Did the US test the 88/L71?

[R011]

Anyone know how much the tank version of the 3.7 inch, the 32 pounder, weighed compared to the KwK 43 or the 90 mm M3 ?

[rmgill]

So, Ken, I guess in your world then that dual purpose is based on design and not as use. So, thus, the 88 is NOT a dual purpose gun. It's an AAA gun pressed into service to service ground targets. The 3.7 is thus also, in spite of having not many aircraft to shoot at, is still just an AAA gun. Is a Kangaroo still a tank or is it an APC? It was designed as a tank. It still has the tracks of a tank, regardless of the use and modifications, it's still a tank right?

 

Use, sometimes not the actual intended purpose is what something is. Based on your strict adherence to dogma, I'd say you'd make a fine state level DMV bureaucrat or perhaps a code enforcement officer.

[C.G.Erickson]

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?

 

Uhhh...3.7 couldn't.

 

Post War 4.5 could...... phased out in 1958.

[scotsman]

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.

 

absolutely agreed! Rather spend the time looking at the historic record...

 

[scotsman]

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.

 

Do you have any of Ian Hoggs works? You'll find a nice writeup on 25pdr development in them or in the RA histories...including the turntable... I'll get home and see if I can quote them verbatum...perhaps direct quotes will get you off this tangent...

 

Honestly, I find its your arguements that are all over the map...but usually returning in some fashion to 'DP' implying a reduction in antiaircraft (or designed for) effectiveness, or the 88mm as the only model from which to garner whether a system qualifies as DP in your definition. You hammer away at it having to take a reduction in AA capability to achieve AT 'effectiveness' as proof positive that its not a DP weapon....when simple use of non-modified guns in numerous contexts indicate otherwise...all the while knowing said arguement never applied to the US 90mm at the battle of the bulge or 3.7" at any point in its career. Truely apples and oranges...from which you try to make grape juice.

 

Seems the only guns that 'work' in that regard for you are weapons like the 5"/38...I have answered specific questions posed by specific posters. Your 8" example is just as left field as the 5.5" instances would have been...so not sure what you are even doing with that comment...but do at least take them in and not out of context.

 

Everyone is entitled to an opinion...I have voiced mine and really dont see much point in beating a dead horse further.

Edited May 6, 2009 by scotsman

[scotsman]

Uhhh...3.7 couldn't.

 

Post War 4.5 could...... phased out in 1958.

 

Mark VI? It did a ceiling of 59,300 feet and had a 45,000 foot fuze limit....basically the 4.5" lined down to 3.7"...about 3,400 FPS MV

 

The Mk I-III had a 41,000 foot ceiling...32,000 foot effective with standard fuze and predictor...

Edited May 6, 2009 by scotsman

[scotsman]

Anyone know how much the tank version of the 3.7 inch, the 32 pounder, weighed compared to the KwK 43 or the 90 mm M3 ?

 

something like the tortoise mount?? Have it at home somewhere but not in front of me...

[Lieste]

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.

 

How many ATGM are Mach 2+ missiles?

The Soviet Tube launched ATGM from the 125mm are*, which places them firmly in the high-end performance ATGM, and pretty decent for a SAM too.

 

300m/s or something similar on muzzle exit and 800m/s on the booster motor. (TOW is one of the faster western ATGM, at 320m/s on booster cutout - Hellfire is similar, but typical light ATGM are ~200m/s on motor burnout).

[scotsman]

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.

 

First I'm not a gunner...I'm an ex-mechanized infantry officer with lots of operational and combat developments experience...so bang goes that little theory.....

 

Second I am a US citizen that works for a major US defense company in the ground combat arena...have done so for 25 years...

 

Third, US context of weapons employment/effectiveness doesn't necessarily equate across the weapons of all our adversaries. Thats a prime example of the sort of technical arrogance that gets us into trouble on occasion as a nation...Who is 'no one'? Is the Russian Army 'no-one'? Apparently so...they are not the US, and don't use equipment in a US context, consequently they must therefore be 'no-one.'

