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
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11553
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

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

Post by Juha Tompuri » 15 Dec 2018 21:51

Hi!

The problem there is that there are no after shot mentions of the projectiles.
Who knows how far/deep they had ended/bounced.

Regards, Juha

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2564
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 » 16 Dec 2018 11:16

Juha Tompuri wrote:
15 Dec 2018 21:51
The problem there is that there are no after shot mentions of the projectiles.
Why is that a problem?
Juha Tompuri wrote:
15 Dec 2018 21:51
Who knows how far/deep they had ended/bounced.
Who cares how far they bounced or buried themselves in sand?

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3678
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 » 16 Dec 2018 13:53

Can some one please explain why this thread about the 3.7" gun has been turned into (another) debate about the relative merits of the 2 pdr which has lots of threads of its own. I don't mean to appear rude, but someone with new information on the 3.7" might find it hard to follow the original discussion and be deterred from posting.

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4833
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 » 16 Dec 2018 14:04

Well yes.
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

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2564
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 » 16 Dec 2018 14:39

Sheldrake wrote:
16 Dec 2018 13:53
Can some one please explain why this thread about the 3.7" gun has been turned into (another) debate about the relative merits of the 2 pdr which has lots of threads of its own. I don't mean to appear rude, but someone with new information on the 3.7" might find it hard to follow the original discussion and be deterred from posting.
Why? Well that's how AHF works, isn't it? 90% of threads are off topic before the end of the first page. Forum ownership/management don't seem bothered by it. In fact, in this thread, they've even participated in it.

:welcome:

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11553
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

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

Post by Juha Tompuri » 16 Dec 2018 17:20

Sheldrake wrote:
16 Dec 2018 13:53
Can some one please explain why this thread about the 3.7" gun has been turned into (another) debate about the relative merits of the 2 pdr which has lots of threads of its own. I don't mean to appear rude, but someone with new information on the 3.7" might find it hard to follow the original discussion and be deterred from posting.
Can't explain, but I'll check later what I can do.
Thanks for pointing out this.

Regards, Juha

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11553
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

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

Post by Juha Tompuri » 16 Dec 2018 17:29

MarkN wrote:
16 Dec 2018 14:39
90% of threads are off topic before the end of the first page.
At this thread it's about page 4, when the discussion (mostly) was turned by the posters there(/here), away from the 3.7-inch.
In fact, in this thread, they've even participated in it.
Sorry for that

Regards, Juha

User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 623
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 » 16 Dec 2018 18:24

Sheldrake wrote:
16 Dec 2018 13:53
Can some one please explain why this thread about the 3.7" gun has been turned into (another) debate about the relative merits of the 2 pdr which has lots of threads of its own. I don't mean to appear rude, but someone with new information on the 3.7" might find it hard to follow the original discussion and be deterred from posting.
This thread isn't about the 3.7" gun per se, it's specifically about its non-use in the anti-tank role. The argument that there was a necessity for the 3.7" to be re-roled into the anti-tank role depends upon it being established that the existing anti-tank equipment was inadequate. As the existing anti-tank equipment was largely the 2 pounder, the (in)effectiveness of that weapon will inevitably come up. And as the effectiveness of the 2 pounder is very much contested, a lengthy thread on the 2 pounder was the inevitable result.

I would respectfully suggest that someone starts a thread with a title like "Geographical Distribution of the 3.7" AA Gun", or "Technical Capabilities of the 3.7" AA Gun" if they want to keep discussions of the 2 pounder out of it.
"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
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4833
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 » 16 Dec 2018 18:40

Good point. I'm still waiting for an answer as to how the introduction of the 3.7" AA gun into AT regiments would have helped in any way to overcome the doctrinal failure of 8th Army to use combined arms warfare.

I mean... Did 22 Armoured Brigade integrate its AT guns into the combat group when it attacked Bir el Gobi? Well that would be a 'no'. Did 4 Armoured Brigade at Gabr Saleh? Well, no. Did 7 Armoured Brigade at Sidi Rezegh? Well, you guessed right... no. So the 2-pdr armed tanks wouldn't be helped by this, unless the way they were used was changed.

Now as part of a Pakfront, sure it could be expected to hole German tanks. But... The Germans had integrated artillery and mobile artillery in the form of the Panzer IV. They would have experienced this with surprise once or twice, and then the German artillery would have dealt with the quite sizeable and not superbly mobile gun rather savagely, is my guess.

