Question for Dingerr or Rickshaw Major

#1
Hello guys Hope you can help me on this. At moment doing some research on 3.7 inch anti aircraft guns which were used in a direct fire role. I know of some instances where the HE rounds were refuzed by the gunners with 117 fuzes to engage japanese troops in PNG circa 1942. Also know that there was a AP round manufactured. I seem to remember a 32LB APCBC for Tortoise in the Museum at either AS of A or Chepstow. Can either of you enlighten me to the types of Ammunition manufactured ? Long time since I looked in A &ERs. Many thanks Ratso
 
#3
In all honesty i don't have a clue. The types of ammo available will probably be generic as per the era (HE, Smoke, Illum etc).

Rickshaw Major will know best - he probably did the Initial Acceptance for 3.7 Ammo. :lol:
 
#4
dingerr said:
In all honesty i don't have a clue. The types of ammo available will probably be generic as per the era (HE, Smoke, Illum etc).

Rickshaw Major will know best - he probably did the Initial Acceptance for 3.7 Ammo. :lol:
.

You young whelp :twisted:

The 3.7" AA was occassionally used in the ATk and in the normal artillery role and IIRC it was fuzed No 117 (normally it was Fuze No 390 - Time Delay). I can't remember a specific ATk round based on a 32 Pdr but I wouldn't call you a liar either :) To get the definitive answer, ring the Imperial War Museum. You would be surprise what they have stashed away.

For instance - at Duxford I checked out an unusual Practice Round - 7.2" How HESH :twisted:

Go on qman - youv'e got the book - tell us!
 

qman

War Hero
#5
Ratso_Rizzo said:
Hello guys Hope you can help me on this. At moment doing some research on 3.7 inch anti aircraft guns which were used in a direct fire role. I know of some instances where the HE rounds were refuzed by the gunners with 117 fuzes to engage japanese troops in PNG circa 1942. Also know that there was a AP round manufactured. I seem to remember a 32LB APCBC for Tortoise in the Museum at either AS of A or Chepstow. Can either of you enlighten me to the types of Ammunition manufactured ? Long time since I looked in A &ERs. Many thanks Ratso
Hi,

This is indeed a bit of a quandry and has taken up the better part of 27 seconds in research. The 3.7" anti aircraft guns mentioned by your goodself were found to be far too small for dealing with Stukas, Heinkels and Me 109. This is probably why they were refuzed by the gunners. It's interesting to note that they were eventually accepted, but only once the manufacturer got the dimensions sorted out and realised the army required a bore of 3.7" and not a tiny little gun. The finished article was quite useful but not when used in the direct fire role as gunners found out they needed at least 118 fuzes whereas a normal shell only requires 1.
 
#6
HA HA!

Qman's a plastic Ammo Tech. :twisted:
 
#7
Hello,

i know nothing about the fuses or ammunition but I do know that 3.7" anti aircraft guns used to do an annual anti tank shoot in the years before the Second World War.

tangosix.
 
#11
Many thanks guys much appreciated. Special thanks to Q man for the "explosive" revelations which were "illuminating" and cleared the "smoke" of Confusion as to the reasons why the 3.7 AA gun did not figure more in the Anti Tank role unlike the Flak 36 88mm.
Rickshaw Major you might find this of interest. www.armourinfocus.co.uk/a39
Ratso
 
#12
Ratso_Rizzo said:
Many thanks guys much appreciated. Special thanks to Q man for the "explosive" revelations which were "illuminating" and cleared the "smoke" of Confusion as to the reasons why the 3.7 AA gun did not figure more in the Anti Tank role unlike the Flak 36 88mm.
Rickshaw Major you might find this of interest. www.armourinfocus.co.uk/a39
Ratso
QF Seperate ammunition. Interesting because some of the RN 4.5" Guns also used QF Seperate which wasn't exactly what they needed for speed loading with a small calibre gun. I'll bet the 2 men who loaded this gun sweated a lot.
 
#13
#15
Hi,

This is indeed a bit of a quandry and has taken up the better part of 27 seconds in research. The 3.7" anti aircraft guns mentioned by your goodself were found to be far too small for dealing with Stukas, Heinkels and Me 109. This is probably why they were refuzed by the gunners. It's interesting to note that they were eventually accepted, but only once the manufacturer got the dimensions sorted out and realised the army required a bore of 3.7" and not a tiny little gun. The finished article was quite useful but not when used in the direct fire role as gunners found out they needed at least 118 fuzes whereas a normal shell only requires 1.
Yes thanks!

Still struggling to see where 'the bait' was dangled in the original post. Please help.

Lots of love and stuff

Qm
 
#16
rickshaw-major said:
qman said:
rickshaw-major said:
dingerr said:
HA HA!

Qman's a plastic Ammo Tech. :twisted:
:D spelling - replace p with s :D
I take it you mean 'spastic' and not slastic? In which case you should have written replace 'pl' with 'sp' you fcukin bongol!
No - http://www.hkiac.gov.hk/2004/eng/prog/slastic.html

Do try and get up earlier - oh and go to your stores and draw a sense of humour :D
Clearly a case of Ammo Techs not making mistakes.

They just change the rules to fit the circumstances.

To be fair to Qman he was playing nice until you nasty pasties came along.
 
#17
dingerr said:
rickshaw-major said:
qman said:
rickshaw-major said:
dingerr said:
HA HA!

Qman's a plastic Ammo Tech. :twisted:
:D spelling - replace p with s :D
I take it you mean 'spastic' and not slastic? In which case you should have written replace 'pl' with 'sp' you fcukin bongol!
No - http://www.hkiac.gov.hk/2004/eng/prog/slastic.html

Do try and get up earlier - oh and go to your stores and draw a sense of humour :D
Clearly a case of Ammo Techs not making mistakes.

They just change the rules to fit the circumstances.

To be fair to Qman he was playing nice until you nasty pasties came along.
Moi? :D
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top