Hope you guys enjoyed this one, was a lot of fun researching these missiles with MHV! Just a little correction on the look of the Schmetterling, I got the overall look a bit wrong because of conflicting source material. It has been corrected on my video but sadly it came too late for MHV to make any changes.
also sorry for the artifacts in the video. I tried the "green screen" effect for the first time and since it is in post-production and the background color was originally grey (as you can see in Bis' video). I had to apply a filter beforehand to make the green screen work, thus the color combination and also the artifacts when it comes to text etc.
It's amazing how quickly this tech developed. 1915: Steel plates are wrapped around the leading edges of propeller blades so that the rounds shot through them would (hopefully) ricochet away from the plane and pilot. 1942: Approval is given to co-develop jet powered interceptors and radar-guided supersonic anti-aircraft missiles.
Not necessarily. The industrial revolution that made all of these advancement possible was started by water-driven textile mills and the printing press. Neither of which had much to do with war.
That is a well known bromide, but is it accurate? I say no. Planes weren't developed for war, neither were cars, factories, nor much of anything. While war advances war technologies, obviously, few if any of these technologies are result of war. How can we prove, therefore, that war is actually a poor overall technological advancement technique? Well, we could look at Agricultural and Industrial revolutions, as neither was fueled nor pushed by war, yet why bother when we have electronics? Electronics are used for war, obviously, but they were neither developed nor advanced by it. The breakneck speed of advancement of computers, phones, and well everything else in last few decades is proof positive that this bromide is false. Sure some advancement happens due to war, such as RADAR as but one example (although even invention of RADAR was not originally for war), yet how much progress does war destroy? Would planes be any less advanced without war? I would argue most certainly. All one has to do is look at the development of planes for peace transport to see just how far they have come without any war. For instance first cargo plane (used for Air Mail) was created in 1911, which is to say 3 years prior to the Great War, and 3 years after first flight. Let's not credit war for much more then what it is, which is to say destruction. Greatest advances happen in peace, and not war.
Industrial revolution really started practically with Napoleons blockade of England, so it still comes down to war. It probably, maybe would have kicked off later anyway, but probably much later.
Most German weapons projects can be explained by: We need 2 weapon systems, but we only have the capacity to produce 1. Which should we produce? German high command: *yes*
The Germans used 88mm and 105mm shells by the millions in creating aerial "flak boxes" the bomber formations flew through. The shells were exploding at 20,000 feet / 6100 meters or more altitude. What happened to all those shell fragments falling onto the ground later? Hard to imagine a car tire could survive a drive anywhere before long. Everyone except the flak gunners and fire directors would want to be underground, even if the Allies weren't dropping any bombs on them. I had an ammunition truck loaded with 180 rounds of 155mm high explosive detonate next to my unit in Iraq. The shell fragments were vicious pieces of sharp steel and scattered across a half mile radius that was puncturing tires for days.
Imagine going through six months of being steeled for becoming a first hand witness to man's inhumanity to man - aka military training. Settle into a dull peacetime routine of cleaning, training, and handling administrative issues. Next comes the electric shock of "We have orders to deploy in theater." Say goodbye to everyone outside your unit, then move into a very foreign place for what is always an indeterminate amount of time. At this point, if you were just a big game hunter or mountain climber, you would have been changed some by these experiences. The soldier then has to live in varying levels of peril to life and limb for months or even years to follow, whereas the adventurer has very little to fear while sleeping in their tent or hotel room, worried only when in the bush or on the mountain. Those adventurers also typically see a lot fewer explosions, random acts of violence, killings, maimings, and so on than the soldier. The soldier is a witness and a participant in these acts that are well out in the far reaches of acceptable behavior for polite society. War affects people, even if their bodies haven't been injured. It took me at least a year to "unwind" after five months of deployment into a hostile theater. I wish that waging war was not something our politicians seem to take so lightly.
Samuel Thompson Your right on point with that observation. Its one of the often overlooked things about massed AA like that, shrapnel will fall back to earth. I know during the Pacific campaign during WW2 there was a good amount of friendly fire from AA in naval battles. I don't think it was ever a big percentage of the casualties, but it was certainly known to happen.
Did you took help of psychotherapist? is there obligatory visits to them in army? and what tyres were punctured by shell fragments? standart truck tyres or stryker and other mrap?
I attended meetings with other people having issues relateed to problems from our similar personal histories for a number of years and this helped somewhat. Eventually, I found that the bonds of family and especially of my Catholic Church home, for all its strengths and weaknesses, sufficed to help me make peace with war. The tires/tyres punctured were of the standard, US military offroad truck configuration as used by the Oshkosh built HEMT's, 5-ton, 2.5 ton, Hummer, and CUCV trucks.. The Main Supply Route (road) was primarily traveled by support vehicles carrying all manner of things. We did not have any well-armed wheeled vehicles such as the Stryker in those days. The Bradleys, M-1's, M109's, and other tracked vehicles were overwhelmingly north of our position and typically carried on trailers through our area to reduce wear and tear on them and on the already washboarded roads. Tracked vehicles tend to "washboard" roads due to their weight and the spacing of their road wheels.
Of course missiles were less efficient. Even post ww2 conflict showed that Sam missiles are unreliable and vulnerable to electronic warfare. Most importantly, the value of air defense especially ww2 Germany was not in kill statistics, which is what people then and now tended to focus on. Flak was one of the major causes of poor bombing accuracy, and didn't need to shoot a single bomber down to be effective. By forcing bomber formations to higher altitudes, and forcing evasive actions over the target, flak by its mere presence saved countless tons of munitions from making it to its intended target, a fact largely overlooked. Additionally, countless bomber crews have testified that flak is what scared them most. That's exactly what you want in an air defense scenario. Keep bombs off the target, and make the bomber crews shiver in their bunks between missions. Missiles don't do that. That's the real value of flak.
Except missiles absolutely do that. The thing that scares an enemy is something that's effective and even worse if they can't really fight back against it. The thing is guns are completely worthless against modern threats in any role beside last ditch point defense and even then they're more likely to be desperately shooting at incoming guided weaponry then the launch vehicle. A weapon that isn't threatening at all isn't going to have any psychological effect. Gun systems can't force any modern aircraft to alter it's operations much at all, they're already attacking from far beyond there effective range by preference. Missiles have thus by necessity taken over the role of old heavy AA guns, but they suffer from similiar limitations if for somewhat different reasons. Their theoretical lethality against undefended targets is VASTLY higher, but there vulnerability to countermeasures is vastly higher as well so they almost never actually attain anything like that theoretical lethality and so like heavy flak there value is more in deterrence and forcing the enemy to operate in less optimal ways. That's something they still accomplish though the threat of them forces an enemy to possibly avoid certain areas or at least only attack less effectively from a great distance, it makes them invest heavily in countermeasures and only launch operations when a sufficient density of them is available or risk unacceptable losses, and in the modern context it will also often force the use of very expensive weapon like stand off cruise and anti-radiation missiles that are only barely less resource intensive the then SAM they're being used to defeat. SAM can't win an air war anymore then heavy flak batteries could true, and if they're your ONLY defenses your gonna loose against a competent air force, but much like that flak they can serve a useful role as part of a wider integrated defense hopefully backed by an effective air force.
@@Tk3997 true, SAM might cause casualties, but to win Air war You need a competent air force and a defense preparation like British had done for battle of Britain.
@@looinrims No, wars are won by the enemy stops fighting. Killing every single enemy will have that effect, but is the most costly approach. Scaring them to surrender is usually a far more convenient way to achieve the same thing.
Strange dynamic of World War II was that the Germans and Japanese desperately needed proximity fuses for antiaircraft usage, but did not have them. Meanwhile, the Anglo-American allies had proximity fuses, but one could reasonably state that they were not as central to deciding the outcome of the war as they may have been for Germany and Japan. I like how MHV and Bismarck keep peeling back the curtain and exposing just how chaotic was German weapons development and production during WWII. I remember my feelings of shock while viewing "Schindler's List" as what had been an image of an efficient, centrally coordinated German war effort was matter-of-factly annihilated. It starkly reminded me of my German landlord's description of the Nazi leadership as "gangsters." He also told me of watching Allied bomber formations passing overhead and of two P-47 Thunderbolts that sank a river barge there in his hometown of Dorfprozelten. By 1945, the German resistance to strategic bombing was almost entirely limited to anti-aircraft cannon. If the Wehrmacht had earlier set a focus on developing proximity fused anti-aircraft shells, Allied bomber casualties would have been much higher. Instead, it was safer to bomb Germany in 1945 than to complete pilot training back in the USA and UK. The book, "The Wild Blue" by Stephen Ambrose about B-24 bomber experiences late in WWII is highly recommended.
Samuel Thompson very good point sir, I don't know if you read biography of Albert Speer, German Armament Minister who many times stated how complicated was coordinating German military economy (it was in reality during half of war privat economy with strong political influences by different nazi groups of interests). Some examples: Gauleiters (regional nazi leaders) often contested Ministry of Armament plans conserning eg placement of factories, Goering had responsibility of so called 4 year plan which covered large party of economy, different branches of armies changed often commandes and prorities, etc etc
Samuel Thompson It's one of the great myths that the Nazis were efficient, they weren't. They were incompetent on their best days and corrupt as shit on their worst.
7 років тому+4
Northfield Stradford so true. this fact also explains the general incompetence of the average army fielded in south west Asia and most of Africa.
*The one thing very excellent for Germans were their generals.* It was said "Beginners study strategy and tactics; Experts study logistics." Since WW1 or even further back, their military schools focused on getting officers to draw realistic plans for moving how many troops at what time with what, when, where, and why. Their great maneuvers is what made Allied generals *create a lie of the fictional "Blitzkrieg" to cover up their own incompetent defeats.* Guderian, Modell, Kluge (and maaaaybe Rommel. Maybe. Sometimes he risked too much and was just lucky enough for the enemies to believe his bluffs, etc.) were fine examples of excellent Generalfeldmarschalls for the Wehrmacht. As for the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe... well they weren't playing as big a role... so I rest my case.
Well some parts of the projects could have been used for many applications: Proximity fuses are good for heavy AA Guns, SAM Rockets, or AAM Rockets SAM Rockets/Motors could also be used for Rocket artillery. AAM Rockets/Motors could also be used for AGM ot anti tank Rockets Radio Guiding systems for SAM Rockets could have been used as guidance systems for night fighters But there was no 'Modular Thinking' something like: This Misile could used with an AA Warhead or a AP Warhead. The improvised use of 'Nebelwerfer' Rockets as AAM against bombers or the use of Bazookas on ground attack planes against tanks, was only a improvised method that could have lead into the right direction. For example, the RAF used anti submarine missiles on their ground attack planes, that was a great idea.
