The Flak 18 is called after the year 1918, which isnt actually the year it was developed. They made them in the 1920's, when germany's artillery and weapon developement was strictly regulated by the treaty of Versailles. So they called it Flak 18 to make it look like it was developed earlier, to not get caught by the allied forces.
@@HerrmannStahl Yep, the Nebelwerfer for example wasn't exactly a "fog thrower", we just called it like that to convince them, that we produce a "smoke projector"
@@tomstorck9972 AFAIK the allied powers knew that the gun was developed in breach of the treaty, but weren't willing to enforce the treaty by force of arms over what was considered a fairly minor breach.
I was a Royal Artillery gunner in my youth . My regiment had just converted to Rapier missiles from , Bofors 40/70 , when I joined , and this was 1978 ! That's an incredibly long service history for any weapon .
I played around with the Normandy map placing Flak where there are obvious AA emplacements. There are a lot of them and it was kind of fun to put in spot lights and run night bombing raids. With the locations the guns are more layered and quite a bit more devastating.
The HE shell may well be the same in each case with the velocity changing with barrel length. The 41 I think used a different case with more propellant but largely the same warhead.
You are correct about the director setting the fuse time. Each end of those long protrusions is a lens that reflects the image into a sight that the director operator is looking at. He sees two exact images. He turns a crank until the images are superimposed. Via the mathematics of the parallax images, the range is found. I imaging in WW2 it was called out and the gun operators set the fuses by hand. In 1950s technology naval gun systems, the fuses were mechanically set before firing. The image thing was usually only used for surface targets. The gun director we had also had a radar disc in between the protruding arms. Nothing is quicker than the speed of light when getting a range.
*Drill Instructor Hartman's voice* "WHATEVER YOU DO CAP, DON'T DO ANY RESEARCH ON THE WEAPONS BEFORE YOU DISPLAY THEM. ESPECIALLY NOT THE FLAK 18! THAT WOULD JUST BREAK MY HEART!" The Flak 18, like the MG-15, was numbered to make it appear that it was designed during World War I, so that it was able to skirt the treaty of Versailles. Many other German weapons were labeled like this also.
regarding the P-51 vs flak test - something i found flying with guys who do a lot of A2G co-op missions is that the DCS AAA AI is very... unimaginative. We discovered that 2 P51s can shred most AAA in DCS by tag-teaming from two sides - all the gunners focus on the first one to approach, and the second can rip them apart from behind. Then just keep alternating.
I wonder how they timed the shells to explode near the planes. Was there some sort of computer to find the travel time to the aircraft formations? How did they change the fuze delay?
My grandfather served with a Dutch AA unit in 1940. He liked to tell about the mechanical computer that came with the Vickers 75mm gun. Which according to my grandfather was heavy as hell and took several guys to carry. The computer would take data from a rangefinder. You then put a shell into a timing device connected to this computer which would then turn a screw on the shell connected to a timed fuse. You then took the shell and fired it. And then did this 30 times a minute or more.
You can tell the range, altitude and relative speed of the aircraft. You then just have to take your gun and shell data and the aircraft information and use math to find out around where the shell will be and when. You then set the fuse to explode around the aircraft. ...Of course, at the ranges we're talking about and the velocities involved, even a millisecond delay can make you hit absolutely nothing. So that's why they fired so many rounds and had so many AAA guns.
Some variants of AAA shells used a rudimentary form of radar in order to explode near the target. This was also used in artillery to have shells that exploded near the ground and rained shrapnel.
The lesson here is "the higher you fly the less likely you are to die" why bombers used to fly in as high as their bomb load would allow. which also made their bomb accuracy crap. CCRP with dumb bombs.. Only the allies had a proximity fuse and that was not until very late in the war. The VT fuze it was called. but it was not Variable Time, it was radio proximity. they called it VT to hide the fact. It was one of the allies closest guarded secrets. Putting them on artillery shells caused horrendous casualties to German infantry in the battle of the bulge. having shells that reliably airburst at set height above the ground. Even trenches became death traps. and it made AA 5-10 times more effective. which turned out to be useful against V1 and kamikaze in the pacific.
