3.7cm PAK - Germany's Basic WWII Antitank Gun 

Is that a problem?

Don't know how Ian ever escaped H&K's Grey Room.

@@Hybris51129 RIA sent in an agent to rescue him so he could continue working for them.

@@thatguyoverthere9634 They had to drug him, so they could carry him out.

He's already spent so much time in these places there's secret Ian-sized hidey-holes in every weapons museum/auction house

I'd settle for the P90 and the Stg 44.

i'd give away my first born child to have a collection like that

That MP5SD3 (or SD6) though...

I need that Steyr-Werke MG30 for ...reasons.

I'd take the Thompson, the Stg44, the MG34, the BAR and the MP40. Or simply all of them.

30-50 feral T26s

When you just go into someone's backyard, call it Lebensraum and then make a surprised Picachu face at being shot at:D

@@TheArklyte It's my yard now, and they shouldn't be in it!

T-26s are known to go feral at the drop of a hat.

Great comments from all.i faced that bitch and it deserved it s propes. Keep em flowing Ian

I estimate a chi flow of 600 rounds a minute on average.

More like Gun Shui

@@waswolltihr1526 That is correct. Your -Feng- Gun Shui is strong.

Yeah, that didn't age well

Hans our gun is too small, GET THE ROCKET.

Well, this, that flare-gun-turned-into-an-RPG-pistol thing, and the fliegerfaust kinda proof that the germans had a habit of doing just that

@cody sonnet i never said they were wrong (on this specific subject) i was just saying that they do have a habit of turning things into rocket launchers. Necessity is the mother of all inventions afterall.

Cheshire schnell. Get se Rakete Hans and steck it auf se Kanonenrohr

More Dakka! More Dakka!

TuPAK

Unpak the files

If you don't clean that bore, you know it's a sin

Your comment PAKs a punch, lemme offer ye a beer!

Battle me, that's a sin

It's a very nice rack indeed

If I was the camera man I would just keep accidently panning up to see more.

I had to rewind the first minute because I was looking at the wall and not paying attention to what Ian was saying

I was having trouble focusing as well

@@skabbigkossa Same here. I thought, what did he say, let's go back 😅

A year or two more and they would’ve gotten to 17cm guns lol

@@dylannix4289 thwy had a 17cm they never used it though

@@bruhmania7359 That’s why they came up with that crazy Jagdpanzer, right? The one that was supposed to look like a hybrid between a Jagdpanther I and an E 100 concept chassis

Driven entirely by necessity.

​ Trebonius Flonius I can't really recommend something written down and extensively researched. Everybody who knows about German AT guns can list the 3,7cm, 5cm, 7,5cm, 8,8cm and the 12,8cm guns, but beyond that there is not a lot of information around. For example the explosive fillers I got out of a German WW2 document that is floating around on the internet which lists all the HE fillings of German shells. There also is a post WW2 US version of that. Those two differ a bit so I tend to go for the German one. Further there is the book “WW2 ballistics: Armour and Gunnery”. Long out of print, but it floats around as a PDF online. That book is extremely in depth about penetration mechanics. Finally I can defiantly recommend Military History Visualised on YT. That might actually be the best source out there on a lot of subjects. A lot of what I know is based on scraps you can gather on different forums. It really is a mess for something so crucial in understanding the war. When talking about WW2, just about everybody will quickly revert to the Sherman and T-34 production and how that "won the war". Nobody ever discusses the German perspective. The Germans produced almost 40,000 towed antitank guns during WW2, excluding the self propelled panzerjägers or captured and converted guns. That is a lot considering that AT guns usually have a distinct advantage against tanks in concealment and visibility. You can't exactly see all that well from inside a steel box. Meanwhile you can even hear tanks approaching when manning an antitank gun. If you are even somewhat competent, ranges will also have been pre plotted to allow rapid hits on targets. It extents to tactics as well. It seems that the German army didn't really evolve their defensive doctrine between the world wars. From what I know, they still relied on the WW1 era defence in depth system they tried in 1917 with the Hindenburg Line. It didn't work then against any competent opponent, and it also didn't work in 1941when facing major Soviet attacks. Standing doctrine until that point was a relativity lightly defended front line made up of infantry. The idea was to let tanks pass and pin down the infantry. Then a few hundred meters behind the infantry, the Germans would form a "PAK front". Basically a line of antitank guns to kill the tanks who were without infantry support and thus blind. I suspect that this tactic was part of the "failure" of the 3,7cm model. The Germans where responding to attacks and probably often didn't have the chance to deploy on a flank and had to deploy in front of the path of the Soviet attack. This meant facing the T-34's head on. Now even a 3,7cm PAK can penetrate a T-34's its 45mm turret front out to a few hundred meters, yes really, but the hull front is completely immune. The turret on early T-34 models however is so tiny that it is a hard target to hit reliably. Further from what I know, the Germans engaged from distances far greater than something like 200 meters. Then the 3,7cm PAK is useless. However if you get flanking shots, T-34's are in more trouble. T-34 sides are only 40mm thick and that is doable for the 3,7cm PAK. KV1's however are almost completely immune to the 3,7cm PAK. At 100 meters you might get a shot through the rear hull, but that is about it. That will destroy the engine, but if the tank doesn’t catch fire, well it is immobilised but still combat capable. When the guns fail, well the infantry has to make due. They had plenty of ideas and methods, but all are dangerous and far from ideal. See: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-FxJZJflMEiw.html Second is that I suspect that the Germans in 1941 where suffering from "Tiger panic". Basically soldiers were identifying every tank as a T-34 and mixing up the T-34 with the KV1. That would explain a lot. Even the 5cm PAK, a gun that can kill T-34’s with some ease, would struggle against a KV1. Against the 7,5cm PAK, even an up armoured KV1B stands little chance. Tactics seem to have changed during the winter of 1941 to a chequerboard system of strong points arranged in depth with interlocking fields of fire. Again the idea was to let the tanks pass to separate them from the infantry who had to attack the strong point and shoot them with the antitank guns. Another problem with that seems to be that every single German army developed its own methods with their own terminology, thus making practice anything but uniform. I suspect that might be an additional reason why so little is actually known about German WW2 antitank warfare. Really getting into this must be a nightmare to research.

