A Successful Dead End? - Kugelblitz

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Join me in War Thunder for FREE on PC, PS®5 and Xbox Series X|S by using this link playwt.link/mhvkugelblitz and get a premium tank or aircraft and three days of premium time as a bonus.

[@halo51997]

mhv, did you see the front aspect picture of the Berlin kugel ?, it looks like a hull up armed with something through the drivers hatch and its had the ring plated over and a hatch added from the look of it.

[@kaioberg2617]

Great Vid. I play War Thunder for almost 3 Years by now. 2707,1 Hours count Steam now. It is great.

[@aronfox3086]

U noob, only 31 some achievements

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

@Kabuki Kitsune do you have any links to these reports?

[@fanta4897]

Speaking of the official and actual names, I have a question: did Germans, Italians or Japanese ever refer to themselves as Axis, and did they ever refer to their enemies as Allies? I'm asking because it could be quite confusing to call their enemies Allies, and it would seem more sensible to refer to their actual allies as ''allies'' instead of ''axis powers''.

[@nco_gets_it]

open turrets make loading belted 20-40mm ammunition MUCH easier. Ergonomics are not always important to designers, but a 1200 round ready ammo can is not really much ammo for AA use. The ability to easily lay new ammo is important if the vehicle is to have a prolonged engagement or used in offensive actions at all. Also, prior to proximity fused artillery, striking moving vehicles with VT was much harder meaning that an open top not only allows for better reload and crew work area, but the threat of fragmentation from arty was somewhat mitigated by fuse options. Of course, after WW2, the knowledge of prox fuses was pretty wide spread, so later concepts would need enclosed protection for the crew. It is important to note that none of the AA dedicated systems can withstand CBU or HE hits from aircraft.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Very good point! I did not think about that all and either it wasn't mentioned in my sources or I missed it.

[@kilianortmann9979]

I think the fact that the Kugelblitz had an oscillating turret (Wiegeturm) might have been a factor in deciding to enclose the whole thing. Otherwise the danger of a crew member getting his head chopped off by the turret monster might have been unacceptable. So not a voluntary decision (the disadvantages where large, as you mentioned) but out of necessity, I can't remember ever seeing an open topped oscillating turret.

[@Simon_Nonymous]

The closed turret systems of Cold War AAA were also due to the requirements for vehicles to be NBC capable I think? Good summary though CB!

[@paoloviti6156]

Very interesting but I think that both turret the open top and the enclosed top are equally sharing pro and cons. I personally would prefer the open top because it has a better visual and a better battle awareness, easier reloading of ammo and and no need to have fume extractor although with those cannons it would create massive blast throwing heavy dust around. Feeding the two types of turrets will always be a problem by carrying around heavy ammo boxes and it would necessitated quite a few hands racing to bring fresh ammo. Finally in my opinion one of the reasons why the Kugelblitz was never really produced was because of the array of optics not only for aiming but also to have a good visual outside but being so late in the war the lack of optics weights heavily.....

[@schnuersi]

