They were indeed. The 2-pdr/6-pdr debate originated in the House. So did the Tripoli v Greece debate. And many more too.Sheldrake wrote: ↑01 Nov 2019 18:06We have heard it said, and I dare say the Prime Minister will claim, that the weapons with which we are now fighting are weapons which were designed long ago, but that does not apply to the 88-mm. gun. It is true that the gun itself, while I will not say it is stale, was designed a good many years ago, but. what matters about that gun is its mounting—its all-round traverse, its self-propelled vehicle, and its general adaptation to use as an anti-tank gun. We could have done precisely the same thing with our 3.7 anti-aircraft guns. There is no technical reason, I am informed, why, if the factor of thought had operated on the British General Staff as well as it operated on the German General Staff, we should not have had a weapon corresponding to the 88-mm. gun even before the Germans had it.
That remains a fair summary.
Don't you think it remarkable that it was possible for Parliament to debate the conduct of the war during the conflict itself? Many of the post war historical debates were first exercised on the floor of the Houses of Parliament.
And it is a shame that so many of the post war nonsense neglects to fact check before grandstanding.
What Jones says is very pertinent to this issue. The carriage and mountings for the 3.7" could have been designed from the outset to be dual purpose. But they weren't. There is a reason for that. Discussion about that choice (who, when, why, etc) is a very good discussion. A discussion that could well lead to justified criticism of those who made that choice. That choice certainly had significant impact on later decisions over the gun's use.
Whining about three regiments of non-existant guns not being available to plink pantsers is just daft.