What prevented the QF 3.7-inch AA gun being used in the Anti Tank role.

[Juha Tompuri]

Hi!

The problem there is that there are no after shot mentions of the projectiles.
Who knows how far/deep they had ended/bounced.

Regards, Juha

[MarkN]

The problem there is that there are no after shot mentions of the projectiles.

Why is that a problem?

Who knows how far/deep they had ended/bounced.

Who cares how far they bounced or buried themselves in sand?

[Sheldrake]

Can some one please explain why this thread about the 3.7" gun has been turned into (another) debate about the relative merits of the 2 pdr which has lots of threads of its own. I don't mean to appear rude, but someone with new information on the 3.7" might find it hard to follow the original discussion and be deterred from posting.

[Urmel]

Well yes.

[MarkN]

Can some one please explain why this thread about the 3.7" gun has been turned into (another) debate about the relative merits of the 2 pdr which has lots of threads of its own. I don't mean to appear rude, but someone with new information on the 3.7" might find it hard to follow the original discussion and be deterred from posting.

Why? Well that's how AHF works, isn't it? 90% of threads are off topic before the end of the first page. Forum ownership/management don't seem bothered by it. In fact, in this thread, they've even participated in it.

[Juha Tompuri]

Can some one please explain why this thread about the 3.7" gun has been turned into (another) debate about the relative merits of the 2 pdr which has lots of threads of its own. I don't mean to appear rude, but someone with new information on the 3.7" might find it hard to follow the original discussion and be deterred from posting.

Can't explain, but I'll check later what I can do.
Thanks for pointing out this.

Regards, Juha

[Juha Tompuri]

90% of threads are off topic before the end of the first page.

At this thread it's about page 4, when the discussion (mostly) was turned by the posters there(/here), away from the 3.7-inch.

In fact, in this thread, they've even participated in it.

Sorry for that

Regards, Juha

[Don Juan]

Can some one please explain why this thread about the 3.7" gun has been turned into (another) debate about the relative merits of the 2 pdr which has lots of threads of its own. I don't mean to appear rude, but someone with new information on the 3.7" might find it hard to follow the original discussion and be deterred from posting.

This thread isn't about the 3.7" gun per se, it's specifically about its non-use in the anti-tank role. The argument that there was a necessity for the 3.7" to be re-roled into the anti-tank role depends upon it being established that the existing anti-tank equipment was inadequate. As the existing anti-tank equipment was largely the 2 pounder, the (in)effectiveness of that weapon will inevitably come up. And as the effectiveness of the 2 pounder is very much contested, a lengthy thread on the 2 pounder was the inevitable result.

I would respectfully suggest that someone starts a thread with a title like "Geographical Distribution of the 3.7" AA Gun", or "Technical Capabilities of the 3.7" AA Gun" if they want to keep discussions of the 2 pounder out of it.

[Urmel]

Good point. I'm still waiting for an answer as to how the introduction of the 3.7" AA gun into AT regiments would have helped in any way to overcome the doctrinal failure of 8th Army to use combined arms warfare.

I mean... Did 22 Armoured Brigade integrate its AT guns into the combat group when it attacked Bir el Gobi? Well that would be a 'no'. Did 4 Armoured Brigade at Gabr Saleh? Well, no. Did 7 Armoured Brigade at Sidi Rezegh? Well, you guessed right... no. So the 2-pdr armed tanks wouldn't be helped by this, unless the way they were used was changed.

Now as part of a Pakfront, sure it could be expected to hole German tanks. But... The Germans had integrated artillery and mobile artillery in the form of the Panzer IV. They would have experienced this with surprise once or twice, and then the German artillery would have dealt with the quite sizeable and not superbly mobile gun rather savagely, is my guess.

Shrug.

[Don Juan]

My personal guess is that if the 3.7" AA gun had been deliberately employed in the anti-tank role, it would not have been long before it was being used against its original owners.

[Don Juan]

Now as part of a Pakfront, sure it could be expected to hole German tanks.

I very much doubt that the 3.7" AA gun would have had any effect against the amazing 30mm side armour of the Panzer III.

