British guns

[Nickdfresh]

@CliSwe

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

Yup! The early British tank designs simply had hips (or hulls) too slim to provide a basis for modifications that included better guns and armor…