3.7in AA gun NOT used as AT gun

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

  1. Owen

    Owen -- --- -.. MOD

    Thanks for that ourbill.
    Looks like another book I'll have to get.
     
  2. 4th wilts

    4th wilts Discharged

    there seems to be no reason why 3.7 could not be used as a tank gun owen.any problems could have been sorted.
     
  3. uksubs

    uksubs Senior Member

  4. ADM199

    ADM199 Well-Known Member

    I've read that about 1000 3.7 inch AA guns were left idle in the Middle East during WW2.
    I know they were heavier than the German 88 and slower to get into action but why weren't these guns used in the anti-tank role same as the famous German 88.

    Some years ago I spoke to a Veteran who served with the 94 H.A.A.Rgt. in N.Africa regarding this subject. He couldn't remember the 3.7 being used in an A.T. roll but he could remember seeing A.T. ammunition for the gun.
    Why produce the ammunition if their was no intention of using it.
     
  5. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Senior Member

    There are really several very good reasons the 3.7" didn't get used in a role similar to the 88.

    First, the 3.7" is not nearly as mobile. It weighs nearly three times what the 88 weighs in at. This is a big disadvantage obviously. It means that a heavier tractor is necessary, that it will be less mobile cross-country in particular, and will not be easily moved into position in a battle situation.

    Next, unlike the 88, the 3.7" could not fire from its carriage. It would have to be grounded and set up to fire. This again, reduces its mobility and rapidity of action.

    Then, as pointed out, there was no ammunition suitable for use with the gun in an AT role. The gun also did not have negative depression nor did it have appropriate ground fire sights as the designers did not envision it being used in that role.

    British doctrine pre-war did not envision the 3.7" being an AT gun but it did see the 25 pdr as being used in that role. Hence, the later's turntable and supply of AT ammunition.

    But, the biggest reason remains one of weight and slowness to get into action. On the offensive, on the fly, the 3.7" was not going to be very useful. Defensively, you had better count on not being threatened with being overrun as it is unlikely you can pack up a 3.7" and get it out of battery in a quick manner.
     
  6. Bodston

    Bodston Little Willy

    The short answer is that they were used as very effective anti-tank gun screen in the right circumstances. They were utilised in a defensive role when well dug in and usually fired until either the enemy were driven off or the guns were destroyed or overun.
    From 'History of the Royal Regiment of Artillery, Anti-Aircraft Artillery, 1914-55' by Brig.N.W. Routledge OBE, TD
    At Knightsbridge box the garrison, including two 3.7-inch and 12 x 40mm guns, fought for 21 days on end against ground and air attacks, heavily shelled and mortared and infiltrated by enemy tanks. The 3.7s were properly dug in and did well in the ground role controlled by an RHA observation post, one battle lasting five hours on 10th June. The boxes at Gazala and El Adem also held out, the latter having eight 3.7s from 88th HAA Regiment, sited in sections of two guns each, which engaged tanks, vehicles and guns at close range with high explosive, armour-piercing and shrapnel rounds.
    Before ending the story of 'Crusader', mention must be made of the gallant resistance put up by batteries of 68th HAA and 14th LAA Regiments in the short-lived second seige of Tobruk, in July, as part of 4th AA Brigade. After the preliminary air bombardment, enemy tanks made rapid progress in strength through the perimeter towards the harbour. The 3.7s had been deeply dug infor protection from dive-bombing attacks but found themselves faced at short notice, with a duel with Mark III and Mark IV tanks. Stripping the walls of their emplacments to obtain low-angle fire, the positions engaged with armour-piercing and high explosive rounds until overrun and mopped up by swarms of enemy infantry. The 3.7s, in this brief action, emulated the German 88mm, one position held up an armoured battalion for four hours and killed four tanks.
    As T.A. says, once they were in action it would be impossible to take them out of action when under fire. My late father served on a predictor for these same 3.7" AA guns during the Suez crisis of 1956, I think in 73 HAA regt RA and as can be seen from his photographs they did not travel light. True in 1956 the radar support and predictors were in more evidence, however the scale of the 1940's operation can still be imagined.
     

    Attached Files:

  7. Owen

    Owen -- --- -.. MOD

    3.7s from 88th HAA Regiment

    Just thought that ironic, the "88" Regt.
    Thanks for the input lads, good thread.
     
  8. MikB

    MikB Senior Member

    The fact is that such guns, demanding as they are of the best materials and instrumentation in their manufacture and deployment, are too precious.

