4.7 cm PAK 36 (t) (ex-czech M-36)

Discussions on the fortifications, artillery, & rockets used by the Axis forces.
Post Reply
Brady
Member
Posts: 1521
Joined: 10 Jul 2008, 23:02
Location: Oregon

Re: 4.7 cm PAK 36 (t) (ex-czech M-36)

#91

Post by Brady » 28 Feb 2018, 04:00

Kupka et al. says about 132 SPG on PzKpfw IB chassis (built in 1940), and 174 on Renault R35, built in 1941.
After Janoušek, there were 202 SPG on PzKpfw IB (since April 1940), and 174 on Renault R35.

...........

That’s a bit confusing

..........

How many of the towed guns were used in the field, BoF, is thier any reference for that ?

KrankenPz
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: 24 Oct 2019, 08:03
Location: Ballarat

Re: 4.7 cm PAK 36 (t) (ex-czech M-36)

#92

Post by KrankenPz » 03 Dec 2019, 11:14

jopaerya wrote:
21 Jan 2012, 16:47
The 4.7 cm gun in transport behind a truck .

Photo = Ebay

Regards Jos
Does anyone know which divisional or other sign is on the truck in this picture?


Sturm78
Member
Posts: 17927
Joined: 02 Oct 2008, 18:18
Location: Spain

Re: 4.7 cm PAK 36 (t) (ex-czech M-36)

#93

Post by Sturm78 » 18 Dec 2020, 17:09

Hi all,

An image from Ebay. Probably an ex-Yugoslavian gun

Sturm78
Attachments
4.7cm Skoda AT gun abandoned.jpg

Sturm78
Member
Posts: 17927
Joined: 02 Oct 2008, 18:18
Location: Spain

Re: 4.7 cm PAK 36 (t) (ex-czech M-36)

#94

Post by Sturm78 » 28 May 2021, 23:06

Hi all,

An image from Ebay

Sturm78
Attachments
4.7cm Skoda Pak (t) gun captured.jpg

Łukasz TuniaRadom
New member
Posts: 1
Joined: 12 Aug 2022, 19:20
Location: Polska Radom

Re:

#95

Post by Łukasz TuniaRadom » 13 Aug 2022, 08:08

tom! wrote:
19 Jul 2006, 17:59
Hi.

From the H.DV 435-1:

1. 4,7 cm Pzgr. Patr. 36 (t) with 4,7 cm Pzgr. 36 (t) using Bd. Z. 36 (t) and Bd. Z. PD 28 (t)
2. 4,7 cm Pzgr. Patr. 36 (t) umg. with 4,7 cm Pzgr. 35 (ö) umg. using Bd. Z. M 35 of the 4,7 cm Pzgr. 35
3. 4,7 cm Pzgr. Patr. (j) with 4,7 cm Pzgr. (j) using Bd. Z. P 56 (t)
4. 4,7 cm Sprgr. Patr. 36 (t) with 4,7 cm Sprgr. 36 (t) using A. Z. N 34 (t)


propellant charges:

1. 459 g Ngl. Str. P. M 36 (1 * 10/320)
2. 459 g Ngl. Str. P. M 36 (1 * 10/320)
3. 465 g Ngl. Str. P. M 36 (1 * 10/320)
4. 251 g Ngl. Str. P. M 36 (0,6 * 6/320)


Image


Image

Yours

tom! :wink:
Brakuje jeszcze :
6. 463 g Ngl. Str. P. M 36 (1*10/320)

Jens Andersen
Member
Posts: 764
Joined: 24 Aug 2005, 08:30
Location: Denmark

Re: 4.7 cm PAK 36 (t) (ex-czech M-36)

#96

Post by Jens Andersen » 19 Oct 2022, 11:05

Hi,

On top of the 4,7 cm Fest.Pak.(t) there was mounted a coaxial machine gun.

Was this machine gun considered a weapon of it's own right, or was it only an aid for the aiming of the anti tank gun?

Best regards
Jens
Attachments
0072.jpg

Brady
Member
Posts: 1521
Joined: 10 Jul 2008, 23:02
Location: Oregon

Re: 4.7 cm PAK 36 (t) (ex-czech M-36?

