Did the US test the 88/L71?

[Ken Estes]

I don't agree, as 88mm was extensively used in Spain against ground targets. First units arrived in Spain on September 1936 as part of Flakbteilun F/88, counting 4 batteries of 88/56. Two were used to protect airfields in Burgos and Vitoria, the others to support ground troops. IIRC there was a specific ammo for ground targets.

 

As war progressed, 88mm were used more and more often against ground targets. During the offensive in Cataluña, 93% of shots were fired against ground targets like fortifications.....

We already consider any AA gun capable of functioning as arty. The Q is are they truly DP in AT/AA? How many tanks did 88s engage in the SCW?

 

Ammo does not a DP gun make, I repeat. Capability to function effectively as both AT and AA would be more of an indicator. Only the Germans made such efforts, and the 88mm Flak cannot be considered DP, given the mods the Germans insisted upon for AT employment.

[Ken Estes]

....

 

While this may not be good enough to qualify as an 'effective AT gun' from your 20:20 vision here and now, I'm sure the crews of Tigers or Panthers having to face it thought it effective enough.

....

Very cute, 20:20. But tell me o sage, how many Tigers and Panthers did this gun engage? To what extent was it fielded as an AT gun? Even arty prepares to fight tanks if required, but nobody considers the 25 pdr or US 105mm howitzer a DP AT/Arty gun.

[C.G.Erickson]

The 88 in the AA/AT role had accuracy problems, In North Africa, it took 10 shots to hit a tank (Tom Jentz, The Dreaded 88) With modifications, taking it out of its intended AA role, it became very accurate, So you cannot say that the "Dual Purpose" role was very successful, even for the vaunted 88. Had to be modified.

 

The 3.7 would have the same if even more accuracy problems.

[DKTanker]

I think effectiveness is part of the equation.

So do I, I said as much a few pages back when using the 5"/38 example as the epitome of a DP weapon. I was replying to the "liberal" definition of dual purpose which in no way spoke to effectiveness.

[DKTanker]

Ammo does not a DP gun make, I repeat. Capability to function effectively as both AT and AA would be more of an indicator. Only the Germans made such efforts, and the 88mm Flak cannot be considered DP, given the mods the Germans insisted upon for AT employment.

Exactly. If ammo made the weapon DP, then the M1A1 is dual purpose Tank / ADA weapon when issued M830A1 HEAT MP. I don't think anybody would seriously consider an M1A1 an ADA platform.

[Kip Swanson]

One could say the same for the 6" /47 ammo on US WWII cruisers, but they are not considered dual purpose AT and AA guns.

 

So, since you apparently like the US DOD definition, was the 3.7" gun designed as a dual-purpose AAA and AT gun? To what extent was it employed as an AT gun...oh.

 

Sorry, it was a tongue in check reply based upon a posting from the previous page of the thread. Actually I think the digression into what constitutes "duel purpose" is a waste of air. But than symantics have little interest for me.

 

The weapon was employed in an antitank role, examples of which have already been disscussed early on in the thread. All I can contribute to the list already provided would be its effective use against ground targets outside of El Adam on June 12, 1942.

[Ken Estes]

Sorry, it was a tongue in check reply based upon a posting from the previous page of the thread. Actually I think the digression into what constitutes "duel purpose" is a waste of air. But than symantics have little interest for me.

 

The weapon was employed in an antitank role, examples of which have already been disscussed early on in the thread. All I can contribute to the list already provided would be its effective use against ground targets outside of El Adam on June 12, 1942.

Sorry, that's not good enough. Any cannon of any sort caught in a position attacked by tanks will have to return fire, thus 'employed' in an en extremis sense. But to what extent did the Br army deliberately employ, i.e. task the 3.7in as an AT gun? I gather very little, from reading all the TN threads bemoaning that fact, over the years.

 

'Dual purpose' is not a matter of semantics. It has been ill-used as a term by pop historians for years, esp describing the 88 Flak, and it is a matter of serious historical accuracy to debunk such things, such as the 'proving ground' of the Sp Civil War for weapons testing, etc. The 88's reputation, along with light flak, was earned there as an AA gun. It's improvised use after than war in 1940 and deliberate employment in 1941 as an AT gun did not make it a dual purpose gun.