Aye MHV and his friend Dr. Roman Töppel

Fun fact: For the same reason they actually put a blob of tear gas at the end of their anti-tank rifle rounds.

@@DanielWW2 I recall somebody reviewing a PanzrJaeger memoir where the guy had to use the 3.7 on a T34 and they learned to get somebody to shoot at the tank with an HE round (a lite artillery gun or maybe a 37 mm with HE?) when the explosion would make the front hatch of t he T34 fly open; now before the driver or other crewman could pull that hatch shut the 37mm was supposed to fire into that open hatch & the resulting spalling or explosion would kill off the crew. Naturally this required allowing the T34 to get 'darned close' and head on to you to 'work properly', but somehow the guy survived to work his way up to 50mm and 75mm.

What would initiate the RDX and when/where exactly was it designed to detonate?

Well, it's not an 88, but five-six years ago, Ian did a video on the Pak-40 7.5cm ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-T7fhBm1ouSU.html . Plus it has Ian's sweet old intro.

@@charlesadams1721 Actually just saw that a second ago too.

@@MrPibb23x: Ian's Forgotten Weapons site is such a good resource, too. www.forgottenweapons.com/ It's his main site, and has stuff going back 10 or more years ago.

Well we have a pak.40, and it is super small in comparison, that's the best we can do.

AKA, the Barn Door.

If so, how was the charge detonated upon impact; I don't see a fuse in it?

@@x.y.8581 Base detonating fuse. The same as all other competently designed APHE.

Seems to be the ancestor of russian RPG-grenades

there probably a pin thats supposed to look it from moving enough to explode. just that this mock up didn´t have it as it would add extra production cost.

Shouldn't be too hard to engineer a fuse that arms itself when fired. You get pretty high accelleration, even with something like this.

Somewhere along the way the Russians addressed the problem and made/issued such "safe" grenades.

That being said, if it goes fast enough and, say, hit a twig, it will blow up. That also being said, most, if not all HEAT rounds have the same problem, hence the side skirt armor

Knowing the Russians, they weren't actual Hotchkiss barrels or even licensed copies, but something along the lines of their "Gorloff" w/ Pavel Chekhov claiming "It is ancient Russian inwention" in a Star Trek episode another 80 years or so in the future... X-D

@@nunyabidniz2868 Actually these guns were real Hotchkiss. Russia had licensed their production before revolution.

Psst Russian engineering lol

@@libertynotdemocracy9142 Ah well, you have to start somewhere, eh?

He's Jesus, he would come back later. ;-)

You talking about him pushing in the plunger on the fuse? My heart stalled for a second too, but then he is Gun *Jesus*.

