a time when invasion was thought possible.
@@christopherwebber3804 True, but it was still late into service irrespective of the reason which is not something you can really accuse the Pak 40 of. Besides, there is more to the story than just the British - take a look at how behind the curve the Americans were. They didn't adopt the 37mm M3 until 1940, at which point it was already obsolete and didn't have anything even remotely ready to replace it which is why they adopted the 6 pdr as the 57mm M1 - in 1943! The 3" M5 also wasn't ready until 1943 and although quite powerful, that was a crude lash-up in comparison to the Pak 40.
The video is not viewable. Every 10-20 seconds the "Windows doughnut" (modern equivalent of the infamous Windows "hourglass") appears and the video stops (...and won't recover. For fun I had it running for an hour in a 2nd tab, just to see what happens). Only workaround is to fast-forward a view seconds. I blame RUclips for that. They don't want me to see this video. 😞
Was it particularly effective at a front shot to T34 76? From a relative who served in Korea 1950. Almost everything the Americans had to combat the T34/85 was useless...
Yes, the Pak 40 could destroy a T-34 at normal combat ranges from the front. The JS series were armored to withstand the Pak 40 as it was the gun most widely used by the Germans for anti-tank defense. Also, the 76mm gun on the M4A3E8's used in Korea could destroy the T-34 at normal combat ranges. The problem was the only tanks available early on were M24's with a low power 75mm gun. A couple M26's with a good 90mm were lost due to engine problems and did not see combat in the early weeks of the Korean war. The anti-tank rockets they had in the early stages were still the lousy 2.37 rounds from WWII. After the US got the M4A3E8's, properly serviced M26's and the 3.5" rockets into the war the T-34's were easily destroyed. After the breakout from Pusan, and the attack at Inchon, there were very few T-34's left intact.
@@tankmaker9807 Good point. I have several relatives that were combat veterans of the Korean war. What they saw was tank kills that often favored the T3485. For example, these combat veterans described 10 or 12 Shermans, or pershing tanks engaging with several T34s. At the end of the engagement, 2 or maybe 3 US tanks would return...
@@russbrown6453 I am an armored warfare buff. The first time the T-34's attacked the M26's they lost every T-34 with no loss to the M26's. More US tanks were lost to mines and artillery than to T-34's. The T-34 was not a wonder weapon, it had numerous flaws.
@@russbrown6453 To be clearer, there are distinct phases to Korean war tank vs tank combat. Before Pusan most US tanks in Korea were the M24 Chaffee, a light tank with a low power 75mm gun. They were out gunned and out armored by the T-34. Two M26 Pershing heavy tanks were sent, but lost due to faulty fan belts before getting any combat time. The first Shermans in Korea were from storage in Japan, and did not get into combat until Pusan as far as I can tell. Your relatives might have seen that stage of the fighting and the early Pusan fighting. During Pusan the first M4A3E8's arrived from the US. At that time the T-34 crews were mostly WWII veterans of combat against the Germans. That was an advantage early in the fighting, but not some much later as the US crews got experience. I am not sure what your relatives witnessed, but the only time there was major tank vs tank combat with the Shermans was at Pusan and the breakout. Until the breakout US tanks were part of a combined arms defense front. A group of tanks might be sent out to assist in an attack, or counter attack, and then sent back in stages to fuel and re-arm, but there was no large loss of tanks like in WWII.
@@tankmaker9807 With all do respect of being a armored warfar buff, that doesn't exclude you from being incorrect. I'm sure the Germans thought their armor warfare buffs we correct in 1941. As far as what happened in Korea, I'm going to believe people who were eye witness' of what the topic of our discussion is. Probably neither one of us were actually there...
The 8.8cm FLAK 37 was towed into battle and positioned with the same half track as the 150cm German heavy field gun as it was so heavy. When opperating in the Army Support role 8,8cm FLAK 37 was designed to protect rearward areas, bases and supply depots from air attack. These same rearward areas were in danger of being over run by tanks that had broken through lines and one of the jobs of AT guns was to protect these. The 88 FLAK 37 was duel purpose because it had been provided with suitable guns shields, sights, depression angle could engage tanks in an emergency. The 88 thus greatly supplemented the 7.5cm PaK 40. With time and a little earth excavation it could be well hidden though it was clearly not a weapon that could be as easily hidden to ambush tanks. It's range and accuracy meant it could often pick of enemy tanks at great range. If there was a hard nut to crack (say a heavily armored KV-1 tank) the 88 could be brought forward at night and dug in and camouflaged. -A specialized 88 Pak 43 At gun was produced in 1943. It was lighter and had 60% more penetration due to higher 1000 m/s velocity. -The 8.8cm FLAK 37 was also useful in the counter artillery role being able to air burst rounds above enemy artillery that had been located by sound locators or simply air bursting above attacking infantry. A very useful and versatile weapon but certainly a bit heavy.
