Japanese tanks (except those that were produced late war and mostly held back for defense of the Home Islands) were so lightly armored that they confused the US M-3 Lee & M-4 Sherman tankers because they could seemingly take a hit from a 75mm gun firing a AP round and keep on going! It wasn't too long that they realized that the Japanese tank's armor was so thin that unless the US 75mm AP round hit the engine or the gun itself it was passing through both sides of the tank and kept on going down range! They also found setting the fuse on a 75mm HE shell to a slight time delay (like what you set it for to shoot at a building so that the shell would explode inside the building instead of blowing up when it hit the wall) woke just fine for the Japanese tanks they were encountering while island hopping!
@@Tim.NavVet.EN2 If I recall correctly, the Japanese tanks were so lightly armoured that the 75mm HE was actually almost more effective than the AP due to the reasons you stated. It would pop the rivets and split the armour, basically turning the tanks steel into shrapnel, whereas the AP would just blow through with minimal comparative damage.
@@Tim.NavVet.EN2Whats pretty interesting is that it was done so they wouldn't bog down, easy to transport and generally were only ment to be infantry support but due to the battles years earlier->a certain bald individual->made a new tactic/doctrine rather than using the one from years earlier that made use of the vehicles to their maximum, Japan basically nerfed themselves by approving an idiots tactic/doctrine. The US had to do this as well. Which is why Sherman's weren't as common in the Pacific. When it was->Pain in the ass for the Japanese. Since Type-90 ATG's weren't very common compared to the 37 or 47mm's.
And against French tanks, especially D-2, SOMUA S-35, B1 Bis, and against British tanks like Matilda I and II, this Pak 36 was indeed useless. It wasn't nicknamed "the Door-Knocker" by its own users for nothing.
The gun was good enough against the vast majority of tanks in the first half of the war, especially against the Soviets who had thousands of tank but they were mostly with armor barely enough to resist machine gun fire. The Battle of Brody (1941) was probably the largest tank battle in history, larger than even the Battle of Prokhorovka (1943) by number of tanks, the Soviet tanks massively outnumbered the German tanks but it was the 3.7cm Panzerabwehrkanone that made the difference. Considering the lack of mechanization of the German army even in 1941, this gun being so light was probably more valuable than a gun that's far heavier and has firepower that isn't needed most of the time.
Soviet Union purchased a license for this gun and produced it at first in original caliber and then upsized to 45mm with longer barrel. That gun was used extensively by Red Army until late 40s. It also found way to serve in Polish and Bulgarian armies ( possibly others as well). Both versions were in service with Finnish army during Continuation War and long after war.
Longer barrle is a relative statement, Barrle length is allways in relation to caliber size, the 3,7 cm is L/45, the 53-K is also "just" L/46, in proportion, it isnt really that much longer for the caliber, the 5 cm Pak 37 L/42 (that didnt go into production and was developed into the 5 cm KwK 38 L/42) had a smaller number, but with 2.10m was a little bit longer than the russian 45 with 2.07m.
@@Ghostmaxi1337 The M1942 45mm gun had a 68 caliber tube. They were encoountered even by US forces in Korea in 1950-53. Not claiming it was any good after 1942 or so, but, it was a 68-caliber weapon.
@@executivedirector7467 Yes, but as the title also sayes, its a after 1942 gun, and even it is weaker than the 5 cm Pak 38 L/60, even with the longer barrle.
In terms of mobility vs firepower, this thing is a pretty good trade off for the time. It had a pretty decent rate of fire, and the fact that it can be wheeled around the battlefield by manpower alone is a huge advantage when rapid repositioning is important, giving the ability to set up ambushes on the fly. And yes, the firepower isn't amazing. But not everything it will be shooting at is going to be a heavily armoured vehicle. For anything less, having one of these pointing your way meant you were in for a rough time lol.
"For the time" only, by 1943 most Allied tanks were well-protected against the obsolete Pak 36. With an eventual total of 50,000 T-34 and 40,000 Shermans coming at Germany on both sides, the panzerjager team had to pick up some slacks and ready to face lots of tank, and beside German infantry divisions couldn't really have an Anti-tank company that couldn't actually anti-tank.
It stay in use to provide defense against armor cars, light tanks, 1 because they could fire faster, easier to move 2, shooting a 37 doesn't give away where the 75 is ...
@richardvangelder3666 That is what happens when you build a gun that weighs more than 7 tonnes - the 37 mm PaK 36 weighed in as a medium trailer and could be easily pulled by a Kubelwagen or similar Jeep-like vehicle, the 88 required a half track or a 4 / 6 wheel drive truck. A PanzerGranate 39 under absolute ideal circumstances, would kill about 90 mm of armour, surpassed by the M4 “Easy Eight”, the Churchill, the Pershing and several of the Russian heavies. Yes, the PaK / FlaK 43 did come into play but they were not only late war designs but also in the minority to the earlier designs and firing a much more massive shell.
It should be noted that the Germans actually did have a high velocity 3.7cm L/70 gun in the pre-war era (mid-1930s). The weapon was, in fact, meant to be mounted in a turreted half-track or fast "Tankjager." Designed by Rheinmetall-Borsig and known as the 3.7cm Selbstfahrlafette L/70 auf Hansa-Loyd HL.kl-3(H), it was meant to fill the roll of a fast maneuverable self-propelled AT gun. One prototype was built 1936 but none were authorized for production.
"How effective was the 3.7 cm Panzerabwehrkanone 36?" Not very. But it's light weight allowed it to be used in ways otherwise not possible, which made it very convenient and useful despite that. And it's far above average functionality against non-armored targets made it extremely versatile. The gun would have been absolutely perfect during WWI.
It was effective even in WW2, especially in early war since the vast majority of Soviets tanks back then were BT-7, T-26, armor cars,...Not T-34 or KV-1. Not to mentions, it could also equip HEAT rounds to defeat such tanks.
