I am arguing over the basic idea of gun designed for several different roles, as this is a nonsense. Gun can be used for something it wasn't designed for, usually with severely reduced effectiveness comparing to normal usage. Attempt to make universal gun will lead to a gun mediocre in all roles (Navies do have dual-purpose guns, but that's a different story because ships have limited space and installing two guns instead is not an option. As well as having half of the guns silent when you fight airforce)
No AA\AT guns ever existed, only AA guns that could be used as AT or even crappy howitzers
Also I am quite infuriated by that arguments like "gun was designed in 1928 because military decided that it wants the gun".... Text clearly says that first prototypes were made in 1934! and final version in 1936. Or claim that it is a successful AA\AT gun because - 3.7" was used in the anti-tank role in one or two emergencies. or "It was used as a howitzer on secondary theaters so it's a howitzer, too" (it's obvious that if you have no enemy strategic bombers and already produced guns you want to find some use for them)
Ha. Now it's an excellent howitzer (recently it was an excellent AT gun, BTW) and I am too bored to write why it's wrong.
I promise to ignore khan1234 as this is pointless.
As for IC: Such a gun is a waste of resources, enemy can't have anything that would require either heavy flak rounds , or heavy AP rounds. Heavy HE rounds are good, but you need not an AA gun for that but a proper howitzer. Also it is quite complex for our low level engineers, very costly to produce and we can't afford to spread our efforts too thin
If it was a crappy howitzer, why was it used as a field gun in all theatres of war from Burma to Normandy, to great effect (as evidence and first hand accounts will testify to).
If it was ineffective firing horizontally, why was it used against landing craft and against tanks all the way up till 1945? Example: (its in the centre).
Australian fortified position, year: 1945 (7th Field Regiment and 2 9th Armoured Regiment Tarakan June 1945)
Yes, it was heavy, but as you can see its profile isnt any bigger than a Flak88 and although it did need modifications to run as a AT gun (unlike being able to run without mods as an AA or field arty piece) it was still used and was effective.
"No AA\AT guns ever existed"
the Germans and their Flak88 would like a word with you.
"text clearly says that first prototypes were made in 1934!"
The first ones by VICKERS. Not the first ones at all. Its initial base was laid down in 1928, as well as the idea and recognition of the idea that Heavy AA was needed or would be needed.
"Ha. Now it's an excellent howitzer (recently it was an excellent AT gun, BTW) and I am too bored to write why it's wrong"
I said it was an effective AT gun. never said excellent. It was, indeed an excellent field gun though, as is testified by its performance in Italy, North Africa, France, Belgium, Burma, the middle east and Germany.
And, i will say it again, i wanted to use it as a base. i never, ever, said i wanted to completely copy the gun.