Did the US test the 88/L71?

[rmgill]

I do have question on the .37in AA gun though. If the gun trainer normally faced backwards and turned the handles (say clockwise, I don't know) so that he pulled at them as the came to the top to swing the barrel to the left then if he stands up and comes around to the other side to face forward doesn't he now have to push the handles at the top of their arc to got left? Not a big problem but an element of confusion if it is not practiced?

 

The gun trainers/elevators are going to be facing backs to target to look at the director dial indicator/follower. You'll focus on that to get the adjustment. When you move around the station to face towards a direct fire target to use the Tobruk sights, you'll be running the handles in the opposite direction, but you'll be cuing on the sights not the indicator/follower dial. I suspect it's not unlike driving a car in reverse. A bit odd if you're very new, but someone with a bit of coordination can handle it reasonably well. Given how I've been able to drive my now former Dingo and Ferret around in reverse quite a bit, I can say it's not difficult if you're reasonably coordinated.

[Shortround6]

Thank you. I didn't think it would be insurmountable. Just another difficuly to overcome.

 

I personally don't think the 3.7AA would have had any trouble handling any tanks that happened to come across it. The problem would have been siting it so that the tanks WOULD run across it and keeping them out of sight until the tanks did run across them so they are not surpressed by artillery fire. Didn't the 88 make it's reputation at Halfaya Pass in part because the 25pdr unit assigned for artillery support got bogged down enroute and didn't get to it's firing position in time?

 

I do wonder weither some weapons were labeled "dual purpose" or even "triple threat" after the fact or by propaganda writers.

 

One can use weapons (or mis-use them) in any number of ways that the designers/specification writers never intended or even thought of. It certainly doesn't mean that they are really suited for the job.

 

Going back to the American 90mm gun, there was the 90mm towed AT project which never really got anywhere. one of the versions closest to service use weighed 6,800lbs or a little more than 1/3 the weight of the AA gun. It might have been faster to set up and certainly required a smaller gun pit and less camoflage. Might not have been too much worse for general bombardment use either. Just pointing out what is sometimes given up in a dual purpose design.

[mkenny]

the Tigers that did come up under the guns of a 3.7" battery position were more or less smothered in shots. Given the rate of fire, four 3.7"s firing away at a clutch of tigers is going to mean the tigers don't have a chance.

 

A Tiger tank in Normandy was a rare bird indeed. By the time of Holland it was rarer still. If there ever was such an encounter there are only a very small number of Unit accounts to check. I seriously doubt this action ever took place. if it diid it was not mentioned in any German history I have seen. This is the first time I have heard it mentioned.

[rmgill]

Thank you. I didn't think it would be insurmountable. Just another difficuly to overcome.

 

I personally don't think the 3.7AA would have had any trouble handling any tanks that happened to come across it. The problem would have been siting it so that the tanks WOULD run across it and keeping them out of sight until the tanks did run across them so they are not surpressed by artillery fire. Didn't the 88 make it's reputation at Halfaya Pass in part because the 25pdr unit assigned for artillery support got bogged down enroute and didn't get to it's firing position in time?

 

I think the low number of engagements is due to the preference for deploying them to the rear to protect critical areas from Air Attack and when it was clear that they weren't needed and the AAA units were being robbed for men for infantry companies, it was something that would reduce the chance for encounters. By the time the 3.7" was available in any significant numbers, the number of German counter attacks that had any sort of penetration beyond rescuing the local situation from a complete allied walkover can probably be counted on one hand. The Bulge is a decided exception where it concerns big german counter attacks reaching Allied HQ units which would have any sort of Heavy Anti-Aircraft defenses near supply depots and the like.

 

I do wonder weither some weapons were labeled "dual purpose" or even "triple threat" after the fact or by propaganda writers.

 

One can use weapons (or mis-use them) in any number of ways that the designers/specification writers never intended or even thought of. It certainly doesn't mean that they are really suited for the job.

Sometimes it's a use of the weapon in a method or doctrine not officially sanctioned that saves lives and wins the battle. If it's stupid but works it's not stupid. As I stated before a PIAT wasn't remotely intended for taking out snipers or for mouse holing buildings for urban combat, but they became readily used for that in short order and the quantity of their use in that role seems to crop up constantly in the operational histories I've read. I'm sure the boffins who designed the PIAT never thought to use it as an expedient sapper's tool for making holes in walls or for sorting out some Gerry hiding in an attic.

