The Army Door Knocker | Pak 35/36 | Anti-Tank Chats

In this video, we look at the Pak 35/36, the German Army’s first anti-tank gun. Obsolete by 1941, it picked up the nickname Heeresanklopfgerat - the army door knocker - after its inability to penetrate tank armour. In spite of this, it carried on in service until 1945. Chris Copson talks you through the gun and its history.
Support The Tank Museum & Get great perks:
► Patreon: / tankmuseum
► KZbin Membership: / @thetankmuseum
00:00 | Intro
00:25 | Development
02:46 | Demonstration
05:12 | Service & Performance
#tankmuseum #ChrisCopson #Pak36

[@thetankmuseum]

Hey Tank Nuts! We hope you enjoyed this episode. Let us know what you think of this Anti-Tank Chat in the comments below!

[@wilfdarr]

Magnesium alloy wheels? 1) why so exotic? 2) any problems when they're hit by incendiary rounds? The wheels ever catch fire and burn like the sun? The reason I ask is because I worked with Rolls Royce Avon engines, one of our technicians took a cracked casing home to use as a fire pit, everyone thought that was a great idea, except the fire department when they were called to put out a runaway metal fire in a residential area!

[@bootymeat5875]

excellent as usual!

[@azgarogly]

@@wilfdarr When I was a kid, the universal source of fuel for home made pyrotechnics where magnesium alloy aviation wheel rims. Man! we spent some time sawing and filing them just to get that precious powder. And then mixed with certain pharmacy chemicals it gave quite a bang and flash.

[@azgarogly]

It must be mentioned, that German Pak 36 was pretty much a prototype for Soviet 45 mm antitank gun. And heavily influenced further gun design in USSR.

[@wilfdarr]

@@azgarogly LOL I can only imagine: I played piano as a kid so my mom was pretty keen on me keeping all my fingers, fireworks was something only adults did 😁

[@jamesbass4154]

It is my understanding that this weapon was quite popular with the infantry. It has more uses than taking out tanks. It was extremely accurate and could easily put a round right through a bunker windows so it made an excellent bunker buster. It was easily man portable which helped with the bunker busting. The vast majority of Russian tanks it had no trouble taking out. All in all a good weapon early in the war.

[@fthagnryleh4951]

By "the vast majority" you mean the BT-7? It was not reliable against KV-1 and T-34

[@G1NZOU]

There's some thing to be said for these smaller guns, easily moveable to where you need it and easy to handle the shells and use, extremely good early war before large numbers of up-armoured tanks came on the scene and a decent weapon where you need it is much better than a larger gun that's never at the right place at the right time.

[@isographer]

@@fthagnryleh4951 Actually when the German invasion of the USSR began, the T-34 and KV-1 designs were not the majority of the Soviet Tank Forces. They started production of those in the late 30's, but they still had and operated the earlier designs such as the BT-7 which were in greater numbers. Also, even though the T-34 and KV tanks were a shock for the Germans when they encountered them, they decided (or hoped ) that their current Anti Tank armament (including the Pak 35) was sufficient since they could rely on complementary support such as from the 88mm AA guns, or Luftwaffe support and estimated that the USSR will fall in a few months, anyway. History proved them wrong, of course.

[@fthagnryleh4951]

@@isographer "Actually when the German invasion of the USSR began, the T-34 and KV-1 designs were not the majority of the Soviet Tank Forces. " I never said they were, why do people always move the goal poast?

[@RongleBringer]

During Barbarossa most of the Soviet losses came from encirclements, so there was less need for direct antitank firepower--lack of fuel, food, and ammo will leave a tank as useless as a penetrating hit. Not to mention early war Soviet tank crews were very poorly trained. I imagine the mobility of this gun was a big benefit during those rapid advances, in spite of rare nasty encounters with a KV or T-34.

[@joshmeads]

Pak 38 next! There isn't alot of info on the weapon, most people /sites just skip ahead to the Pak 40. Would love to see the Pak 38 get some attention.

[@voiceofraisin3778]

They dont have one on the premises. Tankfest was two weeks ago, they had a good selection of AT guns with the living history guys, including a partridge gun (17pdr on a 25pdr carriage) and the German infantry brought a pak 38 with them. If they were smart the museum might have got in and done some taping.