Shrug.
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
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 623
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 » 16 Dec 2018 18:44

My personal guess is that if the 3.7" AA gun had been deliberately employed in the anti-tank role, it would not have been long before it was being used against its original owners.
"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: 623
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 » 16 Dec 2018 18:53

Urmel wrote:
16 Dec 2018 18:40
Now as part of a Pakfront, sure it could be expected to hole German tanks.
I very much doubt that the 3.7" AA gun would have had any effect against the amazing 30mm side armour of the Panzer III.
"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: 2564
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 » 16 Dec 2018 19:13

The TO's original question (What prevented the QF 3.7-inch AA gun being used in the Anti Tank role) had been dealt with by the end of the first page or page and a half. Moreover, during that page or page and a half, it was demonstrated that most, if not all, drivers to the question were myths or outright falsehoods. Additionally, the direction of the thread had already starting to wander.

By the end of the 2nd page, the TO had shifted the topic onto the 3-inch HAA gun. Rather worryingly because it indicated that he/she had learned almost zero from the preceeding 2 pages. The reasons why the 3-inch HAA was not put into front line ATk use were broadly the same as those for the 3.7-inch HAA. The drivers behind the question are similarly based upon myths and outright falsehoods.

This is a typical AHF thread. If the site owners/management do not like the way it developped, and want to do something about it, then they have huge task on their hands; the problem is the norm on AHF - albeit contrary to the written 'mission statement'. Academic and historical rigour gave way to commercial interest long before I started posting. If the owners/management do decided to do something about it, they'll certainly have my vote of approval. But it would need to be an across the board reorientation rather than an opportunity to commence a witchunt against a handful of posters.
Last edited by MarkN on 16 Dec 2018 19:30, edited 1 time in total.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2564
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 » 16 Dec 2018 19:15

Urmel wrote:
16 Dec 2018 18:40
Good point. I'm still waiting for an answer as to how the introduction of the 3.7" AA gun into AT regiments would have helped in any way to overcome the doctrinal failure of 8th Army to use combined arms warfare.

I mean... Did 22 Armoured Brigade integrate its AT guns into the combat group when it attacked Bir el Gobi? Well that would be a 'no'. Did 4 Armoured Brigade at Gabr Saleh? Well, no. Did 7 Armoured Brigade at Sidi Rezegh? Well, you guessed right... no. So the 2-pdr armed tanks wouldn't be helped by this, unless the way they were used was changed.

Now as part of a Pakfront, sure it could be expected to hole German tanks. But... The Germans had integrated artillery and mobile artillery in the form of the Panzer IV. They would have experienced this with surprise once or twice, and then the German artillery would have dealt with the quite sizeable and not superbly mobile gun rather savagely, is my guess.
Takes us right back to the original text that seems to have agitated the TO to start this thread:
In an acerbic vein, Bidwell and Graham commented, “In any case even if the guns [3.7-inch] had been made available it is doubtful if the desert commanders would have used them correctly, in view of the hash they made of the employment of all their own artillery.”

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2564
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 » 16 Dec 2018 19:26

Don Juan wrote:
16 Dec 2018 18:53
Urmel wrote:
16 Dec 2018 18:40
Now as part of a Pakfront, sure it could be expected to hole German tanks.
I very much doubt that the 3.7" AA gun would have had any effect against the amazing 30mm side armour of the Panzer III.
Remember, ...
Gooner1 wrote:
14 Dec 2018 14:09
Yet in reality, knocking out the German tanks even from the flanks was easier said than done.
... if they user had trouble manouvering his highly mobile 2-pdr armed pantsers and 2-pdr armed 3-ton trucks to take a pot shot at the side of a German pantser, I wonder how the user would have fared manouvering a 3.7-inch HAA gun into position, preparing the ground, and then taking a pot shot.

Damper
Member
Posts: 63
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 13:18

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

Post by Damper » 16 Dec 2018 20:32

MarkN wrote:
16 Dec 2018 19:13
The TO's original question (What prevented the QF 3.7-inch AA gun being used in the Anti Tank role) had been dealt with by the end of the first page or page and a half. Moreover, during that page or page and a half, it was demonstrated that most, if not all, drivers to the question were myths or outright falsehoods. Additionally, the direction of the thread had already starting to wander.

By the end of the 2nd page, the TO had shifted the topic onto the 3-inch HAA gun. Rather worryingly because it indicated that he/she had learned almost zero from the preceeding 2 pages. The reasons why the 3-inch HAA was not put into front line ATk use were broadly the same as those for the 3.7-inch HAA. The drivers behind the question are similarly based upon myths and outright falsehoods.

This is a typical AHF thread. If the site owners/management do not like the way it developped, and want to do something about it, then they have huge task on their hands; the problem is the norm on AHF - albeit contrary to the written 'mission statement'. Academic and historical rigour gave way to commercial interest long before I started posting. If the owners/management do decided to do something about it, they'll certainly have my vote of approval. But it would need to be an across the board reorientation rather than an opportunity to commence a witchunt against a handful of posters.
So at least 100 3-inch HAA guns were converted into the anti tank role. Either in SP mounts or in bodged towed mounts. In fact you could argue that the 77mm HV used in the comet was simply a reinvention of the 3 inch.

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