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

Discussions on all aspects of the The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Andy H
User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4215
Joined: 25 Aug 2008 09:34
Location: The late JBond

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

Post by Urmel » 01 Aug 2020 23:13

Richard Anderson wrote:
01 Aug 2020 16:23
MarkF617 wrote:
01 Aug 2020 11:35
Question: Did any country, other than Germany, use their HAA guns specifically to kill tanks, not as a secondary task?
I'm not so sure the Germans did either, except in extremis.
Don’t think that’s right. If you look at KG Stephan on 19 Nov 41 for example there is no real reason other than AT that a battery of 88s would have accompanied it. I’m not sure that was an ‘in extremis’ situation.
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 3070
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

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

Post by Richard Anderson » 02 Aug 2020 06:28

Urmel wrote:
01 Aug 2020 23:13
Don’t think that’s right. If you look at KG Stephan on 19 Nov 41 for example there is no real reason other than AT that a battery of 88s would have accompanied it. I’m not sure that was an ‘in extremis’ situation.
True, but that was the desert and Rommel doing things Rommel's way. The Luftwaffe was not all that happy with it, objecting on pretty reasonable grounds of it being a secondary role for the scant number of guns they had available to do their primary role of air defense, which is why the batteries were there in the first place. Apparently Rommel had decided that all the nice Panzerjäger he had available wasn't enough without additional backup, so to him it must have been 'in extremis"?
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4215
Joined: 25 Aug 2008 09:34
Location: The late JBond

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

Post by Urmel » 02 Aug 2020 09:15

Well there is this. https://rommelsriposte.com/2018/05/27/p ... the-d-a-k/

I agree that this is Rommel, but I also think there were Panzerjägerabteilungen with 88s in France 1940?
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 2541
Joined: 28 Apr 2013 17:14
Location: London

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

Post by Sheldrake » 02 Aug 2020 12:23

Urmel wrote:
02 Aug 2020 09:15
Well there is this. https://rommelsriposte.com/2018/05/27/p ... the-d-a-k/

I agree that this is Rommel, but I also think there were Panzerjägerabteilungen with 88s in France 1940?
There was a thread on 88mm guns on half tracks. Some could be elevated as mobile heavy AA others were Bunkerflak and one vehicle identified as belinging to 1./Panzer Jaeger Abt 8
viewtopic.php?f=132&t=122195&start=60

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 3070
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

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

Post by Richard Anderson » 02 Aug 2020 15:37

Urmel wrote:
02 Aug 2020 09:15
Well there is this. https://rommelsriposte.com/2018/05/27/p ... the-d-a-k/
Indeed. The 8.8cm battery was equally useful in all three roles...as a battery, not as individual guns and not as an entire battalion. So was the 3.7" and the 90mm. The AA role was listed first though.
I agree that this is Rommel, but I also think there were Panzerjägerabteilungen with 88s in France 1940?
IIRC though those were not multi-role with emphasis as AA, but the opposite: designed and intended only to engage ground targets, specifically positions of the Maginot Line? I thought those carriages lost their AA capability?
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 208
Joined: 24 Jan 2020 16:31
Location: Изгубљени

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

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 02 Aug 2020 20:27

Urmel wrote:
01 Aug 2020 23:13
Richard Anderson wrote:
01 Aug 2020 16:23
MarkF617 wrote:
01 Aug 2020 11:35
Question: Did any country, other than Germany, use their HAA guns specifically to kill tanks, not as a secondary task?
I'm not so sure the Germans did either, except in extremis.
Don’t think that’s right. If you look at KG Stephan on 19 Nov 41 for example there is no real reason other than AT that a battery of 88s would have accompanied it. I’m not sure that was an ‘in extremis’ situation.
Topic 1
It seems to me Rommel was make choice for to have 88mm mostest on antitank role not antiaircraft role.

On 1941.year Germany army/luftwaffe was have 3 abteilung on Afrika with 88mm.

One abteilung was be only for defence airfields. When Britain army was attack abteilung was quick retreat for to defend airfields behind.

Two abteilungs was be on two divisions 5.lei/21.pzdiv and 15.pzdiv. most often 8 guns from division was be on fix stutzpunkte on border and 4 guns was on mobile with pzregt.

