Allies Answer to the 88mm? The M3 & 3.7"?

[Nickdfresh]

Both the US and Great Britain both had AAA gun systems not dissimilar to the much vaunted German 88mm Flak gun (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/articles/88mm.htm). But as has been pointed out, it seems that only the Germans bothered to train their crews and develop ammunition so that the 88mm could be used as a superb anti-tank gun as well as a direct fire artillery piece so infamous to the Allies.

So, why did the Western Allies not do the same. Why was the US M3 90mm AAA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/90_mm_M3_gun) gun not really feared by the Germans on the ground unless it was mounted in an M10 GMC or M26 Pershing? In addition, the Brits had a 3.7 inch gun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF_3.7_inch_AA) that looks even more formidable...

[Panzerknacker]

The british 3,7 was a fantastic piece , maybe even better than the 88 as pure AAA, but it had not the mobility or the multirole capabilities of the german desing.


The 90 mm U S is much better in my opinion.

[VonWeyer]

Yeah, i really believe the 88 was definately a good alround package. Hard to beat.

[Panzerknacker]

Actually if you look in perspective you will found out that the 88s fame is more for antitank duties than antiaircraft use. :shock:


The 94 mm O.Q.F gun.

http://i13.tinypic.com/4i3wvsx.jpg

[Chevan]

So, why did the Western Allies not do the same. Why was the US gun not really feared by the Germans on the ground unless it was mounted in an M10 GMC or M26 Pershing? ...
And what was on your mind the tactical necessity of using M3 90 mm for the allies.?
I think germans had since 1943 the defence war - they extremaly needed power AAA gun against allies strategic armadas and power anti-tank gun against soviet tanks.
But allies who mostly bombed Germany till 1944 simply don't understand seriously the importance of the power basic gun ( which has good application both AAA and anti-tank role for excellent velocity of shell).
BTW Red army basic gun till 1944 was 76-mm universal gun , later 85-mm.
But one of the most succesefull soviet gun was 100-mm sea D-10T/C. This was excellent gun which lated was stated to the SU-100 and even were the plans to use D-10T on the IS-2 tank.
http://howard-stern.narod.ru/tankuww2/ussr_t17_1b.jpg

Cheers.

[VonWeyer]

Actually if you look in perspective you will found out that the 88s fame is more for antitank duties than antiaircraft use. :shock:




Right you are Panzerknacker.

[Chevan]

Yes dear VonWeyer i think this could answered to the question what made more problems for the Germans: Allied Aviation of the Soviet infantry with tanks :)

[VonWeyer]

Chevan I don't understand what you mean.:D

[Chevan]

I mean the intensivity of using Flack-88 in AAA defence and anti-tank. The most famouse use of AAA ( as wrote Panzerknacker) was in anty-tank role i.e. on the Eastern front.

[VonWeyer]

Agree, Thanx mate.

[Panzerknacker]

I mean the intensivity of using Flack-88 in AAA defence and anti-tank. The most famouse use of AAA ( as wrote Panzerknacker) was in anty-tank role i.e. on the Eastern front.


In the East and everywhere, Rommel began to use the 88 as an antitank gun when he was sorrunded by british Matilda tanks in May 1940.

http://www.wargamer.com/Hosted/Panzer/88mm4.jpg

[pdf27]

The british 3,7 was a fantastic piece , maybe even better than the 88 as pure AAA, but it had not the mobility or the multirole capabilities of the german desing.
There were a LOT of these dug in around Dunkirk during the German attack... another reason the Panzers had to stop.

[Panzerknacker]

Yea, but the main task of these cannons was the defense against Air attacks. In the african battles there was several 3,7" guns duged out but according to the german sources few times those were used against tanks.


http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/7341/45cz3.jpg

[Timbo in Oz]

PDF posted
re the British 3.7 inch AA


"There were a LOT of these dug in around Dunkirk during the German attack... another reason the Panzers had to stop."

1. NO! this is quite wrong! Where did you get this story!??? BBBrains I reckon!

The BEF's sole medium/heavy AA guns were the 3 inch! and all were lost in France, being almost all that Britain had of them. There were not enough 3.7's as well.