 

The same can be said of a lot of weapons. Utility is better measured in actual effectiveness and not necessarily in design intent.

 

Going back to the American 90mm gun, there was the 90mm towed AT project which never really got anywhere. one of the versions closest to service use weighed 6,800lbs or a little more than 1/3 the weight of the AA gun. It might have been faster to set up and certainly required a smaller gun pit and less camoflage. Might not have been too much worse for general bombardment use either. Just pointing out what is sometimes given up in a dual purpose design.

 

When you ditch the cruciform high elevation mount, you remove a LOT of metal form the weapon. Simplifying the weapon mount such that you only need one crewman to train and fire the weapon with the others behind serving the weapon sure simplifies the mount tremendously. Split or box trails are what, 1/2 the function of the cruciform arms and screw jacks? Look at the 2 Pounder AT mount, for the size of the gun it was a sophisticated mount, but arguably overbuilt for the capabilities of the gun.

[Ken Estes]

So, your contention is that, an AA Gun with 2 trainer elevator positions, is ineffective at shooting at ground targets? ....

 

Again, you make the contention that anti-air shoots and ground shoots are the same thing. ....

 

Tanks as a target and aircraft as a target aren't the same thing. ....

 

Yes, the 3.7" crew is going to have to coordinate. But using WWII optics you're going to probably want someone spotting fall of shot at long range when firing from a tank. The light gathering power and precision of a gun tank's gunners sight is going to be just as poor as the light gathering power and precision of the 3.7" HAA gun's telescopes. The crew will adjust on to the targets with the ring and wire sight fire a round then observe where the fall of shot is with the telescope and with the No1 helping adjust. After they get close to the target they could probably just blast away just to account for the imprecision of the rounds at that range and the CEP that the rounds will have. I don't know what that is but, I'm making the assumption that the rounds weren't super precise

 

....

 

But it all must be a dream since you contend that they couldn't possibly hit the tanks at all. ....

 

Why practice with guns on surface targets on which cannot hope to hit the targets?

....

 

Silly Canadians, don't you know that Ken Estes the Marine says you can't hit a surface target with that gun?

....

 

....

You have a rare gift of exaggeration. I never wrote any of these things you claim of me. Perhaps you ought to think before writing?

You should know from your own work that "But using WWII optics you're going to probably want someone spotting fall of shot at long range when firing from a tank" does not happen. Who the Hell spots when a tank is shooting at long distance other than the TC, who is spotting when you shoot from close distance? There is no fall of shot [an arty term] in tank gunnery. It is called target sensing.

[Ken Estes]

....,

 

Here's the thing Ken, I know Scotsman. I've corresponded with him off and on over probably the past 10 years. He's done primary research. I've seen some of the material he sourced when he posted it at an entirely different forum now long gone. When he has time, I'm sure he'll post the additional material.

Wow, you don't say? Primary research no less? I am filled with admiration. Well I tell you, Ryan, you can put a liplock on Scotsman if you like, but keep your opinions about me to yourself. You don't know me, and we can keep it that way.

[rmgill]

A Tiger tank in Normandy was a rare bird indeed. By the time of Holland it was rarer still. If there ever was such an encounter there are only a very small number of Unit accounts to check. I seriously doubt this action ever took place. if it diid it was not mentioned in any German history I have seen. This is the first time I have heard it mentioned.

 

A lot of actions describe various tanks as tigers where it is questionable if it was actually a tiger. A MkIV Special with all the armor on it, can look amazingly like a tiger from the front or sides just based on overall outlines.

 

I know they're models but the shapes are useful for showing exactly how, on a snap shot a MK IV could be mistaken for a tiger. When you roll to a line of hedgerows, you get a flash and an explosion from a german tank firing at your wing man, it's expected that if you see this:

you could think it's really a tiger.

 

 

 

 

Either way there WERE tigers in Normandy. Not really my specialty but a quick search nets the following which deployed to Normandy and I suspect MOST were seen by the British since they were out on the ragged left flank and were seeing the bulk of the German Armor there.

