3.7" aa

[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.

[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.