If you watch contemporary film of bombing raids, you can see just how inaccurate those bombs were. Especially against a large spread out target like a railway yard.
Must have been a lot of "fun" sitting in those bombers! You should try the same at night, with the big search lights coming on. Could make another great video.
In the next canyon run competision can you do it as in ww2 edition? Like only ww2 planes and ww2 flag. It would be interesting to see who will win, since only jet fighters are He-162, Me-262, arado's jet bomber, british Meteor and america's P-80. The rest are prop planes
They also caused a fair amount of damage on the ground from shells that didn't explode where they were supposed to, I believe. The main benefits were to morale and also to force the bombers higher, reducing their accuracy. That was with 1940/41 flak at night; it got a lot better over time.
Compare that to the "best" AA gun, late war German 12.8 cm FlaK 40 gun under advance director controll (fire controll integrated with radar/optical range finders) needed 600 rounds to destroy a bomber.
What happened if somehow german at WW2 able to create simiar proxi fuze as american one and make them work with directors on 88 , did they able to change american and british ability to bomb them?
4:46 LOL. If you look closely at the muzzle, you can see this janky animation where the shell spawns at the muzzle and then flies off. Might be better to watch in at slower speeds to see it clearly.
it looks like the flak-18s just cannot get accurate fuzing. with the director, they had nice tight shot groups when viewed from the ground, but looking at it from the air, they had an altitude spread of several hundred meters. Prox fuze shells with the director would be murder, though.
Is this actually simulating the shrapnel effect? After all the shrapnel would have been a big part of the idea - to tear through enemy planes and knock out crew and electronics etc. As other have already mentioned, fuses had to be set. So hiting a plane direct in flight at such a height would have a very low chance. Doesn't really look like it - seems to require direct hits to have any effect? So in case of the quad machine guns - you spray and pray to direct hit In case of the 88 and therelikes - its about creating a massive carpet of shrapnel
Cap is right, the United States and eventually Britain were the only people that had that proximity fuse in world war II. and truth be told most of them were shipped to the Pacific theater as opposed to the European theater because of the greater danger to ground targets IE ships then there was in the European. Another good video it is funny though that computer simulations will give you such different results when you run them one after another
There's a really interesting WW2 vid training US bomber crews how to minimize the accuracy of flak. The vid spells out the limitations of flak in the real world for the enemy aimers. In reality a formation wouldn't maintain level flight - unless - it was a flak barrage, which is the least dangerous type. As the vid shows there are different types of flak attack and each type can be identified by the dispersal pattern, intelligence and what country you're over. The evasion tactics seem quite effective, even for the most sophisticated radar guided 88mm but 100,000 to flak alone seems a bit off the mark; I heard it was ~ 100,000 aircrew lost to all types. Probably flak was the greatest percentage fiik?? ua-cam.com/video/H8zPNMqVi2E/v-deo.html
"thats the power of the mk37" no cap thats the shitty nature of dcs damage model still!. seriously its cool video and interesting to watch but it also shows off how far their still is to go with the dcs damage model.
After losing WWI the Germans where not allowed to develop new weapons, by the restrictions of the Versaille treaty the Germans signed when they formally surrendered. So for reasons of secrecy all weapons that were developed at the time of the armaments restriction from 1920 were given the model designation 18, so they would not be noted as new weapons developed in 1920 which would be and was illegal. Therefore the name flak (flugabwehrkanone) 18 as is went in production in 1933. Later and earlier models of the "aircraft repellent guns" would bare the numbers of the year of development 16,36,37,41 and so on
IN reality those bombers would have employed anti AA tactics tho.....so does that mean the test is still worth it ? Despawn units when they are hit % for next test maybe ??
I'm watching more Grim Reapers than Growling Sidewinder over the past few days...(and I'm not infected w/ Covid or any brain-eating parasite)...what's wrong w/ me??!
Hi Cap, I hope you're doing very well. You might find this flak avoidance film from 1944 interesting. I enjoy the Reapers' vids. ua-cam.com/video/yRd_AW1aZ8M/v-deo.html
The 18 was to indicate that, but it was a much later weapon. The Versailles Treaty banned Germany from large calibre weapons development, so by claiming the 88mm flak gun was developed in 1918, they got it around the treaty. The allied powers knew it was a lie, but they weren't willing to go to war over the minor breach of the treaty.
