3,7cm Panzerabwehrwerfer(t)

Discussions on the fortifications, artillery, & rockets used by the Axis forces.
Post Reply
User avatar
Erik E
Member
Posts: 4517
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 23:26
Location: Stavanger, Norway
Contact:

3,7cm Panzerabwehrwerfer(t)

#1

Post by Erik E » 16 Mar 2003, 00:34

Hallo!

Just found this name on a German document........
I couldn`t find it on the list at TRF, so I guess this is a "new" one?

Who can tell me anything about this weapon?
And how does a "Panzerabwehrwerfer" actually work?

Erik

daveh
Member
Posts: 1439
Joined: 11 Feb 2003, 19:14
Location: uk

#2

Post by daveh » 17 Mar 2003, 04:30

A problem here. The Panzerabwehrwerfer was a high/low pressure gun. The 8cm PAW 600 was a Rheinmetall design issued for troop trials in late 1944. and there was a Krupp prototype the 10 cm PAW 600 a little later.
The (t) in the designation, as you no doubt know, refers to a czech origin. I know of no czech ie Skoda probably, design for a PAW. The 3.7cm calibre is too small for the PAW whose shell was based on mortar shell designs and used the hollow charge principal for their anti tank effect.

There is a Panzerabwehrkanone in 3.7cm of czech origin in the German inventory. This was the 3.7cm Pak 37(t) or Skoda 37mm kanon P.U.V. vz.37.

I am unsure how these would combine as you suggest as their dates are the early war years and in service use and the last year of the war andprotype or troop trials.

Perhaps a date on your document could supply a clue? Or the context of the document ?
I hope this was of some use
Dave H

See Small arms, artillery and special waepons of the Third Reich T Gander and P Chamberlain


User avatar
Erik E
Member
Posts: 4517
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 23:26
Location: Stavanger, Norway
Contact:

#3

Post by Erik E » 17 Mar 2003, 21:42

Hallo Dave!

I agreed with you until last week when I got this :D

As you see, it says "werfer" and the weapon on the drawing doesn`t look like a pak.....

The (t) also makes me believe that it is pre-1938 design!?
There are no dates on this one, but I`ll see on the others!

Do we need to rewrite the history books, or is there an explanation :wink:

Erik
Attachments
close rs217.jpg
close rs217.jpg (41.86 KiB) Viewed 2302 times
Rs_217.jpg
Rs_217.jpg (50.05 KiB) Viewed 2302 times

daveh
Member
Posts: 1439
Joined: 11 Feb 2003, 19:14
Location: uk

#4

Post by daveh » 27 Mar 2003, 16:34

Do the type numbers help at all?. My lists of West Wall and Atlantic Wall types does not include either the 216 or 217 designs. A 3.7cm calibre for an anti tank weapon points to a c 1939 or earlier date as does the (t) designation, are the type 216 & 217 of a similar period?

A werfer should be a smooth bore design. This suggests that its anti tank round would be a hollow charge shell, as with the PAW designs I mentioned previously. A 3.7cm calibre would be too small for an effective hollow charge shell.

The drawings show a barrel length of c. 1.6metres which fits in with a 3.7cm weapon the Pak 35/6 having a c, 1.57m long barrel.


This does not seem to progress things much. I wonder if we have a late war drawing of a pre war design with an incorrect nomenclature added????? Clutching at straws I fear.

User avatar
kfbr392
Member
Posts: 540
Joined: 24 Jun 2004, 17:05
Location: Germany

#5

Post by kfbr392 » 27 Sep 2004, 12:41

my guess:
the weapon is the 3.7cm Pak 37(t).
in world war one, when one recognized the importance of going underground and building bunkers, the german army developped all kinds of werfer for the defending infantry. ladungswerfer. granatwerfer. minenwerfer. flammenwerfer. gewehrgranatwerfer...

with this in mind, the authors of this fortification probably liked to call that pak-emplacement a panzerabwehrwerfer-position.

as pointed out, there was no smoth boore shaped charge weapon of that calibre - too small.

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

#6

Post by AvB » 27 Sep 2004, 12:55

Maybe it's just a modified 3.7cm PAK 37 (t). So equipped with a reinforced chamber.

I also found this: "The near complete lack of recoil allows some versions to be shoulder-fired, but the majority are mounted on light tripods, and are easily man portable". That's quite handy in a Ringstand, no recoil.

User avatar
kfbr392
Member
Posts: 540
Joined: 24 Jun 2004, 17:05
Location: Germany

#7

Post by kfbr392 » 05 Oct 2004, 09:09

just found something:

"under the designation 'Gerät 200' Krupp and Rheinmetall developped various Panzerabwehrwerfer. With the calibres of 2cm, 2,5cm and 3,7cm those were light one-man-weapons which projected 'Stielgranaten' [stick grenades]. These developpments were however abandoned in favour of bigger calibres..."

source: hahn, waffen und geheimwaffen p.110


so, no (t) weapons, but Krupp and Rheinmetall, but who knows if this is not where that whole concept came from. seems plausible anyways,


a+
matt

User avatar
Erik E
Member
Posts: 4517
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 23:26
Location: Stavanger, Norway
Contact:

#8

Post by Erik E » 05 Oct 2004, 22:32

Interesting news.....

Anyone with some books on Czhech weapons here??

EE

User avatar
Glynwed
Member
Posts: 590
Joined: 28 Aug 2003, 12:43
Location: Czech Republic

#9

Post by Glynwed » 06 Oct 2004, 16:23

Never heard abouth weapon which looking like that on the picture :( .

Post Reply

Return to “Fortifications, Artillery, & Rockets”