What do you think about the German Pak 40 of World War Two? Do you think it was the best Anti-Tank gun of the war?
Welcome back! If you are new here make sure to hit subscribe to expand your knowledge on Military History and join the growing Premier History Community!
Good but no means best
It's hard to describe anything as "the best" in warfare. You will ultimately always have things that have advantages/disadvantages according to their purpose, their situation, and outside factors.
For example: was Yamato on paper the strongest battleship? Yes. Would it have performed well in a BB vs. BB fight? Also yes. Did it historically perform well, or is it ever considered "the best battleship"? No.
This is why I would say that the Pak 40 was the best *German* anti-tank gun. It has a balance of firepower, penetration, reloading and maneuver. However, it would have been much less useful in, say, the pacific.
It's the same with the MG-42, for example. Was it extremely efficient at killing people and supressing infantry? Yes. However, it would have been less useful as, say, a coaxial machine gun, due to things like it's relative complexity. It was great as a support and defensive weapon, but in offense and other roles, a somewhat slower, less complex and lighter weapon might have been preferrable - depending on the situation, of course.
Can you point to a single weapon that the Pak40 influenced post-war? Anything? And can you do so in the context of the switch to ATGM and recoiless rifles? Anything at all?
The MG 42 was everything but not a complex weapon, no single fire, a flawless lock, proved in cold and hot surrounding and good enough to be in use until today (in a slightly modernized form)! Guess you consider the MG 34!
I think that the 88 was the very best weapon.
Three was a Flemish SS Unterscharfuhrer volunteer called Remy Schrijnen, a member of the 27th SS division "Langemarck" he used a PAK 40 all alone (his man were al death) he singelhandedly destroyed 4 T34's and 3 JS 2's. He was heavely wounded after this but survived and recieved the knight's cross for his action. There is a book about him called "The last knight of Flanders"
KV's, not JS's
What a hero.
rest in piss, swine
@@GeraltofRivia22hero? He was a member of a genocidal organization responsible for the Holocaust I wouldn’t call that a hero
Read the book amazing soldier.
My father was a gunner (Richtschütze) of a PAK 40 fighting in the Cassino-Battle for the Panzerjäger-Regiment of the Hermann-Göring Division in 1944
Did he and his crew knock any tanks out? I believe there were Shermans around at that time.... Hope he survived the war!
@@MrJenslandbo He shot some Shermans before he was badly wounded and lost one leg at age of 19 fighting at the bridgehead of Anzio on the 24th January 1944. His best friend died during the same attack with a shot right in the heart laying beside him.
@@Migo1963 Thanks for the answer. Sounds much in line and just as horrible as the recent account I have read about the 3 gebirgsjäger divisions retreat through Ukraine, Hungary and Slovakia through the eyes of a soldier from Austria. One thing is the horror suffering and death, but losing the war, and not seeing these brave soldiers being celebrated and honored for their service afterwards... Well, we can't change history and the winner writes it. We who did not experience it, can only research and try to get a grasp what really happened.
My father was the Geschuetzfuehrer (commander) of a PAK 40 sited in a bunker overlooking the beach in "Festung Hoek van Holland" in 1944/45. Fortunately for him and his crew, there never was any D-Day on that Dutch beach.
RIGHT OR WRONG He WAS ONE OF the Green Devils !!!SUPERB !!! Elite Airborne IMMOVABLE SQUAD !!!g
Both the German 88 and the British 17 pounder were better ballistically. However, both were much heavier and harder to move around. The British 6 pounder was lighter and more mobile but less effective ballistically, especially at longer ranges. An argument could be made that the Pak 40 was the best compromise available.
The Pak40 was much lighter than the Flak 36 and could be towed by horses if necessary. The Flak 36 was gigantic, and very distinct when it fired. The big issue is that the dual purpose mounting the Flak 18/36 used had to accommodate the requirements for both an AAA gun, and an anti-tank gun, and was correspondingly heavy and tall. It could not be towed by just any vehicle and required dedicated prime movers/half tracks to be moved. If given a bit of time-the Pak40s crew had enough time to limber up again-even to an Opel Blitz-and move out. The Americans saw the Germans do this so much in North Africa they actually concluded that towed anti-tank guns were better than self-propelled ones and started to replace M10 batteries with 3inch guns. These guns and crews got absolutely trampled during the Ardennes Offensive. The Germans never towed a single gun during the war by choice-absolutely anything they could have slid a set of tracks or wheels under they would have hence the Marder, Grille, Wespe etc.
Incidentally the Pak40 was indeed the same gun as the KwK 40 on the Panzer IV-but a bit longer so it could fire more powerful rounds. The only issue with the Pak40 was that-it was still too heavy. The German Army's chronic shortage of vehicles meant that once discovered-there was virtually no prospect of moving or evacuating the gun-and most were lost when outflanked or attacked by artillery. Some commanders still preferred the lighter Pak38 for this reason (50mm) because the crew could move it around on their own.
