Why attacking at higher altitudes was critical to Bomber survival against FLAK-Deep Dive Review
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 вер 2024
- During WWII bombers tactics changed based on the threats evolving. FLAK threat became more of an issue as the war progressed. One method to reduce FLAK effectiveness was to fly at maximum altitude. The optimum altitude was selected based on anticipated bomber losses as compared to bombing accuracy. This video will address considerations in formation altitude selection.
The 8th Air Force was divided into 8th Bomber Command and 8th Fighter Command in the early phase of the USAAF bomber offensive. A later reorganization eliminated one layer of command and merged the bomber and fighter commands into a single 8th Air Force command structure in order to enhance unity of command. The 8th air force fighter escort missions were then scheduled by the bomber command structure rather than the fighter command structure.
Algorithm engagement via commenting is effective at all altitudes. Unless it isn’t… we’ll never see manuals full of that data.
😂 who's doing that video !
What about the attrition due to automatically deleted comments, specifically tasteful comments that were within comment ROE that are deleted versus actual inappropriate comments?
@@Roddy556 As I said, sadly we’ll never see the data on those tragedies. Unless we manage to obtain one of Google’s Enigma machines from a crippled G-Boat. I, too, am a frequent victim of such crimes against humanity - I put in the time to craft a beautiful comment and it is simply lost to the ether. War is hell.
Outstanding segment. Great job as always.....
Another gem. 👍
Another very interesting contribution on USAAF thinking. As usual, when it comes to such manuals, it makes sense at first sight and as a general guide. But it's interesting to mention that when crucial targets had to be destroyed, it was not applied. First for example the low level attacks on the Ploiesti oil installations in Romania, and later the bombing campaign against Japan. Here the low level bombing of Tokyo in 1945 stands out. After that, most important Japanese cities were bombed from lower levels. On one side the USAAF had the manual with all the data, and on the other side practical considerations.
Something interesting are the numbers that confirm how bombing with Liberators gave significantly worse results than bombing with B-17s. I did guess that for years, but never saw such interesting numbers.
These videos are fantastic. I used to wonder about this stuff years ago watching movies etc. My father was a fighter pilot and fighter weapons instructor, mainly (F-4C) late 50s -70s I used to build models and go to work with him whenever I could and hang around the hangers, flightline and ready rooms. I even got to watch him teach classes sometimes and hang out with the technicians when he was flying.
Of course, I asked questions about what I saw in old movies like 12 O'clock high with Gregory Peck and others, he would explain with all the detail he could. Often my school reports or science class projects were about what I learned. So this is why I love WWII US Bombers & Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles UA-cam channels the best.
This analysis is as good as it gets.
That was a really good explanation, synthesis of a few pieces of info. Putting it all together to show the danger zone of flak ballistics table made a lot of sense. The final number of shots they could take gets to the core of the problem, the critical metric. Like, being able to take away seven of their 20 chances to kill me is something I'd be very interested in doing. "13 instead of 20, huh? Alright, you've sold me on this idea of high altitude bombing."
Over Japan high altitude bombing was a waste of time and resources as the high winds above 15,000 feet would scatter most ordnance over a wide area.
Well yeah. They literally hadn't discovered the "jet stream" yet. I think it took them weeks to figure it out... 🐿
Really an excellent channel. Like it very much!
i like ! 🐿
First I heard that the WW2 bombers could fly above the 88mm flak. Very nice discussion.
-The 8.8cm FLAK 37 (model 1937) had a muzzle velocity of 840m/s but the 8.8cm FLAK 41 (model1941) had a muzzle velocity of 1030m/s. Luftwaffe studies indicated that at 29,500 feet, the 88-mm/Model 37 had only 14 seconds to effectively engage a target, the 10.5cm FLAK 39 had 49 seconds, and finally the 88-mm FLAK 41 and the 12.8cm FLAK 40 both had 68 seconds of effective engagement time. At 36,000 feet, only the 88-mm/Model 41 and the 128-mm were able to engage a target for a period of only 31 seconds.
