Anti Aircraft Weapons....
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
CharlesBronson
Senior Master Sergeant
Hello Soren
as I wrote the QF 3.7 inch Mk VI had max ceiling over 15.000m to be exact it was appr 18.000m (59.200feet)
Gilder
very possible, 1/3 heavier shell, rof with autoloader 25rpm, some sources say that with proximity fuse 32rpm (no need to fuse-setting). But lighter 8,8cm Flak was more mobile and more flexible. Much came from that German doctrine for Heavy AA guns was more flexible. But as pure AA gun or fire support gun 3.7 inch had its strong points vs 8.8cm.
Juha
as I wrote the QF 3.7 inch Mk VI had max ceiling over 15.000m to be exact it was appr 18.000m (59.200feet)
Gilder
very possible, 1/3 heavier shell, rof with autoloader 25rpm, some sources say that with proximity fuse 32rpm (no need to fuse-setting). But lighter 8,8cm Flak was more mobile and more flexible. Much came from that German doctrine for Heavy AA guns was more flexible. But as pure AA gun or fire support gun 3.7 inch had its strong points vs 8.8cm.
Juha
Timshatz
you are right but I have seen same ceiling given as effective and max for Flak 41 and time fuzes sometimes restricted effective ceiling. Don't know what were max flight times allowed for proxy fuses. They IMHO should have self destruction mechanism, otherwise misses would pretty dangerous.
Juha
you are right but I have seen same ceiling given as effective and max for Flak 41 and time fuzes sometimes restricted effective ceiling. Don't know what were max flight times allowed for proxy fuses. They IMHO should have self destruction mechanism, otherwise misses would pretty dangerous.
Juha
parsifal
Colonel
According to Edward B Westermann in his book, FLAK German Anti Aircraft Defenses 1914-45, University Of Kansas Press, 2001, the average 88mm ammunition expenditure per kill over the Reich in 1944, was 16000 shells per kill, At approximately 80 RM per shell, that equates to RM 1280000 or $512000 per shoot down. Viewed in those terms, the Flak arm was a most inefficient method of air defence.
By comparison, the US Navy is estimated to have been expending just 550 rounds per kill in the Pacific. This figure applied to the end of 1944. At the beginning of 1944, it was taking about 1500 rounds per kill.
The two figures are not exactly comparable. Whereas the Germans were firing at high altitude targets, which were above the effective ceilings of the 88mm guns being used by the Germans, the Japanese were attacking at low level, using ordinance that required them to fly low, straight and along a very predictable path of approach.
Still, whereas the the US/Allied AA effectiveness was getting better and better as the war progressed, the Germans were getting worse and worse.
Barrel wear in the AA park and the decreasing standards in crew training were having a catastrophic effect on German AA. The effective ceiling of German AA, according to Westermann had dropped to about 24500 ft by mid 1944, because the barrels were so worn and the guns were operating way below spec. The number of burst barrels had increased from about 20 per month in 1942, to well over 300 per month in 1944.
The poor level of crew training was such that the Germans were basically reduced to barrage fire over aimed fire in 1944. Whereas the majority of flak troops were regular army in 1942, by 1944 they were mostly landswehr...part timers, lacking in the training to be anything but a scare factor in the strategic bombing campaign. They had essentially traded places with the British Flak troops of 1940. in 1940 the British had basically been able to scare the Germans with their AA fire effectiveness. By 1944, it was a very efficient and well equipped force.
A measure of just how badly German effectiveness had sunk is the fact that whilst it was taking 16000 rounds to bring down an Allied heavy bomber in 1944, in 1942 it was only taking the expenditure of about 4000 rounds per kill.
Mind you, achieving a kill by AA is about the least important function of flak. Its most important job was to disrupt the accuracy of the bombers, and to keep them high, and thereby also decrease accuracy. In this area, the Germans were effective until the end of the war
By comparison, the US Navy is estimated to have been expending just 550 rounds per kill in the Pacific. This figure applied to the end of 1944. At the beginning of 1944, it was taking about 1500 rounds per kill.
The two figures are not exactly comparable. Whereas the Germans were firing at high altitude targets, which were above the effective ceilings of the 88mm guns being used by the Germans, the Japanese were attacking at low level, using ordinance that required them to fly low, straight and along a very predictable path of approach.
Still, whereas the the US/Allied AA effectiveness was getting better and better as the war progressed, the Germans were getting worse and worse.
Barrel wear in the AA park and the decreasing standards in crew training were having a catastrophic effect on German AA. The effective ceiling of German AA, according to Westermann had dropped to about 24500 ft by mid 1944, because the barrels were so worn and the guns were operating way below spec. The number of burst barrels had increased from about 20 per month in 1942, to well over 300 per month in 1944.
