Anti Aircraft in ww2
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
Hello /k/, I've been reading Feldmarschall Kesselring's Memoirs and he said that Russian AA was very strong, stronger than the British even. I tried looking up on google about it, but I couldn't find very much about it. Does anybody know of why it was so effective against the Luftwaffe, and how it in general worked? He mentioned also that in night battle Russian AA did extremely well. How did Soviet AA compare to German AA, differences, pros/cons?
In the USSR, air defense had its own branch of the military, the PVO.
They devoted a lot of resources to it, especially to interceptors.
They had a completely separate branch of the armed forces for strategic and operational air defence, the PVO-S.
Composed of AA guns, interceptors, reconnaissance aircraft, early warning (human, acoustic and electronic), destroyer battalions, and search light battalions.
To have such an organisation all ready in existence before the war gave them a huge advantage compared to the Brits.
Although it did mean that Moscow and Leningrad, while very well defended, sucked up most resources and left everything else relatively undefended.
It's because
1.) The Russians used more of it and fired continuously, irrelevant of shells damaging their own cities
2.) They had a better command & control structure by making it an independent military branch
>>30363998
Was German Flak put under the ground forces control generally?
>>30364030
Luftwaffe.
>>30363998
>irrelevant of shells damaging their own cities
That reminds me of the British plan to down V-2 rockets.
They would have recce aircraft monitoring possible launch site to determine the target and path of the missile, then using massive amounts of AAA keep a constant barrage up over the fllightpath. It was dropped when they realised they would kill far more people with the AAA than the V-2.
>>30364070
How did it work out when Germans would use flak 88s as artillery, bunker busting, or for anti tank? Would the ground forces have to go through luftwaffe, or would some ground forces have flak 88s?
>>30364112
>Would the ground forces have to go through luftwaffe, or would some ground forces have flak 88s?
IIRC the Heer would set up some temporary Flak battalions in 1940, with some becoming permanent. But mostly they were Luftwaffe units attached to Armies and Corps.
In some cases the Heer would borrow some guns and hand them back with the AA sights stripped off.
>>30363889
General AA effectiveness
US > Germany > UK > Soviets
Kesselring doesn't speak highly of the UK's field AA, because the British relied on their Fighters for air defense, and placed their best AA efforts on their ships. The late-war Hazemeyer mounts for the Bofors are fantastic pieces of equipment (when they work).
The Americans had the best overall AA of the war. Naval AA was unmatched. Heavy AA was very good but never deployed due to lack of need. Medium AA is extremely effective but never had a chance to shine due to lack of German planes, however, they did a great job killing V-1's. Like the British, the Americans relied on their fighters for air defense, with the very effective strategy of "just kill the luftwaffe".
Germans produced an absurd amount of AA, and put a lot of resources into fire control and improving their heavy AA. Their fire control wasn't quite as good as the American's but they had a lot of it. The flakpanzer is a meme, they didn't have enough of them to do anything.
On a somewhat related note.
How much German artillery did the western allied strategic bombing suck up for the Germans in AA defense?
>>30365747
Alot. I remembered reading Heer generals complaining the AAs could be put to better use as anti-tank guns but the political cost was too high.
>>30365747
>>30366229
Depending on what you count as artillery production, around 60-70%.
80% of 88mm flak 36 production was used for the defense of the Reich. 20% were handed over to the field units to be used as AT guns, artillery, and frontline air defense. Of course, a greater number of the 88's were turned into field artillery as the Allies advanced into Germany.
Almost all the 128mm guns were used for AA except for the handful that were placed into Jagdtigers.
As damaging than the diversion of artillery was the diversion of German plane production. The Luftwaffe destroyed itself trying to stop the bombers.
This is the "unknown" contribution of the western allies; tying up over 70% of German industrial production. The Germans lost their men in the east and their equipment in the west.
>With Soviet and Polish troops entering Berlin in 1945, civilians moved into the Zoo tower to escape harm. Soviet troops (150th and 171st Rifle Divisions) attacked across the Moltke Bridge covering the River Spree. This was defended by German infantry and rockets, who were under pressure from Soviet tanks crossing the bridge, until the heavier anti aircraft guns from the Zoo tower could gain line of sight through the smoke. They destroyed the tanks and left the bridge covered in destroyed vehicles, which blocked further vehicles from crossing the bridge. The heavier 12.8 cm FlaK 40 anti aircraft guns obliterated Soviet armour, particularly when hitting it from the side.
