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

[Ружичасти Слон]

Maybe you can to ask your invisible dwarves what is historical datas and evidences on what was think Britain army commanders on topic and what was be real mechanical stress datas not Juan wave on hands mechanical stress datas.

But must to remember. Britain army commanders was not use stress datas as reasons. They was use bad tactical mobilitys and bad avails as reason. Bad avails and bad tactical mobilitys are primary and secondary reasons for not use on antitank role.

I was write on mechanical stress topic my speculation for other considers after primary and secondary reasons. Bad tactical mobility was can for to explain reason on not have on mobile formations on front line. Maybe mechanical stress problem was help on decision for not to put on fix defensive position like Germany army stutzpunkt. Britain army was not often put on fix defensive position.

Come back Gooner1, all is forgiven.

When gooner come back with historical datas on mechanical stresses and evidences on what Britain army commanders was think on mechanical stresses and critical numbers it will to be good for topic.

When gooner come back with waves on hands and imagination storys it will not to help topic.

[Sheldrake]

It seems to me that critical number of fires on zero elevation was be enough low for to was make Britain army commanders was think not good for to be use much on antitank role.

No - re-read the thread, or at least, read my posts.

You was write on mythics on 1.000 3 inch on storage mythics on 1.000 3.7 inch on storage on mythics 3 inch was send on Russia. Why must to read tosh again ?

You was write week evidences for one regiment for to have antitank role for short time on Uk for to fight on unlikely Germany invasion. Why must to read again ? Your evidences was show what i was write.

I don't understand your first sentence apart from detecting an objectionable level of rudeness.

It is some decades since I first looked at this, and I getting bored with correcting myths. The claim that the 3.7" gun could not be used in the anti tank role because of the limitations in low angle was stated in the 1980s by a retired artillery officer, who should have known better, writing in Gunner magazine or the RA Journal. He was wrong.

In 1940 experience from the BEF indicated that the 3.7" AA Gun was very effective as an anti-tank gun. This was passed around AA Command in the UK faced with the threat of German invasion and 3" 20cwt and 3.7" AA Guns urged to have gun pits that would permit low angle fire to deal wioth a ground threat. in 1941 General Brooke C in C Home forces took a personal interest in anti tank defence. His diary reflects dissatisfaction with one display and urging the manufacture of Ap rounds for the 3.7" Gun.

I know of 103 HAA because I have their history. At least one AA regiment was given an anti tank role. There may have been others. By May 1942 ME Forces are deploying 3.7" Guns in an anti tank role, but neglected the necessary tactical training. In July they form part of the El Alamein line.

I haver posted the details and references if you read back through this long thread.

[Ружичасти Слон]

It seems to me that critical number of fires on zero elevation was be enough low for to was make Britain army commanders was think not good for to be use much on antitank role.

No - re-read the thread, or at least, read my posts.

You was write on mythics on 1.000 3 inch on storage mythics on 1.000 3.7 inch on storage on mythics 3 inch was send on Russia. Why must to read tosh again ?

You was write week evidences for one regiment for to have antitank role for short time on Uk for to fight on unlikely Germany invasion. Why must to read again ? Your evidences was show what i was write.

I don't understand your first sentence apart from detecting an objectionable level of rudeness.

It is some decades since I first looked at this, and I getting bored with correcting myths. The claim that the 3.7" gun could not be used in the anti tank role because of the limitations in low angle was stated in the 1980s by a retired artillery officer, who should have known better, writing in Gunner magazine or the RA Journal. He was wrong.

In 1940 experience from the BEF indicated that the 3.7" AA Gun was very effective as an anti-tank gun. This was passed around AA Command in the UK faced with the threat of German invasion and 3" 20cwt and 3.7" AA Guns urged to have gun pits that would permit low angle fire to deal wioth a ground threat. in 1941 General Brooke C in C Home forces took a personal interest in anti tank defence. His diary reflects dissatisfaction with one display and urging the manufacture of Ap rounds for the 3.7" Gun.

I know of 103 HAA because I have their history. At least one AA regiment was given an anti tank role. There may have been others. By May 1942 ME Forces are deploying 3.7" Guns in an anti tank role, but neglected the necessary tactical training. In July they form part of the El Alamein line.