-The 8.8cm FLAK 41 and the 12.8cm FLAK 40 could thus reach both the B17 and B29.
-The 8.8cm FLAK 41 was dual use and some were shipped to Rommels forces in Africa in 1942. It ran into technical problems that were not solved till 1944 so few of this potent weapon were produced leaving the RAF pathfinder mosquitoes unmolested and allowing the USAAF heavies relative safety above 25,000ft.
-The first problem was that materials shortages in the war forced a conversion from brass to steel cartridges and these jammed at the seam of the barrel liner sleave. The second related to Vibration and rate of fire. The gun was equipped with an autoloader with an integrated fuse setting machine and power ramming to achieve 25 RPM (above the FLAK 37 15 RPM) but this caused accuracy problems. The problems were solved by 1944 (I think by firing on the recoil) but by December 1944 or so only 318 were in service.
-The 12.8cm FLAK 40 had the range and altitude needed, it was the most powerful AAA weapon of WW2, but its cost limited production to 1125.
-The 10.5cm Flak 39 while better was not enough of an improvement and limited to 4000 units of production.
brutal thumbnail. thanks for the content, keep it up.
Your video series of bomber altitude vs flak effectiveness is fascinating. Thanks.
Ahh a new video! I love your content and your delivery
Very nice and informative
Just a great informative channel! You make statistics fun lol! Thanks 🙏
Another outstanding presentation. Thank you for the deep dive into these strategies. These were hard learned lessons.
Excellent video, nicely done as always
Really like your videos. Very informative.
You’re doing a terrific job explaining different aspects of the WW2 air war.
I’ve always been interested in air balloons and dirigibles use during ww1 and 2. Hope to have your analysis of this.
I’ve always wondered why they didn’t float huge explosive/shrapnel filled balloons into the bomber flight paths, I wonder why they aren’t using radio controlled drone balloons today. The payload and flight times of balloons is so much greater than powered flight drones. Especially for night operations, but I’ve yet to see balloons over Europe in Ukraine.
It's a lot of stuffing around for a " might hit".
The cover photo of the B-24 being hit and going down was part of my pilot father's group and/or squadron. Black Naan was the name of the plane, I believe. Dad didn't fly that day. The darkroom was adjacent to the officer's club bar. Dad and his copilot were drinking there when the photo tech came out of the darkroom, waving a wet print of the photo. He offered to sell any of those at the bar copies (I forget how much). He didn't get any takers. I think the base commander or group leader was the pilot of the doomed aircraft.
9:00 The calculation of effective range using the TAS is a simplification that only gives correct results when there is no wind. A better estimate would be arrived at by using ground speed (GS) which takes into account wind speed and -direction.
That aside - an excellent video again.
Thanks for this detailed flak series.
Very interesting and informative video. Keep up the great work!
It was called the 8th Bomber Command until Feb 22nd 1944 when it was redesignated as the 8th Air Force.
Another informative video , Kudos !!
Why were the B-24 accuracy statistics so much lower than the B-17?
I believe it was covered in an earlier video, but one hypothesis is that the B-24 was a somewhat less stable bombing platform (more prone to moving in turbulence and other disturbances) compared to the B-17.
Maybe the B17 bombed from a lower level which was more accurate.
But more dangerous.
My Grandfather was a B-24 pilot. He never really talked about his experience, but he let me interview and record him one time. He told a story of flying a max altitude mission and said it was horrible. The B-24 was so unstable at higher altitudes that they lost bombers due to crashing into each other while in formation. My guess is that the B-24 pilots would fly in looser formations at high altitude and that would impact accuracy.
Among other things, the slab-sided fuselage increased the effect of gusting crosswinds. I think that the low aspect ratio wing with large span contributed as well.
@@redtobertshateshandles Maybe, but the '17 was much more forgiving on many more levels than the '24. Said my father who flew both, '24s in combat.