US 37 mm M-6 was found to be effective vs Infantry with He and Cannister rounds, The Pak 36 was effective with AP and He rounds vs light tanks , and was more of a General Purpose light cannon. Good for bunkers as it had a decent chance of getting a round THROUGH a view slit and detonating inside. There was one case when an early T-34 took something like 80 or so hits from a 37..and never killed the PaK. Why ? The crew never SAW it. Depends on the vehicle and crew. ruclips.net/video/98JbJuXE3JE/видео.html
I heard that if you'd rechamber it for french Hotchkiss naval 3 pounder and measure caliber from the grooves peak, it'll become even better. Context: it's sarcasm about soviet 45mm. Considering what italians and japanese were dealing with, both those guns were superb in their weight class.
Since the Mathilda, KV and T34 where introduced after the Pak36 there was no realistic way Rheinmetall could have made a gun capabale of dealing with not yet existing tanks.
"light" is relative at around 450kg the thing is a pain in the rear to move by foot. Had the pleasure to move one as Schütze 2 at the beginning of the year in Holland. It was not much fun and the thing is blody heavy to move over longer distances and by longer i mean more then a few 100 meters.
The 37mm. L.46 PaK.35/36 original AP ammunition was the PzGr.18 APHE shell, developed by Krupp in the late 1920's. It could penetrate up to 44mm. of RHA @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres and was the primary AP ammunition type, for the gun, from 1935 until 1940, after which it was withdrawn from combat use and relegated for target practice usage at gunnery schools. By 1940, the PzGr.39 APCBC-HE shell had entered service and offered considerably improved performance, albeit with only 25% of the explosive filler charge of the PzGr.18 APHE shell.
I dont know what your source is, but its wrong. In many aspects. The Pzgr. And Pzgr.18 are pretty much identical, however the Pzgr.18 was actually imployed by the 3,7 cm Flak 18. There was no APCBC Pzgr.39 for 3,7 cm, there wasnt even a need for it, because the protective cap moves the shattergap to a higher velocity, that wasnt even reached with the 3,7 cm iirc. Only the (not in full production) 3,7 cm Pak L/65 and L/70 had a 0,75kg APCBC round, but not the L/45. Aside that, the Pzgr. Only has 13g PENT filler, only ~25% of the filler would mean ~3,25g, that would be *nothing*. I think you or your source switched it up with the 7,5 cm K.Gr. Rot Pz and 7,5 cm Pzgr.39, which went from 80g Fp.02 and Np.10 to 18g Pent.
@@MM22966 According to Wikipedia: 884 m/s (2,900 ft/s) compared to 3.7 PaK at 762 m/s (2,500 ft/s), so you're right - but it still proved ineffective against newer tanks. The US eventually adopted a 57mm based on the British 6pdr. The 37mm remained in use as an infantry support weapon.
One "flaw" that's missing from this presentation is the weak HE round. USSR considered buying this gun in the 30ies but decided to do a copy with 45mm caliber instead to make the HE worthwhile. In terms of armor penetration the both guns were about equal since the Soviet AP rounds were lower quality. In Sweden we had a similar 37mm gun made by Bofors. The commander of the Swedish army thought that this gun was good enough to keep after the war because the latest ammunition should be good enough to penetrate the side armor of T-34/85. A test sequence was designed to test the validity of that claim. The first setup simulated shooting at the tank straight from the side at 100m range, circumstances way better than what could be expected. The target was an armor plate of the right quality and thickness sloped at the proper angle. Behind the plate was a container with water simulating a member of the crew. The first shot was indeed able to penetrate the plate, but just barely. The "crew" took no damage at all! That one shot was enough to make the commander change his mind and order better weapons for the army.
In addition to its small size and weight, this gun had another important advantage - a high rate of fire and good accuracy. In a video lecture about the Battle of Rzhev, an episode was told about how some Soviet tanks had their 76 mm gun barrels damaged under fire from a PAK-36. Apparently, experienced gunners, knowing that armor could not be penetrated at long range, tried to disarm enemy tanks. In relation to the T-34, one can notice that a large area on the frontal armor is occupied by the driver's hatch and machine gun mount. Reports from Soviet commanders in 1941 indicated that there were cases of the hatch or machine gun mount being knocked out when hit by 37 mm German shells.
Interestingly enough, in the movie Patton, there's a scene where an American vehicle is towing a German 37 mm. Either that was a goof or it was a captured one. One 37 mm AT gun is also on the train in the final scenes of Red Dawn. (the original one)
Rheinmetall did make a 3.7cmL50 PAK before the war, with spoked wheels for horse limbers - it was exported to Turkey as the TAK28, where they built it under licence from 1942, and Sweden had some too, 6 in 1940 and another 71 in 1942. The Steilgranate 41 had a 50% dud rate due to poor manufacturing, so whilst formidable penetration half of the hits made failed to do any damage.
@@Treblaine I think that was what the German soldiers thought at the time. Unfortunately I can't remember the reference where I've seen it, possibly on Axis History Forum. They did make 636,000 of them though (the grenades) so that was a lot of fuses to replace!
@@TreblaineThe op is only half correct, there was a problem with riccochets of the 15 cm Stielgranate, it employed both a Nose and bottom fuze. The 50%dud number seems a bit over the top.
I think the name was given by individual soldiers after encounters with some bigger tanks but overall it was able to knockout most tanks far into the war. They based that name on their own expierences without having the bigger picture. Same with "tommy cooker". Yeah, Shermans catched fire but that goes for all tanks of the era. These names spread very quickly among the front troops.
Under the Chieftan's Hatch has a number of good videos about tanks. One comment was that any British tank that served in the desert was a Tommy Cooker.
11:00 The Pzgr.40 could penetrate the flat side and Back of Kv-1/2 and T-34. Also in the manuals, shooting with HE ans HEI rounds (many of the HE rounds also existed with the name addition of "Al.", these were rounds where aluminium dust was added to the filler, resuliting in hotter and faster detonation with greater pressure wave as well as added incendary effect) at the exhaust ports and cooling grills to inflict engine fires.
It's lightness of the gun,and rounds was an asset, and the German being such master tacticians found ways to make the 'doorknocker' open the can , the later 50 and 75 was obviously balistically more powerful but at the penalty of more weight!
While the Pak 36 still had a bit relevancy in terms of mobility and ease of use in 1939-1942, despite unimpressive AT performance as war progressed, but even that relevancy was soon lost as soon as Panzerschreck and Panzerfaust came into common uses in German infantries by 1943 - being far more cheaper and lighter, yet much effective against armor, with the only downside being lesser range and accuracy, (though Pak36 itself weren't exactly very accurate or long range either). And had not there been the Panzerschreck, the lesser know 8.8cm Raketenwerfer would likely replace the Pak36 as the light mobile AT guns for infantries.
