True. However, the proximity fuse only solves the altitude problem. If the bombers' course is unpredictable enough and the shells are aimed at the wrong area then the proximity fuse won't help.
I think at least part of the answer is in the video: allied crews faced a trade off between avoiding flaks and causing their formations to lose its order. When answering, germans probably just answered based on what annoyed them the most.
Somewhere on YT there is a training film on how to adjust flight patterns in order to avoid German flak tracking. I remember small movements are not good enough you have to really change up the course to not fly through that flak cube.
Another additon to a a great series "Flack". You have opened our eyes to something we have taken for granted. The machinations, analysis, strategy and tactics to mitigate risk was a might effort. It is not just flying there is science involved.
Just watched on TCM “The Memphis Belle: A Story of a Flying Fortress”, “The Cold Blue”, and “The Cold Blue: The Making of A War Documentary”. Wonderful documentaries about the 8th Air Force’s B-17 missions over Germany. I hadn’t realized how many thousands of missions were flown, and the number of people who never made it back. Get some tissues ready. Powerful and moving.
Happy to see continued videos on this amazing period. Central Pa. Here,with family serving on bombers used during that war. A lot of intellectual types think this type of information ignorant and sophomoric,but I love it. The what if stuff is pretty good too.
This is again another great contribution of this channel. The USAAF learned by using best practice during the war, as did the Germans. What should be mentioned is how a shell that may missed the target can very well destroy another bomber. The bombers did not fly as one point on a map as illustrated, but in formations of aroud 30 aircraft each. Some were to the left or right or high and low. If we look at an attack with 700 bombers, the Flak gunners had ten to fifteen minutes to shot at them, and no surprise got better after a few minutes. Most of the manuals quoted are from late war or in the case of FLAK FACTS even the day after the war ended in Europe. It would be interesting to know how such manuals looked in 1941 or 1943 as well.
Thanks for the war history, excellent channel. BTW, @1:06 why did you substitute the word execute with implement? IMO, all this data came out after the war, but at least we were ready in Korea. (joking)
Considering the number of fragments produced by each flak round and the speed they are traveling, does anyone else find the "lethal radius" of 13 feet to be an oddly small number?
I think the lethal radius is for the bomber, not crew(?). Its the flack fragments to ability to destroy the air frame or engines. I think air resistance on a non-aerodynamic tumbling metal piece would be a factor of range too. The crew wore flack jackets too= I wonder what lethal range was for these?
Can you make a video detailing German efforts to create a proximity fuse? Also I've read across some parts of the internet (few details, and obviously no direct sources) saying that very late during the war it was found that using contact fuses ended up being more effective than timed fuses due to both being mathematically equally as improbable however not having the set a contact fuse allowed for a higher rate of fire, perhaps a detail looking into that, if true, would be fantastic
Great content as always. I have got 2 somewhat related topics that I hope will be addressed in the future : ) 1/ did the germans use or attempted to use mobile flak batteries and 2/ did they attempt to introduce auto-loading systems for their 88mm and + guns ?
How much damage was caused to cities from the flak batteries responsible for defending them? I can't help but wonder if all that falling metal caused damage or casualties. Also, on particularly high loss missions, what was the damage to German structures and potential personnel loses on the ground from crashing aircraft (from both sides)?
In one of his other videos he mentions the Germans developed a flak shell that had finer shrapnel because of this very thing. It lost some of its effectiveness for the sake of not raining large fragments down on buildings or people.
At what altitude do you think birds fly at? The bombers in combat would be at an altitude of between 10,000 to 25,000 feet. I would imagine bidrstrikes occurred during takeoff and landing as well as on low-level fighter bomber sorties.
@@ZIGZAGBureauofInvestigation I haven't been able to find a specific resource online regarding bird strikes in world war 2, let alone in world war 2 during combat. I did find this article: At the 1996 London and 2003 Warsaw meetings of the International Bird Strike Committee, illustrated Working Papers were presented that provided brief details of all known fatalities and destroyed aircraft due to bird strikes between 1912 and 2002. These papers was felt to be useful in drawing attention to the scale of the problem especially when dealing with those who know little about the subject or who are newly appointed to decision-making positions. Since the original papers were published, updated information has been provided in Papers presented at IBSC Meetings in Athens, Brasilia and Cairns. This 36 page Paper consolidates and updates the information and analysis. It is now believed that the number of fatal accidents has risen to at least 55 killing 276 people in addition to the destruction of 108 aircraft. The Paper provides brief details on all the above accidents together with some photographs. Anyone with further information on these or other accidents should contact the Author. These are as follows: Airliners and Executive Jets - 16 fatal accidents killing 189, (which includes 7 third parties on the ground) and destruction of 44 aircraft. Aeroplanes 5,700 kg and below - 32 fatal accidents killing 69 and destruction of 56 aircraft. Helicopters - 7 fatal accidents killing 18 people and destruction of 8 helicopters. Analysis reveals that the major threat to Airliners and Executive jets is engine ingestion, causing 76% of the accidents, it being noted that nowadays the vast majority of airliners are twin-engined thus increasing the consequences of a double engine ingestion. A high proportion of the losses were early Russian airliners and business jets operating where bird control measures may be minimal. Gull flocks (Larus sp.) were the cause of 40% of these accidents. Steadily improved engine ingestion requirements mitigate the risk but this cannot be applied to earlier engine designs. General aviation aeroplanes of 5,700 kg and below are not subject to bird impact requirements, windshield penetration accounting for 56% of the accidents followed by wing damage at 13%. It is suggested that with the increased speed of kit/homebuilt aeroplanes giving birds less time to avoid them and often operating at heights where birds are most prevalent, manufacturers/builders should give serious consideration to the issue. Unlike airliners, birds of prey (Accipitriformes) caused 47% of the accidents followed by geese/ducks, gulls and pelicans/cormorants, many being heavy birds. Some accidents were the result of pilots attempting to avoid birds. Similarly helicopters are most at risk from impact with large birds which caused windshield penetration in 50% of accidents. Faster, quieter helicopters will give birds less time to avoid them. Although not a major cause of fatalities, bird strikes are a serious safety and economic hazard. Bird strike accidents are rare events that can happen out-of-the-blue, even at airports that may consider they have appropriate measures in place. Complacency is the enemy of safety.
@@ZIGZAGBureauofInvestigation G'day, Have you ever read "Bomber" by Len Deighton ? One of the first Novels written using a Word processor, in 1976 (!). In there is an account of a Nightfighting JU-88 encountering a Birdstrike on takeoff. The Carcase came in through the Cockpit Windscreen & hit, and merged with, the Pilot's Face. Skull and neck fractures..., instant unconsciousness ; the Observer Gun-Loader was a passenger, all the way down to the Water. Quite a compelling account, as I recall it. WW-2 Glass-Nosed Bombers, like the Boeing B-29, with it's Cigar-Nose having clearly beeen copied from the Heinkel-111 ; were generally so very slow and loud when down around the nesting-Grounds that the Birds all generally had time to half-roll and dive out of the way - which is the "standard" emergency evasive manoeuvre of choice for Feathered Flyers meeting Aluminium Components flying in formation , propped up by pillars of Fossil-Carbon Smoke, vibrating furiously all the way, and roaring loudly as it approaches.... Jet Aircraft at high Angles of Attack & low Airspeed might sssSSSUUCK the little Birdies into an Engine, but it's the High-Speed Low-flying Jets which have the real problems with slow-moving Lumps of Feathery Meat - decorating the Airspace ahead of the Windscreen... I never ever experienced any Birdstrikes in my Ultralight Motorglider, But I have once, in 1981, had a Wedgetailled Eagle come over to join me in a Thermal, and then fly the Ridge-Lift ahead of the Leading-Edge of the IS-28 Sailplane I was flying. At Narromine there's a Soaring Centre, 30 or 40 Sailplanes operating there is not unusual, and the local Eagles have become accustomed to Sailplanes being harmless, and useful to fly with, to better get over a big patch of Sink. I dunno if that will help any...(?), but it's the best I can offer. Such is life, Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !
I don't think bird strikes were much of a problem with prop planes. They didn't fly fast enough. I never heard about bird strikes until the jets arrived.