Oh ye weak of faith! Son of Gun is no mere mortal!

Look up the 15cm SIG 33. That had a "rifle grenade with a 30cm (12 inch) warhead, the Stielgranate 42.

But that trigger/fuse... he pushed it in with his finger... I would carry that very very carefully, even if it did come with a protective case of some sort.

Sort of like those old cap bombs kids some of us used to play with as kids, but with a much bigger bang.

Putt it on a tecnical and boom ...no punn inded

Likely had a pin or cap in actual usage. To help prevent that from happening.

@@Blazer02LS i would hope so. Though war is inherently dangerous so things that seem insane in a recrational weapons context are the least of the concerns in a war. I mean, RPG7 projectiles are like that and the only safety from the factory to keep dropping a case of them from clearing a building is a plastic end cap

a flak 88 made short process with any KV variant

@@Keckegenkai Most tactical combat was conducted at company or battalion level, and the Germans didn't even have organic divisional 88s. Most of them belonged Luftwaffe flak units attached to infantry divisions. On the defense they were ocasionally given in small numbers to the infantry. Point is, it was pretty hard and not very common to bring an 88 into battle. The average soviet tanker did not have to worry about 88s shooting at his tank. In fact, most of the Soviet tanks destroyef during Barbarossa were overran and blown up by German infantry or motorised infantry, and were destroyed with 37mm and 50mm cannons or blown up at close range with sattle charges, grenades, mines etc. Some were destroyed by German tanks and others by attack aircraft. 88 flak guns while very effective against enemy armor troughout the war, weren't used that much for that role.

I haven't had a wargame to play for a long while that has had players or is up to standard (probably the World of Tanks monopoly) but it got me into researching historical information where I can find it as a hobby. If I've learned one thing from equipment research, it's to take negative accounts with a grain of salt on just about any piece of equipment, particularly when they are widely repeated. People (myself included, if I don't watch myself) tend to bias imaginary opponent equipment in a negative light regardless of their knowledge of the subject, and that habit is of course not inherent to just equipment research! German and British tanks suffer the most in contemporary accounts, but every country takes a beating when it's time to cite the advantages of a single piece of equipment of their opponents. "Door knocker lolz" is a perfect example of that in practice, here. If all that was left for an industrializing and impressionable alien society was our wargames they would get an odd impression of what is ideal and what is not, and would probably arrive at some pretty funny designs for a while! If they played World of Tanks they'd never used tracked vehicles and would only use armoured cars with autocannons and tungsten rounds. If they played War Thunder they'd only use 150mm SPGs with HEAT and HE rounds because apparently a StPz II can kill a T-72 from the front [on a cynical note this was probably accidentally done by the developers while they were trying to legitimize the "beast killer" ISU-152] If they played WWII Online they probably would only build the Sherman because it's armour is at a uniquely American angle that allows for regular bouncing of 88mm rounds. If they played Combat Mission they probably would go with no tanks because they would be concerned that being in a tank means that training isn't applicable and that they're all death traps anyways. Thanks for the note though it is a good reminder that some are aware of more than just the sensational details that are given to them!

@@Tornado15555 for my money one of Warthunders biggest inaccuracies is the urban tank duels. I'm not saying tanks never ventured in, but a tank roaming around a town with prepared enemy AT emplacements has a suicidal crew. I guess what I'm saying is that these games portray armor as operating alone, lacking in representation of the infantry forces they historically operated alongside.

@@MediumRareOpinions Well when you have a game tuned to support the patience of a fruit fly you get shorter games and it's impossible to allow to even allow for the development of additional mechanics that might, god forbid, slow the game down. Not that slow gameplay is a guarantee of realism, either! Here's a TL;DR about people tricking themselves into realism while mismanaging the land/sea/air interaction in a slower game. In Battleground Europe/WWII Online... Any lone tank, which is not modelled to use any vision ports, and has very bad MG control, tends to blow up. They say it's realistic and that all tanks were deathtraps, but ignore the fact that atgs can "beam in" at mobile spawn points, are quiet, have instant setup times, and far outnumber tanks on the strategic map. Most tanks are lost this way. Aircraft can be launched Warthunder style from an airfield 10 km away and deliver a bomb, and there are so many planes and AAA is so ineffective that players will suicide bomb. Then the devs introduce the Ju with cannons and the Hurricane with cannons! Sappers have sticky HEAT charges from the start of the campaign, and while you can avoid them if you listen for them, the game turns the derp to 1000% when dozens of bazookas and schrecks (with 100% functional fuzes) arrive late game. Bushes and foliage are everywhere, often bringing visibility to less than 200m, and bushes and foliage don't move or make noise when infantry are in them, preventing reconnaissance. To top it off, most of the fights are in cities or point blank foliage, so most of your wishes about tanks vulnerabile in urban warfare are more than granted -- tanks that already don't survive in the open are then considered less valuable than a guy sitting in a cap point with an SMG.

