# Flak suppression



## wuzak (Apr 14, 2012)

How much effort was expended in suppressing flak during WW2?

What techniques, weapons and aircraft were used?


Was just wondering if rocket projectiles had enough range to strike flak positions before being within the effective range of their self defence guns. I realise that RPs were woefully inaccurate, but would shooting off a few of them at a flak position cuase the position to stop firing long enough to follow up and drop some bombs in there? Thinking along the lines of FB Mossies, which would carry both.

Speaking of FB Mosquitos, would the FB.XVIII have been efective against flak positions? The Molins gun was much more accurate than the RPs, and the FB.XVIIIs had a lot of extra armour on the front. The downside is that the FB.XVIII was probably more vulnerable to enemy aircraft.


----------



## Juha (Apr 14, 2012)

Probably the most common flak suppression weapon was the onboard cannon/mgs, part of the formation attacking Flak positions while others attacked the primary target(s). Germans used sometimes anti-personel cluster bombs. Probably easiest way to see flak suppression in action is to look from Youtube RAF CC shipping strikes, part of the strike force were strafing the smaller flak ships (Vorposterbooten and R-booten) while the other part went after bigger ships.

Juha


----------



## PJay (Apr 14, 2012)

The Strike Wings: Special Anti-shipping Squadrons, 1942-45 by Roy Conyers Nesbit is very interesting on Flak suppression during strikes.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 14, 2012)

Flak suppression in 8th AF varied, but the tactics the 355th developed included approaching the airfield at high speed, lead flights pick flak left and right for first pass and trailing flights went after the aircraft - one pass unless the flak was deemed mostly suppressed. 

Usually another squadron would trail and assume CAP for the strafers, then swap positions if the airfield had a lot of targets. One element would orbit and take gun camera of the airfield, particularly the fires to help Intelligence do a credible strafing summary.


----------



## PJay (Apr 14, 2012)

Double post. Whoops.


----------



## Airframes (Apr 14, 2012)

Low-level ops by RAF Mosquito FBVIs often utilised a fighter escort, which was also employed on flak suppression. For example, on the Amiens prison raid Typhoons were used as escort, and on the Shell House raid (Copenhagen) RAF Mustangs were used. In the latter, the Mustangs attacked known or observed flak positions.


----------



## norab (Apr 14, 2012)

one method


----------



## Airframes (Apr 14, 2012)

Always wondered about that photo. The structure looks more like a lighthouse, beacon or water tower, rather than a flak tower. But then, each of those were just as important in their own way, so a good target.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 14, 2012)

So, fighters were the choice for flak positions, mainly using their guns?


----------



## drgondog (Apr 14, 2012)

Wuzak - the guys most contribiting to beating up airfields were the 8th AF. Period. The Mustang destroyed just short of 4500 German aircraft ( by credits). No other combat org came close.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 15, 2012)

drgondog said:


> Wuzak - the guys most contribiting to beating up airfields were the 8th AF. Period. The Mustang destroyed just short of 4500 German aircraft ( by credits). No other combat org came close.



Flak wasn't only at airfields. And I wasn't talking about airfields.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 15, 2012)

I think fighters would be the choice, at least for the first pass. Unless you have bombers like the B-25 and B-26 with heavy forward firing armament. Trying to use bombs give the light AA guns a "free" shot as the bombers come in. Granted it is head on from the guns the plane is headed for. In addition the bombers would need delayed action fuses so they aren't really safe pulling away. If the guns are "dug in" ( weapons pits, sand bagged, or concrete emplacements) only direct hits will really take out the guns, although near misses would probably silence them for a while.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 15, 2012)

From James Gehart's article, previously referenced ... :

"... The Red Air Force employed the P-39 Airacobra in several roles: the most common role was to cover or protect ground forces. This entailed patrolling in a zone above a specific Red Army formation and preventing the penetration into that zone of German bombers and their accompanying fighters. A *second mission* for the P-39 was to escort Il-2 Shturmoviks or Pe-2 dive bombers to attack German troops and installations. In this role the P-39s were used to fend off German fighters or to suppress German AAA defenses."

If you were an AA LIGHT FLAK gunner those slow, big balls of 37mm HE canon fire arcing down must have made _some _impression ... not like rockets that just took off .. awesome but dumb. The 37mm had a pilot,  ... and he _tracked_ his target .....