Great work! Another healthy dose of reality on the _Wunderwaffen_ By the way, looking at the problem of the huge expenditure of mounting the several hundred flakraketen... wouldn´t the Luftwaffe be able to combine them with the regular Flak, so as to make use of systems already in place? Or, if the Flakraketen were supposed to superseed a portion of the regular Flak, the same personnel could be retrained (thinking on the extra 110,000 men required).
If the government heads did what the scientists told them to do, the amount of men could have decreased by a significant amount. Also the amount of needed steel. Under a few different circumstances, wunderwaffen could have become a reality. Luckily, that didn't happen.
Didn't the German Air force have an optically-triggered, vertically-launched rockets on some of their aircraft (Me-163 for example)? One that would fire - vertically - when the plane would fly beneath a big bomber?
well, I have seen a sketch of that a few days ago, but I am not sure how far it was. Still, in this case someone still has to fly close to the bomber, so I doubt it could be reused for targeting (not sure if you mean that, just in case).
Military History Visualized Distinguishing plans and prototypes from actually fielded weapons is always an important distinction, and I'm not confident what I described was actually fielded, as you note. Thanks for the feedback.
Normal wing mounted unguided rockets were more practical both during and shortly after the war. To shoot at bombers above your flight ceiling you just pull up briefly and point in front of them then fire.
What you mean is definitely the Sondergerät 500 Jägerfaust which was meant to be installed into the ME163. As well as prototypes of the HE177 Greif with 33 upward firing Nebelwerfer tubes. There also were FW190 Variants equipped with vertically fired missiles triggered by photo receptors if I remember correctly.
This is a lecture how intraservice rivalry inside the Wehrmacht, bureaucracy and the lack of economic power of Germany played a part in its defeat. All the different branches of the Wehrmacht worked against it each other
Every part of the German government, as well as the military, was working against each other. By design. Hitler believed that if the underlings are fighting one another, they have no time to work together to overthrow him. The 3rd Reich was actually an extremely poorly run economy, and bureaucracy, until Speer received powers to cut through the obstacles. Add to that the traditional rivalry between the Army and Navy, and later Luftwaffe. The Army correctly believe that the Imperial Navy fatally undermined their modernization in the decade leading up to WWI by diverting VAST sums of funds toward the politically costly, and strategically useless Dreadnought fleet. Goering's influence continued to steer large sums toward the Luftwaffe's bomber fleets long after they were useless, to say nothing of the pointless duplication of effort and diversion of funds, equipment and personnel that were his Luftwaffe Field Division vanity projects.
When I was a kid I used to read about the German wonder weapons and when war games came out I was one of the first to buy them. A shallow look at all the German technologies and it seems amazing Germany didn't win, or get a favorable peace treaty. Way back in the early 70's I bought "Panzer Blitz" and immediately got all the wrong impressions about everything Eastern Front, but not because the game designer made huge errors. The German Infantry seemed to suck, until you realize they are platoons and the Soviet Infantry were battalions. The German tanks seemed vastly superior to the Soviets, and they were in many cases, but then you look at the production numbers, a few hundred great tanks against several thousands of decent tanks. Anyways, it is interesting to watch and learn about all the details involved in warfare. Too bad you guys weren't doing this 40 years ago.
Let's not forget that the Vietnam War demonstrated how unreliable guided missiles were even in the 1960's and early 70's despite decades of development and major advances in electronics. Very few American combat losses were to Vietnamese SAMs, with the majority being to flak and even small arms fire. The American air to air missiles proved to be little better, the radar guided ones were notoriously ineffective although the short range heat seekers had some success. So confident was the US that the future of air combat was in beyond visual missiles that the original F4 Phantom didn't have a gun, only during the war and after the relatively useless nature of the missiles were discovered that a gun pod was added. Taking this into account I doubt German AA missiles would have performed any better even if they did get them operational.
0utc4st1985 Funny thing is, in Vietnam the US planes were shot down by AA guns because they were flying low in order to avoid AA missiles. The AA missiles played a key role in Vietnam, but you have to consider their role in the AA defense system as a whole, not look at their kills in isolation.
Flak is actually quite an interesting subject in itself and would be worth doing a video on. I forget the exact figures but in the early days of the war fighters accounted for virtually all allied or at that point, British losses resulting in a switch from day light to night time bombing - the German night fighter organisation being almost non existent at that point so that, for a while, flak then accounted for most British losses which rose even higher with the introduction of the Kaltenbrummer line ( forgive my spelling if slightly wrong) but at this time aircraft flew lower and slower so they flew in the arc of the range of anti aircraft guns for longer AND a shell exploding about 50 feet from an aircraft could inflict sufficient damage to ensure it did not make it back to England. They also didn't have to aim so far in front so accuracy of flak was better later assisted by radar. By 1944 with American day light bombing and the heavy Lancaster bombers making up the majority of British heavy bombers dispatched to Germany, fighters were again accounting for most allied losses. Worse; aircraft were flying higher and faster meaning they spent far less time in the range of an anti aircraft gun. Worse still, AA guns now had to aim far in front of an aircraft - nearly a kilometre in front AND the aircraft were stronger and more robust meaning the flak shells now needed to detonate within about 30 feet to inflict sufficient damage to bring an aircraft down so although there were many more thousands of AA guns in 1944 than in 1941 - 42, it was taking many more shots to score a hit compared with earlier in the war and so about 99.9% of shells fired were missing - a huge waste of resources and flak shells consumed vast quantities of aluminium that would have been put to better use building fighters. By 1945 however, so decimated was the Luftwaffe that again Flak began to account for most allied losses but fewer aircraft were lost - often less than 3% where as up to 1944 5% was common, 10% on occasions especially for American daytime bombing raids. Considerable resources were pumped into Flak but by 1944 it was as good as obsolete. They would have been far better off making AA rockets a priority but Hitler preferred more offensive weapons such as the V2.
At the end of the day, however it worked out (or didn't), you've got to give them credit for trying. I'm pretty sure they launched a few of these on test. It's just a shame they didn't say "What the hell, what have we got to lose?" and let off a few live ones at raids before the end. I think I've got a couple more sources you may find useful if you want to update this stuff in future. I'll pass them along when I'm back home at my bookshelf.
The wasserfall was pretty successful in trials, and they were even pretty far into a half-radar-guided system for anti lancasters Problem was it needed quite some infrastructure
@@predattak however, the radar guidance for wasserfall, to my knowledge, wasn't anything like it is today. Rather, it created a guide for the person aiming, to help see the plane
Could you talk about the steel pillboxes the Japanese used on the islands such as Tarawa and Peleliu? They are pretty interesting Photo: masterpiecemodels.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Jap-Pill-Box.jpg www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Japan/IJA/HB/fig/hb-145.jpg
I believe you should ad some aditional info: 1. Big Warheads Some rockets where designed with extreme big warheads, they should bring down multiple planes out of a bomber formation with one shot. 2. Guiding / Navigation There where trials with radar guiding, the radar beam for rocket observation should also be the guidance for the rocket (Wasserfall). There where test with an infrared seeker on the Enzian Other rockets where tested with some RC like equipment ('line of sight'), like it was used on the Henschel Hs 293 3. Proximity Fuse. This was a neglected part on all the developments, there where trials with acoustic(!) Proximity fuses, for FLAK grenades. I heard it was also tested on the 'R4M Orkan'. But this would have been unusable for hyper sonic missiles. I never heard about developments of radar proximity fuses, like they where used in ailed AA grenades. The missing proximity fuses for AA was a real problem for German anti aircraft missiles. After some clever guy found out, how the possibility of a direct hit for an AA shell was bigger than a hit with the timed fuse, they recognized how poor the idea of timer devices was. 4. Self destruction A rocket will come down in big parts or accidentally in on peace if the target is missed. If such a rocket hits a house it will make as much damage as a small bomb. There was no idea how to prevent this rockets from doing a lot of damage if the came down in one part. 5. The Henschel HS 177 Schmetterling could have become an air-to-air rocket. 6. There where at least 2 other types of SAM rocket under development. (Feuerlilie / Taifun) 7. There was also a development program for air-to-air rockets, the Kramer X4 was a very ambitious rocket system with a wire guidance system or an alternative acoustic homing system. The only really successful air-to-air rocket was the 'R4M Orkan', that was used on the Me262. According to some sources most 'bomber kills' of Me262 pilots in the last month of the war, where done with this tiny unguided rocket.
Ironically the Americans were the ones that perfected the scantron (radar) in artillery shells. When they began using it over land, after the Battle of the Bulge, it was incredibly deadly especially in open country. There were reports of Germans refusing to advance across open terrain. It would burst just before reaching the ground. This way it didn't waste a bunch of energy pushing dirt around.
Thanks for another great video. I somehow never thought about how the many German advances development programs were slowing each other down because of the division of scientists and engineer it implies. Maybe the peoples who could have invented a German proximity fuse were working on the V2 or jet propulsion. It's also not unlikely they were dying in a concentration camp or had escaped to other countries while they could.
7 років тому
SlyPearTree some of us who read about German small arms development during the war have come to the same conclusion. too many irons in the fire, as it were.
In a way its understandable for Germany to look for smart solutions to cope with the severe lack of materials, in particular fuel and the oil to make it. But in the end, it was no subsitute for mass production ánd the abilities of well-fueled warmachines. Still, the German strive for efficiency, innovation and and creative measures are being seen in post-war militaries and civil products.
Germany really did pioneer alot of what would become modern day things. Night vision, SAM, jets, Fritz X, didnt help them in WW2, but we basically use modern spin offs of most the stuff.
Did the Germans experiment with shoulder fired aa-rocket too? I saw some model soldiers named "Nachtjägers" with one armed with something looking like Panzerscherk(ish) weapon. Instead of one rocket, it had multiple smaller rockets, like shotgun against jabos.