A PaK-36 weighs a bit less than 500 kilograms, compared to the 1000kg of the 50mm PaK-38, 1500kg of the 75mm PaK-41, and 3.600 kg of the 88mm PaK-43. A weapon that can be moved by manpower alone or just a single horse, compared to weapons that need designated half-tracks with their own supply of fuel and parts has pretty significant effects on logistics. A weapon you can bring along is far more effective than the one that needs to be abandoned in place due to petrol shortages.
In the game WW2 Online it was modeled fairly accurately. (Based on historical records.) I Loved this weapon. In the hands of an expert, with knowledge of vehicle weaknesses, it was extremely effective. For it's time, and against it's contemporary targets, it was devastating. Being team portable it was both maneuverable and concealable. I could shoot the left track of an oncoming Char B1 Bis to swerve it to the side and then put a shot directly through the weak radiator grill on the right side straight into the engine. Pop goes the weasel.
They actually did this on a few rare occasions. For example, there is a photograph of a Panzer I with its turret removed and replaced with a 3.7 cm PaK anti-tank gun. Similarly, the turrets from Panzer II tanks, which were sometimes used as static pillboxes, were occasionally retrofitted with 3.7 cm guns from the Panzer III. However, such modifications were generally impractical for standard tanks due to the limited working space available inside them.
The aromour penetration of the 20mm auto gun on the P2 was absolutely sufficient due to high velocity, and the P1 was not envisioned as a main line tan. You might as well ask, why not 4 man crew for the 7TP?
Factories explains it that owners who were royalty did not fear Hitler, they were supposed to get rid of 37 and use 55,75,on tanks Also thanks 1-3 scrap
The PanzerKampfwagen I was never meant to enter combat but was merely a training tank so crew could learn to handle and maintain tanks on a budget. PzKfW II was envisioned as a scout / patrol light tank, the work horse of the Panzer Divisions was supposed to be the PzKfW III, which DID field a 37 mm KwK and later a 50 mm KwK. (As it were, the PzKfW III would end up as the light tank and the original support tank, the PzKfW IV, with it’s 75 mm gun, would take the role as the main tank of the Third Reich.)
The grenade the 37mm fired was later adapted for the panzerschrek. until the Germans discovered the US bazooka, they had never seriously considered a rocket propelled round.
The 37mm. L.46 PaK.35/36 had a twin brother, the 50mm. L.42 PaK.37, of which only 2,600 were manufactured until its withdraw from service in 1942. The PaK.37 had an HE shell that weighed just over 2 Kg. and was intended to double as an infantry gun as well as an anti-tank gun. In appearance, The PaK.37 looks identical to the PaK.35/36 and uses the same breech block, carriage and sights. However, its armour penetration performance was disappointing, being capable of only capable of penetrating up to 55mm. of RHA @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres with KGrPz. APHE and up to 69mm. of RHA @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres with PzGr.39 APCBC-HE. Because of this, the 50mm. L.60 PaK.38 development programme was instigated.
There did exist the 5 cm Pak 37 L/42, it was developed into the KwK 38, however it wasnt build, in any numbers, it was abanond in favour of the Pak 38 L/60. There is also no 5 cm K.Gr. Rot Pz, you are mixing info up with the 7,5 cm KwK 37 L/24, which had it, and later production ceased in favour of Pzgr.39.
I've always thought we need an assault/AT gun like this in the modern army. I get that shoulder mounted weapons have largely replaced it. And you can get direct fire weaponry from tanks/IFV's etc. But I still think there's something to be said for the infantry themselves having an assault gun on the line with them. Should be at the company or battalion level. As an infantry gun, not an AT gun. You'd still just use Javelin or whatever for that.
The ability to hide is so much more important than in WW2. Maybe against insurgents, but one can get away with so much against insurgents that a near peer would punish ruthlessly. Especially in the era of drone warfare.
The Soviets thought the same and continued using AT guns into the cold war, now we have both sides of a certain infamous war using the MT-12 Rapira 100mm AT gun quite effectively....
As long as you are on foot you are limited to whatever your team can carry, the war in Ukraine is showing how small units deploy fast with as much as they can carry to fight for 2-3 days (food, weapons and ammunition), either deployed in fast all terrain vehicles (to defend a village or a strong point, Ukrainians are doing that) or motorbikes (for fast assault tactics, Russians are doing this), and I think they are not carrying cannons with them, maybe portable rockets and grenade launchers, also drones of course.
@@JForrestFisher--76 both. tho at this point its not exactly an AT gun more like an infantry support gun since most of what it does is sling HE at enemy positions.
It was effective up to the point when Germans decided to go big boom. I mean 3.7CM cannon was great, cause it was massive but they decided to go larger for the sake of big boom. Look what russians did with their pakfront. They massively used 45mm caliber till end of the WWII, cause big boom boom effect didn't matter to them. They only wanted to damage tanks so bad they couldn't fight anymore eg. Damaging peryscopes, tank tracks etc.
What dou mean "better than you think" ? It was good enough against the very lightly armored tanks of the early war (most French, Polish and British cruiser tanks).. but running into heavier stuff (Char B or the Matilda), it was useless... then again, so was everything but the 88mm, hehe. It also had success early in Barbarossa, against the horde of Soviet light tanks (BT-5, BT-7, T-26 and whatsalltheirnames).. but once it ran into the T-34 and KV series, it was practically useless. The 3.7 cm was the same gun as on what was the German "main battle tank" at the time, the Panzer III. The 5 cm they upgraded to was better, but not good enough, so they upgraded again almost immediately to a 7.5 cm, which was the main armament on the Pz. IV's and StuG III's until the war's end.
It´s a rather nice gun in Call to Arms: Ostfront. It´s quick firing rate and decent HE ammunition, combined with its low weight and resulting quick pivoting speed makes it really dangerous to approach with infantry, and its relatively good APs makes it also too dangerous for fast light tanks and armored cars. In the end, the best way to deal with it is with well armored vehicles, which are pricy and rare, or artillery bombardment. And once it becomes obsolete, like when the AI starts using Shermans or T-34s, you can still use it to cover larger AT guns and protect them from flanking vehicles and infantry.