 

Fourth...I was part of the systems design process for a weapon in the US arsenal that engaged threat helos in the very manner which you find so 'fast and loose'...in fact it was a core design capability of the weapon. How in the name of heaven (to name but one example) would a system like ADATS ever fit into your lexicon? It wouldn't - its neither fish nor fowl - therefore apparently offending your sensibility of what the proper role of a system should be. No-one would argue that it could shoot in either AD or AT roles....but as one who knows something about that system (and others) I don't think it's as effective in its secondary role as its primary for a host of reasons. Its 'DP' by design, but would likely fail the effectiveness test in many secondary mission roles vs a designed for the purpose system.

 

Don't shoot the messenger mate....but your tone is getting a little too shrill for my liking. Lets agree to disagree and leave it at that...I have no desire or time for personal bashing and the like.... if you wish to talk about the 3.7" equipment I'm all for it...thats what I have spent a great deal of time deep diving over the past few years...

 

Lastly, I actually agree with you on (backhanded) attempt at a shot here...I have found that some of the WWII RA gunner crowd can be somewhat old schoolish when it comes discussion of weapons history contrary to the accepted norm....even if the historical record in fact indicated that to be the case.

[scotsman]

How many ATGM are Mach 2+ missiles?

The Soviet Tube launched ATGM from the 125mm are*, which places them firmly in the high-end performance ATGM, and pretty decent for a SAM too.

 

300m/s or something similar on muzzle exit and 800m/s on the booster motor. (TOW is one of the faster western ATGM, at 320m/s on booster cutout - Hellfire is similar, but typical light ATGM are ~200m/s on motor burnout).

 

There are also systems like this...

 

 

but there is little doubt in my mind which target set it would be more effective against...

[C.G.Erickson]

absolutely agreed! Rather spend the time looking at the historic record...

 

ROTFLMAO

[R011]

something like the tortoise mount?? Have it at home somewhere but not in front of me...

Yep. I suspect it's a great deal heavier than its equivalents.

[C.G.Erickson]

Mark VI? It did a ceiling of 59,300 feet and had a 45,000 foot fuze limit....basically the 4.5" lined down to 3.7"...about 3,400 FPS MV

 

The Mk I-III had a 41,000 foot ceiling...32,000 foot effective with standard fuze and predictor...

In WW2?

[Lieste]

There are also systems like this...

 

 

but there is little doubt in my mind which target set it would be more effective against...

 

I'll bite...

 

I'm assuming that it is primarily a SHORAD, with a secondary AT effectiveness, but I might be wrong?

 

Certainly there are valid alternatives to it as an ATGM, but there are relatively few Western SHORAD systems, so might prefer to retain its missiles for this capability, even if they were pound for pound more effective against ground targets.

[C.G.Erickson]

Mark VI? It did a ceiling of 59,300 feet and had a 45,000 foot fuze limit....basically the 4.5" lined down to 3.7"...about 3,400 FPS MV

 

The Mk I-III had a 41,000 foot ceiling...32,000 foot effective with standard fuze and predictor...

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.

Edited May 7, 2009 by C.G.Erickson

[mkenny]

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

I would be interested in the location of this action.

[Ken Estes]

First I'm not a gunner...I'm an ex-mechanized infantry officer with lots of operational and combat developments experience...so bang goes that little theory.....

 

Second I am a US citizen that works for a major US defense company in the ground combat arena...have done so for 25 years...

 

Third, ....

 

Fourth....

You can relax, it is of no matter to me who you are. My comment from Macksey was admittedly flippant.

[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?

 

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?

Edited May 7, 2009 by Ken Estes

[Ken Estes]

Do you have any of Ian Hoggs works?....

 

Honestly, I find its your arguements that are all over the map...but usually returning in some fashion to 'DP' implying a reduction in antiaircraft (or designed for) effectiveness, or the 88mm as the only model from which to garner whether a system qualifies as DP in your definition. You hammer away at it having to take a reduction in AA capability to achieve AT 'effectiveness' as proof positive that its not a DP weapon....when simple use of non-modified guns in numerous contexts indicate otherwise...all the while knowing said arguement never applied to the US 90mm at the battle of the bulge or 3.7" at any point in its career. Truely apples and oranges...from which you try to make grape juice.

