Talk:3.7 cm Pak 36

PaK 35
What was the PaK 35? Drutt (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No such gun Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I see references online to something called the PaK 35/36. Did this gun have two different names? Drutt (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't a reference handy—I'm working on French weapon at the moment—so I do not want to state this authoritatively right now—in a way, yes. The original design for a 3,7cm A/T Gun went back to the early 1920s (1924, I think?), resulting in the Pak.36, which was built for horse transport. The weapon was updated for motorised transport beginning in 1933 (I believe), resulting in the Pak.35/36 (or Pak 35/36, or Panzerabwehrkanone Modell 35/36, &c). That's my "general understanding". It oughtn't to be too difficult to run down a reliable source, or even find the Waffenamt specifications. I should think.

Ranya (talk) 08:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There was no year at all in the designation actually: Many modern and not so modern publications invent their own names: Pak 35, Pak 35/36, Pak 37, etc. All of these are incorrect. In German documents, no names other than 3.7 cm Tak, 3.7 cm T. or 3.7 cm Pak are used. Nevertheless, these inventions are widely spread even among military historians. Ain92 (talk) 11:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Production
How many were built in total? Drutt (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Dates
When did production begin, and when did it enter service with the German Army? Drutt (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Armour Penetration
The way the armour penetration data is explained here is fairly ambiguous.

"PaK 36 can penetrate 35mm sloped armor at 30 degrees"

I do not believe the author meant to say "35mm sloped armor" because there is no other reference to the slope. For instance if he had said "it could penetrate 35mm of armour sloped at 30 degrees" then it would make sense because there is actually a way to calculate the effective armour thickness of that.

Typically (and I have read Ian Hogg's book in his reference section) armour penetration is reported thusly:

100 meters: 35mm at 30 degrees.

It doesn't mean that the armour is sloped 30 degrees, it means that it assumes the round strikes the target at a thirty degree angle. If it was an absolutely perfectly flat shot and the armour just happened to be a 30 degree slope then yes this would be a correct reference. The reason it is reported typically in degrees is because of vertical differences, range, trajectory and other considerations.

Long winded and technical but I would suggest changing this to "the Pak36 could penetrate 35mm of armour at a 30 degree angle." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drakhl (talk • contribs) 12:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh and the Pak36 wasn't all that great against sloped armour. Firstly because of a low muzzle velocity compared to other ATGs, and a very short round (see the wiki on long rod penetrators for an explanation of why thats important). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drakhl (talk • contribs) 12:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This article appears to contain synthesis of published material that advances a position, which is a breach the policy on No original research. A good example is the stuff about Char B, and the stuff about T-34 making it obsolete. Of course I may be wrong in thinking this, as it may be that this stuff comes from sources. If it does, then the sources need citing.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sloped armour simply means it has been angled from the vertical (90° angle against the horizontal) armour that is the standard presumption in these matters if nothing else is stated. "35mm at 30 degrees" means just that, a deviation of 30° from the perpendicular. Whether that deviation is a result of the armour being sloped or the gun's position being at an angle contra the armour is irrelevant for the penetration. BP OMowe (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion that "sloped armour" is the same as the accepted standard and customary usage of "35mm @ 30°". The latter usage is accepted to infer "angle-off", not obliquity, as it is quite possible to present sloped armour at 30° angle-off, which creates a rather different picture alltogether.

Also, I do feel that a Wikipedia Page should follow accepted conventions—and the convention countries is to write or say "35mm of homogemnous plate at 30°". Ranya (talk) 08:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Clarification re: question about the Romanians at Stalingrad
Yes, in fact, the Pak 36 was just as good as nothing vs. the T-34, which the Germans had already discovered, which is why they had completely phased out the Pak 36 and replaced it with the 5 cm PaK 38 and pawned off all their old PaK 36s on the Romanians, who already had poor morale and training. So to answer your question, even WWI era obsolete divisional artillery pieces (similar to what the Soviets were doing with the 102mm and 152mm guns) would have been a massive improvement. Hell, even giving them a bunch of Tellermines, Molotov cocktails and Stielhandgranate bundles would have been a major improvement. It probably would not have saved them, since their morale was already terrible, but it would have been a major improvement. The panicked rout that ensued when they met the T-34s of the Russians during Operation Uranus was widely attributed to their inability to even destroy a single tank. Court Appointed Shrub (talk) 04:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

