Anti-Tank methods...

I will find out more and report back tomorrow. It seems that the Germans lost 80% of their vehicles during the market garden campaign, many to the para's 6 pounder in arnhem itself. The Tiger II's were lost due to the lack of support training which the accompanying German infantry did not have! the vehicles which seemed to have fared the best in Arnhem were the panzer III and the Stug III. But urban combat does give the defender a huge advantage and is the worst situation for tank crews to fight in.

Read 'It never snows in september' by robert kershaw, truly stunning book, will write a review up if anybody is interested...

 

The 6pdr was a cracking little weapon for it's calibre and in the scattered villages and woods around Arnhem proved to be pretty deadly...until the ammo drop zones fell to the Jerries.

Jumbo

 

Tiger IIs at Arnhem....

Two companies of s.Pz.Abt.506 were sent to the Arnhem area. 3./s.Pz.Kp.506 were attached to 9.SS-Pz.Div. and went to Oosterbeek and 2./s.Pz.Kp.506 was attached to 10.SS-Pz.Div. and went to Elst.

Oosterbeek's narrow roads were a hopeless environment for these huge tanks. The best-known casualty was the Konigstiger attached to KGr. Von Allworden which was knocked out on Monday 25 September by several anti-tank shells in Weverstraat. One shell hit the right-hand track and the tank was abandoned.

This is actually the only Tiger to be definitely identified as knocked out in the fighting around Oosterbeek. It is assumed the others were halted due to track damage/unsuitable road surfaces.

The tanks at Elst were used in 10.SS-Pz.Div's counterattack in early October. Eight tanks were lost ( mainly bogged-down after sliding from dykes ) but one was definitely disabled by a PIAT from 11th Platoon, 7th Bn. The Green Howards.

The source for all this is 'German Armored Units At Arnhem September 1944' by Marcel Zwarts ( Concord Publishing 2001 ) a nice softback book full of fascinating photos and very cheap !

But don't forget, 'Market-Garden Then & Now' is coming.....

 

Well, thanks.

 

A trick that requires a lot of cold bloodedness. I read yesterday on Finns destroying the Russian tanks in Winter war that as they started to learn how to do it, they dug a hole in the ground and put the PAK in it and camouflage it. As often we had by then AT guns that would only pass the armor in close range, the guys would wait for the tanks to come closer and " would lift the PAK up from the hole and shoot the tank from a range of 10-20 meters and then put the PAK back in the hole!".

 

Hmmmm... I must ask where you read that, Kai. It sounds unlikely to me- the weight of the anti tank gun would be a problem. Even the smaller ones... say, a 5cm PaK38, weighed a pretty good amount. I can't find specific numbers right now, but I would think it would be hard to lift one quickly with less than 4 men. Also, there's the firing position- I can't imagine an anti-tank gun could be fired unless it was stable and on the ground- you're source seems to suggest that the Finns would fire the gun while holding it off the ground. This seems like it would be nearly impossible...

I'm curious about this one...

 

Questions ? would or could this have been during the winter months ? the small pak put on boards possibly ? Also maybe a 3.7cm weapon fitted with that deadly rocket-end charge ? Sorry my brain has had too much medication this morning.....need to step outside for some air....ugh !

E

 

Sorry...I see that you mentioned the winter war.......my head, dnag it ! Yes lifting a pak of any caliber would be more of a chore and the accuracy would be way off, but as mentioned if the gun(s) were that close to the tanks. Yikes that is suicidal.

 

If it's the winter war then I could see it being the only way to use those little Madsen 20mm things, and you could roll that out of a hole pretty smartish. The Bofors 37mm with that bloody great shield would take a little more effort.

Jumbo

 

But would the 37mm Bofors be used as an anti-tank weapon...... I do suppose of course it would have to be mentioned as to what type of Soviet tanks were encountered..... ? T-34's or light tanks ?

E

 

Well, if the range was short enough, even one of the 37mm guns would probably have a decent effect. And if the range was short enough, say under 15m, the enemy tank would likely have some trouble returning fire. Most tanks guns did not depress too far, and if I remember correctly, the T-34 (and theoretically other russian tanks) was especially problematic here. Thsu an enemy tanks could be handicapped at such short range.

But I do still wonder about the whole idea of lifting the gun then firing it- even a 37mm gun would have been pretty cumbersome and heavy to fire without any support.

 

Don't forget the rotating front mg though......it all respects I think if I read Kai's story correctly, the whole pak and crew were so well camouflaged that they hit by stealth each and every time so the Soviet tankers had no time to respond.

