Flak: The 8th Air Force and Anti-Aircraft Fire
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 жов 2024
- Flak: The 8th Air Force and Anti-Aircraft Fire
With Donald Nijboer
Part of 8th Air Force Week on WW2TV
• 8th Air Force Week
More Strategic Bombing content on WW2TV
• Strategic Bombing in WWII
Since the end of World War II, the strategic bombing of Germany has inspired numerous studies, countless books and several documentary films, and it is not surprising. With more than one million tons of bombs dropped, close to 300,000 civilians killed, 700,000 wounded and in excess of 3,500,000 industrial and residential structures destroyed, the Allied bomber offensive was industrial war on a grand scale. The air battle that raged over Germany has often been described as a battle between Allied and German fighters but what has been frequently missed by historians on all sides is the impact of German anti-aircraft defences (flak). Though often dismissed as ineffective and a waste of valuable material and personnel, the German flak arm made a major contribution to the defence of the Third Reich - at least half of the American aircraft shot down over Germany fell to flak.The strategic role of flak extended beyond simply shooting down aircraft - its other, more important task was to force bombers to drop their ordnance sooner or from a higher altitude, thus reducing bombing accuracy.
Donald Nijboer is a best selling aviation author and historian who lives in Toronto, Canada.
donaldnijboer.com/ / donaldnijboer
Donald's previous appearance on WW2TV
The SBD Dauntless - The Best Dive Bomber of WW2?
• The SBD Dauntless - Th...
German Flak Defences Vs Allied Heavy Bombers: 1942-45 by Donald Nijboer
USA bookshop.org/a...
UK uk.bookshop.or...
Flak in World War II by Donald Nijboer
USA bookshop.org/a...
UK uk.bookshop.or...
You can become a UA-cam Member and support us here / @ww2tv
You can become a Patron here / ww2tv
Please click subscribe for updates
Social Media links -
/ ww2tv
/ ww2tv
/ ww2tv
WW2TV Bookshop - where you can purchase copies of books featured in my UA-cam shows. Any book listed here comes with the personal recommendation of Paul Woodadge, the host of WW2TV. For full disclosure, if you do buy a book through a link from this page WW2TV will earn a commission.
UK - uk.bookshop.or...
USA - bookshop.org/s...
Great show, Woody. You asked if advancing ground forces reported on any flak assets that were captured. Think Donald said no, but I had a neighbor, a veteran of the USAAF, who was part of a ground technical intelligence unit which followed units onto German airfields. Their mission was to examine, report on, and if necessary, ship equipment back for examination and exploitation. He related how he operated a .50 cal against German fighters on 1 Jan 45 from the Y-29 airfield at Asch, Belgium.
Donald Nijboer presented us with a superbly researched lecture about how Flak actually worked against the 8th Airforce. We learned of the attritional nature of Flak both for the Aircrews and Aircraft, as well as on the German war effort having to expend so many resources in its employment. I also enjoyed the technical aspects of how the guns worked in actuality. This was a well presented subject ably assisted by our WW2TV moderator and sidebar commentators, who asked pertinent questions as always. Great work!
He also expressed relief that the proximity fuse was never used by the Germans. I read that the success rate was 80%.
Something to remember: every 88mm German gun pointing skywards was an artillery piece not shooting at Allied soldiers and tanks. The pressure of air attacks diverted a lot of German heavy dual-purpose artillery into the anti-air role.
Also, you can find WWII-era training films on flak here on UA-cam, for example, "German Anti-Aircraft Gun System | Flak | US Air Force Training Film | 1944" found at The Best Film Archives.
Mind, the converse is also true: the Germans put a lot of resources into the Flak units, but the Allies put a lot of resources into the aircraft that the Flak was shooting at, and it is entirely debatable which was more cost-effective. The only certainty is that strategic bombing cost a fortune to use and did a lot of damage, but a thing can be expensive and do a lot and still not be very useful.
Think about it from this perspective: a Flak 18 is a versatile piece of artillery, focused on AA work, but also capable of engaging tanks and operating as field artillery. If the Germans had an enemy with few planes but a lot of tanks, then they could send the Flak to fight tanks. If they found an enemy with few planes or tanks, they could still shoot them as artillery. A flak gun is basically always useful to the Germans.
Is the same true for the Allied bombers? Are they efficient for roles other than bombing? Generally no. They can do other roles, but often only after notable modification (like naval scouts and subhunters). Bombers are very expensive to make and operate as well, requiring a lot of skilled people and consuming a lot of specialized material. Bombers need aviation-grade fuel. Bombers can't be effectively crewed by school children. Really limits what you can do with them.