[@BoltFalco47]

I think Chris is my favorite presenter on this channel, hes so well spoken and explains things very well.

[@_ArsNova]

I'm inclined to agree, and the Tank Museum has some quality presenters.

[@benkendall7489]

Agreed, clearly exceptionally knowledgeable but more importantly able to clearly and concisely show and explain things, very impressed with him!

[@_ArsNova]

A far more capable gun than internet laymen and the memes would have you believe. Extremely mobile (easily moved by just a few men, an often overlooked attribute), good penetrating power relative to its bore diameter, and easily concealed. It was still capable of knocking out virtually every Soviet armored vehicle barring the T-34 and anything in the KV family of heavy tanks frontally in 1941. It could still tackle T-34s even, if presented the side or rear of the tank, as well as at extremely close ranges.

[@Ukraineaissance2014]

People also forget the huge amount of light armoured or none armoured vehicles roaming around these huge armies which needed massive logistical support, also high explosive anti infantry ammunition could be designed for the guns. Same reason anti tank rifles were still useful until the end of the war. A group of german tanks coming towards you is likely to have a relatively lightly armoured half track full of supporting troops nearby and you can bring a gun that light in and out of action quickly for an ambush.

[@SudrianTales]

And depending on the T-34 build quality, it could actually be defeated by a PAK frontally

[@alkers372]

The doorknocker nickname given to the weapon by the tank's crews says it all. When it was developed in 1933, encountering heavy tanks was not considered since none existed. I've read dozens of accounts of Eastern front units using it, and after the first couple of months of the war (when they were able to knock out the Red Army light tank inventory), none were complimentary towards it in an anti tank role. If you can find any that I missed, I'd be interested to read them. Even at the beginning of Barbarossa there were about 2000 T-34's and KV's available. When German infantry were confronted by KV's and T'34's, they basically had no weapon to combat these with. The defeat of Guderian's spearhead at Mtsensk in October 1941, is a classic example of this. When massed T-34's and KV's were met, the Germans had no answer to knocking them. In the fall/winter of 1941, "tank fright" became an extreme problem for German troops near Moscow. Since they could not stop Russian medium and heavy tanks, some divisions broke down completely and measures such as shooting every 10th man to bolster the courage of the rest were seriously considered. In fact by late 1942, it was clear that even the Pak 35/36's replacement, the long 50mm Pak 38, was becoming obsolescent, and although production continued as a necessity (not enough Pak 40's to go around) all panzer 3 production, which used this gun, was halted in favor of StuG III's with 75mm guns.

[@_ArsNova]

@@alkers372 I have read several books on the Eastern Front and German Army in WWII as well. I believe most of this just stems from the fact that the "door-knocker" story is low-hanging fruit and makes for a good tale in books. While it absolutely struggled greatly with the T-34 & KV family, the vast majority of the armored vehicles being fielded by the Red Army in 1941 were neither. Mostly light tanks from the BT series of cavalry tanks and other vehicles such as the T-50, T-60, BA family of armored cars, etc. Against which the 3.7cm PaK was a more than capable weapon. This is to say nothing of the state of the T-34/76 in 1941, which was abysmal. Severe transmission & reliability problems, very short engine life, atrocious crew training, and vehicles frequently left the factory without optics.

[@Jotgut]

We watched the video, no need to repeat what was said, word by word

[@extraterrestrialfascisti7625]

I once knew a vet from the SS polizei division he served with a 37-mm gun crew. During that first Russian winter they were ordered not to engage T-34’s but let them pass by and the medium artillery or flak would engage them

[@MXB2001]

Yes, knocking on a T34 with the 37 would just get its attention. Wait for what follows on and can be destroyed with the 37.

[@DrLoverLover]

Did he kill defenseless elderly and children with it instead?

[@carlosgauerke2466]

​@@DrLoverLoversurely not as many the grueling mass bombings of the allies caused among the civilian populations of dozens of helpless cities across Europe and Asía Your comment is dumb

[@tunguska2370]

​@DrLoverLover no that would be overkill and a waste of ammo

[@richieb7692]

Makes complete sense. Go for the supply lines, and take out the tanks fuel supply.

[@alsanchez5038]

Keep on doing your amazing work. A friend of the museum.

