3.7in AA gun NOT used as AT gun

Owen · 12-07-2006, 10:34 AM

Reading "Alamein War without Hate" page 104. The Authors attack the British High Command for not pressing the 3.7 in AA gun into service in the anti-tank role as in the German 88. one Veteran says "no excuse for the sheer stupidity of the General Staff" in not allowing it's use in the anti-tank role."During all this time over a thousand 3.7 inch AA guns stood idle in the Middle East.....Many never fired a shot in anger during the whole of the war."Sounds like a fair point. Then looking into the 3.7 in gun I see ;- "A more telling reason was that the 3.75-inch gun mobile mounting was almost twice as heavy as the German "88". Redeploying it was a slower operation and the heavy AEC Matador truck which was normally required to tow it could operate on roads or hard surfaces only.Prolonged firing at low elevations (not part of the original specification) also strained the mounting and recuperating gear"There is the answer. Anyone wish to comment further?

von Poop · 12-07-2006, 10:42 AM

But a weapon with near identical firepower to the '88' would still surely have been damned useful in the defensive battles in the desert. Even the 88 had to evolve and be modified in order to become such a useful gun & had it's own limitations in bulk and profile, it was still considered well worth the effort.
And I've also seen Matadors going over off-road courses without too much bother.

Owen · 12-07-2006, 10:52 AM

Exactly what I thought. Deploy them in defensive line positions, such as Gazala line. Tobruk etc. Even if the mounting and recuperating gear did pack up surely they could have caused losses before that happened. Perhaps another reason they weren't used........no AP rounds. Saying that even a direct hit from a 3.7 (94mm) round is going to cause severe damage.I wondered if this was a cheap shot by the Authors at the High Command or a valid point by Lt (later Maj) David Parry 57th LAA Regt, RA (see book).My solution for a more powerful gun tractor is to use a tracked vehicle such as an obsolete tank.

lancesergeant · 13-07-2006, 02:41 AM

I am not genned up on artillery but couldn't they have redesigned or modified the existing mount. The obsolete tank would seem a valid option. Not using the 3.5 seems to be a classic foul -up by higher up. Do you think it was an oversight by them or do you think they didn't perhaps faith in the weapon in an anti tank role.

Owen · 13-07-2006, 09:43 AM

I'm amazed at all the bizarre inventions the British came up with in WW2 and the collection of "outside-the-box" thinkers in the Military no-one thought of it.Maybe it just didn't work?

spidge · 13-07-2006, 10:37 AM

Maybe there were people (Generals & others) who did think of it but were overruled by their superiors and did not tell tales out of school.

kfz · 13-07-2006, 09:00 PM

Im sure if it would have been feasable to use the British gun it would have been. Im guessing it just didnt have the right kind of ammunition, sights, mount etc. You think about the vast amount of development work the germans put into the 88, multitude of different types and ammo, really did spend a lot of effort on it.

Plus I think the myth around the dread 88 is a bit overblown in hype down the years (but then Ive never been shot at with one!) and its easy to think that the Germans didnt have any problems with the gun or interservice or interrank bickering about missuse of materiel. In Von Lucks book he tooks about the fmous episode in operation Goodwood where a battery of 88's took oout 20 or so British tanks in so many minutes and that it didnt nearly happen. Apperantly the guns where luftwaffe manned and the crews only fired on the British tanks under a lot of persusian. I think weopens where drawn.

I think a lot of ther myth was down to Rommells mad tactics of laying traps for the allied armour and blasting them with dug in 88's. I guess Rommell was well known for cutting through the Prussian bullshit??

Kev

Glider · 13-07-2006, 10:05 PM

There was one unit that used its 3.7 as anti tank guns with remarkable success and I think he was disiplined for doing so. It was in in the paper earlier this year.
Have to agree that it was stupid thinking. As for the Matador it was one of the best cross country trucks of the time so if anything could make it work then the Matodor could.