Yes there were, but not fighter bombers. There was a video about that on this channel just a few days ago. B-24s dropping fragmentation bombs. Hugely successful. They knocked out the flak batteries two hours before the main bomber body arrived. These were volunteer missions with no shortage of volunteers. In the last 6-12 months of the war bombers were equipped with new radar jamming electronics that confused the flak radar. th-cam.com/video/wDiCFMcDiIo/w-d-xo.html
@@dfirth224 There's at least one P47 pilot interviewed here on TH-cam that talks about attacking flak batteries ahead of bombers. It's been at least several years since I've watched the interview so don't hold me on this point but it MIGHT have been Charlie Morhle who has several interviews on TH-cam (also there's a chance I spelled his last name wrong, if in fact it was him anyway). After D-Day the 9th Air Force P47's were flying mission's from forward bases set up in France and were very much in range to strike some of the defenses of deep penetration targets that the 8th Air Force were hitting flying off of their bases in England, the bombers escorts weren't used for hitting the flak batteries but the 9th's elements were. Also it's been about 2 years since I read "Hell Hawks!: The Untold Story Of The American Fliers Who Savaged Hitler's Wehrmacht", it's about one of the 9th's P47 units, the 365th Fighter Group, and it may have an account of them striking flak batteries ahead of bombers, their threat when doing so wasn't the 88 and 105mm flak guns themselves but the 20mm to 50mm short and medium range defensive guns ringed around them for their defenses.
I was just thinking that if the allies used radio control glide bombs like we developed later that would have kept them from the flak. THE Germans had something like it.
This channel is easily the best regarding details of WW2 USAF bomber tactics.
The crazy detail and specifics is what makes it for me 👌
I've been an avid student of WW2 history for close to 50 years, and I'm always learning something new from this channel.
Didnt know. Thanks now i know.
One of the best WW2 channels on TH-cam .
Agreed 👍
Brilliant work! I am amazed by the primary resources!
This is a fascinating and well researched channel.
The info is such amazing detail
Hi Mr. WW2 US Bombers, once again stellar video.
Love this content!! Good thing the Germans hadn't developed proximity fuses!!!
True. However, the proximity fuse only solves the altitude problem. If the bombers' course is unpredictable enough and the shells are aimed at the wrong area then the proximity fuse won't help.
Would be very interesting to understand why the USAAF recommendations to avoid flak were 180 degrees out from the German perspective.
I think at least part of the answer is in the video: allied crews faced a trade off between avoiding flaks and causing their formations to lose its order. When answering, germans probably just answered based on what annoyed them the most.
Thanks!
Thanks for the Super-thanks channel donation, The $ is much appreciated.
Thanks so much.
Such good content! Thank you so much for uploading!
Always great material
Somewhere on YT there is a training film on how to adjust flight patterns in order to avoid German flak tracking. I remember small movements are not good enough you have to really change up the course to not fly through that flak cube.
Another additon to a a great series "Flack". You have opened our eyes to something we have taken for granted. The machinations, analysis, strategy and tactics to mitigate risk was a might effort. It is not just flying there is science involved.
Just watched on TCM “The Memphis Belle: A Story of a Flying Fortress”, “The Cold Blue”, and “The Cold Blue: The Making of A War Documentary”. Wonderful documentaries about the 8th Air Force’s B-17 missions over Germany.
I hadn’t realized how many thousands of missions were flown, and the number of people who never made it back. Get some tissues ready. Powerful and moving.
This is a good channel not bombarded by ads
Happy to see continued videos on this amazing period. Central Pa. Here,with family serving on bombers used during that war. A lot of intellectual types think this type of information ignorant and sophomoric,but I love it.
The what if stuff is pretty good too.
Interesting and informative!
Love these video buddy, keep them coming!
This is again another great contribution of this channel. The USAAF learned by using best practice during the war, as did the Germans. What should be mentioned is how a shell that may missed the target can very well destroy another bomber. The bombers did not fly as one point on a map as illustrated, but in formations of aroud 30 aircraft each. Some were to the left or right or high and low. If we look at an attack with 700 bombers, the Flak gunners had ten to fifteen minutes to shot at them, and no surprise got better after a few minutes.
Most of the manuals quoted are from late war or in the case of FLAK FACTS even the day after the war ended in Europe. It would be interesting to know how such manuals looked in 1941 or 1943 as well.
Excellent!
Thanks for this insight.
Great video - thanks for your video. BTW, one of my uncles manned a FLAK battery during the war.
Thanks for the war history, excellent channel. BTW, @1:06 why did you substitute the word execute with implement? IMO, all this data came out after the war, but at least we were ready in Korea. (joking)
3:05 88 mm had a lethal proximity of 13 feet? That’s close! Lethal to the bomber, crew or both?