So, the 3.7 was too rare, too big, and too valuable, and too hard to move, and did NOT go to France.

NB Some portion of production was always for the static role anyway, these models being even heavier!, than the 'mobile' version.

This meant that - for the Battle of Britain - the UK had very few 3 inch, to add to the still slow production of the 3.7 inch. Not enough pom-poms OR Bofors, either!

AFAIK the field 3inch/20cwt AA units did not carry solid-shot in their ammo carts, nor did the guns have telescopic sights for direct shooting.

Why though? Well, the 25/pdr mk1 aka the 18/25 did have solid shot, and direct fire sights, as did the last mks of 18pder (mk4?) also used by the BEF. And, BOTH had those round firing platforms - for the A/T role.

Given half a chance by commanders, which did happen once or twice in France in 1940, they could and did prove quite up to the job.

By Dunkirk the remaining 3/20's were flat out as AA!

Capiche!?

The REAL reasons the Panzer Divisions held back?

i) they needed to recoup their machinery / etc, for
ii) the fighting yet to come in the rest of France!
iii) Goering's promises to Hitler in re the encircled French and British, and later
iv) Hitler's desire to get Britain to sue for peace!

Do try to remember that a big appeal of blitzkrieg to Hitler was that it was war on the cheap / on a shoe string. He did not want the war to impact on the home front too much, nor to have too many men off at the war and getting killed. He really WAS a gambler!

2. AFAIK the very few field/mobile 3.7 AA units (later sent all over the joint) did NOT have solid shot OR an AP shell!

The 3.7 was a very much better AA gun than the 18/36 88mm gun, although the later FLAK37, and FLAK40 and 41, got bits closer, using much bigger cartridges and longer shells!

Although a solid shot WAS later developed - for the A/T gun prototype using a 3.7's barrel and chamber.

Nor did the 3.7 mobile form come with a telescope! It was designed from the ground UP as a predictor driven gun, so no sights on the gun at ALL!!!!!! not even any mounts for sights!

The 3.7 WAS used to provide ARMY Support fire - highly accurate direct and indirect fire using its time fused HE shells, from about 1942 on! Particularly as 'pepperpot' ideas took hold, among the Allied artillery staffs in Italy.

HE time fused shell, w/other fuse would have been quite effective against even the MKIV Specials (a 75mmKWK/42 or 48 cals long gun) with applique armour right up to Alamein and beyond.

Note that it is possible/probable that some guns were used in the A/T role while still emplcaed for AA use, and field REME usnits developed direct fire sights for them to allow this.

3. Rommel did NOT invent the idea of using the 88 as an A/T gun, in holding off the British armoured counter attack, near ARRAS in 1940!

JBTW and FYI, the Waffen SS 'Totenkopf' unit, then attached to the 7th Panzer broke and ran at this battle. There's just nothing quite so brave as an ex-camp guard / thug is there?!!

But where did the AP shells come from and the direct sighting telescoped OR the stereo range finders? eh?

Planned! yes. Telescopic sights were standard equipment, and in their standard ammo issue was a proportion of Panzergranate! And, they'd been trained for this role.

It should not have been a surprise to the British. But then again, British cavalry have rarely never been well led. OR well read! .................

CHAAAAARGEEEEE!!!!!! ;-)! ............. Whoooops - Oh f%$#@*&%@k!

The German Army first began developing doctrine, SOP's and tactics for use of 'field/mobile AA guns' - as A/T guns - using AP ammo and direct sights -

fired by both 75's and earlier 88's ........

in WWI !!!!!!

Even mounted on trucks! Early SP guns! ;-)!!!

Well, they had, too, eh? Bugger all tanks of their own!

The famous FLAK18/36 -8.8cm was actually first used against tanks in the Spanish Civil War. Whence came the shields commonly fitted to the 88's - in both Army and Luftwaffe 'field AA' units by early 1941.

but why? well the ideal A/T gun needing to hit a smallish target on rolling ground with AP shot / shell - has a high muzzle velocity and a flat trajectory! And, AA guns already had these!