    They are at the top end of any nation's engineering capability, requiring several times the materiel and resource input of an ordinary fieldpiece. Different nations found different compromises, and were working from different circumstances. Our need for 3.7s reduced with the German air threat, whereas their need for 88s was so great they could never build enough - and those that were knocking out T-34s and Shermans in the east and west were doing so at the expense of not knocking down Lancasters over the Reich.

    Nations' success in war is much affected by their choice of resource allocation. You could comment, for example, that the British put most of their eggs into having top-end aircraft but then had to make do with mid-range tanks - and that that had its result in the butcher's bill for the NW Europe land campaign. Germany might have been far better off keeping the 88 for its original purpose, and concentrating on the 75 L/48 or an improvement thereof for A/T defence.

    Regards,
    MikB
     
  9. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Old Hickory Recon

    Thanks for the input lads, good thread.
    That it is, Owen, I've enjoyed the discusssion.
     
  10. Tom Canning

    Tom Canning WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    It should also be remembered that the original 88mm German a/t gun was based on the British 3inch AA gun which was replaced by the 3.7inch AA gun - sold to the Russians - used against and captured y the Germans -used by Rommel in his first foray from El Agheila while awaiting the arrival of the 88mm - the 3.7 inch was not used as someone in the War pffice thought that it stood too high off the ground ??? - the 88mm stood 11'o" off the ground !!!
     
  11. MikB

    MikB Senior Member

    - the 88mm stood 11'o" off the ground !!!


    Yes, and as soon as Allied tanks carried a gun able to engage it, it started paying a heavy price. It's reasonable to suppose that 3.7s would've suffered as heavily.The 17-pdr did just as good a job clanging tanks with very much less palaver.

    Fact is, Fritz used - and ultimately expended - his high-value AA guns in the AT role and lost; we didn't and we won. It is not blinkered ignorance to choose to use weapons in their designed role when that choice is open.

    Regards,
    MikB
     
  12. Warlord

    Warlord Veteran wannabe

    I have always wondered why the 3.7 incher wasn´t used by the Allies in the AT role, the same way Jerry did with the infamous 88; I mean, just as Matilda formations were being decimated with impunity at Halfaya Pass, 2 pounder shells were bouncing off Pzkw III´s and IV´s.

    Was it lack of vision, outdated regulations, obsolete top-brass thinking?

    Which gun fares better one-on-one?
     
  13. op-ack

    op-ack Senior Member

    Concensus within the RA is that they were not used in the AT role due to their being needed in the primary role of Air Defence. 3.7s were used in the field and anti-tank roles, but usually only as a last resort.

    The design was in fact found to be more effective in the AT/field role than the 88, we simply didn't have enough of them to divert them from their primary role.

    Phil
     
  14. Tom Canning

    Tom Canning WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    There were a few different versions of why the 3.7 wasn't used as an AT gun - most were excuses really as one was that it stood too high off the ground - so did the 88,mm - we didn't have an AP round for the gun - the carriage wasn't strong enough - we needed than all for defence etc etc etc - even after the Luftwaffe disappeared in the Middle East we had hundreds lying spare in warehouses in Egygt - but we still didn't get them as they were messing around with the 17 pounder which finally showed up at Medenine in March 1943 - on a 25 pounder carriage - then it was back to the UK with those FOUR guns for a new carriage - then a few 17's were available in Italy in 1944 - more after D day in Normandy - the 3.7 AT finally went into action at the Bulge - JANUARY '1945 - then the 120mm came along ....still don't kmow the truth of the whole story ...
    Cheers
     
  15. Warlord

    Warlord Veteran wannabe

    The RAF was in a tight spot almost to the end of ´41, but I think it was more than able to hold its own even if outnumbered and outgunned, BoB style; that alone should have taken care of the AA-role-only argument for the 3.7. Also, the mention by TC of "hundreds lying spare in warehouses in Egypt" after Goering´s mob had been kicked out of Africa, gives the whole deal a rather fishy smell.

    What kept then the "industrial captains" from switching a little of the capacity of their lines of production to the manufacturing of such a good weapon? Lord civvies with friends in high places taking care of business (protecting their own, that is)? Or square-minded brass not signing the requests for them?

    What about characteristics and performance?
     
  16. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Hot air manufacturer

    Quoting Wikipedia (I know, I know, but sometimes it's not that bad) :

    The 3.7-inch (94 mm) gun was never used as an anti-tank weapon, except in one or two emergencies. This is in contrast to the German Army, which integrated their equivalent "88" into anti-tank defensive screens from 1940 onwards.

