Apologies for the delay in asking, as I've only just come across this thread and the question is an adjunct to the topic:
Briefly, who would you consider the "handful of exceptions", prior to First Alamein?
Regards
BNW
Apologies for the delay in asking, as I've only just come across this thread and the question is an adjunct to the topic:
Indeed. The Germans were behind the curve in updating their AT guns. The 5cm weapon was slow to be acquired & was certainly no cutting edge, like the 6lbr, or the US 3" that was near production. Hence their use of French 75mm 19th Century cannon or Soviet 7.62cm cannon for AT conversions. The Brits had a misstep in production of the 6lbr, but were still ahead of others here.MarkF617 wrote: ↑13 Dec 2019, 17:45The 6 pounder anti tank gun entered production in November 1941. Why would you ask for anti aircraft guns to use as anti tank guns when an effective anti tank gun was becoming available? Wouldn't it make more sense to request as many 6 pounders as can be shipped as soon as possible?...
The Germans had a substantial head start in anti tank defences. They invented the anti-tank gun on 15th September 1916.Carl Schwamberger wrote: ↑14 Dec 2019, 20:21Brits had a misstep in production of the 6lbr, but were still ahead of others here.
Not yet discussed here was the effacey of the 25lbr as a emergency AT weapon. Against the under armored German & Italian tanks of 1941 its ammunition was adequate & so was the accuracy in the limits of telescopic sights of 1941. Training, and a optimal doctrine or tactics were lacking in the early 1941 battles. But, as the year played out it appears the 25lbr troops & batteries were increasingly able to cope with emergency AT actions.
Another point not discussed specifically here was the location of the German 88 in the TO vs the 3.7". The former was issued to the division, typically in groups of eight. As a division weapon it was closer to the ground battle and far more available for emergency use as a AT weapon. This I strongly suspect had the most to do with its reputation as a AT weapon. That & fan worship. Perhaps if there had been a dozen or half dozen of the 3.7" cannon in the Commonwealth division artillery group we'd not be having this discussion?
And to be fair to the much-maligned British Army, during the 1930's the role that they were assigned was home defence - plus the odd counter-insurgency mission against poorly armed opponents.
Indeed. And the reason for that is a combination of the lack of mobility and time required to bring the gun into/out of a firing position. The Germans had an almost exact same problem despite the 88mm being designed as a dual role weapon. The difference between the German and British approach to warfighting is the key to understanding why one put them into the divisional structure and lower and the other didn't: stand and fight to win the battle against keep mobile to survive and fight another day.
I don't know. Why would 90th HAA Regiment write "these orders made one appreciate the thoroughness of training in ENGLAND, when anti-tank gunnery had been studied and practiced during the periods in the CHEVIOT HILLS" when UK forces had an abundance of already proven anti-tank weapons?MarkF617 wrote: ↑13 Dec 2019, 17:45The 6 pounder anti tank gun entered production in November 1941. Why would you ask for anti aircraft guns to use as anti tank guns when an effective anti tank gun was becoming available? Wouldn't it make more sense to request as many 6 pounders as can be shipped as soon as possible? Grant tanks, eith a 75mm gun, were also begining to arrive so the future looks bright.
Thanks
Mark.
That is a little dogmatic. The UK Air Defences included a mixture of static and mobile HAA sites. Heavy AA was moved as the threat changed. On 26th June 1940 there were 313 3.7 " guns on static mounts and 306 on mobile mountings. By 21 may 1941 the numbers had risen to 644 on static mounts and 416 mobile guns. By July 1941 at least one Heavy AA Regiment (103) was assigned an anti-tank secondary role.MarkF617 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2019, 14:45Units were training in England to perform a static role which was not an option in the Western Desert. Also in England there was British air superiority so anti aircraft guns could be spared to mess around in the hills. In Egypt the guns were all neeed to protect against Lufwaffe bombing.
Thanks
Mark.
Prior to CRUSADER, ME Command had received a tidy collection of 75mm guns from the UK for use as ATk guns. More were on the way.Michael Kenny wrote: ↑16 Dec 2019, 20:48Any 1940 75mm 'gun' could blow most tanks to bits when the standard tank/AT gun everywhere was under 40mm. Its just that most 75mm guns were not suitable for regular AT work. I would venture the 5.5 inch would be a better AT gun than the 3.7. Far more mobile at least. A 3.7 in the front line is a Kamikaze weapon. Is it being suggested that AT Platoons in Armoured Divisions be equipped with the 3.7? The silliness of actually asking that shows how far we have strayed in fantasy land.
Huh?MarkN wrote: ↑16 Dec 2019, 21:28Prior to CRUSADER, ME Command had received a tidy collection of 75mm guns from the UK for use as ATk guns. More were on the way.Michael Kenny wrote: ↑16 Dec 2019, 20:48Any 1940 75mm 'gun' could blow most tanks to bits when the standard tank/AT gun everywhere was under 40mm. Its just that most 75mm guns were not suitable for regular AT work. I would venture the 5.5 inch would be a better AT gun than the 3.7. Far more mobile at least. A 3.7 in the front line is a Kamikaze weapon. Is it being suggested that AT Platoons in Armoured Divisions be equipped with the 3.7? The silliness of actually asking that shows how far we have strayed in fantasy land.