>With thousands of civilians crammed into the facility, conditions in the Zoo tower towards the end were close to unbearable; it was crowded and had little water, and the air was hard to breathe. As the Soviet armies advanced inexorably towards the centre of Berlin, around 10,000 German troops retreated to the Government district. The tower was never successfully assaulted, therefore it was still able to provide anti-tank support to the defenders in the Government district. For example, during daylight hours on April 30, the Soviets were unable to advance across the open areas in front of the Reichstag to attack the building because of heavy anti-tank fire from the 12.8 cm guns two kilometres away on the Zoo tower.
>Soviet troops, not wishing to attack the facility, arranged the surrender of the troops inside. Colonel Haller, negotiating on behalf of the tower, promised to capitulate at midnight. This was a ruse to allow for the forces in the Tiergarten area to make a break out through the Soviet lines and away from Berlin. This they did, shortly before midnight. The civilians then left the facility.
....
>You will never engage in castle warfare ever again
Shieeet
>>30366655
>The two towers resisted all attempts to destroy them by air attack and ground forces. The Soviets used their largest artillery pieces, their 203 mm howitzer, which they withstood. Even after the war, with full access and planned demolitions, only then was the Zoo tower completely destroyed.
After the war the building was evacuated and Soviet troops systematically emptied it of its treasures and sent them to Moscow.
It was 1947/48, before the British Army blew up the tower complex. The smaller ‘L’ tower was blown up successfully on the first attempt on July 28, 1947. The larger ‘G’ tower required far more effort and explosives than the British engineers had expected. Initially, the G-tower was packed with 25 tons of explosives, and press had gathered to watch the demolition. The explosives were set off at 16:00 hours on August 30; however, when the dust cleared, the G tower still stood. One US journalist is reported to have remarked "Made in Germany". With the third effort, the British spent four months preparing the building for demolition. Over four hundred holes were drilled into the concrete structure, and packed with dynamite. A total of 35 tons of dynamite was used in the third try, which was successful.[4] It was the only tower that was successfully completely blown up, though attempts were made on the others.
After the demolition, the Berlin Zoo took over the land where the main G tower had been, and the smaller tower area is presently the site of the Hippopotamus park.
>>30366655
>>30366664
I browse this board for things like this.
>>30364399
While I agree with that ranking it's interesting to note that (outside of naval engagements) there were only a few battles where surface forces operated without air superiority. In fact, the only engagements that I can think of where enemy air power had a significant impact were during the early battles in Tunisia. So essentially, if you drove a tank or were a infantryman, there was only a 1-2 month period where CAS/indirection was a relevant threat.
>>30366655
>>30366664
Couldn't they use indirect artillery fire to damage the top of the structure, kill the crews and destroy the guns?
>>30366272
I'll have to find it again, but I remember reading a report that broke down ammunition production from 1939 to 45. By 43 and 44 some absurd number that was close to 65% of all artillery ammunition was being dedicated to flak batteries of varying sizes.
>>30367082
That would be a correct course in hindsight, but the Soviets were too obsessed with capturing all the landmarks and symbolic targets.
>>30364399
>The Americans had the best overall AA of the war. Naval AA was unmatched.
Reminder that by the end of the war, a single US DD could put out more effective fire than a Yamato class despite having roughly 15k lbs less throw weight.
And the throw weight of other ships in the USN became obscene to say nothing of the utility of proximity fuses and radar fire direction that the dual purpose guns benefited from.
>>30367082
should have used airborne duh
>>30367130
Didn't want to risk Oberst Hallar deploying the SS Storm Elite, bro.
>>30366272
This is the "unknown" contribution of the western allies; tying up over 70% of German industrial production. The Germans lost their men in the east and their equipment in the west.
This. A lot of discussions have centered around how effective the US and British bomber campaigns were, but these often fail to take into account the wast German resources that were tied up defending Germany from them.
One Fw190 or 88 defending Berlin is one less to throw at the Soviets
>>30367217
Yup. And I forget the exact numbers, but a huge portion of Luftwaffe losses happened in Defense of the Reich. There were even a bunch of top aces who were put out of action or killed in Defense of the Reich. Gunther Rall's one of those cases - he spent most of his career on the Eastern Front, and only a couple missions in to flying over Germany he was shot down and hospitalized for the remainder of the war.