Source?
Everything you said is cap.
Why would the 88 and 17 pounder be better? Just the caliber? Then the 12,8 from the Jagdtiger would be better.
The 6 pounder was an excellent gun.
Mobilitywise not different from the Pak 40. You can argue the long 88 to be best, but not much needed, the most practical probably being the long 75
You must first define YOUR idea of 'ballistically', for from a standpoint of accuracy and trajectory, your examples are NOT, 'better'.
That is especially true of the 17, it's accuracy was subpar to the Germans 7.5 & 8.8, and the American 76.
@@d4r1us58 The 88mm gun was a far bigger gun than the 75mm, or the British 77mm ''seventeen pounder'' gun . I would have thought this was obvious, to be honest . So , yes ''the caliber'' . So, yes , the 128 mm gun was incomparably a better anti tank gun than a 75mm gun , obviously .
The six pounder gun was only 57mm bore and fired a ,.. 6 pound shot.
Oh , Ok,.. bigger , heavier shells are intrinsically better than smaller, lighter shells. That's literally how it works.
But lighter guns are easier to move than heavier guns. Heavier objects weight more and are harder to move than lighter objects..
Hmmmm,...
@@alanrobinson2901 Incorrect. The seventeen pounder was a highly accurate gun .
The 7,5 cm PaK 40: decent penetration, relatively low profile, relatively mobile. There's a reason it was mounted on practically any mobile platform later in the war.
because it was the standard issue german anti tank gun and they couldn't stop or change production, but this doesnt change the fact that the british 6 pounder with sabot had the same penetration characteristics
@@fuckoff4705so your saying if the pak40 had sabot, it still be better than 6 pounder?
what was the reason?
The impact the PAK 40 had on the future of anti-tank guns was to prove the era of towed anti-tank guns was effectively over. Outside of the Soviet Union, development of such weapons all but ceased post-war. The PAK 40 was the last practical infantry anti-tank gun.
In a way I can say that is a good thing.
except there have been thousands of MT12s built in 70s, AT guns that could launch atgms
@@ИванМатвеев-й2р - _Outside of the Soviet Union, development of such weapons all but ceased post-war_
_The PAK 40 was the last practical *infantry* anti-tank gun
This was an amazing anti tank gun.
Best overall anti-tank gun that actually was abundant in numbers. About 23k of them were produced. Very powerful even by the end of the war to threaten practically every armor it can encounter.
The Pak 43 was the powerful 88mm gun but very rare. Only 2k of them were made.
The Flak versions of the 88 were more likely needed for AA duties.
Even the 50mm Pak 38 that preceded the Pak 40 had only 9.5k produced. Their performance dropped off early in the war.
Once we get into 75mm and larger anti-tank guns, they all become cumbersome. British 17-pounders, German 88s, the Pak40, whatever. But the lighter, easier to handle guns became worse as the tanks improved. So it was inevitable they gravitated to larger, more powerful, worse to handle guns.
Bazookas, Panzerschrecks, Panzerfausts, PIATs, and other hand held anti-tank weapons needed to be real close to do their work. The anti-tank gun could do the work further away and cover larger areas. But their mobility was awful. They were basically stuck there. Men with the hand held anti-tank weapons can move around and not be stuck. You aren't limbering, unlimbering an anti-tank gun under fire. You'll get shot and shelled apart before that is completed.
The Germans became even more dependent on the anti-tank gun as their number of Panzers dwindled. That's why the Pak 40 was produced in large numbers. Even then by 1945 there was not enough of them, and the hand-held weapons became organizational replacements for the anti-tank guns, which was not up to the task.
Against France and the Char B, the Pak 36 was dubbed 'the door knocker'.
I was in he military service 1981-82 and we were capable to test it in 82 (they were scraped next year). Accurate gun, but hell heavy.
The Pak 36 after 1940 under german soldiers was known as "Heeresanklopfgerät", translated eventually as "army knocking device" bc it did not more to newer tanks as knocking on a door.
Horses pulling an anti-tank gun seems so ironic.
They didn’t have the industrial capabilities to be fully motorized.
Or the fuel for that matter.
Something one needs when deciding to take on the entire world!
@@pigmanobvious If Hitler had stuck to his original grand plan, Germany would just have invaded and conquered the Soviet Union.
First however, they had to neutralize the Allied forces (British and French).
And after Great Britain would not surrender, German U-boats started sinking American ships, as the British and Americans had made a deal where US ships would escort British merchant shipping.
There might have been a way for Nazi Germany to win World War 2 though. If they had just strangled Britain first using many more U-boats than they had in their Navy, Britain would have surrendered before the USA would come into play.
However, there were not that number of U-boats at the beginning of WW2.