It looks puny (the clip of the soldier casually tossing the round into the breach one-handed made chuckle), but let's keep in mind the standard tank guns at the time ranged from 20mm to 37mm. So this was the same to almost TWICE the size (by caliber) what a tank could do. Imagine an Abrams or T-series tank being shot at by a 250mm AT gun. (hypothetically, for the lulz)
@TankEncyclopediaYT can I ask if there's an actual image for the US Bridge Layer Sherman, I only see the British version. I do Minecraft tutorial which I'm doing right now are the US only Sherman and it's variants, the bridge layer one is I'm lack of
Any chance TE could also cover the Soviet Union's WW2-era anti-tank guns as well? I recalled their standard 45mm AT gun series began as licensed copies of the 37mm PaK 36 before developing into the 45mm AT gun series.
years ago, I read an excerpt from how AT gunners used the PAK 37 against T34s and KV1s, though it was kind of hair raising: either they (or a light artillery piece) would wait until the tank was head on to them, then they'd fire an HE shell at the view port (more of a hatch) on the 'glacis plate'; the explosion would make the hatch fly open (usually) and then the gunners would pop another shell thru the open hatch, taking out the crew inside. Naturally, you needed the tank to be right in your face AND you needed nerves (and other body parts) of steel.
If soviet tank crews were trained to run over anti tank guns, was it standard procedure to lay anti tank mines as the gun crews abandoned the gun when being run down?
The Germans complied a report to determine what was the effectiveness of various weapons against T-34's. According to Germany's own records the PAK 36 accounted for about 21% of T-34's knocked out. The two most effective were artillery and mines.
Long-term planning? 😂 They expected to conquer everything up to the foothills of the Urals before the first snows fell. 😂 Just gotta kick in the door and all that. 😂
Think of it not as a towed AT gun, but as it's generation's RPG. The midwar lack of effective infantry portable AT weapons was an anomaly. With the downfall of the 37mm, armor was temporarily winning the gun/armor contest, allowing more decisive use of armor than would've been possible before or after. Yes there were always effective field guns, but they're not what the infantry often had available.
Penetration values given here are wrong. Original german sources shows 34mm @ 100m and 26mm @ 600m. (PzGr.40 - 64mm @ 100m)... Your 48mm @ 500m is ridiculous - that is just physically impossible with that projectile weight and velocity.
The numbers you are referencing are calculated against 30°-angled armor. However, we are discussing flat armor in this context. These numbers can greatly differ between soruces. Do you have those German soruces?
The german numbers are for 125 kg/cm^2 and higher, thats 450 bhp and harder steel. The in video give infos are for softer steel as employed by most nations (except russia). As well as what the other persion allready sayed, German penetration numbers are GENERALLY for 30° impact angle. And then there are different penetration criteria with different nations, Germanys criteria is FULL penetration with the round still beeing able to detonate behind armor. The actual penetration strength where it doesnt detonate anymore, or only partial penetration with heavy shrapnell will be higher than german Criteria writes.
In China, the 37mm Pak 36 was still reverent as Japanese armor remain light throughout WW2.
Japanese tanks (except those that were produced late war and mostly held back for defense of the Home Islands) were so lightly armored that they confused the US M-3 Lee & M-4 Sherman tankers because they could seemingly take a hit from a 75mm gun firing a AP round and keep on going!
It wasn't too long that they realized that the Japanese tank's armor was so thin that unless the US 75mm AP round hit the engine or the gun itself it was passing through both sides of the tank and kept on going down range!
They also found setting the fuse on a 75mm HE shell to a slight time delay (like what you set it for to shoot at a building so that the shell would explode inside the building instead of blowing up when it hit the wall) woke just fine for the Japanese tanks they were encountering while island hopping!
@@Tim.NavVet.EN2 If I recall correctly, the Japanese tanks were so lightly armoured that the 75mm HE was actually almost more effective than the AP due to the reasons you stated.
It would pop the rivets and split the armour, basically turning the tanks steel into shrapnel, whereas the AP would just blow through with minimal comparative damage.
Relavant
@@John.McMillan As I stated, in one side and out the other! However the HE could penetrate some parts of IJA tanks....
@@Tim.NavVet.EN2Whats pretty interesting is that it was done so they wouldn't bog down, easy to transport and generally were only ment to be infantry support but due to the battles years earlier->a certain bald individual->made a new tactic/doctrine rather than using the one from years earlier that made use of the vehicles to their maximum, Japan basically nerfed themselves by approving an idiots tactic/doctrine. The US had to do this as well. Which is why Sherman's weren't as common in the Pacific. When it was->Pain in the ass for the Japanese.
Since Type-90 ATG's weren't very common compared to the 37 or 47mm's.
Always thought this thing was crap but I've now changed my mind, also the fact it could fire a big fin stabilized grenade is both genius and hilarious
That one episode of band of brothers where a bunch of Fallschirmjäger fire one from their pak 36
This and the 2pr were excellent weapons which forced militaries to produce larger more expensive tanks
Awesome tech for its time. Better than the 2pdr.
And against French tanks, especially D-2, SOMUA S-35, B1 Bis, and against British tanks like Matilda I and II, this Pak 36 was indeed useless.
It wasn't nicknamed "the Door-Knocker" by its own users for nothing.
@@nickysimi9866
Yep. When they were fighting for Carentan.
The gun was good enough against the vast majority of tanks in the first half of the war, especially against the Soviets who had thousands of tank but they were mostly with armor barely enough to resist machine gun fire. The Battle of Brody (1941) was probably the largest tank battle in history, larger than even the Battle of Prokhorovka (1943) by number of tanks, the Soviet tanks massively outnumbered the German tanks but it was the 3.7cm Panzerabwehrkanone that made the difference.
Considering the lack of mechanization of the German army even in 1941, this gun being so light was probably more valuable than a gun that's far heavier and has firepower that isn't needed most of the time.
Soviet Union purchased a license for this gun and produced it at first in original caliber and then upsized to 45mm with longer barrel. That gun was used extensively by Red Army until late 40s. It also found way to serve in Polish and Bulgarian armies ( possibly others as well).