MM


----------



## Siegfried (Apr 15, 2012)

The knucklehead in the P-47 is attacking a water tower. A FLAK tower is vastly different: it is a huge multistory building used as a bomb shelter, it has perhaps 4m of bomb proof concrete for a roof. The roof is likely to carry a FLAK battery and radar.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Apr 15, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> The knucklehead in the P-47 is attacking a water tower. .


That "knucklehead" might have spotted a machine gun crew firing at him, from the safety of the top "room," and decided to keep it quiet. It happened all the time.


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 15, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> The knucklehead in the P-47 is attacking a water tower. A FLAK tower is vastly different: it is a huge multistory building used as a bomb shelter, it has perhaps 4m of bomb proof concrete for a roof. The roof is likely to carry a FLAK battery and radar.


 Any high point like that near a airfield is going to have a observation post and a few light flak or machine guns posted on it, they'd have to be fools not to. You can see a gap between the roof and tower.

Of course i'm not saying the Germans with their "right brain thinking" couldn't be fools.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 15, 2012)

wuzak said:


> Flak wasn't only at airfields. And I wasn't talking about airfields.



I know that - but for one very large combat org, as well as 9th AF, it was the only flak suppression being done on any organized basis.


----------



## Siegfried (Apr 15, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> Any high point like that near a airfield is going to have a observation post and a few light flak or machine guns posted on it, they'd have to be fools not to. You can see a gap between the roof and tower.
> 
> Of course i'm not saying the Germans with their "right brain thinking" couldn't be fools.



The trigger happy knucklehead is attacking the water tower on *May 15th 1944*. This is prior to D-day so its rather puzzling as to what is being spotted from the tower. There are no viable "observation ports" unless there are tiny portholes with frogmen behined them in the tower. Unfortunatly the frogmen wouldn't be able to see upwards or even shoot up due to the slate roof.

Unless he had been specifically ordered to straff these are the kind of out of control pilot that might on a boring day straff an lone ox cart carrying produce on which a school girl is hitching a ride on the basis that it might somehow be military. I guess they exist in every airforce.

Sorry, this is a picture of a slightly silly act with an even sillier caption. It would have caused great discomfort to the local French population and no doubt sanitation problems.

Perhaps the photo should have been titled "staffing a water tower vaguely suspected of carrying out an observation function"

A whole bunch of German airfields in France were fake: included were fake aircraft complete with plexiglass canopies. At least 50% of the straffed aircraft claimed destroyed would have been dummy. Producing decoy's was considered as important as camaflauge of real assets.


----------



## MacArther (Apr 15, 2012)

Actually, concerning the P-47 and the flak tower, if you look at the picture, the scale seems a bit off. Look at the bottom of the flak tower: There appears to be a sizable fence surrounding the tower. While a water tower might have a fence there, the tower as a whole seems a little *too* sturdy to be used exclusively for water storage.


----------



## Siegfried (Apr 15, 2012)

MacArther said:


> Actually, concerning the P-47 and the flak tower, if you look at the picture, the scale seems a bit off. Look at the bottom of the flak tower: There appears to be a sizable fence surrounding the tower. While a water tower might have a fence there, the tower as a whole seems a little *too* sturdy to be used exclusively for water storage.



It's 1944, towers were unlikely to have been built with steel reinforced concrete; Bricks would be the only way and that means a very heavy structure. The French like to keep their countryside looking good.


----------



## fubar57 (Apr 15, 2012)

Did an Image search for French water towers and came up with this picture from the always trusted Wikipedia site.





Given that the tower in the previous post was attacked just weeks prior to D-Day and the tower commands an outstanding view of the surrounding landscape, I'm thinking, legitimate target. Though there may not appear to be openings in the previous picture, from xthousand feet, what pilot is going to take a chance.

Geo


----------



## Siegfried (Apr 15, 2012)

Do American water towers look much different?


----------



## Siegfried (Apr 15, 2012)

drgondog said:


> I know that - but for one very large combat org, as well as 9th AF, it was the only flak suppression being done on any organized basis.



I think experience from a number of occasions showed that the costs exceeded the benefits.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 15, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> Do American water towers look much different?













