British guns

Site Issues 2008 Archive Room
#81

Lets get away from hand guns! I’ve just watched the Battle of El Alemein for the umpteenth time and noticed special reference to the ability of the 88mm German gun. It was mentioned in passing, that it was an ack ack gun originally. That struck a chord. I went back in time to my NS days in the Royal Artillery, I was with 46(m) HAA Regt. In 1948. One day, orders came, that we were to limber up and take four of our guns to the ranges at Larkhill and carry out tests in the field role! Why wasn’t this done in the war?
We took our guns as ordered set them up and instead of the shell fighting gravity to reach 20,000 feet, what did we find on the level? A very accurate range of eight miles! I suppose the answer would be "We had thought of it but needed them at home!!!

Ken

#82

I started a thread on this somewhere. The British had the great 3.7" and the US also had an excellent 90mm (that they put into tanks but only rarely used in an anti-tank role)…

I believe part of it was that the German guns, though inferior to both Allied equivalents in muzzle velocity and range, were mounted are far more ergonomic carriages that were adapted to ground shooting and elevations…

The British Army used the 3.7mm in a ground role only once as far as I am aware: at Anzio…

#83

While we’re on about weapons how about the loony inventions, the Northover Projector, the sticky bomb and the Piat, any one met up with them?

Ken

#84

The use of the British 3.7inch in the role of artillery during the NW European and Italian campaigns in the later stages of the war was fairly common.

#85

Perhaps I’m thinking as an anti-tank gun screen?

#86

In that case you are correct :wink:

#87

Why didn’t the Brits use the 3.7 inch like the Germans used the 88, as an anti tank weapon, especially in North Africa, where the 88 was used with devastating results.

#88

Ashes.

This question has been answered superbly on another forum.
I’ll try to find a link.
Watch this space…

#89

There’s a thread on it here. I believe the mount was prone to failure if the gun was continually used at point targets on the ground…

The link to the thread here on this subject: http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4161

#90

Seems like the lieutenant might have been onto something…:shock:

#91

Cripes RS, hope you were in Army service at the time, or at least the boys in blue [in a very tough beat,] or do you live in a VERY scary neighborhood.:shock:

#92

While the use of the 3.7inch may have on a few cases increased the losses of German panzer’s, it would have had little effect on British tanks losses,
as this was cased by a depressing tendency to charge enemy tank formations in small brigade formations unsupported by infantry and artillery. The enemy panzer’s would normally fall back and the British tanks would charge right into a strong anti-tank screen, and be cut to pieces.

A far better way to cut down losses would have been the earlier introduction of a tank gun with a worthwhile HE shell ( to combat anti-tank guns) and better co-operation with the infantry and artillery.

#93

The Northover Projector and sticky bomb were never used in combat by the British Army.

The PIAT, while a cumbersome weapon to carry and fire, was an effective anti-tank weapon in the hands of a determined soldier.

#94

You’re right about British tanks being carved up by 88s but to take a large HE round requires a larger gun and unless one wants to abandon the anti-tank function of the tank, it was very difficult to fit a larger gun in to British tank turrets which was also effective as a high velocity weapon. Basically British tank designs were a mess at the start of the War and never really recovered when after Dunkirk it was the case of keeping existing inadequate weapons in production, since an inferior weapon on the battlefield is more useful than a superior weapon on the drawing board.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

#95

The 6pdr was wanna the best shells during ww11

#96

THE BRITISH MADE A TANK THAT COULD Battle a panzer it was the comet tank it never got lots fighting it came in to late

#97

didnt the british put the 17 pdr on the sherman and called it the sherman firefly

#98

Yup. That way is stood a little bettre a chance against the panzers it faced.

#99

What the 3.7" story shows us, is a typically British problem. They couldn’t fit bigger guns in tanks because of the turret-ring size, ergo tanks would have to be built wider. When pressed, the bureaucrats said wider tanks couldn’t be transported by rail. With the remarkably quick design & development of the 3.7" AA gun (drawing board to deployment in ~2yrs), there was no time to factor-in a multi-mission capability. Everyone was obsessed with air defence, so they over-engineered what they envisaged as a permanently-emplaced weapon. Then, when they were deployed overseas, there was no flexibility available to them, with local commanders having to beseech their Corps HQ to release guns for extraneous duties - like knocking-off the occasional 68-ton King Tiger. I think the chain of command was short-circuited on at least one occasion, but the local commander responsible would’ve taken a helluva gamble with his career. I wonder if anyone has details of any such actions?

Cheers,
Cliff

#100

I picked up a PIAT, and swung it onto my shoulder, a couple of months ago. I had heard it was “unwieldy”, but was shocked at just how cumbersome the thing was.

You’d want to give it to the largest guy in the platoon.

It had a reasonable reputation. In that it was accurate enough to consistently hit a 1 meter square target at 100 yards. More accurate than its rocket propelled counter-parts.

But it wasn’t much good beyond 100 yds, unless you were using it as a mortar, in which case it had a range of up to 350 yds.

Once they worked the early detonation bugs out (it wouldn’t always explode unless hit square on) it was quite an effective weapon which could penetrate about 10cm of armour.

There’s a few accounts out there of it being used with success. I think they were even used in the Korean War, but I’d have to think it was obsolete by then.