>>30364399
>Germany more effective than the UK
>UK invented proximity fuse and had far more accurate fire control radar.
>>30367273
My waifu's archetype was killed in the defense of the Reich.
>>30367217
Didn't help they had to keep diverting planes to save Italy from its own incompetence.
Yall may find this interesting too.
>"Himmelbett"-Kreis = "Himmelbett"-Circle
>Scheinwerfer-Riegel = searchlight "bar"
>Kombiniert Nachtjäger und Flak = combined night fighter and AAA zones
>The "Kammhuber-Line" (Kammhuber was a Luftwaffe general tasked with the Reich air defense) was first set up with a searchlight blockade 35 Kilometers (ca 22 miles) for the "bright night-hunting" ( = unmodified fighter plane tries to find enemy bomber when they are caught in the searchlight). Then a thick net of "Himmelbett"-circles (Himmelbett is a type of radar, I can elaborate on the tactics if necessary) was added, supplying GCI (ground control intercept) officers. For instance, the site "Tiger", on the Dutch island of Terschelling, was part of 150 downings of allied bombers.
>>30367806
>based Kammhuber
That man was one of the few competent commanders the Luftwaffe had
>>30369118
Dont envy him the job though. Must have felt like a rock trying to stop the fucking tide coming in.
>>30367806
>not putting the defenses near the target
For what purpose
>>30367103
What was the German's comment about our equipment? "So this is how a rich man wages war?"
>>30369824
Oh yeah. Especially with all the resistance he had from the rest of the Luftwaffe and people like this >>30369994
He was constantly struggling to get enough resources to get the line working, and every time a failure in the line was revealed, the immediate reaction of the Luftwaffe seemed to be
>see it's useless!
instead of "oh shit we need beef this up"
The Luftwaffe even had the brilliant idea of making Kammhuber's men fly their night fighters day and night against all the incoming bombers, causing ridiculous losses.
>>30369994
It serves as an early warning network, and allows you to concentrate your limited resources across a smaller area where the enemy has to cross rather than spreading it out across every possible target.
>>30370478
>>30370506
>>30370519
>>30370705
>>30370716
Remember reading somewhere that German pilots especially disliked attacking American formations due to the large numbers of .50 machine guns, which while short ranged, the sheer number of them put up a ton of lead, making attacks risky.
>>30370755
Japan hated attacking our ships because from the time they came in range to the time they left they were getting shot all to hell and back.
I believe there were some 11,000 Japanese aircraft that were engaged by US surface ships, around 3500 shot down within the AA blanket, and almost all of the rest were so harried that they couldn't effectively attack their targets.
>>30363889
russian troops were trained to fire at low flying aircraft which apparently actually kinda worked as it made german pilots reluctant to fly low
ironically the russians gave 0 shits about german AAA, Il-2 pilots apparently found 88s to be much less threatening due to their low rate of fire and reaction time
>>30370229
>What was the German's comment about our equipment? "So this is how a rich man wages war?"
That was a comment on American artillery. "Why send a man when you can send a shell?" line of thought.
>>30366272
>Without Allied bombing, up to a quarter of a million German men and 7,500 heavy guns employed for air defense could have been sent to the Eastern Front in 1943, where they would have been deployed against Red Army tanks.
>Eight hundred thousand military personnel were mobilized for air defense work, more soldiers than the Wehrmacht had in Italy. Fully one-third of German artillery production, one-third of the output of the optical industry, and two-thirds of the production of radar and signals equipment were devoted to the antiaircraft effort. These defenses consumed one-fifth of all ammunition produced.
