No, they were never utilized. You've got to read up more on things, and remember if the website starts with pinterest it's not a valid source of information.
They were not rutsatz. They were tested but rejected and never went into production or distribution.
The Yak-9T didn't fly with anti-tank rounds. It was only an air-to-air weapon, and AP rounds were useless on aircraft because they would overpenetrate and explode well past the target. All they would do is make a 37mm hole, nothing else. It was the explosion of the HE content of that 37mm round inside confined spaces that ripped metal, shredded fabric or skin, and kill crews. If all you wanted to do was punch holes in it, MGs were fine. HE cannons were what brought down planes.
Here's a tip for you: Some things are misrepresented and there is bad info going around. Sometimes it's sloppy, sometimes it's intentional, or sometimes it's an honest mistake. In the case of the Yak-9T it's a bit of an honest mistake that gets sloppily repeated over and over because nobody checks.
The "T stands for tank because it was an anti tank gun" is nonsense. The actual translation came from a pilot or some Russian individual mentioning that the gun was "as big as a tank's!" purely length-wise. This translation was misunderstood or glossed over and some sloppy author read "tank" and assumed it was a ground attack plane like the IL-2. In fact, larger and larger cannons were being developed before the war to better kill aircraft, NOT tanks. It was a whole mental exercise in refining the time-to-kill for newer, greener pilots, and with tougher aircraft being designed all the time and larger bombers being a threat it was seen as very important. The P-39 was designed with a 37mm as a pure fighter. The P-38 was going to have a 37mm or larger in it before that was dropped. The Yak-9T. All of these are pure air to air fighters and never used anti-tank rounds in their cannons.
