3.7in AA gun NOT used as AT gun

Discussion in 'Weapons, Technology & Equipment' started by Owen, Jul 12, 2006.

  1. Geoff.Maple

    Geoff.Maple Member

    I do not regard your writings as being very serious at all....The topic is Was the 3.7 used in a anti tank role.....Yes it was by the 90th HAA....using direct fire......I have never even written the words "indirect bombardment"......You seem to make things up as you go along
  2. m kenny

    m kenny Senior Member

    Given your belief that Tilly was under threat in late July I suspect you are beyond reason. I advise others not to be taken in by the baseless and unfounded claims you make for the use of the 3.7 in the direct fire AT role.
    Have a good day and hope you and your delusion are very happy together. .
  3. idler

    idler GeneralList

    Just to be clear: none that I've seen, though I've only got the one.
    That is what the manual implies, i.e. self defence.
  4. Geoff.Maple

    Geoff.Maple Member

    M Kenny......I have only written what is documented in the Regt. Diary and newspaper report......Plus at least one photo supporting the Diary......You on the other hand have produced nothing to back up your claims besides the rhetoric of an "armchair warrior"......If you are correct in your assumptions then prove it.....With more than just the words of a person that clearly has no idea what they are talking about
    Albowie likes this.
  5. m kenny

    m kenny Senior Member

    Neither the War Diary or the newspaper clipping says they fired a shot in the direct line-of-sight AT role. In the case of Tilly if they were watching the Tilly/Bayeux road on July 20 then that is all the did-watch because by late July no German tank got anywhere near that road. So they most certainly did not fire over open sights during that employment but it is highly likely the indirect fire they provided was aimed at tanks. No one doubts this type of barrage was sometimes directed at tanks. That is not the same as front-line direct engagement of tanks. Do you understand the difference?

    Well you would say that wouldn't you. However it is obvious you have no idea what they are firing at and do not even know when and where any of the photos were taken. Try and stay focused and stop confusing indirect fire on ground targets (which happened a lot)with direct line-of-sight engagement (which has not yet been shown to have happened once) of advancing tanks.
  6. Geoff.Maple

    Geoff.Maple Member

    Yes I do understand the difference,do you ??? Again you come with your own personal view and even underline your statements. Do you need glasses ?....but they are just that..your own personal view.....Which can be discounted as not being documented by anything...its just Hearsay

    The diary says they were used in a Anti -Role role and they were trained in an anti-tank role....so prove that they were not or just shut up
  7. m kenny

    m kenny Senior Member

    It says deployed in an anti-tank role not used. Again you have nothing at all but an imperfect understanding of where the front line was on July 20 and implausible scenario that hinges a previously unknown German tank advance well into the rear areas of 21st AG. There were no German tanks on the Tilly- Bayeux road on July 20. so it is impossible for anyone to have engaged them. Impossible to have even sighted them. Impossible to engage over open sights.
  8. Owen

    Owen -- --- -.. MOD

    Could you two pack it in now?
    It's going round in circles.
    Cheers chaps.
    Bill Forgie and Trux like this.
  9. Over Here

    Over Here Junior Member

    Well look what turned up outside Dunkirk in 1940! The Vickers 75mm GP high velocity gun. The "British 88" that never was!

    Notice the gun wheels on the left side of the photo. They were made in both wooden and pressed steel versions by the way.

    No one seems to have considered the amount of digging soldiers would need to do to fit those long trails into a gunpit! Nor the utility of a gunshield. Spend £5000 on a gun and then have it rendered useless by a £50 machine gun. Brilliant.

    Abandoned in working or close to working order, like most of the equipment seems to have been. Presumably what Vickers had on hand was commandeered, sent to France, and then donated to the OKW benevolent fund. That would help to explain why there weren't any in the desert.

    The Germans probably wondered how soon they'd have to face those in quantity, but no fear of that happening.

    Anyone know what AA regiment had these on issue?

    Attached Files:

    Drew5233 and Dave55 like this.
  10. Owen

    Owen -- --- -.. MOD

    maybe start a thread in the 1940 section of the forum about this.
  11. Drew5233

    Drew5233 #FuturePilot Patron 1940 Obsessive

    what he said....I have all the RA unit war diaries for this period. ;)
  12. idler

    idler GeneralList

    Isn't it more likely to be one of the Dutch ones?
    Rich Payne likes this.
  13. Rich Payne

    Rich Payne Rivet Counter 1940 Obsessive

    It certainly doesn't look to be 'outside Dunkirk' or anywhere else in Belgian or French Flanders....looking at the chalky ground, it is probably south of Calais. It's also a bit later than June 1940. The Germans have started constructing accommodation. The BEF had no fixed anti-aircraft defences on the coast closer than their Lines of Communication depots much further south. Are there any reasons for supposing that this gun was ex-British forces rather than confiscated elsewhere in Europe ?