Some had even fired unfused (waste of a time fuse!) HE shell at British tanks, successfully by late 1916. At the Somme battles.

Lastly, I am sorry to have to post in a 'lets have the actual facts style' again, but it did seem neccessary!

As we say in Australia, you've just been 'given the actual drum!', once again!

;-)!

Timbo

[pdf27]

1. NO! this is quite wrong! Where did you get this story!??? BBBrains I reckon!
The father of someone I know quite well on another board was at Dunkirk crewing them (IIRC he was the battery commander). 90% sure they were 3.7" - they were certainly pretty big and had a substantial anti-tank capability according to him.

[32Bravo]

For the British tank crews the odds against survival were alarmingly shortened by the range and accuracy of the German 88s, and there was considerable resentment within the Eight Army at the failure of their superiors to give them a comparable weapon, which many believed was already available if only the general staff had the wit to adapt it and press it into service. The British 3.7inch (94mm) anti-aircraft gun, and lieutenant David Parry of the 57th Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment, Royal Artillery, for one, felt there was.. "no excuse for the sheer stupidity of the General Staff" in not allowing it to be used in an anti-tank role. He recalled in a post-war memoir: "During all this time over a thousand 3.7inch AA guns stood idle in the Middle East...Many never fired a shot in anger during the whole of the war!"

Source: Alemein -Bierman & Smith.

[Carl Schwamberger]

For the British tank crews the odds against survival were alarmingly shortened by the range and accuracy of the German 88s, and there was considerable resentment within the Eight Army at the failure of their superiors to give them a comparable weapon, which many believed was already available if only the general staff had the wit to adapt it and press it into service. The British 3.7inch (94mm) anti-aircraft gun, and lieutenant David Parry of the 57th Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment, Royal Artillery, for one, felt there was.. "no excuse for the sheer stupidity of the General Staff" in not allowing it to be used in an anti-tank role. He recalled in a post-war memoir: "During all this time over a thousand 3.7inch AA guns stood idle in the Middle East...Many never fired a shot in anger during the whole of the war!"

Source: Alemein -Bierman & Smith.

I've run across several historys of the Salerno battle that mention the British corps commander ordering the 90mm AAA battalion to deploy in a AT postion during the crisis of the battle. However the German tanks did not reach the 'kill zone' of these weapons and they eventually returned to their AAA positions. Have also seen a similar account for the battle at Anzio, but not yet any others.

[Nickdfresh]

Bump!

[Resistance]

A few things about the QF 3.7" AA gun.

Crews was trained in direct fire role, until 1938 where training was shortend, resumed later once enough crews was around.

The 3.7" AA was born with mount for direct fire sights, early war only the Gate and/or Cartwheel sights. From '42-'43 (IIIRC or was it '41?) telescopic sights became avaliable.

In early 1940, about 1000 QF 3.7" AA in service (gun production about 80-90 per month, peaked March '42 with about 200).
Served twice in France, from '39 to Dunkirk and again from D-day on. Plenty of reports already from Dunkirk of them being used in AA, indirect fire and direct fire roles. (see BBC people's war about it)

More on in/direct fire with 3.7". Captured germans in Normandy refused to believe the 25pdrs was manually load. Rate of fire 25pdr. 8 rounds per min. QF 3.7" AA with autoloader 25 rounds per min. ;)

Doing the war, 1/3 of a million SAP and AP rounds was made for the 3.7". No pre-war production numbers on hand ATM.
Plugged HE (leaving the shipping plug in, no regular fuze) could and was used in direct fire role on panzers, deathly to most panzers using "just" plugged HE rounds. Size and weight of shell plus muzzle velocity.

For the most of the war, the british had plenty of ATGs to go around. With either superb, good or just good enough penetration to deal with most german panzers at the time. The germans however in early to mid war, while having enough ATGs. They frequently came up against heavy allied tanks, which no ATG or panzers could deal with, leaving only the 88 or 105mm LFHs to do the job.
Hench the main reason why the british didn't have put the AA guns on line and the germans had to.

