[John McGillivray]

If one was to make a comparison of the British A/T guns vs. the German guns based only on calibre, ( i.e. 2 pdr vs. the 37mm, 6 pdr vs. the 50mm, 17pdr vs. the 75mm) then the British guns are much heavier than the German equivalents. However, if the comparison is based on performance, and the ability to punch holes in armour (i.e. 2 pdr vs. the 50mm, 6 pdr vs. the 75mm and the 17 pdr vs. the 88mm) then it is the British guns which are smaller and lighter then the German equivalents.

Indeed so and when looking at the ballistics tables the 3.7" somewhat out-classed it

The comparison of the 3.7” (94mm) AA gun to the 88mm Flak 36 in terms of performance is as followers:

Weight of HE rd.: 12.9kg (3.7”) vs. 9kg (88mm)
Maximum range – horizontal: 18,800m vs. 14,815m
Maximum range – vertical: 12,000m vs. 9,900m
Effective ceiling: 9,760m vs. 8,000m

I wish I could find again the library book read years ago that carried two plates showing the staff orders that made it a court marshal offence to engage ground targets with 3.7s and required gun crews to record the date, time and serial number of each round and the target engaged.

This must be from very early in the war. From the history of the 2nd Cdn HAA Regt. the 3.7” guns were first used in a ground role starting in North Africa. By mid 1944 until the end of the war the 3.7” guns in NWE and in Italy were used almost exclusively against ground targets. In a ground role, I mean as field artillery. The 3.7’ guns were most often used in a counter battery role, shooting air bursts over German artillery, flak and mortar positions; with their fire being directed by FOOs, air OPs, and by Ground radar. From the period 7 Aug. to 31 Dec. 1944 2HAA fired a total of 56,959 rds. Only 406 rds were fired in an AA role.

In mid 1943 the guns of 2HAA were fitted with “Middle-East” sights which allowed the 3.7” guns to engage ground targets by direct fire. The gun crews did practice anti-tank drills, including live fire, before their deployment to Normandy. Because the 3.7” AA guns were deployed well in the rear, along with the field and medium artillery, they were seldom (if ever) called upon to engage tanks.

If I understand it right, the later 3.7" with Probertised barrels and chambered for the 4" naval case were hugely more potent.

The British had two Heavy AA guns, the 3.7” and the 4.5”. The 3.7” Mk 6 was a cross between these two guns. It was the 4.5” gun re-lined down to 3.7”. It fired the 3.7” shell using the 4.5” cartridge. It had an effective ceiling of 40,000 feet.

Of course Hans von Lucks also had to take his pistol to an intransigent Luftwaffe lieutenant who flatly refused to re-train his AA guns on the advancing tanks of operation Goodwood, he was asked if he'd like the Iron Cross now or later. Von Lucks relates this on the longish and detailed analysis made of Goodwood by the army probably in the early 60's or before; it is still used for training I understand. It is presented and narrated by the actual commanders on both sides. It is not on public release (of course) but I do have a (poor, but highly watchable) tape copy.

This story is told in Hans von Luck’s book “Panzer Commander”. The use of the 88mm flak in the anti-tank role is over stated. Most 88mm flak guns were crewed by the Luftwaffe. They saw their primary role as air defence, with that of field artillery as their secondary role. Anti-tank warfare was a very distance third. The 88mm flak guns were usually deployed too far to the rear to be able to engage tanks. Allied tanks would have to make a very deep penetration through the German lines, as happened during ‘Goodwood’, before they would encounter 88mm flak guns. Most Luftwaffe gun crews, when confronted by Allied armour, would quickly take their guns out of action and move them further to the rear. They would only engage Armour as an act of desperation. The guns themselves were too large, with a very high profile, to be easily hidden. They were not very useful in the ambush role.

This is bore out by the facts in the field. The 88mm guns of all types (flak, Pak, Tigers and SPGs) only accounted for 18% of the British and Canadian tanks KOed by gun fire in Normandy. The percentage of American tanks KOed by 88's in Normandy, is most likely even lower than this. The German 75mm guns were the real tank killers. Most reports of 88’s and Tiger Tanks were simply cases of mis-identification. To many Allied soldiers, every German gun was an 88, and every German tank was a Tiger. An example of this is found on the Juno Beach web site.

http://www.junobeach.org/e/4/can-tac-art-ger-e.htm

On this page there is an image of an “88”. Of course the gun showed in the photo is not an 88, but is a 75mm Pak 40.

In North Africa the 88’s were able to be used more effectivelly in the anti-tank role, because the British tanks which were equipped with the 2 and 6 pdr guns, lacked a good HE round. They had to close to within MG range to engage the German 88’s. This all changed with the introduction of the American 75mm gun on the Grants and Shermans. These tanks could stand off out of the 88’s effective anti-tank range and lobe HE rds into the German gun positions.