 

Seems the only guns that 'work' in that regard for you are weapons like the 5"/38...I have answered specific questions posed by specific posters. Your 8" example is just as left field as the 5.5" instances would have been...so not sure what you are even doing with that comment...but do at least take them in and not out of context.

....

 

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]

**

The main difficulty with converting AA guns to surface roles might lie more with controls vice sights. Typically, AA guns use separate pointers and gunners, one controlling elevation, the other traverse, and in the case of the medium and larger AA guns, the need for director controlled barrage fire causes all kinds of additional instruments and sighting devices to get in the way, at least. Rommel's famous instructions to his Luftwaffe AA commander at Tripoli to convert a large portion of his 88s to antitank roles ruined them as AA weapons, over the latter's objections. Contrary to popular notions, it was not a dual-purpose weapon, and the elevation controls were slaved to the front seat gunner, who also had traverse and direct fire sights for the direct fire role.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Ken Estes

[Ken Estes]

There are also systems like this...

 

[ADATS pic]

 

but there is little doubt in my mind which target set it would be more effective against...

 

No doubt, an effective dual purpose AD [not vs helos only] and AT missile system [no problem with separate gunner/pointer there], successfully developed and adopted for field use by the Canadian army and...and ...

 

Of course, it remains infinitely easier, albeit expensive, to make an effective DP missile than a gun. This is why they are so popular with armies of the world.

 

Since you preached against introducing apples and oranges into the thread, which one is this?

[Ken Estes]

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.

....

 

Never wrote any such thing.

 

So, Ken, I guess in your world then that dual purpose is based on design and not as use.

....

Use, sometimes not the actual intended purpose is what something is. Based on your strict adherence to dogma, I'd say you'd make a fine state level DMV bureaucrat or perhaps a code enforcement officer.

But at least here you admit to guessing. What 'dogma' would I be embracing? Still can't get off the FFZ bad manners tho. I'd never speculate on what you would make.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Ken Estes

[rmgill]

Never wrote any such thing.

 

What in the blazes is this then? Looks like an argument that AA guns have to fire thousands of rounds to hit aerial targets and if that's the case then they can't possibly shoot at a ground target like a tank. You're not comparing apples and oranges, you're comparing apples and nuts (not the vegetable type either).

 

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.

 

 

But at least here you admit to guessing. What 'dogma' would I be embracing? Still can't get off the FFZ bad manners tho. I'd never speculate on what you would make.

Ken, why is it that in every bloody discussion you get into, it devolves into you getting foul and ill tempered. You really can't stop yourself from descending into snide comments and thinly veiled ridicule. Just stop it ok?

 

Case in point:

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?

 

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.

 

Scotsman has shown up and brought more knowledge to the table and all you can do is argue about the meaning of the word "is" and how it's irrelevant and noncontextual to the nth degree. And then when you get to a point where it's a matter of qualifying experience you simply choose to belittle said experience. It's frankly just unbecoming.

 

And for the record, I'm the sort of person that can see something that needs doing, looks for tools and if something isn't available, modifies what is and uses that. I don't sit down in a huff and complain that I don't have the tools. That's why functional use/capability is often MORE important to me than what some deskbound pentagon functionary decides is the proper or improper role for something.

Edited May 7, 2009 by rmgill

[Ken Estes]

What in the blazes is this then? Looks like an argument that AA guns have to fire thousands of rounds to hit aerial targets and if that's the case then they can't possibly shoot at a ground target like a tank. You're not comparing apples and oranges, you're comparing apples and nuts (not the vegetable type either).

 

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.

Ken, why is it that in every bloody discussion you get into, it devolves into you getting foul and ill tempered. You really can't stop yourself from descending into snide comments and thinly veiled ridicule. Just stop it ok?

 

Case in point:

Scotsman has shown up and brought more knowledge to the table and all you can do is argue about the meaning of the word "is" and how it's irrelevant and noncontextual to the nth degree. And then when you get to a point where it's a matter of qualifying experience you simply choose to belittle said experience. It's frankly just unbecoming.

 

And for the record, I'm the sort of person that can see something that needs doing, looks for tools and if something isn't available, modifies what is and uses that. I don't sit down in a huff and complain that I don't have the tools. That's why functional use/capability is often MORE important to me than what some deskbound pentagon functionary decides is the proper or improper role for something.

