Much feared by military aircrew, flak blew thousands of aeroplanes from the sky across the 20th century. When the Allies began to use the term is not known.
Most of the official Allied histories downplayed its role. Many postwar histories accepted the testimony of leading figures within the Luftwaffe that ground based AA defences achieved limited success in destroying Allied bombers.
Low and medium level flak was even more effective. More American 8 th Air Force aces were shot down by flak than enemy fighters. But this was a false metric. It must be remembered that Flak defences were designed, not to shoot bombers down, but to force them to drop their loads from a higher altitude and thus reduce their accuracy. Aircraft shot down or damaged was a bonus. Flak proved a huge benefit to fighter pilots assigned to attack incoming raids.
Flak-damaged bombers were forced out of formation, making them easy prey for both Allied and Axis fighter forces for marauding fighters. Flak damaged tens of thousands of bombers. These bombers required repair, causing service rates to fall and thus reducing the number of bombers available for new operations. AA shrapnel also killed and wounded tens of thousands of aircrew, significantly reducing the overall efficiency and morale.
Thank you. Sign up for our newsletter here. The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from this site along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations. But that number is misleading.
While it fits well into the Allied narrative of how the strategic bombing campaign robbed the German army of valuable munitions, it was only partially true. Indeed when you compare these numbers to the more effective mm AA gun the numbers are intriguing. In the number of mm rounds per aircraft shootdown was 3,, less than one-fifth the number expended by its 88mm counterpart.
Their light and medium flak over the battlefield was also highly effective and took a great toll on Allied fighter bombers. Allied AA defenses were also effective, one example being the battles against the V-1 flying bombs and the fact that they chose to defend Antwerp against the V-1 using AA guns along is testament to their effectiveness. It was a game changer and fortunately for the US Navy they had it when the kamikaze appeared.
Indeed, even before the kamikaze appeared the US Navy made major improvement to their ships AA defenses with better radar direction, improved AA directors and gunsights and most importantly, more guns.
In the battleship USS Missouri bristled with twenty 5 inch, eighty 40mm and over forty-nine 20mm cannon. If the Luftwaffe had this shell the Allied bombing campaign would have been far more costly, or stopped altogether.
Mention has to be made of the development of gun laying radar. This allowed for aiming at night and in bad weather. The allies had the edge with the VT fuse. The Japanese did not develop a robust AA defensive system. In Flak accounted for 3, American planes destroyed, less than planes lost to enemy fighters in the same time period. Constant demand for front line troops for the German army meant that many of the flak crews included elderly men, schoolboys, and even POWs. Heavier flak guns gradually appeared mainly the mm 4.
The mm FLAK 40 consisted of two barrels 3 ft apart on a single mounting. An incredible 56 bombers were destroyed or crippled by flak during a B raid on Merseburg in November of A true proximity fuse or variable time fuse was never developed by Germany despite extensive efforts to do so.
Allied planners estimated that German FLAK would be about three times more deadly if they had proximity fused shells The guns were grouped in fours with a predictor a device used to estimate where the aircraft would be by the time the shell reached it and thus provide information as to where to aim.
The searchlights were sited in threes with a sound locator which, as its name implies, located the position of an aircraft by fixing on the sound of its engines. The range of the sound locators was about 6, yards but, in view of the time taken for the sound to reach the instrument, the calculated position of the target could be up to a mile behind its actual position, a discrepancy which had to be allowed for in aiming the guns.
When the flak batteries pinpointed an aircraft the guns were fired in salvoes designed to burst in a sphere of 60 yards in diameter in which it was hoped to entrap the target. Each gun, usually of 88mm calibre, could project a shell to 20,ft and could knock out an aircraft within 30 yards of the shell burst. However, the shrapnel from the explosion was still capable of inflicting serious damage up to yards.
In daylight the predictor crews followed the aircraft by telescope but at night the sound locators directed the searchlights which had a range of 14, yards in clear weather. However, by night or day, the effectiveness of the flak arm in this early period was severely curtailed by clouds.
TheRedBaron , Aug 12, Joined: Jul 30, Messages: Likes Received: 2. Martin "Totally Useless"? Don't forget Civilian Morale! It may have been ineffective in shooting down aircraft in the Blitz but was a bolster to the civilians who were heartened by their guns firing back: after all they were not told how ineffective it actually was. Thanks for all the info, guys, I appreciate it.
For the Germans, it still seems like a lot of effort for land based guns to be effective. Up to 18 guns aiming at one bomber seems like a tremendous volume of fire poured onto a single target. And even at 4, rounds per aircraft brought down, that still seems like a tremendous misappropriation of resources and effort. Not saying I have a better alternative, just that it all looks very inefficient on the surface.
And I agree, while planes did fall to flak, I wonder how much of it was done as a "civilian pacification" effort-"See, we're doing all we can to keep the bombers away" Can you just imagine another 15, 88's or better on the Eastern front? Thanks again, everyone. Flak was something I knew existed, but didn't really understand too clearly. Certainly German cities got very possessive about "their" Flak, especially the rail-flak which perambulated around the country.
I think it is easy to underestimate the effect of these outwardly impressive guns on the civilian population. After all, strategic bombing for the RAF was about breaking German morale, so anything that boosts that morale has to be a good thing. Good points on the morale issue, Jumbo. Imagine how this must have effected germany though- keeping in mind Goering's "if one bomber appeared over germany" claim.
In this case, it could have had almost an opposite effect- Goering had pledged that noone would bomb germany, but by 43 his claim had clearly failed.
Would not the FlaK guns simply remind germans how foolish Goering's promise was? Great post, RedBaron. In fact, which website?
I'd like that bookmark. One small thing though- I wonder if the s were only used in double mounts? I've seen one of the double s at Aberdeen- WOW! Ive also read though that two sets of four s total 8 were used in the Zoo Tower in Berlin.
One other interesting thing I've read can't remember where - apparently the 88 was actually more effective than the I'll see if I can find my source tonight CrazyD , Aug 13, Jumbo - see my first item under this thread for the 'useless' qualification didn't want to go on repeating myself-myself-myself But reading General Sir Frederick Pile's book, 'Ack-Ack', he mentions that the 'kill ratio' during the Battle of Britain and early part of the Blitz was one 'bird' sic per 6, shells.
This improved from early to one per 4, thanks to improved radar and better inter-service co-operation. Pile makes it very clear that they were there to shoot German aircraft down - civilian morale-boosting was an incidental by-product. Martin Bull , Aug 13, Joined: Jan 24, Messages: 6, Likes Received: Damned, I should have taken this iBook to my trip Well, no, there were s single-mounted as regular guns. I have seen pics of it. Jumbo is right about the AA guns and their effect on the morale, in the Battle of Britain and the battles over the Reich.
And I think that they were not useless. Even with the radars and more technology they were not as effective as they were supossed to be. By themselves, but along with fighters, radars, etc. And I think that if we would have made a little push on it, to fly over the Reich would have been deadlier. But it is true that oftenly the AA units had to be used as field artillery and even infantry, and the AA men were replaced by women or prisoners That gave those weapons less effectiveness But if there would not have been any hostile air-attacks on Germany, all those guns could have been used in AT or field artillery roles.
And I think that could have made some difference. Ah, it's nice to be back! Friedrich , Aug 15, Donate to the Foundation. Become a Friend of the museum. Legacy Data Plates. Museum Store. Food Options.
Air Force History. AF Historical Research Agency. AF Historical Studies Office. National Archives. National Aviation Heritage Area.
0コメント