Both versions were in service with Finnish army during Continuation War and long after war.
Longer barrle is a relative statement, Barrle length is allways in relation to caliber size, the 3,7 cm is L/45, the 53-K is also "just" L/46, in proportion, it isnt really that much longer for the caliber, the 5 cm Pak 37 L/42 (that didnt go into production and was developed into the 5 cm KwK 38 L/42) had a smaller number, but with 2.10m was a little bit longer than the russian 45 with 2.07m.
@@Ghostmaxi1337 The M1942 45mm gun had a 68 caliber tube. They were encoountered even by US forces in Korea in 1950-53.
Not claiming it was any good after 1942 or so, but, it was a 68-caliber weapon.
@@executivedirector7467 Yes, but as the title also sayes, its a after 1942 gun, and even it is weaker than the 5 cm Pak 38 L/60, even with the longer barrle.
So it was effective until it wasn´t, like many other weapons
Hey dude, spoiler alert!
Basically how weapon development happens
Yes
Pointy stick & rock looks at you sideways.
The mg42 is still kicking today in the form of the mg3/5
In terms of mobility vs firepower, this thing is a pretty good trade off for the time.
It had a pretty decent rate of fire, and the fact that it can be wheeled around the battlefield by manpower alone is a huge advantage when rapid repositioning is important, giving the ability to set up ambushes on the fly.
And yes, the firepower isn't amazing. But not everything it will be shooting at is going to be a heavily armoured vehicle. For anything less, having one of these pointing your way meant you were in for a rough time lol.
You could probably score mobility kill with it though
"For the time" only, by 1943 most Allied tanks were well-protected against the obsolete Pak 36. With an eventual total of 50,000 T-34 and 40,000 Shermans coming at Germany on both sides, the panzerjager team had to pick up some slacks and ready to face lots of tank, and beside German infantry divisions couldn't really have an Anti-tank company that couldn't actually anti-tank.
It stay in use to provide defense against armor cars, light tanks, 1 because they could fire faster, easier to move 2, shooting a 37 doesn't give away where the 75 is ...
Like every early war anti-tank gun, the evolution of tanks rendered it obsolete in its original role, as armour thickness increased.
Germans thought so but in fact it did not. Russians prove that with their 45mms.
Except for the 88 it could still kill any allied tank at 2000 yards right up to the end of the war!
@richardvangelder3666
That is what happens when you build a gun that weighs more than 7 tonnes - the 37 mm PaK 36 weighed in as a medium trailer and could be easily pulled by a Kubelwagen or similar Jeep-like vehicle, the 88 required a half track or a 4 / 6 wheel drive truck.
A PanzerGranate 39 under absolute ideal circumstances, would kill about 90 mm of armour, surpassed by the M4 “Easy Eight”, the Churchill, the Pershing and several of the Russian heavies.
Yes, the PaK / FlaK 43 did come into play but they were not only late war designs but also in the minority to the earlier designs and firing a much more massive shell.
It should be noted that the Germans actually did have a high velocity 3.7cm L/70 gun in the pre-war era (mid-1930s). The weapon was, in fact, meant to be mounted in a turreted half-track or fast "Tankjager." Designed by Rheinmetall-Borsig and known as the 3.7cm Selbstfahrlafette L/70 auf Hansa-Loyd HL.kl-3(H), it was meant to fill the roll of a fast maneuverable self-propelled AT gun. One prototype was built 1936 but none were authorized for production.
Its performance was comparable to its mid 1930's peers. The French 25mm ,Brits 2 lb,Russian 37 and US 37.
"How effective was the 3.7 cm Panzerabwehrkanone 36?"
Not very.
But it's light weight allowed it to be used in ways otherwise not possible, which made it very convenient and useful despite that.
And it's far above average functionality against non-armored targets made it extremely versatile.
The gun would have been absolutely perfect during WWI.
Depending on the ammunition.
So basically it's german sorokopyatka
It was effective even in WW2, especially in early war since the vast majority of Soviets tanks back then were BT-7, T-26, armor cars,...Not T-34 or KV-1. Not to mentions, it could also equip HEAT rounds to defeat such tanks.
US 37 mm M-6 was found to be effective vs Infantry with He and Cannister rounds, The Pak 36 was effective with AP and He rounds vs light tanks , and was more of a General Purpose light cannon. Good for bunkers as it had a decent chance of getting a round THROUGH a view slit and detonating inside. There was one case when an early T-34 took something like 80 or so hits from a 37..and never killed the PaK. Why ? The crew never SAW it. Depends on the vehicle and crew. ruclips.net/video/98JbJuXE3JE/видео.html
The PAK 36 was effective in early war
I heard that if you'd rechamber it for french Hotchkiss naval 3 pounder and measure caliber from the grooves peak, it'll become even better.
Context: it's sarcasm about soviet 45mm. Considering what italians and japanese were dealing with, both those guns were superb in their weight class.
Since the Mathilda, KV and T34 where introduced after the Pak36 there was no realistic way Rheinmetall could have made a gun capabale of dealing with not yet existing tanks.
"light" is relative at around 450kg the thing is a pain in the rear to move by foot. Had the pleasure to move one as Schütze 2 at the beginning of the year in Holland. It was not much fun and the thing is blody heavy to move over longer distances and by longer i mean more then a few 100 meters.
The 37mm. L.46 PaK.35/36 original AP ammunition was the PzGr.18 APHE shell, developed by Krupp in the late 1920's. It could penetrate up to 44mm. of RHA @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres and was the primary AP ammunition type, for the gun, from 1935 until 1940, after which it was withdrawn from combat use and relegated for target practice usage at gunnery schools. By 1940, the PzGr.39 APCBC-HE shell had entered service and offered considerably improved performance, albeit with only 25% of the explosive filler charge of the PzGr.18 APHE shell.
I dont know what your source is, but its wrong. In many aspects.
The Pzgr. And Pzgr.18 are pretty much identical, however the Pzgr.18 was actually imployed by the 3,7 cm Flak 18.
There was no APCBC Pzgr.39 for 3,7 cm, there wasnt even a need for it, because the protective cap moves the shattergap to a higher velocity, that wasnt even reached with the 3,7 cm iirc.