@@Taistelukalkkuna the night vision Stg44s were used in combat a couple times, and 80 Luftfausts were used in combat trials and were definitely used during the battle of Berlin
For anyone interested in this sort of stuff the US principally the US navy had also started a number of programs working on primitive SAMs later in the war driven largely by a search for a stand off weapon against large bombers dropping guided weapons (ala Fritz X) and later kamikazes. The late war electronic and guided weapon development of the US is actually quite interesting, but you don't really hear much about it compared to the Nazi wonder weapon stuff since by then it was pretty clear they were going to win so there a certain lack of urgency to really push it forward, although the Kamikazes started changing that toward the back half of 44 in terms of air defense at least. Though unlike Germany since they won the war these programs continued and actually ended up contributing fairly significantly to the first generations of both AAM and SAMs that came about in the 50s.
One of the most feasible guidance systems for anti-air missiles at the time used beam riding. A narrow radar beam would be pointed at the target and the missile would only have to steer to keep in the beam. But the radar was not really precise enough to guarantee a hit on its own. Visual spotting with minor beam adjustments could help but this was impractical for aircraft flying high or at night. A large flak gun could do the same job and have some chance to hit if the target could be tracked visually. The really high shell counts per target are largely due to firing to cover an area where visual tracking was not feasible. Radar could track targets that could not be seen but not with enough precision at the time to make the missile systems much better than unassisted flak since getting a direct hit with a single missile was difficult. Radar assisted flak actually had a better chance to get a hit at less overall cost than guided missiles because they could cover a target area with many shells. A system combining two types of radar for flak fire control called Egerland (combining Klumbach and Marbach radars) was fairly effective but arrived late in the war and was not produced in large numbers.
7 років тому+1
Stu Bur thanks for answering a question I've asked in this thread twice. it seems like so many people have the idea to only use high technology with other high technology instead of trying to use technology to enhance reliable old engineering. it is a shame, although if I were a B17 driver, I'd be pretty glad the Germans hadn't thought of radar aimed flak in time for it to matter.
They did not need proximity fuze...it would be far better with it but they could use time fuze just like they used in flak. 500 kg warhead exploding in the middle of bomber formation would be devastating.
Multiple questions: 9:19 Did you calculate in the propellant on the missles? I think it would only be fair to take it into account as it too was counted with the Flak guns ammunition despite being a diffrent kind of propellant. Also: What are the numbers on the effective range of the flak guns? And third how was the cost factor (if there exists some numbers), how expensive was regular flak ammunition money wise and how did rockets compare to that. If no numbers exist can you talk about how it was with more modern weapon systems (like the "Schilka" vs comparable AA missles). Sorry for burdening your organisational structure with so many questions but I really have to request the information for proper tactical and strategic reevaluation of my intelligence network.
mmm, as soon as he started talking about the required installations I thought "sounds like Mosquito-bait to me". I can't help but think the bases required would have lasted no longer than the non-moveable V1 launch sites.
Hi MH and Bismark, thank you very much on this video. I would liKe to ask: wouldn't the lethality of the missiles be more prominent due to the bombers are flying in formation? While flak is a constant blanket of frag and smoke, I imagine the close formation would have compromised multiple bombers to the same missile which may force Americans/Brits to fly in looser formation. While this may seem a simple solution to dealing with missile proximity AOE this would in turn make luftwaffes job easier in hunting down bombers since the bombers will not be able to cover each other as well. I think your logistical reason is sound, but I feel the ramifications of a radio guided missile would be far more profound especially due to bombers needing to fly close and in formation. Any thoughts, feedback or criticism are appreciated.
Keep in mind how much more effective a intergraded radar controlled gun system with proximity fuses and a strong combat air patrol became in the Pacific. This would be the USN MK 37 ship gunfire control system which used the analog Ford Mk 1a fire control system which provided firing solutions and gun direction for 5'' and above. This system was much more effective than the axis system obtaining a 1:1,000 kill ratio. This along with a strong combat air patrol decimated IJN attacks once the systems became standard throughout the USN. The IJN had to turn to kamikaze attacks, effectively a manned cruise missile, to mount effective attacks. This control system remained a front line system until the advent of digital computers in the 1970's
well, you should also watch our Stream on Flak Towers (Flak Towers & Bismarck). The IJN wasn't flying high-level bombing attacks, where the shell literally travels ages, but with mid to low-level attacks like in the Pacific this is quite different. And I made it pretty clear that the lack of a proximity fuse was a major issue for the Germans.
Another fantastic video! Many thanks :) It mentions (re: the problems with the development of a surface to air missile) that a radio guided missile fired by a ground operator wasn't a viable option. Could you explain why?
Very good video! Thank you! How did Anti Air missiles evolve since then? I mean weren't SAM site quite good by the 60's and 70's? I wonder how much better the technology could have been if those researches got better funding.
Given the problems mentioned at the end, it sounds like air launched guided missiles would have been the way to go. Especially since they were developing air to surface missiles anyway.
Perhaps it's a good thing they didn't have someone like B.F. Skinner on their side. He had developed a way to train pigeons to guide missiles into targets, particularly ships. The US Navy never adopted this though. Had the Germans had this, their anti-ship missiles could have been quite effective and safer for the launching aircraft and their crews. Likewise it might have been possible to use pigeons as a guidance system for the subsonic AA missiles. Something similar to the Enzian could have worked with such a system, especially a somewhat smaller model made to be launched from a good distance out toward the bomber stream. Train the birds to fly at the individual clusters of bombers and they could probably take several out. Of course having a proper proximity fuse, with impact backups, would help, too.
German resourcefulness again, you have to admire them, as engineers too. Took on most of the world for several years. However, even modern systems would struggle against raids of hundreds of aircraft...........Assuming if they were made to work.
The missiles requires a proximity fuze. The Germans actually had that. They tested it in April 1945. The version that was available in 1944 was rejected as unsafe. It was very effective. The average number of rounds per destroyed aircraft was 320. Once the proximity fuze is in volume production, the Allies looses the ability to bomb Germany. The losses would skyrocket. There is no way that the Allies can compensate for the losses by building more aircraft. If the A4 and FZG 76 with proximity fuzes was used as air defense missiles, it would be interesting to know the destructive radius of the warhead. They might not be useful against bombers, but the fighters might be vulnerable. The Germans can defend missile sites by adding radar directed guns. They should be very effective as well.
Interesting as always and thanks for posting, you two. From the numbers is it possible that, for the equation developed to model the parameter, a primary factor considered was rate of fire, for those figures given for the number of rounds required for a kill are quite close to the relative difference in rates of fire of the successive FlaK Weapons. Disturbingly so, in fact. It's slightly odd, too, as the absolute performance figures for effective altitude of the lang 8.8cm and the 10.5cm guns are not nearly as different as were their relative rates of fire. It makes me wonder if the calculation wasn't more esoteric than literal, based on weight of metal over time rather than performance against enemy aircraft. USAAF FlaK Doctrine was to vary height of the "Box", while in flight, to avoid predictor sights, which, perforce, required incoming the bombers to stay at the same altitude and bearing, while flying through the coverage area. Watch this when you have a chance-if you haven't already: ua-cam.com/video/PIYVwqHM488/v-deo.html It's the USAAF Training Film on FlaK. Ian Hogg admired the technical expertise of the enemy engineers and designers, but was skeptical that any decent Infrared or radio proximity guidance or fuse would've been effective at the current state of the art. (Secret Weapons of the Third Reich-Hogg). Looks at times as though his editorial bias leaned toward the wire guided Air to Air missile. The X4/R7 program was a big part of later research on both sides of the Iron Curtain. Of course, you are aware of and have mentioned before, the relative differences in quantity of propellant for rocket weapons versus obturated tube artillery.
Föhn Gerät volley fire AA missile. Anti Ship missiles used in Italy and Normandy. Various AtA missiles launched against bombers fro FW. AtG systems like Mistal... The Germans were experimenting late war w several systems.
"Rheintochter" is a refence to Wagner's Niebelungen Cycle. Because Germans loved adding a bit of Romanic-era musical bombast to their cutting-edge weapons of destruction.
Why don't you do one on the flack the u s faced in Vietnam , over the course of the war I think you're the man to do it anyway keep up the great work really like what you do look forward to seeing more fascinating video's.
I wonder if they expected some efficiency to come in the form of fewer missed shots. With the heavy Flak guns, you're stuck firing at a point in space where you expect the enemy to be and then hoping they don't change course before their planes reach that point. A missile that can change its course mid-flight in response to evasive maneuvers might let you avoid spending limited resources using tactics that are essentially a form of "spray and pray". If they could reduce the footprint needed for the launch sites, or even work on mobile launchers, the reduced need for massed fires might also allow anti-aircraft defenses to be deployed as long lines instead of clusters, possibly creating a greater ability to dictate the routes the bombers could take. (Although this would require a situation where defenders were willing to accept NOT being able to deal a crippling blow to every bomber stream that came their way. If you wanted to devastate a given bomber formation, it would probably still be necessary to cluster batteries together.)
Actually the GFCS centered around the Mk 37 was more effective against high attitudes and distance targets. My point is however that the German regime, even if in possession of a proximity fuse, needed a intergraded GFCS (gun fire control system) using analog gunfire solutions , radar, remote and automatic targeting of gun mounts. Use of this system allowed multiple 5" guns to be remotely powered and directed with a analog computer firing solution using radar or optical inputs All this while traveling at up to 30 knots!
I don't think the WW2 German high command ever developed their own version of the British "Chain Home" system, their hierarchy were too busy competing against each other to be important than to work together for such a system to work.
Thank you for the pretty interesting program. Looks like the worst disaster to the Third Reich was the power structure of the system itself. None of the top-ranking Nazis had military specialists background. Hitler=ex-WW1 corporal & failed artist. Himmler=ex-chicken farmer. Gobbles=Jobless academic & short-term bank teller. Bormann=WW1 non-combat recruit. Goring=WW1 fighter pilot, but not at high command during pre-Nazi era. German aviation industry completed the blueprint & proto type of the jet fighter well before the WW2.But Hiller did not show much interest. And did not allocate any budget for its production. Not until it is too late(in 1943)...
Does anyone know what meassurment Ralf Schabel applied towards his conclusion that research potential was lost due to fragmentation of efforts? Especially interesting would be if there is an economical formula behind it
Hallo, es heißt Flug Abwehr Rakete oder kurz Fla Rak, ganz sicher nicht Flug Abwehr Kanone Rakete! Wenn ihr etwas erklärt, dann macht bitte keine Fehler. Ich weiß, das ihr das besser könnt, Danke.
The defensive measures to be taken to prevent fighter-bomber attacks on FlaRak-stations wouldn't be too different from those for Flak-batteries. Therefore, if FlaRak could have been developed into a more efficient alternative to Flak the ressources needed could simply be shifted which as shown mainly included barely trained personal and basic resources still available. Guided missiles shot from planes would have required precious fighter-planes as well as trained pilots. Therefore, later analysis that it was a mistake not to put more ressources into FlaRak-development to me still sounds quite convincing.
