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
MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

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

Post by MarkN » 30 Nov 2018 15:50

Gooner1 wrote:
30 Nov 2018 15:32
MarkN wrote:
30 Nov 2018 14:17
Hand waving your opinion without any substance whatsoever is just silly.

How many 3" HAA guns were available to be reroled as A/Tk guns in North Africa and when?
Memory going a bit goldfishy? We know from this thread that there was a reduction in the number of 3-inch Anti-Aircraft guns in AA Command between June 1940 and December 1941 of 210 pieces. What happened to them?
That's for you to find out if you want others to believe you have a serious point to make.
Gooner1 wrote:
30 Nov 2018 15:32
Or the 3-inch AA already in the Middle East, clearly obsolescent in their role?
How many? When?

You cannot get past the handwaving, can you?

It's all well and good repeating that there was a reduction of 210 guns, but until you evidence that they became available to be used in a different role in a different theatre, you're just handwaving an opinion based upon a lack of understanding. It's the same handwaving about using the guns already in theatre. Which guns? How many? When?
Gooner1 wrote:
30 Nov 2018 15:32
You should get a special prize for that. What next, you'll be claiming that the 40mm maximum armour on the Crusader is equal to the 62mm of Armour on the Panzer III?
You should get a special prize for that. What next, you'll be claiming that the 62mm of Armour on the Panzer III was to be found on the front, the sides, the rear and the upper surface?

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2680
Joined: 06 Jan 2006 12:24
Location: London

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

Post by Gooner1 » 30 Nov 2018 16:02

Don Juan wrote:
30 Nov 2018 15:38
The 60mm armour of the Valentine and the 75mm armour of the Matilda were more than equal to the frontal armour of the Panzer III, and on those British tanks the thick armour covered a far larger portion of the vehicle.

It's almost as though the British were using the wrong type of tank for their tank vs. tank engagements.
The 2-pdr shot still has the shatter problem especially against the Face Hardened armour, whilst the Germans had the special tungsten cored shells for short range.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

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

Post by MarkN » 30 Nov 2018 16:05

Gooner1 wrote:
30 Nov 2018 15:43
MarkN wrote:
30 Nov 2018 15:22
The correct question is, why didn't they?
Your on a roll! :D

Because the British didn't have a tank that could chuck High Explosive effectively.
Memory going a bit goldfishy?

The British had CS tanks that could lob HE. Range not as good as the Pz.IV 75mm gun, true. But the key is whether it was greater than the 50mm A/Tk guns or not.

And, the key to understanding this returns once again to combined arms warfare. The 25-pdr could have been used to do the job of the Pz.IV.

The British could do exactly what you wrote about the Germans at el Duda. Why they didn't do it is the answer to the problem. The user.
Gooner1 wrote:
30 Nov 2018 15:43
Because the superior effective range of the Pak38 meant British Cruisers would have to cruise about a lot further away from the gun-line than the Panzers. Like about a mile.
Your argument thus far has been specifically about the tank v tank scenario: guns on German tanks outperformed the guns on British tanks.

I have been arguing all along, that the problem for the British was not the 2-pdr gun itself, but how it was being used and comparing that to how the Germans were using their array of weaponry. Finally, you seem to have grasped that you have to look beyond the simplistic tank v tank scenario. Congratulations. Movement at last.

The British donkey wallopers certainly had a problem with the German - and the Italian - gun lines. The problem was not the lack of range of the 2-pdr, the problem was they didn't seem to bother about - or notice the existence of - the enemy gun line. In the first few days of Op CRUSADER, Scott-Cockburn threw his pantsers repeatedly against enemy gun lines. So did Davy. And Gatehouse to a lesser extent. That was why so many British pantsers fell out of action.