The poor level of crew training was such that the Germans were basically reduced to barrage fire over aimed fire in 1944. Whereas the majority of flak troops were regular army in 1942, by 1944 they were mostly landswehr...part timers, lacking in the training to be anything but a scare factor in the strategic bombing campaign. They had essentially traded places with the British Flak troops of 1940. in 1940 the British had basically been able to scare the Germans with their AA fire effectiveness. By 1944, it was a very efficient and well equipped force.
A measure of just how badly German effectiveness had sunk is the fact that whilst it was taking 16000 rounds to bring down an Allied heavy bomber in 1944, in 1942 it was only taking the expenditure of about 4000 rounds per kill.
Mind you, achieving a kill by AA is about the least important function of flak. Its most important job was to disrupt the accuracy of the bombers, and to keep them high, and thereby also decrease accuracy. In this area, the Germans were effective until the end of the war
Good post Parisfal. Good points all. To add to it, I think the US Navy's numbers had a lot to do with the proximity fuze. My understanding is it dropped the number of rounds fired for a kill by a third. Kinda close to the numbers you are talking about.
I do remember from working with the 5"/38s back in the 80s that the flight time really went up as the altitude/distance increased over 10,000 yards. By the time you got to the very edges of the range, you were talking a minute or more between firing and detonation. You'd be three drags into a smoke before the shell you fired went off!
I also remember the guns we used jammed a lot. It was a twin mount. One of the tubes had a firing casualty about every 10 rounds. The ammo was old, the guns were old, the ship was old. But firing casualties (slow burns, jamms, screwups in the feed) were more common than thought. Also, the rounds were 50-55lbs each and the charges were about 35lbs each. You could only keep up the "rapid fire" for a minute or two and then it just wore you down. You'd go down to about 10 rpm, per gun.
I do remember from working with the 5"/38s back in the 80s that the flight time really went up as the altitude/distance increased over 10,000 yards. By the time you got to the very edges of the range, you were talking a minute or more between firing and detonation. You'd be three drags into a smoke before the shell you fired went off!
I also remember the guns we used jammed a lot. It was a twin mount. One of the tubes had a firing casualty about every 10 rounds. The ammo was old, the guns were old, the ship was old. But firing casualties (slow burns, jamms, screwups in the feed) were more common than thought. Also, the rounds were 50-55lbs each and the charges were about 35lbs each. You could only keep up the "rapid fire" for a minute or two and then it just wore you down. You'd go down to about 10 rpm, per gun.
Yes, that gun had a ceiling of 9,000m.
Ok, so that's a 94mm 12.7 kg shell at 1,044 m/s, that explains the high ceiling.
The FlaK 41 L/74 fired a 88mm 9.4 kg shell at 1,000 m/s. It was slightly less powerful than Krupp's AT Tank (PaK/KwK43 L/71) version of the gun, which was designed around a larger cartridge and fired a 1 kg heavier (10.4 kg [Pzgr.39/43]) APCBC projectile at 1,018 m/s.
Hi Parsifal,
>A measure of just how badly German effectiveness had sunk is the fact that whilst it was taking 16000 rounds to bring down an Allied heavy bomber in 1944, in 1942 it was only taking the expenditure of about 4000 rounds per kill.
Hm, I'm not sure that this is a valid conclusion as in 1944, it also took the Flak 41, which as a new weapon can't have been as badly worn out as the Flak 37 and which had superior ballistic properties, 8500 shots per killed compared to 16000 for the Flak 36/37 (according to Dörfler, "Die schwere Flak").
Dörfler also notes that early in the war, there were no radar directors and not even enough searchlights, so that against the RAF night bombers aimed fire had not been possible. It seems Dörfler doesn't agree with Westermann's praise of early-war Flak accuracy.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>A measure of just how badly German effectiveness had sunk is the fact that whilst it was taking 16000 rounds to bring down an Allied heavy bomber in 1944, in 1942 it was only taking the expenditure of about 4000 rounds per kill.
Hm, I'm not sure that this is a valid conclusion as in 1944, it also took the Flak 41, which as a new weapon can't have been as badly worn out as the Flak 37 and which had superior ballistic properties, 8500 shots per killed compared to 16000 for the Flak 36/37 (according to Dörfler, "Die schwere Flak").
Dörfler also notes that early in the war, there were no radar directors and not even enough searchlights, so that against the RAF night bombers aimed fire had not been possible. It seems Dörfler doesn't agree with Westermann's praise of early-war Flak accuracy.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Erich
the old Sage
Soren my comments about the Zwil. 3.7cm is in regard to the two versions manufactured and supplied to the Wehrmacht so it actually depends on which one you state
parsifal
Colonel
Westermann argues that the germans reached their peak effectiveness in 1942, because this was the year that the germans began to achieve substantial radar direction for many batteries. moreover the batteries that were radar assisted were not being downgraded by Allied countermeasures. after 1943 Allied countermeasures had a varying, and sometimes devastating effect on german radar effectiveness.
