German 88 flak over view
- Thread starter syscom3
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Interesting!
fubar57
General
Answers some questions I had about flak 
Glider
Captain
Very interesting that the Ball turret was often unoccupied. That might have influenced the decision to remove the ball turret from UK based B24's around May 1944
That's a useful channel "Bismark'' has.....
Have been subscribed to that for some time now.
Quite a lot of interesting videos, always backed up with factual reports.
- Thread starter
- #7
syscom3
Pacific Historian
I've always understood that the ball turrets were unoccupied until the formation was at a point where interceptions would occur. And the ball turrets remained on the bombers until late in the war when the LW threat no longer existed.
I could be wrong.
Glider
Captain
You certainly could be right about not occupying the turret until interception was likely, but the UK based B24's did have their turrets removed around May 1944 to improve handling at high altitude and because of the relative ineffectiveness of the ball turret.
Details are included in the book The 1,000 day battle which has a heavy emphasis on the UK based B24 operations of the 488th Bomb Group
Details are included in the book The 1,000 day battle which has a heavy emphasis on the UK based B24 operations of the 488th Bomb Group
Barrett
Senior Airman
Looks like a thorough but concise treatment of the subject. I have Westerman's book, which is excellent.
Break-break
Sidebar on ball turrets. In researching "Forgotten Fifteenth" I found an 8AF study of the inherent accuracy in each gun position for B-17s and 24s. BTGs were the best, whether expressed in size of the dispersed group in feet or rendered in mils, both at 600 yds. That was separate from sights, but BTGs received the first computing sights, which of course increased hit probability.
Break-break
Sidebar on ball turrets. In researching "Forgotten Fifteenth" I found an 8AF study of the inherent accuracy in each gun position for B-17s and 24s. BTGs were the best, whether expressed in size of the dispersed group in feet or rendered in mils, both at 600 yds. That was separate from sights, but BTGs received the first computing sights, which of course increased hit probability.
Admiral Beez
Captain
This training vid was informative but perhaps demoralizing.That's a useful channel "Bismark'' has.....
Have been subscribed to that for some time now.
Quite a lot of interesting videos, always backed up with factual reports.
That's what I call "contribution".
Admiral Beez
Captain
It's not a fad, unless you consider being accurate a fashion. The Germans utilized centimetres rather than millimetres to designate their guns. We're just trying to be accurate, not play to a fad.
For example, the 8.8 cm Flak 41 8,8 cm Flak 41
Same goes for tank guns, for example, the 7.5 cm KwK 40 7.5 cm KwK 40 - Wikipedia
And battleships guns, for example, Bismarck's 38 cm SK C/34
The British used shell weight rather than bore diameter to designate their artillery and tank guns, (and smaller WW1-era naval guns) right up to the Centurion's near-postwar 20 pounder. Meanwhile the US used inches, at least until the 76mm on the later Shermans. I see no reason we can also use the correct nomenclature of the time, with allowances when comparing across different nations, for example 15" battleships when Bismarck is actually 14.96 in.
Last edited:
