MLU FORUM  

Go Back   MLU FORUM > MILITARY VEHICLES > The Gun Park

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11  
Old 08-08-10, 01:21
John McGillivray's Avatar
John McGillivray John McGillivray is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Quebec
Posts: 1,089
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by REL View Post
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).

Quote:
Originally Posted by REL View Post
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.

Last edited by John McGillivray; 08-08-10 at 02:00.
Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 14:55.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Maple Leaf Up, 2003-2016