E

 

(I wonder if Kai has yet noticed how much we are discussing this! I guess we're still waiting to hear about this source here ... Kai? )

On the front mg- the bow mg on most all tanks had a very limited traverse, and I'd guess the AT team would attack the tank's side, not head on. This would mean that the tanks would be relatively unable to retaliate... unless the crew opened up the hatches...
Which would leave them even more vulnerable.

 

Very interesting stuff, but Kai, are you there?

I think the key to this would be camouflage. The Finns were totally unseen, as Erich says and if they hit a T-34 or even a KV-1 in a range of let's say 8 metres... even a small anti-tank gun would have made quite damage.

 

Poor Kai cannot defend himslef yet.....not morning only the middle of the night... it may have depended too of course on the angle of the shot. Was it the flank or rear ? How about the shrapnel blown out and away in the Finn's direction..... ? eeeks !

E

 

Oh-hoh? That certainly woke you guys up...I really didn´t expect this kind of excitement but nice to see you want to know more!

I don´t have the book here but I´ll be back with the information.I do think that they did not just lift the PAK, they had a couple of wooden strips to use for the PAK wheels and just pushed it up and down. And don´t forget that there are loads of trees and by then snow, so things can get complicated for the enemy, and you can´t see clearly around you. And the usual Russian way of advancing as long as possible makes it a bit easier for AT action, as the soldiers are often shot at the front line and the tank

s let move ahead, and destroyed as possible.

 

here´s a site for the AT guns in winter war:

http://www.winterwar.com/Weapons/FinAT/FINantitank.htm

http://www.sci.fi/~ejuhola/7.62/bofors37mm.html

http://www.ankkurinvarsi.net/jaeger/AT_GUNS1.htm

http://www.ankkurinvarsi.net/jaeger/37PstK36_1.jpg

The Bofors 37 PstK/36 seems to have been the only cannon in use in Finland during the Winter War.So this must be the one they were bringing up from the trenches. And like I said they must have had planks for the wheels.

 

Nice stuff, Kai...
That does seem a bit more possible- runnign the gun up a ramp really quick and then firing. I wonder though- wouldn't it have worked just as well to give the gun lots of camoflage and dig it in very well? If one digs in an anti-tank gun well enough, only the barrel and the top of the gun shield would be showing...
I like this idea though... but it does seem like it would be limited by the terrain. The Finns probably took full advantage of trees, snow, and other camo.
But at very close range, Friedrich is right- even a 37mm gun would damage the front or rear of a russian tank.
Erich- I don't think there would be too much schrapnel from an armor piercing round- it would just punch a hole in the tank...

 

Later on this cannon was transferred to shooting at enemy troops, as the they started to use T-34 and Klims more and more. The 37 would not hurt them.

But at the time it was quite useful, as they did destroy some 2000 tanks by the Russians during the Winter War...This method was probably one of the tricks in the book, as anyway the AT gun was best kept behind a camouflage and when needed brought ahead to shoot the enemy tanks, not to be sighted by the tanks first. Preferably by the defensive side the first thing the tank´s crew saw was the shot of the gun if even that.

Remember that these Russian tanks were not T-34´s. Mostly the kind of stuff Germans met during the first months of Barbarossa.

The nature in Finland is totally different to Central Europe. For instance the SS NORD men were totally lost in the woods.No Blitzkrieg here! And during the Winter War the Russian army men came from Ukraine so it is a bit different here.If you ever have the chance, do visit Lapland.It is great!Unless you wish to attack with tanks..

 

Crazy :

Well not familiar with just how close the AT gun was to the lighter Soviet tanks but there had to be some back blast encountered at close range.
Kai, one day I am coming over to your country with my C.C. ski's ! I have heard so much about your beautiful land and would love more exploration, like a 40 mile jaunt through the landscape.
Back on track now......you guys have heard about the configuration of 1/2 Panzerfausts in trees, rigged in such a way that when a T-34 would go between two firs it would snap the trip wire and ......boom ! My friend Helmuth and his small party while in Infantrie regiment 43 in the Ost Preussian forests, would set up mulitple tank traps along the narrow and almost impassable roads through the swamp lands of their homeland. Helmuth remembered so often the characteristic smash/boom of the Panzerfausts hitting the sides of the Soviet tanks, though he always wondered just how many Panzers his little rag-tag unit destroyed. He never once received a tank destruction strip for his tunic as the group was always on the run in 1945 and chaos reigned supreme.

E