3,7cm Panzerabwehrwerfer(t)
3,7cm Panzerabwehrwerfer(t)
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
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
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
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
Hallo Dave!
I agreed with you until last week when I got this
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
Erik
I agreed with you until last week when I got this
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
Erik
- Attachments
-
- close rs217.jpg (41.86 KiB) Viewed 2302 times
-
- Rs_217.jpg (50.05 KiB) Viewed 2302 times
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.
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.
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.
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.
- AvB
- Financial supporter
- Posts: 3425
- Joined: 20 Jun 2004, 01:00
- Location: Utrecht, Netherlands
- Contact:
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.
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.
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
"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