@@osmacar5331 That’s all you can do lol.

@@justforever96 Excellent points. The M4, IMO, was a fantastic tank for the jobs required of it in WW2 and is a perfect example of what I was talking about. The good news is, I think the idea we are discussing is slowly coming to the masses within the ww2 buff and education community. When I was a kid and the Sherman was mentioned, the first thing someone would say about it was how awful at everything it was and how great the Tiger was. Slowly but surely, I think that idea is starting to evolve into the Sherman getting its due credit and discussions on ww2 equipment are slowly becoming more rational.

Heeresanklopfgerät (Army Door Knocker) is the name I know of.

Wehrmacht denn sowas?

completely underserved for the weapon. That name was given to this weapon because it couldn't deal with the front armor of the Char 1B or the Matilda II. No standard issue AT gun in the world at the time could do that - but anything else this gun would deal with quickly and effectively, as the british got the not-so-pleasure to find out when this gun proved to be more than a match for their cruiser tanks, or the american M3s over the sands of North Africa. Not only that, it was a flexible weapon, it's ability to shoot a pretty effective HE round put it leagues ahead of the british equivalent AT gun, the 2pounder, which could not fire anything but AP rounds. That this gun was a "door knocker" against the heaviest armored tanks in 1940 should not detract from a very reliable and effective gun against anything else. Again, no standard issue AT gun at the time could do that, that's why the germans had to turn to their 88mms as "ersatz" AT guns to deal with those heavies and what kickstarted their interest into large caliber high velocity guns (that later produced the excellent 50mm, 75mm and ofc 88mm PaK guns), so that this gun couldn't do it either is hard to leverage against it, because against virtually anything else they'd face in 1939-40, it was an excellent piece.

Kannietwo yeah.. they did nazi that coming...

@@lennaertvanmierlo2955 they used both expressions I heard from my granddad who served in the Wehrmacht during WW2

Eh, I think it's more of a truck gun.

Open carry. Just drag it along like a rickshaw. 😂

@@genetichell The germans put it ON a Kfz 69 " Krupp Protze"

You should try to attach a bayonet on it tho....

was just about to post the same thing!

In the recent release "Solo" there is a new walker that is straight up the pak-88 with some legs, and by god it looks like something the Germans would have created at some point

Star Wars was heavily inspired by many things from WW2. From vehicles, to guns, to even the Axis Powers themselves.

@@damascus1111 The AT-DT

That's Sir Ian to you.

'Deflated' is more efficient for your fingers. I mean you don't even have to add any letters.

@@duckman12569 Thank you. English is not my first language, so I used more natural to me (and more unnatural in English I guess...) word.

@@poMocnyMichal Glad I didn't rip into you too hard then :)

@@duckman12569 No, I'm always glad to be corrected in a civilized way and improve my English.

~680g projectile at 750m/s. That's about 10,000 grains at 2400fps. That's a LOT of energy!

@@alun7006 45700 kilocalories. Imagine how many hours of gym you'd have to do after taking a hit from this.

Magnum P.I. agrees.

I know an antique dealer a few counties over who has that very thing (minus the lawn jockey).

I would spend my life savings for just that

I have a PAK 36 in my front yard

I missed that, thanks.

Have kettenkrad, have antitank gun. Hmmmmmm.... Where should we go today?

@@bohica3264 Oh Boy, Here I Go Killing Again

lol Coh

It was only meant to protect against light infantry weapons and shrapnel.

Those shields are usually meant to protect the gun rather than the crew.

Hans, your ze pretty one, you be ze nurse.

If you're using the hollow charge round you might not even get that - someone has to be out front to reload 😨

As per usual, it was packed with features and did its specified job very well. As far as 37mm AT guns go, the PAK 37mm was easily the best on a per-unit basis. The problem, as with all German equipment, is making enough to go around and keeping them working.

