Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

anti aircraft used as anti tank (german 88)

Discussion in 'WWII Books & Publications' started by COMET, Jun 6, 2001.

  1. Otto

    Otto Spambot Nemesis Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    9,781
    Likes Received:
    1,818
    Location:
    DFW, Texas
    Forgive my ignrance Andreas, what does AFAIK mean?
     
  2. Martin Bull

    Martin Bull Acting Wg. Cdr

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,578
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Location:
    London, England.
    It's
    As Far As I Know
    ( I'm new to this computer game, too ! )
    Sorce : Internet Bible ( a book that's not about military history !!! )

    TTFN
    Martin
     
  3. Martin Bull

    Martin Bull Acting Wg. Cdr

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,578
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Location:
    London, England.
    Oh ! I've just seen 'A little help..' on another thread - as a Green Soldier I can't possibly remember all those ! I'll just go back to peeling my potatoes...
     
  4. Friedrich

    Friedrich Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,548
    Likes Received:
    52
    OK, Martin, go.

    I, as a veteran soldier will just go to the rear, pretend to be sick and make some pretty nurses get in love with me... :D
    And if it doesn't work there is always the burdel, isn't it? Oh, we, soldiers are such pigs...
     
  5. Martin Bull

    Martin Bull Acting Wg. Cdr

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,578
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Location:
    London, England.
    Back to that British 3.7'' AA gun... I can answer my own thread again !

    The 3.7'' AA entered service in 1938. It had excellent performance but a very complex carriage and mounting which was unsuitable for field use.

    After the 17pdr Antitank gun had been approved mid-war, the 3.7'' was considered as the next step - with a design for the 32pdr Antitank being approved in August 1943. This was based on the 3.7''. Development work continued through 1944 but, as the end of the war approached, it became clear that the towed anti-tank gun was becoming too heavy to be practical. One gun remains at the Royal Artillery Museum.

    So there you have it - the Germans were well ahead of the game with the 88 which had the 'luxury' of lengthy development from WW1 and the Spanish Civil War. When the 3.7'' was accepted for service as AA, it just wasn't realised that there would be things like Tigers and Panthers to deal with...... :(

    [ 06 August 2002, 03:25 AM: Message edited by: Martin Bull ]
     
  6. Friedrich

    Friedrich Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,548
    Likes Received:
    52
    I was just reading yesterday about the first struggles in North Africa, in which the British used M-3 "Stuarts", with their 37mm guns against heavy PzKpfw III and IV, hahaha! Perhaps the Stuarts gun could be effective against the Italian M-13s and PzKpfw II... But there was Hauptmann Bach and his 88s waiting for them...
     
  7. Jumbo_Wilson

    Jumbo_Wilson Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2002
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    2
    The other issue with the 3.7" was manufacture. Britain produced limited numbers of this thing and for the first 3 years of war they all went to reinforce the air defences of the UK in General Pile's AA Command - we were under attack by the Luftwaffe. By the time we had a surplus the 6pdr was already in use (an excellent weapon copied by the USA) and the 17pdr was in the pipeline.

    Of course the 40mm Bofors was occasionally used by the British as a desperate measure against light AFV's and was the main armament of the Nimrod Tank Destroyer the Hungarians built.

    However we did not need the 3.7"AA in the Desert. The 25pdr was quite effective against German Armour!

    The 20mm Danish Madsen AA was used as an AT weapon too and modified into a light AT weapon for Danish armoured cars.

    Jumbo
     
  8. Friedrich

    Friedrich Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,548
    Likes Received:
    52
    Well, that little thing, the British 75mm 25 ponders is quite different... It could knock out many, many things...
     
  9. Martin Bull

    Martin Bull Acting Wg. Cdr

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,578
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Location:
    London, England.
    Thanks in part to Germany who supplied the muzzle-brake ! :D
     
  10. Friedrich

    Friedrich Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,548
    Likes Received:
    52
    That can't be good, can it? :confused:
     
  11. Martin Bull

    Martin Bull Acting Wg. Cdr

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,578
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Location:
    London, England.
    I'll explain...
    As the armour thickness of German tanks increased, it was decided to use the 'Super' charge strength with the 20lb AP shot ( instead of 'Charge Three' ).

    But with the higher recoil stress, the 25pr gun became unstable. So in April 1942 various trials were carried out and the perfect solution was found - a muzzlebrake adapted from a captured 105mm leFH18M, designed by Solothurn.
     