The Flak 18 is called after the year 1918, which isnt actually the year it was developed. They made them in the 1920's, when germany's artillery and weapon developement was strictly regulated by the treaty of Versailles. So they called it Flak 18 to make it look like it was developed earlier, to not get caught by the allied forces.
Yeah. The German army did this with a lot of stuff, which was developed during the Interwar period
@@HerrmannStahl Yep, the Nebelwerfer for example wasn't exactly a "fog thrower", we just called it like that to convince them, that we produce a "smoke projector"
@@tomstorck9972 The Nebelwerfer was (at first) indeed use to project a smoke screen in front of an enemy position
@@tomstorck9972 AFAIK the allied powers knew that the gun was developed in breach of the treaty, but weren't willing to enforce the treaty by force of arms over what was considered a fairly minor breach.
I was a Royal Artillery gunner in my youth . My regiment had just converted to Rapier missiles from , Bofors 40/70 , when I joined , and this was 1978 ! That's an incredibly long service history for any weapon .
I played around with the Normandy map placing Flak where there are obvious AA emplacements. There are a lot of them and it was kind of fun to put in spot lights and run night bombing raids. With the locations the guns are more layered and quite a bit more devastating.
The HE shell may well be the same in each case with the velocity changing with barrel length. The 41 I think used a different case with more propellant but largely the same warhead.
You are correct about the director setting the fuse time. Each end of those long protrusions is a lens that reflects the image into a sight that the director operator is looking at. He sees two exact images. He turns a crank until the images are superimposed. Via the mathematics of the parallax images, the range is found. I imaging in WW2 it was called out and the gun operators set the fuses by hand. In 1950s technology naval gun systems, the fuses were mechanically set before firing. The image thing was usually only used for surface targets. The gun director we had also had a radar disc in between the protruding arms. Nothing is quicker than the speed of light when getting a range.
Since 2012, 19 Pakistan Air Force fighter pilots killed in crashes whereas in same period only 8 Indian fighter pilots killed. Just check ASN data.
@@remancyrodiil9295 Indian propaganda. The PAF is much superior.
@@lohrtom wrong. See data yourself:
aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist.php?Country=ap
*Drill Instructor Hartman's voice* "WHATEVER YOU DO CAP, DON'T DO ANY RESEARCH ON THE WEAPONS BEFORE YOU DISPLAY THEM. ESPECIALLY NOT THE FLAK 18! THAT WOULD JUST BREAK MY HEART!"
The Flak 18, like the MG-15, was numbered to make it appear that it was designed during World War I, so that it was able to skirt the treaty of Versailles. Many other German weapons were labeled like this also.
regarding the P-51 vs flak test - something i found flying with guys who do a lot of A2G co-op missions is that the DCS AAA AI is very... unimaginative. We discovered that 2 P51s can shred most AAA in DCS by tag-teaming from two sides - all the gunners focus on the first one to approach, and the second can rip them apart from behind. Then just keep alternating.
The last one is a Bofors 40mm model 1936, UK had a lot of them and US navy has them on every warships
Finally, some one is asking the questions that we care about!
Keep up the good work.
"The day the Earth stood still"...... when RC has something to add
lol
This!!
I wonder how they timed the shells to explode near the planes. Was there some sort of computer to find the travel time to the aircraft formations? How did they change the fuze delay?
No, they weren't able to change the fuse delay. They just had to time the delay with the flight path. This is why AAAs weren't all that accurate.
My grandfather served with a Dutch AA unit in 1940. He liked to tell about the mechanical computer that came with the Vickers 75mm gun. Which according to my grandfather was heavy as hell and took several guys to carry.
The computer would take data from a rangefinder. You then put a shell into a timing device connected to this computer which would then turn a screw on the shell connected to a timed fuse. You then took the shell and fired it. And then did this 30 times a minute or more.
You can tell the range, altitude and relative speed of the aircraft. You then just have to take your gun and shell data and the aircraft information and use math to find out around where the shell will be and when. You then set the fuse to explode around the aircraft.
...Of course, at the ranges we're talking about and the velocities involved, even a millisecond delay can make you hit absolutely nothing. So that's why they fired so many rounds and had so many AAA guns.
Some variants of AAA shells used a rudimentary form of radar in order to explode near the target. This was also used in artillery to have shells that exploded near the ground and rained shrapnel.
@@Melodre Yes, but the Variable Timing (VT) fuse was a late war US invention. The German guns in this video AFAIK never used it.
20:07 that first pass on the bofors was amazing flying. that should be a highlight.
The lesson here is "the higher you fly the less likely you are to die"
why bombers used to fly in as high as their bomb load would allow.
which also made their bomb accuracy crap. CCRP with dumb bombs..
Only the allies had a proximity fuse and that was not until very late in the war.
The VT fuze it was called. but it was not Variable Time, it was radio proximity. they called it VT to hide the fact.
It was one of the allies closest guarded secrets.
Putting them on artillery shells caused horrendous casualties to German infantry in the battle of the bulge.
having shells that reliably airburst at set height above the ground. Even trenches became death traps.
and it made AA 5-10 times more effective. which turned out to be useful against V1 and kamikaze in the pacific.
If you watch contemporary film of bombing raids, you can see just how inaccurate those bombs were. Especially against a large spread out target like a railway yard.
Have you seen this? I'm thinking you may have but in case you haven't enjoy:
ua-cam.com/video/H8zPNMqVi2E/v-deo.html
Must have been a lot of "fun" sitting in those bombers! You should try the same at night, with the big search lights coming on. Could make another great video.
In the next canyon run competision can you do it as in ww2 edition? Like only ww2 planes and ww2 flag. It would be interesting to see who will win, since only jet fighters are He-162, Me-262, arado's jet bomber, british Meteor and america's P-80. The rest are prop planes
We'd have to do it in IL-2.
@@grimreapers nah man aaa there r literal snipers
@@grimreapers or just try to add 88mm and flak-flierling (37mm) to existing canyon run
As an indication: one number I found is that for UK AAA, one in 6000 rounds fired hit a target, causing damage, ie not necessarily shooting it down.
They also caused a fair amount of damage on the ground from shells that didn't explode where they were supposed to, I believe. The main benefits were to morale and also to force the bombers higher, reducing their accuracy.
That was with 1940/41 flak at night; it got a lot better over time.
Compare that to the "best" AA gun, late war German 12.8 cm FlaK 40 gun under advance director controll (fire controll integrated with radar/optical range finders) needed 600 rounds to destroy a bomber.
That p51 engine sound was spot on!
It only just now came to my mind that Cap says "valued viewers" instead of "valid"
My life could never be the same
rc's "i feel great" @ around 3:25 was suspicious...
agree
Honest RC, wish you luck! don't look back your doing fine.
Doing BEAUTIFULLY well?!?!? What is this madness?
About bloody time!
This was so cool, more like this!!
Hello.
Gota say your vids are extremely fun to watch, thank you
What happened if somehow german at WW2 able to create simiar proxi fuze as american one and make them work with directors on 88 , did they able to change american and british ability to bomb them?
4:46
LOL. If you look closely at the muzzle, you can see this janky animation where the shell spawns at the muzzle and then flies off. Might be better to watch in at slower speeds to see it clearly.
Could You tell us bombers altitude and speed? Thx.
I believe the Axis didn't have proximity fuses, the Allies did, one of the secrets of WWII (I could be misinformed)
thx
it looks like the flak-18s just cannot get accurate fuzing. with the director, they had nice tight shot groups when viewed from the ground, but looking at it from the air, they had an altitude spread of several hundred meters. Prox fuze shells with the director would be murder, though.
I thought only the USN had proximity fuses in WWII ... and they were very careful using them.
The flakscheinwerfer is not working anymore why ever even with maschinensatz 33
Can i ask what your wallpaper is? It looks great!
Great vid btw
I think it's a shot from RAF Lakenheath UK
"Big sky, small bullet", but I wouldn't want to fly through any of it.
Is the director actually modelled in DCS?
Yay a new GR vid
Is this actually simulating the shrapnel effect? After all the shrapnel would have been a big part of the idea - to tear through enemy planes and knock out crew and electronics etc. As other have already mentioned, fuses had to be set. So hiting a plane direct in flight at such a height would have a very low chance.
Doesn't really look like it - seems to require direct hits to have any effect?
So in case of the quad machine guns - you spray and pray to direct hit
In case of the 88 and therelikes - its about creating a massive carpet of shrapnel
No they don't need a direct hit in dcs
Yes, yes. More of this please.
ua-cam.com/play/PL3kOAM2N1YJcXK052YLROS5fo4m4lkrpG.html
Should’ve used the Jug
Cap is right, the United States and eventually Britain were the only people that had that proximity fuse in world war II. and truth be told most of them were shipped to the Pacific theater as opposed to the European theater because of the greater danger to ground targets IE ships then there was in the European. Another good video it is funny though that computer simulations will give you such different results when you run them one after another
Cap where are the specter vids?
running a little behind, first one comes out in a few days.
i love aa gun they look soo cool
Didn't see them cos they were looking the wrong way!
👍 @B17G
Very nice jejejeje I has a fin time with you guys, it's quite interesting stuff to try AAA!!!
Link for your wallpaper?
Please tell me that Flak explosion sound is a mod. :/
There's a really interesting WW2 vid training US bomber crews how to minimize the accuracy of flak. The vid spells out the limitations of flak in the real world for the enemy aimers.
In reality a formation wouldn't maintain level flight - unless - it was a flak barrage, which is the least dangerous type.
As the vid shows there are different types of flak attack and each type can be identified by the dispersal pattern, intelligence and what country you're over. The evasion tactics seem quite effective, even for the most sophisticated radar guided 88mm but 100,000 to flak alone seems a bit off the mark; I heard it was ~ 100,000 aircrew lost to all types. Probably flak was the greatest percentage fiik??
ua-cam.com/video/H8zPNMqVi2E/v-deo.html
"thats the power of the mk37" no cap thats the shitty nature of dcs damage model still!. seriously its cool video and interesting to watch but it also shows off how far their still is to go with the dcs damage model.
With the MK 41 it looked like when the lead got hit and broke formation, the 2nd plane followed lead in formation without damage.
The number with german weapons usually designates the yr i.e MG36/42 I would think the cannaons would be the same
Usually. The Flak 18 was developed well into the 1920s, however.
After losing WWI the Germans where not allowed to develop new weapons, by the restrictions of the Versaille treaty the Germans signed when they formally surrendered.
So for reasons of secrecy all weapons that were developed at the time of the armaments restriction from 1920 were given the model designation 18, so they would not be noted as new weapons developed in 1920 which would be and was illegal. Therefore the name flak (flugabwehrkanone) 18 as is went in production in 1933. Later and earlier models of the "aircraft repellent guns" would bare the numbers of the year of development 16,36,37,41 and so on
Rockets and bombs 💣
IN reality those bombers would have employed anti AA tactics tho.....so does that mean the test is still worth it ? Despawn units when they are hit % for next test maybe ??
I'm watching more Grim Reapers than Growling Sidewinder over the past few days...(and I'm not infected w/ Covid or any brain-eating parasite)...what's wrong w/ me??!
There is indeed something wrong with you Joe... x
OOOOOH ARE SEE!!!
RC go boom
Hi Cap, I hope you're doing very well. You might find this flak avoidance film from 1944 interesting. I enjoy the Reapers' vids. ua-cam.com/video/yRd_AW1aZ8M/v-deo.html
thxx
18 is year introduced 1918
that explosion is i believe part of new ww2 damage model
The 18 was to indicate that, but it was a much later weapon. The Versailles Treaty banned Germany from large calibre weapons development, so by claiming the 88mm flak gun was developed in 1918, they got it around the treaty. The allied powers knew it was a lie, but they weren't willing to go to war over the minor breach of the treaty.
That BOFORS run got me pregnant. What's RC's address so I can send him the child support paperwork?
I'll pass it on.
‘Valued’ viewer 🤣