3.7" aa

[David Dunlop]

A few questions.

Does anyone know if any of these guns are still alive and well in Canada in museums or private collections?

Were any ever manufactured in Canada during the war?

At least one 3.7" SP on a Ram chassis was built in Canada during the war and tested in England. Would anyone know where in England this testing would have taken place and the possible fate of that particular vehicle?

[Tony Smith]

See This thread for more info and pics on the 3.7" AA.

[David Dunlop]

Interesting thread, Thanks.

After reading it and some other items on the internet, it seems the 3.7" worked it's way into an effective anti-tank roll as WW2 progressed and the allies gained air superiority. Several articles indicated quite significant quantities of AP and SAP 3.7" ammunition were produced and the one photo from Valcartier looks very much like the loader is holding a sabot AP round. The 3.7" was undoubtedly a brute to move around, particularly the later marks built on the sleeved down naval 4.5" gun. The tapered rifle grooves and addition of the shoulder guide band on the shell apparently gave the later mark 3.7 incredible accuracy as a ground support and anti tank gun and at an effective range far better than the 6, 17 and 25 pounders were capable of achieving. Must have been a real eye opener for the first German tank crews to encounter one!

[REL]

Originally Posted by David Dunlop

Interesting thread, Thanks.

After reading it and some other items on the internet, it seems the 3.7" worked it's way into an effective anti-tank roll as WW2 progressed and the allies gained air superiority. Several articles indicated quite significant quantities of AP and SAP 3.7" ammunition were produced and the one photo from Valcartier looks very much like the loader is holding a sabot AP round. The 3.7" was undoubtedly a brute to move around, particularly the later marks built on the sleeved down naval 4.5" gun. The tapered rifle grooves and addition of the shoulder guide band on the shell apparently gave the later mark 3.7 incredible accuracy as a ground support and anti tank gun and at an effective range far better than the 6, 17 and 25 pounders were capable of achieving. Must have been a real eye opener for the first German tank crews to encounter one!

There's very little evidence of them being used in the anti-tank role, though from the photos in the other thread, they were used as field artillery more often by 1944/45. Presumably because the 17pdr. was available by then for anti-tank work, and perhaps because the change from AA fire to indirect fire probably did not require the gun to be brought into the forward combat area to extent that AT work would have. Still from what I've read of the campaigns in 1944-45 there was no surplus of AT guns on the Allied side, and 3.7s would have done a nice job against the Tigers at very long ranges.

Just another lost opportunity due to hide-bound thinking and negligence.

They do seem to have been remarkably accurate, like the German Flak 36.

More info here: http://www.mapleleafup.org/forums/sh...t=12815&page=2

[David Dunlop]

My father-in-law had trained at Shilo MB for Pacific Force, but when the war ended, instead of being De-mobbed, they upped his points requirement and sent him to RCAF Station MacDonald, which by then had been turned into a War Assets Storage and Disposal site. Train loads of equipment arrived every week and they used FWD Tractors to haul items from the nearby rail siding to the base. He commented it all seemed to arrive in organized batches and for a while it was nothing but light and heavy artillery. Boxed Polsten, Orlikon and Bofors guns had to be stored in the hangers, but the trailer ready units were all lined up outside. There were quite a lot of 40mm Bofors, 17 and 25 pounders and dozens of 3.7" AA pieces. Quite a bit of the smaller stuff was later returned to longterm military storage somewhere else in Canada, but every one of the 3.7" guns were sold to a Selkirk, Manitoba Steel Mill for scrap and they always went with a military escort to the mill to ensure they were properly disposed of on site. Though he did admit that by the end, the escort typically went off for lunch etc. in Selkirk and left the mill to their own tasks. A lot of Mk ! Carriers ended up there days at the mill as well.

[Doug Knight]

David

I am not sure if any are in Museums in Canada - there is none at the Canadian War Museum, but there may be one in Shilo, Manitoba.

We produced the 3.7-inch gun in Canada and by the end of the war, 1,740 C Mk 2 and 1,739 C Mk 3 mountings, and 5,129 loose barrels had been delivered, as well as about 6 million rds of ammo.

The 3.7 on the Ram was tested in January 1943 at Lydstep in the U.K, and the results were completely unsatisfactory. The test officer was Captain, later Lt-Col Willis Roberts, who is still alive in Fredericton NB. The gun and the tank were disassembled and returned to their normal function.