[@karoltakisobie6638]

Soviets got license for this gun too. They upsized it to 45mm,got much longer barrel, changed few details and happily used them until 45. They used them a bit different. It was mostly meant for dealing with MG nests, SPGs and hardened buildings. AT work was left for 76mm divisional guns and tanks.

[@ericshellhamer9847]

Yes true. I think the way to tell the difference was the wheel. I believe the Soviets version had spoked wheels

[@confuseatronica]

I love the break-up pattern of the edge of the shield. Something cool about camouflage that is built into the 3d shape of the thing instead of just paint.

[@lllordllloyd]

Magnesium-alloy wheels. The Germans found a way to make every single weapon posh, rather than cheap.

[@Theanimeisforme]

I believe magnesium alloys are quite light when compred to aluminum. Plus I'm betting magnesium wasn't in huge demand like aluminum.

[@kimmoj2570]

@lllordllloyd At that time using magnesium vs aluminium was sometimes warranted. To make virgin aluminium you need VAST amounts of electricity. Still today bauxite ore is shipped across the world to cheapest source of electricity. The easy recycling of Alu metal make modern people missunderstand it was like that 80 years a go. It was not. Aluminium was EXPENSIVE metal. I dont remember out of memory, but aluminium and magnesium were on same ballpark.

[@lllordllloyd]

@@kimmoj2570 I hear you, but plain old steel was the obvious choice (and used on almost every other artillery piece). Especially in the 30s when orders were small, the Germans couldn't help but choose luxury over low cost.

[@kimmoj2570]

@@lllordllloyd Steel rims would had raised weight of gun tens of kilograms. PaK 3.7cm weighed only 327 kg in combat. Its gun crew could bring it almost every possible firing position, and fast. They could actually charge with the gun by pushing it in firefight (barrel towards enemy, capable of firing in few seconds when target was located, very usefull in fighting around towns). Using lightest possible materials were not out of order here.

[@guidor.4161]

They were also mounted on SdKfz 250s in a similar way as the 251s; also on the Sd.Kfz 11 and Krupp-Protze, sometimes with improvised "armour".

[@sealove79able]

They look somehow sharp however were they any better than the US halftrack armed with the 37mm or 75mm gun?

[@guidor.4161]

@@sealove79able Basically no, just over-engineered. Although their cross country mobility was somewhat better...

[@sealove79able]

@@guidor.4161 Thank you.

[@ericshellhamer9847]

My Opa was a Panzerjager in the 8th Panzer Division 43rd Abt 1 company. Opa said this gun struggled against the French tanks in 1940. Then in the beginning of the Eastern Front the gun did ok against light Russian tanks. They even mounted a gun onto the prime mover to shoot over the cab. The 43rd Abt evidently received the Marder and the door knocker was no more

[@Ghostmaxi1337]

The Pzgr 41 was for the tapered bore guns such as the 28/20 42/(forgot the number) and 75/55 guns. The normal variant was Pzgr 40.

[@tech_splitter]

hello there

[@sealove79able]

There was the similar 88mm gun.

[@angryzergling7832]

I didn't know they had a 75mm squeezy boy.

[@sealove79able]

@@angryzergling7832 Thank you.

[@RubberToeYT]

Great video, really enjoyed the demonstration with the Pak, very interesting seeing the aspects of it move and work

[@LMyrski]

Great episode! Part of the reason these weapons remained in service on halftracks is they could easily deal with the shielded machine guns used by the Soviets. The 1.33 lbs high explosive round could also be used against infantry positions and gun emplacements in a direct fire role. The Soviets used virtually the same weapon but in 45 mm (M1937). As I understand it, the Germans found the Pak 36 useful when mounted on a halftrack, and kept fitting them to half-tracks late into the war, but for ground roles other than antitank.

[@williamzk9083]

I came across a commentator who said his father operated one. It was an accurate gun and they used it to take out a Russian sniper using a tree at great distance.

[@alltat]

They were also useful against enemy halftracks and other light vehicles. Not worth manufacturing at that point, but if you already have the guns and the ammo already at the front, you might as well use them.

[@stanislavczebinski994]

Tanks for mentioning - I missed that in the video and could vaguely remember.

[@DrLoverLover]

They took out the sniper with a tree? Amazing. And how did they get the gun to shoot trees?

[@carlosgauerke2466]

@@DrLoverLover You did not understand: they threw the tree at the sniper ... No ammo wasted!

