ARM: Review - Service Publications 3.7" AA Gun in Canadian Service

Book Review: =93Weapons of War=94 Series; The 3.7" Anti-Aircraft Gun in Canadian Service by Doug Knight; Service Publications, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 2011; 24 pp. with B&W photos and 1/35 scale plans; price CDN $9.95; ISBN 1-894581-74-5
formatting link
Advantages: Actually more of a history of Canadian antiaircraft gunnery from 1914 to 1945; clarification of many myths about the 3.7
Disadvantages: modelers may regret not having more detail information on regiments and markings
Rating: Highly Recommended
Recommendation: For all =93duck hunters=94 and Commonwealth fans
Canada, like Britain, became aware of the need for antiaircraft guns just prior to the start of the First World War. While Canada had but one antiaircraft battery in France during the war, equipped with 10 3" 20-cwt British AA guns, it was the start of a new branch of artillery. But it was a crude and ineffective weapon and system: out of 15,832 hostile aircraft observed, 5,433 were fired on but only 16 shot down.
There are a great many reasons for this failure, and Canadian artillery expert Doug Knight patiently and clearly explains them in the first part of this fascinating little book. Trying to hit a moving object that is moving in three directions at once and is at a considerable height requires a lot of mathematics and prediction of where it will be when the shell arrives; the fuse on the shell must be properly set, the lead correct, and the shell has to arrive within about 10 meters of its target at detonation to have fatal effect.
To try and provide better changes, a more powerful weapon was needed, and starting in the late 1920s the British came up with the 3.7" AA Gun in 1938, and it became their standard heavy antiaircraft gun for the duration of WWII.
With an effective ceiling of 32,000 feet, the 3.7 was roughly equivalent to the US M1 90mm gun and the German FlaK 18/36/37 8.8 cm guns. It fired a 28 pound projectile with either high-explosive fragmentation, shrapnel, or armor piecing capability. (Shrapnel was originally felt as useful against low-flying aircraft; while the British abandoned the projectile in 1943, it is interesting to note the Soviets introduced their 3Sh1 and 3Sh2 projectiles in the 1970s for artillery to deal with attack helicopters, and are still working on tank main gun rounds for the same purpose.)
Many armchair experts always have loudly bemoaned the fact that whereas the Germans adapted the 88 as an antitank gun, and the US eventually modified the 90mm gun as a tank weapon, the Commonwealth never wanted to use the 3.7 as an antitank gun. Part of that is explained here as the very fussy and complex chassis, beside being heavier than most, was not suitable for quick changes of firing position nor capable of behind fired from its carriage in travel mode as the 88 was. (The gun was eventually adapted for use on the Tortoise heavy self-propelled antitank gun, and Doug also covers the short- lived career of the Ram SP 3.7 project in this book.)
As Canada quite often =96 and without similar fanfare to the US =96 served as the impregnable arsenal for England, starting in 1939 they began production of 3.7" guns and spare barrels for the Commonwealth forces. By the end of WWII Canada had produced 3,479 weapons, and another 5,129 barrels for the war effort. Yet in all this, once more Canada wound up with but a single mobile regiment of AA guns - 2 Heavy Anti-Aircraft Regiment, RCA. Spending most of its early time protecting a stretch of Essex east of London, by the time the regiment got to the continent in 1944 it was adjudged that the Allies had air superiority, so it wound up being used for fire support instead (the gun had a surface-to-surface range of more than 20,000 yards).
After the war the 3.7 remained in service with the Canadian Army in active and reserve status until 1957.
Overall this book is a great little read and is also useful at explaining antiaircraft fire control to the layman.
Thanks to Clive Law of Service Publications for the review copy.
Cookie Sewell
Reply to
AMPSOne
Loading thread data ...
Book Review: =93Weapons of War=94 Series; The 3.7" Anti-Aircraft Gun in
Canadian Service by Doug Knight; Service Publications, Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada, 2011; 24 pp. with B&W photos and 1/35 scale plans;
price CDN $9.95; ISBN 1-894581-74-5
formatting link

Advantages: Actually more of a history of Canadian antiaircraft
gunnery from 1914 to 1945; clarification of many myths about the 3.7
Disadvantages: modelers may regret not having more detail information
on regiments and markings
Rating: Highly Recommended
Recommendation: For all =93duck hunters=94 and Commonwealth fans
Canada, like Britain, became aware of the need for antiaircraft guns
just prior to the start of the First World War. While Canada had but
one antiaircraft battery in France during the war, equipped with 10 3"
20-cwt British AA guns, it was the start of a new branch of artillery.
But it was a crude and ineffective weapon and system: out of 15,832
hostile aircraft observed, 5,433 were fired on but only 16 shot down.
There are a great many reasons for this failure, and Canadian
artillery expert Doug Knight patiently and clearly explains them in
the first part of this fascinating little book. Trying to hit a moving
object that is moving in three directions at once and is at a
considerable height requires a lot of mathematics and prediction of
where it will be when the shell arrives; the fuse on the shell must be
properly set, the lead correct, and the shell has to arrive within
about 10 meters of its target at detonation to have fatal effect.
To try and provide better changes, a more powerful weapon was needed,
and starting in the late 1920s the British came up with the 3.7" AA
Gun in 1938, and it became their standard heavy antiaircraft gun for
the duration of WWII.
With an effective ceiling of 32,000 feet, the 3.7 was roughly
equivalent to the US M1 90mm gun and the German FlaK 18/36/37 8.8 cm
guns. It fired a 28 pound projectile with either high-explosive
fragmentation, shrapnel, or armor piecing capability. (Shrapnel was
originally felt as useful against low-flying aircraft; while the
British abandoned the projectile in 1943, it is interesting to note
the Soviets introduced their 3Sh1 and 3Sh2 projectiles in the 1970s
for artillery to deal with attack helicopters, and are still working
on tank main gun rounds for the same purpose.)
Many armchair experts always have loudly bemoaned the fact that
whereas the Germans adapted the 88 as an antitank gun, and the US
eventually modified the 90mm gun as a tank weapon, the Commonwealth
never wanted to use the 3.7 as an antitank gun. Part of that is
explained here as the very fussy and complex chassis, beside being
heavier than most, was not suitable for quick changes of firing
position nor capable of behind fired from its carriage in travel mode
as the 88 was. (The gun was eventually adapted for use on the Tortoise
heavy self-propelled antitank gun, and Doug also covers the short-
lived career of the Ram SP 3.7 project in this book.)
As Canada quite often =96 and without similar fanfare to the US =96
served as the impregnable arsenal for England, starting in 1939 they
began production of 3.7" guns and spare barrels for the Commonwealth
forces. By the end of WWII Canada had produced 3,479 weapons, and
another 5,129 barrels for the war effort. Yet in all this, once more
Canada wound up with but a single mobile regiment of AA guns - 2 Heavy
Anti-Aircraft Regiment, RCA. Spending most of its early time
protecting a stretch of Essex east of London, by the time the regiment
got to the continent in 1944 it was adjudged that the Allies had air
superiority, so it wound up being used for fire support instead (the
gun had a surface-to-surface range of more than 20,000 yards).
After the war the 3.7 remained in service with the Canadian Army in
active and reserve status until 1957.
Overall this book is a great little read and is also useful at
explaining antiaircraft fire control to the layman.
Thanks to Clive Law of Service Publications for the review copy.
Cookie Sewell
Reply to
AMPSOne

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.