Considering the number of fragments produced by each flak round and the speed they are traveling, does anyone else find the "lethal radius" of 13 feet to be an oddly small number?
I think the lethal radius is for the bomber, not crew(?). Its the flack fragments to ability to destroy the air frame or engines. I think air resistance on a non-aerodynamic tumbling metal piece would be a factor of range too. The crew wore flack jackets too= I wonder what lethal range was for these?
Can you make a video detailing German efforts to create a proximity fuse? Also I've read across some parts of the internet (few details, and obviously no direct sources) saying that very late during the war it was found that using contact fuses ended up being more effective than timed fuses due to both being mathematically equally as improbable however not having the set a contact fuse allowed for a higher rate of fire, perhaps a detail looking into that, if true, would be fantastic
This channel did cover contact fuzes in German AAA. I don't remember the exact video though.
This channel is second to none
Great content as always. I have got 2 somewhat related topics that I hope will be addressed in the future : ) 1/ did the germans use or attempted to use mobile flak batteries and 2/ did they attempt to introduce auto-loading systems for their 88mm and + guns ?
Wow: 15 seconds to solve for gun position. We take for granted now that that math is about instantaneous.
How much damage was caused to cities from the flak batteries responsible for defending them? I can't help but wonder if all that falling metal caused damage or casualties.
Also, on particularly high loss missions, what was the damage to German structures and potential personnel loses on the ground from crashing aircraft (from both sides)?
In one of his other videos he mentions the Germans developed a flak shell that had finer shrapnel because of this very thing. It lost some of its effectiveness for the sake of not raining large fragments down on buildings or people.
@Spudmuffinz interesting. Thanks!
Any reports in BIRD Strikes in Combat [ these greenhouse front end canopy's of these bombers ] must have been a bird magnet.
At what altitude do you think birds fly at?
The bombers in combat would be at an altitude of between 10,000 to 25,000 feet.
I would imagine bidrstrikes occurred during takeoff and landing as well as on low-level fighter bomber sorties.
@@localbod Any Bird strikes hi or low. Thank for the comment @L
@@ZIGZAGBureauofInvestigation
I haven't been able to find a specific resource online regarding bird strikes in world war 2, let alone in world war 2 during combat.
I did find this article:
At the 1996 London and 2003 Warsaw meetings of the International Bird Strike Committee, illustrated Working Papers were presented that provided brief details of all known fatalities and destroyed aircraft due to bird strikes between 1912 and 2002. These papers was felt to be useful in drawing attention to the scale of the problem especially when dealing with those who know little about the subject or who are newly appointed to decision-making positions. Since the original papers were published, updated information has been provided in Papers presented at IBSC Meetings in Athens, Brasilia and Cairns. This 36 page Paper consolidates and updates the information and analysis. It is now believed that the number of fatal accidents has risen to at least 55 killing 276 people in addition to the destruction of 108 aircraft. The Paper provides brief details on all the above accidents together with some photographs. Anyone with further information on these or other accidents should contact the Author. These are as follows: Airliners and Executive Jets - 16 fatal accidents killing 189, (which includes 7 third parties on the ground) and destruction of 44 aircraft. Aeroplanes 5,700 kg and below - 32 fatal accidents killing 69 and destruction of 56 aircraft. Helicopters - 7 fatal accidents killing 18 people and destruction of 8 helicopters. Analysis reveals that the major threat to Airliners and Executive jets is engine ingestion, causing 76% of the accidents, it being noted that nowadays the vast majority of airliners are twin-engined thus increasing the consequences of a double engine ingestion. A high proportion of the losses were early Russian airliners and business jets operating where bird control measures may be minimal. Gull flocks (Larus sp.) were the cause of 40% of these accidents. Steadily improved engine ingestion requirements mitigate the risk but this cannot be applied to earlier engine designs. General aviation aeroplanes of 5,700 kg and below are not subject to bird impact requirements, windshield penetration accounting for 56% of the accidents followed by wing damage at 13%. It is suggested that with the increased speed of kit/homebuilt aeroplanes giving birds less time to avoid them and often operating at heights where birds are most prevalent, manufacturers/builders should give serious consideration to the issue. Unlike airliners, birds of prey (Accipitriformes) caused 47% of the accidents followed by geese/ducks, gulls and pelicans/cormorants, many being heavy birds. Some accidents were the result of pilots attempting to avoid birds. Similarly helicopters are most at risk from impact with large birds which caused windshield penetration in 50% of accidents. Faster, quieter helicopters will give birds less time to avoid them. Although not a major cause of fatalities, bird strikes are a serious safety and economic hazard. Bird strike accidents are rare events that can happen out-of-the-blue, even at airports that may consider they have appropriate measures in place. Complacency is the enemy of safety.
