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

They have to be pre-planned, because towed artillery aren't as mobile as the tanks they're supposed to be shooting. This changed with the advent of Tank Destroyers (And assault guns used in that role.) These were often more mobile than their turreted counterparts, but truck, and horse drawn cannons like these have to depend on Ambush. They can't PaK up everything, hitch it to the horse, or halftrack, and chase the tanks, then unhitch, set up, load and fire. They have to be Ready to Fire, (In Battery) preferably from a Concealed position when the tanks show up to stand a chance.
1
@courseshk27 Okay, yes. I have a travel trailer, I can push around like that too, but that doesn't mean you can chase a car around the parking lot, with wheels, a motor. Let alone, a machinegun, and cannon to shoot back at you. If you read the actually doctrines, the way this guy does, on this channel. It "Has to be." According to the experts, that made these guns, the tanks, and put machinguns on them to shoot at Anti-Tank Gun crews on the move. It's standard doctrine.
1
@courseshk27 It's literally one of the main reasons why Tanks had machineguns on them. That's what the coaxial was mounted in the mantlet for. In keeping with the theme of weapons, and counter weapons, that shield, on this gun is for the coax shooting back at you.
1
@courseshk27 Right, exactly. They still had 37mm guns at that time. They were designed as Antitank guns, but they weren't being used that way. So, it's not a bad example, it's a distraction. I was talking about using Anti-tank guns vs Tanks. You're talking about how the M3 is surprisingly mobile, for a field piece, but it's still being compared to a Tank. With an engine, and a turret. Anything without an Engine doesn't really compare with the mobility of anything that can fire on the move. A tode, any tode, cannot be fired on the move. That's why they stopped using them as AT guns against modern mechanized infantry tactics. Even the Infantry was on halftracks. Sure, you can tow a gun behind the halftrack, but you can also just put an AT gun on it, which they did. Long before America got involved. However, this is an Interwar gun. I said that, first.
1
@courseshk27 here's a good example, the Komsomolets T-20. They made several prototypes with field pieces mounted on the roof. For instance the ZiS-2 it towed around as a field piece. It also had a machingun in a ball-mount up front. Now, should that AT crew run into another AT crew, on the move. Regardless of whether it's towing the the ZiS 2, or if it's on the roof. They're going to shoot at them with the machingun, because that's what it's for, and it can be fired on the move. Another gun they mounted on the T-20 was the PaK36.
1
@courseshk27 Wait, what? Sure, let's throw everything I didn't mention into one sentence!
1
@courseshk27 Okay, "Quasi-Mobile" but you still have to stop. Set the trail in the ground, unfold the shield, get out the shells, load, and fire. Then, pack it all up, and pull the trail out of the dirt to move it again. All that time, you're not moving. Yes, it can be moved, but it's not being used, as an Anti-tank gun, while it's moving. I can move my bed too, but not while I'm sleeping in it. That still doesn't make it "Quasimobile." A mobile home is quasi-mobile, but it's not as mobile as a motorhome. That has a motor.
1
Self Propelled Gun. Gun: Motor Carriage. Samokhodnaya Ustanovka translates to Self Propelled Casemate. I'm sure you can see what these all have in common: They can move themselves. The fact that the gun crew can move a field piece has been the field in field artillery since before Napoleon. That still doesn't make a field piece Mobile Artillery. That's why we differentiate between field Artillery, and Mobile Artillery. This is standard doctrine. It always has been, and it always will be. This gun is not exception, just because it's relatively easy for the crew to move it.
1
@courseshk27 How does them moving the guns after they shot them make the soldiers more, or less dead? They're already dead. The fact that they had to pak up the guns, and move them pretty much admits that they weren't able to move themselves. Just resorting to "Quasi-moto" is admitting that they're not truly mobile. As entertaining as this is, you've gotten to the point where you're inventing a whole new class of "Quasimobile" guns, just for this one field piece, and the M3. So, do go on, but with the knowledge that it's purely for my entertainment...
1
@courseshk27 Okay, first you used the memory of dead British soldiers to try to prove the superiority of the German gun. (Also, the PaK 40 used in North Afrika was the heavier, long barreled version of this light little trench gun.) Now, you're talking about the fantasy of soldiers dying of old age, because wheeled field pieces with ARTILLERY TRACTORS to move them around are too slow? That's why we had Artillery Tractors. So the gunnery crews didn't have to wear themselves out, schlepping their guns through the mud, setting them up, loading, and firing them. Like the WC55 1 ton truck, until they mounted an M3 37mm Antitank gun on it, to make it more mobile. (That would be the M6 GMC. Or for the German equivalent, look up the RSO PaK 40.) Why? because Mobility proved to be better than quasi-mobility. Also, you know the Germans lost, in North Afrika, and everywhere else, right? In spite of their alleged superior Mobility, they got stuck in the mud before they got to Moskov. As well as everyone else who tried. So, I hate to say it, but you're rooting for the wrong side there. Spoiler Warning!