For to conclude on total 36 guns Rommel was choice for to have...
...16 on main antitank role on fix places
...12 on main antiaircraft role on airfields
...8 on combine antitank and antiaircraft role on mobile pzregts


Topic 2
Germany army/luftwaffe was make and was use 3 Flakkampfgruppen on Normandy on 1944.year. Role was be mostest on antitanks not on antiaircraft.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 3070
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

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

Post by Richard Anderson » 02 Aug 2020 23:23

Ружичасти Слон wrote:
02 Aug 2020 20:27
Topic 1
It seems to me Rommel was make choice for to have 88mm mostest on antitank role not antiaircraft role.
To a degree, yes.
On 1941.year Germany army/luftwaffe was have 3 abteilung on Afrika with 88mm.
Five actually to begin I think? Two were attached to DAK, I./18. and I./33. under Stab/Flak-Regt. 135 for forward air defense. Three others were tasked for rear-area air defense under Stab/Flak-Regt. 102, I./6., II./25. and I./43. Later in early 1942, reinforced by I./53, then later II./5., II./12., and others sent as reinforcement to Tunisia.
One abteilung was be only for defence airfields. When Britain army was attack abteilung was quick retreat for to defend airfields behind.

Two abteilungs was be on two divisions 5.lei/21.pzdiv and 15.pzdiv. most often 8 guns from division was be on fix stutzpunkte on border and 4 guns was on mobile with pzregt.
Typically, I think it was individual batteries that were attached to the two divisions as required, as in the example given by Urmel of KG Stephan. The bulk of the two battalions of Stab/Flak-Regt. 135 attached to DAK were for defense of the forward landing grounds and logistical dumps.
For to conclude on total 36 guns Rommel was choice for to have...
...16 on main antitank role on fix places
...12 on main antiaircraft role on airfields
...8 on combine antitank and antiaircraft role on mobile pzregts
There were only 24 at most in the forward areas. In the early days, the only fixed antitank role I can think of was the battery at Halfaya during BREVITY? Urmel will probably be able to think of others.

{quote]Topic 2
Germany army/luftwaffe was make and was use 3 Flakkampfgruppen on Normandy on 1944.year. Role was be mostest on antitanks not on antiaircraft.
[/quote]

Indeed, which is an indicator of just how much in extremis they were by then. BTW, Flak-Kampfgruppe 11700, 12400, and 13300 were the three commonly identified (from Pickert's memoir) from III Flak-Korps, but POW unit identifications indicate there were likely others.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 208
Joined: 24 Jan 2020 16:31
Location: Изгубљени

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

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 04 Aug 2020 15:17

Richard Anderson wrote:
02 Aug 2020 23:23


There were only 24 at most in the forward areas. In the early days, the only fixed antitank role I can think of was the battery at Halfaya during BREVITY? Urmel will probably be able to think of others.
On Brevity
Total batterys on Afrika = 6 = 24 guns
1 was be on border with Herff
2 or 3 was be around Tobruk - 1 or 2 was be sent to border after start attack.
2 or 3 was be on airfields

On Battleaxe
Total batterys on Afrika = 7 = 28 guns
3 was be on border - 2 was be on fix stutzpunkt 1 was be on mobile on 8.pzregt.
3 was be around Tobruk - 2 was be sent to border after start attack on mobile on 5.pzregt
1 was be on airfield

On Crusader
Total batterys on Afrika = 8 = 32 guns
4 was be on border - all 4 was be on fix stutzpunkt but 1 was move mobile on 3.aufabt
1 was be on mobile on 5.pzregt
1 was be on mobile on 8.pzregt
2 was be on airfields

It seems to me because of terrain very quick many persons was understand effect of 88mm on antitank. On Battleaxe or brevity Hohman on command 2.abt 5.pzregt was call on help of 88mm for to fire antitank on matildas.

When you can to read diarys it seems to me everybody was understand when was be ground battle 88mm was be antitank not aa. Exception was batterys on aa role on airfield.

On Crusader when attack was start all batterys on stutzpunkt was be antitank guns. Same was be on mobile batterys on 3.aufabt 5.pzregt and 8.pzregt. 24 on 32 total was antitank.

But must not to forget. Much aa role was be for Italy army. They was have many guns to.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 3070
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

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

Post by Richard Anderson » 04 Aug 2020 15:29

Delete
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Return to “The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth 1919-45”