MikB · 23-07-2006, 11:30 AM

I too suspect that much of the hype around the 88 might be overblown. It was itself on a heavy mounting and took time to bring into action, whereas Britain's 25-pounder, a field piece equivalent in everything but armour-piercing capability, was more agile in deployment, far faster into action and a considerably less conspicuous target once in.

With a gun like the 25 pounder in the armoury, and the drawbacks of the 3.7 in the ground role which OwenD has described above, I can quite understand a general reluctance to deploy it this way.

Nevertheless, the overpunctilious application of that reluctance to the point where battles might've been lost because of it, probably does deserve criticism.

Regards,
MikB

lancesergeant · 24-07-2006, 08:32 PM

The accusation might be levelled that some of the hierarchy still held onto strategies from the first war and were sticks in the mud with their attitudes. Monty was accused on a number of occasions of being over cautious and not being flexible - but others say he based his tactics on his experiences in the first. There is no doubt his courage as he was injured a number of times. It is easy for his detractors to criticise in hindsight. Then again looking at Hitler's ineptness and inflexible attitude, it would be interesting to see how the war would have progressed if Hitler had been killed/ died early on and the Generals had carried on.

12-07-2006, 10:34 AM	#1 (permalink)
Owen Top Moose Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Under the stairs Posts: 9,057	3.7in AA gun NOT used as AT gun Reading "Alamein War without Hate" page 104. The Authors attack the British High Command for not pressing the 3.7 in AA gun into service in the anti-tank role as in the German 88. one Veteran says "no excuse for the sheer stupidity of the General Staff" in not allowing it's use in the anti-tank role."During all this time over a thousand 3.7 inch AA guns stood idle in the Middle East.....Many never fired a shot in anger during the whole of the war."Sounds like a fair point. Then looking into the 3.7 in gun I see ;- "A more telling reason was that the 3.75-inch gun mobile mounting was almost twice as heavy as the German "88". Redeploying it was a slower operation and the heavy AEC Matador truck which was normally required to tow it could operate on roads or hard surfaces only.Prolonged firing at low elevations (not part of the original specification) also strained the mounting and recuperating gear"There is the answer. Anyone wish to comment further? Last edited by Owen; 12-07-2006 at 10:39 AM.

13-07-2006, 10:37 AM	#6 (permalink)
spidge Legendary Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 8,058	Maybe there were people (Generals & others) who did think of it but were overruled by their superiors and did not tell tales out of school. __________________ Spidge, ------------------------------------------------------- My Avatar is the memorial to the 22 Commonwealth Coastwatchers at the Temakin Cemetery on Betio (Tarawa Atoll) who were beheaded by the Japanese on 15th October 1942. http://www.dva.gov.au/media/publicat...mem_beito.html "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." (Winston Churchill made this prophetic pronouncement in a House of Commons speech in 1938, just after Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain signed the Munich agreement with Hitler. Chamberlain returned from Germany with the signed agreement in hand, proclaiming that "peace in our time" had been achieved. Churchill attacked Chamberlain's "politics of appeasement" in this and many other speeches.) What did the Australians do in ww2 and other conflicts? Check out this site: http://www.diggerhistory.info/00-pag...ster-index.htm

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Visiting main Russian front battlefields?	deadb_tch	WW2 Battlefields Today	339	02-10-2008 06:57 PM
Boer War Stuff	dbf	Prewar	29	21-07-2008 10:20 AM
Battlegroup42 1.35 - New Vehicles and Weapons (BF42)	Gnomey	Video Games	0	28-04-2007 08:35 PM
My photos from the Cental Museum of the Great Patriotoc War (in Moscow)	AMVAS	Weapons, Technology & Equipment	18	18-12-2006 03:18 PM

12-07-2006, 10:42 AM	#2 (permalink)
von Poop I Like Tanks. Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Perfidious Albion. Posts: 8,087	But a weapon with near identical firepower to the '88' would still surely have been damned useful in the defensive battles in the desert. Even the 88 had to evolve and be modified in order to become such a useful gun & had it's own limitations in bulk and profile, it was still considered well worth the effort. And I've also seen Matadors going over off-road courses without too much bother.