 

s.Pz.Abt. 503 was transferred to Normandy with 33 Tiger I and 12 Tiger II, reaching action in early July 1944

s.SS-Pz.Abt. 101 received 45 Tiger I in deliveries in October 1943 (10), January 1944 (8 or 9), and April 1944 (25 or 26) (Wittman's unit)

s.SS-Pz.Abt. 102 was transferred to Normandy with 45 Tiger I, reaching action in early July.

[rmgill]

You have a rare gift of exaggeration. I never wrote any of these things you claim of me. Perhaps you ought to think before writing?

 

Then what, pray tell does this imply?

So, just as they do not do well on local control in AAW, they cannot be expected to perform well as AT weapons, one vs. one

They can't engage air targets under local control so they cannot engage ground targets under local control. I guess I'm exxagerating to assume that "doing well

on local control in AAW" means hitting the target.

 

Sokay, fine, sus it out for me Ken, what exactly is your contention? Apparently I'm missing your artfully articulated points and misconstruing your argument. I asked a bunch of questions to try to get you to fleece that out but you instead chose to turn it into another set of veiled ad hominems. But fine, explain precisely why, a 3.7" HAA gun is ineffective at shooting at German tanks.

 

Who the Hell spots when a tank is shooting at long distance other than the TC, who is spotting when you shoot from close distance? There is no fall of shot [an arty term] in tank gunnery. It is called target sensing.

 

An Artillery term, gosh Ken, I thought we were, in part talking about artillery here Ken? Aren't we? Isn't a 3.7" HAA gun a Heavy Anti-Aircraft Artillery piece? When firing at ground targets with an artillery piece, artillery terms would be most appropriate.

 

But fine, we'll use your tank gunnery terms. Target Sensing as it were. But, I have to wonder, is target sensing a WWII British term? You must be correct though Ken? Did the British tank wallas use the word 'Target Sensing'? I haven't seen it in any of my WWII Armoured Car training manuals (early on designated wheeled light tanks with all of the same fire control materials that the tanks of the time had). Granted I haven't gotten to deeply into those. But, you're the historical writer, perhaps you can be sure to correct me on the correct BRITISH terminology here since you're being so rigid on exact precise doctrinal terms.

 

Back to the gunnery, by observing the fall of shot, round impact, target sensing feed back or what have you the commander or tank commander will help the gunner adjust his gun lay onto the target right? This exact principle works for a tank firing shot at 1000 yards against another tank or a HAA gun firing shot at a tank at 1000 yards. The Gun commander looks for details of where the round goes right?

 

If I'm wrong here, then please, by all means, exercise your expertise and give us a basic description of how exactly a TC and gunner in a WWII era tank would engage a static or near static target at long range in WWII. Since we're talking about hypothetical German tanks engaging 3.7s maybe you should use WWII German gunnery terms and principles. You might want to US post war USMC doctrinal terms but I don't think that's really relevant now is it?

 

So, herr German Panzer Kommandant, what would he look for with his outgoing round and where it lands? At long range ones is going to have some fall of shot, splash of dust or some sort of effect no? I was, colloquially using "fall of shot" loosely, but I'm pretty sure the TC who's helping adjust the shoot is looking for some physical effect vs reaching out with his Jedi mind powers and feeling the round impact right? How would he correct for the perceived impact of the HE round that he's having his gunner fire at the 3.7" HAA gun sitting on the hill. What does he say, what does he do?

[mkenny]

Either way there WERE tigers in Normandy...............

s.Pz.Abt. 503 was transferred to Normandy with 33 Tiger I and 12 Tiger II, reaching action in early July 1944

s.SS-Pz.Abt. 101 received 45 Tiger I in deliveries in October 1943 (10), January 1944 (8 or 9), and April 1944 (25 or 26) (Wittman's unit)

s.SS-Pz.Abt. 102 was transferred to Normandy with 45 Tiger I, reaching action in early July.

 

I am well aware of the numbers and usuage. What I say is that the number of Tigers was so low that ANY encounter was a rare event. I believe the incident claimed for the 3.7 v Tigers was Holland. In that country Tigers were even scarcer than Normandy.

