3.7in AA gun NOT used as AT gun

During the French campaign the Germans had 25 12 ton half tracks with a 8.8cm Flak for ground use, the half cab was armoured.

A Mk5 (T) shot was available for 3.7inch guns for self defence but it was a crude AP round which was no more capable than the APC shot of the 17pdr.

~Steve

 

Of course they were, the 8.8cm FlaK 18 had been designed with a secondary ground capability, and direct sights and AP and contact-fuzed HE ammunition had been provided as standard ammunition loads!

[edit] This was meant for Beerhunter and Kfz...

Razin, it's funny that those vehicles you mention are never seen again. Were they considered failures?

 

I think there is some truth in what your saying but as said the 17 pouder which was supposed to be the anti tank gun was very much delayed and few would doubt it was a decent gun.

By the time the 3.7" could have been redesigned the 17pdr should have been there.

Kev

Too bad it reached the field a bit late to save hundreds of Tommies...

Even as a stopgap measure, the 3.7 AT should have been there; it had the potential, and Jerry had already showed the way.

By the way, it would be interesting to know if captured 88´s were ever fired against the Wehrmacht, and the opinion of the vets involved, to see if we eventually come up with something like the appreciation of Commonwealth forces for the 20mm Breda.

 

Of course they were, the 8.8cm FlaK 18 had been designed with a secondary ground capability, and direct sights and AP and contact-fuzed HE ammunition had been provided as standard ammunition loads!

[edit] This was meant for Beerhunter and Kfz...

In what respect? I think that was my point. The gun had: sights and ammo and the crews training. Hardly something that a general just thinks up on the battlefield. Which, part of the Rommel myth seems to infer time and again.

 

That Rommel myth is stupid, as I said the gun had been designed and built with that secondary capability. In other words, the guns came out of their factory already fitted out for that. Capisce?

 

From what I hear, every time an Allied tank was blown up, it was Rommel who personally pulled the trigger!! He was that good of a general!!! In fact, he was the German Chuck Norris!!

 

Damn!

 

Was that RAM chassis a stable platform to mount a 3.7 in gun on?
OK we can see a photo of it, that doesn't mean it worked in reality does it?


No idea. doesnt look it does it? Not without jacks. Looks too high due to the inclination rack (no idea what the correct name is??) being underneath the breach, not the barrel.

That looks liek a mobile AAA (SPAAG)than a anti tank gun. Anti tank gun would have dropped the traverse, not only lowering the whole gun it would have prevented the tendency to roll on side firing since it would no longer be possible.

Kev

 

Za Rodinu
Razin, it's funny that those vehicles you mention are never seen again. Were they considered failures?


From what I can gather and no author has expressed an oppinon the SdKfz8 the 12ton vehicle was discontinued as the platform was maginally too small to allow A/A use.

A new version on SdKfz9 was developed in 1942 and an order for 112 was made in July 1943 after only 14 were built the order was cancelled in this case the reason was lack of interest. Possibly a further reason was the slow production of the type and what was built was required for other roles- Crane trucks recovery etc.

12ton version

12ton version

18ton version
~Steve

 

I see, thank you Steve. In any case, why an armoured mount for a heavy AA gun, while for the AT role they already had the Hornisse?

 

I see, thank you Steve. In any case, why an armoured mount for a heavy AA gun, while for the AT role they already had the Hornisse?

Self-propellance?

 

Self-propellance?


Of limited value for heavy AAA. Normally Artillary is self propelled to either keep up with whats its trying to protect, (armoured column for example) or as a way to avoid counter battery fire, neither of which is much of a problem for Heavy AAA which is designed to shoot down high flying aircraft.

Kev

 

Took the mouths out of my word.

 

Possibly interest in the H/T Spg was overtaken by this full track version produced in late 1942 one of the 3 prototypes had a Flak 41 fitted -that gun in itself had many problems.

The rational of the armoured cab was for anti-tank operation and was irrelevant to the FlaK operation. The type possibly was thought to be supperflous, as Za Rodinu said the Nashorn with a far more powerful gun took over the A/T function and the usefulness of a 8.8cm SPG Flak vehicle is over rated. Fast firing SPG support weapons 3.7cm and quad 20mm are more realistic in combat- consider trying to make a P51D go away with a 88 at close range.

~Steve

 

Did the US test the 88/L71? - Tanknet.org

6 pages so far but lots on info on the 3.7 debate.

As m kenny was saying, yery, very good information here starting on page 4 - April 21st, well worth the look!

 

Of limited value for heavy AAA. Normally Artillary is self propelled to either keep up with whats its trying to protect, (armoured column for example) or as a way to avoid counter battery fire, neither of which is much of a problem for Heavy AAA which is designed to shoot down high flying aircraft.

Kev

Maybe after the first 1000 bomber raid, Jerry´s main worry was to have an AA gun that could avoid being plastered too early by 100 bombs per square foot...

 

Maybe after the first 1000 bomber raid, Jerry´s main worry was to have an AA gun that could avoid being plastered too early by 100 bombs per square foot...


Dont think so. Did the opposite, made large fortications to house the guns.

 

Interesting discussion gentlemen; I've joined to contribute.

I'll post some other scans later that discuss this as well.

 

That Rommel myth is stupid, as I said the gun had been designed and built with that secondary capability. In other words, the guns came out of their factory already fitted out for that. Capisce?

All 88s were under the control of the Luftwaffe until production started for Heer 88s in (I think) '41. The guns at Arras were Luftwaffe guns and had to be fired using iron sights, not optics. Most field and AA artillery had AT ammo for use in an emergency (like the 25 pdr and like the 3.7") but they simply weren't designed to engage tanks on a regular basis. As we can see, 3.7" were used against panzers regularly, but usually in a defensive role or in an emergency. It was simply too big and cumbersome to use as an AT gun in attack.