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
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 20:34

MarkN wrote:
16 Dec 2018 19:26
... 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.
It's irrelevant anyway, because British guns only work against Italian tanks.
"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 20:37

Damper wrote:
16 Dec 2018 20:32
In fact you could argue that the 77mm HV used in the comet was simply a reinvention of the 3 inch.
You could not argue that in any way whatsoever. The 77mm was specifically tailored for the A34, as explained here.
"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

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 20:58

Don Juan wrote:
16 Dec 2018 20:37
Damper wrote:
16 Dec 2018 20:32
In fact you could argue that the 77mm HV used in the comet was simply a reinvention of the 3 inch.
You could not argue that in any way whatsoever. The 77mm was specifically tailored for the A34, as explained here.
So what did the 77mm HV do in 1945 that the 3 inch couldn't have done in 1940?

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 21:17

Damper wrote:
16 Dec 2018 20:58
So what did the 77mm HV do in 1945 that the 3 inch couldn't have done in 1940?
Fit in the rotating turret of a tank, due to its comparatively light weight, compact breech, effective muzzle brake and even trunnion balance.

It was in a different world to the 3" AA.
"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 21:19

Anyway, it's good to see that we're now on to the subject of the Comet. :thumbsup:
"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 21:36

Damper wrote:
16 Dec 2018 20:32
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.
Excellent post!

I hope Forum Staff member Juha Tompuri is reading this and takes the issue further.

The 1941 plan to convert 100 ex HAA 3-inch tubes into ATk guns has been discussed ad nauseum on the internet - including several threads here on axishistory. Those discussions contain 95% garbage: opinionated nonsense and outright falsehoods. Nevertheless, the 5% representing historical reality can be discerned by those with an inclination to understand the subject rather than perpetuate the garbage.

And here you are perpetuating the garbage....

Moreover, a post which has all the ingredients to encourage pages of off-topic he said, you said, l said, they said circulatory garbage.

If AHF is to be a source of historical research and a place for historical learning, it needs to find a way to do deal with such posts. Expecting the AHF community to self-moderate isn't working.

100 3-inch ex HAA tubes did not suddenly become available nor did they all get converted into an ATk role. It's more myth mixed with falsehoods. Myths and falsehoods perpetuated by internet discussion on forums such as AHF.

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 21:39

Don Juan wrote:
16 Dec 2018 20:34
MarkN wrote:
16 Dec 2018 19:26
... 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.
It's irrelevant anyway, because British guns only work against Italian tanks.
That is indeed the 'learned'opinion of some. :roll:

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 21:47

Don Juan wrote:
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.
There is some truth in that jest. My own interest was piqued by an article or letter in some Gunner publication 30 years ago. The writer recalled that some German anti tank equipment captured at El Alemein included British 3" 20 cwt AA guns shipped to the Soviets as surplus to British requirements, captured by the Germans and shipped to Egypt.

How much sooner might these guns have become anti tank guns in 8th Army possession in Egypt if the British had cut out the middlemen and shipped them to themselves?

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 21:50

Damper wrote:
16 Dec 2018 20:58
Don Juan wrote:
16 Dec 2018 20:37
Damper wrote:
16 Dec 2018 20:32
In fact you could argue that the 77mm HV used in the comet was simply a reinvention of the 3 inch.
You could not argue that in any way whatsoever. The 77mm was specifically tailored for the A34, as explained here.
So what did the 77mm HV do in 1945 that the 3 inch couldn't have done in 1940?
Another excellent post that l hope Forum Staff member Juha Tompuri takes onboard.

Do you really believe Damper that the purpose of AHF is just a medium for you to waste other peoples' time responding to your questions that you could answer yourself by doing some of your own research?

And then, after people have taken the time and effort to respond, you elect to ignore anything that doesn't fit your original standpoint. I mean, after 20 pages you still seem to be fixated on the idea that not reroling 3-inch or 3.7-inch HAA guns into ATk guns was a major mistake despite the evidence presented.

You've clearly decided myths and falsehoods have more credibility than historical reality. That, l guess is the power of AHF and the internet.

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 21:52

Sheldrake wrote:
16 Dec 2018 21:47
Don Juan wrote:
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.
There is some truth in that jest. My own interest was piqued by an article or letter in some Gunner publication 30 years ago. The writer recalled that some German anti tank equipment captured at El Alemein included British 3" 20 cwt AA guns shipped to the Soviets as surplus to British requirements, captured by the Germans and shipped to Egypt.

