Comments by "" (@TheArklyte) on "Pak 36: The most effective Doorknocker @DasPanzermuseum" video.

@samiamrg7 not when you're yourself within a deadly envelope of more powerful 45mm gun. If you want to survive as AT gunner in those times, you'd better stay VERY low and quiet and do exactly as his gramps said, only engage in ambush.
36
@politenessman3901 we're talking about soviet tanks, not french ones.
2
@politenessman3901 compared to a man that projects early T-34 turret onto tanks armed with 45mm gun and is too lazy to look up difference between relative weight of complete rounds of 76mm and 45mm? But it's okay, T-28 had 76mm gun too for example, I'm pretty sure that one was cramped despite having 3 people and 1620mm diameter of turret ring (100mm more then Pz.III and 20mm more then T-28's distant relative Pz.IV!). Could you stop with stereotypes, guys? Yes, please, look it up, it'll do YOU some good:D
2
@politenessman3901 only in T-72. But yeah, I guess I never had to load anything by hand, you're right there:D Please read comments before responding.
2
@matthiuskoenig3378 T-26? Yes. BT-7 and T-28? Not so much. T-28E? In your dreams:D BT-7 and T-28 already aren't getting reliably penetrated frontally at distance above 500m, T-28E is simply outside of Pak37 capabilities without the use of tungsten core ammo. Unless you use Terry Gander as your only source:D No tanks fought with open hatches. And no tank driver/commander of the time would move on the march without apparent danger with hatches closed, air conditioning haven't become a thing until many decades later. So no idea what you're saying here. Or why you believe that soviets didn't have optics(sights and periscopes) on their tanks.
1