Have you looked into what the pre war German high command considered the biggest threats to deal with in the upcoming conflict? Did they foresee aerial attack as a big problem? What transportation preparations were made for supporting the upcoming thrust into Russia?
Question: were the 8.8 Flak 36 and 41s firing different ammunition or is the comparison just showing the longer guns were either more accurate or less wasteful in terms or rounds per kill in some other way?
7 років тому
AnimeOtaku2 they were more accurate and fired slower forcing the crews to use that accuracy.
By 44 the war was lost but as you pointed out the development of rockets started much earlier in the 30s, for defensive purposes SAM sites before the Allies made a landing would have proven very useful. Bomber losses were already high, with SAMs they could have been unsustainable. I think the counter-argument goes like this: don't waste German airforce on attacking England in 1940 and start building fighters to intercept allied bombers as early as possible (Me-262 earlier was possible). Without complete air dominance Normandy would have been a very different story or not possible at all and also production losses from bombing raids would have been smaller.
I've read there was little sharing of technical know how between the many rocket projects resulting in independent research into the same problems being solved in many cases with the same solution. Exacerbating the shortage of technicians. Possibly because each company wanted to protect it's own technology. By contrast the western allies shared new ideas and technology.
While flak is an English shortening of Fliegerabwehrkanone, the literal translation for flakraketen would more practically be "flak rocket" as, for all intents and purposes, flak is just... flak: a generic term for anti-aircraft fire.
Interesting when you consider that the Germans had a moderately successful guided glide bomb they were using against shipping. You would think that the expedient of getting that weapon above the bomber formations and releasing them in quantity did not cross their minds. Lucky for the allies the Germans never developed something equivalent to the VIX proximity fuse.
The basic AD combo the soviets developed have been S-75 Dvina (SA-2) for high altitude and S-125 Neva (SA-3) for low altitude targets popping up from under the radar horizon. I wonder if they had the tech available in nazi Germany to do sg similar. I doubt it. But we do know that the Dvina with the combinaton of radar guided flak cannons/guns for low altitude targets was very effective even against F4 Phantoms and especually good against large bombers even in Vietnam. And the ancient Neva system could shoot down an F-117 and damage another one during the Yugoslavia/Kosovo campaign. So if they (Germans) could have built sg similar to the Dvina, and combine it with radar guided flak guns for low altitude, than imho it would have been very effective. But tbh I doubt they could have done it, because the soviets built upon the knowledge acquired through building the S-25 Berkut (SA-1) which was a soviet's "Manhattan-project". It was a grand project which helped them build up their knowledge in SAM systems and I doubt the Germans were anywhere near that experience level even if they had the theoretical physics all set.
Thank you for a very interesting video. You make a point of a lack of focus but was this a problem to WW2 Germany or common? How many tanks did the UK make and never quite got it right? The US fielded both the famous B-17 and the slightly more numerous but less famous B-24. Or why both the B-25 Mitchell and the B-26 Havoc? Might be worth doing a video on how weapon projects got approved. I suspect it was not a uniquely German problem.
The Boeing B-17 was a pioneering aircraft, but always limited by its early origins. The Consolidated B-24, designed a few years later, was more sophisticated with its Davis wing design, larger bombload, rollup bomb bay doors to reduce drag, and longer range than the B-17. By 1943, all B-17s had been allocated to Europe as they did not have the range required for the vast Pacific Theater. Also, the B-17 was tough enough to endure the Luftwaffe and flak while the B-24 did not face as much opposition from the Japanese. The North American B-25 Mitchell and Martin B-26 Marauder likewise had really significant differences in terms of timing and capabilities. Fortunately, the air forces of the USA had a broader array of aircraft choices than the ground forces with the ubiquitous Sherman tank. Like the B-24, the Sherman was great against the less sophisticated Japanese, and very vulnerable against its German opposition. For the unfortunate American tankers in Western Europe, there was no equivalent of the B-17 on the ground for them. Like the B-24's that quickly folded up and burned when hit by German fighters or flak, the Shermans quickly ignited when hit with a high velocity 75mm or 88mm anti-tank shell. For the sheer brutality of it, look at the book "Death Traps" or the historical fiction movie "Fury." If you are interested in American graft and corruption around its war effort, such as the tragic waste of resources that was Curtiss-Wright during World War II (B-29 engine development, C-46 Commando transport aircraft flop, the SB2C Helldiver flop, extended production of the P-40 Warhawk through 1944 and so on), look into the work of the Truman Commission. Look at the absurdity of Bell Aircraft and their P-39 and P-63 designs that were almost universally hated by the American and British pilots assigned to those flying turds. Only the Soviet pilots liked them and that should pierce a lot of the veil of nonsense wrapped over the wartime VVS.
Thanks for the info. I had forgotten about the P-39. It crops up a lot in early histories of many campaigns in 1941-1942. I remember it now because it had a centerline mounted cannon.
Proximity fuses were invented by Curren and Butement in the UK in the early war years, handed to the US for development by the Tizard Mission in 1940. German efforts were abandoned in favour of more urgent projects.
edi, as has been mentioned elsewhere it was as much the deterent effect on enemy bombers, forcing them to fly higher and take evasive maneuvers thereby leading to even less accuracy of bombs dropped, rather than actual planes shot down.
My initial gut feeling is that would have been better for the Germans to focus on the Ruhrstahl X-4 guided Air to Air missile. Looks like it was the closes thing to be operational with the added bonus of leading into guided Air to Surface missiles with the X-7. As well as needing way less in way of infrastructure investments. And a musch simpler guidance system that they actually got to work. But well, yeah, wouldn't be Nazi Germany if there wasn't a complete lack of Schwerpunkt when it came to R&D.
It was quite surprising that in the course of the war, no one thought of making a simple . . . what I would call "AA Rocket Boxes" . . . a simple BOX, containing a series of "24" rockets, in TUBES, "6" to "8" ft LONG, "3 to 4" inches in dyam. . . . you just "Point an Shoot", firing them in groups of "6" rockets at a time, fired "1 to 2" seconds apart for each rocket, "12 to 16" BOXES, per Battery, an "Re-loading", would have been a scant few "Mins" per BOX . . . firing into the 1000 plane raids, they would have HAD, to "Hit Something" . . . they would have been "Cheap" to make, in bulk too ! They would have been "Very Easy" to mount on their FLAK TOWERS as well . . . an with the RADAR of the Flak Towers doing the actual "Spotting" for them, its quite clear to me, they would have had great success !.
Even with a thousand bombers, there's an awful lot of sky and not much aeroplane... Plus, you need to get the rocket to explode at the right height to actually shoot one down. AA guns used fuses set to explode at a set height, so your rockets would need that too.
@@blatherskite9601 That was the reason for the "Ripple" firing of them, the split seconds between them would be the fusing ( along with an "Internal" fuse to cause the rocket to EXPLODE after the fuel is gone.)
Hope you guys enjoyed this one, was a lot of fun researching these missiles with MHV! Just a little correction on the look of the Schmetterling, I got the overall look a bit wrong because of conflicting source material. It has been corrected on my video but sadly it came too late for MHV to make any changes.
also sorry for the artifacts in the video. I tried the "green screen" effect for the first time and since it is in post-production and the background color was originally grey (as you can see in Bis' video). I had to apply a filter beforehand to make the green screen work, thus the color combination and also the artifacts when it comes to text etc.
Dont sorry you guys. We still learn new things everyday from the both of you. Keep up the good work you two!
This was a nice surprise to watch. An interesting and uncommon topic.
Bismarck will you make a video about air to air missiles like r4m and x4 too?
Which one(s) of the anti-air missile was controlled on ground with a camera in the missile itself?....
It's amazing how quickly this tech developed.
1915: Steel plates are wrapped around the leading edges of propeller blades so that the rounds shot through them would (hopefully) ricochet away from the plane and pilot.
1942: Approval is given to co-develop jet powered interceptors and radar-guided supersonic anti-aircraft missiles.
Sheldon Robertson war is the engine of progress
Not necessarily. The industrial revolution that made all of these advancement possible was started by water-driven textile mills and the printing press. Neither of which had much to do with war.
not necessarily- more like "competition" Remember the Cold War also saw massive tech development.
That is a well known bromide, but is it accurate? I say no.
Planes weren't developed for war, neither were cars, factories, nor much of anything. While war advances war technologies, obviously, few if any of these technologies are result of war.
How can we prove, therefore, that war is actually a poor overall technological advancement technique? Well, we could look at Agricultural and Industrial revolutions, as neither was fueled nor pushed by war, yet why bother when we have electronics? Electronics are used for war, obviously, but they were neither developed nor advanced by it. The breakneck speed of advancement of computers, phones, and well everything else in last few decades is proof positive that this bromide is false.
Sure some advancement happens due to war, such as RADAR as but one example (although even invention of RADAR was not originally for war), yet how much progress does war destroy? Would planes be any less advanced without war? I would argue most certainly. All one has to do is look at the development of planes for peace transport to see just how far they have come without any war.
For instance first cargo plane (used for Air Mail) was created in 1911, which is to say 3 years prior to the Great War, and 3 years after first flight.
Let's not credit war for much more then what it is, which is to say destruction. Greatest advances happen in peace, and not war.
Industrial revolution really started practically with Napoleons blockade of England, so it still comes down to war. It probably, maybe would have kicked off later anyway, but probably much later.
Treaty of Versailles: Germany may not invest money into AA guns
Germany: invents AA rockets instead
*outstanding move*
German Engineers: This is what I call a Pro Gamer move
Imagine if the had just build giant Tesla towers lol
@@El_Presidente_5337 Is that a red alert reference?
@@guguce28
Well yes but actually no
Flak 88 18 says hello 😆
Most German weapons projects can be explained by:
We need 2 weapon systems, but we only have the capacity to produce 1. Which should we produce?
German high command: *yes*
Or: "We can only produce one, which one?"
High Command: "You should look into this third potential option as well."
Then in the future all our half completed projects will be some sort of proof of our superior technology.
I had the same meme idea 😁
Actually, that´s how science normally works. Their problem was not realizing they should follow a more practical way.
Esteban Mata Vargas or get developed by someone with a better funding program
Loving the Anschluss between MHV and Bismarck
What Is MHV ?