Whereas (see underlining)...
Gooner1 wrote:
30 Nov 2018 15:14
Notes from Theatres of War March '42:
"German tactics at El Duda. - in the armoured attack on El Duda, the German tanks cruised about very slowly outside the effective range of the 2-pr., continuously shelling the position with their 75mm guns. They gradually goaded our anti-tank guns to fire, and, when satisfied that all had been located, they knocked them out quickly with fire from gun tanks and supporting artillery. Then, just before dusk, the tanks moved forward with infantry close behind and overran the centre of the position."
Why didn't the British do the same? Why didn't the British wait until the German gunline had been neutralized before launching pantsers on a cavalry charge?
Gooner1 wrote:
30 Nov 2018 15:43
Because if the German saw the British buggering about like this, they'd order up an 88 to put holes in British tanks to about the distance one can notice the curvature of the earth.
Which 88s? More handwaving from Gooner1 to avoid having to deal with historical reality. :roll:

User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 622
Joined: 23 Sep 2013 10:12

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

Post by Don Juan » 30 Nov 2018 16:17

Gooner1 wrote:
30 Nov 2018 16:02
The 2-pdr shot still has the shatter problem especially against the Face Hardened armour, whilst the Germans had the special tungsten cored shells for short range.
Yes, each German tank had a handful of wildly inaccurate tungsten cored shells to deal with the Valentine and Matilda at less than 200 yards. However, both the Matilda and Valentine could deal with the Panzer III's turret and hull sides from 1000 to 1500 yards.

The 2 pounder and the 5cm KwK 38 were roughly equivalent guns. However, the British had both the best armoured and the most mobile tanks on the battlefield. Was there really no way that these could have been tactically deployed to achieve better outcomes?
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941

User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 622
Joined: 23 Sep 2013 10:12

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

Post by Don Juan » 30 Nov 2018 16:20

MarkN wrote:
30 Nov 2018 16:05
The British had CS tanks that could lob HE. Range not as good as the Pz.IV 75mm gun, true. But the key is whether it was greater than the 50mm A/Tk guns or not.
As an aside, the British loaded their Matilda CS tanks in the proportion 3:1 Smoke/HE. The Soviets loaded their Matilda CS tanks 5:1 HE/Smoke.
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

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

Post by MarkN » 30 Nov 2018 16:43

Don Juan wrote:
30 Nov 2018 16:17
Gooner1 wrote:
30 Nov 2018 16:02
The 2-pdr shot still has the shatter problem especially against the Face Hardened armour, whilst the Germans had the special tungsten cored shells for short range.
Yes, each German tank had a handful of wildly inaccurate tungsten cored shells to deal with the Valentine and Matilda at less than 200 yards. However, both the Matilda and Valentine could deal with the Panzer III's turret and hull sides from 1000 to 1500 yards.
Not just the Valentine and Matilda. The A9, A10, A13 and A15 could also do the same with their 2-pdr guns even though it was a "bloody useless" gun. :lol:

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2680
Joined: 06 Jan 2006 12:24
Location: London

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

Post by Gooner1 » 30 Nov 2018 17:00

MarkN wrote:
30 Nov 2018 16:05
And, the key to understanding this returns once again to combined arms warfare. The 25-pdr could have been used to do the job of the Pz.IV.
Yeah, brilliant! :D

Your argument thus far has been specifically about the tank v tank scenario: guns on German tanks outperformed the guns on British tanks.
You're telling me what my argument is? :lol:
The German tank guns outperformed the British tanks guns
The German anti-tank guns outperformed the German tanks guns.
The British ant-tank guns were the same as the British tanks guns.
I have been arguing all along, that the problem for the British was not the 2-pdr gun itself, but how it was being used and comparing that to how the Germans were using their array of weaponry.
Yes and it amuses me how thick people are to imagine that the German tactics can be copied but without their array of weaponry.
Which 88s? More handwaving from Gooner1 to avoid having to deal with historical reality. :roll:
The Afrika Korps did not have 88s now?! 8O :lol:

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2680
Joined: 06 Jan 2006 12:24
Location: London

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

Post by Gooner1 » 30 Nov 2018 17:02

Don Juan wrote:
30 Nov 2018 16:17
The 2 pounder and the 5cm KwK 38 were roughly equivalent guns.
Well that is certainly what you are determined to believe!

User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 622
Joined: 23 Sep 2013 10:12

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

Post by Don Juan » 30 Nov 2018 17:08

Gooner1 wrote:
30 Nov 2018 17:02
Well that is certainly what you are determined to believe!
This is what the published German figures and scientific testing by the Ordnance Board confirm.
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

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

Post by MarkN » 30 Nov 2018 17:11

Gooner1 wrote:
30 Nov 2018 17:00
Yes and it amuses me how thick people are to imagine that the German tactics can be copied but without their array of weaponry.
And it amuses me how thick people are to imagine that the German tactics can be copied to solve all the British problems: such as using the 3-inch HAA gun to mimic the 88mm gun. :lol:
Gooner1 wrote:
30 Nov 2018 17:00
Which 88s? More handwaving from Gooner1 to avoid having to deal with historical reality.
The Afrika Korps did not have 88s now?!
Handwaving at it's finest!!!!