 

One really has to keep a sense of balance over these things. A "duel purpose" as you put it is what emerges on this thread, but it resides in the contentious writers, not guns.

[Argus]

...was the 3.7" gun designed as a dual-purpose AAA and AT gun? To what extent was it employed as an AT gun...oh.

 

I think part of the problem here is the narrowness of the definition, the 3.7" was not designed with a specifically Anti-Tank function at all. It was however intended to engage ground targets of which tanks were one example.

 

So if you'll pardon the presumption, that question might be better phrased as

 

...was the 3.7" gun designed as a dual-purpose AA and Surface gun?

 

In which case I'd still agree with Ken that the answer is no.

 

I can't quote any field manual definitions here, but its always seemed to me that 'Dual Purpose' implies a weapon has two intended primary roles, or its primary role is to cover two normally separate roles. The 3.7" AA was clearly an HAA weapon with a secondary capability for taking on surface targets. One of those targets was AFV's another was naval craft, a third was indirect fire as a medium arty piece.

 

If the DP tag is to be attached to it, then IMHO it should be as an AA/GP weapon.

 

shane

[Ken Estes]

The 88 in the AA/AT role had accuracy problems, In North Africa, it took 10 shots to hit a tank (Tom Jentz, The Dreaded 88) With modifications, taking it out of its intended AA role, it became very accurate, So you cannot say that the "Dual Purpose" role was very successful, even for the vaunted 88. Had to be modified.

 

The 3.7 would have the same if even more accuracy problems.

Thanks, CG, that's my point about the perils of engaging tanks with AA guns set up in pointer/gunner split controls, plus arguably inadequate sights for AT work. What amazes me is that anybody would think that medium/heavy AA guns can do well in local or independent control. They do not even work very well as AA guns firing singly under control of gunner/pointer. On shipboard, they are director controlled and in groups where possible, and we know from navies the hundreds or thousands of rounds necessary to bring down an opposing aircraft. The ring sights and other devices do not give one pinpoint hits, because a medium AA gun kills a/c via airbusts [time or VT fused] of its shells. As land AA, they are supposed to work equally as batteries under director control, not one vs. one. The rudimentary controls given AA guns for direct fire remain secondary for the most part and nobody ought to consider them dual purpose unless designed as such. And nobody would want to design a high angle gun for AT purposes, as an AT gun is built low to the ground for just such purpose. Adding shields to HAAA did little to protect the gunners from other than fragments and should not be taken as an indicator of an AT mission, just something to give the troops an improved chance when they are forward on the battlefield.

 

Bring on those tanks, eh?

The 3.7-inch (94 mm) gun was never used as an anti-tank weapon, except in one or two emergencies. This is in contrast to the German Army, which integrated their equivalent "88" into anti-tank defensive screens from 1940 onwards.

 

This was mainly because the 3.7-inch (94 mm) gun mobile mounting was almost twice as heavy as the German "88". Redeploying it was a slower operation, and the heavy AEC Matador artillery tractor normally used for towing could operate on hard surfaces only. Additionally, heavy AA Regiments equipped with the 3.7-inch (94 mm) gun were controlled by Corps or Army HQ, or at even higher level HQs, and command of them was not often devolved to the commanders at Divisional levels where the anti-tank role might be required. Prolonged firing at low elevations (not part of the original specification) also strained the mounting and recuperating gear.

Wiki entry, not authoritative, but curious, funny.

 

By 1943, the US army wondered about improving its 90mm:

Like the German 88, and the British QF 3.7 inch AA gun, the M1A1 found itself facing tanks in combat, but unlike the others it could not be depressed to fire against them. On September 11, 1942 the Army issued specifications for a new mount to allow it to be used in this role, which resulted in the 90 mm M2, introducing yet another new mount that could be depressed to 10 degrees below horizontal and featured a new electrically-assisted rammer. It became the standard weapon from May 13, 1943.