The story of the 3.7-inch AA gun in Canadian Service is the subject of an upcoming publication in the Service Publications Weapons of War series - probably early next year.
Hope I have wheeted your interest.

Regards

Doug

[Roger Lucy]

Pending the publication of Doug's book on the 3.7 inch gun pp 60-72 of my "Secret Weapons of the Canadian Army" (Service Publications, 2006) provides an account of the Ram 3.7 inch AA project. While the SP was deemed unsuitable in an anti-aircraft role, and too vulnerable, due to its high silhouette and lack of protection, for use in a ground role, CMHQ did give some mental consideration to mounting a 17-pounder or 3.7-inch AA gun mounted on the Ram Sexton chassis.
In Ottawa, in April/May, 1943, the Director of Artillery did a paper study of an assault gun using a 3.7 inch gun mounted in a Grizzly chassis, however the British were no it interested. The paper studies argued that compared to the 17-pounder, the 3.7 inch gun would have marginally (5mm) superior armour penetration out to 1,000 yards, and significantly better beyond that range. It could also fire heavier HE rounds.
I have just come across a memo written by Tommy Burns on 3 May,1943 reviewing the experiences of tank warfare in North Africa. He noted that German Mk.IV (specials) and Mk.VI tanks could successfully engage allied tanks out to 2000yards,and while the M3 75mm on the Sherman could deal with German 75and 88mm guns and SPs at those ranges, their tanks were invulnerable. There were three possible tanks under development that could take them on: the A30 Challenger with a 17-pounder, the US T20 with a 76mm gun and the British TOG2 with a 3.7-inch gun. Burns considered the HE round on the 17-pounder inadequate, while the TOG2 was too big and ponderous. Burns suggested that consideration be given to mounting the 3.7 inch gun in the Challenger or interesting the British in a heavy 3.7 inch SP.

[REL]

Where did the Archer 17Pdr. SPG fit into this chain of events?

[ARTY-BOY]

Anti-tank capability
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, or the American M2/M3 90mm, which also was capable in the anti-tank role from 1942 and onward.
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.
The gun was used as the basis for the Tortoise assault tank's 32-pounder anti-tank gun, but this tank, which is best described as a self-propelled gun, never saw service.

[REL]

It boils down to nobody bothering to take the matter in hand and address it. A sluggish attitude that might be expected in peacetime, but in war is inexcusable.

But then the scandal of allied anti-tank guns pales beside the scandal of allied tank design. http://www.amazon.com/Great-Scandal-.../dp/0112904602

One might wonder why the 3.7 inch gun had to be almost twice as heavy as the Flak 36?

[John McGillivray]

Originally Posted by REL

But then the scandal of allied anti-tank guns pales beside the scandal of allied tank design. http://www.amazon.com/Great-Scandal-.../dp/0112904602

For the British there was no anti-tank scandal. Their 6 and 17 pdr A/T guns were capable of destroying German tanks including the Tiger and Panther. The British had little need to employ the 3.7in HAA Gun in the A/T role. The British did use the 3.7 as Field Artillery, especially in the counter battery role. (Ref; the regimental history of 2HAA Regt RCA).

Originally Posted by REL

One might wonder why the 3.7 inch gun had to be almost twice as heavy as the Flak 36?

The 3.7in AA gun was heavier than the 88mm Flack 36 because it was a larger, more powerful gun than the 88. It fired a larger, heaver shell, at a higher muzzle velocity. Its maximum vertical and horizontal ranges, and effective ceiling were all much greater than the Flak 36.

[David Dunlop]

Hello Doug.

Not sure if Shilo has a 3.7 or not. I do know a set of towing axles for one showed up at a local surplus dealer's yard about 40 years ago and I was told they came from the Shilo Museum when a Base 'Higher-Up' of the time ordered a cleanup of "junk" sitting about in several buildings on the base. The dealer acquired the axels, a 17-pounder with cut up barrel, a 6-pounder with cut up barrel and a German quad 20-mm Trailer AA-gun that was complete. Three of the guns were totally missing but the fourth receiver assy was still alive and well, missing just the barrel.

The axles were eventually sold, so my guess is if Shilo still has the 3.7, it hasn't moved very far over the years.

[sapper740]

Originally Posted by David Dunlop

A few questions.

Does anyone know if any of these guns are still alive and well in Canada in museums or private collections?

Were any ever manufactured in Canada during the war?