If we got a date or location we could put it to bed.

[scotsman]

Lets see...the Mk VI...static emplacement gun. Kinda hard to set that up in a fluid armor battle. Cant include that in your dual purpose argument.

 

As far as Mk1 thru Mk 3

 

Imperial War Museum: 3.7 Never used in a dual AT/AA role. Too heavy, took too long to set up. 1938 Dual gunnery training stopped. Took too long to train gunners for both. Not surprising with hard to zero fixed sight. Welded on as an afterthought.

 

Used as Coastal Defense....BY THE GERMANS 9.4cm Flak Vickers M.39...as a field expedient, as WestWall was a backwater and the Germans adapted foreign material for use, as the best was sent East .

 

Two recorded Direct Fire roles used in emergency situations by official histories. El Adem Box, under Denys Red C.O. of El Adem Box, fired 200 rounds of 3.7 in ground support role.....Hmmm 200 rounds with negligible results... accuracy?. German Panzerwaffe was always cognizant of artillery brackets against panzers, and would withdraw under perceived artillery barrages. With the 3.7 having a high rate of fire, it can be seen that as artillery barrage was in use and the Panzers withdrew accordingly. But it impressed the Germans to attack elsewhere. Burma Feb 1944 added in artillery barrage in Japanese attack against British positions. Mixed results, it did add to artillery barrage, but did it hit anything?

 

If you want to use "Historical" records.

 

Looking through unit histories and cannot find 3.7 contributions to the fighting in Normandy. RmGill..please elaborate.

 

C.G.

 

Imperial War Museum is wrong if thats there quote...as born out by the RA's own historic records...too heavy and took too long to set are usually when compared to the 3" 20 Cwt...which was no doubt a handier gun when it came to setup....nowhere near the ballistic performance though.

 

Dual firing training did in fact stop prewar for a while as an expedient to getting more gunners out....but was later resumed and the use of the tobruk site was incorporated into the wartime larkkhill training curricula...so we can put that one to rest. Again, the war diaries of many 3.7" units record DF practice prior to embarkation so its safe to say someone thought they would be using it.

 

Germans by all the accounts I am familiar with rather liked their captured equipments and had a separate german produced ammunition program for them.

 

Definately can confirm that your two examples are far from inclusive...again using the official RA histories.... try getting a copy of those by farndale and you will find more details to the contrary of what you are posting (or the history of the 2nd Cdn if you want examples of extensive 3.7" firing in a ground support role)

[scotsman]

I have never heard any mention of Tigers coming up against the 3.7. Certainly there are no accounts of Tiger losses to the 3.7 that I am aware of. They would have had to have made some pretty deep penatrations to reach the AA guns. I am not aware of any advice that the 3.7 was one of the 'top 3' threats to the Tigers.

I would be interested in the location of this action.

 

The quote comes from a minor publishers work on panzers in and around normandy...have to find it again...as for my interview with the gunner I believe I have a scanned copy of hiw own notes on the subject somewhere on the server at home...have to look for it...

[scotsman]

Sure, sure, and I followed ADATs too. Sorry if this cut too close to your legendary work in systems design, but certainly then you can answer my Q as to what system capable against only helos was ever considered ADA?

attitude...attitude...enough dead horses have been beaten here to last me a lifetime...

[scotsman]

I have a work or two of Hogg lying about somewhere. You are aware that he is considered less an authority today than 25 yrs ago??

 

You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension, seeing attacks only perhaps? It is hard to make sense of what you wrote up there, but I am not pressing for more of the same.

 

You will not find me discussing 5"/38, I do not think. I think if you go back to the beginning of the thread, I merely stated that the 88 Flak was not a DP gun.** Try DKTanker. An 8" naval gun killing a tank responds directly to your admitted "loose" definition of dual purpose, crossed with equally disparaging comments on naval shells not being designed for AT use and other wanderings of yours. You now find it ridiculous, I see.

 

[edit to add]

**

 

If you don't like Hogg then get Farndale in the official RA histories...but you will get the same answer in the end...I could say the same thing about your comments from Jentz by the way....or you could ask Hunnicutt for example what he thinks of some of Jentz's comments, particularly as applied to Allied equipment. You are aware -his- research skills and credability has been called into question by other authors? There...we are now a matched set now....does that feel better?

