History

Initially, the Germans began the war with the small, easily concealable, and relatively light (at 430 kg) 3.7 cm PaK gun. Over the following years, they encountered increasingly well-protected enemy armor. To counter these threats, the Germans were forced to introduce progressively heavier and larger caliber anti-tank guns. They eventually ended up with the massive, heavy (10.1 tonnes) 12.8 cm PaK 44 anti-tank gun, which had significant mobility challenges. Despite its excellent anti-tank capabilities, its weight and size made it difficult to conceal and move without a prime mover. German soldiers operating this and other models, such as the 7.5 cm PaK, frequently complained about their excessive weight. Lacking adequate motorized transport, many of these weapons had to be abandoned during retreats.

A potential solution was seen in the use of recoilless guns for this role. However, while such guns were employed by the Germans, they never saw widespread use and were far from perfect. The main drawback, as with all recoilless guns, was the large back-blast created after firing. Another option consisted of portable anti-tank rocket launchers, such as the Panzerschreck, which provided infantry with the capability to destroy tanks at a reasonable distance and were relatively lightweight.

Nevertheless, the German Army still desired a lightweight anti-tank gun that offered a more extended firing range than the Panzerschreck. In 1943, a request was issued for a lightweight anti-tank gun capable of hitting a 1 m target at a distance of 750 m. Given the weight restrictions, a conventional anti-tank gun was not an option. Recoilless guns were also dismissed due to the aforementioned issues. Therefore, the request appeared to be a dead end, as was the case with many other German projects. However, Rheinmetall proposed an entirely new weapon system to fulfill this role.

Rheinmetall’s solution was the Hoch-Niederdrucksystem (Eng. High-low pressure system), which they had been experimenting with for some time. This system significantly reduced recoil, allowing for the use of a lightweight carriage. To accelerate development and reduce costs, Rheinmetall engineers decided to reuse the 8 cm caliber employed by German light mortars.

Although the details are somewhat unclear, it appears that during the prototype phase, another prominent German manufacturer, Krupp, was involved in designing different barrels and carriages for this gun. The prototypes were to be completed and presented to the German Army by September 1944. Rheinmetall’s initial prototype was reported to be relatively lightweight, but this caused issues during firing tests, leading to the gun needing reinforcement. In late 1944, the prototype was presented to Hitler, who was satisfied with its armor penetration capability of 140 mm. Rheinmetall engineers even claimed that it could be further increased to 160 mm, though it remains unclear if this was ever achieved. Regardless, after the successful presentation of the first prototype, an initial production order was placed for an unspecified number of 0-series units for troop trials, with plans for mass production to follow.

Name

According to I. Hogg (German Artillery Of World War Two), this anti-tank gun was initially designated as the 8 cm Panzerabwehrwerfer (Eng. Anti-tank launcher) PAW 600. The significance of the number ‘600’ is not explicitly mentioned in the sources, but it may have referred to its overall weight.

On the other hand, author T. Anderson (History Of the Panzerjaeger Volume 2) mentions that PAW stands for Panzerabwehr-Waffe (Eng. Anti-tank weapon).

In September 1944, the German Army adopted a new, somewhat complicated designation system, renaming the gun to 8H63. In this system, the first number ‘8’ indicated the caliber, while the letter ‘H’ stood for ammunition classification (Hohlladung – Hollow charge). The ‘63’ represented the drawing number of the gun. It is important to note that, given its late introduction, this new designation system was rarely used.

Production

The production of this gun began in December 1944. By February 1945, some 100 guns of these were completed. By March 1945, when the production ended, this had increased to 260.

Design

Carriage

The carriage of the PAW 600 featured an axle with two wheels and two tubular split trail legs, ending in spades. These spades helped anchor the gun to the ground, absorbing some of the recoil forces. The gun’s trunnion mount was situated in the center of the axle.

Similar to other German anti-tank gun designs, the wheels were connected via a torsion bar system. In an effort to ease production, many of these guns were built using the 5 cm PaK 38 carriage. According to I. Hogg (German Artillery Of World War Two), the PAW 600 carriage would also be reused for the 7.5 cm IG 42 infantry support gun.

Gun Design

The PAW 600 used a breech with a horizontal sliding block that was selectively fired. It employed the high-low pressure system. For this system to function properly, a heavy breech was necessary to contain the high pressure generated by propellant combustion. Afterward, the pressure was gradually reduced and channeled into the lightweight, smooth-bore barrel, propelling the round with significantly less recoil. The recoil and recuperator cylinders were located beneath the gun barrel. At the muzzle, a brake taken from the 7.5 cm Pak was installed.

As with all German anti-tank guns, the elevation and traverse controls were located on the left side of the barrel. The telescopic gun sight was taken from the older 5 cm Pak 38. In one photograph of this gun, the barrel is covered by what appears to be a protective metal sheet, though the reason for this is unclear. Additionally, some guns were equipped with a protective recoil shield for the gunner.

The gun featured a barrel length of 2,951 mm, though the bore length remains unknown. Its elevation ranged from -6° to +35°, with a traverse of 55°. The maximum rate of fire is also unrecorded. The total weight of the gun was 600 kg.

Gun Shield

The gun, along with its crew, was protected by a three-sided, angled gun shield. Based on surviving photographs, it appears that during its development phase, at least two types of gun shields were employed. The first design was more complex, while the second was much simpler in its overall construction.

The more complicated design featured at least three different armor plates per side. Two rectangular plates were placed on either side of the gun barrel, followed by larger, curved plates that extended from the top and then angled toward the gun barrel at the bottom. Additionally, there was a triangular plate, likely designed to protect the axle of the wheels. At the center of the shield, where the gun barrel protruded, a small movable plate was installed. This plate moved with the gun’s elevation, ensuring the opening around the barrel was covered at all times.