#97

Post by Brady » 19 Oct 2022, 15:19

Where are the optics

User avatar
Eax-E
Member
Posts: 865
Joined: 08 Jun 2010, 18:58

Re: 4.7 cm PAK 36 (t) (ex-czech M-36)

#98

Post by Eax-E » 19 Oct 2022, 20:08

Hi Jens,

I'm not sure about the exact meaning of your question but definitely the MG 37(t) was not used to aim but as an entire weapon, which missing or relocation would not affect the functioning of the gun.

As an example, in Norway 181.ID asked his troops to build alternative MG-emplacements near the casemate for the MG37(t).
4,7 cm mh.JPG
Regards

Jens Andersen
Member
Posts: 764
Joined: 24 Aug 2005, 08:30
Location: Denmark

Re: 4.7 cm PAK 36 (t) (ex-czech M-36)

#99

Post by Jens Andersen » 19 Oct 2022, 21:21

Hi,

Thank for your answer. The document very much answers my question.

I have read that the coaxial machine gun on tanks could be used to find the range for the tank's main gun. So, my thought was that the machine gun on the Fest.Pak might have had the same function.
But logically, from the bunker with Fest.Pak you probably didn't aids like that, as you would have plenty of time to learn the distance to landscape features in your field of fire.

Jens

Ondrej Filip
Member
Posts: 390
Joined: 09 Jan 2013, 17:55

Re: 4.7 cm PAK 36 (t) (ex-czech M-36)

#100

Post by Ondrej Filip » 21 Oct 2022, 01:09

Jens Andersen wrote:
19 Oct 2022, 11:05
Was this machine gun considered a weapon of it's own right, or was it only an aid for the aiming of the anti tank gun?
Hi Jens. The machine gun, although the part of L1 weapon, was completely independent. The shared embrasure was used to increase the fire capacity of the bunker without the need to enlarge it. In some cases, only a cannon with with its machine gun fired in the fire sector (there was no separate machine gun in another embrasure). That machine gun performed its tasks of infantry defense independently of the cannon to which it was attached. Although, of course, it was necessary to aim the entire weapon.

User avatar
AvB
Financial supporter
Posts: 3425
Joined: 20 Jun 2004, 01:00
Location: Utrecht, Netherlands
Contact:

Re: 4.7 cm PAK 36 (t) (ex-czech M-36)

#101

Post by AvB » 21 Oct 2022, 13:44

I don't know the exact regulations but in a 676 in Hoek van Holland the amount of 1.000 rounds of steel core (S.m.K.) rounds for the MG was written on the wall. Specifically made for light armour penetration.
They operated indepently but the entire gun had to me moved to aim the MG, which isn't very practical is it?

Brady
Member
Posts: 1521
Joined: 10 Jul 2008, 23:02
Location: Oregon

Re: 4.7 cm PAK 36 (t) (ex-czech M-36)

#102

Post by Brady » 21 Oct 2022, 17:28

AvB wrote:
21 Oct 2022, 13:44
I don't know the exact regulations but in a 676 in Hoek van Holland the amount of 1.000 rounds of steel core (S.m.K.) rounds for the MG was written on the wall. Specifically made for light armour penetration.
They operated indepently but the entire gun had to me moved to aim the MG, which isn't very practical is it?
I don’t know why it wouldn’t be, pretty much all tank machine guns were coaxial, very few of them had an independent movement most were slaved to the gun.

User avatar
Eax-E
Member
Posts: 865
Joined: 08 Jun 2010, 18:58

Re: 4.7 cm PAK 36 (t) (ex-czech M-36)

#103

Post by Eax-E » 22 Oct 2022, 13:08

AvB wrote:
21 Oct 2022, 13:44

They operated indepently but the entire gun had to me moved to aim the MG, which isn't very practical is it?
The gun traversing mecanism could be disengaged from the rack to moove freely from right to left. So the aiming was more intuitive.

Also the principle to mix both gun and machine gun the a combined fortress weapon was very trendy in the 30's.

Post Reply

Return to “Fortifications, Artillery, & Rockets”