Because Hitler had pre-war dreams of a powerful German surface fleet, leading to the production of the 'Pocket Battleships' like the Bismarck and Tirpitz.
2:11 are we gonna talk about how he just yeets the shell into the breach
That was impressive
It's not just about the size of the gun, it's also about how it was employed.
The American Army used 57mm anti tank guns during the Battle of the Bulge.
However, these were used in two sections of two. Two guns on the left of the road, two guns on the right.
A decent commander would have one section fire first (from the left), after which the enemy armour would turn their vehicles into the direction the fire came from.
Then the second section (from the right) would fire, which now had a perfect target, the enemy tanks' side.
I like the lower profile silhouette of the PAK 40 compared to the statuesque 88. Very important when it comes to laying out an ambush.
It's also smaller and lighter than the PAK 43 (the 88 mm cannon).
So it's quicker brought into action or being retreated.
It was the best AT gun available to German forces. The Pak 43 was much better at penetration and range but was to heavy. The PaK 40 was light enough to be bolted on to a symphony of German vehicles in the later stages of the war. So by default it was the best.
Watching the Forgotten Weapons video of firing an actual PaK 40 shows how incredibly difficult it would have been to conceal once fired. Not only does the propellant kick out tons of smoke, just the vibration kicks up dust for 10 feet around and throws everyone’s hair in the air. No wonder there’s so many sad photos of PaK 40s with dead crewmen laying around them from WW2
Thank you for sharing
🏆🤗🙏🇺🇲
Thanks for watching Dr Mark, appreciate the support!
@@PremierHistory You made a mistake in your vidoe you said The Pak40 saw service in 1941.... it didn't see service until 1942
as much as people talk about german guns, I would like to see how good their gunnery training was compared to everyone else. Also they seem to have had very good optics.
Optics and barrel quality was generally excellent radar and transmissions not so good
@@charlesburgoyne-probyn6044Towed AT has neither of the Last two...
Yes! The 88 was the handsome one, the pack 40 did the dirty job. 👍
It certainly was one of the guns of World War II.
Truly one of the anti tank weapons of all time.
No
Ditto.
I agree ! Indeed we have 100% proof that it was a gun in WWII !
Interesting angle.
It was an awesome weapon that had to be delt with quickly on the battlefield.
At the age of 15 and a half I joined the Junior Leaders Regiment Royal Artillery Bramcote, Gamecock Barracks for two years of military training to prepare us to become future NCO's in the Royal Artillery, they had a number of old guns on the base and one of them from what I could gather was a Pak 40 it looked very threatening just siting there in front of the hanger.
You all forget that it's not all about the quality of the weapon. However, the man who uses it decides the battle. Knowledge, courage, perseverance...
The 88 was the most feared cannon of ww2. Very universal cannon. Used as anti aircraft gun originally but put into anti tank roll when they first encountered the t-34 and kv-1. First use as anti tank gun was in France when a bunch of char-b French tanks tryed pushing the German's back. The rounds would hit before you heard the gun go off.
yes but could you put it on every single German chassis built?
The PaK 40 IMHO acheived the optimal balance of an anti-tank gun in its time of service. Sure you could find more powerful guns, but they were also so much heavier and/or bulky that their practical usefullness was limited. You could also find guns much easier to conceal or move, but they would lack the power to be optimal. That the PaK 40 achieved this without access (beyond a very few rounds) to tungsten ammo is impressive but the question also is - if the Germans had widespread access to tungsten ammo would a slightly smaller/lighter design have been optimal? Anyway this also leads me to conclude that the only competitor for the title would be the 6 pdr, but that wasn't so much for gun design but for the availability of superior ammo (APCR and APDS).
Maybe the best gun is the one that can be produced in the highest numbers and still do the job. Compared to the 88, it cost one third to produce it, it cost half the men to operate it and it was produced in larger numbers. The 88 was deployed in a variety of roles, not only as an anti tank gun. Both guns had their strengths.
A formidable weapon! German of course
The PaK 40 was a phenomenal AT weapon. Did anyone employ a progressive twist barrel prion?
88MM gun was the best cannon of the war!
at 1.12 it is french 75mm 1897 with a pak 50 base and a muzzele break that are shown.
The 88 was the most feared cannon of ww2. Very universal cannon. Used as anti aircraft gun originally but put into anti tank roll when they first encountered the t-34 and kv-1. First use as anti tank gun was in France when a bunch of char-b French tanks tryed pushing the German's back.
Think it was British Matildas Against the 7th Panzer division. But Germans actually thought about an antitank role for the 88 which was why they had AP ammo available
A bit reductionist, it traded added ballistic performance at the expense of tactical mobility, it no longer could be moved by teams and began requiring crew served vehicles, not really an upgrade for a country running out of gas
Ok seeing the footage of the Pak40 horse limber is fantastic. I knew that the Germans actually used horses for a lot of their logistics, but that footage was amazing
Lack of oil 🛢️ one of the reasons they lost
@@charlesburgoyne-probyn6044 well yes, but Nazi propaganda was really good about only filming the 10-20% of the army that was Mechanized, So it's really rare to see footage of horse based logistics on RUclips.