"specialists state it is a mistake to bomb from a higher altitude". Yup, they're not onboard the planes being blasted by 88s below 26,250.
Why is there a difference in bombing accuracy between B-17 and B-24's?
My Grandfather was a B-24 pilot. He never really talked about his experience, but he let me interview and record him one time. He told a story of flying a max altitude mission and said it was horrible. The B-24 was so unstable at higher altitudes that they lost bombers due to crashing into each other while in formation. My guess is that the B-24 pilots would fly in looser formations at high altitude and that would impact accuracy.
Thanks❤❤❤
Great analysis, as always.
If they didn't bomb at the "optimal" altitude, affording maximum damage to the target. They'd have to go back. Depleting more resources and exposing the bombers and crews to more flak. 🐿
My Father flew B-24s in the 15th, hit some nasty targets. After one hairy mission over Wiener Neustadt they were told they totally knocked the target out. At the briefing the next day one pilot shot up his hand and asked, "Colonel, if we knocked it out, why are we going back today?"
Great work
Ok, you raised a good question. Why is B-24 accuracy lower than the B-17?
My Grandfather was a B-24 pilot. He never really talked about his experience, but he let me interview and record him one time. He told a story of flying a max altitude mission and said it was horrible. The B-24 was so unstable at higher altitudes that they lost bombers due to crashing into each other while in formation. My guess is that the B-24 pilots would fly in looser formations at high altitude and that would impact accuracy.
The main difference that effected bombing accuracy was the combat box formation used. B-24s are more difficult than B-17s to fly in formation at high altitudes and with more restricted cockpit visibility - thus the wider. looser box is going to put a smaller percent of bombs within the magic circle. Combat box layouts varied over time & depended also on the air group 'tradition' plus if fighters were expected a different box type will be chosen. B-24 accuracy improved greatly in 1945 when a diamond box was adopted by some air groups. Note that a tighter combat box can increase flak casualties!
A video on WWII radar jamming would be interesting.
See the channel's FLAK playlist for deep dive radar countermeasures ECM Jamming and Chaff videos.
yes thansk
Isn't the time spent under continious fire really about twice what you quoted because the aircraft has to depart the target area while still under fire? Based on your example, the bombers may have been subject to 13 or 20 rounds (depending on altitude) fired from the flak gun while approaching the target until they reach the flak guns 85 degree dead zone. Doesn't the bomber now has to depart the target area, might they soon enter the same or different flak gun effective range and be subject to another targetting by the flak guns for a similar timeline and similar number of rounds until they have flown out of their target area? It may be assumed the flak gunners are targetting the bombers behind the lead formation but still approaching the bombing target, but someone has to the the last formation in the group and subject to targeting during the entire target approch and departure from the flak gun area of coverage.
This isn't a criticism of your video, I'm just trying to understand the risk of flak for the entire flight over the bombers target. I'm assuming they would be subject to flak before and after the bombing run, as well as any time they flew near flak guns anythere during their mission.
Good point, but with a relatively long bomber stream heading toward a target, I am assuming you get shot at heading toward the target. Then, maybe the only people being shot at “twice”, would maybe be the last group aircraft in line as the flak folks would like to hit the planes before they dropped.
Just brainstorming along with you here.
@@mostlyharmless7425 That was my thought too. Plus, flak batteries were probably positioned around a target, especially on the side the planes were most likely coming from. For general German targets, that would be from due west to due north. Keep flak batteries far enough from targets to avoid incidental casualties, and to attack the bombers before they release their bombs, because they do that several miles away. But I am sure no expert.
@@grizwoldphantasia5005
The bombers didn't leave their bases and fly straight to their targets, they flew all kinds of crazy routes on the way there so their targets wouldn't be obvious and so they wouldn't be approaching them from a predictable route.
All AA rounds have a self destruct feature to prevent the rounds from falling on friendly forces, it's particularly important around cities where you have large civilian populations but even out on the battlefield there's no way to predict exactly which direction you'll be shooting at aircraft, you'll be slinging the gun all over the place shooting at them so the self destruct feature of AA ammo is a must.
