Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RAM]

Why 94mm? Regardless, it is a nice idea, but that all comes at a cost. Combining AT and AA means shooting vertically and horizontally, which brings its own set of complexities, and a turret capable of such would likely have less armour and be more difficult to mount. Then you need it to be capable of both high velocity and high explosive rounds and you probably end up compromising both to do so. We could probably work a gun that could fire both air-burst shrapnel rounds and high-explosive indirect rounds, and maybe someone will come up with the bright idea to use air-burst shrapnel rounds against infantry... We could probably also get two high-velocity guns, one horizontal and one vertical, which share most of their parts.
 It certainly shouldn't impossible, but I doubt that it would be worth it.

I rather suspect that there are places in the world where people are still throwing bombs out the side of open-cockpit aeroplanes...

[Ukrainian Ranger]

94mm AP shell will punch through 3 1920 tanks placed in a row....
As for 94mm AA shell. Such large guns were used only for reaching high flying bombers, they are almost useless against low flying planes

If you need something to design: 80mm howitzers is what our army really needs. I repeat, howitzers, not for direct but for indirect fire. 20 century army without artillery = uncool

[RAM]

Well, given that our enemies are unlikely to line their tanks up in a row in front of our tanks... But why 94mm specifically? I would imagine that the game rules are sufficiently lax that we can afford round numbers...

[kahn1234]

Well, given that our enemies are unlikely to line their tanks up in a row in front of our tanks... But why 94mm specifically? I would imagine that the game rules are sufficiently lax that we can afford round numbers...

Basing it off of the very successful British 94mm AA/AT gun. We could also go for a lighter German Flak88 based version.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

More real world stuff:
British 94mm wasn't AT gun at all. It could be used as AT gun in an emergency, but it was bad for that role. Can't understand how it is "very successful"


In game: I see no reason to develop a new caliber, 80mm is a good enough

[kahn1234]

More real world stuff:
British 94mm wasn't AT gun at all. It could be used as AT gun in an emergency, but it was bad for that role. Can't understand how it is "very successful"


In game: I see no reason to develop a new caliber, 80mm is a good enough

Showing ignorance again.

It was designed to be used in both roles, AA primary with AT as secondary. The only reason it's primary roll wasn't AT was because it was rarely supplied with AT shells due to British military doctrine at the time (flawed as it was) As it was about to be used as a primary AT role, the smaller 17 pounder was produced, which fitted the role perfectly. Later versions (especially the Mark 6) had ironed out the problems (barrel wear, chassis damage) the previous versions had.

And by Very Successful i meant in general. it was one of the best Heavy AA guns during the 40's and 50's.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I agree, you are showing ignorance.

94mm was way to heavy to be used as AT gun. That's a reason why 17 pounder was adopted
You can't call AT gun very successful when it wasn't adopted for that role. You can't call it AT gun at all.  It was very bad for the AT role due to it's high profile and massive weight
If you gonna call any gun that could somehow engage tanks an AT gun, then you can call all guns AT.
Even German Flak36 was never designed as an AT gun, it just proved to be useful in that role (and yet they preferred to switch to PAK88 later)

As for AA role... It wasn't bad or good, just a typical WW2 gun used to bring flak rounds to the bombers.


And yet, why 94mm and not 80mm? Why actions like: Hey, engineers develop a copy of the gun developed 15 years later in the alternative universe?

[kahn1234]

I agree, you are showing ignorance.

94mm was way to heavy to be used as AT gun. That's a reason why 17 pounder was adopted
You can't call AT gun very successful when it wasn't adopted for that role. You can't call it AT gun at all.  It was very bad for AT role due to it's high profile and massive weight
If you gonna call any gun that could somehow engage tanks an AT gun, then you can call all guns AT.
Even German Flak36 was never designed as AT gun, it just proved to be useful in that role (and yet they preferred to switch to PAK88 later)

As for AA role... It wasn't bad or good, just a typical WW2 gun used to bring flak rounds to the bombers.


And yet, why 94mm and not 80mm? Why actions like: Hey, engineers develop a copy of the gun developed 15 years later in the alternative universe?

But yet the gun was still used in an AT role, as various images from the period showed, and effectively. it was also a very good AA gun and light field gun.

and, as i said before, i meant in general it was very successful.

