Chose a dual-purpose anti-tank and anti-aircraft

[riggerrob]

POD circa 1938, you are the Armaments Minister of a small country. You see war clouds blooming and have read several predictions of what will be needed by 1945. Most of your armaments are WW1-surplus.
You want to re-arm your artillery before war breaks out. Your small country can only afford one gun for both anti-tank and anti-aircraft roles. The AT version must be compatible with tanks.
To ease logistics, these guns must share the same caliber and cartridge. You can chose a half-dozen different projectiles as long as they are all the same caliber and fit in a common brass casing. Ideally all barrels would be interchangeable.

What gun will you order for both AT and AAA roles?

 

[Bensdabest]

Molins gun, 57mm 6pdr gun with an autoloader, was also used for attacking uboats when mounted on a plane. Was mounted on a crusader tank as a prototype AA tank.

 

[jsb]

POD circa 1938, you are the Armaments Minister of a small country. You see war clouds blooming and have read several predictions of what will be needed by 1945. Most of your armaments are WW1-surplus.
You want to re-arm your artillery before war breaks out. Your small country can only afford one gun for both anti-tank and anti-aircraft roles. The AT version must be compatible with tanks.
To ease logistics, these guns must share the same caliber and cartridge. You can chose a half-dozen different projectiles as long as they are all the same caliber and fit in a common brass casing. Ideally all barrels would be interchangeable.

What gun will you order for both AT and AAA roles?

Why do you need to buy only one for both roles, is it not more likely you are simply going to buy what ever is available at none exorbitant cost?

- 3"/40 1894 navy guns in the storage depot from your old WWI ships scraped in 20s on new AA/AT mounts
or
- 40 mm L/60 Bofors Model 1936 with the AT gun not having an auto breech (just single shot semi auto) to reduce weight to allow easier manhandling across battlefield.

Realistically by 38 its to late to have much choice. Even if you are lucky and situated in the far east so you have 4 years to be ready until the start of 42. Its still going to be very hard to get anything from anybody abroad once you hit mid 39 and European war starts, even tooling and designs. If your in europe you should just buy what is sitting in the old storage yards of any great powers who willing to sell at a reasonable price to you and that can therefore be delivered in a month not years.

 

[hipper]

POD circa 1938, you are the Armaments Minister of a small country. You see war clouds blooming and have read several predictions of what will be needed by 1945. Most of your armaments are WW1-surplus.
You want to re-arm your artillery before war breaks out. Your small country can only afford one gun for both anti-tank and anti-aircraft roles. The AT version must be compatible with tanks.
To ease logistics, these guns must share the same caliber and cartridge. You can chose a half-dozen different projectiles as long as they are all the same caliber and fit in a common brass casing. Ideally all barrels would be interchangeable.

What gun will you order for both AT and AAA roles?

In 1938 Vickers 75 mm model 1931
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_Model_1931

 

[edgeworthy]

And the answer isn't the 88mm Flak?

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Buy a license to build a adaptation of the US T7 gun of the 1920s. This 3" weapon was intended to serve as a tri purpose long range artillery, short range anti tank, and antiaircraft weapon. The US Army dropped development as a general purpose weapon, howitzers were favored for field artillery. A updated fire control for anti air defense would need to be provided, but the suitability as a AT gun was proven when adapted to arm the M10 TD in 1941-42.

Trivia note: In the early 1930s a Austrian Army general proposed adopting a "Tank und Flieger" artillery weapon of 75mm caliber. The general performance described for this cannon was similar to the US made prototypes.

Cant really say how this weapon would perform in combat. The famous German 88 had some problems with its heavy pedestal carriage & high profile. The Brits learned in the Western Desert to look for these and suppress them with their own field artillery.

 

[jsb]

Buy a license to build a adaptation of the US T7 gun

And the answer isn't the 88mm Flak?

Molins gun, 57mm 6pdr gun with an autoloader,

The problem is what can a "small country" with "Most of your armaments are WW1-surplus" actually build in time for WWII?

I presume you will have little if any domestic capability to make heavy guns if you have not built any/many since WWI so not sure any of the above work? Can you realistically build and train up a factory and then get meaningful numbers of guns in the year and a half (or even 2-4 years) you might have?

 

[eltf177]

Can you afford to buy enough to equip your forces?

 

[jsb]

Another Idea what about something 20mm?