I haver posted the details and references if you read back through this long thread.

Nothing you was write refute what i was write. Thanks you.

[MarkF617]

Sheldrake,

I've skimmed back through the thread and everything I read confirms that the HAA guns were only given secondary AT roles. Brooke ordered trainkng and anti tank rounds because intelligence warned of a new German supertank. Is there any time you know of when 3.7 inch gins were deployed right on the front line specifically to destroy tanks?

Question: Did any country, other than Germany, use their HAA guns specifically to kill tanks, not as a secondary task?

Thanks

Mark.

[Richard Anderson]

Question: Did any country, other than Germany, use their HAA guns specifically to kill tanks, not as a secondary task?

I'm not so sure the Germans did either, except in extremis.

[Carl Schwamberger]

Sheldrake,

I've skimmed back through the thread and everything I read confirms that the HAA guns were only given secondary AT roles. Brooke ordered trainkng and anti tank rounds because intelligence warned of a new German supertank. Is there any time you know of when 3.7 inch gins were deployed right on the front line specifically to destroy tanks?

Question: Did any country, other than Germany, use their HAA guns specifically to kill tanks, not as a secondary task?

Thanks

Mark.

Every example I've seen described these guns were deploy as a contingency or emergency action. A example would be at Salerno where there is a description of a 'regiment' deployed to intercept a German breakthrough. In that case the enemy tanks were halted before they came in sight of the 3.7" guns. None of the few accounts described them as integrated into the main defense zone as part of the primary AT defense.

[MarkF617]

So basically the Germans gave their 8.8cm a secondary AT role and the British gave their 3.7 inch a secondary AT role so what's the difference? Is this a 50 page discussion just to realise that both dides did the same?

Thanks

Mark

[Carl Schwamberger]

Rereading this thread does remains me of a couple items concerning dual purpose artillery, from long before WWII. The first was a article in the US Field Artillery Journal previous to 1925. A Captain involved in the T7 cannon project described how the development of the carriage, sights, and related items were for three roles, as a field artillery weapon, as a AT weapon, and a antiaircraft weapon. The second item comes from Gundmundsons book 'On Artillery', where he has a few remarks about interest in multi role cannon interwar, and reference to a written item circa 1932 from a Austrian Army general arguing for the adoption of a "Tank und Flieger" cannon. This TuF artillery piece was to be used as a light indirect fire weapon as well.

What all this suggests is the idea of using medium caliber AA or field artillery cannon as AT weapons had been in circulation since the early 1920s

[Carl Schwamberger]

So basically the Germans gave their 8.8cm a secondary AT role and the British gave their 3.7 inch a secondary AT role so what's the difference? Is this a 50 page discussion just to realise that both dides did the same?

Thanks

Mark

Glad we worked out that one

[Carl Schwamberger]

Question: Did any country, other than Germany, use their HAA guns specifically to kill tanks, not as a secondary task?

I'm not so sure the Germans did either, except in extremis.

Much like their use of the 7.7cm FA cannon vs tanks in 1918.

[Richard Anderson]

So basically the Germans gave their 8.8cm a secondary AT role and the British gave their 3.7 inch a secondary AT role so what's the difference? Is this a 50 page discussion just to realise that both dides did the same?

Thanks

Mark

[Richard Anderson]

Rereading this thread does remains me of a couple items concerning dual purpose artillery, from long before WWII. The first was a article in the US Field Artillery Journal previous to 1925. A Captain involved in the T7 cannon project described how the development of the carriage, sights, and related items were for three roles, as a field artillery weapon, as a AT weapon, and a antiaircraft weapon. The second item comes from Gundmundsons book 'On Artillery', where he has a few remarks about interest in multi role cannon interwar, and reference to a written item circa 1932 from a Austrian Army general arguing for the adoption of a "Tank und Flieger" cannon. This TuF artillery piece was to be used as a light indirect fire weapon as well.

What all this suggests is the idea of using medium caliber AA or field artillery cannon as AT weapons had been in circulation since the early 1920s

Which article is that Carl? The 75mm Gun T7 project was the 75mm Gun T6 modified with a semiautomatic vertical sliding breechblock, which was later standardized as the 75mm Gun M2...in 1941.