If you think a German commander could just click his fingers and an 88mm appeared, you need help. :wink:
Last edited by MarkN on 30 Nov 2018 17:13, edited 1 time in total.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

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

Post by MarkN » 30 Nov 2018 17:12

Don Juan wrote:
30 Nov 2018 17:08
Gooner1 wrote:
30 Nov 2018 17:02
Well that is certainly what you are determined to believe!
This is what the published German figures and scientific testing by the Ordnance Board confirm.
As somebody posted recently...
Gooner1 wrote:
30 Nov 2018 13:45
.. lets not forget that seventy-six years later and with all the information we have to hand, some people still refuse to accept that ....
:lol: :lol: :lol:

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

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

Post by MarkN » 30 Nov 2018 17:22

Going back to the 'flaming tank' topic.

There are plenty of claims by the British that they observed German pantsers going up in flames. The Op CRUSADER issue was not that the British, and only the British, pantsers were going up in flames, but that the relative numbers had massively jumped in the German's favour. It was the same guns, the same ammunition and the same pantsers - on both sides. The difference was down to something that the British changed for Op Crusader. Overloading of ammunition seems like a good candidate as I originally hinted at and taken on by Don Juan.

The second point to note, flowing from the reality that German pantsers also went up in flames, is the existence of yet another myth: the flaming tank was down to the Germans having AP rounds with bursting charges and the British reduced to solid shot AP only (and a few ex APHE rounds with sand inserted in the place of HE!!!).

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4701
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 » 30 Nov 2018 17:50

Don Juan wrote:
30 Nov 2018 15:38
Gooner1 wrote:
30 Nov 2018 15:32
:thumbsup: You should get a special prize for that. What next, you'll be claiming that the 40mm maximum armour on the Crusader is equal to the 62mm of Armour on the Panzer III?
The 60mm armour of the Valentine and the 75mm armour of the Matilda were more than equal to the frontal armour of the Panzer III, and on those British tanks the thick armour covered a far larger portion of the vehicle.

It's almost as though the British were using the wrong type of tank for their tank vs. tank engagements.
Important point. It was 13 Corps with the support of 1 Army Tank Brigade and 70 Division with 32 Army Tank Brigade that won CRUSADER, after XXX Corps almost lost it. Infantry, guns, and I Tanks.
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

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2680
Joined: 06 Jan 2006 12:24
Location: London

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

Post by Gooner1 » 30 Nov 2018 17:59

MarkN wrote:
30 Nov 2018 17:11
If you think a German commander could just click his fingers and an 88mm appeared, you need help.
Because the Germans didn't routinely assign them to their battlegroups?

Anyway In this instant its clear they were patient in their attack. Their superiority in armament allowed them to be.
Last edited by Gooner1 on 30 Nov 2018 18:05, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 622
Joined: 23 Sep 2013 10:12

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

Post by Don Juan » 30 Nov 2018 18:03

Urmel wrote:
30 Nov 2018 17:50
Important point. It was 13 Corps with the support of 1 Army Tank Brigade and 70 Division with 32 Army Tank Brigade that won CRUSADER, after XXX Corps almost lost it. Infantry, guns, and I Tanks.
This has even further ramifications. There were three trained Valentine-equipped armoured divisions (6th, 8th and 11th) in the UK that could at short notice have provided the bulk of the British armoured force in the Middle East. Instead, Crusaders were being chucked out of the factories with poor build quality because Middle East were convinced that only the Crusader could be used in tank vs. tank battles.

Because of its numerous ailments prompted by poor build quality and under-development (itself due to the rush to production), the Crusader then started to clog up the Base Workshops in the Delta.

If the Valentine had been the preferred tank for the armoured divisions, and the Crusader used as a specialised reconnoitring and flanking tank (as it was when the Sherman arrived), then Crusader production in the UK could have been eased in order to improve build quality and introduce necessary modifications.
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941

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