12-07-2006, 10:52 AM	#3 (permalink)
Owen Top Moose Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Under the stairs Posts: 9,057	Exactly what I thought. Deploy them in defensive line positions, such as Gazala line. Tobruk etc. Even if the mounting and recuperating gear did pack up surely they could have caused losses before that happened. Perhaps another reason they weren't used........no AP rounds. Saying that even a direct hit from a 3.7 (94mm) round is going to cause severe damage.I wondered if this was a cheap shot by the Authors at the High Command or a valid point by Lt (later Maj) David Parry 57th LAA Regt, RA (see book).My solution for a more powerful gun tractor is to use a tracked vehicle such as an obsolete tank.

13-07-2006, 02:41 AM	#4 (permalink)
lancesergeant Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 781	I am not genned up on artillery but couldn't they have redesigned or modified the existing mount. The obsolete tank would seem a valid option. Not using the 3.5 seems to be a classic foul -up by higher up. Do you think it was an oversight by them or do you think they didn't perhaps faith in the weapon in an anti tank role.

13-07-2006, 09:43 AM	#5 (permalink)
Owen Top Moose Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Under the stairs Posts: 9,057	I'm amazed at all the bizarre inventions the British came up with in WW2 and the collection of "outside-the-box" thinkers in the Military no-one thought of it.Maybe it just didn't work?

13-07-2006, 09:00 PM	#7 (permalink)
kfz Very Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Lancashire, UK Posts: 1,119	Im sure if it would have been feasable to use the British gun it would have been. Im guessing it just didnt have the right kind of ammunition, sights, mount etc. You think about the vast amount of development work the germans put into the 88, multitude of different types and ammo, really did spend a lot of effort on it. Plus I think the myth around the dread 88 is a bit overblown in hype down the years (but then Ive never been shot at with one!) and its easy to think that the Germans didnt have any problems with the gun or interservice or interrank bickering about missuse of materiel. In Von Lucks book he tooks about the fmous episode in operation Goodwood where a battery of 88's took oout 20 or so British tanks in so many minutes and that it didnt nearly happen. Apperantly the guns where luftwaffe manned and the crews only fired on the British tanks under a lot of persusian. I think weopens where drawn. I think a lot of ther myth was down to Rommells mad tactics of laying traps for the allied armour and blasting them with dug in 88's. I guess Rommell was well known for cutting through the Prussian bullshit?? Kev

13-07-2006, 10:05 PM	#8 (permalink)
Glider Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 207	There was one unit that used its 3.7 as anti tank guns with remarkable success and I think he was disiplined for doing so. It was in in the paper earlier this year. Have to agree that it was stupid thinking. As for the Matador it was one of the best cross country trucks of the time so if anything could make it work then the Matodor could.

23-07-2006, 11:30 AM	#9 (permalink)
MikB Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 168	I too suspect that much of the hype around the 88 might be overblown. It was itself on a heavy mounting and took time to bring into action, whereas Britain's 25-pounder, a field piece equivalent in everything but armour-piercing capability, was more agile in deployment, far faster into action and a considerably less conspicuous target once in. With a gun like the 25 pounder in the armoury, and the drawbacks of the 3.7 in the ground role which OwenD has described above, I can quite understand a general reluctance to deploy it this way. Nevertheless, the overpunctilious application of that reluctance to the point where battles might've been lost because of it, probably does deserve criticism. Regards, MikB

24-07-2006, 08:32 PM	#10 (permalink)
lancesergeant Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 781	The accusation might be levelled that some of the hierarchy still held onto strategies from the first war and were sticks in the mud with their attitudes. Monty was accused on a number of occasions of being over cautious and not being flexible - but others say he based his tactics on his experiences in the first. There is no doubt his courage as he was injured a number of times. It is easy for his detractors to criticise in hindsight. Then again looking at Hitler's ineptness and inflexible attitude, it would be interesting to see how the war would have progressed if Hitler had been killed/ died early on and the Generals had carried on.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)