I think you are thinking of the the 75mm Gun M1 (M1923E1) on Carriage T2 and T3. See Major Gladeon M. Barnes, “Divisional Artillery in the Next War”, The Field Artillery Journal, Vol. 20, No. 3, May-June 1930, pp. 240-251; Captain Elmer C. Goebert, “Modern Divisional Artillery”, The Field Artillery Journal, Vol. 20, No. 4, July-August 1930, pp. 359-370. The T3 Carriage was rejected and the T2 Carriage modified as the T2E1, but the 75mm T2E1 Gun and Carriage (All Purpose) failed testing in 1933-1934. However, the designer was not deterred. "Field Artillery Notes", The Field Artillery Journal, Vol. 22, No. 1, January-February 1932, p. 120; Major George D. Shea, F.A., An Investigation of the Advisability of Further Development of the “All Purpose Gun”, with a View to its Employment Against Mechanized Forces, Aircraft, and the Usual Ground Troops, (Fort Leavenworth, Kan.: The Command and General Staff School, 1936). The best modern look at Ordnance’s interwar gun development is Major Wallace J. Savoy, “The Evolution of the American Modern Light Field Gun”, MMAS Thesis, (U.S. Army Command and General Staff College: Fort Leavenworth, KS, 1978).

BTW, do you notice who the designer of the T2, T2E1, and T3 (All Purpose) Carriage was?

[Carl Schwamberger]

Rich
the article had to be from the 1920s as my research was focused fire control/fire direction of that era & my reading never reached the 1930s volumes. Picking through my notes here, but they mostly concern things like calculating lateral deflection, error in use of aiming stakes, & axial vs lateral observation. If I have the time & motivation for severe eye fatigue I can pull up the FA Journal on line & look for the item.

[Richard Anderson]

Rich
the article had to be from the 1920s as my research was focused fire control/fire direction of that era & my reading never reached the 1930s volumes. Picking through my notes here, but they mostly concern things like calculating lateral deflection, error in use of aiming stakes, & axial vs lateral observation. If I have the time & motivation for severe eye fatigue I can pull up the FA Journal on line & look for the item.

Carl, the reason I ask is because the only other FA Journal article I can think of that directly addressed details of the 75mm gun development was for the original 75mm Gun M1 (M1923E1) in The Field Artillery Journal, Vol. XVIII, No. 1, January-February 1928, p. 108? The M1 Gun also utilized a manual vertical sliding breechblock. Part of the confusion may be Ordnance using different, but sometimes identical looking nomenclature for Gun and Carriage and the change in nomenclature in 1926 from ModelYear to MXXX. The 75mm Gun that was standardized as the "M1" in 1926 was actually the M1923E1 and never went through a T-series and was never manufactured except as a pilot. The 75mm Gun and Carriage T2-T3 development began in 1929 with the intent of developing an improved all purpose divisional gun and carriage. The carriages utilized the 75mm Gun M1 rather than the 75mm Gun M1897 with its screw breechblock as the basis for development, designated as the T2 and T3 variants mated to the T2 and T3 Carriage (there may never actually have been a "T1" in the 75mm series). The later T4, T5, and T6 guns were all rebuilds of the T2/T3 gun - and given the parsimony of the times appear to have been the exact same gun with additional modifications - mated to "improved" variations of the same "all purpose" carriage. However, by the mid 1930s the Field Artillery was slowly edging towards replacing the 75mm Gun with a 105mm Howitzer, so the 75mm gun development evolved more towards becoming a "lightweight" medium-level AA gun, which is what the T6 was, on a fairly basic cruciform platform.

[Sheldrake]

So basically the Germans gave their 8.8cm a secondary AT role and the British gave their 3.7 inch a secondary AT role so what's the difference? Is this a 50 page discussion just to realise that both dides did the same?

Thanks

Mark

The Germans had a head start. They were the only army that had faced massed tanks. As early as 1917 they had worked out that mobile AA Guns might also be decent Anti tank guns.
They even had SP AA guns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.7_cm_Le ... opped).jpg