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
Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

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

#646

Post by Michael Kenny » 17 Dec 2019, 14:51

Gooner1 wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 14:11

How would the dynamics of the battle have changed with a battery of anti-tank trained and equipped HAA guns positioned 500-1000 yards behind the 6-pdrs?
Or a battery of 5.5 inch?

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

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

#647

Post by MarkN » 17 Dec 2019, 15:13

Gooner1 wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 14:11
What do we learn from this?
The Germans were far more tactically astute than the British.
Gooner1 wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 14:11
How would the dynamics of the battle have changed with a battery of anti-tank trained and equipped HAA guns positioned 500-1000 yards behind the 6-pdrs?
Dynamic? No change.

Losses? Battery of HAA guns lost in the same way as the ATk 6-pdr and Field Arty.


User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 623
Joined: 23 Sep 2013, 11:12

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

#648

Post by Don Juan » 17 Dec 2019, 15:23

Michael Kenny wrote:
16 Dec 2019, 20:48
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?
4.5 inch would have been even better than 5.5 inch, as the shells were more solid and the mv higher. They were also available near the front lines.

I also think that dedicated AT sighting is less necessary than is commonly recognised, as the Germans successfully used 155mm GPF's against Matilda tanks during Battleaxe, and I'm pretty sure these only had iron sights, if even that.
"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

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2776
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 13:24
Location: London

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

#649

Post by Gooner1 » 17 Dec 2019, 16:22

MarkN wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 15:13
The Germans were far more tactically astute than the British.
Is that it?
Dynamic? No change.

Losses? Battery of HAA guns lost in the same way as the ATk 6-pdr and Field Arty.
"They halted beyond effective anti-tank range, and all our six-pounders were knocked out of action without being able to retaliate with success."

Somehow I reckon 'beyond effective range' of a 94mm AP round is likely to be well beyond visual range too :D

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

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

#650

Post by Michael Kenny » 17 Dec 2019, 18:04

Don Juan wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 15:23


4.5 inch would have been even better than 5.5 inch, as the shells were more solid and the mv higher. They were also available near the front lines.
Looks far less cumbersome than the 3.7 AA

From 3m 07s
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item ... 1060013191


User avatar
MarkF617
Member
Posts: 582
Joined: 16 Jun 2014, 22:11
Location: United Kingdom

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

#652

Post by MarkF617 » 17 Dec 2019, 18:58

Use as field artillery is completely different from use as an anti tank gun. Anti tank guns need to fire direct, field artillery doesn't and can be fired from much greater range.

Thanks

Mark.
You know you're British when you drive your German car to an Irish pub for a pint of Belgian beer before having an Indian meal. When you get home you sit on your Sweedish sofa and watch American programs on your Japanese TV.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

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

#653

Post by MarkN » 17 Dec 2019, 19:05

Gooner1 wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 16:22
MarkN wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 15:13
The Germans were far more tactically astute than the British.
Is that it?
Who won the engagement?
Gooner1 wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 16:22
Dynamic? No change.

Losses? Battery of HAA guns lost in the same way as the ATk 6-pdr and Field Arty.
"They halted beyond effective anti-tank range, and all our six-pounders were knocked out of action without being able to retaliate with success."

Somehow I reckon 'beyond effective range' of a 94mm AP round is likely to be well beyond visual range too
So? How does that affect the engagement?

Who/what neutralized the 6-pdr guns?
Who/what neutralized the the 25-pdr guns?
What makes you think the answer to the above wouldn't also neutralize a battery of HAA guns?

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

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

#654

Post by Michael Kenny » 17 Dec 2019, 19:19

Gooner1 wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 18:40
90th HAA in Normandy

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item ... 1060019774
You might do better using ammunition consumption for 21AG.

3.7 dwarfed the dedicated AT. However being a couple of miles in the rear doing ground bombardment is not remotely anti-tank work.


ScreeVVVVnshot_5.jpg

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

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

#655

Post by MarkN » 17 Dec 2019, 19:53

Gooner1 wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 18:40
90th HAA in Normandy

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item ... 1060019774
Object description
Having served in the Battle of Britain four years earlier, the 90th Heavy Anti-Aircraft Regiment RA now participate in the battle for Normandy as field artillery during 30th Corps' drive on Condé-sur-Noireau.
Full description
One of 285 Battery's eight 3.7 inch AA guns is seen under camouflage netting at the edge of a field near St Pierre le Vielle. Its crew attends to various tasks such as cleaning the gun-sights, the trunnions, the breech and recoil-spring and stacking and fusing high-explosive shells before being called to action stations. The detachment fires several air-burst rounds under the supervision of the gun sergeant who receives orders via a loudspeaker linked to the battery HQ. There, RA personnel plot firing ranges on receipt of 'phone messages from the battery's FDP. Earlier, the sergeant helps the gun-layer to bring the gun onto its target bearing, taking as his guide his troop commander who determines the alignment between the gun and its target with a target director. Two 3.7 inch AA guns at high elevation kick up dust each time they fire a round. A gun crew works hard to keep their gun in action.
How does this connect with the engagement during the Gazala battle or the more general discussion about 3.7-inch HAA doing ATk work?