At least one 3.7" SP on a Ram chassis was built in Canada during the war and tested in England. Would anyone know where in England this testing would have taken place and the possible fate of that particular vehicle?

There's one in Canadian Forces Base Borden, right before the McDonalds. My humble apologies if this has been previously mentioned, I didn't have time to read all the archived posts.

[rnixartillery]

Hi Guys,

Just took delivery of my latest addition to the collection,A Genelco Canada made 3.7.
Requires a complete restoration but have no time at the moment so it will take its turn,This is one of the ex-portugees guns that came back to the UK in the late 1980's.
Pics attached.


Rob.......................rnixartillery.

[John McGillivray]

With respect to performance, the British 3.7in gun appears to be closer to the German 105mm Flak 38 gun than the 88mm Flak 36

3.7in Mk.II L / 50
Weight – travel- 9401kg (20725lbs)
Weight – firing- 9326kg (20541lbs)
Weight of HE shell – 12.96kg (28.56 lbs)
Muzzle Velocity- 793m/s (2600ft/s)
Maximum range (horizontal) - 18800m (20660yards)
Maximum range (vertical) - 12000m (39370ft)
Effective ceiling – 9760m (32000ft)
Penetration Data: AP Mk II
Weight 12.6 kg – MV 793m/s (range – penetration RHA/FHA @30deg)
100m – 131/116mm, 500m – 124/110mm, 1000m – 116/103mm, 1500m – 108/96mm, 2000m – 100/89mm.


105mm Flak 38
Weight – travel- 12700kg (28000lbs)
Weight – firing- 10224kg (22533lbs)
Weight of HE shell – 14.8kg (32.6lbs)
Muzzle Velocity- 881m/s (2890ft/s)
Maximum range (horizontal) -17380m (191000yards)
Maximum range (vertical) - 11400m (37401ft)
Effective ceiling – 9450m (31000ft)
No penetration data

88mm Flak 36
Weight – travel- ?kg (?lbs)
Weight – firing- 4983kg (10983lbs)
Weight of HE shell – 9.4kg ( 20.7lbs)
Muzzle Velocity- 820m/s (2690ft/s)
Maximum range (horizontal) - 14815m (16270yards)
Maximum range (vertical) - 9900m (32480ft)
Effective ceiling – 8000m (26246ft)
Penetration Data: PzGr. ( Armour Piercing Capped Ballistic Cap)
Weight 9.65kg – MV 810m/s (range – penetration RHA @30deg)
100m – 97mm, 500m – 93mm, 1000m – 87mm, 1500m – 80mm, 2000m – 72mm.

[chrisgrove]

Post war in UK, the 3.7 inch ordnance was used for the 32 pounder towed AT gun (and for the Tortoise). AT defence was by then an infantry task and any infantryman seeing the 32 pounder would immediately recognise that the thing was just too big to be concealed in an infantry position. Thus the successor to the 17 pounder was the recoilless 120mm BAT (and its descendents MOBAT, CONBAT and WOMBAT).

The Firepower museum in Woolwich UK has a 32 pounder, though I cannot recollect seeing it since they moved from the Rotunda.

Chris

[rnixartillery]

The 32 pdr gun was on the disposal list when Rotunda closed so 'who knows' were it has ended up !

Rob.....................rnixartillery.

[Clive Prothero-Brooks]

this is an old thread but jut to let you know at the RCA museum we have 2 3.7in one outside the museum without axiles and the other inside or mait shop complete with axiles,predicator and rangefinder

Clive.............the other one

[John McGillivray]

There is a good view of 3.7in AA guns in action in this video starting at the 2:13 mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5L5Hn3Gff0

[maple_leaf_eh]

There is a 90mm AA gun in Bury, Quebec.

[Tony Williams]

Originally Posted by chrisgrove

Post war in UK, the 3.7 inch ordnance was used for the 32 pounder towed AT gun (and for the Tortoise).

Not quite. The ammo for the 3.7" AA and 32 pdr was different, so needed a different barrel to fit.

And of course there were two very different types of 3.7" AA - the Mk 6 was much bigger than the Mks 1-3 guns and used larger cartridge cases for a much higher velocity.

So there were three cartridges used in the same calibre, none of them interchangeable:

3.7" AA Mks 1-3: 94 x 675R with 135mm rim diameter (12.7 kg shell fired at 790 m/s)

3.7" AA Mk 6: 94 x 857R, rim 150mm (12.7 kg shell fired at 1,040 m/s)

32 pdr AT: 94 x 909R, rim 141mm (14.5 kg shot fired at 878 m/s).

