3.7 AA Gun?

[Smack]

Why wasnt it used like the German 88mm? In Talonsofts west front it decimated German tanks and infantry...

More importantly, what is the reason why the British Didnt use it as an AT weapon?

[Michael Emrys]

Haven't studied the matter to any great depth, but from what I've read there were two main reasons. One was that the British weapon lacked the mobility of the German. Therefore, it would not have been such a good idea to expose in on the front line.

Secondly was a doctrinal issue. For the British, the weapon was an AA gun and that is what it was used for. That doesn't quite explain why someone didn't put forward the idea of developing an AT gun out of it, however. In any event, the 17 pdr. was adequate for their late war needs. Anything bigger would have been unwieldy.

Michael

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Haven't studied the matter to any great depth, but from what I've read there were two main reasons. One was that the British weapon lacked the mobility of the German. Therefore, it would not have been such a good idea to expose in on the front line.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually it was, as mobile as the 8.8cm FlaK. Neither were in reality exactly "mobile" weapons. What the British lacked a prime mover similar to the SdKfz 7 which could move it as easily, rather than the actual gun mounting being not designed for rapid movement in and out of limber. Indeed, they even attempted at one point to reverse engineer the German half-track but decided not to go ahead with it. By the time, fully-tracked prime-movers because readily available, the need for the use of 3.7in as an AT weapon had passed, with the 17 Pdr being on the scene.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Secondly was a doctrinal issue. For the British, the weapon was an AA gun and that is what it was used for. That doesn't quite explain why someone didn't put forward the idea of developing an AT gun out of it, however. In any event, the 17 pdr. was adequate for their late war needs. Anything bigger would have been unwieldy.

Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, there were several proposals to exactly that. The 32 Pdr was in fact based on the 3.7in. While doctrinally the British were more rigid, what is all too often overlooked is that the German guns were usually under the control of the Luftwaffe, rather than the Heeres, even if they were army guns. The difference was that the Luftwaffe was more willing to allow their guns to used as AT guns, whereas the British RA was not.

[Andreas]

3.7" gun

Nice little article. No idea how correct it is.

Following some technical data for the 8,8cm Flak 18 and 36 to compare (note, Flak 41 is even heavier, but seems to not have been used widely in 1944):

Weight

(unlimbered) 5,000kg (36: 5,000)

(unlimbered w/shield): 5,400kg

(limbered): 7,200kg (36: 7,200)

(limbered w/shield and Sonderanhaenger 201): 7,400kg (900kg less than 3.7") (36: w/ Anhaenger 202 8,600kg)

(limbered w/o shield and w/ Sonderanhaenger 202): 7,000kg (1,300kg less than 3.7") (36: w/ Anhaenger 202 8,200kg)

ROF: 15-20 rds/min (3.7" 20)

Fuse range: 10,600m

Gun range: 14,960m (could do indirect fire, and did beyond 4,000m, the range is actually longer than that of many field guns)

Muzzle velocity: 820-840m/sec (higher than 3.7")

That is a lot less weight to carry around for the 18, and should make the gun more mobile. The doctrine was developed while the 18 was prevalent. The 8,8 could also be fired while limbered, not sure about the 3.7", I would presume it could though.

On soc.sci.history.wwII someone claimed that there was no ground sighting equipment for the 3.7". I doubt that mattered very much, since the 8,8 gun commander seems to have used his aerial rangefinders in ground combat anyway. The 8,8cm had a ground-fire table though, for fire adjustment and fuse setting by the crew. I wonder if that even existed for the 3.7".

According to the rules, the heavy Flak was used under control of the Army unit it was attached to. The only time I have heard of a Battery commander being reluctant to engage in combating ground targets is in von Luck's book; Piekalkiewicz mentions that this happened 'in rare occurences'. It should also be remembered that the guy in question was not attached to any ground combat unit. From 1944 there apparently was a special order by Hitler legalising behaviour like von Luck's.

After the invasion of the SU, special Flakkampfgtruppswere created, consisting of two 8,8cm and one platoon of 2cm Flak. Piekalkiewicz claims they were the most widely used Falk unit at this time. In this situation, the 8,8cm seems to have made a lot of use of MT fuses in DF mode to defend positions. At the western front, the number of 8,8s had to be increased to 3-4, since the western Allies 'were more skilled in attacking'.

I have an early picture of 8,8cm in ground combat during the Ebro battle in the Spanish Civil War, sporting shields. I think this probably was an important testing ground, since there seems to have been no hesitation to use the gun right from the start in Poland in a ground combat role.

All this shows that the German army had a clear system, and experience in using the gun in a ground combat role. It had also established guidelines on co-ordinating the work between two arms of the Wehrmacht, and resolving command boundary issues. I would think that for these institutional reasons the gun was used widely in ground combat. Because of the absence of this institutional framework in the Comonwealth armies, the 3.7" was not.

The US Army published a manual on the use of the 8,8cm on 29. June 1943. I also have pictures of British gunners working 8,8cm around Maastricht and Cuxhaven.

Scipio, if you read this, the ISBN for the book is 3-87943-423-9 for the German version. Very good stuff. An English version is available I believe.

[ 08-25-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]

[David Aitken]

This thing, the Tortoise, was intended to mount the 3.7in / 32-pounder. Designed in 1942, prototype in 1947, never produced.

The 17-pounder was probably regarded as a more than adequate AT gun during the war, but if the 32-pounder had ever appeared it would have been unbeatable. However, considering the trouble we had fitting the former into a AFVs, it's no surprise we didn't get around to the latter.

[ 08-25-2001: Message edited by: David Aitken ]

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

This thing, the Tortoise, was intended to mount the 3.7in / 32-pounder. Designed in 1942, prototype in 1947, never produced.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the prototype still stands in Bovington (if I don't mess it up with the Black Prince now). It is quite ugly, probably would have scared any enemy away

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

The 17-pounder was probably regarded as a more than adequate AT gun during the war, but if the 32-pounder had ever appeared it would have been unbeatable. However, considering the trouble we had fitting the former into a AFVs, it's no surprise we didn't get around to the latter.

[ 08-25-2001: Message edited by: David Aitken ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 32 Pdr would never have adopted, unless the war had dragged on and it was shown that the 17 Pdr was unable to cope with the Tiger II. Perhaps if Maus had appeared, then you'd have seen 32 Pdr's. However, what must be remembered is that the reason why it wasn't actually adopted was that it was so bloody big and unwieldy - rather as the PaK 43/41 was never particularly popular.

I remember reading an article written by one of the fellows who's job it was to take the Tortoise to Europe just after the war for testing in the field. He described a horrendious journey fraught with considerable difficulty becuase of the sheer size of the beast. It had to go by road because it exceeed the rail gauge by a huge margin. His convoy averaged a speed of about 10 miles an hour and had numerous breakdowns. His conclusion was that it would have been horrendious trying to deploy the beast - just as most commenters believe using the Maus would have been.

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

[QB]3.7" gun

Nice little article. No idea how correct it is.

Following some technical data for the 8,8cm Flak 18 and 36 to compare (note, Flak 41 is even heavier, but seems to not have been used widely in 1944)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The FlaK41 was an extremely rare beast. Most ended up being confined to home defence because the problems associated with the split liner and the need to utilise brass cases with it. It had the highest muzzle-velocity of all the production 8.8cm guns and the best armour penetration but had a protracted development resulting from the already mentioned problems with a multipart liner. It was unusual in that it was designed from the outset for use as dual purpose weapon - being mounted on a turntable rather than a pedastal to lower the silouhette.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

On soc.sci.history.wwII someone claimed that there was no ground sighting equipment for the 3.7".