@@ljubomirpetrovic8845 military history visualised
Lmao
Yes. Its Anschluss-time!
The Germans used 88mm and 105mm shells by the millions in creating aerial "flak boxes" the bomber formations flew through. The shells were exploding at 20,000 feet / 6100 meters or more altitude. What happened to all those shell fragments falling onto the ground later? Hard to imagine a car tire could survive a drive anywhere before long. Everyone except the flak gunners and fire directors would want to be underground, even if the Allies weren't dropping any bombs on them. I had an ammunition truck loaded with 180 rounds of 155mm high explosive detonate next to my unit in Iraq. The shell fragments were vicious pieces of sharp steel and scattered across a half mile radius that was puncturing tires for days.
Samuel Thompson does war really change people a lot? even if they haven't been injured?
Imagine going through six months of being steeled for becoming a first hand witness to man's inhumanity to man - aka military training. Settle into a dull peacetime routine of cleaning, training, and handling administrative issues. Next comes the electric shock of "We have orders to deploy in theater." Say goodbye to everyone outside your unit, then move into a very foreign place for what is always an indeterminate amount of time. At this point, if you were just a big game hunter or mountain climber, you would have been changed some by these experiences. The soldier then has to live in varying levels of peril to life and limb for months or even years to follow, whereas the adventurer has very little to fear while sleeping in their tent or hotel room, worried only when in the bush or on the mountain. Those adventurers also typically see a lot fewer explosions, random acts of violence, killings, maimings, and so on than the soldier. The soldier is a witness and a participant in these acts that are well out in the far reaches of acceptable behavior for polite society. War affects people, even if their bodies haven't been injured. It took me at least a year to "unwind" after five months of deployment into a hostile theater. I wish that waging war was not something our politicians seem to take so lightly.
Samuel Thompson Your right on point with that observation. Its one of the often overlooked things about massed AA like that, shrapnel will fall back to earth. I know during the Pacific campaign during WW2 there was a good amount of friendly fire from AA in naval battles. I don't think it was ever a big percentage of the casualties, but it was certainly known to happen.
Did you took help of psychotherapist?
is there obligatory visits to them in army?
and what tyres were punctured by shell fragments? standart truck tyres or stryker and other mrap?
I attended meetings with other people having issues relateed to problems from our similar personal histories for a number of years and this helped somewhat. Eventually, I found that the bonds of family and especially of my Catholic Church home, for all its strengths and weaknesses, sufficed to help me make peace with war. The tires/tyres punctured were of the standard, US military offroad truck configuration as used by the Oshkosh built HEMT's, 5-ton, 2.5 ton, Hummer, and CUCV trucks.. The Main Supply Route (road) was primarily traveled by support vehicles carrying all manner of things. We did not have any well-armed wheeled vehicles such as the Stryker in those days. The Bradleys, M-1's, M109's, and other tracked vehicles were overwhelmingly north of our position and typically carried on trailers through our area to reduce wear and tear on them and on the already washboarded roads. Tracked vehicles tend to "washboard" roads due to their weight and the spacing of their road wheels.
Of course missiles were less efficient. Even post ww2 conflict showed that Sam missiles are unreliable and vulnerable to electronic warfare. Most importantly, the value of air defense especially ww2 Germany was not in kill statistics, which is what people then and now tended to focus on. Flak was one of the major causes of poor bombing accuracy, and didn't need to shoot a single bomber down to be effective. By forcing bomber formations to higher altitudes, and forcing evasive actions over the target, flak by its mere presence saved countless tons of munitions from making it to its intended target, a fact largely overlooked. Additionally, countless bomber crews have testified that flak is what scared them most. That's exactly what you want in an air defense scenario. Keep bombs off the target, and make the bomber crews shiver in their bunks between missions. Missiles don't do that. That's the real value of flak.
Except missiles absolutely do that. The thing that scares an enemy is something that's effective and even worse if they can't really fight back against it. The thing is guns are completely worthless against modern threats in any role beside last ditch point defense and even then they're more likely to be desperately shooting at incoming guided weaponry then the launch vehicle. A weapon that isn't threatening at all isn't going to have any psychological effect. Gun systems can't force any modern aircraft to alter it's operations much at all, they're already attacking from far beyond there effective range by preference.
Missiles have thus by necessity taken over the role of old heavy AA guns, but they suffer from similiar limitations if for somewhat different reasons. Their theoretical lethality against undefended targets is VASTLY higher, but there vulnerability to countermeasures is vastly higher as well so they almost never actually attain anything like that theoretical lethality and so like heavy flak there value is more in deterrence and forcing the enemy to operate in less optimal ways. That's something they still accomplish though the threat of them forces an enemy to possibly avoid certain areas or at least only attack less effectively from a great distance, it makes them invest heavily in countermeasures and only launch operations when a sufficient density of them is available or risk unacceptable losses, and in the modern context it will also often force the use of very expensive weapon like stand off cruise and anti-radiation missiles that are only barely less resource intensive the then SAM they're being used to defeat.
SAM can't win an air war anymore then heavy flak batteries could true, and if they're your ONLY defenses your gonna loose against a competent air force, but much like that flak they can serve a useful role as part of a wider integrated defense hopefully backed by an effective air force.
@@Tk3997 true, SAM might cause casualties, but to win Air war You need a competent air force and a defense preparation like British had done for battle of Britain.
Fair, but wars aren’t won by scaring the enemy, they’re won by *killing the enemy*
@@looinrims No, wars are won by the enemy stops fighting.
Killing every single enemy will have that effect, but is the most costly approach.
Scaring them to surrender is usually a far more convenient way to achieve the same thing.
Strange dynamic of World War II was that the Germans and Japanese desperately needed proximity fuses for antiaircraft usage, but did not have them. Meanwhile, the Anglo-American allies had proximity fuses, but one could reasonably state that they were not as central to deciding the outcome of the war as they may have been for Germany and Japan. I like how MHV and Bismarck keep peeling back the curtain and exposing just how chaotic was German weapons development and production during WWII. I remember my feelings of shock while viewing "Schindler's List" as what had been an image of an efficient, centrally coordinated German war effort was matter-of-factly annihilated. It starkly reminded me of my German landlord's description of the Nazi leadership as "gangsters." He also told me of watching Allied bomber formations passing overhead and of two P-47 Thunderbolts that sank a river barge there in his hometown of Dorfprozelten. By 1945, the German resistance to strategic bombing was almost entirely limited to anti-aircraft cannon. If the Wehrmacht had earlier set a focus on developing proximity fused anti-aircraft shells, Allied bomber casualties would have been much higher. Instead, it was safer to bomb Germany in 1945 than to complete pilot training back in the USA and UK. The book, "The Wild Blue" by Stephen Ambrose about B-24 bomber experiences late in WWII is highly recommended.
Samuel Thompson very good point sir, I don't know if you read biography of Albert Speer, German Armament Minister who many times stated how complicated was coordinating German military economy (it was in reality during half of war privat economy with strong political influences by different nazi groups of interests). Some examples: Gauleiters (regional nazi leaders) often contested Ministry of Armament plans conserning eg placement of factories, Goering had responsibility of so called 4 year plan which covered large party of economy, different branches of armies changed often commandes and prorities, etc etc
Samuel Thompson It's one of the great myths that the Nazis were efficient, they weren't. They were incompetent on their best days and corrupt as shit on their worst.
Northfield Stradford so true. this fact also explains the general incompetence of the average army fielded in south west Asia and most of Africa.
A very interesting approach.
*The one thing very excellent for Germans were their generals.* It was said "Beginners study strategy and tactics; Experts study logistics." Since WW1 or even further back, their military schools focused on getting officers to draw realistic plans for moving how many troops at what time with what, when, where, and why. Their great maneuvers is what made Allied generals *create a lie of the fictional "Blitzkrieg" to cover up their own incompetent defeats.* Guderian, Modell, Kluge (and maaaaybe Rommel. Maybe. Sometimes he risked too much and was just lucky enough for the enemies to believe his bluffs, etc.) were fine examples of excellent Generalfeldmarschalls for the Wehrmacht. As for the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe... well they weren't playing as big a role... so I rest my case.
The smileyface on the "no restrictions on rockets" guy.
=)
Rocket scientist: Surface to air or air to air guided missile?
Luftwaffe: YES!
Well some parts of the projects could have been used for many applications:
Proximity fuses are good for heavy AA Guns, SAM Rockets, or AAM Rockets
SAM Rockets/Motors could also be used for Rocket artillery.
AAM Rockets/Motors could also be used for AGM ot anti tank Rockets
Radio Guiding systems for SAM Rockets could have been used as guidance systems for night fighters
But there was no 'Modular Thinking' something like: This Misile could used with an AA Warhead or a AP Warhead.
The improvised use of 'Nebelwerfer' Rockets as AAM against bombers or the use of Bazookas on ground attack planes against tanks, was only a improvised method that could have lead into the right direction.
For example, the RAF used anti submarine missiles on their ground attack planes, that was a great idea.
I approve of this increase in cooperation between you two and eagerly await the day you will announce the planned marriage.
There is no way that he could afford the ring I want
I ship it.
Also, you're not talking about *that* Milo, are you?
Can't wait for the wedding
Great work! Another healthy dose of reality on the _Wunderwaffen_
By the way, looking at the problem of the huge expenditure of mounting the several hundred flakraketen... wouldn´t the Luftwaffe be able to combine them with the regular Flak, so as to make use of systems already in place? Or, if the Flakraketen were supposed to superseed a portion of the regular Flak, the same personnel could be retrained (thinking on the extra 110,000 men required).
If the government heads did what the scientists told them to do, the amount of men could have decreased by a significant amount. Also the amount of needed steel. Under a few different circumstances, wunderwaffen could have become a reality.
Luckily, that didn't happen.
yes, it can replace flak88, and flak88 can be sent back to the frontline where it's needed the most
"Made in Germany, You know the Germans make good stuff right?" - ShamWow guy
Didn't the German Air force have an optically-triggered, vertically-launched rockets on some of their aircraft (Me-163 for example)? One that would fire - vertically - when the plane would fly beneath a big bomber?
well, I have seen a sketch of that a few days ago, but I am not sure how far it was. Still, in this case someone still has to fly close to the bomber, so I doubt it could be reused for targeting (not sure if you mean that, just in case).
Military History Visualized Distinguishing plans and prototypes from actually fielded weapons is always an important distinction, and I'm not confident what I described was actually fielded, as you note. Thanks for the feedback.