[@marcosfernandez7207]

Nice video on an underestimated weapon. Probably, during the early months of Barbarosa, this small gun killed a lot of the numerous earlier, lighter soviet tanks destroyed, so doing the work it was designed for. However, to my knowledge, it never had a canister shot, that would be useful in the second half of the war.

[@dennistate5953]

Well done, Sir!❤

[@simonhjc]

Excellent review

[@ZappWbrannigan]

Great episode. Brought back some memories for me as the first Tamiya model I bought when I was a kid was of this gun.

[@historynerd88]

Italian reports on the PaK 35/36 (as quite a few were used by the Corpo Truppe Volontarie) were rather unimpressed, for the following reasons: - AT performance was good up to 900 m, but the issue was that Soviet tanks could just sit out at ca. 1500 m and fire at leisure; also, early shells did not perform very well. - the shield was short and narrow, and was vulnerable even to rifle bullets at close range. - the pneumatic wheels could be easily taken out by infantry weapons. - also, but that's down to RE hangups, the fact that it couldn't be broken down in pieces meant that it was heavy and cumbersome to move by hand. - likewise, the theoretical RoF was not sustainable in practice, but that seems a given. In comparison, the RE officers praised the performance of their own 47 mm gun, more versatile and mobile, and whose lack of shield meant it was more difficult to spot. Overall, the conclusions deemed this gun somewhat obsolescent and not worthy of consideration for the RE's needs

[@theressomelovelyfilthdownh4329]

These were still perfectly fine for dealing with lighter targets. A few armoured cars showing up can wreck the infantry's day. Having one or more of these in the line gives you some means of taking them out. They are also a lot easier to pull back out of the line than heavier AT guns.

[@nickmitsialis]

a bazillion years ago, I was at the 'Old' Barnes and Noble in downtown Walnut Creek, California and stumbled across at memoir/published diary of a PAK gunner/gun captain/battery commander (I don't recall if he survived the war or if his 'heirs' published the material long after the war=or not) who started with the PAK36 in Russia. He mentioned that his crew could take out T34s but it took 'special measures'; first the T34 to be facing you, then you had to wait for it to get close; Hit the front of the tank with an HE round because the explosion would 'often' make the hatch in the front of early model T34s fly open. Then you'd IMMEDIATELY fire an HE round thru the open hatch-the detonation would often take out the crew. Of course, all of this relied on incredible luck AND nerves of steel.

[@M4ve12ick0]

Awesome video as always. Thanks!

[@mohammedsaysrashid3587]

Extremely wonderful introducing of that weapons

[@osmacar5331]

Love the info. Love the presenter, all of it. But i do miss the fletcherisms. Really need to pay the museum a visit one day hopefully soon. Wonder of i can raid the archived and study them. Manuals, schematics, detailed intimate information on tanks there. Love the engineering and would love to crawl around in the tanks too.

[@pirateswamp9219]

Great briefing Thank you

[@StevenKeery]

Very interesting, thank you for uploading.

[@thedungeondelver]

A couple of these make a cameo in Red Dawn near the end of the film. When the brothers are fleeing through the snowy town, they pass a railyard and a train rolls past, on a flatcar, there's a pair of these.

[@michaelbevan3285]

It was also sold all over the world and was also the basis for other guns using the same chassis.

[@horuslupercal9936]

Couldn't imagine taking on a Char Bis1 with one of these!

[@Convoycrazy]

Another fantastic presentation. Thank you

[@brendanmctigue9641]

Great video

[@tomsmith2209]

Excellent presentation, thanks.

[@1701enter]

An evolution of staff has only enhanced your presentations of an already hugely knowledgeable institution

[@stanislavczebinski994]

As a German, i think "the army door knocker" origins in PAG - Panzer-Abwehr-Geschütz = Tank defeating big gun - later turned into Panzer-Anklopf-Gerät = Tank knock-on device as it sounded more like a friendly knock than anything dangerous.

[@Bullet_Tooth84]

It was called PAK - Panzerabwehrkanone and the rest is explained in this vid. You should watch it 😉

[@Rehab-Gaming]

Gottlob Herbert Bidermann wrote a memoir called "In Deadly Combat: A German Soldier's Memoir of the Eastern Front" he describes using this pack gun numerous times, mainly against infantry even shooting AP rounds at charging Russian with great effectiveness when they ran out of HE

[@russwoodward8251]

Thank you Chris. A very interesting gun.