Also, i never said i thought an 80mm was inferior. in fact, i said why not use an 88mm? as long as it doesn't put us at a disadvantage i dont care. just at the moment we do not have any heavy AT, heavy AA or light artillery weaponry. The 94mm wasn't hard to make, and it could easily be made lighter if we put our more experienced engineers on the job.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

155mm howitzers were used in Anti-tank role on some occasions...  No one calls them howitzer\AT gun
Also, IIRC, American Navy had flak rounds for battleships main guns, but you'll not call Iowa's main guns an aa gun, right?

As for we have no light artillery. We have:

Quote from a list of designs:

Medium Cannon
The 80mm cannon is the standard support cannon in the field and can be used for both direct and indirect fire. It has a maximum rate of fire around 12 rounds per minute. It is typically crewed by 3 to 5 men.

That's what we have ( and really should build, not refitting rifles with new sights)
I'd prefer to have more indirect fire focused weapon, because I am not a fun of universal guns, but the ones we have a good we just need to build them or upgrade and build them

Also we don't need heavy AT and heavy AA, because no tanks with serious armor exist and no aircrafts can fly that high. 

[Kashyyk]

Wait, what about that 40mm cannon that we bolted to a trailer? Is that not good enough for mobile light artillery?

Also, I suggest looking into body armour (I know it didn't really exist at this point in time, but we might as well consider it)

[kahn1234]

155mm howitzers were used in Anti-tank role on some occasions...  No one calls them howitzer\AT gun
Also, IIRC, American Navy had flak rounds for battleships main guns, but you'll not call Iowa's main guns an aa gun, right?

As for we have no light artillery. We have:

Quote from a list of designs:

Medium Cannon
The 80mm cannon is the standard support cannon in the field and can be used for both direct and indirect fire. It has a maximum rate of fire around 12 rounds per minute. It is typically crewed by 3 to 5 men.

That's what we have ( and really should build, not refitting rifles with new sights)
I'd prefer to have more indirect fire focused weapon, because I am not a fun of universal guns, but the ones we have a good we just need to build them or upgrade and build them

Also we don't need heavy AT and heavy AA, because no tanks with serious armor exist and no aircrafts can fly that high.

Stop taking things to extremes. The 94mm was designed to fit both roles. yes, it was heavy, but it worked.

We should build the 80mm field gun, as well as upgrading the nagants sights.

and as for we dont need heavy AA or heavy AT, the 94mm was designed and approved in 1928, as were many other heavy AA and heavy AT guns.

you prepare for the future, not the present. Also, multipurpose is the way forward. specialised 1-role equipment is a dead end.

Wait, what about that 40mm cannon that we bolted to a trailer? Is that not good enough for mobile light artillery?

Thats more like a light AT gun and, if auto fired, a very heavy machine gun. What we are talking about is an indirect fire howitzer type weapon or a heavy AA/AT gun.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Nope, 40mm can't be used for indirect fire. And for direct attack it severely lacks a punch to knock out fortified positions.
_______________


Kahn, it's not funny to argue with you anymore. 94mm AA entered production in 1937 . In mid thirties no one designed heavy AT guns as they were considered unnecessary because no heavy tank existed

Hell , I dare you to prove me that 3.7-Inch QF AA  was designed as a dual purpose gun and that it was designed and approved in 1928 with  prooflinks. If you prove that I'll not post in this topic anymore.  Until then I am assuming that you are just making "facts" from a thin air, Like Mesor with his fragmenting rounds that penetrated two inches of metal

[kahn1234]

Nope, 40mm can't be used for indirect fire. And for direct attack it severely lacks a punch to knock out fortified positions.
_______________


Kahn, it's not funny to argue with you anymore. 94mm AA entered production in 1937 . In mid thirties no one designed heavy AT guns as they were considered unnecessary because no heavy tank existed

Hell , I dare you to prove me that 3.7-Inch QF AA  was designed as a dual purpose gun and that it was designed and approved in 1928 with  prooflinks. If you prove that I'll not post in this topic anymore.  Until then I am assuming that you are just making "facts" from a thin air, Like Mesor with his fragmenting rounds that penetrated two inches of metal

It was also designed in 1928, and was put into production in the early 1930's.