It looks like they can vary a bit in appearence


----------



## wuzak (Apr 15, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> I think experience from a number of occasions showed that the costs exceeded the benefits.



Can you expand on this?


----------



## wuzak (Apr 15, 2012)

A selection of water towers on the right:

Information and History for states in the USA


----------



## drgondog (Apr 15, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> Do American water towers look much different?



Yes - visualize an upside down spherical lollypop/mushroom for new ones last 30 years, cylinders with open frame support for most older ones. .


----------



## drgondog (Apr 15, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> I think experience from a number of occasions showed that the costs exceeded the benefits.



For strafers the 'cost' of not doing flak suppression meant dead fighter pilots - not sure how to quantify but April 1945 cost a lot of 8th and 9th AF airfield strafers.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 16, 2012)

drgondog said:


> Yes - visualize an upside down spherical lollypop/mushroom for new ones last 30 years, cylinders with open frame support for most older ones. .



See photos above....


----------



## fubar57 (Apr 16, 2012)

To encourage the pilots to engage in very deadly airfield ground strafing, the 8th AF gave aircraft destroyed on the ground the same status as air kills. I think this was the only Air Force to do so.

Geo


----------



## drgondog (Apr 16, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> The trigger happy knucklehead is attacking the water tower on *May 15th 1944*. This is prior to D-day so its rather puzzling as to what is being spotted from the tower. There are no viable "observation ports" unless there are tiny portholes with frogmen behined them in the tower. Unfortunatly the frogmen wouldn't be able to see upwards or even shoot up due to the slate roof.
> 
> Unless he had been specifically ordered to straff these are the kind of out of control pilot that might on a boring day straff an lone ox cart carrying produce on which a school girl is hitching a ride on the basis that it might somehow be military. I guess they exist in every airforce.
> 
> ...



Source for 50% figure?


----------



## drgondog (Apr 16, 2012)

fubar57 said:


> To encourage the pilots to engage in very deadly airfield ground strafing, the 8th AF gave aircraft destroyed on the ground the same status as air kills. I think this was the only Air Force to do so.
> 
> Geo


You are correct


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Apr 16, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> Unless he had been specifically ordered to straff these are the kind of out of control pilot that might on a boring day straff an lone ox cart carrying produce on which a school girl is hitching a ride on the basis that it might somehow be military. I guess they exist in every airforce..


Especially the German air force in 1940.


> Sorry, this is a picture of a slightly silly act with an even sillier caption. It would have caused great discomfort to the local French population and no doubt sanitation problems.


Unless it was situated on a German airfield, in which case it would cause discomfort to German forces, which is to be applauded.


> A whole bunch of German airfields in France were fake: included were fake aircraft complete with plexiglass canopies. At least 50% of the straffed aircraft claimed destroyed would have been dummy.


Which is a total guess; real aircraft, when attacked, tend to burn, or, at least, smoke. On the pilot's return, his combat film would have been studied, and claims only allowed when verified by the Squadron's I.O.


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 16, 2012)

If that picture was taken in May 44, I doubt there were any dull days at low level during the prior to D-Day prep period.

High points like that tower are prime observation post, if that was just a water tower, the roof would likely be just concrete like the rest, and that gap between the roof and tower body, if you go by the likely size of the fence below, is a couple of feet. Perfect for a observation gallery all around the tower.

There's at least 2 aircraft going after this "whatever" tower, the aircraft shown, and the aircraft taking the pictures. Not very believable they're just doing it for fun.


----------



## Airframes (Apr 16, 2012)

Legitimate target, and probably recognised for what it was. Disrupting the enemy's communications and supply is just as important as hitting military targets. Destroy or damage a water tower on, or near, a German base and it causes disruption.


----------



## TheMustangRider (Apr 16, 2012)

drgondog said:


> For strafers the 'cost' of not doing flak suppression meant dead fighter pilots - not sure how to quantify but April 1945 cost a lot of 8th and 9th AF airfield strafers.