@C B Sorry but I have to disagree. 1200 rds of 30 mm is PLENTY for AA purposes. Even more so in a WW2 context. While your argument about prolonged engagements is not false as such it simply doesn't apply. Point defense against low altitude attacks is more or less the anti thesis to prolonged engagements. The window of opportunity is very small. Low altitude attack aircraft attack in rather small groups and in a short period of time. They don't come in one after the other over the course of hours without pause. To fight them its important to get lots of rounds onto target fast. Not keep up shooting slow but prolonged. If you concider the effective range of the 3 cm MK103 which has been stated with ~2000 m. An aircraft coming in at 500 km/h or roughly 139 m/s will move this distance in ~ 14 seconds. So even if fire is opend early, behond 2000 m and the trigger is pulled all the time for 20 seconds of continous auto fire this would only result in 150 rds fired per barrel. For 300 rds fired for both guns for such an extreme engagement. This would mean four such engagements could be conducted by one tank without the need for rearmamant. Which is really quite a lot. Also with long bursts the guns will heat up conciderably. Its very unlikely that the entire ready ammo can be fired in a short period of time in the order of magnitude close to the cyclic rate. If you compare the ammo count and possible engagement times of the Kugelbitz to other SPAA of the era you will see that is actually can engage more often or longer. The Wirbelwind for example carries more rounds but fires faster. Also not the entire ammo of the Wirbelwind is ready to use. Most needs to be loaded into magazines first. The post war AA tanks like the M42 or the ZSU-57-2 carry conciderable less ammo. Rearming is an organisational and technical problem. It does not depend on how much ammo you carry, how it is fed or where it is stored but rather by what method it is resupplied. Resupplying belts can be as easy as connecting one end of the belt, possibly with a starter tab, and turning a crank. The closed top of the Kugelblitz makes a lot of sense with the intended mode of use is taken into account. Its a close in defense system. Deployed not only in dedicated AA units but also as organic AA asset. This means it will get involved in ground to ground action. Which means artillery fire is a problem. Also aircraft directly attacking the SPAA are a problem. For the German Army at this point these have been real problems not just theoretical ideas. It changes a lot if you expect your AA to be shot at and shelled. Yes open top has some advantages but these become rather theoretical if the vehicle is knocked our or the crew killed in the first engagement. The threat of airburst artillery also was much more real than you make it sound. It is possible to shoot effective airburst even without proximity fuse. Basically in the same way as heavy AA fired barrages. With a mechanical fuse setted to explode at a given time. This was done and worked reasonably well.

[@steelhammer96]

great video, love how you used the WT Xray mode to show the different turret types and how they work!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Glad you enjoyed!

[@IronRAVENxvx]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Looking forward to WT being used more and more for showcasing vehicles in your vids :)

[@harrymack3565]

Yeah, I have a love hate relationship with WT but damn it is good for this kind of demonstration.

[@Bochi42]

I Love how clear and honest Bernard is about that which can not be determined one way or another.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

thank you!

[@brianj.841]

Yes. Well researched and presented. Kudos!

[@HollowDubz]

I remember when you started out and you where nervous about failure, i am proud that you have found success and thank you for your time.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

thank you!

[@HollowDubz]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized my friend you are welcome, you deserve praise for the hard work you put into these videos!

[@JGCR59]

I think the enclosed turret still comes from the "U-Boat 3cm turret". The Type XXI 3cm mount looks very similar to this one, so while it was not taken over directly they probably only changed what was strictly necessary.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

could be, I was quite surprised that one source did not mention the u-boat aspect at all.

[@shanepatrick4534]

Wow that's two 30mm mk103 on the type XXI I thought thpse were 20mm.

[@alex_zetsu]

Until I saw the video and found out how the vehicles and their turrets were made, I assumed they just took the U boat 3 cm turret because they look so much the same.

[@ivn414]

Why do I feel such satisfaction when listening to properly pronounced german vehicle/weapon names? I'm not even german nor can I speak the language.

[@JGCR59]

I think it should be "Schwebekreiselvisiere" meaning gyroscopic sights.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

could be!

[@thetanksofworldwarii-tanka4368]

I'm going to take that 110mm of armor penetration stat with a very big grain of salt. Even using tungsten cored APCR ammo, that figure seems very high for such a small caliber cannon.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

yeah, I was a bit surprised as well.

[@501Mobius]

There is 30mm APCR ammunition but I've never seen penetration or ballistic data. I guess if you have a game platform you can just make up the numbers.

[@zimms87]

@@501Mobius I don't think WT was used as source here.

[@MyDarkMe]

@@501Mobius Those are probably the offical WW2 numbers. Warthunder uses 95mm at 0°deg which is a calculated value.

[@herosstratos]

Armor penetration of the 20 ×139 mm APDS is 44 mm at 1000 m.