90mm M2 in Korea; 90mm T8 AT gun;

 

From NARA, RG127 a 25Oct43 Army Ordnance Branch memo noted the construction of two pilot M1A1 90mm guns with "...more suitable direct-fire sighting equipment and shields," adding the M60 telescopes from the M2, all toward "making the 90mm M1A1 better adapted for use against ground targets," the new setup to be avail for testing 1Dec43. The memo requested that the AAA Board test these devices.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Ken Estes

[scotsman]

Yes but what I am asking is how they set zero with fixed sights. Did 3.7 have that capability for Direct Fire sight?

 

I don't know what bore sight procedure was used on the tobrok sights....The only 3.7" gunners manual I have really only addresses the tactical employment of the weapon and not the care/maint/boresight which is usually in a separate manual. That manual is available from a guy I know in Holland...have to order the maint. manual and have a look see...

[scotsman]

Interesting. So if a rifleman engages a tank with his rifle, the rifle is now dual purpose anti-personnel / Anti-tank? Absurd, maybe, but it fits your definition.

 

One can always stretch definitions to a breaking point...but yes a rifle would be a DP anti-personnel/anti-tank weapon if it was firing the appropriate rifle grenade - wouldn't it? Absurd would be engaging with FMJ bullets rather than the alternative ammunition provided for that purpose...*smile*

Edited May 6, 2009 by scotsman

[scotsman]

Either way, if your fuze and ammo selections included parts and materials for engaging surface targets with your Anti-Aircraft weapon, I'd argue you have a Dual Purpose design.

 

Exactly...the rest is debating nits...all immaterial to a gunner with the job at hand...

[scotsman]

One could say the same for the 6" /47 ammo on US WWII cruisers, but they are not considered dual purpose AT and AA guns.

 

So, since you apparently like the US DOD definition, was the 3.7" gun designed as a dual-purpose AAA and AT gun? To what extent was it employed as an AT gun...oh.

 

Different target context really...their AP ammunition was designed for anti-ship use...not antitank use...although I am sure some healthy amounts of 6" AP were fired on beech targets as well...So you are telling me that the 6"/47 which was designed as an anti-ship weapon was --not-- engaging in a DP function when firing shore bombardment? Come on...DP does not necessarily mean anti-aircraft or ground fire....it means a weapon can and did engage secondary target sets...

 

Sticking with the naval side you could also say that for example the british 4.7" low angle mounting was not 'DP' in these sense it didnt have the elevation angles necessary to fire at attacking aircraft in all circumstances. That mounting limit apparently didnt prevent 4.7" crews from engaging air tgts that were within the elevation limits though. Was it as good as a 5"/38 at handling the entire prsented tgt range. No...but it did in fact engage air targets. So was it DP? I think the arguement can be made that it was, it just wasn't as effective as a gun designed with higher elevation limits in mind. I dont think anyone will question it was effective in its primary designed for role which was anti-ship.

 

3.7" DID get used as an AT gun...that fact is beyond debate...if you need a reference for early usage during the battle of france you can find it right in the history of of royal artillery of the action...list as one of the most 'impressive' things seen by an artillery officer involved at the divisional level in the fighting. I'll post the reference if you like...

Edited May 6, 2009 by scotsman

[scotsman]

Very cute, 20:20. But tell me o sage, how many Tigers and Panthers did this gun engage? To what extent was it fielded as an AT gun? Even arty prepares to fight tanks if required, but nobody considers the 25 pdr or US 105mm howitzer a DP AT/Arty gun.

 

Actually that isnt true...as far as I know the 25pdr was --always-- considered to be a DP gun (a gun howitzer) ... thats why the turn pedestal was part of the gun's original kit. Rapid turning is not generally a requirement for a field gun...it is for a field gun being deployed in an AT role when confronted with threats that arent necessarily on the gun target line...hence the value of a device which allows the gun to be rapidly turned to direct fire at a DF target.

 

As for Tiger engagement by the 3.7" - we know that happened according to the germans own records in Normandy. I doubt they would list it among the top 3 threats to Tigers if some casualties hadn't been incurred by them. Its also a matter of record that the 3.7" was in fact used to backstop the more conventional AT guns in several instances during normandy operations.

[scotsman]

The 88 in the AA/AT role had accuracy problems, In North Africa, it took 10 shots to hit a tank (Tom Jentz, The Dreaded 88) With modifications, taking it out of its intended AA role, it became very accurate, So you cannot say that the "Dual Purpose" role was very successful, even for the vaunted 88. Had to be modified.