I am not saying that bombing was useless, but it is definitely one of those things where it has to be heavily qualified and I am glad the channel is taking time to bring a lot of people in to offer perspective.
@@genericpersonx333 _Bombers need aviation-grade fuel._
In this regard the Allies were in a fortunate position. The United States accounted for nearly two-thirds of total world oil production from 1942-45.
@@primmakinsofis614 I know, since my Grandfather was one of the chemical engineers who built the aviation fuel refineries to make it happen. It was his first job out of college in 1940-41. Not common for a 21-year-old "entry-level" to get project management positions but Uncle Sam planned to burn a lot of av-gas.
The point still stands that the USA invested a prodigious amount of resources into the bombers and they were a specialized asset with limited applications. Conversely, the German 88mm was a weapon that was always useful and could be used quite economically. Thus, the fact that a lot of Flak was shooting at bombers didn't mean it was a cost-effective trade in the Allies' favor.
When I think of Flak (the 88mm) I normally think about the Western Desert but we often don't appreciate how few of them were actually in the Desert and how many were defending Germany. And yet, the cry of the Matilda II commander at Halfaya (Hellfire) Pass "My tanks are being torn apart!" goes to your heart.
My grandpa was a coorndinator of a flak crew of Frankfurt am Main 1944 and 1945 and i believe for some month of 1943. He was very lucky he survied the war. Told some stuff. He said once a barrel of a 8.8 had to be removed within...i do not remeber excatly if itt was every 50 or 80 shot. But at least one night, i am sure, he said his crew shot more than 120 rounds with one barrel. If anyone reading this command understand written german, there is a book available called Letzte Schlacht im Taunus. Translation Last battle in the Taunus Mountains. Once chapter is about the Frankfurt am Main Flak. When i readed this chapter, i rememberd lots of things my grandpa described in this book. I highly recommend it.
Thanks for sharing that story
British night bombers did not only bomb cities, they used to bomb strategic targets as well, in fact my dads squadron mainly bombed strategic targets, up until his aircraft was shot down over Normandy.
Great program- thanks!👍
What is interesting is when you hear about modern air campaigns like what took place in Iraq, Libya, or the Balkans, etc., you always hear afterwards a summary of events that include the initial neutralization of the “enemy’s air defense system.” A big difference from WW2 when the bombers just “bulled” their way through the AAA defense and bombed the intended target on a day to day basis….
I had a friend who had a father that flew 30 missions over Germany as a lead navigator in a B-17 during WWII. Mr. Mcintyre was stationed in Nuthampstead, England as a 1st Lieutenant. Mr. Mcintyre passed away in 2010 at age 87. RIP
Super BRAVE we owe him and his generation of Allied Airmen our complete gratitude 🙏
Thank you
@@davidnash1220 Yes, we owe all the servicemen of the allies that fought in WWII a great deal of gratitude.
My Uncle was a B-24 pilot with the Libaratos out of Africa and Italy. In 1967 I ask him how he handled the flack. He told me that you were so busy flying and running the crew that you just put it out of your mind. I had a hard time with that until a couple months later I was flying Hueys in Vietnam. It took a couple hot landing zones to get over the fear and ignore the enemy fire. I was too busy flying and working with my crew. On the winds over Japan. This was the first time we (anyone) had experienced the "Jet Stream" where winds at time were in excess of 200 Knots from west to east. You normally start flying into the Jet Stream 1000 to 800 miles south of Japan. Heave moderate and Sevier turbulence is quite common. This is normally above 21,000 feet.
A fascinating presentation by Donal covering many aspects of Flak including some that often get overlooked.
Great show again. Wanted to mention another reason B-29s were not in ETO. The infrastructure and resource demands were beyond what the theater could do - longer, heavier runways, new airfields, bigger dispersal areas, entirely new set of spare parts, new training, more fuel, etc. It’s essentially why the AAC pulled all the B-17s from the Pacific early 1943 to simplify logistics. The US had a lot of resources but not unlimited.
Thanks for doing all this content on the 8th Air Force
Excellent presentation from Donald. Thorough research and perfectly presented. Learned a lot today. Many thanks
Finally got to watch this. Great points and a few things brought up I never thought about. Thanks!
It was very eye opening to realize that the goal of Flak was a reduction of accuracy and the chain of consequences of the this. Very interesting presentation!
Wonderful show today. Enjoyed the detail.
Really brill Paul ,remember seeing some tv footage of B17s coming home with such damage ,really made you wonder how on earth they ever got back at all.