Is this just another of your handwaves where you think by posting a picture or a film of a big gun suffices to evidence your opinion?

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

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

#656

Post by Urmel » 17 Dec 2019, 20:05

Don Juan wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 15:23
Michael Kenny wrote:
16 Dec 2019, 20:48
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?
4.5 inch would have been even better than 5.5 inch, as the shells were more solid and the mv higher. They were also available near the front lines.

I also think that dedicated AT sighting is less necessary than is commonly recognised, as the Germans successfully used 155mm GPF's against Matilda tanks during Battleaxe, and I'm pretty sure these only had iron sights, if even that.
Pretty sure they used heavy stuff during CRUSADER as well. When it comes to it every gun is an anti-tank gun.
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
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

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

#657

Post by Urmel » 17 Dec 2019, 20:08

Gooner1 wrote:Somehow I reckon 'beyond effective range' of a 94mm AP round is likely to be well beyond visual range too :D
Wow. You really are that clueless. No, in a duel fought at 7,500 yards with a howitzer battery mounted on a platoon of tanks the 3.7” will lose.
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

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

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

#658

Post by Michael Kenny » 17 Dec 2019, 20:23

Gooner1 wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 16:22


Somehow I reckon 'beyond effective range' of a 94mm AP round is likely to be well beyond visual range too :D
'Effective' range of an AP round is well below 3000 yds. An AP shell has to score a direct hit to be effective. Return fire against the 3.7 does not depend on such accuracy.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10056
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

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

#659

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 18 Dec 2019, 02:40

Don Juan wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 15:23
...
I also think that dedicated AT sighting is less necessary than is commonly recognised, as the Germans successfully used 155mm GPF's against Matilda tanks during Battleaxe, and I'm pretty sure these only had iron sights, if even that.
Telescopic direct fire sights were standard of common on the German 15cm howitzers & HV guns. They probably did not come out of the box much and training for direct fire may not have been routine, but there were mounting brackets on the examples I inspected at Ft Sill & the brackets are often visible in photographs and occasionally the telescopic sight is seen mounted in the photos. Flipped open my copy of Werner Adamczyks memoior as a cannon crewman in WWII & found his description of a hasty direct fire mission by his battery vs some Soviet tanks that approached their position.

I have no idea how accurate the DF telescopes of the Germans were. Those provided for the M114 155 mm howitzer & the M198 155mm howitzer were useful with a standard full Charge 7 out to approx 1500 meters. I recall training in direct fire twice in my ten years in the USMC artillery. Once with the M198 Howitzer & once with the M101 105mm Howitzer.

I'd also note the indirect fire sight could be used was a direct fire sight. This was not 'in the books' but any artilleryman who understood how the IF sight worked & the relation to bore sight or the tube axis could make that work. Would have been less accurate but better than shooting with no sight.

We did not have "iron sights" on any of the cannon I trained on. A few very old models in the artillery park at Ft Sill had front & rear aiming posts on the tube & breech, usually 19th Century cannon, like the French 75mm gun. It would be just as accurate to look through the breech to aim before loading.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10056
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

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

#660

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 18 Dec 2019, 02:54

Urmel wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 20:08
Gooner1 wrote:Somehow I reckon 'beyond effective range' of a 94mm AP round is likely to be well beyond visual range too :D
Wow. You really are that clueless. No, in a duel fought at 7,500 yards with a howitzer battery mounted on a platoon of tanks the 3.7” will lose.
For that target, a group of SP howitzers at that range I'd use a mix of point detonating fuzes settings and air bursts. I'd order a burst of 3 to six rounds per cannon, observe the impacts & make a correction. That would be using range tables/calculations. no reference to direct fire sights. A accurate volley of airbursts over open topped SP cannon, AT guns, & any other AFV with a open top, entrenched cannon is usually effective. This works with any cannon that has time fuzes for the ammunition. Otherwise you you depend on saturating the target area with impact fuzed HE and play the percentages until she direct hits occur.

There plenty of examples of field artillery using that technique against tanks, SP cannon, other vehicles, infantry, or anything else visible but beyond the range of direct fire sights.

Post Reply

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