@@ZIGZAGBureauofInvestigation
G'day,
Have you ever read
"Bomber"
by Len Deighton ?
One of the first Novels written using a Word processor, in 1976 (!).
In there is an account of a Nightfighting JU-88 encountering a Birdstrike on takeoff.
The Carcase came in through the Cockpit Windscreen & hit, and merged with, the Pilot's Face.
Skull and neck fractures..., instant unconsciousness ; the Observer Gun-Loader was a passenger, all the way down to the Water.
Quite a compelling account, as I recall it.
WW-2 Glass-Nosed Bombers, like the Boeing B-29, with it's Cigar-Nose having clearly beeen copied from the Heinkel-111 ; were generally so very slow and loud when down around the nesting-Grounds that the Birds all generally had time to half-roll and dive out of the way - which is the "standard" emergency evasive manoeuvre of choice for Feathered Flyers meeting Aluminium Components flying in formation , propped up by pillars of Fossil-Carbon Smoke, vibrating furiously all the way, and roaring loudly as it approaches....
Jet Aircraft at high Angles of Attack & low Airspeed might sssSSSUUCK the little Birdies into an Engine, but it's the
High-Speed Low-flying Jets which have the real problems with slow-moving Lumps of Feathery Meat - decorating the Airspace ahead of the Windscreen...
I never ever experienced any
Birdstrikes in my
Ultralight Motorglider,
But I have once, in 1981, had a
Wedgetailled Eagle come over to join me in a Thermal, and then fly the Ridge-Lift ahead of the Leading-Edge of the IS-28 Sailplane I was flying.
At Narromine there's a Soaring Centre, 30 or 40 Sailplanes operating there is not unusual, and the local Eagles have become accustomed to Sailplanes being harmless, and useful to fly with, to better get over a big patch of Sink.
I dunno if that will help any...(?), but it's the best I can offer.
Such is life,
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
I don't think bird strikes were much of a problem with prop planes. They didn't fly fast enough. I never heard about bird strikes until the jets arrived.
What I would like to know is whether RAF or USAAF fighter bombers were ever used to attack German flak batteries? 😊❤😊
Yes there were, but not fighter bombers. There was a video about that on this channel just a few days ago. B-24s dropping fragmentation bombs. Hugely successful. They knocked out the flak batteries two hours before the main bomber body arrived. These were volunteer missions with no shortage of volunteers. In the last 6-12 months of the war bombers were equipped with new radar jamming electronics that confused the flak radar. th-cam.com/video/wDiCFMcDiIo/w-d-xo.html
@@dfirth224 Thanks. 😀
@@dfirth224
There's at least one P47 pilot interviewed here on TH-cam that talks about attacking flak batteries ahead of bombers.
It's been at least several years since I've watched the interview so don't hold me on this point but it MIGHT have been Charlie Morhle who has several interviews on TH-cam (also there's a chance I spelled his last name wrong, if in fact it was him anyway).
After D-Day the 9th Air Force P47's were flying mission's from forward bases set up in France and were very much in range to strike some of the defenses of deep penetration targets that the 8th Air Force were hitting flying off of their bases in England, the bombers escorts weren't used for hitting the flak batteries but the 9th's elements were.
Also it's been about 2 years since I read "Hell Hawks!: The Untold Story Of The American Fliers Who Savaged Hitler's Wehrmacht", it's about one of the 9th's P47 units, the 365th Fighter Group, and it may have an account of them striking flak batteries ahead of bombers, their threat when doing so wasn't the 88 and 105mm flak guns themselves but the 20mm to 50mm short and medium range defensive guns ringed around them for their defenses.
I was just thinking that if the allies used radio control glide bombs like we developed later that would have kept them from the flak. THE Germans had something like it.
For the algorithm.