Looking at the production figures of the Germans AA guns I don't think they had much of a problem having rings around known targets, I was an air defense gunner in the Army and that's generally how it's set up, rings at varying distances.
Something else to consider is that for each 4 gun battery there was a central command computer that ran a device at each gun that set the fuses for the rounds and also ran the gun sight for each gun along with telling the gunner when to fire, there were very long and very heavy cables strung from that central command unit to every gun along with the associated hardware that the cables plugged into, the point being that it took quite some time to set everything up so it's not the kind of thing where they'd get a warning that bombers were at the coast heading that way then they could set the guns up according to how they believed that the bombers would approach a target, it took so long to set those systems up the bomber crews would already be back in England at the chow hall by the time they got those guns set up, in some locations the Germans even had those fixed flak towers set up, so you can almost be guaranteed that things they knew would be targets would have rings of guns set up around them that pretty much just stayed where they were, after all the saying "The flak is the heaviest over the target" doesn't exit for no reason, that's because the innermost ring would be small enough that no matter which side of the target you were on and no matter which direction the bombers approached from they'd be in range of all the innermost ring's guns once they were over the target.
Distance to target both ways has been critical since early man started throwing rocks.
The essence of human conflict has always been rooted in the delivery of some form of energy to someone who doesn't want it coupled with the evasion of the opposition's energy deliveries.
If my memory serves…the Strategic Bombing Survey determined that in general the bombing accuracy resulted in a Gaussian distribution around the target with few if any bombs actually striking the target. In fact the Nordin Bombsight was a scam that contributed to the deaths of numerous crews. Answering the question…Why didn’t those high altitude attacks focus primarily on the Flak Batteries before engaging the actual strategic targets? Bombing accuracy was piss pour… gunnery kill counts were significantly inflated. I’ve often wondered …what was the optimum altitude for dangerous Daylight Formations ? This excellent presentation answers the questions.
This is cool
Mathematics and trajectory calculations were essential in WW2. And also it was necessary to be able to read the graphs. Operations analysis was necessary to find the best options for releasing max # of bombs to target. How is it today? Is there any need for mathematics in present warfare?
One thing on thing on the calculations on the effective range of the 88 mm gun - it seems you assumed the plane flew directly over the gun. Is this really the best assumption?
How did the US determine this information during the war?
Have you found any mention of timed AA FLAK rounds being used as anti personnel air burst ?
Previous comment has vanished. Outstanding stuff as usual. Thanks for your great work.
How did the effectiveness of the escorts change at different altitudes of bombers? Did they shoot down more enemies if the bombers were at 30kft or 20kft? How did the effectiveness of the intercepting planes change with altitude?
What is the reason that bombing accuracy was less for a B-24?
To paraphrase the Confederate's General Lee... I always thought it had something to do with the Germans
Would they have been flying at fixed indicated airspeed though?
Why is the B-24 about 30% worse at accuracy than a B-17?
Was the B-24 less accurate?
Lancaster max alt 24,500 feet.
Halifax 24,000 feet
I always thought the Halifax, especially the longer wing variants had a higher ceiling at any given weight.
@@DL541 For Mk III, the "main production variant" per wiki.
Bomber Command Museum of Canada Halifax page does not have max alt in specs and RAF Museum required cookies enable.
Engaging!
comment
I would like to see an example of the calculation of bombing altitude that would maximise bombing efficiency in a given case. Accuracy divided by losses would be an inverted u-shaped curve. Did analysts use such?
Great Info.
G'day,
Great stuff !
You have an
Admirably
Encyclopaedic
Underconstumbling of
What went on ;
In the
Waybackwhen...,
Well Done !
"Three Gold Stars, and a
Koala-Stamp...!"
As the sayin' goes,
Here in
Oz...
Keep on keepin' on.
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !