3.7in AA gun NOT used as AT gun

....and there is still no resolution to the question.....

Cheers

 

How many 88s were actually used as AT in Afrika? How many "proper" AT guns were there (37mm, 50mm = zillions!). How many actual casualties caused by which? Why is this propaganda rat smell so strong around here?

Speaking of propaganda, perhaps we need more books like this.

 

There is no doubt that Rommel was the darling of the propaganda men , but the 88 inspite of its size and mobility problems was a proven killer of armour.
A favorite "88" tale came from Hans Von Luck talking on the BBC in the 1980's ., he told how he ordered a young Luftwaffe officer to use his guns on advancing British armour which was moving to by pass his position - in a few minutes about 20 tanks had been knocked out.
Luck put it to him ( at gun point) that he could either be a dead man or he could be put forward for a high decoration - "he decided to go for the decoration".

A 3.7 round , hitting any tank would be bad news for the tank.
Part of the "Tiger myth" might have been due to there being no effective weapon which was being deployed against it , the gun existed but it was not deployed.

Thinking of Rommel - his use of the "88" at Arras - this is supposed to have been the first use of the gun in an AT role ?

 

There is no doubt that Rommel was the darling of the propaganda men , but the 88 inspite of its size and mobility problems was a proven killer of armour.
A favorite "88" tale came from Hans Von Luck talking on the BBC in the 1980's ., he told how he ordered a young Luftwaffe officer to use his guns on advancing British armour which was moving to by pass his position - in a few minutes about 20 tanks had been knocked out.
Luck put it to him ( at gun point) that he could either be a dead man or he could be put forward for a high decoration - "he decided to go for the decoration".

A 3.7 round , hitting any tank would be bad news for the tank.
Part of the "Tiger myth" might have been due to there being no effective weapon which was being deployed against it , the gun existed but it was not deployed.

Thinking of Rommel - his use of the "88" at Arras - this is supposed to have been the first use of the gun in an AT role ?

According to these two publications:

Achtung Panzer! - 88mm Flak Series
Spanish Civil WAr: The German Kondor Legion A Firepower Force Package in Combat | FA Journal | Find Articles at BNET

the 88-mm Flugzeugabwehrkanone was put to the deadly chore of routing enemy armor as early as the Spanish Civil War, courtesy of the Kondor Legion, so by Arras days the gun was an already proven tank-killer, an integral part of Pak doctrine, and not so much the son of tactical improvisation.

Given this, and leaving civvy street alone, even though I still say that profit-for-the-chosen-ones was a key factor, what really kept the British Army from having the same flexibility with the 3.7?

By the way, did the Hun use the 88AT on its AA mount, or had a special one designed for the role?

 

The Hun did use the 88 in it's AA mount as an AT. Later on the PaK 43/41 was devoloped, abandoning the AA ability at last
and maximising the AT ability by marrying the barrel to an adapted 15cm field howitzer carriage, making it a much more
efficient and inexpensive AT gun than the dual purpose, which as I said before, being a superlative AA system was a waste
for an AT gun.

Photobucket | pak 43 Pictures, pak 43 Images, pak 43 Photos

 

The Hun did use the 88 in it's AA mount as an AT. Later on the PaK 43/41 was devoloped, abandoning the AA ability at last
and maximising the AT ability by marrying the barrel to an adapted 15cm field howitzer carriage, making it a much more
efficient and inexpensive AT gun than the dual purpose, which as I said before, being a superlative AA system was a waste
for an AT gun.

Then, why didn´t the 3.7 receive the same treatment? I mean, if the carriage was one of the excuses of someone high up the ladder for not deploying it in the AT role, even at the expense of a lot of Commonwealth lives, the obvious solution was to change it for a simpler, sturdier, more practical one. If Jerry could, why not the British?

 

Warlord -
It was mainly tank crews who fell to the 88mm's - they were expendable - as LT.Gen. Leese - C.O.C. 8th Army in Italy before the final battle for Cassino boasted that he had 2000 tanks - and could afford to lose 50% of them - that would only be 5,000 men ......he tried very hard as we only had 1200 for the Gothic Line battle two months later ...
Cheers

 

Then, why didn´t the 3.7 receive the same treatment? I mean, if the carriage was one of the excuses of someone high up the ladder for not deploying it in the AT role, even at the expense of a lot of Commonwealth lives, the obvious solution was to change it for a simpler, sturdier, more practical one. If Jerry could, why not the British?

The British did develop a superlative AT gun, the 17pdr in 76.2mm, a handier calibre than the ponderous 94mm (3.7"). After all they would use the barrel only, and the 17pdr WAS already under development from late 1940, which for me is early enough. It's first operational use was Feb.43, good enough to win a war.


(Nijmegen - notice the St. Etienne MG in the foreground!)




The Allies in general terms went on with slower but steadier paths on weapons development, which at times did produce some contrasts with the German 'brilliance' in improvisation which was not much more than desperate measures to compensate for a lack at some place in the chain.

Look for instance at the big hullaballoo made of the Me262 being impeded by that requirement to act as bombers. How many 262-bombers were made after all? What impact did that have? Bollocks! The Germans with all that 'brilliance', erracticness and indiscipline looked no better than hyperactive children, nothing more.

All they had to show, all they are admired for is their pretty, sexy camouflage schemes, both for vehicles and planes. Whatever was under that kewl paint layer was in the most utter crap. Expensive, over engineered crap, but crap all the same!

