David Thompson wrote: ↑
02 Dec 2019 03:24
A post from Gooner1, containing several claims unsupported by sourced facts, was removed pursuant to forum rules and prior warnings.
Lord Beaverbrook, House of Lords 1st July 1942
"There is another suggestion about shortage of equipment—I am not dealing with quality, only quantity—and that is the reference to the German 38 mm. gun. That is an anti-aircraft gun built for that purpose and adapted by the enemy for anti-tank purposes. An anti-aircraft gun does not have to have an armour-piercing shell but an anti-tank gun must have. Other considerations are involved when use is made of that anti-aircraft gun for anti-tank purposes. It is probable that the enemy had not more than fifty of those 88 mm. guns adapted for anti-tank purposes. The guns have been in existence for a long time. They were used in the Middle East last year and they were used as long ago as the Battle of Flanders. But we had an anti-aircraft gun too, a most valuable gun called the 3·7. It is a little larger than the German 88 mm. and a year ago production was; launched of an armour-piercing projectile in order to equip the 3·7 gun for anti-tank purposes. It was the Prime Minister who wanted the production of the armour-piercing projectiles, so that that gun could be used as an anti-tank gun. Forthwith there was put into production an armour-piercing projectile for the purpose of using 3·7 guns against enemy tanks.
I do not know if the 3·7 gun has been adapted to anti-tank purposes or work in the desert, but it is a better gun than the 88 mm. The 88 mm. weighs 7½ tons and the 3·7 weighs 9 tons;. The 88 mm. has a lighter projectile than the 3·7. The 3·7 will destroy the armour of any German tank. I make that statement confident that I cannot be accused of over-optimism. It will penetrate the armour of any German tank. Its elevation is zero to 85". Whether the 3·7 gun was used as an anti-tank gun I cannot say—possibly others can—but if it was not then there is necessity for an inquiry in that direction. There is necessity to look into it and see that in future it is made use of for anti-tank purposes. "
Alan Brooke's role in trialling the 3.7" in an anti-tank role as C-in-C Home Forces has been commented on several times. Post 545 from Sheldrake
"103 HAA Regiment were converted to become a mobile unit in Jan 1941 - receiving vehicles and drivers and eventually a mobile cookhouse. On 26 July they were assigned the "Bargain" role as a strategic Anti tank reserve. This was followed by training for the officers along field artillery lines, anti tank shoots and field exercises culminating in Ex Bumper. There was quite a bit to do to turn British HAA into effective dual role weapons, including rearranging other priorities."
90th HAA Regimental Diary Normandy
"All three Batteries were kept hard at it during the middle of July and ground gained here and there kept Reconnaissance parties on their toes.Several re-deployments of guns were made and the advance,whilst slow,was sure. On the 20th July, 272 Battery were called upon to deploy "B" troop guns in an anti-tank role to cover the TILLY-BAYEUX road, and these orders made one appreciate the thoroughness of training in ENGLAND,when anti-tank gunnery had been studied and practiced during the periods in the CHEVIOT HILLS.
During 15th July the Prime Minister visited an Observation Post used by 285 Battery and he watched with interest the effect of "air -bursts on enemy positions
About this period fire support was given to the 49th (West Riding) Division and 50th (Northumbrian) Division, in their attacks on VILLIERS BOCAGE and EVRECY"