[@audiogarden21]

That's a lovely specimen you have on display. It even has period correct tires on it as evidenced by the video footage.

[@MXB2001]

Odd, I noticed the tires did NOT match.

[@audiogarden21]

@@MXB2001 5:55. Obviously they used more than one style, but it's definitely featured among them.

[@nanorider426]

Thank you for the video. ^^

[@manicmechanic448]

I love that improvised "tank".

[@danbendix1398]

Great video. Be interested in coverage of their tapered bore and high-low pressure r smoothbore (e.g. PAW 600) guns if you can.

[@ZeFluffyKnight]

Funniest tid bit about the Door Knocker is it was still effective against a lot of T-34s just do to the poor quality of Russian armor. It couldn't properly penetrate it but would still render the tank inoperable from welds failing or the weaker track links being knocked out.

[@Lykyk]

Would love a video on the PAW 600. Bit of a late war wonder weapon without real impact, but a very interesting and simple system that could have been revolutionary if anybody would have thought of it before that immediately became obsolete when rocketry took off.

[@fritztheblitz1061]

Great Video, thank you. I like this Pak espacialy the design. The Pak 36 also could fire a HE round to support the infanterie. Thanks and thumps up👍.

[@cm275]

I was bummed when David Fletcher retired by Chris Copson has really became a top tier presenter so that’s been a plus.

[@detlevschmalzbauer9808]

How about a video about anti-tank mines and their history/development?Besides,excellent work!👍

[@timf6916]

Good information

[@jc1982discovery]

Thanks

[@Kevin-mx1vi]

I spat my coffee out when he pulled that huge round out of the case. 😂

[@sealove79able]

I think there was a similar round for the 88mm weapon not the flak36 or pak43.

[@pnutz_2]

"we need one of those rifle grenades but BIGGER"

[@johnelliott7850]

By no means the biggest, but always one of my favourite WW2 anti-tank guns.

[@davidmaximilian]

nice video guys

[@dillonjames-so5cz]

We need more anti tank chats

[@vadimbobov4051]

Interesting fact the Pak was used by German trained Chinese troops against Japanese tanks , they proved incredibly effective!

[@thundermite1241]

A video on the the ptrs-41 would be great

[@timothywood4402]

I think you meant to put Pak. 2.8cm Panzerbuchse 41, 4.2cm Pak 41, and 7.5cm Pak 41 we’re all Gerlich type taper bore guns. Had tungsten been common these guns would have been made on a grand scale.fantastic weapons.

[@malik740]

Minor thing but your pronouncation of 'Fallschirmjäger' was very good. Usually people pronounce the wrong parts in german too much or talk to smooth but your 'Fallschirmjäger' was on point. Overall your german is good as its already quite sharp and clear only minor complaint would be the toning of the different syllables. But again its german we are talking about so I know what you already can in terms of pronounciation was not easy to learn for non-native speaker.

[@Simon_Nonymous]

Nice comment; I'm English too and hate talking another language and being so bad speaking it, people answer me in English. In Dortmund - I got talked to in German. Happy day! Prosit!

[@jon1801]

Amazingly brave troops to face armour with these.

[@MXB2001]

Depends. BT-5 would be a good target for the 37. Just leave the heavy tanks alone.

[@Jin-Ro]

@@MXB2001 while wishing and hoping they leave you alone, otherwise you're dead.

[@captainhurricane5705]

Very well preserved model! It wasn't JUST an anti tank gun though, it could be used against enemy vehicles, pak, bunkers, occupied buildings etc. It could be man-handled by the crew without having to depend on a tow, unlike a pak 40 for example, very useful for repositioning in a fire-fight.

[@Simon_Nonymous]

Nit pick comment - the 2 Pdr and US 37mm stayed in the front line till the end of the war. Yes in armoured cars mainly but still in the front line. I really like Chris' presentation skills and knowledge, much more to my taste than his predecessor.

[@loddude5706]

Good vid. In general, does a shell design produce the gun to fire it, or the other way round?

[@glenchapman3899]

Some version of events suggests this gun was also nick named the coffin knocker

[@MXB2001]

Best info I've ever gotten on this gun. Also pleased to see that it wasn't mocked as some wise asses like to. Of course it had difficulties as things changed but there was a good reason for that. Sober, rational analysis.