As for the crew quality, well, that should be readily accepted. up to 1942, the flak arm was, in the main regular army, with an average crew experience of over seven years. however, as the war progressed, many of these highly expereinced crews were sent to the front, some as AA specialists, but most simply as grunts for the infantry. The average crew training was down to about 5 months or less by 1944, so the shooting accurqacy had to be dropping as a result of that.
I confess i have not read your source, but Westermann is pretty convincing. he produces month by month ammunition expenditures, and known losses from AA. He is either making it up, or he knows what he is talking about..... Either scenario is plausible.
Westermann is, incidentally very protective and argues in support of german flak effectiveness. his main argument is that compared to the fighter arm, the flak defences were consistently underrated....
Whilst he confirmns the numbers about ammunition expenditure he does not believe that this is a fair measure of overall effectiveness of the flak arm.
Laslty the "wonder guns" that you are relying on for the defence of the effectiveness of the flak arm, constituted less than 15% of the total number of barrels available to the LW in 1944. Throughout 1944, the lions share of the tube artillery heavy flak units remained the old flak 36 and its various derivatives. Consequently any subjective assessment of german AA effectivesness must be concentrated on the continuing effctiveness of the Flak 36 in the 1944 environment.
As for the crew quality, well, that should be readily accepted. up to 1942, the flak arm was, in the main regular army, with an average crew experience of over seven years. however, as the war progressed, many of these highly expereinced crews were sent to the front, some as AA specialists, but most simply as grunts for the infantry. The average crew training was down to about 5 months or less by 1944, so the shooting accurqacy had to be dropping as a result of that.
I confess i have not read your source, but Westermann is pretty convincing. he produces month by month ammunition expenditures, and known losses from AA. He is either making it up, or he knows what he is talking about..... Either scenario is plausible.
Westermann is, incidentally very protective and argues in support of german flak effectiveness. his main argument is that compared to the fighter arm, the flak defences were consistently underrated....
Whilst he confirmns the numbers about ammunition expenditure he does not believe that this is a fair measure of overall effectiveness of the flak arm.
Laslty the "wonder guns" that you are relying on for the defence of the effectiveness of the flak arm, constituted less than 15% of the total number of barrels available to the LW in 1944. Throughout 1944, the lions share of the tube artillery heavy flak units remained the old flak 36 and its various derivatives. Consequently any subjective assessment of german AA effectivesness must be concentrated on the continuing effctiveness of the Flak 36 in the 1944 environment.
parsifal
Colonel
In fact the average estimated ammunition expenditure for the 88/41 and the 128 mm were 3200 and 2650 per kill respectively, according to westermann
I only know about one version, the 3.7cm Flakzwilling 43 (An upgrade of the 3.7cm Flak43)
Which was the other one ?
Erich
the old Sage
it was a different config, the barrels were side by side, not quite the blow out power by speed, used extensively on Kriegsmarine shipping of all sizes right down to the U-boots and yet still more powerful than a single barrel unit
Hi Parsifal,
>Laslty the "wonder guns" that you are relying on for the defence of the effectiveness of the flak arm, constituted less than 15% of the total number of barrels available to the LW in 1944.
The point is that with all their improved ballistics and despite their new barrels, they did not come close to the 1942 effectiveness of the Flak 36/37. That is a good indication the 1942 vs. 1944 comparison has a problem somewhere.
For example, the good 1942 results might have been due to the low operating altitudes of the early RAF bombers, while by 1944 the USAAF daylight attacks were coming in at much higher altitudes.
Accordingly, the 4000 vs. 16000 rounds comparison might not indicate any problem on part of the Flak, but just different engagement ranges.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>Laslty the "wonder guns" that you are relying on for the defence of the effectiveness of the flak arm, constituted less than 15% of the total number of barrels available to the LW in 1944.
The point is that with all their improved ballistics and despite their new barrels, they did not come close to the 1942 effectiveness of the Flak 36/37. That is a good indication the 1942 vs. 1944 comparison has a problem somewhere.
For example, the good 1942 results might have been due to the low operating altitudes of the early RAF bombers, while by 1944 the USAAF daylight attacks were coming in at much higher altitudes.
Accordingly, the 4000 vs. 16000 rounds comparison might not indicate any problem on part of the Flak, but just different engagement ranges.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
parsifal
Colonel
Yes, I basically agree, that the RAF was probably operating at lowwer altitudes. The operating altitude of the stirling was a piddling 13000 feet. IIRC the qwellington was 17000, and the halibag and lancs were about 20000 (roughly). The B-24 had an operating altitude of 25000 and the B-17 about 27000. The 88s had an effective ceiling of 26000 in 1942, and about 24500 in 1944. So, whereas the American were operating above the effective flak (well theoretically) the british were not
Erich
the old Sage
the US never operated above German Flak that is fact ! I have a good friend that was a gunner with a mobil KM Flak Batterie at Kiel during the war.
suggest checking on some German documentation about the Heavy Flak
suggest checking on some German documentation about the Heavy Flak