See: http://quarryhs.co.uk/ammotable10.html

[John McGillivray]

3.7 inch AP shot.

[John McGillivray]

Diagram of 3.7 inch HE and shrapnel shells.

[John McGillivray]

Here is an interesting photo I found posted on Facebook. It shows a 3.7 in AA gun in action against Japanese positions on Tarakan Island near Borneo. . Note that the 3.7 in when used for direct fire has a much lower profile than the German 88 flak gun. .
https://www.facebook.com/BATRACInter...&theater&ifg=1

[rob love]

Originally Posted by David Dunlop

Hello Doug.

I do know a set of towing axles for one showed up at a local surplus dealer's yard about 40 years ago and I was told they came from the Shilo Museum when a Base 'Higher-Up' of the time ordered a cleanup of "junk" sitting about in several buildings on the base. The dealer acquired the axels, ................The axles were eventually sold, so my guess is if Shilo still has the 3.7, it hasn't moved very far over the years.

Those axles are still out at the local scrap yard. In the museum, there is one gun that is set up outside the museum. It does not presently have the axles underneath it. The other 3.7 is inside the storage building in which I work. The one set of axles the museum still has is presently underneath that gun.



We did take the 3.7 over to the Brandon Commonwealth Air Training Museum a couple summers ago along with a couple other artifacts. The 3.7 is quite heavy, and I had to use the old M135 deuce to load it onto the DND trailer. Coming home at the end of the summer, it was quite a chore getting it onto the trailer again as I did not have the Deuce in that location. I had to load some equipment onto my own trailer, and when I finally got back to the base, I was surprised to see the 3.7 sitting off the lowboy and back on the roadway. It turns out, the drivers had removed the chains, but not blocked the wheels, and when they weren't looking, the 3.7 simply rolled off the trailer on it's own accord.

[Mike Cecil]

I think you will find that is a very nice shot of the 3.7 inch HAA operating on the Margy feature on Tarakan.

There are a number of images of it on the Aust War Memorial (AWM) website. In the Collections search window, put in '3.7' followed by 'Joyce' and nine images will come up for viewing. The gun was situated on the Margy feature, and shooting at the Japanese entrenched on the Joyce feature.

For more general views of 3.7 inch guns, leave 'Joyce' off the search. Result will include many shots of manufacturing the 3.7 inch at Ordnance Factory Maribyrnong (OFM).

Mike

[Tony Smith]

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

I think you will find that is a very nice shot of the 3.7 inch HAA operating on the Margy feature on Tarakan.

There are a number of images of it on the Aust War Memorial (AWM) website. The gun was situated on the Margy feature, and shooting at the Japanese entrenched on the Joyce feature.

Mike

Warning: Threadjacker2000(tm) activated.

Mike, in one of those images, AWM108901, there is a trailer in the lower right. Is this a "Aust, No2" Jeep Trailer with canopy fitted, or is it a larger sized trailer? There not many pics that show the details of the canopy arrangement on these trailers.

[Mike Cecil]

Hi Tony,

Not sure, Tony. The bodywork and axle look like No.1 or 2 trailer (No.1 trailers were all converted to No.2 standard) but the canopy frame and canopy are much more extensive than the original No.2 canopy, which was made up of half circle hoops with a simple canvas cover, like a covered wagon. The canopy was designed to cover a single stretcher case, so was not very high. The trailer was designed with apertures in each end for the stretcher handles to protrude through.

I'm reasonably sure there are No.2 trailer (with and without canopy installed) images in this file:

https://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/Sear...=649070&isAv=N

Hopefully, someone will feel the need to have the file copied (which will automatically make it available on the website).

Mike

[Mike K]

A VMVC member restored a rare Aust. No.2 trailer and the club members were somewhat bemused by its basic primitive appearance with comments like "did you make that thing yourself " . Yes the trailer cover consisted of curved hoops rather similar to the covered wagons of the western movies.

[Mike Cecil]

In fact, Mike, restored by two VMVC members, in my carport. AB was on his way to my home for a visit when he saw the derelict trailer on a hard rubbish collection heap barely 200 metres from where I lived. Wasn't that a quick recovery trip - 400 metres round trip!

Long time ago now.

Mike