@@Executioner9000 beware a propoganda for what it doesn't show in its disingenuousness
yes the best, more tanks destroyed by this gun than any other no matter which mounting you are talking about, the Pak 40 or KWK 40 it did the job
Probably optimal towed AT gun in WWII.
The Pak 36 37mm came to be known as the "German Door Knocker", as all it did by 1942 was kind of knock on the door (ricochet off) and let tanks know someone was shooting at them.
the thing is that that is often all you need to do.
because just hearing a round bonk off the armour doesn't tell you which gun is actually firing, for all you know it could be a PAK-40 just out of effective range, or just a poorly placed shot, either way most tank commanders wouldn't want to stick around to find out or advance into the effective range of whatever just landed a hit on them.
Had tungsten NOT been so rare, the 7.5 Pak 40 would have been the perfect gun, period.
The ONLY reason to go to a bigger caliber was for explosive effect, as explosives were cheaper, and more prevalent, compensating for the lack of tungsten for penetration.
Of course, bigger is NOT better from a standpoint of storage, round handling by the loader, and battlefield load and time in battle.
No, the 7.5 COULD have outweighed the feared and mighty '88', had it not been for tungsten shortage.
If but for the tungsten shortage the Germans would have deployed more than 150 units of the 7.5 cm Pak 41 (41 = 1941 acceptance into service) which was a squeeze bore gun. It outperformed the Ordnance QF 17 pounder in range and penetration without the accuracy and dispersion issues but at only 1390kg was less than half the weight.
@@williamzk9083 Great point!
Did the lack of tungsten influence the desire for more propellant hence the Pak 42?
@@Mattamaza Certainly. More powder in the shell as well as in the casing means greater velocity and explosive potential, overcoming the tungsten advantage of penetration by sheer physical and kinetic power.
The Americans overcame a LOT of German tanks with massive artillery barrages using 155 and 203 mm heavy guns.
No tank could take that kind of firepower.
Most of Germany's Tungsten came from China where it was initially bought from the nationalists whom they were allies with then when allied with Japan via the precarious blockade runners but the loss rate was severe. Hence had to conserve Tungsten for machine tools, one can't have modern metal machining without tungsten, it's also a steel hardener as they were using about a tonne a day and when they surrendered only had about 30 tonnes left unused. Some also came from Spain. Indeed I remember reading that Germany made a major oversight in not organising more Tungsten shipments from China pre 1939 , limited foreign exchange, not anticipating a protracted conflict, a sense of we know better this time so the outcome will be different, although possibly prosaic default like much of life actually, perhaps limited amounts available on the market at the time after all it takes time to mine the ore from the ground and smelt it into powder or ingots ready for use. Nevertheless I find it indulgent all this intense and detailed postulating about various WW2 weapons when our present and future will be decided by the weapons of today although in some cases weapons from that era are having an encore in Ukraine. Indeed it's only years afterwards that such matters at the can be evaluated to the 'nth degree by which time it's loosing much of its relevance..
Look at that recoil
Aesthetically, it's a masterpiece of form following function.
The German AT guns were:
PaK.36 37mm. L.45
PaK.37 50mm. L.42 (only 2,600 built before production was halted in 1941)
PaK.38 50mm. L.60
PaK.39 75mm. L.48
PaK.40 75mm. L.46
PaK.42 75mm. L.70
PaK.43 88mm. L.71
PaK.50 75mm. L.30 (Sawn off PaK.40 on PaK.38/39 chassis)
PaK.97 75mm. L.36 (PaK.38/39 carriage with French 75mm. L.36 field gun barrel & breech)
Idk why, but I find field guns really cool. Its a shame they are obsolete
About as good as it gets for an antitank gun, but best gun of the war? That's probably the 88mm...
Do a video 📹 on the British 17 pounder and American 76mm
They were the best for practical barrel length.
German troops called the Pak 36 *der Türklopfer* , 'The Doorknocker' because it was so useless against Soviet armor.
Every one had a 1 inch gun at the start of the war. USSR used anti tank rifles through the war.
@@rogersmith7396 Everyone had horse cavalry w/ sabers at the start of the war, too. lol And the Russkis still had whole divisions at the end of the war...
The Pak 40 is 3,300 lbs. The Flak 88 is 20,000 lbs. All in all and # for # the Pak 40 was the better antitank gun.
A more direct comparison would be to the Pak 43, which was around 10,000 lbs. Your point still stands though: It was much heavier. And not many Pak 43s were made anyway.
A physical description of the"creature" would have been helpful.😅
The best !