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong, there was such equipment but it was not widely issued, until later in the war. 3.7ins were often pressed into use as normal artillery weapons, to give added weight to barrages, particularly in set-piece battles. Their ability to fire a VT fused round was greatly appreciated.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I doubt that mattered very much, since the 8,8 gun commander seems to have used his aerial rangefinders in ground combat anyway.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One should not confuse "rangefinders" which are a seperate piece of off mounting equipment with "ground sightng equipment" which would mean I suspect actual direct action sights.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

The only time I have heard of a Battery commander being reluctant to engage in combating ground targets is in von Luck's book; Piekalkiewicz mentions that this happened 'in rare occurences'.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it depends upon how forceful either commander was. I remember reading of Rommel having to press his FlaK commander during one battle in the advance into France in 1940, to release his guns for AT work.

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:

One should not confuse "rangefinders" which are a seperate piece of off mounting equipment with "ground sightng equipment" which would mean I suspect actual direct action sights.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed. One should also get a lot more sleep than I did last night, and not drink too much Blackbush. My bad.

I just remembered reading that the LAA Rgt of 49th 'West Riding' UK ID received ground sights only around the time of Le Havre. Their guns turned more and more into a ground role after the landing, but it seemed to have taken a while to sink in back home. Any idea when they were issued to the heavies?

Blackburn I seem to recall said something about the usefulness of having LAA and the 3.7" guns as part of preparatory barrages.

[CRSutton]

I would think that air superiority played an important role in the development of these bigger allied guns for field use. With control of the skies and excellent fighter bombers, hollow charged rockets, and decent ground control in the last year, the need for large caliber AT guns really was not there. Mobility was most likey considered more important-especially for an attacking army. The Axis on the other hand, had no hope of regaining control of the skies. Plus by virtue of being on the defensive, this type of weapon made more sense.

It is important to remember that big guns are more defensive in nature, due to their characteristics and weight. Although, they could be used offensively-their main tactical use was defense. The American Army, and the Brits to some extent were moving away from towed AT weapons. Why would it make sense to push for the development of a big AT gun when your armies were already racing through Europe.

I am willing to bet that many a British commander wanted to see the 90mm AA guns moved a bit closer to the front in North Africa.

[Enoch]

While we are on the subject of large unwieldly tanks. The US developed the T95 GMC. The first prototype was not completed until Sept. '45.

It has a 105mm gun. If you notice the hull is actually set back from the front of the tracks. The outer tracks were detachable to enable transport via road or rail. The gun mantlet was 12 inches thick.

Development was stopped with the success of the T29 series that deployed a 105mm gun in a turret.

[Andrew H.]

The Patton Museum needs to invest in some subdued grass.

[David Aitken]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Andrew Hedges wrote:

The Patton Museum needs to invest in some subdued grass.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brilliant! Either Maximus lives in a place without much sunshine, or much grass, or he doesn't get out much. I will concede that he has been recovering from an accident, but presumably his house has windows...

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CRSutton:

It is important to remember that big guns are more defensive in nature, due to their characteristics and weight. Although, they could be used offensively-their main tactical use was defense. The American Army, and the Brits to some extent were moving away from towed AT weapons. Why would it make sense to push for the development of a big AT gun when your armies were already racing through Europe.

In a word - FEAR

The Germans were known to be working on super-heavy tanks - the Maus and the E-100. Intelligence reports had identified them and they were known to be superior to the Tiger II - by how much, no one knew.

The 32 Pdr was designed to counter that threat, which never developed, just as the US 90mm and 105mm AT guns were.

You're right there are problems with mobility and the 32 Pdr proved that to the British. It was a huge beasty but it was produced and trialled. In reality, what did it in was the development of the Recoilless Rifle. Suddenly you no longer needed a heavy mount to absorb the massive recoil from fling a large piece of metal at the target.

The Germans however, still had the Pak-44 - a 12.8cm gun, which was as big and as unweildy - it saw very limited service at very end (as did most things in desperation).

They needed it, they felt to counter the Tortoise, the JSIII and the T-95. Again, fear drove its development.