This is today's input of 8th AF operations in April '45 from the ArmyAirForces website:

April 16th, 1945
"During morning 486 B-17's bomb tank ditch def line at Pointe de Grave on S side of Gironde estuary in spt of ground assault in that area. In the afternoon 715 HBs bomb M/Ys at Plattling, Regensburg, and Landshut, and rail bridges and siding at Regensburg and Straubing. 15 ftr gps provide uneventful close and area spt and then strafe over 40 landing grounds and installations in Czechoslovakia and Germany, claiming a record 747 parked ftrs destroyed. 34 ftrs are downed mostly by automatic AA weapons."

The difference in escort sorties which for the most part were uneventful due the LW's precarious state by early 1945 and the high losses of pilots being inflicted by AAA fire is quite telling.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 16, 2012)

As the German perimeter shrank, the concentration of aircraft (and AAA) tended towards fewer airbases - largely in SE Germany and Czechoslovakia.


----------



## PJay (Apr 16, 2012)

The thread seems to moved away from Flak Suppression.
Possibilities in WW2 seem to me include unguided rockets or maybe toss bombing.
Of course these would be planned raids with more than one formation being involved.
And I don't know whether toss bombing was used in WW2.


----------



## fubar57 (Apr 16, 2012)

This may be the be all, end all book for this thread. Had it for about 4 months but things get in the way for reading it. 272 pages with loads of photos






Geo


----------



## Siegfried (Apr 16, 2012)

Edgar Brooks said:


> Especially the German air force in 1940.



These would be the same Luftwaffe pilots that not once shot down a British parachute during the BoB, despite the fact that it was not a war crime to do so and despite the fact that it would have benefitted the Luftwaffe's campaign. The only case of shooting down of parachutes was of RAF/Polish squadrons of Luftwaffe pilots over British soil, which most definetly is a war crime.

Oh Edgar, most of the 'atrocity' propaganda is just that, propaganda. Perhaps you've just not developed the critical attitudes needed to detect baloney or like many folks prefer to keep these preconceptions as part of your identity. Creation or mongering of atrocities is perhaps the only way a population can be brought to war. Your own country is a highly accomplished, brilliantly subtle and very shameless practitioner of this art. That's why one of your primeminsters left in disgrace and was known as Tony Bliar. The fabrication that Germans (in WW1) were rendering the dead into soap being one of the first such lies.

Focusing propaganda on the non event of Stuka's dive bombing and straffing civilians detracts from the reality that the kind of campaign the German General Staff was waging was outstandingly successfull and quite frightening. That was the purpose of this 'lie'. Propaganda, public relations is the most important aspect of a war; more important than aircraft. The US found this out in Vietnam and as a result its military analysts dusted of books by von Clausitwitz whose country Prussia had suffered under Napoleon noting that a population had to be prepared mentally and attitudinally for a war.

I recall browsing Anthony Bevoirs "history" of the Spanish Civil war. There he thoughlessly regurgitates the allegation that Luftwaffe pilots straffed school girls (nothing less than school girls with their pig tail hair will do). Despite lots of endnotes and footnotes everywhere else Bevoir doesn't footnot or reference this at all, he just slips it in thinking no one will notice. He is one of those thematic Historians in which and affected style of haughtly sarcasim and dripping opprobrium is more important than integrity and research. In his case mostly from other peoples books. A Wikipedia article is far more trustworthy.

No doubt these straffing incidents did happen on both sides but they were relatively rare and when they are traced back there is little evidence for them.

Incidently it was folks that practiced area bombardment and dehousing, not STUKA pilots that killed civilians just like it was not snippers (the most hated of soldiers) that killed civilians.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 16, 2012)

fubar57 said:


> This may be the be all, end all book for this thread. Had it for about 4 months but things get in the way for reading it. 272 pages with loads of photos
> 
> View attachment 198802
> 
> ...


 
Except this thread is not about strafing.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 16, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> Incidently it was folks that practiced area bombardment and dehousing, not STUKA pilots that killed civilians just like it was not snippers (the most hated of soldiers) that killed civilians.



Snippers? Are they the soldiers that infiltrated the enemy's lines during the night and cut the balls off the enemy soldiers?


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 16, 2012)

Flak suppression, or at least light flak suppression is going to envolve strafing, or low level anti-personnel bomb drops.

The Luftwaffe had some pretty advanced weapons they used on the eastern front, cluster bombs of various makes, downward firing gun packs that could be mounted under the wings. They were just as useful in flak suppression as they would be against massed troops and tank riders.