Definitely the best overall anti-tank gun.
Good penetration and accuracy against armour at range, with a decent HE round for soft targets. Compact and relatively light, making it easy to haul into position and conceal. Rugged and inexpensive to produce.
@3:30 note Horsedrawn artllery, the Pak 40.
Or the transport of most of the Wermacht.😮
Seems like they should take an obsolete tank chassis, like a Panzer III or a Czech 38T, mount these guns in a casemate. Maybe even use a bigger gun if it becomes available.
Marder2 panzer2 chassis pak40 gun
Marder3 38t chassis pak40 gun
Sounds like a great idea! And maybe they could even name it Sturmgeschütz
Brilliant idea...The Fuhrer likes😂
Always thought the 88 was ..( it certainly was feared)..
Exellelent
Did these guns also incorporate an anti-personnel shell or smoke? The reason I ask is that I was trained on the 34mm Karl Gustaf Medium anti-tank weapon.Although designed as an anti-tank weapon it could also fire a anti personnel round. Just wondering.
Yes, 7.5cm PaK 40 had high-explosive, high-explosive hollow-charge (HEAT), and smoke rounds available in addition to two or three armor-piercing types (depending on time and place).
Pretty much all conventional German guns had impact-fused high-explosive and smoke as standard options. German doctrine for antitank gunners was not for the guns to sit idle while others attacked, waiting for tanks to show up. To the best of their ability, PaKs were expected to move with the attacking force, engaging bunkers and foxholes if there were no tanks to shoot at instead.
The term you want to look for if you are seeing German data on their HE shells is Sprenggranate.
@@genericpersonx333 Many thanks for your reply.
There is no doubt that the Pak 40 was an excellent gun. But when one reads allied autobiographies of WW2, they always mention their fear of the 88mm, and seldom do they write of the Pak 40. Or at least from the books I read.
When a shell wizzes past your tank from the tree line how do you tell the difference between a 75 and 88mm?
Tremendous weight and maneuverability difference between the two! One is simple and utilized independently, the other as a battery of 4?
The allies reported any incoming fire as 88’s, and tanks encountered as tigers, as these weapons where most feared where front of mind. But in reality mostly they were nearly always encountering PAK40’s and Pz IV’s and STUG’s.
A lot of that is from bomber crews. Can't shoot a pak 40 at a bomber
I mean, just like how every tank was a Tiger, did the crews really know what gun fired at em? A PAK 40 will blow a tank apart just like an 88 sooo...
1:13 This gun is a french 75mm.
1:21 This one is a 5cm Pak 38
I served in anti tanks , two of those bad boys were at the companys door.
I hate low penetration capabilities.
It was nearly the end of the PAK as such. Till 1943 it was very successful against tanks.
Later the allieds and as well the soviets learned to deal with PAK. It was very vulnerable against artillery, mortar fire and as well high explosive grenades of >75mm calibre. Due to its low mobility it was usually lost during the retreats of 1944/45.
The followers were such tank hunters as the 38T Hetzer, Jagdpanzer Kanone and guided missiles from other nations. Only the Soviet Union used widely PAK (100mm) after ww2.
Love me some Pak40
Jó álca ,és veszejes!!
Great Gun. Easily as versatile as the 88 though not as powerful. Made up for it's lesser power being more mobile. Unfortunately the Germans made many Great weapons. Thank God they didn't focus on a better battle Rifle until near the end of the war. This was a very enjoyable video. Thanks
Wow it can be towed by horse chart??
Can it also be towed with kubelwagen??
Greatly feared by the allied tankers. It’s low silhouette made it highly concealable . The Germans had such great weaponry but fiddle fucked around too much on multiple designs. Build one good tank and stick with it like the Panther or the upgunned
Panzer IV. Forget those huge and hard to maintain Tigers and king tigers not to mention that monstrous Maus! Going to the Stugs was a good idea as well.
Don’t get me started on those huge rail road guns when aircraft should have been the priority.
Hitler meddled way too much in weapon design and caused both the MG-44 as well as the possibility war winning
ME 262 jet fighter to be delayed by over a year! Just another arm chair historians two cents worth!
Hitler's meddling was the convenient part of the story, shortage of cobalt, the 300 tonnes of Japanese occupied Philippine cobalt that was lost aboard the Rio Grande in January 1944 was a blow to their cause. The engine turbine blades were not suitable quality as a result and would wear out in no time at all
id like if you would do a video about the raketenwerfer and explain about its history or develompent
A buddy of mine had a pak 38 in his basement lol
During Operation Barbarossa, when the Heer first encountered that armored beast, the Soviet JV1 and the shell had zero effect, I read the PAK 36 earned the sobering sobriquet "Hitler's Door knocker" did it not?