Very interrsting. Would not have tought, that there is so much background to the Kugelblitz. Im am just glad that there is noh discussion potential about the name :)

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

yeah, I was quite surprised myself. lol @ the name

[@Fubuki_Kai]

Now do the Ostwind 2

[@scoobydoodandy4296]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Ball Lightening? If you like names then do a series on the Sdkfz (Special vehicle) 251 series. Lots of cool names here... 251/2 "Stuka zu fuss" Stuka on foot, 251/7 "Pioneer panzerwagen", Pioneer Armored car, 251/16 "Flammpanzerwagen", Flamethrower Armored Car, 251/20 "Uhu", Owl (part of the ultra violet night vision system providing the light source for the platoon of Pz5 Panther Tanks equipped with ultra violet scopes) 251/21 "Drilling", Triplet, 251/22 "Panzerabwehrkanone panzerwagen" Tank defense cannon armored car. Lots of content for you here, not just 22 variants either as 251/7 was equipped with bridging capability and choice of MG34/42 or low caliber PAK, 251/17 had side armor which folded down and was either radio armored car or Flak armored car (Platoon would have 1 radio and several flak versions with the radio being the command and having various different sets to communicate with HQ, Luftwaffe, Panzer and field units to co-ordinate support) This Sdkfz 251 series really demonstrates the versatility of this vehicle as well as the doctrine of mounting various weapons systems on every possible chassis.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

@@scoobydoodandy4296 the lol was at the users name. The names you mentioned for 251 vehicles I know and in some cases were already mentioned in my other videos.

[@scoobydoodandy4296]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized OK cool, haven't seen much of your work until today, but I will get caught up soon! watched 5 of your videos this morning... I hadn't got to the bit in the video when you translated to English but I have seen other videos about a "Ball Tank" previously so guessed it was that. Used to collect 1/35 scale models of WW2 armor and managed to built 10 variants of SdKfz 251 so this is of particular interest to me. Thanks for your videos, I'll have a good look at your list a bit later. Have a great day!

[@kamiskub7409]

Seeing the penetration value of 110 mm at 300 meters being mentioned really makes me wonder if it could be used with this information source as to change the penetration value in Warthunder. It would make Mk 103 cannon so much stronger.

[@Kuschel_K]

The better question is: where did that value come from? I've never seen a German source indicating this value, the highest value I know of is 100mm at 100m, but the penetration values greatly depend on the armor hardness used in the test.

[@tomppeli.]

Not sure where Gaijin got their 95 mm at 0 m 🤔 ...could just be that they don't care or they mind all the vehicles with the cannon will become too powerful

[@mirkoplanow1297]

Still does not penetrate Stalinium^^ :P

[@tomppeli.]

@@mirkoplanow1297 that's a given

[@alejandromendoza7458]

i think war thunder uses some formula to calculate armor penetration, they used to use references to real life tests but i believe they changed it to calculations recently.

[@TheSunchaster]

11:36 - true. Many people do not notice it. It makes Kugelblitz more -German- quadratisch and praktisch.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

:)

[@Dilley_G45]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Ah noch ein Fan von Ritter Sport 😃

[@cannonfodder4376]

Never knew that it used a Tiger 1 turret ring to fit the turret on to it. I learn something new every day, another good and informative video as always.

[@jmackmcneill]

"the most efficient name" ... the German sense of humour strikes again

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

thanks, but I didn't say that :D

[@ottovonbismarck2443]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized And you're not German either ! 😀

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

indeed :D

[@sergaljesus]

I believe he said the most official name :o atleast that's what i heard lol

[@drstrangelove4998]

BS

[@alex_zetsu]

I like the creative way you introduced the sponsor. Most would have simply shown the in-game vehicle, and if there were any surviving complete vehicles just skip the photos. And a few others would have put the sponsor integrated in a clunky way, in fact I prefer a statement at the end of "this video was sponsored by" than a bad integration. But that transition you made to War Thunder at 0:22 was smooth, very good, and thematic.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Thank you, I generally try to use sponsorships to create more value for the audience AND showcase the product, so that both sides have a benefit. Due to laws I have to disclose a sponsorship at the beginning and end of video. Heck, I even have to declare that when a museum invites me, technically any support that has a worth of equal or higher than 1 Euro I have to declare it at the beginning and end, because laws. Of course, this gets funny, when I use a video that includes footage from 3 different museums.