[MarkN]

The TO's original question (What prevented the QF 3.7-inch AA gun being used in the Anti Tank role) had been dealt with by the end of the first page or page and a half. Moreover, during that page or page and a half, it was demonstrated that most, if not all, drivers to the question were myths or outright falsehoods. Additionally, the direction of the thread had already starting to wander.

By the end of the 2nd page, the TO had shifted the topic onto the 3-inch HAA gun. Rather worryingly because it indicated that he/she had learned almost zero from the preceeding 2 pages. The reasons why the 3-inch HAA was not put into front line ATk use were broadly the same as those for the 3.7-inch HAA. The drivers behind the question are similarly based upon myths and outright falsehoods.

This is a typical AHF thread. If the site owners/management do not like the way it developped, and want to do something about it, then they have huge task on their hands; the problem is the norm on AHF - albeit contrary to the written 'mission statement'. Academic and historical rigour gave way to commercial interest long before I started posting. If the owners/management do decided to do something about it, they'll certainly have my vote of approval. But it would need to be an across the board reorientation rather than an opportunity to commence a witchunt against a handful of posters.

[MarkN]

Good point. I'm still waiting for an answer as to how the introduction of the 3.7" AA gun into AT regiments would have helped in any way to overcome the doctrinal failure of 8th Army to use combined arms warfare.

I mean... Did 22 Armoured Brigade integrate its AT guns into the combat group when it attacked Bir el Gobi? Well that would be a 'no'. Did 4 Armoured Brigade at Gabr Saleh? Well, no. Did 7 Armoured Brigade at Sidi Rezegh? Well, you guessed right... no. So the 2-pdr armed tanks wouldn't be helped by this, unless the way they were used was changed.

Now as part of a Pakfront, sure it could be expected to hole German tanks. But... The Germans had integrated artillery and mobile artillery in the form of the Panzer IV. They would have experienced this with surprise once or twice, and then the German artillery would have dealt with the quite sizeable and not superbly mobile gun rather savagely, is my guess.

Takes us right back to the original text that seems to have agitated the TO to start this thread:

In an acerbic vein, Bidwell and Graham commented, “In any case even if the guns [3.7-inch] had been made available it is doubtful if the desert commanders would have used them correctly, in view of the hash they made of the employment of all their own artillery.”

[MarkN]

Now as part of a Pakfront, sure it could be expected to hole German tanks.

I very much doubt that the 3.7" AA gun would have had any effect against the amazing 30mm side armour of the Panzer III.

Remember, ...

Yet in reality, knocking out the German tanks even from the flanks was easier said than done.

... if they user had trouble manouvering his highly mobile 2-pdr armed pantsers and 2-pdr armed 3-ton trucks to take a pot shot at the side of a German pantser, I wonder how the user would have fared manouvering a 3.7-inch HAA gun into position, preparing the ground, and then taking a pot shot.

[Damper]

The TO's original question (What prevented the QF 3.7-inch AA gun being used in the Anti Tank role) had been dealt with by the end of the first page or page and a half. Moreover, during that page or page and a half, it was demonstrated that most, if not all, drivers to the question were myths or outright falsehoods. Additionally, the direction of the thread had already starting to wander.

By the end of the 2nd page, the TO had shifted the topic onto the 3-inch HAA gun. Rather worryingly because it indicated that he/she had learned almost zero from the preceeding 2 pages. The reasons why the 3-inch HAA was not put into front line ATk use were broadly the same as those for the 3.7-inch HAA. The drivers behind the question are similarly based upon myths and outright falsehoods.

This is a typical AHF thread. If the site owners/management do not like the way it developped, and want to do something about it, then they have huge task on their hands; the problem is the norm on AHF - albeit contrary to the written 'mission statement'. Academic and historical rigour gave way to commercial interest long before I started posting. If the owners/management do decided to do something about it, they'll certainly have my vote of approval. But it would need to be an across the board reorientation rather than an opportunity to commence a witchunt against a handful of posters.

So at least 100 3-inch HAA guns were converted into the anti tank role. Either in SP mounts or in bodged towed mounts. In fact you could argue that the 77mm HV used in the comet was simply a reinvention of the 3 inch.