Le panzer abver canon 40 avait tout pour lui mais surtout sont calibre employés par beaucoup d’armées
Germany was the first nation to start developing AT weapons, by the sequel war, they knew what worked and what didn't.
it had a gun shield and a lower profile than an 88
Was a fine AT, but the german's best was Pak 41, 75 mm L/70
This gun score a IS-2 kill frontally from 500m+. It's show how powerful this gun is at the time.
I think British 17 pounder is better overall but it get the job done.
British 17 pounder could do a bit of damage. That's why they put em in Sherman tanks. But the Germans made excellent cannons 88 was pretty handy eh
Pak 40 very exelent
A 75mm gun that can kill nearly all of the allied tanks in one shot and being cheep hell yeah the only down side to it is how heavy it was the whole thing is made of complete metal
Best gun? That British 17 pounder......
The 17 pdr was too big and too heavy - it had all the same problems as the 88mm Pak 43 whilst being significantly less powerful so any argument that elevates the 17 pdr over the Pak 40 simultaneously elevates the Pak 43 over the 17 pdr. In most applications the 6 pdr was actually better because of the lightness and concealability of the gun.
The Pak 40 represented the best compromise of hitting power and lightness, with the 6 pdr or the Soviet ZiS-2 probably being the second best.
Für mich war es eine der Besten PaK
a beauty
One of the best , the 17pd British , the 88 of course
I would like one.
Per me questo è la Flack88 sono stati i migliori cannoni della seconda guerra mondiale
I read it had more penetrating power than the 88
This video looks nice but contains many broad statements that have no supporting evidence. It's claim that the gun influenced post-war designs is just silly, since AT guns were no longer used after WW2.
It took out a lot of allied tanks
Now take the PAK 40 and call it the StuK40 and cause some real headaches.
Did the German Army, ever mount Pack 40 anti tank guns on trucks, or any other vehicles?
Which anti tank guns were developed after WWII?
Most videos kinda sorta brought up the fact that the Wehrmacht realized how ineffective Pak 36 was when they encountered Soviet tanks in 41(T 34, KV 1 series). The reality was Germans faced heavy tanks that the Pak 36 was incapable of effectively engaging all the way back to Battle of France when it had difficulties penetrating both the french made Char series tanks and the British Matilda's, almost a year before the invasion of Soviet Union and did nothing to rectify their shortcomings. Had the allies had better co ordination and tactics they'd have given the German army a run for their money as none of the German equipments were in any terms better than their allied counterparts.
Not true, the 50mm AT gun was introduced in autumn 1940 and would have been used in the invasion of Britain by a few units if that had happened. It was first used in the invasion of Yugoslavia. Hitler insisted that all tank guns be upgraded to 50mm prior to the invasion of Russia, though that took a while to implement and only a short version used.
@@christopherwebber3804 I couldn't find any reference of the Pak 38 being used before 1941(Eastern front). If you have some detailed info I'd love to hear it. Also it begs the question that had the Wehrmacht already introduced Pak 38 to frontline services, why were they not deployed in the opening months of Barbarossa.
This is complete rubbish. The 50mm Pak 38 was ordered before the war even started - the clue is in the name, as it was ordered in 1938. However, you can't just magic new guns into existence - they need to be designed, tested, approved, put into mass production and distributed to the troops, all of which takes time. The Pak 38 was not available for the battle of France, but was in service (though not very widespread) by the time of the Operation Barbarossa. Further, as the name implies, the Pak 40 was ordered in 1940, also before the invasion of the Soviet Union, and the first guns were entering service only a few months after the operation began. Clearly the Germans were alive to the limitations of their Anti-tank weapons, were in fact working hard to "rectify their shortcomings" and the fact that both the Pak 38 and Pak 40 were only just around the corner at the moments they were needed shows that the Germans were mostly on top of their Anti-tank requirements which is something you absolutely cannot say about the Western Allies.
@@mattbowden4996 The 2 pounder stayed in production for so long only because of the crisis of 1940, when the British army lost most of its anti-tank guns in France and any gun was better than none. The 6 pounder could have gone into production much earlier but it would have meant a period when few guns were available to defend Britain at a time when invasion was thought possible.
@@christopherwebber3804 True, but it was still late into service irrespective of the reason which is not something you can really accuse the Pak 40 of. Besides, there is more to the story than just the British - take a look at how behind the curve the Americans were. They didn't adopt the 37mm M3 until 1940, at which point it was already obsolete and didn't have anything even remotely ready to replace it which is why they adopted the 6 pdr as the 57mm M1 - in 1943! The 3" M5 also wasn't ready until 1943 and although quite powerful, that was a crude lash-up in comparison to the Pak 40.
Puppchen/Raketenwefer 43?
Actually was the most Successfull AT gun of the war.