    Joe likes this.
  12. Friedrich

    Friedrich Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,548
    Likes Received:
    52
    Oh, Thanks Martin! Forgive the ignorants... :D
     
  13. Martin Bull

    Martin Bull Acting Wg. Cdr

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,578
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Location:
    London, England.
    Tut, tut ! I thought everybody knew that ... :rolleyes: :D
     
  14. Erich

    Erich Alte Hase

    Joined:
    May 13, 2001
    Messages:
    14,439
    Likes Received:
    617
    Martin, do you know if any of the lighter British wepaons were used in the AT role ? I have some info somewhere concerning the usage of German 3.7cm and 2cm flakvierling's in this role especially against motor transport. If hidden well in the scrub they could be quite useful and also in low flights of the jabo's.

    E
     
  15. Martin Bull

    Martin Bull Acting Wg. Cdr

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,578
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Location:
    London, England.
    Good question, Erich.
    The Germans seemed to make extensive use of the 2cm calibre for various types of use - not so the British.

    At the beginning of the war, the infantry were equipped with the notorious Boys Anti Tank Rifle ( .55 calibre ). Notorious for ineffectiveness and fearsome recoil ! This was replaced by the PIAT. The medium anti-tank weapon was the two-pounder; replaced by the six-pounder.

    There was, of course, the 40mm Bofors Anti-Aircraft gun ; I have never seen any reference to this being used in an A/T role.

    ( That would be a good sub-thread : Is there any record of the Boys A/T rifle knocking out an enemy tank in WWII ? )
     
  16. Jumbo_Wilson

    Jumbo_Wilson Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2002
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    2
    Martin

    I think (i can't remember my ref tho') that the Bofors was used in an emergency in the AT role. I think you are right though, the Bofors wasn't deliberately utilised.

    I don't think we had a shortage ot AT Guns for this purpose and didn't have much that was lighter - unless you count the big BESA on the MkVIC. In France in 1940 the Hotchkiss 25mm did us quite well and in the Desert we seem to have had plenty of 2-pounders knocking around.

    The other option I suppose was the .50cal Vickers but I have not found any evidence of their use or if they were ever issued to infantry at all.

    Jumbo
     
  17. Martin Bull

    Martin Bull Acting Wg. Cdr

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,578
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Location:
    London, England.
    I think that was the Vickers 'K' aircraft gun of Recce-Squadron-at-Arnhem and SAS Jeep fame ?
     
  18. Felix

    Felix recruit

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2007
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the German Army just train their men to use what every weapon they had, and they had realitisc military exercises where they would deprive a soldier of air support, artillery support, tank support, and infantry support and force him to improvise since the Germans realizes that there is never always going to be a correct answer to every combat situation.
     
  19. 4th wilts

    4th wilts Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2007
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    29
    there is no reason whatever why a version of the 3.7in a.a gun could not have been used as an anti tank gun or even a tank gun in 1942.all that was needed was imagination on the part of the manufacturers.yours,4th wilts.
     
  20. von Poop

    von Poop Waspish

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,300
    Likes Received:
    1,919
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
    As an essential problem with British tanks of the early to mid period was the choice of that sponsonless lower profile leading to turret ring sizes that sometimes struggled to accommodate the 6 pdr there were a hundred reasons something as large as the 3.7 couldn't be mounted on a vehicle. The only allied vehicle that accommodated a variant of the piece (that I can think of) was the A39, and that was hardly a conventional approach or suitable for mass production... or much other than it's specifically envisioned role.

    The story as to why the static 3.7 was rarely used officially as AT is somewhat more complex, and even controversial. While justifications Can be made regarding relative weight and sighting systems needing sorting the Germans managed to overcome these fairly well.
    I now lean towards the belief that it would simply be a waste of precious resources. The 3.7, like the 88, was a very sophisticated gun, using perhaps the epitome of materials and design in an effort to achieve the extremely difficult task of bringing down aircraft. When other much more straightforward AT weapons and, importantly, improved ammunition were in the pipeline anyway, & amidst concerns about supply of tank guns generally why waste time & design effort in converting such a complex gun. The 88 was a remarkable thing but when compared to the only marginally 'lesser' later 75s it does seem to me a little like overkill for many conditions it would eventually be deployed in.
    I haven't the relative costs in money, materials & labour but I'd be surprised if you couldn't make about three 17pdrs for the same effort as one 3.7.

    Cheers,
    Adam
     

Share This Page