Denim Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 come get some! Photo from the yesterday visit in the german tank museum in Munster. Greets Denim 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 Quit showing off and post the goddam link already! Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Some_God Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 Its not nice to post the same thing on two forums. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 Yeh, I'd say that looks pretty much like the REAL gun in CMAK 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdstrike Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 The textures are a bit off, I'd say. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke71 Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 How large was the crew of the Pak 35? They can't be numerous begause there seems to be little cover behind that panzer-shield! Duke71 Cool pic btw! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 Originally posted by Duke71: How large was the crew of the Pak 35? They can't be numerous begause there seems to be little cover behind that panzer-shield!The point wouldn't be to fit the whole crew behind the shield. The shield was there so that gunner and loader could work with some cover. Then there would have been the commander and some ammo carriers. Maybe five or six men altogether. The 37mm ammo was so small that I would suspect one ammo carrier would have been enough to deliver grenades to the loader, all the extra men would have been deployed alongside the gun to use their rifles and to observe. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandelion Posted April 18, 2004 Share Posted April 18, 2004 Originally posted by Duke71: How large was the crew of the Pak 35? They can't be numerous begause there seems to be little cover behind that panzer-shield! Duke71 Ohoy there Duke, Regulation strength was five men for the PaK 35/36, as compared e.g. to PaK 38 crews of eight. Many divisions received only four men per Pak 35/36 crew anyway, especially motorised divisions. In addition there were platoon personnel not attached to any barrel but liable to be very close by. The 3.7cm munition weighed only 1,2 kg each, but the gun with shield weighed almost half a tonne. Although they dragged it rather than lifted it, it was still hard labour. The PaK 38 weighed almost a whole tonne (the 5cm munition weighed 13 or so kg's each as I recall it). There is a photo series on the Lexikon der Wehrmacht that I find very interesting. Seems to give a very good idea of how the crew behaved in various situations, and why so many were needed. The photo bottom right illustrates Sergei's post above very aptly. Cheerio Dandelion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke71 Posted April 18, 2004 Share Posted April 18, 2004 Didn't the 37mm have a nickname? Was that the "potato mesher"? I recall reading something about the 37mm was so puny that the crews lost faith in it. It was okay in the Blitzkrieg-attacks of France and Poland, but afterwards it lacked the punch to kill enemy tanks. And now I'm adding another website to my favorites, great pics on that one Dandelion! Duke71 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted April 18, 2004 Share Posted April 18, 2004 37mm nickname: "Doorknocker" In fact, the 37mm was underpowered against quite a few tanks in France - only the British Cruiser types and some light French types were vulnerable. It was OK in Russia until the T34s and KV1 were seen in large numbers. "Potato Masher" = German Stick grenade. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted April 18, 2004 Share Posted April 18, 2004 Originally posted by Duke71: Didn't the 37mm have a nickname? Was that the "potato mesher"? I recall reading something about the 37mm was so puny that the crews lost faith in it. It was okay in the Blitzkrieg-attacks of France and Poland, but afterwards it lacked the punch to kill enemy tanks. And now I'm adding another website to my favorites, great pics on that one Dandelion! Duke71 Sort of. The 3,7cm PaK it was so lethal in the Spanish civil war versus Soviet tanks the T-34 was designed as a response. It was also not much cop versus the French "mediums," Heavy Infantry tanks, and the Matilda II in France. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denwad Posted April 19, 2004 Share Posted April 19, 2004 and then when the Pak36 gets those Stielgranate, it becomes deadlier than a Flak-36 > 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 19, 2004 Share Posted April 19, 2004 At 200 meters or less, which is about as far as it could accurately pitch one of those rounds. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoofyStance Posted April 19, 2004 Share Posted April 19, 2004 What was the purpose of those hinged (?) projections on the front of the gun shield - two on the front portion, one each on the side portions? I see them in all the pictures on the web site that Dandelion pointed out. I assume they're support posts for the upper portions of the gun shield, which seem to fold down? If so, why would the shield be folded down - for long-distance transport on open flat cars, or for lowering the profile of the gun in flat, open country? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 19, 2004 Share Posted April 19, 2004 Mostly the latter, I believe. IIRC, there was something similar on the Brit 2pdr. If they were dug in and a little brush piled around them, they could be made virtually invisible. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted April 19, 2004 Share Posted April 19, 2004 Also helps the gunner to acquire targets when he has better view without having to change stance. Helps getting a bullet in the brain as well, so probably was not done when too close to enemy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little_Black_Devil Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 GoofyStance, I think the little "hinged projections" folded out on the gunshield you are talking about supported the (12 round?) 37mm ammo cans - so that the crew could pak ammunition on the gun its self, and manhandle it for great distances (which they did - because lets face it, not every gun had its own horse, let alone truck or half-track as a dedicated prime mover). In fact, the Pak36 had its own harness, or "traces" specifically designed for the crew to use, in order for them to manhandle the gun over great distances, but I digress. In any event - they could have packed even more ammunition over the trails with the rest of the gun stores and their personal kit - but this would have all been improvised. The "hinged projections" were purpose designed. I believe they were limited to four (12 round?) cans of ammo as carried on the gunshield - but again, they could have found additional means to carry more ammuninition if they had to. Alternatively, there were "other" more conventional hinges on the gunshield, which allowed it to be folded down which reduced the gun's silouette by about half - obviously at the cost of protection to the crew. These hinges, however - did not "protrude" from the gunshield the same way the ones used for holding up the ammo cans did thoough. Hope that helped. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 Er, LBD, you are I think talking about different things. The hinges do in fact project outward on the outside of the gun shield, but not very far, judging from the picture, about half an inch. The brackets you speak of (two on the front and one on each side, right?) I do not know the function of. I can't recall seeing anything attached to them in all the photos I've seen, but maybe I just overlooked something. The only ready ammo cans I recall seeing attached directly to the gun were inside the shield, which makes sense, and there was only one. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoofyStance Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 I hope I haven't confused anyone with the vague nature of my description. Being ignorant of the proper terminology, I was trying to call attention to the four I-shaped, bottom-hinged projections that are located roughly halfway up on the outside of the gun shield. The one projection on the far right is flat against the shield, and the other three appear to be projecting outward at an angle from the shield. I assumed they provided support for the folding parts of the gun shield, because there appear to be small brackets on the upper shield that seem to correspond in location to the upper, free ends of the projections. Perhaps the projections' design were such that they made handy, ad hoc hanging points for ammo cases during transit? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little_Black_Devil Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 When I get a chance, I'll post some pics I have which show these hinges/brackets in use - so I can be clear about which respective part(s) I'm talking about. They are kinda hard to clearly identify and explain. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandelion Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 Hi all, I am following the discussion with great interest as I also want to know more about this. I will contribute what little I know here. Which isn't very much unfortunately. The top sections of the shield are foldable, they fold forward (and angled) and when folded they rest on the protruding thingies. I have seen this on a Museum example, which had one section (top left) folded down as demonstration, but I have never seen a contemporary photo with the crew actually doing this themselves. Though I have seen a photo of a captured 35/36 which had an entirely missing top left section. Other than that, even SPW mounted shields remain unfolded on photo's. The fact that they are foldable and rest on the "I" hinges as support doesn't per se mean that the "I" hinges weren't used to load munitions during movement I suppose, but I haven't encountered this information before. On some shields, those protruding "I" shaped thingies are not themselves foldable, as they very much seem to be on the shield on the picture here. The ones I saw were quite solid, triangular supports welded to the shield. Same function though. The top sections are fastened by, er, well hinges I guess I must call them too, those small round thingies that make the sections foldable forward (but not rearward), very visible on the photo. One could knock out the plug in those hinges, detaching the top section entirely. In a manner I never really understood, the detached top sections could be hung along the lower sections, creating in the words of the Museum plate a primitive version of the later standardised doubleplated shields (these appear on the Pak 40, maybe earlier?). It also said that the strange cut of the topside of the top sections was to accomodate this specific function. I noted it, but again I have never seen any photo of real crews doing this, and I never really understood where the sections were supposed to be hung, because all kinds of stuff seemed to be in the way. As usual there was nobody to ask, just a pile of equipment on a lawn. The shieldplate of the 35/36 is only 4mm thick so reinforcing it to 8mm would make a lot of sense if facing ranged 12.7mm fire. But it appears they never really did this, at least not during any photo opportunities. There are alternative designs to the shield. No idea if any is to be considered "original" or why other types appear (or how many of any - there were more than 15 000 of these barrels in service). But anyway, other versions I have seen (only photo's) have non-foldable top sections, but either easily detached top left sections, or a deep "U" shaped cut into it on the left (Richter/gunner) side. On some no peephole like the one Mr Denim is using on the photo here. Other countries using the Pak 35/36 had even more weird shield designs. Overall I really don't get it. Why fold forward like that at all? It appears not only to reduce cover (and profile of course but still), but provide an angled plate from which incoming small calibre fire could bounce in on the crew. And with so many, many guns in service, why no photo's of folded shields? A neat design that however proved quite useless? A design intended only for specific non-combat purpouses? Cheerio Dandelion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 Originally posted by GoofyStance: I assumed they provided support for the folding parts of the gun shield, because there appear to be small brackets on the upper shield that seem to correspond in location to the upper, free ends of the projections.Ah yes, now that you have drawn my attention to it, that is quite clear in the photograph. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wisbech_lad Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 They are curry hooks, are they not? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 Don't be too hard on the poor old 37mm. Before the war it was the Gold Standard in anti-tank guns with various versions being fielded by just about everybody! Russia even had a license from Rheinmetall to manufature the gun and you'll note the better known Russian 45mm anti-tank gun retains that Rheinmetall-style gunshield. One reason why the 37mm gun lasted so long was the HUGE numbers of duplicate Russian 37mm guns captured that flooded into German service in 41. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandelion Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 See this is why we love the forum. Upon posting my question, I receive an e-mail with a scanned picture from the good Mr Andersen, an ardent Grog and CM cultist of some proportions, known to many here. I put it up on my homepage so we can all have a drool; Cheerio Dandelion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.