Did the British use AAs as ATs?

[Gungnir]

The Germans used the 88s with much success against British armor during the North African Campaign

did the British use a AA gun as an AT gun?

I've read that they had the 94mm AA gun but did not use it in an anti-tank role

so i guess why?

[alf]

There was the 3.7 inch anti aircraft gun, that was probably comparable to the German 88mm.

Why it wasnt used probably goes back to pre war cost- cuttings and demarcations, the 88mm was first trialled in the Spanish Civil War in the anti tank role, so by the time WW2 arrived, it had the anti tank gun sights, the ammuntion etc to be deadly effective.

None of this happened in the British Army who were pre war, poor cousins behind the RAF and Navy for funding.

They paid the price, it wasnt till the 17 pounder came out that they had a comparable anti tank cannon (but never dual purpose anti aircraft gun,)

[Gungnir]

thanks

this is from War without Hate by John Bierman and Colin Smith

For the British tank crews the odds against survival were alarmingly shortened by the range and accuracy of the German 88s, and there was considerable resentment within the Eighth Army at the failure of their superiors to give them a comparable weapon, which many believed was already at hand if only the general staff had the wit to adapt it and press it into service. This was the British 3.7-inch (94-mm) anti-aircraft gun, and Lieuteant (later Major) David Perry of the 57th Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment, Royal Artillery, for one, felt there was 'no excuse for the sheer stupidity of the General Staff' in not allowing it to be used in an anti-tank role. He called in a post-war memoir: 'During all this time over thousand 3.7-inch AA guns stood idle in the Middle East...Many never fired a shot in anger during the whole of the war'

see they give no reason just that it was not used when it should have been employed.
...which is why i brought it up and asked

[David Lehmann]

The 94mm British Vickers AA guns were not used in AT role but often in indirect artillery task in Normandy and Italy ... like sometimes the German 8.8cm Flak.

Note : in 1940 France had 20x of these 94mm Vickers AA guns beside about 40x Schneider 90mmn AA guns (Mle 1936/1930, 1932 and 1939 - some were used in AT role in North Africa initially against the landing US troops) and about 135x 105mm Mle1915/1934 AA guns. There were also about 700x various old 75mm AA guns. In comparison at the same time the Germans had about 2500x 88mm and 105mm Flak.

Here the 94mm Vickers in indirect artillery role in Italy :





Regards,

David

[Stephan]

One reason why not to use what they had, 17P/94mm AA also as AT, was perhaps the 6P/57mm AT was quite effective, also against Tiger - at least from the side.

Of course, an more flexible use of the 17p/94mm would be a good reinforcement.

[Andreas]

Did the 3.7" not see service long before the 6-pdr?

[Stephan]

Andreas. Yes, I too believe so. But the 37mm/2pounder was not so effective as the 57/6p. But they had plenty of the 37/2p and not so many of the 6/57.

Did read about a battle in the desert, where an AT-group with 2p and 6p fighted against an german/italian tank-group. They did very well, the 6p were astounding. Shot througt the tanks almost like they were butter. Not Tigers front, but from the side was´nt even the Tigers secure.

[Andreas]

Andreas. Yes, I too believe so. But the 37mm/2pounder was not so effective as the 57/6p. But they had plenty of the 37/2p and not so many of the 6/57.

That's what I thought. So there would have been a very good incentive to (ab)use the 3.7" in the ground role, while the 2-pdr (40mm, BTW, not 37mm) was the mainstay of the British AT formations. Later, when the 6-pdr came into the divisional AT regiments, there was less of a need to do that, since the 6-pdr is a cracking gun.

[Jon G.]

The 3.7" AA gun does have some drawbacks compared to the famous 88 mm. It is a good deal heavier and therefore more difficult to transport around - a 100% stable platform being more important in an articulated AA gun than in an AT gun. Also, its sights were not really made for ground targets, nor was the ammunition.

Most importantly, however, it was distributed to RA AA batteries, and these units were supposed to shoot at aircraft only under British doctrine, not gallivant around the battlefield shooting at targets of opportunity over open sights. In desperate circumstances, it was however used as an AT gun - for example during the fighting for Calais in 1940. I'd imagine there would be very little left of a 1940 vintage German tank that got hit by this gun.

The thought of multi-purpose weapons must have been alien to the British. Why else would they stick with cruiser and infantry tanks of seperate design for so long?

The Americans also had a good 90 mm AA gun of broadly similar design to the British 3.7 inch gun, but I don't think it was used much in an AT role either.

[new2this]

I'm guessing here, but one reason for not using the 94mm AA gun in an AT role would be if, as someone else mentioned, the British troops weren't equipped with AT rounds for it. A previous poster mentioned the Germans' opportunity to test their 88s in Spain, but the British had no such preparation and therefore had no AT ammo or sights (or something similar...forgive me if I've missed part of that post.)

This sounds like the most logical reason to me. With or without good AT sights, I can't imagine a flak shell doing much good against armor. They worked wonders against thin-skinned aluminum planes, but against a tiger I can only imagine that you might deafen the crew...if you're lucky.
Someone posted that typed memo with the photo of the 94s being used as artillery. The memo discusses adjustment at the nose of the shell, which allows it to fire "air burst" rounds. If I'm reading that correctly, it tells me that they were able to play with the altitude at which their flak shells went off, but still had no armor-piercing or penetrating power as even regular contact artillery shells would have.

I can only surmise that, had they been given regular or armor-piercing 94 mm rounds (and possibly some ground sights) their presence would most definitely have instilled fear in panzer crews. Only a guess.

[JonS]

The 3.7-in was used in an AT role in the Desert in 1942 (at one of the ElAls IIRC). It wasn't an unqualified success for the reasons outlined above, and besides, by then the 6-pr was coming on strwam in reasonable numbers. Also, it was generally felt that they were doing more good protecting the LsOC around Alex. See: Pemberton, The Development of Artillery Tactics and Equipment, 1951.

Regards
JonS

[Andreas]

I can only surmise that, had they been given regular or armor-piercing 94 mm rounds (and possibly some ground sights) their presence would most definitely have instilled fear in panzer crews. Only a guess.

In the early war setting, I would have thought that 3.7"HE is perfectly well suited to blow a German tank to smithereens by explosive force/kinetic impact alone. We are talking lightly armoured Panzer IIC, Panzer III and IV with no bolt-on armour. Even later the sides with 30mm should still be vulnerable.

Hi Jon.

[new2this]

I would agree but did AA guns have high-explosive rounds then? I am not well versed in AA versus AT, but I thought an AA gun had altitude-senstitive shrapnel rounds, so they would burst all around the planes, showering them with fragments, and would not require a direct hit to take them down. With HE, wouldn't they be impact detonated?

[JonS]

'Shrapnel' describes a particular type of round that is extremly useful against troops in the open, but not much use against anything else (although it is good for suppression). It pretty much fell out of use mid way through WWI. HE with different types of fuses can do pretty much all that shrapnel could do, and a whole bunch more.

AA used HE rounds fused to detonate after a particular amount of time (which, knowning the MV and elevation can be used to give a specific height of burst) or on contact (more common for smaller calibres, less common for larger calibres).

Jon

[Erik E]

With or without good AT sights, I can't imagine a flak shell doing much good against armor. They worked wonders against thin-skinned aluminum planes, but against a tiger I can only imagine that you might deafen the crew

The German army had atlest 2 coastalbatteries equipped with captured British 94mm Vickers guns, so they definately meant it was useable against shipping....

EE