 

I have -no- reading problem Ken...I -do- have a real problem with endless display of attitude in every post though...unprofessional and uncalled for...and your posts tend to be loaded with it....it takes the pleasure out of any sort of discussion...

 

I'm here simply to share what I have discovered along the way in research by talking directly to larkhill, gunners of the time, and others. If it doesn't conform to your desired vision of history thats fine...everyone has their own opinions...you have said your bit, I have said mine, leave it at that...my view is obviously different to yours...

[scotsman]

A Tiger tank in Normandy was a rare bird indeed. By the time of Holland it was rarer still. If there ever was such an encounter there are only a very small number of Unit accounts to check. I seriously doubt this action ever took place. if it diid it was not mentioned in any German history I have seen. This is the first time I have heard it mentioned.

 

A lot of one on ones never get mentioned in the 'official' records....I too had never heard it mentioned until I made a point of asking an RA LTC to ask around among his mates and see what he could drum up...the account I gave you came from his digging. I won't post his personal email address here in an open forum but if you like I'll send it to you by back channel...just let me know where you would like the email sent and I'll send you his email address and link with his service history in the RA.

 

As for Ken...Ill post a quote from the RA history...perhaps direct quotes will suffice from 3.7" action in the battle of france....after which, I have no doubt, some other objection will arise...

[scotsman]

I am well aware of the numbers and usuage. What I say is that the number of Tigers was so low that ANY encounter was a rare event. I believe the incident claimed for the 3.7 v Tigers was Holland. In that country Tigers were even scarcer than Normandy.

If we got a date or location we could put it to bed.

 

 

I scanned his original handwritten note to the LTC but I will have to see if I can find it on the server at home...other fish to fry tonight but Ill see...I will post a quote from the farndale to satisfy Ken....

 

 

History of the Royal Regiment of Artillery: Anti-Aircraft Artillery (Hardcover)

by N. W. Routledge (Author), Martin Farndale (Author)

 

Product Details

Hardcover: 460 pages

Publisher: Brassey's Inc (April 1998)

Language: English

ISBN-10: 1857530993

ISBN-13: 978-1857530995

[mkenny]

A lot of one on ones never get mentioned in the 'official' records....

 

As there were so few Tigers operating their areas of operation are pretty well known. It would be easy to match claims against known losses. I am fairly certain we have another case of 'every tank a Tiger'. Losses in Holland would be from Tiger Group 'Hummel' (Tiger I) or sPzAbt 506 (Tiger II) Around 10 tanks lost of which half would be TI's. A lot of the losses were concerned with the Arhem advance and I doubt if 3.7s were in the lead.

I have to say I have never come across a claim that the 3.7 was considered a threat to the Tiger. I have yet to see any reference to it in any of the sources I have.

I am not saying anyone is telling lies here, rather that claims rarely match reality.

[DKTanker]

In my opinion, a dual-purpose weapon is one that was DESIGNED from the start to perform TWO roles and had features to provide for both roles. In some cases the equipment had to compromise in one role to make it suitable for the other.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it had to be designed as DP from the start, AIUI the 5"/38 cal would fail that standard, and it's the epitome of a DP system. I do agree that if a weapon is DP it will likely compromise on one or both roles. Again, the 5"/38 cal did exactly that. While it was a terrific Heavy AA weapon, it lacked the punch and range of its 5"/51 brothers against surface/land targets. I'd define dual purpose as an ammunition and or system that allows a commander to utilize his DP system in two distinctly different roles that require no dedicated asset to supplement one or the other of the DP system's roles.

[mkenny]

D/P

Edited May 8, 2009 by mkenny

[scotsman]

May as well start with direct quotes...plenty if you knpw where to dig...