Only the (not in full production) 3,7 cm Pak L/65 and L/70 had a 0,75kg APCBC round, but not the L/45.
Aside that, the Pzgr. Only has 13g PENT filler, only ~25% of the filler would mean ~3,25g, that would be *nothing*.
I think you or your source switched it up with the 7,5 cm K.Gr. Rot Pz and 7,5 cm Pzgr.39, which went from 80g Fp.02 and Np.10 to 18g Pent.
Would have been nice to have had some comparison with the similar US 37mm gun. That gun remained in use throughout WW2.
I am guessing (without checking) that there was a significant velocity difference to start, given the longer barrel.
@@MM22966 According to Wikipedia: 884 m/s (2,900 ft/s) compared to 3.7 PaK at 762 m/s (2,500 ft/s), so you're right - but it still proved ineffective against newer tanks. The US eventually adopted a 57mm based on the British 6pdr. The 37mm remained in use as an infantry support weapon.
One "flaw" that's missing from this presentation is the weak HE round. USSR considered buying this gun in the 30ies but decided to do a copy with 45mm caliber instead to make the HE worthwhile. In terms of armor penetration the both guns were about equal since the Soviet AP rounds were lower quality.
In Sweden we had a similar 37mm gun made by Bofors. The commander of the Swedish army thought that this gun was good enough to keep after the war because the latest ammunition should be good enough to penetrate the side armor of T-34/85. A test sequence was designed to test the validity of that claim. The first setup simulated shooting at the tank straight from the side at 100m range, circumstances way better than what could be expected. The target was an armor plate of the right quality and thickness sloped at the proper angle. Behind the plate was a container with water simulating a member of the crew. The first shot was indeed able to penetrate the plate, but just barely. The "crew" took no damage at all!
That one shot was enough to make the commander change his mind and order better weapons for the army.
In addition to its small size and weight, this gun had another important advantage - a high rate of fire and good accuracy. In a video lecture about the Battle of Rzhev, an episode was told about how some Soviet tanks had their 76 mm gun barrels damaged under fire from a PAK-36. Apparently, experienced gunners, knowing that armor could not be penetrated at long range, tried to disarm enemy tanks. In relation to the T-34, one can notice that a large area on the frontal armor is occupied by the driver's hatch and machine gun mount. Reports from Soviet commanders in 1941 indicated that there were cases of the hatch or machine gun mount being knocked out when hit by 37 mm German shells.
Interestingly enough, in the movie Patton, there's a scene where an American vehicle is towing a German 37 mm. Either that was a goof or it was a captured one.
One 37 mm AT gun is also on the train in the final scenes of Red Dawn. (the original one)
They used Spanish extras, right? Maybe it was a left over gun from the Condor Legion!
@@MM22966 Could be. They probably figured nobody would notice.
Rheinmetall did make a 3.7cmL50 PAK before the war, with spoked wheels for horse limbers - it was exported to Turkey as the TAK28, where they built it under licence from 1942, and Sweden had some too, 6 in 1940 and another 71 in 1942.
The Steilgranate 41 had a 50% dud rate due to poor manufacturing, so whilst formidable penetration half of the hits made failed to do any damage.
You'd think a simple contact fuse wouldn't be that hard to make reliable.
@@Treblaine I think that was what the German soldiers thought at the time. Unfortunately I can't remember the reference where I've seen it, possibly on Axis History Forum. They did make 636,000 of them though (the grenades) so that was a lot of fuses to replace!
@@TreblaineThe op is only half correct, there was a problem with riccochets of the 15 cm Stielgranate, it employed both a Nose and bottom fuze. The 50%dud number seems a bit over the top.
I think the name was given by individual soldiers after encounters with some bigger tanks but overall it was able to knockout most tanks far into the war. They based that name on their own expierences without having the bigger picture. Same with "tommy cooker". Yeah, Shermans catched fire but that goes for all tanks of the era. These names spread very quickly among the front troops.
Under the Chieftan's Hatch has a number of good videos about tanks. One comment was that any British tank that served in the desert was a Tommy Cooker.
11:00 The Pzgr.40 could penetrate the flat side and Back of Kv-1/2 and T-34.
Also in the manuals, shooting with HE ans HEI rounds (many of the HE rounds also existed with the name addition of "Al.", these were rounds where aluminium dust was added to the filler, resuliting in hotter and faster detonation with greater pressure wave as well as added incendary effect) at the exhaust ports and cooling grills to inflict engine fires.
It was easily maneuvered by troops. Could take out anything other than a frontal arc of a tank. Could bust bunkers too.
Like every other anti-tank guns in its time, it was effective against most tanks with 10-20mm frontal armor
It's lightness of the gun,and rounds was an asset, and the German being such master tacticians found ways to make the 'doorknocker' open the can , the later 50 and 75 was obviously balistically more powerful but at the penalty of more weight!
While the Pak 36 still had a bit relevancy in terms of mobility and ease of use in 1939-1942, despite unimpressive AT performance as war progressed, but even that relevancy was soon lost as soon as Panzerschreck and Panzerfaust came into common uses in German infantries by 1943 - being far more cheaper and lighter, yet much effective against armor, with the only downside being lesser range and accuracy, (though Pak36 itself weren't exactly very accurate or long range either). And had not there been the Panzerschreck, the lesser know 8.8cm Raketenwerfer would likely replace the Pak36 as the light mobile AT guns for infantries.
The Tommy knocker.
Nice Video material! Thanks for showing.
In the right hands it was very capable.
762 Meters Per Second basically equals 2,500 Feet Per Second.
Ah yes, the world's biggest Rifle-Grenade
Not even, the 15 cm s.I.G. 33 had a 30 cm Overcaliber grenade.
A PaK-36 weighs a bit less than 500 kilograms, compared to the 1000kg of the 50mm PaK-38, 1500kg of the 75mm PaK-41, and 3.600 kg of the 88mm PaK-43. A weapon that can be moved by manpower alone or just a single horse, compared to weapons that need designated half-tracks with their own supply of fuel and parts has pretty significant effects on logistics. A weapon you can bring along is far more effective than the one that needs to be abandoned in place due to petrol shortages.