The 12 gunned B-25's were used for flak suppression over airfields in the Pacific, along with para-frags.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 16, 2012)

wuzak said:


> Except this thread is not about strafing.



So what other methods have been introduced for Flak Suppression.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 17, 2012)

drgondog said:


> So what other methods have been introduced for Flak Suppression.


 
Rockets and bombs?

No doubt strafing is a big part of flak suppression, especially the way it was done.

But strafing is a wider topic altogether.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 17, 2012)

wuzak said:


> Rockets and bombs?
> 
> No doubt strafing is a big part of flak suppression, especially the way it was done.
> 
> But strafing is a wider topic altogether.



I can't speak for other 8th/9th AF Fg's but the 355th used fragmentation clusters of 100 pound frag bombs for both anti personnel and flak suppression in June/July 1944.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Apr 17, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> These would be the same Luftwaffe pilots that not once shot down a British parachute during the BoB, despite the fact that it was not a war crime to do so and despite the fact that it would have benefitted the Luftwaffe's campaign. The only case of shooting down of parachutes was of RAF/Polish squadrons of Luftwaffe pilots over British soil, which most definetly is a war crime..


Ignoring of course those Luftwaffe pilots seen deliberately flying over Allied parachutes, over Malta, to deliberately collapse them and kill the pilot. 


> Oh Edgar, most of the 'atrocity' propaganda is just that, propaganda. Perhaps you've just not developed the critical attitudes needed to detect baloney or like many folks prefer to keep these preconceptions as part of your identity.


In fact I listen to other people's experiences, like the woman who, as a 5-year-old schoolgirl, related how her class heard an aircraft flying overhead, so rushed out to see. Having no thought of danger, they waved to the (German) pilot, who waved back, then turned his machine back towards them, and machine-gunned the children. My "critical attitudes" are directed towards those revisionists who desperately try to tell us what "good ol' boys" the Nazis really were.


> Creation or mongering of atrocities is perhaps the only way a population can be brought to war. Your own country is a highly accomplished, brilliantly subtle and very shameless practitioner of this art.


We didn't build an Auschwitz or Buchenwald in this country.


> That's why one of your primeminsters left in disgrace and was known as Tony Bliar. The fabrication that Germans (in WW1) were rendering the dead into soap being one of the first such lies


.
Since we're dealing with WWII, perhaps you could keep it on subject?


> Focusing propaganda on the non event of Stuka's dive bombing and straffing civilians detracts from the reality that the kind of campaign the German General Staff was waging was outstandingly successfull and quite frightening.


 So the soldiers, making their way to Dunkirk, who saw bodies, on the road, with bullet holes, were dreaming, then?


> I recall browsing Anthony Bevoirs "history" of the Spanish Civil war. There he thoughlessly regurgitates the allegation that Luftwaffe pilots straffed school girls (nothing less than school girls with their pig tail hair will do). Despite lots of endnotes and footnotes everywhere else Bevoir doesn't footnot or reference this at all, he just slips it in thinking no one will notice. He is one of those thematic Historians in which and affected style of haughtly sarcasim and dripping opprobrium is more important than integrity and research.


 Or maybe he heard from the woman above?


> No doubt these straffing incidents did happen on both sides but they were relatively rare and when they are traced back there is little evidence for them.


Do you have any evidence of an Allied pilot deliberately strafing schoolchildren?


> Incidently it was folks that practiced area bombardment and dehousing, not STUKA pilots that killed civilians just like it was not snippers (the most hated of soldiers) that killed civilians


Like the German pilots who devastated London, Coventry, Liverpool, Manchester, Hull, Exeter, Birmingham, Plymouth, Portsmouth, presumably?


----------



## Njaco (Apr 17, 2012)

Everyone will stop with the politics and the sarcasm and get back on topic or the thread will be closed and infractions given.


----------



## Tante Ju (Apr 18, 2012)

drgondog said:


> So what other methods have been introduced for Flak Suppression.



I vote napalm.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 18, 2012)

Tante Ju said:


> I vote napalm.


 
Napalm may suppress the flak in the short term (ie kill the operators), but will it affect the long term (ie damag/destroy the gun or emplacement)?