 

My, my; so touchy. 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. Howzzat?

 

Feel free to admire Scotsman for saying that once upon a time a 3.7in nailed a tank, or so he sez. He keeps saying he'll go home and pull something up. I'll let you wait for it. While you are asking 'just stop it' what's with the "deskbound pentagon functionary decides is the proper or improper role for something." where'd that come from?

 

The rest of it is your problem, and I am not your rabbi or shrink.

[Shortround6]

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.

The American 90mm AA gun may prove interesting. Didn't the early versions have an elevation arc that stopped at 0 degrees? The later M2 mount allowed 10 degrees of depression. This may violate my above sentence but the M1A1 mount wouldn't have made a very good AT gun. Too slow into action. requires being DEAD level or tipped downwards if the gun position is higher than any of the ground it covers. The M2 mount was quicker to set-up and with the depression it was as good or better than many true AT guns so it could be sited on hills,ridges and cover the vallys.

Now, was the 90mm AA gun dual purpose or not? Later ones were, early ones maybe not. And the change might not be something that can be done in a unit work shop with a welder.

 

Any gun, cannon, howitzer, mortar, etc. can be fired barrage fashion (and most were at one time or another) in the general direction of the enemy. does this mean they are dual purpose? M-10 tank destroyers were run onto ranps to give them extra range for bombardment work, does this make them dual purpose tank destroyer/self-propelled artillery or would a true dual purpose vehicle have had the extra elevation built in?

Or in reverse, an M-12 (sel-propelled 155mm) is once supposed to have come around a corner and with mutual surprise, gotten the first shot a German tank which hit and killed. does thie make the M-12 a tank destroyer in a dual purpose role?

 

According to some accounts the reason the German MG34 and MG42 hd such high cycle rates was that they were dual (or more) purpose weapons. The high cycle rate wasn't really that useful for ground targets but was thought to be an advantage in the AA role. Even the Bren gun was provided with an AA mount, AA sights, a 100 round drum and a setting on the gas regulater for AA shooting to boost the cycle rate. Just lying on ones back and firing a regular Bren gun into the sky doesn't really make it a dual purpose weapon.

 

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?

[rmgill]

My, my; so touchy. 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. Howzzat?

 

So, your contention is that, an AA Gun with 2 trainer elevator positions, is ineffective at shooting at ground targets? If this were the case, then one would expect that the few engagements between tanks and 3.7" HAA guns would have resulted in the gun crews dead and the tanks continuing with their attack no? Is this what you posit? This would presumably also go for smaller caliber guns shooting at surface targets like 40mm Bofors?

 

Again, you make the contention that anti-air shoots and ground shoots are the same thing. They are not. How much adjustment to a weapon do you need to make to adjust fall of shot on a ground target at 1000 yards to your front? How much do you need to do to adjust for an aircraft crossing diagonally or horizontally? Tanks don't move at the same speeds as aircraft do. The OODA loop for Anti-air work is so much more complex because of the larger values involved in the adjustments which have to be predicted based on the required lead on the target and the flight time of the rounds to get to the target. That's why you don't use your tank sights to shoot down A10s.

 

Tanks as a target and aircraft as a target aren't the same thing. Don't compare the fire control solutions as having the same difficulties. When tanks are moving at 100s of knots across a front then you'll have a point. In WWII they didn't do that and they don't do that today unless they're in a C-17 or C-5. We're talking WWII tanks here with WWII optics and WWII machining precision. Weapon for weapon, the 3.7" Is going to be a better anti-tank gun at 1000 yards than a tiger is going to be a killer of the 3.7" gun's crew at 1000 yards.

 

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

 

As Scotsman said, 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.

 

But it all must be a dream since you contend that they couldn't possibly hit the tanks at all. And presumably you couldn't use the weapons to shoot at surface targets which the guns also practiced for.

 

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?

 

 

Feel free to admire Scotsman for saying that once upon a time a 3.7in nailed a tank, or so he sez. He keeps saying he'll go home and pull somethin

g up.

 

And he did post a picture of the AP rounds AND the detail shot of the 3.7 in at the RA Museum showing the gun sites that others said weren't on the guns at all.

 

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.