The second shield type, which seems to have been the production version, was much simpler. It consisted of three welded plates. The front plate, in particular, was streamlined, with a basic opening to allow the gun barrel to elevate freely. Both versions of the shield featured a small opening on the left side for the gunner’s optical sights. Lastly, the recoil and recuperator cylinders were covered by two different protective covers.

Ammunition

Although this gun was designated as an 8 cm weapon, its actual caliber was 8.14 cm. This might seem confusing, but rounding was a common practice with most artillery pieces, done primarily for simplicity and bureaucratic reasons.

The PAW 600 was capable of firing only two types of rounds. Since it was essentially a modified mortar, it is not surprising that the ammunition used was largely composed of repurposed mortar rounds.

• 8 cm W Gr Patr Hl 4462 – The projectile was a 2.7 kg hollow charge round, designed similarly to a modified mortar shell. At its rear, a tail boom spigot was followed by a shear pin, and finally, a round metal plate with eight small holes. This plate, along with the entire round, was placed onto a 360 gm propellant cartridge. The propellant case was originally from the 10.5 cm leFH 18 field gun. This round was able to penetrate 140 mm of flat armor at a 750 m distance.

  When the gun’s firing mechanism was triggered, it generated a high pressure of approximately 1,100 kg/cm². This pressure was funneled through the holes into a confined space behind the round. Once the pressure reached around 550 kg/cm², the shear pin would break, releasing the round. To ensure stability during flight, eight small fins were installed at the tail.

• 8 cm W Gr Patr Hl 5071 – The high-explosive round weighed 8.3 kg and could be fired using up to three different charge settings. The lowest charge provided a muzzle velocity of 220 m/s, offering a maximum range of up to 3.4 km. With the strongest charge, the velocity increased to 420 m/s, extending the range to 6.2 km.

Crew

The exact number of crew members required to operate this gun is not specified in the available sources. However, it is reasonable to assume that the crew likely consisted of a commander, gunner, loader, two ammunition bearers, and a driver for the towed vehicle.

The commander’s position varied depending on the combat situation, but was typically near the gunner to provide instructions and identify targets. The gunner was positioned to the left of the gun, while the loader was on the right. One or two ammunition bearers would stay nearby to supply additional rounds and report on ammunition availability.

By 1945, when this gun entered service, the shortage of manpower may have led to its operation by a smaller crew. Additionally, although a driver was nominally included as part of the crew, the fuel shortages and lack of towing vehicles may have meant one of the other crew would have to drive or that the truck would be replaced by horses or mules.

Combat

Although around 260 of these anti-tank guns were produced, it is unclear if they ever saw combat. Production began late in the war, at a time when Germany’s transportation lines were heavily disrupted by Allied bombing raids. As a result, many weapons and equipment intended for the frontlines were either destroyed in transit or delayed for extended periods. It is possible that a small number of these guns made it to frontline units and may have seen limited combat action. However, no reports have surfaced until this point and no photographs of one in action appeared either.

Other PAW Projects

There was another 8.1 cm PAW L/105 anti-tank gun project, about which little is known. It is believed to have reused various components taken from different German artillery pieces for its carriage. It was captured by the Allies after the war, but nothing is known of its performance.

Krupp attempted to develop a 10.5 cm variant of the PAW 600 in 1944. However, due to its late introduction, the project seems to have never progressed beyond the prototype stage.

As Main Armament of Armored Vehicles

There were at least two different armored vehicle proposals that considered the PAW 600 as the main armament. Given that it was a lightweight gun and lacked a recoilless gun’s back-blast, it was actually well-suited for this application.

One such project was a Krupp proposal to modify the Panzer 38(t) chassis, outfitting it with a Panzer IV turret. In one variant, for the main armament, the 8 cm was chosen. However, this project never advanced beyond the conceptual stage.

Another proposed use was in the so-called Panzerkleinzerstörer (Eng. Small tank destroyer) project, initiated at the start of 1945. The aim was to create a small anti-tank vehicle equipped with one or two PAW 600 anti-tank guns to support German infantry units. However, the concept was quickly deemed impractical and soon abandoned.

Surviving Guns

Despite their rarity, at least a few guns have survived to this day. One is located at the Świnoujście Coastal Defence Museum in Poland. In addition, at least one can be seen at Fort Moore in the US.

Conclusion

The PAW 600 was an intriguing attempt to develop a lightweight anti-tank gun with significant firepower. Weighing only 600 kg, it could be easily transported or moved by its crew over short distances. Its armor penetration was impressive, though German hollow charge ammunition often had a high deflection rate against enemy armor. The design incorporated many desirable features for an anti-tank gun of that era, such as low height, lightweight, substantial firepower, and being cheap at the same time. Unfortunately for the German anti-tank crews, it arrived too late and in insufficient numbers to make a meaningful impact, and was handicapped by a low range, low muzzle velocity and low accuracy.

Sources

P. Chamberlain and H. Doyle (1978) Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two – Revised Edition, Arms and Armor Press
I. Hogg (1975) German Artillery Of World War Two, Purnell Book Services
I. Hogg (2000) Twentieth-Century Artillery, Amber Books
T. J. Gander (1973) German Anti-Tank Guns 1939-1945, Almark publishing
T. Gander and P. Chamberlain (2005) Enzyklopadie Deutscher waffen 1939-1945 Handwaffen, Artilleries, Beutewaffen, Sonderwaffen, Motorbuch Verlag.
T. Anderson (2023) The History of the Panzerjäger: Volume II, Osprey

Publishing