 

 

Paperback: 320 pages

Publisher: Methuen Publishing Ltd (February 1, 2008)

Language: English

ISBN-10: 0413776336

ISBN-13: 978-0413776334

 

 

Page 191-192

 

"In the weeks that followed many officers and men stationed at home listened intently to the stories brought back by the survivors from the BEF. One such was LTC Kennedy, CRE of the 23rd Division, who was invited to a conference of staff officers pf 2 AA division on 1 June. Kennedy told the whole sory story...skip sentences...and how did the AA guns perform, in Kennedy's experience? Most memorable was an incident in which a 3.7" AA gun, its muzzle lowered, had blown two tanks to smithereens. Used as such, reported Kennedy, 'it is undoubtably a magnificant weapon.'

 

Indeed it was, the 3.7" AT potential would come to be widely remarked upon, and Pile, drawing from his earlier expertise, later reflected that it was a pity it was never installed in tanks."

 

Seems to me we have already accounted for usage that prior to now was MIA. Its like any other bit of history...as time passes more and more comes to the surface...If you asked David Fletcher about the churchill gun carrier today...(after publishing his book on the churchill) he would likely admit to you for example there is at least secondary evidence to support the fact that churchill gun carriers may in fact have seen service in Italy in the hands of the canadians....information he did not have at the time of the writing of his book.

 

Then we have Alanbrooks comments following the battle of france as well...

 

 

and lastly the RA histories themselves...I can pull quotes from those but I dont intend to make a living out of this...several pointing to the extensive issue of AP ammunition to both the 40mm LAA and 3.7" and DF preparations for engaging german armor...and from there on to the middle east with more than a couple of instances including the New Zealand plans for deploying massed 3.7" in the anti-armor fight.

Edited May 8, 2009 by scotsman

[scotsman]

As there were so few Tigers operating their areas of operation are pretty well known. It would be easy to match claims against known losses. I am fairly certain we have another case of 'every tank a Tiger'. Losses in Holland would be from Tiger Group 'Hummel' (Tiger I) or sPzAbt 506 (Tiger II) Around 10 tanks lost of which half would be TI's. A lot of the losses were concerned with the Arhem advance and I doubt if 3.7s were in the lead.

I have to say I have never come across a claim that the 3.7 was considered a threat to the Tiger. I have yet to see any reference to it in any of the sources I have.

I am not saying anyone is telling lies here, rather that claims rarely match reality.

 

If I remember his writeup the HQ was in fact operating out of a stadium in or around Arnhem when they got the AP ammunition delivered to the guns and were told to get on with it. I will try and spend some time looking on my server for the scan of the original hand written note. In the meantime everyone can chew on the dobinson quote....

[scotsman]

As there were so few Tigers operating their areas of operation are pretty well known. It would be easy to match claims against known losses. I am fairly certain we have another case of 'every tank a Tiger'. Losses in Holland would be from Tiger Group 'Hummel' (Tiger I) or sPzAbt 506 (Tiger II) Around 10 tanks lost of which half would be TI's. A lot of the losses were concerned with the Arhem advance and I doubt if 3.7s were in the lead.

I have to say I have never come across a claim that the 3.7 was considered a threat to the Tiger. I have yet to see any reference to it in any of the sources I have.

I am not saying anyone is telling lies here, rather that claims rarely match reality.

 

Entirely possible...We all know what happens in the pressure of combat....could very well have been Pz-IV but I believe he did say Tiger in his notes...again Ill have to look for the scan so we can see it in his own writing...

[C.G.Erickson]

 

Silly Canadians, don't you know that Ken Estes the Marine says you can't hit a surface target with that gun?

 

I think a better picture could have been used to further your argument.... ..... The gun crew in this pic did not want anything to do with recoil of this gun in the horizontal firing position. Lanyard pull to fire gun. Hopefully the gunners actually "riding" the gun and aiming would be more brave, or would they hang on for dear life while trying to hit a moving tank?

 

I really like the recoil bracing lined up behing the gun along its axis of firing.

Edited May 8, 2009 by C.G.Erickson

[rmgill]

I think a better picture could have been used to further your argument.... ..... The gun crew in this pic did not want anything to do with recoil of this gun in the horizontal firing position. Lanyard pull to fire gun. Hopefully the gunners actually "riding" the gun and aiming would be more brave, or would they hang on for dear life while trying to hit a moving tank?

 

I really like the recoil bracing lined up behing the gun along its axis of firing.