Normal wing mounted unguided rockets were more practical both during and shortly after the war. To shoot at bombers above your flight ceiling you just pull up briefly and point in front of them then fire.
I've heard of this as well--and this may be a tall tale--but I also heard that they also fired whenever the pilot flew under a cloud!
What you mean is definitely the Sondergerät 500 Jägerfaust which was meant to be installed into the ME163.
As well as prototypes of the HE177 Greif with 33 upward firing Nebelwerfer tubes.
There also were FW190 Variants equipped with vertically fired missiles triggered by photo receptors if I remember correctly.
Boden-Boden-Raketen is my new favorite word.
As usual, it was an awesome analysis. Thank you, German enlightened guy, with a peculiar accent!
I absolutely love your videos I'm so glad every time I get the notification that a new one is up. As always thank you for sharing
You have a mesmerising voice my friend anything you say could be made intriguing and cool.
This is a lecture how intraservice rivalry inside the Wehrmacht, bureaucracy and the lack of economic power of Germany played a part in its defeat. All the different branches of the Wehrmacht worked against it each other
on the other side logthrower su152 was developed and launched in 1,5 months.
Every part of the German government, as well as the military, was working against each other. By design. Hitler believed that if the underlings are fighting one another, they have no time to work together to overthrow him. The 3rd Reich was actually an extremely poorly run economy, and bureaucracy, until Speer received powers to cut through the obstacles. Add to that the traditional rivalry between the Army and Navy, and later Luftwaffe. The Army correctly believe that the Imperial Navy fatally undermined their modernization in the decade leading up to WWI by diverting VAST sums of funds toward the politically costly, and strategically useless Dreadnought fleet. Goering's influence continued to steer large sums toward the Luftwaffe's bomber fleets long after they were useless, to say nothing of the pointless duplication of effort and diversion of funds, equipment and personnel that were his Luftwaffe Field Division vanity projects.
Excellent video - the 12 minutes flew by
Did those minutes drop bombs on their way past, and what did you use to attempt shooting them down with?
Leap seconds
Hang on. Wasnt this thing in Battlefield 1942 Secret Weapons on the Essen Map.
probably, wouldn't surprise me.
Military History Visualized Just started the game back up. Yes the Wasserfall is there. Oh dear, when EA was still decent.
Is it just me or when he reads german lines, you feel shiver down your spine, like getting spooked in a good way not bad weird way.
When I was a kid I used to read about the German wonder weapons and when war games came out I was one of the first to buy them. A shallow look at all the German technologies and it seems amazing Germany didn't win, or get a favorable peace treaty.
Way back in the early 70's I bought "Panzer Blitz" and immediately got all the wrong impressions about everything Eastern Front, but not because the game designer made huge errors.
The German Infantry seemed to suck, until you realize they are platoons and the Soviet Infantry were battalions. The German tanks seemed vastly superior to the Soviets, and they were in many cases, but then you look at the production numbers, a few hundred great tanks against several thousands of decent tanks.
Anyways, it is interesting to watch and learn about all the details involved in warfare. Too bad you guys weren't doing this 40 years ago.
WTF you talking about???
Let's not forget that the Vietnam War demonstrated how unreliable guided missiles were even in the 1960's and early 70's despite decades of development and major advances in electronics. Very few American combat losses were to Vietnamese SAMs, with the majority being to flak and even small arms fire. The American air to air missiles proved to be little better, the radar guided ones were notoriously ineffective although the short range heat seekers had some success. So confident was the US that the future of air combat was in beyond visual missiles that the original F4 Phantom didn't have a gun, only during the war and after the relatively useless nature of the missiles were discovered that a gun pod was added. Taking this into account I doubt German AA missiles would have performed any better even if they did get them operational.
A gun pod and, later, an internal gun.
+ Parkinson Rickets
IRL the germans were disarmed during the interwar era and you have parkinson.
0utc4st1985 Funny thing is, in Vietnam the US planes were shot down by AA guns because they were flying low in order to avoid AA missiles. The AA missiles played a key role in Vietnam, but you have to consider their role in the AA defense system as a whole, not look at their kills in isolation.
Rheintochter is singular of Rheintöchter, characters from Wagner's Ring operas.
thank you!! i ever wondered how this name was choosen for an AA-Missile :D
Flak is actually quite an interesting subject in itself and would be worth doing a video on. I forget the exact figures but in the early days of the war fighters accounted for virtually all allied or at that point, British losses resulting in a switch from day light to night time bombing - the German night fighter organisation being almost non existent at that point so that, for a while, flak then accounted for most British losses which rose even higher with the introduction of the Kaltenbrummer line ( forgive my spelling if slightly wrong) but at this time aircraft flew lower and slower so they flew in the arc of the range of anti aircraft guns for longer AND a shell exploding about 50 feet from an aircraft could inflict sufficient damage to ensure it did not make it back to England. They also didn't have to aim so far in front so accuracy of flak was better later assisted by radar.
By 1944 with American day light bombing and the heavy Lancaster bombers making up the majority of British heavy bombers dispatched to Germany, fighters were again accounting for most allied losses. Worse; aircraft were flying higher and faster meaning they spent far less time in the range of an anti aircraft gun. Worse still, AA guns now had to aim far in front of an aircraft - nearly a kilometre in front AND the aircraft were stronger and more robust meaning the flak shells now needed to detonate within about 30 feet to inflict sufficient damage to bring an aircraft down so although there were many more thousands of AA guns in 1944 than in 1941 - 42, it was taking many more shots to score a hit compared with earlier in the war and so about 99.9% of shells fired were missing - a huge waste of resources and flak shells consumed vast quantities of aluminium that would have been put to better use building fighters.
By 1945 however, so decimated was the Luftwaffe that again Flak began to account for most allied losses but fewer aircraft were lost - often less than 3% where as up to 1944 5% was common, 10% on occasions especially for American daytime bombing raids. Considerable resources were pumped into Flak but by 1944 it was as good as obsolete. They would have been far better off making AA rockets a priority but Hitler preferred more offensive weapons such as the V2.
At the end of the day, however it worked out (or didn't), you've got to give them credit for trying.
I'm pretty sure they launched a few of these on test. It's just a shame they didn't say "What the hell, what have we got to lose?" and let off a few live ones at raids before the end.
I think I've got a couple more sources you may find useful if you want to update this stuff in future. I'll pass them along when I'm back home at my bookshelf.
The wasserfall was pretty successful in trials, and they were even pretty far into a half-radar-guided system for anti lancasters
Problem was it needed quite some infrastructure
@@sol2544 can you recommend any books or docs that explain tge subject in detail pls. I can't find much with google.
@predattak there were a lot of websites that talked further in depth, I don't have them on hand. Was a while ago
@@predattak however, the radar guidance for wasserfall, to my knowledge, wasn't anything like it is today. Rather, it created a guide for the person aiming, to help see the plane
Where else can one find such good topics and data. Bravo!
Fascinating; I had no conception these were even projects that existed.
Could you talk about the steel pillboxes the Japanese used on the islands such as Tarawa and Peleliu? They are pretty interesting
Photo: masterpiecemodels.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Jap-Pill-Box.jpg
www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Japan/IJA/HB/fig/hb-145.jpg
Zaqpak that literally sounds like the worst position to possibly ever get stationed in
Shrimp Nachos yes, being stuck in a steal pillbox in the middle of the Pacific while being shot at isn't ideal :)
lol
XD LOL!
I believe you should ad some aditional info:
1. Big Warheads
Some rockets where designed with extreme big warheads, they should bring down multiple planes out of a bomber formation with one shot.
2. Guiding / Navigation
There where trials with radar guiding, the radar beam for rocket observation should also be the guidance for the rocket (Wasserfall).
There where test with an infrared seeker on the Enzian
Other rockets where tested with some RC like equipment ('line of sight'), like it was used on the Henschel Hs 293
3. Proximity Fuse.
This was a neglected part on all the developments, there where trials with acoustic(!) Proximity fuses, for FLAK grenades. I heard it was also tested on the 'R4M Orkan'. But this would have been unusable for hyper sonic missiles. I never heard about developments of radar proximity fuses, like they where used in ailed AA grenades.
The missing proximity fuses for AA was a real problem for German anti aircraft missiles. After some clever guy found out, how the possibility of a direct hit for an AA shell was bigger than a hit with the timed fuse, they recognized how poor the idea of timer devices was.
4. Self destruction
A rocket will come down in big parts or accidentally in on peace if the target is missed. If such a rocket hits a house it will make as much damage as a small bomb. There was no idea how to prevent this rockets from doing a lot of damage if the came down in one part.
5. The Henschel HS 177 Schmetterling could have become an air-to-air rocket.
6. There where at least 2 other types of SAM rocket under development. (Feuerlilie / Taifun)
7. There was also a development program for air-to-air rockets, the Kramer X4 was a very ambitious rocket system with a wire guidance system or an alternative acoustic homing system.
The only really successful air-to-air rocket was the 'R4M Orkan', that was used on the Me262. According to some sources most 'bomber kills' of Me262 pilots in the last month of the war, where done with this tiny unguided rocket.
There is an Enzian missile at the RAAF Museum in Point Cook, Victoria Australia
Ironically the Americans were the ones that perfected the scantron (radar) in artillery shells. When they began using it over land, after the Battle of the Bulge, it was incredibly deadly especially in open country. There were reports of Germans refusing to advance across open terrain. It would burst just before reaching the ground. This way it didn't waste a bunch of energy pushing dirt around.
Excellent video! Well researched and properly presented!
Thanks for another great video. I somehow never thought about how the many German advances development programs were slowing each other down because of the division of scientists and engineer it implies. Maybe the peoples who could have invented a German proximity fuse were working on the V2 or jet propulsion. It's also not unlikely they were dying in a concentration camp or had escaped to other countries while they could.
SlyPearTree some of us who read about German small arms development during the war have come to the same conclusion. too many irons in the fire, as it were.
After watching a MHV video, I get this uncontrollable urge to play HoI 4 for hours. Eweri teim.
Do a vid about the pak 3 and the THAAD and how they compare and how effective each one is.
Excellent video! Really taught me a lot!
10:53 what are jeffs? Cant find anything on it :/
He means Chaff or Düppel in German. And no, there weren't throwing poor Jeff out of the plane to intercept the missiles.
In a way its understandable for Germany to look for smart solutions to cope with the severe lack of materials, in particular fuel and the oil to make it. But in the end, it was no subsitute for mass production ánd the abilities of well-fueled warmachines.