I suppose the same could be said of the strafing method.

A reasonably accurat delivery of HE bombs should at least damage the flak weapons so that they need to be replaced/repaired?

Also, was napalm widely used in aerial weapons in WW2?


----------



## Njaco (Apr 18, 2012)

I was surprised when reading about the Ardennes Offensive in Dec. '44 that napalm was used a lot with the Allied ground attack like IX TAC. I believe they called them 'blaze bombs'.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Apr 18, 2012)

The C.F.E. carried out trials in 1944/5, with the Typhoon and Mustang, using torpedo tanks in the first instance, and the standard droptank on the latter. There were two mixtures used, and the report gives the impression that they were not impressed, since the mixture didn't penetrate slit trenches that had metal coverings, and the flames died down very quickly, meaning that observers were able to walk over the area within 45 seconds.


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 18, 2012)

Edgar Brooks said:


> The C.F.E. carried out trials in 1944/5, with the Typhoon and Mustang, using torpedo tanks in the first instance, and the standard droptank on the latter. There were two mixtures used, and the report gives the impression that they were not impressed, since the mixture didn't penetrate slit trenches that had metal coverings, and the flames died down very quickly, meaning that observers were able to walk over the area within 45 seconds.


 That must not have been napalm as it was eventually developed, because the napalm i'm familiar with would certainly no be burnt out in 45 seconds.
In the USAF in the late 60's we used napalm premixed already in tanks from Dupont, but we also mixed our own using some equipment left over from the Korean war.

It was a hopper, similiar to a grain bin, that we'd pour, what I think, was styrene beads, from Procter&Gamble, while 80 octane gas, was metered by below the hopper. The mixture would then take on a texture like honey, in a few hours, it'd be like applesauce, if it could cure 24 hours,( it usually never got the chance) it'd be like jello.

A few time we ran out of 80 octane Mogas, and had to mix it with 115/145 aviation gas. The pilots didn't like it. If a munition didn't work, or not work well, we got feedback. The pilots didn't like risking their lives to drop duds. The 115/145 gas based napalm didn't burn as violently, they could tell the difference.

The best napalm mixture probably took time to develope, I've seen films of it used at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, and it doesn't look the same as later napalm, as napalm as used by flame throwers is different also.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Apr 18, 2012)

The mixtures were Perspex in Benzole and Aluminium Laurate Creosole in Pool Petrol.


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 18, 2012)

The thickness or clinging properties would vary with however much of the mixture we used. So they were probably still experimenting with different mixture ratios in WW2.


----------



## Kryten (Apr 18, 2012)

Napalm is a poor option as just like bombs you have to overfly the guns to deliver it, the benefit of cannon/MG attacks is you deluge the target before you get there, and if you want to supress a whole position or flakship then multiple guns are the way to go, take a look at the starafing runs on flakships on you tube, the beaten area encompasses the whole ship, a twelve gun hurricane iib for instance, would have been a very effective supression plane 12x 1200rpm!


----------



## drgondog (Apr 18, 2012)

Napalm was used by 8th FC, but not extensively. Mostly in 1945.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 18, 2012)

Kryten said:


> Napalm is a poor option as just like bombs you have to overfly the guns to deliver it, the benefit of cannon/MG attacks is you deluge the target before you get there, and if you want to supress a whole position or flakship then multiple guns are the way to go, take a look at the starafing runs on flakships on you tube, the beaten area encompasses the whole ship, a twelve gun hurricane iib for instance, would have been a very effective supression plane 12x 1200rpm!



But as the pilot flies towards the flak position he will be vulnerable to the small calibre (20mm) guns used for protect the big guns?

I think guns or rockets followed by bombs would be the go - the guns/rockets would temporarily quieten the position, allowing time to drop some bombs and, hopefully, more permanently knock out the position.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 18, 2012)

wuzak said:


> But as the pilot flies towards the flak position he will be vulnerable to the small calibre (20mm) guns used for protect the big guns?
> 
> I think guns or rockets followed by bombs would be the go - the guns/rockets would temporarily quieten the position, allowing time to drop some bombs and, hopefully, more permanently knock out the position.



