3.7in AA gun NOT used as AT gun

Please note below an extract from the report "RA Lessons of the Campaign in North Africa from after the Battle of El Alamein to the Capture of Sousse" issued by the MGRA in August 1943:



This is from file WO 169/8355. Note the underlined in red, which refutes the old (as far as I can tell unsourced) excuse for not using the 3.7" gun in the AT role - that it was too difficult to move about in desert conditions.

I should note that the comment about the time to get into action contradicts the evidence from the Italian theatre that I previously posted.

 

Nice find.

All the best

Andreas

 

In my reading for another matter I came across a reference in 'Dance of War: The Story of the battle of Egypt' by the New Zealander artillery veteran of North Africa Peter Bates, which was published in 1992. The book is partly available on Google Books and on pg.37 he writes:

From: https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Dance_of_War/3OXNAwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover

I know Posts 1 & 2 refer to the Parry book too. Has anyone ever traced it?

An online article 9/2012 by Jon Diamond refers to the book and then adds:

From: A 3.7-Inch AT Gun? A Wartime What-If...

 

Haven’t seen it myself David but IWM seem to hold two versions (1983 version 176pp, 1989 version 250pp).

Private Papers of Major D F Parry

 

Where to start?

I restrict myself to noting that i) the 2-pdr was not as obsolete as he claims in 1941, and more importantly nobody knew that it was approaching obsolescence. Everyone pretty much thought it was still up to the job until the end of the year. and ii) that picture of the 3.7" gunners sweating in the summer 1941 sun actually shows the gun being used in the ground role. Finally, nowhere does it say that Brig. Reid used his 3.7" in the AT role.

All the best

Andreas

 

Well I have not quickly read the thread and understand the issues far better. So, there were not 'a thousand 3.7" guns stood silent in the Middle East' and more points. Yes, the 3.7" was sometimes used in an emergency in the AT role. I shall now back away.

 

I think the critical point here is that this whole argument is concocted with 120% hindsight.

The command in ME did not realise until February 1942 that the 2-pdr was now obsolete. At that point in time numerous 6-pdr guns and the Grants started arriving and the planning was underway to convert units to them.

So then 'oh let's go down the road of a really complex tech fix, total retraining of AA gunners and a reorg mayhem' would have been shot down (haha!) as an argument at a conference table in Cairo in less time than it takes for a Stuka to drop 500kg of explosives on your head.

All the best

Andreas

 

Here's the memo from CRA 1 Armd Div dated 20 jan 42 that confirms that at least he thought the 2-pdr was perfectly good to 1,000 yards. Or maybe 800 yrds, who knows. When it was clear that it wasn't against face-hardened and uparmoured frontal plate anymore.

http://rommelsriposte.com/2015/12/13/2-pdr/

All the best

Andreas