[@DrLoverLover]

Well, thats your opinion. You're entitled to your opinion. so ok

[@steffenrosmus9177]

Well, equipped with a "Püppchen" rocket launcher this was quite effective and higly manouverable even in 1944.

[@Darthdoodoo]

These things are responsible for a lot of German success early on in the war. They are good lil shooters

[@michaelguerin56]

Excellent video. Thank you. I would hate to be the loader fitting that grenade to the muzzle😮!

[@Lykyk]

I like the factoid that the troops actually really liked it in France despite its limited anti-tank use because it was very accurate and mobile and could basically be used as a very accurate long range grenade thrower by shooting through the slits of bunkers and the like with HE rounds.

[@ottovonbismarck2443]

The troops liked it for the same reasons in North Africa and Russia, as an infantry support weapon with somewhat restricted AT capability. Easy to handle and move with 3-4 people. Many crews lowered the upper shield for more concealment. And it could kill T-34; albeit close range. But T-34 was notoriusly "blind".

[@JohnyG29]

That's not what the first hand accounts I've read say about it.

[@ottovonbismarck2443]

@@JohnyG29 Which part of it ?

[@Lykyk]

@@JohnyG29 I suggest you read more then, "Johnny." I specifically mentioned the French campaign because that's where I saw it.

Very nice Video. It would be interesting to look at the sights of theses guns because those are rarley in display with the guns.

[@Islberg]

I heard a Stalingrad-veteran refer to it as panzeranklopfgerät (pag) because it would just knock at the tank. He complained that the flanking Romanians were equipped with them and had no chance to stop the Soviet advance.

[@langschwert]

My father called it "Heeresanklopfgerät" so the better translation might be Army Door Knocking Device. ;)

[@Grashan]

It is the experience of soldiers in every war to have to make do wihh what they have, and to make wry jokes about it, hence the "doorknocker" joke @6:32. As it happens though, the USA also had a gun that they called called the doorknocker: the 155 mm Gun Motor Carriage M12, which got the nickname because when used in the direct fire role against bunkers it would smash the bunker and knock the back door down.

[@ThommyofThenn]

I wonder how often enemy fire was able to hit the crew through the gunner window. It seems the weapon was meant to be used in ambush so it probably less common

[@duster1968]

I think the marines kept using the 37mm AT gun in the Pacific throughout the war which does not say a lot for the Japanese tanks. When I was stationed at Camp Pendleton in the late 60s the 37mm guns seemed to be everywhere, at all the ranges and other places. I'm not sure if they were memorials or they were just dumped there to get rid of them.

[@ironwolfF1]

The lifespan of the American 37mm was also extended by the easy availability of HE and canister rounds (used to good effect on Japanese strongpoints and infantry).

[@frostedbutts4340]

Probably helped that it was the lightest useable AT piece, for manhandling over very rough / muddy terrain

[@akmzd6938]

The 37mm was also used in the Stuart light tank in the Pacific theatre, so the ammunition logistics chain was already there. The US did adopt the British six-pounder as a towed anti-tank gun, but since it wasn't used in any American vehicle, it would've introduced unnecessary logistical demands.

[@johnfroehling5653]

I love the giant rifle grenade

[@jarikinnunen1718]

One Tiger tank got 39 hits during war years, count its gunner from marks of hits. Enemy dried anyway.

[@michaelbevan3285]

the oversized projectile was also used to knock holes in buildings and kill the occupants or demolish bunkers.

[@jackmoorehead2036]

The American 37, fought till Aug of 45 in the Pacific and CBI theaters, the Japanese armor was no match for it and it had a very good canister round, where the Geman 37 and British 2 Pounder did not.

[@BHuang92]

Some of the Pak 35/36 guns were given to the Chinese which they were highly effective against Japanese armor which were not effective as Europe.

[@AndrewTBP]

Yes, just like the Australian Army found the Matilda II very effective against Japanese armor.

[@CZ350tuner]

The 50mm. L.42 PaK.37 used the same chassis. It shot a 4.5 pound HE shell, which made it useful as its dual role as a light infantry gun. However, its anti-armour performance was only marginally better than that of the 37mm. L.45 PaK.36. Just over 2,600 50mm. L.42 PaK.37 were produced until production was halted in 1941.