In the game WW2 Online it was modeled fairly accurately. (Based on historical records.) I Loved this weapon. In the hands of an expert, with knowledge of vehicle weaknesses, it was extremely effective. For it's time, and against it's contemporary targets, it was devastating. Being team portable it was both maneuverable and concealable. I could shoot the left track of an oncoming Char B1 Bis to swerve it to the side and then put a shot directly through the weak radiator grill on the right side straight into the engine. Pop goes the weasel.
Poland tank 7TP was not obsolete in 1939, was better than Panzer 1 and 2. Why the Germans did not installed the 37mm gun in to the panzer 1 and 2?
They actually did this on a few rare occasions. For example, there is a photograph of a Panzer I with its turret removed and replaced with a 3.7 cm PaK anti-tank gun. Similarly, the turrets from Panzer II tanks, which were sometimes used as static pillboxes, were occasionally retrofitted with 3.7 cm guns from the Panzer III. However, such modifications were generally impractical for standard tanks due to the limited working space available inside them.
The aromour penetration of the 20mm auto gun on the P2 was absolutely sufficient due to high velocity, and the P1 was not envisioned as a main line tan. You might as well ask, why not 4 man crew for the 7TP?
Factories explains it that owners who were royalty did not fear Hitler, they were supposed to get rid of 37 and use 55,75,on tanks
Also thanks 1-3 scrap
The PanzerKampfwagen I was never meant to enter combat but was merely a training tank so crew could learn to handle and maintain tanks on a budget.
PzKfW II was envisioned as a scout / patrol light tank, the work horse of the Panzer Divisions was supposed to be the PzKfW III, which DID field a 37 mm KwK and later a 50 mm KwK.
(As it were, the PzKfW III would end up as the light tank and the original support tank, the PzKfW IV, with it’s 75 mm gun, would take the role as the main tank of the Third Reich.)
The question "How effective was it" depends on what you're shooting at! It was fine against an early light tank and crap against a later heavy.
Perfectly adequate against all tanks not made during the war.
13:48 what's that small thing that tank is towing
Is it the intercom that fell off the chassis
Its a wooden toy made to resemble an armoured car, hence the amusement of the crew on the engine deck
@@fernandomarques5166 yes, it would appear you are correct, good eye
RUclips: How many ads to fucked-up a video?
This "channel" here: fuck yeah!
It destroyed more tanks than any other Anti-tank gun in history. Remember, 20,000 tanks were destroyed between 1939 and 1941.
Destroyed overall or by this gun specifically?
@@kindlingking Overall.
It was equal or superior to most tank armor in both pre war and 39-41
It was effective until it wasn't effective. As it turns out, no one likes to be on the recieving end of an effective gun
What is the tank on this video at 7:54, a Romanian design?
It's a British A-13 Mk.1 cruiser, as used in France in May 1940.
The grenade the 37mm fired was later adapted for the panzerschrek. until the Germans discovered the US bazooka, they had never seriously considered a rocket propelled round.
The 37mm. L.46 PaK.35/36 had a twin brother, the 50mm. L.42 PaK.37, of which only 2,600 were manufactured until its withdraw from service in 1942. The PaK.37 had an HE shell that weighed just over 2 Kg. and was intended to double as an infantry gun as well as an anti-tank gun.
In appearance, The PaK.37 looks identical to the PaK.35/36 and uses the same breech block, carriage and sights. However, its armour penetration performance was disappointing, being capable of only capable of penetrating up to 55mm. of RHA @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres with KGrPz. APHE and up to 69mm. of RHA @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres with PzGr.39 APCBC-HE. Because of this, the 50mm. L.60 PaK.38 development programme was instigated.
There did exist the 5 cm Pak 37 L/42, it was developed into the KwK 38, however it wasnt build, in any numbers, it was abanond in favour of the Pak 38 L/60.
There is also no 5 cm K.Gr. Rot Pz, you are mixing info up with the 7,5 cm KwK 37 L/24, which had it, and later production ceased in favour of Pzgr.39.
O que vem depois, o campo de concentração?
I've always thought we need an assault/AT gun like this in the modern army. I get that shoulder mounted weapons have largely replaced it. And you can get direct fire weaponry from tanks/IFV's etc. But I still think there's something to be said for the infantry themselves having an assault gun on the line with them. Should be at the company or battalion level. As an infantry gun, not an AT gun. You'd still just use Javelin or whatever for that.
The ability to hide is so much more important than in WW2. Maybe against insurgents, but one can get away with so much against insurgents that a near peer would punish ruthlessly. Especially in the era of drone warfare.
The Soviets thought the same and continued using AT guns into the cold war, now we have both sides of a certain infamous war using the MT-12 Rapira 100mm AT gun quite effectively....
As long as you are on foot you are limited to whatever your team can carry, the war in Ukraine is showing how small units deploy fast with as much as they can carry to fight for 2-3 days (food, weapons and ammunition), either deployed in fast all terrain vehicles (to defend a village or a strong point, Ukrainians are doing that) or motorbikes (for fast assault tactics, Russians are doing this), and I think they are not carrying cannons with them, maybe portable rockets and grenade launchers, also drones of course.
@quan-uo5ws but are the 100mm guns primarily used in direct or indirect fire?
@@JForrestFisher--76 both. tho at this point its not exactly an AT gun more like an infantry support gun since most of what it does is sling HE at enemy positions.
It was effective up to the point when Germans decided to go big boom. I mean 3.7CM cannon was great, cause it was massive but they decided to go larger for the sake of big boom.
Look what russians did with their pakfront. They massively used 45mm caliber till end of the WWII, cause big boom boom effect didn't matter to them. They only wanted to damage tanks so bad they couldn't fight anymore eg. Damaging peryscopes, tank tracks etc.
Any plans to do the 75mm infantry gun mounted on the 37mm carriage?
What dou mean "better than you think" ?
It was good enough against the very lightly armored tanks of the early war (most French, Polish and British cruiser tanks).. but running into heavier stuff (Char B or the Matilda), it was useless... then again, so was everything but the 88mm, hehe.
It also had success early in Barbarossa, against the horde of Soviet light tanks (BT-5, BT-7, T-26 and whatsalltheirnames).. but once it ran into the T-34 and KV series, it was practically useless.
The 3.7 cm was the same gun as on what was the German "main battle tank" at the time, the Panzer III.