In 38 a HV 20mm would be perfectly sufficient for AT work and it could also be the main light AA gun?

 

[AJE]

Buy a license to build a adaptation of the US T7 gun of the 1920s. This 3" weapon was intended to serve as a tri purpose long range artillery, short range anti tank, and antiaircraft weapon. The US Army dropped development as a general purpose weapon, howitzers were favored for field artillery. A updated fire control for anti air defense would need to be provided, but the suitability as a AT gun was proven when adapted to arm the M10 TD in 1941-42.

Trivia note: In the early 1930s a Austrian Army general proposed adopting a "Tank und Flieger" artillery weapon of 75mm caliber. The general performance described for this cannon was similar to the US made prototypes.

Cant really say how this weapon would perform in combat. The famous German 88 had some problems with its heavy pedestal carriage & high profile. The Brits learned in the Western Desert to look for these and suppress them with their own field artillery.

For a cruciform mount, the 88mm Flak is obviously the best gun for multipurpose use in existence in 1938. If a non-cruciform carriage with a lower profile is desired, the F-22 76mm gun is then the best choice for an anti-tank/artillery/anti-air role- it was designed exactly for this purpose, after all.

Another Idea what about something 20mm?

In 38 a HV 20mm would be perfectly sufficient for AT work and it could also be the main light AA gun?

That would be the Solothurn S-18/1100, a select-fire version of the Solothurn S-18/1000 anti-tank 20 mm cannon. It had an anti-aircraft mount in addition to an anti-tank carriage. When used as an anti-tank gun it was equal to the 20 mm Lahti L-39 and when used on the AA mount it was just as effective as any 20 mm AA gun like the Oerlikon or Flak 38, albeit it was likely more complex and expensive.

 

[jsb]

the F-22 76mm gun is then the best choice for an anti-tank/artillery/anti-air role- it was designed exactly for this purpose, after all.

Not sure its really good at AA, that's like saying the 8" or larger navy guns could be DP with AA shells and a barrage fire control unit..... technically but will not hit much if anything. Its also going to be hard to prise out of Soviet hands IMO.

 

[tomo pauk]

POD circa 1938, you are the Armaments Minister of a small country. You see war clouds blooming and have read several predictions of what will be needed by 1945. Most of your armaments are WW1-surplus.
You want to re-arm your artillery before war breaks out. Your small country can only afford one gun for both anti-tank and anti-aircraft roles. The AT version must be compatible with tanks.
To ease logistics, these guns must share the same caliber and cartridge. You can chose a half-dozen different projectiles as long as they are all the same caliber and fit in a common brass casing. Ideally all barrels would be interchangeable.

What gun will you order for both AT and AAA roles?

Now this is a tough one.
A gun that is to play the role of the only AA gun needs to be of big power = big gun + expensive + heavy + uses heavy ammo + uses many people to handle it = need a potent prime-mover = again expensive. Any thing under 8 cm is of dubious use if the perspective enemy has a big airforce, so going for 85/88/90/94 mm pushes the price again too high. Big cannons are easy to spot by infantry.
Hence I'd try one of the 40-45-47-57mm, automatic of course, while buying fighters, not just to cover the altitudes above AA ceiling, but also beacause those can be concentrated, unlike the AA guns.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Bofors 40/60 for low and medium range AAA and would defeat any tank then in service - its good, mobile and easy to train crews for

If you need heavy AAA then the Vickers 75mm is probably the best choice

 

[jsb]

Bofors 40/60 for low and medium range AAA and would defeat any tank then in service

I agreed above but still think a simplified AT gun with the same barrel and shell but with different breach would make sense for the majority of AT guns (due to cost and weight) and doesn't break the OP.

these guns must share the same caliber and cartridge.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

For a cruciform mount, the 88mm Flak is obviously the best gun for multipurpose use in existence in 1938. If a non-cruciform carriage with a lower profile is desired, the F-22 76mm gun is then the best choice for an anti-tank/artillery/anti-air role- it was designed exactly for this purpose, after all. ...

If I read the literature on the T7 project larger calibers were rejected due to the expected loss of mobility. The goal was to keep the division artillery as light as practical. Eventually the US Army did select the 90mm caliber for its medium anti air cannon, but that was long after the requirement for a true multipurpose weapon was dropped, and the decision was made to have only light anti air weapons within the standard infantry and armored division.