Still, the German strive for efficiency, innovation and and creative measures are being seen in post-war militaries and civil products.
Very interesting! I very much enjoy when you take the time and read out the paragraphs in the original German! Wie hübsches Musik für meinen Ohren!😊
Germany really did pioneer alot of what would become modern day things. Night vision, SAM, jets, Fritz X, didnt help them in WW2, but we basically use modern spin offs of most the stuff.
I like how he say horizontally challenged instead of a fat missile
Did the Germans experiment with shoulder fired aa-rocket too? I saw some model soldiers named "Nachtjägers" with one armed with something looking like Panzerscherk(ish) weapon. Instead of one rocket, it had multiple smaller rockets, like shotgun against jabos.
That sounds a bit like a Fliegerfaust (or Luftfaust) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fliegerfaust
+Jeff NME, yes that´s exactly what the model soldier had. Other guy had Stg44 with night vision sight. Guess they were bit of "what if" troops.
@@Taistelukalkkuna the night vision Stg44s were used in combat a couple times, and 80 Luftfausts were used in combat trials and were definitely used during the battle of Berlin
For anyone interested in this sort of stuff the US principally the US navy had also started a number of programs working on primitive SAMs later in the war driven largely by a search for a stand off weapon against large bombers dropping guided weapons (ala Fritz X) and later kamikazes. The late war electronic and guided weapon development of the US is actually quite interesting, but you don't really hear much about it compared to the Nazi wonder weapon stuff since by then it was pretty clear they were going to win so there a certain lack of urgency to really push it forward, although the Kamikazes started changing that toward the back half of 44 in terms of air defense at least.
Though unlike Germany since they won the war these programs continued and actually ended up contributing fairly significantly to the first generations of both AAM and SAMs that came about in the 50s.
One of the most feasible guidance systems for anti-air missiles at the time used beam riding. A narrow radar beam would be pointed at the target and the missile would only have to steer to keep in the beam. But the radar was not really precise enough to guarantee a hit on its own. Visual spotting with minor beam adjustments could help but this was impractical for aircraft flying high or at night.
A large flak gun could do the same job and have some chance to hit if the target could be tracked visually. The really high shell counts per target are largely due to firing to cover an area where visual tracking was not feasible. Radar could track targets that could not be seen but not with enough precision at the time to make the missile systems much better than unassisted flak since getting a direct hit with a single missile was difficult.
Radar assisted flak actually had a better chance to get a hit at less overall cost than guided missiles because they could cover a target area with many shells. A system combining two types of radar for flak fire control called Egerland (combining Klumbach and Marbach radars) was fairly effective but arrived late in the war and was not produced in large numbers.
Stu Bur thanks for answering a question I've asked in this thread twice.
it seems like so many people have the idea to only use high technology with other high technology instead of trying to use technology to enhance reliable old engineering. it is a shame, although if I were a B17 driver, I'd be pretty glad the Germans hadn't thought of radar aimed flak in time for it to matter.
They did not need proximity fuze...it would be far better with it but they could use time fuze just like they used in flak. 500 kg warhead exploding in the middle of bomber formation would be devastating.
Multiple questions: 9:19 Did you calculate in the propellant on the missles? I think it would only be fair to take it into account as it too was counted with the Flak guns ammunition despite being a diffrent kind of propellant.
Also: What are the numbers on the effective range of the flak guns?
And third how was the cost factor (if there exists some numbers), how expensive was regular flak ammunition money wise and how did rockets compare to that. If no numbers exist can you talk about how it was with more modern weapon systems (like the "Schilka" vs comparable AA missles).
Sorry for burdening your organisational structure with so many questions but I really have to request the information for proper tactical and strategic reevaluation of my intelligence network.
mmm, as soon as he started talking about the required installations I thought "sounds like Mosquito-bait to me". I can't help but think the bases required would have lasted no longer than the non-moveable V1 launch sites.
A very informative video about German WW2 weaponry.
Danke. 🇩🇪
Hi MH and Bismark, thank you very much on this video. I would liKe to ask: wouldn't the lethality of the missiles be more prominent due to the bombers are flying in formation? While flak is a constant blanket of frag and smoke, I imagine the close formation would have compromised multiple bombers to the same missile which may force Americans/Brits to fly in looser formation. While this may seem a simple solution to dealing with missile proximity AOE this would in turn make luftwaffes job easier in hunting down bombers since the bombers will not be able to cover each other as well. I think your logistical reason is sound, but I feel the ramifications of a radio guided missile would be far more profound especially due to bombers needing to fly close and in formation.
Any thoughts, feedback or criticism are appreciated.
Keep in mind how much more effective a intergraded radar controlled gun system with proximity fuses and a strong combat air patrol became in the Pacific. This would be the USN MK 37 ship gunfire control system which used the analog Ford Mk 1a fire control system which provided firing solutions and gun direction for 5'' and above. This system was much more effective than the axis system obtaining a 1:1,000 kill ratio. This along with a strong combat air patrol decimated IJN attacks once the systems became standard throughout the USN. The IJN had to turn to kamikaze attacks, effectively a manned cruise missile, to mount effective attacks. This control system remained a front line system until the advent of digital computers in the 1970's
well, you should also watch our Stream on Flak Towers (Flak Towers & Bismarck). The IJN wasn't flying high-level bombing attacks, where the shell literally travels ages, but with mid to low-level attacks like in the Pacific this is quite different. And I made it pretty clear that the lack of a proximity fuse was a major issue for the Germans.
At 1:03 I’m kinda confused is it supposed to be luftwaffe yet not or should it be not yet?
Another fantastic video! Many thanks :) It mentions (re: the problems with the development of a surface to air missile) that a radio guided missile fired by a ground operator wasn't a viable option. Could you explain why?
Sheldon Robertson many thanks :)
Very good video! Thank you! How did Anti Air missiles evolve since then? I mean weren't SAM site quite good by the 60's and 70's? I wonder how much better the technology could have been if those researches got better funding.
Given the problems mentioned at the end, it sounds like air launched guided missiles would have been the way to go. Especially since they were developing air to surface missiles anyway.
Perhaps it's a good thing they didn't have someone like B.F. Skinner on their side. He had developed a way to train pigeons to guide missiles into targets, particularly ships. The US Navy never adopted this though.
Had the Germans had this, their anti-ship missiles could have been quite effective and safer for the launching aircraft and their crews. Likewise it might have been possible to use pigeons as a guidance system for the subsonic AA missiles. Something similar to the Enzian could have worked with such a system, especially a somewhat smaller model made to be launched from a good distance out toward the bomber stream. Train the birds to fly at the individual clusters of bombers and they could probably take several out. Of course having a proper proximity fuse, with impact backups, would help, too.
There anti-ship missiles weren't exactly INeffective, Roma being a case in point.
German resourcefulness again, you have to admire them, as engineers too. Took on most of the world for several years. However, even modern systems would struggle against raids of hundreds of aircraft...........Assuming if they were made to work.
Very interesting that information regarding the cost to shoot down an Aircraft. It amazed me.
The missiles requires a proximity fuze. The Germans actually had that. They tested it in April 1945. The version that was available in 1944 was rejected as unsafe. It was very effective. The average number of rounds per destroyed aircraft was 320.
Once the proximity fuze is in volume production, the Allies looses the ability to bomb Germany. The losses would skyrocket. There is no way that the Allies can compensate for the losses by building more aircraft.
If the A4 and FZG 76 with proximity fuzes was used as air defense missiles, it would be interesting to know the destructive radius of the warhead. They might not be useful against bombers, but the fighters might be vulnerable.
The Germans can defend missile sites by adding radar directed guns. They should be very effective as well.
Thanks for making these btw. This is how I wake up.
Hello everyone, if you are interested you can see a Rheintochter in Munich in the “Deutsches Museum“ (German Museum
Interesting as always and thanks for posting, you two.
From the numbers is it possible that, for the equation developed to model the parameter, a primary factor considered was rate of fire, for those figures given for the number of rounds required for a kill are quite close to the relative difference in rates of fire of the successive FlaK Weapons. Disturbingly so, in fact. It's slightly odd, too, as the absolute performance figures for effective altitude of the lang 8.8cm and the 10.5cm guns are not nearly as different as were their relative rates of fire. It makes me wonder if the calculation wasn't more esoteric than literal, based on weight of metal over time rather than performance against enemy aircraft.
USAAF FlaK Doctrine was to vary height of the "Box", while in flight, to avoid predictor sights, which, perforce, required incoming the bombers to stay at the same altitude and bearing, while flying through the coverage area.
Watch this when you have a chance-if you haven't already: ua-cam.com/video/PIYVwqHM488/v-deo.html It's the USAAF Training Film on FlaK.
Ian Hogg admired the technical expertise of the enemy engineers and designers, but was skeptical that any decent Infrared or radio proximity guidance or fuse would've been effective at the current state of the art. (Secret Weapons of the Third Reich-Hogg). Looks at times as though his editorial bias leaned toward the wire guided Air to Air missile. The X4/R7 program was a big part of later research on both sides of the Iron Curtain.
Of course, you are aware of and have mentioned before, the relative differences in quantity of propellant for rocket weapons versus obturated tube artillery.
GREAT CHANNEL !!!! SUPER INFORMATIVE !!! GREAT JOB !!!! BRAVO BRAVO BRAVO 👏 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
Föhn Gerät volley fire AA missile.
Anti Ship missiles used in Italy and Normandy.
Various AtA missiles launched against bombers fro FW.
AtG systems like Mistal...
The Germans were experimenting late war w several systems.
"He wasn't the only one tat couldn't see up his mind" *looks at Italy*
"Rheintochter" is a refence to Wagner's Niebelungen Cycle. Because Germans loved adding a bit of Romanic-era musical bombast to their cutting-edge weapons of destruction.
Why don't you do one on the flack the u s faced in Vietnam , over the course of the war I think you're the man to do it anyway keep up the great work really like what you do look forward to seeing more fascinating video's.
I wonder if they expected some efficiency to come in the form of fewer missed shots. With the heavy Flak guns, you're stuck firing at a point in space where you expect the enemy to be and then hoping they don't change course before their planes reach that point. A missile that can change its course mid-flight in response to evasive maneuvers might let you avoid spending limited resources using tactics that are essentially a form of "spray and pray".