Flak suppression was developed as an artform by Wild Weasel Thud drivers dueling Radar and Sam Sites during Vietnam - but the goal was not to mangle the 23, 37, 67 and 85mm artillary in the rings surrounding the Fan Song sites - it was to kill the gunners and kill the radar site and guided Sam II's. Their load was CBU-24 cluster bobms, 20mm and Shrike missles plus Mk118 and/or M117 iron bombs


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 18, 2012)

I think it would be easier to replace the guns, than the trained gunners.

Of course it's much better if you can destroy both, but I think you'd need some pretty heavy and accurate bombs to destroy heavy flak guns.


----------



## MacArther (Apr 18, 2012)

drgondog said:


> Flak suppression was developed as an artform by Wild Weasel Thud drivers dueling Radar and Sam Sites during Vietnam - but the goal was not to mangle the 23, 37, 67 and 85mm artillary in the rings surrounding the Fan Song sites - it was to kill the gunners and kill the radar site and guided Sam II's. Their load was CBU-24 cluster bobms, 20mm and Shrike missles plus Mk118 and/or M117 iron bombs



Wow, my books are stupid. All they list for the Thuds being used in that role are anti-radar missiles and various countermeasure devices.

On a topic related note, one would think that the best sort of plane for flack suppression would have nose guns for better spray on the way in to the target. Also, being able to carry significant amounts of para-frags, napalm, or bombs would also be a must.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 18, 2012)

MacArther said:


> Wow, my books are stupid. All they list for the Thuds being used in that role are anti-radar missiles and various countermeasure devices.
> 
> On a topic related note, one would think that the best sort of plane for flack suppression would have nose guns for better spray on the way in to the target. Also, being able to carry significant amounts of para-frags, napalm, or bombs would also be a must.



Yep - the weasels were in first and out last and dodging Sams and radar guided AAA the whole time. They were on a viariety of scopes and sigint and plying cat and mouse with the BARLOCK and Fan Song - all in all the NVA Fan Song operators were VERY wary and respectful of Weasels.. the 'unwary' passed on to a greater reward in a cloud of fertilizer and flame.

The MK 118 was used when Billy Sparks and Carlo Lombardi destroyed the BARLOCK off a mountain side in '67 but he carried two CBU-24s and two Shrike anti radiation missles along the the centerline 650 gallon fuel tank as 'the norm'- which was also occasionally 'jettisoned' when everything else was expended.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 18, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> I think it would be easier to replace the guns, than the trained gunners.
> 
> Of course it's much better if you can destroy both, but I think you'd need some pretty heavy and accurate bombs to destroy heavy flak guns.


 
Replacingthe guns means either moving it from somewhere else, or manufacturing a new one which takes resources from womewhere else.

One of the effcets of the RAF city bombing campaign was to force the LW to deploy more flak positions around the country, and thus more had to be made, more shells had to be made and teh resources had to be diverted from somewhere. Tank manufacture, perhaps?


----------



## Ascent (Apr 19, 2012)

I'm just reading a book about Costal Command Mosquitoes flying out of Banff against shipping off Norway and it mentions that some aircraft were specifically assigned to flak suppression duties. It seems that it was mostly MG and cannon but I don't think they were averse to putting rockets into flakships, understandably.

As for the MK XVIII I think the ammo used in the 57mm was AP for anti shipping so would be of limited use in flak suppression unless you scored a direct hit. It does mention that some fired it in air to air combat though I don't think any actually hit.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Apr 19, 2012)

Ascent said:


> I'm just reading a book about Costal Command Mosquitoes flying out of Banff against shipping off Norway and it mentions that some aircraft were specifically assigned to flak suppression duties. It seems that it was mostly MG and cannon but I don't think they were averse to putting rockets into flakships, understandably.
> 
> As for the MK XVIII I think the ammo used in the 57mm was AP for anti shipping so would be of limited use in flak suppression unless you scored a direct hit. It does mention that some fired it in air to air combat though I don't think any actually hit.



Banff Strike Wing Mk XVIII Mosquitos made at least two kills with their 57 mm Molins guns: a Ju-88 and a FW-190A. The FW-190A is confirmed in Luftwaffe records as an A-3. The Ju-88 is reported as taking three or four hits and folding up before hitting the ground.