[@AndrewTBP]

I’m sure there’s a PaK.37 video on the way.

[@WestfaliaStuff]

It was called "Panzeranklopfgeraet" Translated, that means 'the Machine that knocks on a tank', and it was so called because it was neigh impossible to knock out the T34 with it. Hab nich nie gehoehrt das die kleine PAK Armeeanklopfgeraet genannt wurde, aber das ist halt KZbin.

[@angryzergling7832]

I didn't know these had two triggers! I was familiar with the big ol' button atop the elevation traverse but I didn't know there was a second trigger actuated by a lever on the other side. I'm curious why they made it that way. I would think it would add a fair bit of complexity and cost to the gun, but I am not aware of what practical purpose it would serve? Especially considering the sight can only be utilized from one side?

[@akmzd6938]

I think the other one is a backup. If the gun fails to fire with the primary trigger, pull the secondary one, and if it still doesn't work, most likely the cartridge is defective because it's pretty unlikely that both triggers would fail at the same time.

[@AndrewTBP]

It’s so the loader can fire if the gunner is wounded?

[@Teh0X]

4:40 - 4:48 "To deal with recoil, there is a buffer and recuperator and that operates with by compressing ???waoil??? and also there is a return spring." I require aid to translate this word.

[@AndrewTBP]

_Oil_ It pushes a piston through oil to absorb the recoil energy, just like a shock absorber in a car.

[@raseli4066]

Yea it might've been a doorknocker in the west but during operation barbarossa it served its purpose. reminiscent to one of lazerpigs remarks in his why the t-34 sucks video. Because of the Soviets overheating the steel, making it very brittle, made the armour shatter on impact leaving what looks like lightning cracks in the armour. From tanks like the mark 3. He sites his sources from the research that Russian historians have found during the short time period when the Soviet archives where opened to the public.

[@Talon3000]

Also what people tend to forget is that while this was terrible against later tanks, it probably still was pretty useful when used against lighter vehicles like armored cars or trucks.

[@HypaxBE]

Any idea why the panels of the shutter for the sight are on the inside? And not on the other side for "better" protection? Or is that a misconception.

[@trekanbelluvitsh]

Very nice video. Two additions: 1.) According to Kaverlachik at least in 1941 the Red Army was afraid after examination that the 37mm Pak could destroy the T-34 with not many problems from the side but even when firing at the front of the T-34 due to the poor manufacturing quality of the tanks. Many early T-34s had cracks in the hull just when they left the factory. 2.) The Red Army itself used their 47mm AT-gun M1937 - which were the soviet variant of the Pak 35/36 - till the end of the war too. But not as a AT-gun but as a support weapon in its infantry units.

[@raseli4066]

Yea its reminiscent to one of lazerpigs remarks in his why the t-34 sucks video. Because of the Soviets overheating the steel, making it very brittle, made the armour shatter on impact leaving what looks like lightning cracks in the armour. He sites his sources from the research that Russian historians have found during the short time period when the Soviet archives where opened to the public.

[@kimjanek646]

Soviets used 45mm caliber guns and the 37mm had pretty much no chance of penetrating a T-34 with regular AP since the weakest part of the T-34 is 45mm on the lower side. With the 50mm, T-34s were frequently knocked out with hits to the side, since it could penetrate the armor from a 1000m vs just 100m with the 37mm.

[@DrLoverLover]

Seems like the perfect gun against anything except the big tanks.

[@SynapseDriven]

Kv1's and char B1's favourite snack, I'm guessing the crew could outrun the Matilda :)

[@ossian108]

Pretty good gun for home defense.

[@christophercripps7639]

The Finns and the Polish Army (and others) used & made the good Bofors 37 mm anti-tank cannon of slightly better performance (735-740 g AP at 775-785 m/s). The USA 37 mm M3 had in some respects superior performance firing a heavier AP projectile (870 g vs 685 Pzgr) at a higher initial velocity (884 m/s vs 745 m/s). In the Pacific island hopping campaigns it was able to deal with the tanks encountered there and it’s light weight & size would be handier than the larger 57 mm M1. The USA issued a canister round which was useful at close range.