To bad though, column of panzers vs a 3.7" with autoload... :shock: Makes one wonder why the british didn't try a few traps here and there.

Side note on Arras, 88 myth in part born here (full bloom in the desert), Rommel and the story about the 88 commander refusing to do it and all that. However it was the 105mm LFH in direct fire role, who stopped most british tanks that day. True father of Flak/AA guns in AT role is WW1.

[Sickles]

Both the US and Great Britain both had AAA gun systems not dissimilar to the much vaunted German 88mm Flak gun (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/articles/88mm.htm). But as has been pointed out, it seems that only the Germans bothered to train their crews and develop ammunition so that the 88mm could be used as a superb anti-tank gun as well as a direct fire artillery piece so infamous to the Allies.

So, why did the Western Allies not do the same. Why was the US M3 90mm AAA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/90_mm_M3_gun) gun not really feared by the Germans on the ground unless it was mounted in an M10 GMC or M26 Pershing? In addition, the Brits had a 3.7 inch gun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF_3.7_inch_AA) that looks even more formidable...


I would imagine the German used the 88 out of necessity, because there 3.7 PaK couldn't touch the French or British armor. so is it a matter of the Allies "not bothering" to train their crews?
Also the allies were mostly on the attack, this would make sense that the germans would fear the M10 or Pershing instead of an antitank gun...

[ww11freak34]

the 3,7 was a good gun

[ww11freak34]

the flak 88 was one of the best pieces of artillery in the world

[Ardee]

Both the US and Great Britain both had AAA gun systems not dissimilar to the much vaunted German 88mm Flak gun. But as has been pointed out, it seems that only the Germans bothered to train their crews and develop ammunition so that the 88mm could be used as a superb anti-tank gun as well as a direct fire artillery piece so infamous to the Allies.

So, why did the Western Allies not do the same. Why was the US M3 90mm AAA gun not really feared by the Germans on the ground unless it was mounted in an M10 GMC or M26 Pershing? In addition, the Brits had a 3.7 inch gun that looks even more formidable...

I'm not sure the statement about Allies not training AA crews for AT fire is accurate. At least, the US seems to have made frequent enough use of the AA 90mm M1s and M2s that crews used to nickname themselves/boast of being a "triple threat" - referring to their use as AA, AT, and a plain old field artillery (IIRC, the Germans also used their Flak 88's in the last capacity). And I certainly have seen several different photos of US 90mm AA guns in AT positions. Maybe the same level of attention/credit to US crews isn't as widely promoted because they weren't as "novel" as the German use of the Flak 88 was? Or, perhaps the 88's reputation as a tank killer was made against comparatively thin-armored vehicles, and in the late war (post-6/6/44) ETO, when US guns became available in significant numbers, they were simply not "as" effective because tanks were better protected by then?

Regarding British use -- and I may be thinking of a discussion about a different gun, so I could easily be wrong -- I do seem to remember that the British 3.7 gun was both heavy/difficult to move, and that almost all such guns were retained for the defense of the British Isles.

[Ardee]

For what it is worth, the Soviets (85mm M1939) and the Italians (M 90/53; Axis, I know this was about Allies, but thought I'd toss it in because I've seen posters elsewhere that seem to think only Germans used AA guns in a AT role.) also used their medium AA guns in an AT role on occasion, though I don't know how much training they may have received for this role. In the case of the Italians, their shortages meant the AA guns were pretty much used only in locations where AA defense was needed, so they were used AT only in the comparatively rare circumstance that armor fighting was occurring near their station (though a few where mounted on trucks to become an SP, and there was also the Semovente 90/53); I understand the gun was very comparable to the Flak 88 models in terms of AA effectiveness. About Soviet usage of the M39 I know much less, and have seen just a few scattered pictures of the gun in AT mode. I have gotten the impression that AT use of the weapon was infrequent, but don't know the reason. I don't know if the exact gun was used for an AFV's main weaponry or not, either... The Japanese also used their 75mm AA gun in AT role, and it is described by some as the best AT weapon they had -- though again, I don't know how much specific training they had for the role.