"[During the 1920s Vickers developed the predictor, an electro-mechanical computer that took height and range data from an optical rangefinder, applied corrections for non-standard conditions and was used by its operators to visually track a target, its output predicted firing data and fuze setting via the "mag-slip" electrical induction system to dials on each gun in a battery, the gun layers moved the gun to match pointers on the dials. The 3 inch AA guns were modified accordingly.[4]
QF 3.7

In 1928 the general characteristics for a new HAA gun were agreed on; a bore of 3.7 inches (94 mm) firing 25 pounds (11 kg) shells with a ceiling of 28,000 feet (8,500 m). However, finance was very tight and no action was taken until 1930s, when the specification was enhanced to a 28 pounds (13 kg) shell, 3,000 feet per second (910 m/s) muzzle velocity, a 35,000 feet (11,000 m) ceiling, a towed road speed of 25 miles per hour (40 km/h), maximum weight of 8 tons and an into action time of 15 minutes.

In 1934 Vickers Armstrong produced a mock-up and proceeded to develop prototypes of the weapon, which was selected and passed acceptance tests in 1936.[5][6] However, the weight specification was exceeded and the muzzle velocity not achieved. Furthermore, the initial mechanical time fuze, No 206, was still some years from production so the igniferous No 199 had to be used, and its lesser running time limited the effective ceiling. Gun production started the following year.



History
Background


Field and Anti-tank
Like other British guns the 3.7 had a secondary anti-tank role, this meant that if the gun position came under tank attack it would engage the tanks. However, during the campaign in North Africa the shortage of capable anti-tank guns led to some agitation to use the 3.7 in a primary anti-tank role, i.e. deployed specifically for anti-tank defence.

Guns did have their sighting arrangements improved to enable better anti-tank shooting. However, 3.7" was only used in the anti-tank role in one or two emergencies. The arrival of the smaller 3-inch calibre 17-pdr anti-tank gun in late 1942 made a primary anti-tank role irrelevant for the 3.7" but if, unusually, they were deployed in a forward area then they could have a secondary anti-tank role.

The guns were used in the field artillery role quite extensively in the second half of the war in Italy, NW Europe, Burma and the SW Pacific. Batteries were issued with the necessary fire control equipment. Counter-battery or counter-mortar fire was the usual role. However, their HE ammunition seems to have always been fuzed for airburst; this means maximum ranges were limited to 9,200 yards with No 199 fuze and 16,200 yards with No 208.

The 3.7" gun was also used to arm the Tortoise assault tank, where it was designated the Ordnance QF 32 pounder. The Tortoise, which is best described as a self-propelled gun, never saw service.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

In 1934 Vickers Armstrong produced a mock-up and proceeded to develop prototypes of the weapon, which was selected and passed acceptance tests in 1936....  Gun production started the following year.
Yep, as I said, entered production in 1937.
Do you see any difference between designed and  general characteristics for a new HAA gun were agreed on? Besides requirements were enchanted  later so even under your weird definition of designed it is 1930s

Also, In 1928 the general characteristics for a new HAA gun were agreed on. You see? No HAA\anti-tank\howitzer but HAA. Army asked for HAA not heavy anti-tank gun

Like other British guns the 3.7 had a secondary anti-tank role, this meant that if the gun position came under tank attack it would engage the tanks.
As I said, if 155mm howitzer came under tank attack it would engage tank

Here are no word about it's dual purpose, especially that it was designed for dual purpose

Guns did have their sighting arrangements improved to enable better anti-tank shooting
That means that when guns were made they had no suitable sights to engage tanks. You know why? Because it was never designed for an anti-tank role

[kahn1234]

In 1934 Vickers Armstrong produced a mock-up and proceeded to develop prototypes of the weapon, which was selected and passed acceptance tests in 1936
Yep, as I said, entered production in 1937. OK, one year mistake. Sorry
Do you see any difference between designed and  general characteristics for a new HAA gun were agreed on? Besides requirements were enchanted  later so even under your weird definition of designed it is 1930s

Also, In 1928 the general characteristics for a new HAA gun were agreed on. You see? No HAA\anti-tank\howitzer but HAA. Army asked for HAA not heavy anti-tank gun

Like other British guns the 3.7 had a secondary anti-tank role, this meant that if the gun position came under tank attack it would engage the tanks.
As I said, if 155mm howitzer came under tank attack it would engage tank

Here are no word about it's dual purpose, especially that it was designed for dual purpose

Guns did have their sighting arrangements improved to enable better anti-tank shooting
That means that when guns were made they had no suitable sights to engage tanks. You know why? Because it was never designed for an anti-tank role

in 1928 the base design of the gun was laid down. Vickers then proceeded to refine the design until it was placed into production. still means planning for the future is relevant to what we are talking about.

The gun was duel purpose though. It was used extensively as an indirect fire artillery piece, in most theatres of war in WW2. And it was used as an AT gun, although not often.