    This was mainly because the 3.7-inch (94 mm) gun mobile mounting was almost twice as heavy as the German "88". Redeploying it was a slower operation, and the heavy AEC Matador artillery tractor normally used for towing could operate on hard surfaces only. Additionally, heavy AA Regiments equipped with the 3.7-inch (94 mm) gun were controlled by Corps or Army HQ, or at even higher level HQs, and command of them was not often devolved to the commanders at Divisional levels where the anti-tank role might be required. Prolonged firing at low elevations (not part of the original specification) also strained the mounting and recuperating gear.
    One of my hobby horses is precisely the German use of the 8.8cm FlaK gun in an AT role. An AA gun is much more complex than an AT gun, which requires a much simpler mount, most often with a pair of scissors legs, and only a limited traverse, whereas the AA gun requires 360º with all that implies.

    Moreover, the AT gun only needs a simplified optical equipment, whereas the AA gun works inside a battery structure, taking aim directions from a central fire control system for the entire battery, it does not operate by itself. Also the projectile feed is mechanized, controlled by the FCS, in order to eliminate manual handling errors.

    Which all means that an AA gun is a complex and expensive piece of equipment, much more than a mere AT gun. Also personnel training is of the highest order (my dad commanded a 3.7" AA and I have some of his books), having to know all about calculating a shoot at a distant target moving in a 3D environment, whereas an AT gun is "point and shoot", so to speak.

    The Germans theoretically used the 88 in a dual capacity, but risking such a complex system in a tactical battlefield where any mortar or machine gun can wipe the crew off is indeed a complete waste. Let's face it, the Germans used the 88 in the battlefield because their other AT guns were complete crap! Only, Herr Goebbels had the ability to turn the tables and make a hero of what was indeed a last resort.

    In the meantime Rommel's (and everyone else's) dumps in the rear were devoid of AA defence, but that did not show in Signal or in Der Volkische Beobachter.
     
  17. Tom Canning

    Tom Canning WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    Warlord -
    Much of the main problems with both Tanks and AT guns for th British was the fact that there was no one in the War House or government to push for the money to do these much needed tools - The RAF were ver well served by Lord beaverbrook and a great deal of money was channeled his way - fortunately fo the RAF as it was bedly needed- and saved Britain at the right moment.

    The Armoured had no such champion as Swinton - Fuller - Liddell-Hart were all retired even Pile was shunted to the AA command - all we had left was Hobart - who was foired in Egypt by the Infantryman Gordon- Finlayson - which left the deaert army to Lumsden - a Cavalryman - Monty got rid of him and gatehouse after ERl Ah gaheila and the tactics become better - but not the equipment as th 6th Armoured Div landed in niorth Afrtica with valentines and Crusaders - armed with 2 pouinders !
    This was in Novemeber '42 !
    Cheers
     
  18. Warlord

    Warlord Veteran wannabe

    Warlord -
    Much of the main problems with both Tanks and AT guns for th British was the fact that there was no one in the War House or government to push for the money to do these much needed tools - The RAF were ver well served by Lord beaverbrook and a great deal of money was channeled his way - fortunately fo the RAF as it was bedly needed- and saved Britain at the right moment.

    The Armoured had no such champion as Swinton - Fuller - Liddell-Hart were all retired even Pile was shunted to the AA command - all we had left was Hobart - who was foired in Egypt by the Infantryman Gordon- Finlayson - which left the deaert army to Lumsden - a Cavalryman - Monty got rid of him and gatehouse after ERl Ah gaheila and the tactics become better - but not the equipment as th 6th Armoured Div landed in niorth Afrtica with valentines and Crusaders - armed with 2 pouinders !
    This was in Novemeber '42 !
    Cheers

    See, I knew that industry and civvy street had something to do with it... :GDamn:And Tommies paid with their lives for it...!

    What about an operational comparison between both the 3.7 and the 88?
     
  19. Tom Canning

    Tom Canning WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    Warlord -
    don't know the technical differences but when the 3.7 was finally used at the Bulge - one 3.7 knocked out four Tigers inside an half hour - it might have been coincidental that the Germans started to retreat at that point around Celle...had to have had an impact

    Cheers
     
  20. Owen

    Owen -- --- -.. MOD

    Warlord,
    I asked the same question a few years ago, twice it appears, I've merged the three threads.
     

Share This Page