1
You're still ignoring the fact that that mount is set up for digging in to a static position, because it's an interwar gun, designed from lessons learned in World War 1. All of the examples you've given were World War II designs, with long enough barrels to actually be useful against World War II Tanks. In the Antitank role. They still used them but for Infantry Support, because they were useless in the Antitank Role. If they wanted to use "Mobility" to take out tanks, in close range, they would have used the Panserbüchse 38. Considering the fact that they designed it, specifically for that role. After the PaK36.
1
Oh yeah, and those PaK 36s you're talking about, in North Afrika? They were actually PaK 40s. You seemed to have missed that point, despite the fact that I pointed it out, several times.
1
@courseshk27 Using those weapons like the nefarious Americans doing the same thing with the M3? You used both examples, mate. it still has a trail, and removable wheels, to be dug in, in both Artillery manuals. in German, and American. It's standard doctrine, for everyone using these weapons, on these mounts, in the Antitank Role. Regardless of how heavy they are.
1
Making them lighter makes it easier to get them to, and from the battlefield. When you get there, you still use them the same as any other Antitank gun, on that mount. If you want to use them as Mobile artillery, EVERYONE mounted them on something with a motor. That's why it's called a motor.
1
@courseshk27 Yes, but the 5cm, and 7.5cm versions weren't as light and schleppable as this one. Surely you can see that. You still have to plant the spade, in the ground to fire it. That's why it has a spade in the trail. Look at it. It has a spade in the trail, for digging in. What did you think that was for?
1
The US fielded light turreted open top tank destroyers like the Hellcat, because they were more mobile than the Panzers.
1
@courseshk27 It doesn't have to take forever. You still have to dig in to fire. It's a gun, you have to fire it. With that mount, you need a stable defensible position to fire it. Look at the mount, it's what it's designed for.
1
Again, we're not talking World War II. We're talking Interwar. This is an Interwar gun. I wasn't talking about "Always Stationary." I called it a Tode (That's army for towed.) a Field piece, and also mentioned artillery Tractors. They were indeed pushed around the battlefield, but that wasn't the standard doctrine. That was "Oh shit, the Panzer sees us!" diving for cover. They were towed around the field, by tractors, which is why they're called "Todes." I'm not denying that the ablity for the crew to schlepp it through the mud and sand is an advantage. But that's not an advantage the effective AT guns (Like the 5cm, and 7.5cm guns you mentioned) had. In World War II. That's something the Tank Destroyers had, because the crew could ride along with the AT gun, and more armor than that folding gun shield. That's why they replaced the interwar AT guns with Tank Destroyers. They were fast enough to keep up with the Panzers, and the infantry on halftracks.
1
@courseshk27 Again, since you missed it before: The machineguns could fire on the move. Which is why WWII Tanks had machineguns.
1
@courseshk27 Oh, that's your point? because I already made that. I spoke several times about the AT role, and the Infantry Support Role. Also, you could have said that not all guns are the same from the beginning, captain obvious.
1
Wait a seccond, aren't you the one that compared a South African split-tail HOWITZER to an interwar AT gun earlier today? I'm sorry, but if anyone's confused about the differences between different kinds of todes, it's you.
1
@courseshk27 No, soldiers. Regardless of whether they're schlepping a gun, or fighting with machineguns (PaK crews didn't have MGs) dive for cover when a machinegun shoots at their position, or die.
1
@courseshk27 Uhm, which tanks could be pushed around by infantry, and why?
1
@courseshk27 Charging a tank with an AT gun. Apparently a portable one that can outmaneuver a tank, is somehow less suicidal than charging it with machineguns? (When I was talking about the machineguns on the TANK being able to fire on the move.)
1
A lot of the Inter-war development was based on 1st generation Tank technology and Trench Warfare from the first World War. So basically, this was designed with the British "Landships" in mind, while the Germans were developing more advanced Panzers at the same time. They also had a close eye on the French inter-war development, due to resentment over the Versailles Treaty. Those were mostly small with heavy armor (For the time) and 2 man crews. A driver in the bow, and the Commander in the turret. So, he had to act as Gunner, and Loader (Basically the same 37mm guns were standard at the time) as well. Since this is an Anti-tank gun, specifically. The Tanks you expect to be shooting at are crucial for the development. The biggest gun isn't always the best gun, especially when you have to tow it to the battlefield, supply it with ammunition, dig in emplacements for it, and it's crews. Again, the dominance of Trench Warfare on the Eastern Front influenced their early weapon, and strategic development, so if given the chance, the French might dig in, with Tanks mostly for breaking the stalemate. This is why the original name indicated it was for Defense against Tanks.
1