[@CZ350tuner]

37mm. L.45 PaK.35/36 anti-armour ammunition: PzGr APHE (Base fused hard nosed shell) = Up to 44mm. of RHA @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres. Used in the Spanish Civil War & 1939 Poland Campaign. PzGr.18 AP/T (Solid shot with tracer) = Up to 55mm. of RHA @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres. Used in 1939 Poland Campaign. PzGr.39 APCBC-HE (Shot with grenade tail) = Up to 65mm. of RHA @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres. Used from 1940 onwards. PzGr.40 APCR (Solid tungsten cored shot) = Up to 79mm. of RHA @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres. Limited use from 1940 onwards.

[@larry1873]

need the 57 Pak

[@AndrewTBP]

I’m sure it’s coming.

[@joshy7759]

For the more nerdy of the viewers; I'm making a soundboard for my 40k army, would this and the similar size British guns be a good equivalent for a lascannon?

[@williamromine5715]

I'm surprised that gunner's sight shield slides up and down in grouve(sp). It wouldn't take much of a hit to pinch it closed to the point that they couldn't slide it open. I would think it would have been better to have hinges so it flipped down. It would have been frustrating to be unable to open the sight shield because it was pinched closed. The Germans weren't stupid, so I must be missing something.

[@emmedigi89]

Magnesium alloy wheels, wow that is spec as a true sportscar

[@koinking1665]

I have the projectile of one of these :)

[@ivanvoloder8114]

PAK-36 was probably weak vs heavy tanks but PAK-40 was a absolute monster.

[@scottkrater2131]

Makes a fine anti personnel weapon when used with canister ammunition like the US used in the Pacific. Did the Germans use it similarly in the Soviet Union?

[@sealove79able]

A great very interesting Tank Chat real blast from the past.Did the British use their larger caliber AAA guns 3inch and up for the anti armour role like the US and ussr repurposed their 90mm and 85mm AAA guns?Was the radar used in conjunction with the AT guns as was the case with the AAA guns ? Thank you and have a good one.Do you have any Japanese or Italian AT guns?Did you make a video about the American 76mm AT gun?

[@jrd33]

"Did the British use their larger caliber AAA guns 3inch and up for the anti armour role" -- No. We relied on the 2 pdr (40mm) initially then the 6 pdr (57mm) which was used up to the end of the war. There was a 17 pdr (76mm) introduced in 1944 I think but it was pretty heavy and manoeuvrable and was only used in dedicated anti-tank regiments. "Was radar used in conjunction with the AT guns" -- No. Radar was nowhere near accurate enough to pick out targets in amongst trees, buildings, folds in the ground, etc. It's very different at sea!

[@darreng745]

@@jrd33 The main use of the seventeen pounder in an ARV was the Sherman Firefly and that was a rush job when the British and Canadians realised that the standard British armament of the six pounder was absolutely no use against the PKZ V and VI, lets be honest by 1942 the 2 pounder had reached the end of the line even against Italian Armour with the later Carro Armato M15/42 with it's 50 mm of frontal armour being close to it's limit.

[@Grimmtoof]

No the British and Americans didn't use their AA guns as Anti-tank weapons. I think from memory they were heaver and less well suited to direct fire, which is why they developed dedicated heavy anti-tank guns instead.

[@jrd33]

@@darreng745 Hmmm... first Tiger tank destroyed in North Africa was by a 6 pdr AT gun, which replaced the 2 pdr from mid 1942. It certainly wasn't the ideal weapon for dealing with heavy armour but the 6 pdr was a very good AT gun (lightweight, manoeuvrable, low profile, reliable, effective) and remained in front line service with the British and Commonwealth forces until the end of the war.

[@jrd33]

@@Grimmtoof Problem is, the design constraints mean that a heavy AA gun has to be tall and heavy, with a big crew, which are exactly the opposite of what you want for an anti-tank gun. Even the Germans, with the excellent 88mm gun, still developed a dedicated 75mm PaK 40 to serve as the standard late war AT gun. The Germans were well aware of the 88's shortcomings as an AT gun.

[@carlistasycia]

In 1937 Spain these were to tanks what machine guns had been to infantry in 1914.

[@tomk3732]

Just to see how powerful Germany was, Poland had in 1939 around 1000 37mm AT guns. Germany had 11,000 37mm AT guns.

[@hobbitomm]

No mention of Soviet analogue/copy/cooperation?