The 5 cm they upgraded to was better, but not good enough, so they upgraded again almost immediately to a 7.5 cm, which was the main armament on the Pz. IV's and StuG III's until the war's end.
There were actually 2 He rounds.
The Sprgr.18 with 26g Pent filler and a big tracer and the Sprgr.40 with 48g Pent and a small tracer.
It´s a rather nice gun in Call to Arms: Ostfront. It´s quick firing rate and decent HE ammunition, combined with its low weight and resulting quick pivoting speed makes it really dangerous to approach with infantry, and its relatively good APs makes it also too dangerous for fast light tanks and armored cars. In the end, the best way to deal with it is with well armored vehicles, which are pricy and rare, or artillery bombardment.
And once it becomes obsolete, like when the AI starts using Shermans or T-34s, you can still use it to cover larger AT guns and protect them from flanking vehicles and infantry.
It looks puny (the clip of the soldier casually tossing the round into the breach one-handed made chuckle), but let's keep in mind the standard tank guns at the time ranged from 20mm to 37mm. So this was the same to almost TWICE the size (by caliber) what a tank could do.
Imagine an Abrams or T-series tank being shot at by a 250mm AT gun. (hypothetically, for the lulz)
2:30 "inter-war era" (sorry for nitpicking x)
6:09 I'm 99% sure a few were sold to the Ethiopians and used against the Italians in 1934-35. Maybe a previous variant?
@TankEncyclopediaYT can I ask if there's an actual image for the US Bridge Layer Sherman, I only see the British version. I do Minecraft tutorial which I'm doing right now are the US only Sherman and it's variants, the bridge layer one is I'm lack of
There were improvized bridgelayers based on the M32 ARV, if that's what you're asking about. Photos are in our M32 TRV article on our website.
@TanksEncyclopediaYT I meant for the M4 Mobile Assault Bridge. I'm following the variants of Sherman in wiki.
I am wondering if a 3.7cm Panzergranate could still cause spalling later in the war even if it could no longer penetrate the armor.
Any chance TE could also cover the Soviet Union's WW2-era anti-tank guns as well? I recalled their standard 45mm AT gun series began as licensed copies of the 37mm PaK 36 before developing into the 45mm AT gun series.
We would be down, but that requires someone to write the articles on Soviet AT guns first.
Afaik noone is doing them at the moment.
Door breaker 😆
3:20 Average German word length.
years ago, I read an excerpt from how AT gunners used the PAK 37 against T34s and KV1s, though it was kind of hair raising: either they (or a light artillery piece) would wait until the tank was head on to them, then they'd fire an HE shell at the view port (more of a hatch) on the 'glacis plate'; the explosion would make the hatch fly open (usually) and then the gunners would pop another shell thru the open hatch, taking out the crew inside. Naturally, you needed the tank to be right in your face AND you needed nerves (and other body parts) of steel.
I am sure an expert PAK 37 crew would have the skill to make incredible shots. Could some of the crews have been like snipers using a 3.7cm rifle?
@@geoff-brady Indeed! I personally lack the guts to ever try it.
you've could just pointed to the Gepard's guns...
If soviet tank crews were trained to run over anti tank guns, was it standard procedure to lay anti tank mines as the gun crews abandoned the gun when being run down?
Given that AT guns were often deployed as a reserve to counter armour breakthroughs, they often could not prepare their positions.
@MrZauberelefant what? Your statement is self contradicting.
The Germans complied a report to determine what was the effectiveness of various weapons against T-34's. According to Germany's own records the PAK 36 accounted for about 21% of T-34's knocked out. The two most effective were artillery and mines.
Isn’t this the same gun that was fitted onto Rudel’s Ju 87 Stuka dive bomber that he used to dispatch so many T-34s’ from above ?
Not the PaK. The BK 3,7 fitted to the Ju-87G version of the Stuka was based on the 3,7cm Flak 18 AA gun.
@@Ben-f7k5gThanks for enlightening me on Rudel’s 37 mm cannons.
Neat
Eine Weiterentwicklung des Kalibers wurde verworfen da perspektivisch noch stärkere gegnerische Panzer erwartet wurden.
Long-term planning? 😂 They expected to conquer everything up to the foothills of the Urals before the first snows fell. 😂 Just gotta kick in the door and all that. 😂
Think of it not as a towed AT gun, but as it's generation's RPG. The midwar lack of effective infantry portable AT weapons was an anomaly. With the downfall of the 37mm, armor was temporarily winning the gun/armor contest, allowing more decisive use of armor than would've been possible before or after. Yes there were always effective field guns, but they're not what the infantry often had available.
What, you don't want to run screaming at the tankies , while carrying a glass bottle full of flaming hydrocarbons?
👍
Penetration values given here are wrong.
Original german sources shows 34mm @ 100m and 26mm @ 600m. (PzGr.40 - 64mm @ 100m)... Your 48mm @ 500m is ridiculous - that is just physically impossible with that projectile weight and velocity.
The numbers you are referencing are calculated against 30°-angled armor. However, we are discussing flat armor in this context. These numbers can greatly differ between soruces. Do you have those German soruces?
@@markopantelic3088 armedconflicts.com/files/zas_lisatek_pak35_36_754.jpg
@@kbilsky it does not specify the angle of attack but likely flat armor
@@markopantelic3088 I have a scan of original document.
The german numbers are for 125 kg/cm^2 and higher, thats 450 bhp and harder steel. The in video give infos are for softer steel as employed by most nations (except russia).
As well as what the other persion allready sayed, German penetration numbers are GENERALLY for 30° impact angle.
And then there are different penetration criteria with different nations, Germanys criteria is FULL penetration with the round still beeing able to detonate behind armor. The actual penetration strength where it doesnt detonate anymore, or only partial penetration with heavy shrapnell will be higher than german Criteria writes.
They used the german PAK against *republican* armored vehicles in spain????
Stumpy
In MoW:AS2
This thing is literally: ponk ponk ponk ponk ponk. Shiiii, outa HE shells with only 8 kills???
Hard no on the narrator, stopped watching immediately. 🤢
The KV1 was its Demise..even After the KV transmission being cooked and the KV as a GARBAGE TANK ,the pAK 36 was USELESS
@enlistedgame