Look at the Russians. They only put in the T-34/85 in production after tens of thousands of /76, and even then. Why? Because at the time they already had two (two!) fothermucking good AT guns, the SU-100 and the JSU-122 so they could count a bit on disruption and even then they were converting production one plant at a time.

What image would we have today of the magnificent Waffen-SS if they had been issued with the British Battledress? It's all propaganda, it's all bullshit!

"If looks could kill...", or "If looks could win wars..."

 

Za -
as you say - the 17 pounder was operational at Medenine in Feb 1943 - there was four of them on 25 pounder carriages ! Then they were shipped back to the Uk for a better carriage - next time we saw them was in Sicily when a whole battery of Canadian Arty had them and put them to good use - only to lose the lot at Arce - we didn't see any more until much later -firefly's didn't show up until the last battles in the spring !

meanwhile we had to make do with the 6 pounder and the Sherman's 75mm - not even their 76mm.......a lot of Tank crews were lost in that period ....

the 3.7in COULD have been in use in late '41

Cheers

 

Did the US test the 88/L71? - Tanknet.org

6 pages so far but lots on info on the 3.7 debate.

 

I'm not going to gainsay you, Tom, perhaps I am too busy maligning the 88 (with good reason ) than paying proper attention to the 3.7".

As you say technically the 3.7" barrel if married to an existing proper field gun carriage (suggestions for something above the 25pdr for a sturdy and low enough carriage for 1941?) might have provided a good heavy AT gun. But to do that you'd have to have cooperation between Anti-Aircraft Command (part of the Royal air Force) and Royal Artillery. How productive this would be I have no idea.

 

Za -
as you say - the 17 pounder was operational at Medenine in Feb 1943 - there was four of them on 25 pounder carriages ! Then they were shipped back to the Uk for a better carriage - next time we saw them was in Sicily when a whole battery of Canadian Arty had them and put them to good use - only to lose the lot at Arce - we didn't see any more until much later -firefly's didn't show up until the last battles in the spring !

meanwhile we had to make do with the 6 pounder and the Sherman's 75mm - not even their 76mm.......a lot of Tank crews were lost in that period ....

the 3.7in COULD have been in use in late '41

Cheers

Just imagine a bit more ingenuity and adaptability, 3.7 AT´s included, during all of the losing stages of the "Benghazi Handicap", and Stalags in Sicily would have been a lot emptier, not to mention Commonwealth cemeteries all over North Africa...

To say the least, it just wasn´t fair to your everyday Tommy, to send him fighting with A10´s and 2 pounders, against PzKw III & IV´s, coupled with the ´88, just because of "lack of hyperactivity".

 

M Kenny -
a lot of Canadian ideas were not taken up for unknown reasons - two that we kept to ourselves was the welded hand telephone ( May '44 ) to the back of our tanks for immediate contact with the Infantry through our inter-com - and the other of great benefit to the infantry was a small bridge which two men could carry - one which was accepted was the topless tanks to carry Infantry into battle at Falaise, - who knows who argued against the 3.7 on the Ram as a tank destroyer - there were enough Rams and 3.7in lying around spare - might have saved a few Tank crews

Cheers

 

How interesting, Dangerously close the the German style Tank destroyer, get rid of the traverse turret mount, get it lower...

What if's eh?


Kev

 

Shhh, don't say the W word or the Mods will bugger you!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:metoo:

 

M Kenny -
a lot of Canadian ideas were not taken up for unknown reasons - two that we kept to ourselves was the welded hand telephone ( May '44 ) to the back of our tanks for immediate contact with the Infantry through our inter-com - and the other of great benefit to the infantry was a small bridge which two men could carry - one which was accepted was the topless tanks to carry Infantry into battle at Falaise, - who knows who argued against the 3.7 on the Ram as a tank destroyer - there were enough Rams and 3.7in lying around spare - might have saved a few Tank crews

Cheers

IN-GE-NU-I-TY!

Wasn´t this a two-pronged social thing, in which the Dominions could never be above Old Blighty, no matter how brilliant their thinking, and ordinary cockneys just couldn´t have better ideas than their cardboard-stiff, mossy brass, just because it came from Sandhurst and/or Eton?

And I say again, Tommies paid with their lives for it...

 

Thinking of Rommel - his use of the "88" at Arras - this is supposed to have been the first use of the gun in an AT role ?
Rommel may have been the first to use the 88 in that role but, as has been pointed out, the use of the gun in a dual-role must have been thought out beforehand or the crews would not have had: sights, ammunition and training.

 

Rommel may have been the first to use the 88 in that role but, as has been pointed out, the use of the gun in a dual-role must have been thought out beforehand or the crews would not have had: sights, ammunition and training.

I think your right but the training and sights maybe not, the British tanks where so close they didnt need sights. Ammunition maybe. Where anti tank rounds available?

Kev

 

IN-GE-NU-I-TY!

Wasn´t this a two-pronged social thing, in which the Dominions could never be above Old Blighty, no matter how brilliant their thinking, and ordinary cockneys just couldn´t have better ideas than their cardboard-stiff, mossy brass, just because it came from Sandhurst and/or Eton?

And I say again, Tommies paid with their lives for it...

I think there is some truth in what your saying but as said the 17 pouder which was supposed to be the anti tank gun was very much delayed and few would doubt it was a decent gun.

By the time the 3.7" could have been redesigned the 17pdr should have been there.

Kev