How much sooner might these guns have become anti tank guns in 8th Army possession in Egypt if the British had cut out the middlemen and shipped them to themselves?
Another myth based upon an unreliable eyewitness claim.

The guns found were Russian Fld Arty 7.62mm captured and then reroled.

Is there any evidence to confirm any 3-inch HAA were ever sent to Russia to be captured?

Moreover, the Germans captured up to 120 3-inch HAA guns in 1940 and a similar number of 3.7-inch too. All ex-BEF or AASF. Furthermore, they could have used the 48 they captured from the British in Greece.
Last edited by MarkN on 16 Dec 2018 22:02, edited 1 time in total.

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 22:02

MarkN wrote:
16 Dec 2018 21:36
Damper wrote:
16 Dec 2018 20:32
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.
Excellent post!

I hope Forum Staff member Juha Tompuri is reading this and takes the issue further.

The 1941 plan to convert 100 ex HAA 3-inch tubes into ATk guns has been discussed ad nauseum on the internet - including several threads here on axishistory. Those discussions contain 95% garbage: opinionated nonsense and outright falsehoods. Nevertheless, the 5% representing historical reality can be discerned by those with an inclination to understand the subject rather than perpetuate the garbage.

And here you are perpetuating the garbage....

Moreover, a post which has all the ingredients to encourage pages of off-topic he said, you said, l said, they said circulatory garbage.

If AHF is to be a source of historical research and a place for historical learning, it needs to find a way to do deal with such posts. Expecting the AHF community to self-moderate isn't working.

100 3-inch ex HAA tubes did not suddenly become available nor did they all get converted into an ATk role. It's more myth mixed with falsehoods. Myths and falsehoods perpetuated by internet discussion on forums such as AHF.
So 50 3 inch guns weren't used to arm Churchill SP guns in 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 22:06

Damper wrote:
16 Dec 2018 22:02
So 50 3 inch guns weren't used to arm Churchill SP guns in 1941?
Novel idea.

Do your own research and come back with the evidence that supports your belief that such an event did occur in history.

PS. Forum Staff member Juha Tompuri, another typical AHF post for you to discuss with your collegues in AHF management.

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 22:09

MarkN wrote:
16 Dec 2018 22:06
Damper wrote:
16 Dec 2018 22:02
So 50 3 inch guns weren't used to arm Churchill SP guns in 1941?
Novel idea.

Do your own research and come back with the evidence that supports your belief that such an event did occur in history.

PS. Forum Staff member Juha Tompuri, another typical AHF post for you to discuss with your collegues in AHF management.
Image

Is it really a novel idea? Or is it an entirely sensible idea to use an existing high velocity weapon in a role where velocity and shell weight has been shown to defeat armor?

Also if you have an issue with my posts and want the moderators to act why not message them directly rather than posting whiny passive aggressive appeals within your replies?
Last edited by Damper on 16 Dec 2018 22:14, 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 22:13

Damper wrote:
16 Dec 2018 22:09
MarkN wrote:
16 Dec 2018 22:06
Damper wrote:
16 Dec 2018 22:02
So 50 3 inch guns weren't used to arm Churchill SP guns in 1941?
Novel idea.

Do your own research and come back with the evidence that supports your belief that such an event did occur in history.

PS. Forum Staff member Juha Tompuri, another typical AHF post for you to discuss with your collegues in AHF management.
Image
I see one tank in that picture with one ex-HAA 3-inch tube. Where are the other 49?


PS. Forum Staff member Juha Tompuri, another typical AHF post for you to discuss with your collegues in AHF management. Is the point of ordinary members of AHF to waste time repeatedly debunking myths and falsehoods?
Last edited by MarkN on 16 Dec 2018 22:15, edited 1 time in total.

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 22:14

MarkN wrote:
16 Dec 2018 22:13
Damper wrote:
16 Dec 2018 22:09
MarkN wrote:
16 Dec 2018 22:06
Damper wrote:
16 Dec 2018 22:02
So 50 3 inch guns weren't used to arm Churchill SP guns in 1941?
Novel idea.

Do your own research and come back with the evidence that supports your belief that such an event did occur in history.

PS. Forum Staff member Juha Tompuri, another typical AHF post for you to discuss with your collegues in AHF management.
Image
I see one tank in that picture with one ex-HAA 3-inch tube. Where are the other 49?
That's not a tank it's a self propelled gun. I don't have pictures of the other 49 but I'll get right on it.

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