The video is not viewable. Every 10-20 seconds the "Windows doughnut" (modern equivalent of the infamous Windows "hourglass") appears and the video stops (...and won't recover. For fun I had it running for an hour in a 2nd tab, just to see what happens). Only workaround is to fast-forward a view seconds. I blame RUclips for that. They don't want me to see this video. 😞
One hekuva powerful gun.. There are videos on RUclips of the guns being fired...new vids, not the ww2 videos.
Was it particularly effective at a front shot to T34 76? From a relative who served in Korea 1950. Almost everything the Americans had to combat the T34/85 was useless...
Yes, the Pak 40 could destroy a T-34 at normal combat ranges from the front. The JS series were armored to withstand the Pak 40 as it was the gun most widely used by the Germans for anti-tank defense.
Also, the 76mm gun on the M4A3E8's used in Korea could destroy the T-34 at normal combat ranges. The problem was the only tanks available early on were M24's with a low power 75mm gun. A couple M26's with a good 90mm were lost due to engine problems and did not see combat in the early weeks of the Korean war. The anti-tank rockets they had in the early stages were still the lousy 2.37 rounds from WWII. After the US got the M4A3E8's, properly serviced M26's and the 3.5" rockets into the war the T-34's were easily destroyed. After the breakout from Pusan, and the attack at Inchon, there were very few T-34's left intact.
@@tankmaker9807 Good point. I have several relatives that were combat veterans of the Korean war. What they saw was tank kills that often favored the T3485. For example, these combat veterans described 10 or 12 Shermans, or pershing tanks engaging with several T34s. At the end of the engagement, 2 or maybe 3 US tanks would return...
@@russbrown6453 I am an armored warfare buff. The first time the T-34's attacked the M26's they lost every T-34 with no loss to the M26's. More US tanks were lost to mines and artillery than to T-34's. The T-34 was not a wonder weapon, it had numerous flaws.
@@russbrown6453 To be clearer, there are distinct phases to Korean war tank vs tank combat. Before Pusan most US tanks in Korea were the M24 Chaffee, a light tank with a low power 75mm gun. They were out gunned and out armored by the T-34. Two M26 Pershing heavy tanks were sent, but lost due to faulty fan belts before getting any combat time. The first Shermans in Korea were from storage in Japan, and did not get into combat until Pusan as far as I can tell. Your relatives might have seen that stage of the fighting and the early Pusan fighting.
During Pusan the first M4A3E8's arrived from the US. At that time the T-34 crews were mostly WWII veterans of combat against the Germans. That was an advantage early in the fighting, but not some much later as the US crews got experience.
I am not sure what your relatives witnessed, but the only time there was major tank vs tank combat with the Shermans was at Pusan and the breakout. Until the breakout US tanks were part of a combined arms defense front. A group of tanks might be sent out to assist in an attack, or counter attack, and then sent back in stages to fuel and re-arm, but there was no large loss of tanks like in WWII.
@@tankmaker9807 With all do respect of being a armored warfar buff, that doesn't exclude you from being incorrect. I'm sure the Germans thought their armor warfare buffs we correct in 1941. As far as what happened in Korea, I'm going to believe people who were eye witness' of what the topic of our discussion is. Probably neither one of us were actually there...
Your pak 38 illustration was a pak 40.
where can I buy one ? It is after all a semi automatic !!
no doubt they would serve well today
Only battle Tank’S , all lighter no chance❤😊
Gun, yes.
Weapon system ?
Debatable.
I'd argue that the 50mm and 6 pounder were the utter limit as to weight and practicality for towed AT guns.
The Pak40 was the Best ant-tank gun of WWII, Flak88 was very heavy and difficult to relocate.
The 8.8cm FLAK 37 was towed into battle and positioned with the same half track as the 150cm German heavy field gun as it was so heavy. When opperating in the Army Support role 8,8cm FLAK 37 was designed to protect rearward areas, bases and supply depots from air attack. These same rearward areas were in danger of being over run by tanks that had broken through lines and one of the jobs of AT guns was to protect these. The 88 FLAK 37 was duel purpose because it had been provided with suitable guns shields, sights, depression angle could engage tanks in an emergency. The 88 thus greatly supplemented the 7.5cm PaK 40. With time and a little earth excavation it could be well hidden though it was clearly not a weapon that could be as easily hidden to ambush tanks. It's range and accuracy meant it could often pick of enemy tanks at great range. If there was a hard nut to crack (say a heavily armored KV-1 tank) the 88 could be brought forward at night and dug in and camouflaged.
-A specialized 88 Pak 43 At gun was produced in 1943. It was lighter and had 60% more penetration due to higher 1000 m/s velocity.
-The 8.8cm FLAK 37 was also useful in the counter artillery role being able to air burst rounds above enemy artillery that had been located by sound locators or simply air bursting above attacking infantry. A very useful and versatile weapon but certainly a bit heavy.
Guys i’m going to do the unfunny joke that’s in 99% of all comment sections… I like the part where they said it’s pak 40bin time
It or the British 17# anti-tank gun