@@Prometheus19853 as well as having the materials to craft enough of them, thats one of the reasons why germany has tended to go for quality over quantity, they dont have the resources themselves to supply their army at war

@@Deilwynna Also because traditionally German industry and customs is tailored for such an approach and finds low quality, ultra mass production distasteful and even impractical

@@Deilwynna It's debatable that German weapons in general actually had superior quality: poor reliability is a recurring theme.

@@visionist7 That isn't really as much of a mentality thing as people make it out to be. German engineers too can produce simple and cheap stuff. Look at the VW Beetle. Or let me correct myself: It is a mentality thing, but not in the way non-Germans think. The mentality is not that they can't build simple machines, the mentality is that they care more about their soldiers. Germany has been a pretty egalitarian society, even in feudal times, with the elites not treating the regular people quite as shitty as in other cultures. Traditionally German officers were not as removed and not as disdainful towards the regular soldiers as they were in most armies of the time. They simply wanted to give their soldiers the best possible equipment, whenever possible. The fact that even right to the end, the Wehrmacht had surprisingly low casualty numbers, reflects that. Also there is some economic logic to it. When you are short on resources and manpower, building superior tanks and other weapons makes sense. Imagine you had a tank that is good enough to take on and defeat 5 enemy tanks, but only needs 3 times the steel and 2 times the fuel and only 1 crew instead of 5. That is a good deal and makes economic sense. You saved a lot of steel, fuel and men. That is why it is silly when so many people nowadays say the Germans were stupid because they didn't flood the battlefield with huge numbers of cheap, easy to produce tanks, like the Russians and the Americans did. That just wasn't an option for the Germans. They had trouble enough keeping their small fleet of tanks running and getting them to where they were needed. What would they have done with 5 times the number of tanks? Make 5 times longer traffic jams on their way to the front? And with what fuel? Where would the crews have come from?

And it would nearly take out Lipton's Nuts

Thats because a regular person can afford to buy the pistol but only a rich man can pay for a anti tank cannon.

Nope, Canadian government is afraid of small and easily concealed guns plus of course the guns the good guys and especially the bad guys use in movies. I’m actually not kidding, this is what they use/used to decide what is a dangerous gun. Nobody shoots cops with grenade launchers, (also perfectly legal here).

@@john-paulsilke893 Actually sounds quite reasonable. Nobody does a school shooting with an anti tank cannon

Robert Boehringer although it would certainly work for robbing armoured vans. You are right though. It’s ludicrous to assume crimes would be committed with such devices.

@@kripkenstein5294 oh boy here i go buying an AT gun

RGM 96X no stay

You can stay because of your profile picture, good taste sir

Don't forget to Pak your things before you go.

The legendary Klobb shut up weeb

That's why loaders used a fist.

@@vector6977 Really? I had assumed that they would have used a open palm to push the round in the gun with some force. Upon touching the breach just stop pushing and the round will slide in. Would be nice to have the opinion of some actual veteran with experience on this gun...

@@simonr8721 the uses fist, i suppose it's because fist are more compact than open palm, but for this particular gun i suppose they used thumb

@@marcaurel2610 Fehlt das "K"

@@marcaurel2610 Das mag so in der Wikipedia stehen und du es glauben, es sei dir belassen. Aber mal ganz davon abgesehen, dass die "info" von Spiegel Online stammt nannten es die Landser schlicht Panzer Anklopf Kanone. Das trifft dan auch das Kürzel PAK, oder schreiben du und Wikipedia das Ganze jetzt hinten mit "G"? P.S.: Alles ab der PAK43 führte diesen schmeichelhaften Namen nicht, und für die PAK40 galt das erst gegen Ende 1939, da reichte die nämlich auch nicht mehr aus

@@marcaurel2610 Und du bist einfach nur dreist mich drollig zu nennen. Und dann mit deinem Opa daherkommen. Das kann ich auch. Mein einer Opa war in BEIDEN Weltkriegen dabei (und erlitt dabei einen Lebersteckschuß), und mein anderer "nur" im zweiten. Und jetzt, Meister Panzerjäger?

KNOCK KNOCK _Who's there?_ TANKS _Thanks for what?_ TANKS AND SEE YOU LATER *Ok that was terrible*

@@visionist7 thats so bad its good 😂

No but the windows are guaranteed to stop one. Or, at least, that's what they were claiming before the press conference.

And roof-mounted 88mm flak 36 upgrade option ;

Well at least you can only get PAK thumb once...

@@spitefulraven you’ve got two thumbs though

@@adammanning8882 true, if you're brave enough to use your non-dominant hand that is lol