 

See that white stuff. It's hard packed icey ground with the snow plowed the side. They have that in Canada ya know. I strongly suspect that the guns couldn't be staked down easily with the ice. I also expect that when working on frozen ground, gunners on conventional artillery have to work VERY hard to dig the guns into the ground so the recoil spades actually grab something as opposed to skidding across the icy soil.

 

Right Click on the image, look closer at some of the other images. They were likely testing the bedding because there's a bunch more photos at that same location showing the guns firing and the gunners on the mount itself.

 

Before the shot

 

Same range, looks to be a different gun.

 

Low angle, just fired, gas venting from the breech.

[Ken Estes]

Then what, pray tell does this imply?

They can't engage air targets under local control so they cannot engage ground targets under local control. I guess I'm exxagerating to assume that "doing well

on local control in AAW" means hitting the target.

 

Sokay, fine, sus it out for me Ken, what exactly is your contention? Apparently I'm missing your artfully articulated points and misconstruing your argument. I asked a bunch of questions to try to get you to fleece that out but you instead chose to turn it into another set of veiled ad hominems. But fine, explain precisely why, a 3.7" HAA gun is ineffective at shooting at German tanks.

An Artillery term, gosh Ken, I thought we were, in part talking about artillery here Ken? Aren't we? Isn't a 3.7" HAA gun a Heavy Anti-Aircraft Artillery piece? When firing at ground targets with an artillery piece, artillery terms would be most appropriate.

 

But fine, we'll use your tank gunnery terms. Target Sensing as it were. But, I have to wonder, is target sensing a WWII British term? You must be correct though Ken? Did the British tank wallas use the word 'Target Sensing'?....

Ryan, you are starting to worry me, as you are verging on hysteria.

 

When I write

My point, once you take a breath, is that these AA guns do not perform well in local control, as they are designed for barrage fire under director control as AAA. Therefore, you cannot expect much when they are by their little selves, using ring sights and other less than desired equipment, regardless of target. So, just as they do not do well on local control in AAW, they cannot be expected to perform well as AT weapons, one vs. one, for largely the same reasons.

There is nothing in there that states or even implies that said gun cannot obtain a hit. So do calm down a bit. There is nothing for you to 'suss out.'

 

If you look back, you had shifted to how a tank's gunfire is 'spotted' for fall of shot, you were not writing then about AA guns. Do try to keep up. The rest of your rant seems to be about you or me and that is not the topic. Nobody sez that gun X cannot ever hit tgt B; the Q is, are such guns really suited for it. So-called 'research' by your pal to find single instances where a tank was hit or KO'd during WWII do not make any contribution, beyond brandishing one's assumed skills and library.

 

We are not even talking about 'attitude'! What nonsense.

[rmgill]

Ryan, you are starting to worry me, as you are verging on hysteria.

 

Not in the least.

 

When I write There is nothing in there that states or even implies that said gun cannot obtain a hit. So do calm down a bit. There is nothing for you to 'suss out.'

Nothing for you to explain then? You have no point then I guess?

 

If you look back, you had shifted to how a tank's gunfire is 'spotted' for fall of shot, you were not writing then about AA guns.

 

No I was talking about both. So, since you can't answer a string of questions and you're so fixated on preceise terms. Is "target sensing" a correct WWII British or German term?

 

 

Do try to keep up. The rest of your rant seems to be about you or me and that is not the topic.

And your homoerotic sexual fantasies are on topic?

 

Nobody sez that gun X cannot ever hit tgt B; the Q is, are such guns really suited for it.

 

Suited for it. Ok. Fine, we'll see what Scotsman digs up.

 

So-called 'research' by your pal to find single instances where a tank was hit or KO'd during WWII do not make any contribution, beyond brandishing one's assumed skills and library.

 

So, what sort of data WOULD convince you that the 3.7 was suited for engaging ground targets either by direct or indirect fire?

 

Was the 8.8cm suited for engaging ground targets? Or was that, because it was an AAA gun designed for director control ALSO unsuited?

 

What about a 40mm Bofors, also designed to be operated under remote director control with only the loader standing on the mount, also unsuited for firing at ground targets? I don't suppose the M42s used in vietnam are any measure of utility and effectiveness?

Edited May 8, 2009 by rmgill