>By 1944, the German air defense system called on the services of 4.5 million workers and consumed a third of the nation’s total war resources. Digging shelters and distributing gas masks, cleaning up bomb debris and pulling the dead from battered buildings, working as fire wardens and firefighters, nurse’s aides and social workers, airplane spotters and emergency ambulance drivers, millions of German civilians were enlisted in the bomber war, acting as a “home front army.” [1]
>The combined effects of direct destruction and the diversion of resources denied German forces approximately half their battle-front weapons and equipment in 1944. [2]
1. Groehler, “Strategic Conduct of the Air War", pg. 284–86
2. Overy, "Why the Allies Won", pg. 131
>>30373774
>Earlier that year, Hitler had increased the size of Germany’s antiaircraft defense force to nearly a million by moving troops from the Eastern Front and bringing into the force secondary school students, women, and Soviet prisoners of war. By then Germany had over 13,200 heavy antiaircraft guns. Most flak gunners were deployed in batteries of six to twelve guns. Around Leuna and several other oil targets, Speer set up Grossbatterie, each of them equipped with up to thirty-six guns capable of firing a barrage or “box” of shells into a prearranged spot. Beginning with the summer oil raids, the Eighth Air Force would lose over twice as many bombers to flak than to fighters. While flak was responsible for 40 percent of the wounds suffered by Eighth Air Force fliers during the first year of the air war, it accounted for 71 percent of the wounds over the entire period of the war.
>Flak was a grossly inefficient defensive measure. On average, it took 8,500 rounds from the newest version of the 88mm gun to down a single bomber. Yet it was a devastatingly effective psychological weapon, designed to unnerve the aircrews and impair bombing accuracy. In the summer and early fall of 1944, Germany still had enough ammunition to saturate the sky over its oil plants, maiming and killing great numbers of Allied fliers. By the end of the war, German flak gunners would take down some 5,400 American planes, as opposed to 4,300 shot down by fighters.
>>30373916
>Planes hit by flak had a better chance of making it back to base than ones roughed up by fighters, but that brought the carnage closer to home, increasing crew anxiety. Some bombers landed with 200 to 300 holes in them and with crewmembers in worse shape than their planes: arms and kneecaps sheared off, eyes blown out of their sockets, torsos torn open so widely that flight surgeons could see the dead men’s lungs. With the decline of the Luftwaffe, the percentage of bombers lost on raids dropped, but men still died in big bunches. “Every time we came back from a rough mission,” Bert Stiles wrote, “we had to shake up the line-up of [our softball team], and twice we had to find a whole new infield.”
>Flak was insidious; it reduced men to a state of complete helplessness—passive stress, Air Force physicians called it. In frustration, gunners would fire at the flak bursts. No one thought they were crazy. [4]
3. von Renz, “The Development of German Anti-aircraft Weapons and Equipment of All Types up to 1945,” pg. 258-80
4. Boog, "Germany and the Second World War", vol. 6, pg. 616
>>30363889
Tunguska were god tier too
>>30370755
Why was the .50 so nicely used by the US while other nations would use 776 or some shit inappropriately so often
>>30367273
Had an argument with some /His/ doofus concerning this a few weeks ago had to virtually lead him by the hand in the direction of sources and information concerning the air battles in the West and their effect on the Eastern front.
>>30367130
>>30367143
I completely forgot about that game, it was pretty good. And that's what the concrete flak tower is based off of in game?
>>30370239
It's like the Germans WANTED to lose the war. But hey I'm not upset. Wish they would have finished the soviets off before they attacked france for no reason though.
>>30374045
God damnit dude, that wound is scary. Guessing he's dead then?
>>30375213
>they attacked france for no reason though.
Didn't France declare war on Germany?
Remove Sturmovik.
>>30367143
Sweet spandau
>>30374401
>ww2
>tunguska
just get out
>>30370239
Sounds like the Luftwaffe were Germany's /b/tards back in those WW2 days.
>>30377778
What is this? Looks like a StuG with no mantlet.
>>30378064
It makes up for no mantlets by having plenty of manlets.
>>30378064
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/43M_Zr%C3%ADnyi
>>30377671
Mobelwagen?
>>30378064
Hungarian zrinyii if I'm not mistaken
>>30375264
>God damnit dude, that wound is scary. Guessing he's dead then?
Yeah. Studies on would ballistics from flak is terrifying. The planes were only armored in small specific areas meant to protect against fire from other planes. They were essentially unprotected against flak. The skin on those bombers was so thin that they'd sometimes become more lethal by turning bits of plane into additional fragments. There's one case wherein a flak hit broke off the throttle and sent it into the neck of a pilot.
The air war was awful.
"Air raid! Come on girls, lets make those boys in the sky a living hell!"
>>30381033
