Com-Central.net

Here ya go...



Acquired the shot from another collector for a small fortune...the shell casing was buried alongside the mersey river for 60+ years before it was recovered and restored to the state you see here...

- bsmart

No I've read it was specifically not fitted with ground sites when issued to units so that it could not be diverted from it's primary role as an AA gun.

Especially in the desert the role of protecting the base area around the Suez Canal was considered too critical to allow it to be diverted. Between use there and in UK based AA units production could barely keep up with demand

I assume the 17pdr was considered adequate. I also read recently that the 32pdr At gun that was being developed at the end of the war was based on the 3.7" but the towed version of that gun was a monster to move around. I think in the 32 pdr form it was used in the Tortoise (The British vehicle similar to the T28)

Not correct - the gun was fitted with direct fire sights....these were called 'tobruk sights' in the desert and started off as modifications to the guns by the gunners themselves...but these same sights were later sanctioned by larkhill and fitted elsewhere to 3.7". There are a couple of 3.7" in museums that still show the mounting for this this modification.

I have the personal notes as well of a 3.7" gunner that used his weapon to engage a Tiger with AP in Holland. The tank was becoming a spot of bother so 4 3.7" were moved into position and a truck showed up with AP.

The only orders the gunners got were to 'get on with t' - and as these mounts also had the molins fuze setter and autoloader...that tank was smothered with 16 rds/minute per gun. Needless to say...it didn't survive the engagement.

He didn't remember how many rounds his own gun fired...only that within a few seconds the target ceased to exist...until that time he personally had not fired it anti-armor - although he did recall several other units in normandy were used to backstop British infantry and engaged and stopped German tanks when so employed...

If I remember corretly - there is also a Tiger after action report around from one of the units so-engaged that listed the British 9.4 CM AA gun as the #3 threat vs the Tiger...obviously someone was using it in this fashion...

One thing is for sure...I wouldnt want to come across one...the link below shows the 6pdr molins with its autoloader gear...as fitted to the Mosquito...it gives you an idea...

molins autoloader

In its final field varaint there is only 1 person on the actual mount when its firing - everyone else is queued up dumping ammunition into the autoloader...as each round it dumped into the feedtray the single man on mount hits the 'pigs ear', a switch on the side of the gun that loads, fired, and ejects the round...this is when the mount it in director mode firing against aircraft. Against ground targets you still have to have more men manning the traverse/elevation mechanisms -OR- you slew the mount on-target using the predictor telescope in ground mode.

The same also applies for the use of the number 3 predictor slaved to powered Bofors. firing AP. In fact you can read about that in the number 3 predictor manual - although some forward Bofors unit ditched the number 3 as it couldnt track a diving target. You either shot down the attack before his dive or after his pullout. Assuming the predictor had 3 seconds of stable track it generally could shoot down a single engine AC with 4-6 rounds. Predictors after the war got stable curve track capablity and this limitation disappeared.

It can be fired in this fashion as fast as you can feed it ammo - far faster than an 88mm can fire especially in any sort of sustained fire as there was no need to manhandle the ammunition into an awkward high loading position given the height of the breech on the 88mm to the loader on the ground...especially true if the 88mm is firing off its wheels.

An 88 might be able to keep up with a 3.7 for the first X seconds but after that no way - not as long as the molins gear is fitted...this is also why some of the Germans on the 3.7" receiving end in Normandy asked to see the 'automatic 25pdr' after surrender or being captured...wasn't the normal 25pdr but the 3.7" that was engaging them.

People often cite the weight difference between 88mm and 3.7" as being the reason it wasn't employed in DF more often. Thats probably true...but the basic 3.7" design was designed to absorb power traverse/elevation, predictor fire, and autoloaders from the beginning...the 88mm was not. This is why the mount was larger and heavier.

Not every 3.7" mobile in the field had the molins gear - by the end of the war most did - witness those engaged around Antwerp...but if you were in a tank and the 3.7" was primed for engagement...it would have been one of the --last-- things in the world you would have wanted to cross...

Finally there was a mention in some 3.7" units about the mounting itself popping rivits if the mount was extensively direct fired when the gun was brand new. Apparently that went away to some degree as the gun broke itself in...although there are also indications this may have also happened (As well as some damage to the recoil system) when full high rate fire was extensively used all the time vs DF targets...

In any case...the 3.7" was most certainly used to fire DF antiarmor...and it certainly would have been highly effective in that role. It was noted pre-D-Day that the Royal Engineers dreaded the 3.7" firing plugged HE on certain ranges as the impact effects generally destroyed the range targets...