 

The 3.7 would have the same if even more accuracy problems.

 

I am not aware of any 'accuracy problems' with the 3.7" in a DF role...the only thing that the gunners course ever mentioned was that the mount could in fact jump if it was not properly bedded down and set in. The crews did have to pay attention to that...

 

I would be interested in hearing more on how that number was derived...sounds like it might have been more a case of terrain, crew drill, and unfamiliarity with the role than an equipment issue per say. It certainly did not take 10 rounds per kill in much of the normandy fighting...and there were many opportunities when 'pure' flak equipments were presented with DF targets. I'm also wondering whether that number was biased towards long range engagements...in short I think we need more data before we can judge a conclusion there...

 

I do know that it often took more than 1 hit to kill a matilda with an 88mm in the desert it the hits were hull hits. The side armor configuration was thick enough to pre-fuze early 88mm APHE and cause them to detonate inside the track wells rather than penetrating and detonating the hull proper.

 

Another thing worth noting...the sustained ROF of 3.7" with its autoloader is 2-3X that of a manually served 88mm...if I am a tanker I wouldnt want to be my a** on a 3.7" not being able to service a given tgt with an appropriate ROF. According to the gunner I interviewed...his tank targets in holland were engulfed in rapid fire hits...and he noted it was rather a moot point as to which round 'did in' the target(s)...point being that they were destroyed in very short order.

[rmgill]

Exactly. If ammo made the weapon DP, then the M1A1 is dual purpose Tank / ADA weapon when issued M830A1 HEAT MP. I don't think anybody would seriously consider an M1A1 an ADA platform.

 

If it's used sparingly for such purposes no.

 

If it's used on a regular basis in a conflict almost to the exclusion of acting as a tank, what is it? Tanks from Hammers Slammers with the range and accuracy to engage low orbitals are most certainly ADA and tanks.

 

The 3.7s were most certainly used as conventional Artillery during the Normandy and further campaigns. Scotsman has provided data to support this contention quite properly. Had there been enough needs for countering German counter attacks in depth, then I'm sure the 3.7s would have seen more use as Anti-tank guns. Lack of good maneuver room in Europe (as opposed to the big sweeping maneuvers in North Africa) largely hindered this.

[scotsman]

Exactly. If ammo made the weapon DP, then the M1A1 is dual purpose Tank / ADA weapon when issued M830A1 HEAT MP. I don't think anybody would seriously consider an M1A1 an ADA platform.

 

Thats the problem I think...

 

In some folks mind's eye 'DP' automatically translates into 'must be capable of engaging aircraft'...

 

I don't believe that to be the case...the 25pdr which is an excellent example of a gun/howitzer designed and built to engage tank targets as well as function as normal field artillery. Thats certainly 'DP' to a gunner whose primary role is indirect fire...nowhere in that job description do we see the words 'must engage aircraft'...

 

Per prior post, a rifle is built to kill infantry, yet no-one would argue that it could function as an AT weapon with HEAT rifle grenades, or as light platoon mortar might with HE rifle grenades.

 

Now I am not going totally left field with this DP thing...5.5" guns engaged tank targets twice in north africa...but I would not classify them as DP because (1) They did not have ammunition designed and provided for the AT function (they fired plugged HE) and (2) Total tgt presentation doesnt warrant the title.

 

When it comes down to it for me its whether the weapon is used in that secondary role and provisioned with target appropriate ammunition. I pass no judgement on how effective it is in the secondary role...I simply note it was so employed....

[scotsman]

Exactly. If ammo made the weapon DP, then the M1A1 is dual purpose Tank / ADA weapon when issued M830A1 HEAT MP. I don't think anybody would seriously consider an M1A1 an ADA platform.

 

If you asked a russian tanker firing through the bore 125mm ATGM at an attack helicopter (which is one of the designated tgts for the 125mm ATGM) I am not sure he would agree with your assessment again. The russians can and do consider the 125mm an effective ADA weapon if we include helicopters in the AD target set.

 

So who is right...you or him?