PaK is misspelled as "Pak"
Needs to be moved.
 * Lower case "k" seems correct. --Denniss (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

See https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/3,7-cm-PaK_36 (also https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/3,7-cm_PaK_36, https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/3,7_cm_PaK_36, etc.) and how it's for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.8_cm_KwK_43 even in the English version (and not "Kwk"). Actually all the PaK in English are misspelled: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:German_artillery_of_World_War_II and yet not GrW into "Grw"and so forth. Even this article had been under a correct title until someone moved it in 2009: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3.7_cm_Pak_36&type=revision&diff=309030044&oldid=290173238&diffmode=source SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * see Talk:7.5 cm Pak 50 --Denniss (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The fact that Wikipedia authors from other countries doesn't know how to properly capitalize 'Pak' is not an argument to do it incorrectly on English Wikipedia. Likewise, that other words are capitalized differently is irrelevant. There are no reliable sources that support the use of 'PaK'.Christian Ankerstjerne (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * These "other countrie" include Germany itself. Just some (all "unreliable" I guess) books:      Btw, literally most of all your edits from at least 9 years(!) involved changing PaK to Pak everywhere. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Official designations in official documents are weighted far higher than some author's work. There are some really bad examples of author's inventions like Sd.Kfz. 234/2 Puma (Puma was never used) or the Jagdpanzer 38(t) Hetzer (which was actually named leichter Panzerjäger 38, later Jagdpanzer 38. Not everything written in books is true. --Denniss (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * In addition to what Dennis wrote, the fact a source is in German does not automatically make it reliable. The books to which you linked are indeed not reliable sources on German anti-tank guns, most importantly because they are not actually about German anti-tank guns. All they do is make passing mentions within a greater context.
 * "Btw, literally most of all your edits from at least 9 years(!) involved changing PaK to Pak everywhere."
 * Don't forget changing the incorrect FlaK to the correct Flak. I don't think I've caught all the cases, but I think I've caught most.Christian Ankerstjerne (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

"Invulnerable"?
I seriously doubt the T-34 or KV-1 (or any tank of the era) was in fact "invulnerable" to the Pak 36. Its frontal armor was theoretically unpiercable (but even that entirely depends on the actual quality of the armor and many other factors that combine to make reality sometimes differ from the expected result), but there were weak spots even in the front glacis plate, and the side and rear armor were another matter entirely, not to mention the damage that could be done to the suspension and roadwheels and track. "Invulnerable" means that the tank is able to totally defeat any possible projectile from that weapon under any circumstances, and I seriously doubt that is the case. A 75mm M3 gun cannot penetrate the glacis of a Tiger, yet there are cases of them being killed, even from the front, definitely from the side or rear. Even true of the Tiger II. I would say "the frontal armor of tanks like the T-34 and KV-1 was largely invulnerable to the fire of the Pak 36". That is actually factual, whereas saying the tankitself is "invulnerable" to the gun is almost certainly an untrue statement. There are plenty of places on a tank that can be penetrated or damaged by a projectile that would have no effect on its main armor. Hell, the Panther was being knocked out by 14.5mm anti-tank rifles, even though its frontal armor was able to (theoretically_ shrug off 76mm and 17 pounder rounds.

I have also yet to see any concrete evidence that the nickname "door knocker" (etc) was actually coined to be derogatory towards the Pak 36 and to reflect its inability to penetrate enemy tanks, aside from some author interpreting that as being the troops intent. It may well have been the meaning after the Pak 36 began to show its obsolescence, but it could have just as easily been a darkly humorous name for it coined when it was still considered a perfectly effective anti-armor weapon. "Door knocker" can just as easily suggest a device expected to rudely awaken the enemy crew when a shell comes crashing into their tank as a device that is so weak it won't do any more than knock on the door. I have seen people refer to door breachers and breaching guns as "door knockers" as well, and not because they are incapable of opening doors.

64.223.159.241 (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)