3in 20cwt AA and 3.7in AA not found?

[pdoktar]

Do a little more research and present your results to the developers here. Maybe they´ll include 3in AA and 3.7in AA in the next episodes of WinSPWW2 to come. Or just use mobhack yourself and make units you see fit for GB.

[Mobhack]

The only time 3.7 inch was used for direct support was in the breakout from Tobruk. They were also used in d/f mode by the Germans against a particular landing (canadian?) in the Sheldt estuary (germany liked the gun and used any captured ones, and had an ammo manufacturing line for them). Some may have fired in d/f mode in the rear areas in France 40 as well.

Ahah - the germans used them to defend Walcheren Island Walcheren

The 3.7 inch gun had precisely no sights fitted. Non, nada, zilch. I have seen a picture of one used in detached mode at Tobruk harbour - where the Australian(?) gunners had brazed a rough and ready AAA wheel ring sight to the bore.

The 3.7 inch AA gun only had pointer dials to follow from the central director for barrage fires. Direct (e.g AT) fire was done firing pairs of guns following the director sights in the rare circumstance of some of these things firing direct. The gun was sen as a theatre AA asset - for use in rear areas to protect areas against high altitude bombing.

It was very heavy, as it employed powered elevation etc, and needed to be emplaced on a solid platform, in cases where it was to stay about for a while - it was preferred to lay a concrete base for this. it was also rather big, and hence not easy to hide if used tactically. (In fact - the majority were the semi-mobile mk 2, as these were strategic assets - and this required a concrete base to be bolted down to).

The 2 guns used to support the breakout from Tobruk were moved into place to overwatch the are of operations during the preceeding night, to use darkness to hide the emplacing. They seem to have been used for direct fire HE support, not as ATG.

In the far East, once the Japanese air threat had virtually disappeared, the 3.7 inch AA guns were used as additional artillery. Limitations (not modelled in SP) were the extremely flat trajectory which meant they really could only engage targets in LOS (e.g. hilltops say). If needed, then just add a 25 pdr battery, and call it a "3.7 AA battery" (rename it in the sceanrio editor) or just assume some of the 25pdr in the XIV army locker were actually 3.7 firing as arty. Effects will be similar for game purposes.

As to why we dont bother with high level bomber AA guns firing in barrage mode:
- use of level bombers is extremely rare. (the level bomber class was really only introduced for "flying artillery" scenario use e.g in the Normandy attacks).
- The use of level bombers over the front lines will be well out of range of any medium and higher calibre guns, which woud be way back covering divisional and higher operational or strategic targets (railheads and so on).
- There is no way to code for director-only barrage fire. It could be done, but it is not worth the time and effort, as any such guns would be dead weight unless the opposition brought level bombers to the party, and even if they did - the bombers will be there and gone in a move or 2. As I stated above - the level bombers are there for scenario designers to use in specific tactical-use scenarios where loads of bombers prepared the battlefield. In all these cases, having special heavy AA (which would not be there, or the bombers would not be used so) and the code would be worthless additions so that maybe 1 of 60 odds bombers just might be hit.

Paratroop transports can be engaged by e.g 37mm guns (regular AAA) as they are not flying at super-high bomber altitudes. And any folks left dangling under silk hankerchiefs will be gleefully shot at by all available riflemen etc as they drop..


Cheers
Andy

[Cross]

Thanks for this additional info. Andy. I found it quite tough to dig up solid references to these guns. But I now have a better understanding of where they fit in history and in SP.

Cheers,
Cross

[montieth]

MOBhack, I know this is an OLD thread, but I feel I must address a number of misunderstandings you have about the 3.7 inch Vickers HAA gun.

Direct fire sights WERE fitted a as a standard component on SOME mounts. There are photos of 3.7 HAA gun crews firing the guns at practice targets at Malta. The Fittings are clearly purpose built. You'll note that the 88 has the Traverse and Elevation crewman facing the gun mount to the side of the gun mount (facing the trunnion side from the left). Under director control they did this and under direct fire control they did this, that's where the controls were. Adjustments MUST be commanded by the Gun Captain. The 3.7 has the T and E crewman sitting in seats facing the Directer dials with their backs to the target. BUT, when under direct fire control they move around to the other side of the director dial and can still reach their T and E controls (not wheels, but two handles fitted like a sort of bicycle pedal arrangement (look at a 40mm Bofors).

Direct fire shoots were RARE early on in the war. The Tobruk example is one. In one case a Tiger unit was able to penetrate british lines back to the area of where a 3.7 HAA unit was still setup, they did NOT survive the encounter. The 3.7 Vickers gun outranged the Tigers and the battery was able to dispatch them completely.

Later on, prepatory to D-Day, various units conducted direct fire shoots AND the mounts along the coast of England also had Direct fire sites fitted for both AA defense AND for surface defense.

The final MK VI mounting WAS too big for mobile use however mobile mounts were used in mobile form earlier on. There were multiple types of mounts for mobile and fixed use with inland fixed mounts not having the direct fire sights (or left in units stores).

The next interesting thing that's missing is that the 3.7 guns that DID go to Normandy were in fact MORE used for indirect fire roles than direct or AAA roles. Why? They could fire under director control, had a VERY good time fuze system that could be set preceisely and FAST allowing airbursts with a more substantial rate of fire than other artillery could effect (fixed ammunition, automatic fuze setting on the gun mount, a higher rate of fire as designed and in some mounts, a power rammer).

The reason we don't hear about very many 3.7 HAA engagements against german ground forces is because the size of the 3.7 mandated that it was treated as a weapon for the AGRAs and NOT to be pushed down to the lower front line battalions. The range that they had also meant (They're guns of course) that to engage indirect targets, they're NOT going to be near the front line. Since they were to the rear, they didn't see themselves confronted by local german heavy counter attacks AND the germans never had any breakthroughs into British rears in teh later part of the war, more or less being on the defensive most of the time. We don't see them in North Africa much, because in the early part of the war, North Africa was the red headed stepchild to British forces deployments, defense of the home front had priority.

A friend of mine in Texas who works for Lockheed Martin managed to get a good bit of data and history on these guns and researched all of these points. IF you'd like to see the more precise details I can dig them up on my harddrive.

[chuckfourth]

Hi Monteith
One thing you might check with your friend, Tigers didnt appear in North Africa until the Turnisian Pocket formed so wernt avilbale for assaults on Tobruck.
Best Regards Chuck.