[rmgill]

Thanks, CG, that's my point about the perils of engaging tanks with AA guns set up in pointer/gunner split controls, plus arguably inadequate sights for AT work. What amazes me is that anybody would think that medium/heavy AA guns can do well in local or independent control. They do not even work very well as AA guns firing singly under control of gunner/pointer.

 

Tanks are not aircraft. Aircraft are not tanks. Tanks don't have a crossing velocity of hundreds of knots and are only in your entire field of fire and view for a few seconds.

 

 

On shipboard, they are director controlled and in groups where possible, and we know from navies the hundreds or thousands of rounds necessary to bring down an opposing aircraft.

And when VT fuzes were invented that number dropped to fewer than a few if tens of rounds to kill aircraft under director control. Again, tanks are not aircaft. They don't have the speed. Modern tanks can't even travel faster than a WWI biplane can on a regular basis short of a very good straight test track.

 

The ring sights and other devices do not give one pinpoint hits, because a medium AA gun kills a/c via airbusts [time or VT fused] of its shells.

 

Do the scopes on AT guns give pinpoint hits at the ranges the HAA guns can fire to? The limitation of the old HAA guns was that the ballistics, precision in manufacturing and fire control wasn't up to the task of extremely precise gunnery that the HAA guns could fire to. The final form of 3.7 could fire to 40,000 feet vertical. That's over the curvature of the earth.

 

When you're firing rounds at a tank, you're going to get close and then adjust in. Just like a commander in a tank directing his gunner is going to do with the same period weaponry. Probably because the commander has just as good of optics as the gunner does AND he's going to be able to get a slightly better view looking out of his turret with his head and binoculars.

 

We can argue back and forth over the nature of the word dual purpose. The reality is that the 3.7" engaged land targets and was equipped to do so both directly and indirectly as indirect fire artillery under observer control. They engaged tanks on the few times the german tanks wandered close and won those engagements resoundingly. For a weapon system not very cut out for engaging tanks it seems to have done amazingly well at the job.

 

The 3.7" HAA was probably better cut out to act as an anti-tank gun against the german cats than any other weapon system in the allied inventory save perhaps the 17 pounder. And yet even the 17 pounder had accuracy issues due to incomplete sabot separation. I think the only thing missing is a 3.7" gun on an armoured fighting vehicle ala the Archer or a lower towed mount like the German 8.8cm pak 43. It probably would have saved a bunch of lives. But given how unimaginative the Allied planners were where it came to engaging german tanks with something better than a French 75 or worse a 2 pounder, it's not surprising.

[Ken Estes]

Tanks are not aircraft. Aircraft are not tanks. Tanks don't have a crossing velocity of hundreds of knots and are only in your entire field of fire and view for a few seconds.

.... The final form of 3.7 could fire to 40,000 feet vertical. That's over the curvature of the earth.

....

Taking up your undecipherable method of argument, I'd have to point out that there are no tanks to be found at 40,000 feet vertical.

[Kip Swanson]

Sorry, that's not good enough. Any cannon of any sort caught in a position attacked by tanks will have to return fire, thus 'employed' in an en extremis sense. But to what extent did the Br army deliberately employ, i.e. task the 3.7in as an AT gun? I gather very little, from reading all the TN threads bemoaning that fact, over the years.

 

'Dual purpose' is not a matter of semantics. It has been ill-used as a term by pop historians for years, esp describing the 88 Flak, and it is a matter of serious historical accuracy to debunk such things, such as the 'proving ground' of the Sp Civil War for weapons testing, etc. The 88's reputation, along with light flak, was earned there as an AA gun. It's improvised use after than war in 1940 and deliberate employment in 1941 as an AT gun did not make it a dual purpose gun.

 

One really has to keep a sense of balance over these things. A "duel purpose" as you put it is what emerges on this thread, but it resides in the contentious writers, not guns.

 

Unfortunately it does seem to boil down to semantics and therefore this line of the thread really has no interest for me. World War 2 Field manual for engagement of ground targets with for 3.7" AA guns specifically use the term "duel role" when addressing use of the 3.7" gun against ground targets. I therefore think pinning down a specific definition for duel purpose or duel role is illusory. I don't think a satisfactory definition is possible given the propensity to take any definition to an extreme. For example rifles vs. aircraft and rifles vs. personnel. It also is evident you will not likely except any definition of duel role or duel purpose which would somehow encompass the 3.7" AA guns capabilities. That's fine. You have made your case effectively and logically. I may not agree with it, but I certainly respect how you have arrived at your opinion.

