Georgie Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Was the US 90mm AA gun ever used in the anti-tank role like the German 88mm AA gun? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Well, if you count the vehicle-mount modification that was mounted on the M36 Jackson and M26 Pershing, then yes, a fair bit. But as to the ground mount, the original version of the 90mm AA gun that the U.S. started the war with couldn't depress the barrel far enough to shoot at ground targets. However, the U.S. Army recognized this shortcoming and began to replace this version with a version that could depress the barrel low enough to fire at ground targets. IIRC, the updated version started to be deployed in 1943. I don't know how quickly existing units were refitted with the updated dual-role mounts, so I'm not sure which version was more common in Normandy. Regardless, actual use of the 90mm ground mount in the AT role seems to have been pretty rare. I've read a few incidents of it, mostly during the Battle of the Bulge. I've never read of a 90mm AA gun being used against German Armor in Normandy, but I suppose if you search hard enough, you might find an incident or two. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaws Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 The Devils Adjudant (Michael Reynolds) disribes a situation where a 2x 90mm were used against Kampgruppe Peiper in Stoumont. They were from 143d Antiaircraft Battalion and redeployed to support 119th Infantry. This indicates they were not part of an TD unit who was present in the area as well (823d Tank Destroyer Battalion). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Yeah; that incident in Stoumont during the Battle of the Bulge is one of the incidents I was thinking of. AFAIK, the ground-mount version of the 90mm was never formally deployed to TD units -- I'm pretty sure the largest towed AT gun U.S. TD units ever used was the 76mm. Of course, starting in late September 1944, M36 Jacksons with 90mm guns were starting to show up in U.S. TD units. But at any rate, I'm pretty sure any usage of the ground-mount 90mm gun would have to be from be AA units pressed into AT service, as I don't think anybody else had it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 It would have to be really rare, anyway, as Germans didn't mount too many successful Panzer offensives against the US, and the US Army wasn't short on AT assets. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Hi, It would have to be really rare, anyway, as Germans didn't mount too many successful Panzer offensives against the US, and the US Army wasn't short on AT assets. That is scary... . I was going to post the exact same thing reading down the thread. My spin would be if the US had needed to, it would have used the 90mm AA the way the 88 was. BTW... when you look at the pictures from Stoumont the 90mmm was a huge gun. The AA mount was massive. All the best, Kip. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 My spin would be if the US had needed to, it would have used the 90mm AA the way the 88 was. That was definitely the plan. Otherwise, they wouldn't have bothered to re-engineer the mount so that it could depress low enough for direct ground fire. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaws Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Yeah; that incident in Stoumont during the Battle of the Bulge is one of the incidents I was thinking of. AFAIK, the ground-mount version of the 90mm was never formally deployed to TD units -- I'm pretty sure the largest towed AT gun U.S. TD units ever used was the 76mm. Of course, starting in late September 1944, M36 Jacksons with 90mm guns were starting to show up in U.S. TD units. But at any rate, I'm pretty sure any usage of the ground-mount 90mm gun would have to be from be AA units pressed into AT service, as I don't think anybody else had it. Yes that would be the M5 3inch gun. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgie Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 If I remember correctly the 90mm AA would not penetrate the King Tiger frontal armor in CMBO. How this translates to real life or to CMBN I don't know. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.X Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 The Red Army used the 90mm AA against German tanks. For example the SS "Totenkopf" reported that one of their Tiger-tanks was penetrated by an American 90mm AA gun and burned out. This happened in late August/September 1943 in the region of Kolontajew. And there are some more examples of the succesful use of this weapon against tanks at the eastfront. Regards Frank 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 BTW... when you look at the pictures from Stoumont the 90mmm was a huge gun. The AA mount was massive. That doesn't sound like it would be very mobile, which would explain why it was not given to dedicated AT units. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Even if they had tried to use 90mm AA assets for AT the odds of them finding something in their sights is tiny. I read somewhere that for the masses of 3 inch towed AT guns in dedicated AT battalions, the number of German tanks KO'd by them during the Normandy campaign was only in the single digits. Of course things change when we get to the Bulge and we're the ones defending and the Germans are the ones coming up the road through the morning fog. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgie Posted March 25, 2012 Author Share Posted March 25, 2012 Even if they had tried to use 90mm AA assets for AT the odds of them finding something in their sights is tiny. I read somewhere that for the masses of 3 inch towed AT guns in dedicated AT battalions, the number of German tanks KO'd by them during the Normandy campaign was only in the single digits. Of course things change when we get to the Bulge and we're the ones defending and the Germans are the ones coming up the road through the morning fog. In the Bulge game I wonder if ,"when they are coming up the road through the morning fog", anything the US or Brits have will do any good against the King Tiger frontal armor. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanzfeld Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 ...and lets hope that the "morning fog" is very thick in the bulge module. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 In the Bulge game I wonder if ,"when they are coming up the road through the morning fog", anything the US or Brits have will do any good against the King Tiger frontal armor. British 17 pdr will penetrate the turret of the Porsche KT. We'll see about the Henshel. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave85 Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Im just reading a book about the fighting in north africa around the gazala line in '42 where the AT gun was king of the battlefield. Apparently, having seen how effective the german 88 AA gun was as an AT gun the british high command, having an abundance of similar 3.7" AA guns that would have made good AT guns did what?....They refused to use them in this role instead converting 25 pounder howitzer units into AT units. What a wonderfully British oversight. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Im just reading a book... Sounds like a book I am reading at the moment: Together We Stand? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Im just reading a book about the fighting in north africa around the gazala line in '42 where the AT gun was king of the battlefield. Apparently, having seen how effective the german 88 AA gun was as an AT gun the british high command, having an abundance of similar 3.7" AA guns that would have made good AT guns did what?....They refused to use them in this role instead converting 25 pounder howitzer units into AT units. What a wonderfully British oversight. It's a cute, and oft-told, story but unfortunately it isn't true. Firstly, there were a couple of occasions on which the 3.7-in HAA Gun was used in an A-Tk role. However, the 3.7-in was a much more substantial, and far more sophisticated, gun than the AA, which made employing it regularly in an A-Tk role highly problematic. Furthermore, AA defence was a tri-service responsibility, and the RAF were understandably loathe to let tactical commaders fritter away the HAA guns on inconsequential targets. Finally, the war in North Africa was, ahead of anything else, a war of logistics. The British grokked that, and protected their logistics infrastructure. That meant, among other things, concentrating their HAA assets in the Nile Delta rahter than giving them to some snot-nosed brigadier or army comander. Rommel never quite grokked that whole logistics thing, with results that should be well know to all. The use of 25-pr is well enough known, and it did okay in that role. The main problem was that when it was being used as an A-Tk gun, it couldn't be used in its primary role of providing indirect fire support. However, don't overstate it. The 2-pr was a perfectly serviceable A-Tk gun up to about the middle of 1941, and reasonably effect against most Axis armour in North Africa into 1942. The 6-pr was available in increasing numbers from mid-42 on, and dominated available Axis armour. The 25-pr was really only required to shoulder the main burden of A-Tk defence for about 6 months between the obsolescence of 2-pr and the arrival of 6-pr. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 That was definitely the plan. Otherwise, they wouldn't have bothered to re-engineer the mount so that it could depress low enough for direct ground fire. Once the RAF and USAAF had defeated the GAF, the Brits retro-fitted their 3.7-in HAA so that they could be uased as quasi-artillery, and be included in fireplans in support of ground operations. With their ready supplies of air burst fuzes they were also very good at counter battery work. I'm not sure if they were being used this way in North or North-West Africa, but they were in Italy and by the time of Normandy it was reasonably common. I expect - but don't know - the US did the same thing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 JonS - yes the US AAA - which was a huge arm, way more than needed for their doctrinal role, since the flying 50 cals in the Mustangs and Thunderbolts had already swept the skies clear - was used for indirect fire routinely. The heavy 90mm AAA that is - the light stuff was pushed into direct fire support roles (the quad 50s and the 40mm Bofors I mean). But less use was made of either than might have been and it remained a relatively underused arm. The 90mm was a serviceable but in no way great indirect fire piece. The range was fine but the burst charge left much to be desired, and as with all very high velocity guns the barrel life was much less than an ordinary howitzer. What they spent most of the ETO campaign doing, actually, was popping away at V-1s flying into Leige, Antwerp, or over to southeast England. Huge parks of the things, both 40mm and 90mm, where placed in the usual buzz bomb avenues and shot down plenty of them - but a very low return for the effort. A 400 mph cruise missile is a pretty poor target for unguided guns, even with proximity fuzes. And they weren't doing a lot of damage even when they got through, in the grand scheme of things. A V-1 may have consumed more economic product in shells fired at them than in buildings knocked down at the other end, in fact. But there were few other uses for the guns, it gave them something to do that fit their doctrinal role, and it saved the occasional civilian life - so that is what a lot of them wound up doing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave85 Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Sounds like a book I am reading at the moment: Together We Stand? Michael Thats the kiddy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.