If they could reduce the footprint needed for the launch sites, or even work on mobile launchers, the reduced need for massed fires might also allow anti-aircraft defenses to be deployed as long lines instead of clusters, possibly creating a greater ability to dictate the routes the bombers could take. (Although this would require a situation where defenders were willing to accept NOT being able to deal a crippling blow to every bomber stream that came their way. If you wanted to devastate a given bomber formation, it would probably still be necessary to cluster batteries together.)
Actually the GFCS centered around the Mk 37 was more effective against high attitudes and distance targets. My point is however that the German regime, even if in possession of a proximity fuse, needed a intergraded GFCS (gun fire control system) using analog gunfire solutions , radar, remote and automatic targeting of gun mounts. Use of this system allowed multiple 5" guns to be remotely powered and directed with a analog computer firing solution using radar or optical inputs All this while traveling at up to 30 knots!
I don't think the WW2 German high command ever developed their own version of the British "Chain Home" system, their hierarchy were too busy competing against each other to be important than to work together for such a system to work.
Thank you for the pretty interesting program. Looks like the worst disaster to the Third Reich was the power structure of the system itself. None of the top-ranking Nazis had military specialists background. Hitler=ex-WW1 corporal & failed artist. Himmler=ex-chicken farmer. Gobbles=Jobless academic & short-term bank teller. Bormann=WW1 non-combat recruit. Goring=WW1 fighter pilot, but not at high command during pre-Nazi era. German aviation industry completed the blueprint & proto type of the jet fighter well before the WW2.But Hiller did not show much interest. And did not allocate any budget for its production. Not until it is too late(in 1943)...
My primitive 'murican ears couldn't tell that Bismarck was also in the video until the end. But anyways great video guys!
nice. good information good work
11:10 would have been the beginning of "YGBSM."
Does anyone know what meassurment Ralf Schabel applied towards his conclusion that research potential was lost due to fragmentation of efforts? Especially interesting would be if there is an economical formula behind it
Hallo, es heißt Flug Abwehr Rakete oder kurz Fla Rak, ganz sicher nicht Flug Abwehr Kanone Rakete! Wenn ihr etwas erklärt, dann macht bitte keine Fehler. Ich weiß, das ihr das besser könnt, Danke.
great channel and amazing German accent)
The defensive measures to be taken to prevent fighter-bomber attacks on FlaRak-stations wouldn't be too different from those for Flak-batteries. Therefore, if FlaRak could have been developed into a more efficient alternative to Flak the ressources needed could simply be shifted which as shown mainly included barely trained personal and basic resources still available. Guided missiles shot from planes would have required precious fighter-planes as well as trained pilots. Therefore, later analysis that it was a mistake not to put more ressources into FlaRak-development to me still sounds quite convincing.
Have you looked into what the pre war German high command considered the biggest threats to deal with in the upcoming conflict? Did they foresee aerial attack as a big problem? What transportation preparations were made for supporting the upcoming thrust into Russia?
Question: were the 8.8 Flak 36 and 41s firing different ammunition or is the comparison just showing the longer guns were either more accurate or less wasteful in terms or rounds per kill in some other way?
AnimeOtaku2 they were more accurate and fired slower forcing the crews to use that accuracy.
Totally different guns and ammo
By 44 the war was lost but as you pointed out the development of rockets started much earlier in the 30s, for defensive purposes SAM sites before the Allies made a landing would have proven very useful. Bomber losses were already high, with SAMs they could have been unsustainable. I think the counter-argument goes like this: don't waste German airforce on attacking England in 1940 and start building fighters to intercept allied bombers as early as possible (Me-262 earlier was possible). Without complete air dominance Normandy would have been a very different story or not possible at all and also production losses from bombing raids would have been smaller.
I've read there was little sharing of technical know how between the many rocket projects resulting in independent research into the same problems being solved in many cases with the same solution. Exacerbating the shortage of technicians. Possibly because each company wanted to protect it's own technology. By contrast the western allies shared new ideas and technology.
2:47 Why wasn't radio-guidance a real option?
thx,always thought this project was more viable..
While flak is an English shortening of Fliegerabwehrkanone, the literal translation for flakraketen would more practically be "flak rocket" as, for all intents and purposes, flak is just... flak: a generic term for anti-aircraft fire.
Bf1 AA rocket gun: Hold my flak shells
Interesting when you consider that the Germans had a moderately successful guided glide bomb they were using against shipping. You would think that the expedient of getting that weapon above the bomber formations and releasing them in quantity did not cross their minds. Lucky for the allies the Germans never developed something equivalent to the VIX proximity fuse.
The basic AD combo the soviets developed have been S-75 Dvina (SA-2) for high altitude and S-125 Neva (SA-3) for low altitude targets popping up from under the radar horizon.
I wonder if they had the tech available in nazi Germany to do sg similar. I doubt it. But we do know that the Dvina with the combinaton of radar guided flak cannons/guns for low altitude targets was very effective even against F4 Phantoms and especually good against large bombers even in Vietnam. And the ancient Neva system could shoot down an F-117 and damage another one during the Yugoslavia/Kosovo campaign.
So if they (Germans) could have built sg similar to the Dvina, and combine it with radar guided flak guns for low altitude, than imho it would have been very effective.
But tbh I doubt they could have done it, because the soviets built upon the knowledge acquired through building the S-25 Berkut (SA-1) which was a soviet's "Manhattan-project". It was a grand project which helped them build up their knowledge in SAM systems and I doubt the Germans were anywhere near that experience level even if they had the theoretical physics all set.
Thank you for a very interesting video. You make a point of a lack of focus but was this a problem to WW2 Germany or common? How many tanks did the UK make and never quite got it right? The US fielded both the famous B-17 and the slightly more numerous but less famous B-24. Or why both the B-25 Mitchell and the B-26 Havoc? Might be worth doing a video on how weapon projects got approved. I suspect it was not a uniquely German problem.
The Boeing B-17 was a pioneering aircraft, but always limited by its early origins. The Consolidated B-24, designed a few years later, was more sophisticated with its Davis wing design, larger bombload, rollup bomb bay doors to reduce drag, and longer range than the B-17. By 1943, all B-17s had been allocated to Europe as they did not have the range required for the vast Pacific Theater. Also, the B-17 was tough enough to endure the Luftwaffe and flak while the B-24 did not face as much opposition from the Japanese. The North American B-25 Mitchell and Martin B-26 Marauder likewise had really significant differences in terms of timing and capabilities. Fortunately, the air forces of the USA had a broader array of aircraft choices than the ground forces with the ubiquitous Sherman tank. Like the B-24, the Sherman was great against the less sophisticated Japanese, and very vulnerable against its German opposition. For the unfortunate American tankers in Western Europe, there was no equivalent of the B-17 on the ground for them. Like the B-24's that quickly folded up and burned when hit by German fighters or flak, the Shermans quickly ignited when hit with a high velocity 75mm or 88mm anti-tank shell. For the sheer brutality of it, look at the book "Death Traps" or the historical fiction movie "Fury." If you are interested in American graft and corruption around its war effort, such as the tragic waste of resources that was Curtiss-Wright during World War II (B-29 engine development, C-46 Commando transport aircraft flop, the SB2C Helldiver flop, extended production of the P-40 Warhawk through 1944 and so on), look into the work of the Truman Commission. Look at the absurdity of Bell Aircraft and their P-39 and P-63 designs that were almost universally hated by the American and British pilots assigned to those flying turds. Only the Soviet pilots liked them and that should pierce a lot of the veil of nonsense wrapped over the wartime VVS.
Thanks for the info. I had forgotten about the P-39. It crops up a lot in early histories of many campaigns in 1941-1942. I remember it now because it had a centerline mounted cannon.
What the Germans sorely missed was the proximity fuse.
What is the minor malady? Bet on one horse and reach a dead end, or disperse the options, with at least mediocre results? Just my thoughts.....
Man u are the best I did not even know this weapon even exist that time damn when are u getting all this intelligence?
Nice...good ideea to read in german and after in english. Creates a nice 40' atmosfere :)
I am confused about the lack of a proximity fuse, didn't the flak shells they were using have proximity fuses? Or did I misremember that?
Proximity fuses were invented by Curren and Butement in the UK in the early war years, handed to the US for development by the Tizard Mission in 1940. German efforts were abandoned in favour of more urgent projects.
What are the protrusions under the battlement of the flaktower?
How could it make sense wasting that many shots on a single plane?
Would it make more sense to _not_ shoot at the planes?
edi, as has been mentioned elsewhere it was as much the deterent effect on enemy bombers, forcing them to fly higher and take evasive maneuvers thereby leading to even less accuracy of bombs dropped, rather than actual planes shot down.
Ayy it's Bismarck!
So it should be "flugzeug abwehr raketen", or FLAR, right?
Anyone else feel like mhv is just showing off when he reads the passages in german😂😂😂
nahh didnt like his Accent, north-german accent is better ;)
fuck the southerners
My initial gut feeling is that would have been better for the Germans to focus on the Ruhrstahl X-4 guided Air to Air missile. Looks like it was the closes thing to be operational with the added bonus of leading into guided Air to Surface missiles with the X-7. As well as needing way less in way of infrastructure investments. And a musch simpler guidance system that they actually got to work. But well, yeah, wouldn't be Nazi Germany if there wasn't a complete lack of Schwerpunkt when it came to R&D.
Clearly Germany needed more time for R&D before getting drawn into WW2 by the Allies.
Well played! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
It was quite surprising that in the course of the war, no one thought of making a simple . . . what I would call "AA Rocket Boxes" . . . a simple BOX, containing a series of "24" rockets, in TUBES, "6" to "8" ft LONG, "3 to 4" inches in dyam. . . . you just "Point an Shoot", firing them in groups of "6" rockets at a time, fired "1 to 2" seconds apart for each rocket, "12 to 16" BOXES, per Battery, an "Re-loading", would have been a scant few "Mins" per BOX . . . firing into the 1000 plane raids, they would have HAD, to "Hit Something" . . . they would have been "Cheap" to make, in bulk too ! They would have been "Very Easy" to mount on their FLAK TOWERS as well . . . an with the RADAR of the Flak Towers doing the actual "Spotting" for them, its quite clear to me, they would have had great success !.
Even with a thousand bombers, there's an awful lot of sky and not much aeroplane... Plus, you need to get the rocket to explode at the right height to actually shoot one down. AA guns used fuses set to explode at a set height, so your rockets would need that too.
@@blatherskite9601 That was the reason for the "Ripple" firing of them, the split seconds between them would be the fusing ( along with an "Internal" fuse to cause the rocket to EXPLODE after the fuel is gone.)