Excellent but one point - B-17 actually had a higher ceiling than both B-29 and B-24. It's one reason why it continued as the primary in NW Europe while being superseded by the later platforms in other theaters. Had to do with the thickly cambered wing vs. the lower drag Liberator and Superfortress.
My dad was in 50 squadron in 5 group and had flack, shooting up at him and one night he talked of the search lights combining, all shining on his aircraft all at the same, every night airman's nightmare, but nothing come of it. Another night there was some flack which exploded too close and caused a big hole, near where he was sitting. When they got back, there was virtually nothing underneath him. He received a piece of shrapnel through one of his hands, but luckily missed all his bones, so he was all right. He was offered a medal for that, but he refused it, regarding it as too minor. He was the rear gunner at the time.
One clarification, I'm an American but I feel it must be pointed out the VT fuze was a British development which was handed off to the U.S. to refine and manufacture in sufficient quantity
An excellent presentation on German flak in Europe. It would be great to have someone talk about how the USAAF viewed flak and trained its crews how to deal with it.
The night bombers had pathfinders, which were aircraft who flew lower and laid down flares, to show up the target. 617 the dam busters squadron was one of the squadrons made to do this job. I remember my father mentioned that this 617 squadron working with 5 group my father's group.
Love it.thank you.
A very interesting and extremely well presented 'short'
Thank you
Thanks
Awesome!!!
I'm a boomer and "I don't need your flak" was a common saying.
You have to admit that 88 is a sexy gun..
I was assigned to NATO back in 1968. I served at RAF MILDENHALL located in East Anglia , UK. We slept at RAF FELTWELL in a WW 2 barracks. We transported troops all over Europe. I asked the UK old timers what they thought about the 8th Air Force WW2 GI's. They replied , ''overpaid, oversexed , and overhere''. LOL
I saw an article on YT about the analysis of flak damage on B-17s in Europe. The point of the article was that they saw where the damage occurred and armoured parts of that area. This was an incorrect conclusion. The flak damaged would be distributed fairly randomly and thus a better conclusion would be that flak damage elsewhere on the plane would make it much more likely that the plane was downed and did not return to add to the flak data. That it is a bit of a mind twister but it is logical if you think about it.
Yep, I've seen that too
I think that one plane shot down for 16,000 rounds fired is pretty economical really considering the expense of the strategic bombing campaign . How many times did they bomb just the ball bearing factories ?
Yes definitely, and as Donald said, some AA batteries had much bettee stats of around 3000 rounds fired by downed bomber.
The Schweinfert raids were brutal.
FLAK.... fliegerabwehrkanone, or flyer defence cannon😉
Would be interesting to compare/contrast German flak tactics/technology with US Navy shipboard AA systems in Pacific.
One of the first things you’d have to take into account on a comparison of those two defensive efforts was that the Germans couldn’t maneuver the landscape. The USN had been had the opportunity to continuously alter the geographic position of the defensive guns during a battle by steering the ship and changing it’s speed.
I’m really not sure how one would make allowances for this variable in a comparative study of the two defensive systems.
US and Britain ships had proximity fuse ammo, so they were much more deadly.
Nicolas Moran @thechiftan has said something similar about the M2 on tanks. If you can keep them from accurately hitting you then who cares if you shot them down! You are still alive and they didn't achieve their goal.
Was this damage analysis subject to survivor bias? It was a problem during WW2.
Yes probably
Did the Axis powers have proximity fuses? If so, aproximately when did they enter service?
They did i believe , but i dont know the date
Surprised no mention was made of the extensive flak gear the bomber aircrew were forced to wear. That also had to degrade aircrew performance.
But did you appreciate what was said? It's all very well pointing out what wasn't covered, but there is only so much that can be covered in one show
@@WW2TV Understood. But in recounting the effect the very heavy flak defenses had on degrading the bomber offensive, in addition to the psychological effects on the aircrew, the physical effects of all that gear in terms of fatigue and discomfort must've also been significant.
Not criticizing the show, it was great. The programs here are consistently head and shoulders above what passes for history content on UA-cam.
5:00 I dont know that an aircraft being shot down by flak can't be sudden and dramatic . One piece of ww2 footage that stands out to me is a B 24 flying over the Romanian oilfields when its suddenly hit by what you'd assume is an 88 or larger in the wing root , as the wing parts 2/3rds of the Liberator just falls from the sky while the wing that gets shot off continues to fly for a few moments then follows the rest of the plane down . Pretty hard core dramatic
I think i said it isn't always sudden and dramatic like is nearly always the case with enemy fighters.
Flak towers weren’t built for flak? Ummmmmmm…
The point is they were also shelters, and indeed that could well be described as their primary role