----------



## PJay (Apr 19, 2012)

I remember reading about the Strike Wings, circling the target ships encouraging the enemy to fire then attacking when the gunners had to change ammo drums.
I still don't know whether or not to believe that.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 19, 2012)

PJay said:


> I remember reading about the Strike Wings, circling the target ships encouraging the enemy to fire then attacking when the gunners had to change ammo drums.
> I still don't know whether or not to believe that.


 
Takes far longer to roll in and shoot than it does to change ammo drums - not to mention giving gunners a lot of time to make lead adjustments on circling aircraft (large aircraft) flying slower in turns than they would be on a diving strafing run.

I wouldn't believe it.


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 19, 2012)

What's the chances of more than one gunner changing drums at the same time ? And how would the aircraft know they're changing them ? I just can't imagine the pilots flying with the stick in one hand, and trying to keep a pair of binoculars on the gunsites with the other hand. It doesn't pass the sniff test.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 19, 2012)

Drums?
German AA guns, at least the most common ones, didn't use drums. The Allied 20mm guns did. Granted the air crews may not have gotten close enough to see the difference in WW II.
I don't think I could tell the difference between a drum and a box magazine at several hundred yards while doing 250-350mph AND being shot at 

Some pilots (servicemen) recollections are the truth, some are the best that they remember, and some are great bar stories or "in jokes" that only people who are in the "know" would get.


----------



## PJay (Apr 19, 2012)

I don't know enough about Sperrbrecher weapon fits to discuss this. I wish I'd bought the 'Strike Wings' book from the library when they raped the stock recently.
Agreed it sounds kinda wrong.


----------



## Juha (Apr 19, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> Drums?
> German AA guns, at least the most common ones, didn't use drums. The Allied 20mm guns did. Granted the air crews may not have gotten close enough to see the difference in WW II.
> I don't think I could tell the difference between a drum and a box magazine at several hundred yards while doing 250-350mph AND being shot at
> 
> Some pilots (servicemen) recollections are the truth, some are the best that they remember, and some are great bar stories or "in jokes" that only people who are in the "know" would get.



I don't believe it either but Strike wing a/c were two seaters, so the navigator could use the binoculars but almost all German ships and escort vessels had more than one light AA gun. It is difficult to believe that all of them needed magazine change at the same time. Of course some early R-boats had only 2 20mm cannon so if attacking very low level the plane could be shielded by boat's superstructure from the fire of one of the cannon. But as drgondog wrote, one chaged the magazine faster than one could initiate the attack run. Also there were most of the time several vessels around giving mutual support and escort vessels were nimble enough to open the arch of the wooded cannon by turning before the attacking plane got into firing range.

Juha


----------



## Kryten (Apr 19, 2012)

desmond scott says exactly the same tactic was used by typhoon squadrons attacking e-boats in the channel 43-44, he led several operations and this was the tactic he used apparently!


----------



## Siegfried (Apr 24, 2012)

PJay said:


> I remember reading about the Strike Wings, circling the target ships encouraging the enemy to fire then attacking when the gunners had to change ammo drums.
> I still don't know whether or not to believe that.



It's not believable. A quad 20mm FLAK C/38 2.0cm gun had 4 barrels. Only 2 diagonally opposite barrels were fired at any one time while the other two were being reloaded with 40 (not 20) round clips. This means a flak vierling could more or less fire continiously. Having 60 round snail drums only makes the magazines more cumbersome to handle.

The 3.7cm guns were loaded by clip magazine, with 10 rounds going in at a time and stackable on top of each other. This arrangment is what made the 40mm boffors so effective.

Smaller single 20mm guns did have to stop for a magazine reload but this only took a few seconds and such guns were backups.

One of the early German naval 3.7cm guns fired individual rouns with a semi-automatic breach (drawng in an ejecting automatically) each gun could comfortably fire 30rom and pair could sustain 60 rpm.


----------



## mhuxt (Apr 24, 2012)

Flak suppression?

Here's how:

http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p4013coll8/id/2806/filename/2786.PDF


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 24, 2012)

mhuxt, thank you.


----------



## mhuxt (Apr 24, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> mhuxt, thank you.


 
No worries, that's a good site, worth a browse.


----------



## PJay (Apr 24, 2012)

Excellent! Ta.


----------

