The 3.7 was significantly heavier than the '88'.Sunbury wrote:A example of what dogged the British can be best explained by the German 88mm cannon and the British equivalent the 3.7in ack ack gun. The Germans to their delight found the 88mm to be an excellent anti aircraft cannon (ack ack) and an excellent anti tank one. Cries of wundabar all round and prosit! The British 3.7in ack ack cannon in 1940 had a longer range than the 88mm and could have been a powerful anti tank gun. However it was designed to be an "ack ack" gun and that was that. Bureacracy at the War Office and inter service rivarily between "ack ack" and "armour" sections of the Army actively discouraged any attempts to develop the cannon. It didnt matter that men died , what mattered was the 3.7in was an anti aircraft gun and nothing else. It was used once as anti tank gun at Tobruk but that one-off was forgiven. This closed mindset was a common feature in British Tank Development.
The Germans used their 88's in the AT role because they found their standard AT gun was not up to the job. The 88 was a massive overkill, a huge exposed target and waste of a specialised AA gun. An AA gun that if used in its proper role would have helped prevent a lot of Rommel's losses to airpower. It is not that the '88' was a super-weapon. It was no better than any of the standard AA guns of the time. It was its forced use in the AT role that was an 'adavance'.
And of course the '88' was never the main AT gun of the war, that was the 75mm. The '88' was not as important as some would have us believe.
Sunbury wrote:The vertiable German Mark 1V was upgraded and upgunned throughout the war. The first 75m long barrelled ones had arrived for Rommel before the Second Battle of El Alamein (some mere 26 or so), it could outgun the Sherman even then.
The Pz IV by 1944 was severely overtaxed. They had to start dropping features just to keep it running. It may suprise you to know the Germans had a name for the Pz IV just like the 'Ronson' term for the Sherman. In the OR surveys done on tank survivability in 1944 the Pz IV came bottom. Marginaly worse than the Sherman.
Just as the Shermans and Cromwells killed Stugs and the tank killers easily. If ease of penetration is a drawback then the Stug was just as handicaped as any Allied vehicle.Sunbury wrote:The Germans introduced the Panther and Tiger and the excellent Sturmgeschütz III / IV tank killers during the war, all had faults and they have been seized on by apologists in here but the fact remains they went into production and killed allied tanks easily.
The IR claim is an oft quoted example of German superiority but it is also a myth. IR was a pre-war invention and all nations had versions (even Russia) The trial showed that it was not developed enough to be used for anything other than night driving. Driven by desperation the Germans tried to get a version to work as a gunnnery aid but they could not get it to function correctly . It would have been a futile gesture anyway because the Allied had IR detectors stockpiled in Europe ready for the first use of IR illuminators. Any tank using it would have stood out as if it was using a torch in pitch darkness.Sunbury wrote: Infra Red sights were being experimented with by German Panthers at war ends, the Allies always seemed to lag behind.
I am not going to comment at length but if you bother to check you will find it was not just Wittmann and it was not all of 7th AD.Sunbury wrote:Wittmann and Co at Villers Bocage clearly show the difference in quality and temperment between the Germans and British. A very small number of Tigers, stopped the veteran British 7th Armoured Divison cold,
You should also take note that the second attack by a larger force of Tigers and Pz IV's was totaly routed and sent scuttling back out of Villers. The repulse of this attack is an outstanding example of a confident and aggressive British Unit standing its ground and defeating a confident and aggressive enemy in a first class tank
You clearly have made your mind up on this point and are become more and more disparaging as you plough forward.Sunbury wrote:An edit. the performance of the 7th Armoured Divison (the Desert Rats) in Normandy has beem questioned, battle worn, away from home so long etc are reasons given for its medicore performance.
I urge you to broaden your library and avoid the mistake attaching yourself too closely just one authors conclusion as if they were the last word on the subject. Perhaps you should purchase John Buckley's book
http://www.amazon.co.uk/British-Normand ... B000P0JNEE
and see if he is able to open your eyes.