[Ken Estes]

Thats the problem I think...

 

In some folks mind's eye 'DP' automatically translates into 'must be capable of engaging aircraft'...

 

I don't believe that to be the case...the 25pdr which is an excellent example of a gun/howitzer designed and built to engage tank targets as well as function as normal field artillery. Thats certainly 'DP' to a gunner whose primary role is indirect fire...nowhere in that job description do we see the words 'must engage aircraft'...

 

Per prior post, a rifle is built to kill infantry, yet no-one would argue that it could function as an AT weapon with HEAT rifle grenades, or as light platoon mortar might with HE rifle grenades.

 

Now I am not going totally left field with this DP thing...5.5" guns engaged tank targets twice in north africa...but I would not classify them as DP because (1) They did not have ammunition designed and provided for the AT function (they fired plugged HE) and (2) Total tgt presentation doesnt warrant the title.

 

When it comes down to it for me its whether the weapon is used in that secondary role and provisioned with target appropriate ammunition. I pass no judgement on how effective it is in the secondary role...I simply note it was so employed....

Engaging secondary [or ad hoc] targets has nothing to do with 'designed for...' or dual purpose. Any evidence that the 25 pdr was "designed and built to engage tank targets"? The current light 105mm M119 has a similar turntable, as did the US airborned M102 in the same caliber...evidence of AT design and purpose? Hardly. Earlier, you opined that making it a gun-howitzer was sufficient to call it DP. You must admit you are all over the map with this stuff, including left field. You even want to fool with rifles firing AT grenades! Whether an army calls a weapon a howitzer or a gun-howitzer certainly establishes no technical terminology, more like usage or doctrine of employment.

 

Because a gun of some sort was able to KO a tank does not make it an AT gun or DP. The IJN killed an M4A3 on Okinawa with an 8-inch CD gun because it ventured across its beaten zone. Hardly makes it a DP gun, and just think, it used a naval projo [designed for ship combat] to do it, how nervy.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Ken Estes

[Ken Estes]

If you asked a russian tanker firing through the bore 125mm ATGM at an attack helicopter (which is one of the designated tgts for the 125mm ATGM) I am not sure he would agree with your assessment again. The russians can and do consider the 125mm an effective ADA weapon if we include helicopters in the AD target set.

 

So who is right...you or him?

Never heard of an ADA weapon that was only capable vs. helos. Perhaps it does not count as an AD weapon? Lots of ATGM may be used to kill a helo, nobody tries to set them up as ADA by capability or effectiveness. This is more of your fast & loose method on your part. No wonder Ken Macksey had such distrust of gunners in the BA.

[Ken Estes]

.... I don't think a satisfactory definition is possible given the propensity to take any definition to an extreme. For example rifles vs. aircraft and rifles vs. personnel. It also is evident you will not likely except any definition of duel role or duel purpose which would somehow encompass the 3.7" AA guns capabilities. That's fine. You have made your case effectively and logically. I may not agree with it, but I certainly respect how you have arrived at your opinion.

"...propensity to take any definition to an extreme." is a matter of self-discipline, or lack thereof. You cannot know what I will 'not likely accept.' I have no agenda for the 3.7in and have cited other guns as well as not being DP. Saying that weapon X can be fired [somehow] at targets A and B tells nothing about what they are most suited for, designed for, or intended for.

 

Words are important. Semantics may be a state of the mind.

[rmgill]

Taking up your undecipherable method of argument, I'd have to point out that there are no tanks to be found at 40,000 feet vertical.

 

You were the one that brought the difficulties of hitting an aircraft as being equal to the difficulties for the same weapon system for hitting a tank.

Somehow in your world shooting at a ME110 at night carries the same difficulties with it that shooting a Panzer VI does during the day.

 

Range vertical is range and velocity. What other direct fire capable weapons had the throw weight and the Muzzle Velocity of the 3.7" in WWII?