    The Germans moved material all over Europe and the coastline of Northern France would have been an absolute priority for AA defence during the summer of 1940.
  14. Don Juan

    Don Juan Well-Known Member

    Was the Vickers GP HV 75mm related to the Vickers HV 75mm that was intended for the Cromwell (later Comet) tank?

    Looking at it, it doesn't look like the same weapon, but I'd be interested if there was any crossover between the two guns.
  15. BrianM59

    BrianM59 Senior Member

    I had the same thoughts - anyone know any more about this gun?
  16. Warlord

    Warlord Veteran wannabe

    Well, if there were several alternatives for a GOOD ATHV gun, the kind that would have saved a bl**dy lot of Commonwealth blood, then why weren't they deployed where and when they were needed? Thinking outside the box for once was a bit too much for the dinosaurs in starched uniforms and never- muddied boots?

    Sorry if I'm asking again the basic question behind this entire thread, but every time a new bit of info shows up, I can't help but feel kicked in the a**e! :mad111:
  17. Over Here

    Over Here Junior Member

    You may be right, but that was the description the German eBay seller put on it, ("English booty") and as I believe he breaks up albums and sells the photos, he may have had reason to say that.

    The men you see in the photo are presumably Germans having a look over the uncompleted British position, souvenir hunting no doubt. Notice the vegetation growing over the unfinished revetments; nothing going on there for some weeks, so I'm guessing this was as much as a month or so after the evacuation. The Germans had a great deal of cleaning up to do, and it probably took months even to get the equipment hauled away.

    Besides, the construction looks quite rough and not what the Germans would be building as a semi-permanent emplacement. Notice how shallow the gunpits are.

    And I doubt the Germans would have pressed any Dutch guns into service in 1940 either.

    Slightly different tack, but probably the same blinkered thinking as determined the 3.7" AA gun matter was behind the failure to provide an HE or canister round for the 2 Pdr. AT gun: "mustn't use guns except for their proper purpose!" Luddites in a factory are one thing, Luddites as senior officers is another.

    (Unrelated directly, but in the same vein, I saw photos of a VIckers 105mm field gun, which was obviously heavily "borrowed from" when the 25 Pdr. was designed. Why did the R.A. designers downgrade the design to 88mm? The lost weight of shell and explosive power was considerable.) I noticed in the assessment of enemy artillery posted elsewhere, the Italian 105mm was highly rated. The Vickers 105mm had a longer barrel than the 25 Pdr. and that usually indicates higher velocity and better range and accuracy.

    And I know what you mean Warlord! We won't even start on SPG's like the Archer and how they had to have an open top to let in the rain, shrapnel balls and shell fragments. If you close in the top, well, it's too much like a tank and should belong to a different department! Must keep things tidy and orderly old chap! :rolleyes:
  18. Over Here

    Over Here Junior Member

    what he said....I have all the RA unit war diaries for this period. ;)

    Roger, wilco!
  19. Don Juan

    Don Juan Well-Known Member

    The problem with 2 pounder HE is that at the start of the war they didn't have sufficient production capacity to produce sufficient AP rounds, let alone the capacity to diversify into HE. The HE couldn't be introduced until AP capacity reached critical mass. The biggest lack for the 2 pounder was actually an APCBC round, which was more matched to the face hardened armour on the front of German tanks than the standard AP round. Really, the standard 2 pounder AP round was the worst of all worlds, but that's what happens when you are depending on the French to do all the ground fighting for you.
    Chris C likes this.
  20. Over Here

    Over Here Junior Member

    Fair enough, but had the experimental and design work been done for such shells, they could have been made elsewhere, Canada, the USA etc. The point is that no provision had been made for what was an obvious tactical advantage, if not requirement. Hidebound thinking or just apathy and lack of imagination? Probably all three.

    Depending on the French? More like depending on appeasement and hoping for the best I'd say. Just what the British and French peoples largely demanded in the 1930s.

    Wrong thread for this discussion though, sorry!

Share This Page