[@WildBillCox13]

This brings to mind the 1942 Nimrod turret produced for the 1st and 2nd Hungarian Armored Divisions. The Nimrod turret was wide, had reasonable distribution of tasks, was placed over a barbette on a 12 ton light tank chassis (Toldi), and mounted a license built 40mm Bofors /L60 autocannon. Since the tiny Toldi could carry the Nimrod turret I suggest that it might've easily adapted to Pz III und IV chasses. Since Germany did supply Hungaria with various Panzers it might've been nice had she received a few Nimrod turrets in return. Having those in late '42 and early '43 might've been useful here and there. About Panzers based on the 38 chassis: I think that rather than the straight 38 (Hetzer) rationalized chassis, thought had been given to basing future vehicles on the Pz 38D chassis. Was that slightly larger? I think it was mooted to be standardized as a combat vehicle family basis; I think it used a lot of standard Hetzer parts in hull and suspension.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Nimrod seem closer to the Wirbel- and Ostwind. The Jagdpanzer 38 chassis was larger - especially wider if I recall correctly - than the regular Panzer 38 (t) chassis.

[@MilesStratton]

Very cool! Enjoyed this video immensely. Interesting that the Kugel used a Tiger 1 turret ring rather than the Pz IV turret ring. I suppose I always noticed that subconsciously but never put two and two together, very cool!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Glad you enjoyed it! Yeah, I was also quite surprised about that.

[@nicholaspratt8473]

Posted 2 minutes ago? Last time I was this early, the Maus was on paper!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

lol, in my case it was already at Kummersdorf

[@JGCR59]

One thing you have to consider re Flakpanzers is reloading: The german 20mm Flak 38, wether single or Vierling, was fed by 20 round magazines. Inside replacing those fast enough to sustain fire was difficult and required probably more space than a Wirbelwind could offer. The 37mm was fed by clips and could be "topped up" like the Bofors gun so in practice it probably had a better realistic rate of fire than the 20mm, but as with that gun, the rate of fire depended on the number of loaders and the space they had available. Möbelwagen was probably more practical in that regard. The only AA gun the germans used before MK 103 that was belt fed was some improvised MG 151 aircraft cannon. So the main advantage of the Kugelblitz was a weapon capable of sustained fire that did not require awkward handling of ammo while firing the gun, as it simply had a belt feed.

[@denniscoughlan685]

Thank you for the outstanding coverage on my favorite German Flak vehicle. Knew there was only 3 completed, didn't know one was actually involved in conbat. It seems that the main reason this lil beauty was droped from production was the logistics. With that rate of fire it would have to stay close to supply as l see it. Good round, crew protection, proven chassis, low profile and has a look of sofisticated-mean. Classy. Well done guys, appreciate your work.

[@paulgoransson9489]

Comming from a rl AAA background i do wonder how those enclosed turrets actually managed to observe any targets given lack of radars. In an open turret at least one person should be able to observe and look for targets. But in an enclosed not so much.

[@fernandoi3389]

Thanks for using WT models to explain the report , It provides more depth and helps a lot to see vehicle differences.

[@TheSunchaster]

8:27 - in WT on a Ausf. H top armor is 10 mm and 12 mm at the front, on Ausf. J and it`s commander (premium) version is 16 mm and 12 mm at the front. Kugelblitz have one-piece 16 mm top of the hull.

[@tomppeli.]

There are other inconsistencies with the different models of Pz IV and their Flakpanzer variants. I would think that Gaijin just can't be bothered to model each one more accurately

[@Psiberzerker]

There are so many "Successful dead-ends" throughout the 20th century, because of the way Warfare evolved, over a Century. Rapidly, 2 World Wars went from single action revolvers to Nuclear Airstrikes, in 30 years. Japan went from the advent of threaded screws to aircraft carriers, in 100 years. So, anti-tank guns. All of the Antitank Rifles were successful dead-ends. Because Tank armor rapidly became too effective for a man portable rifle (And the Lahti, which is really pushing the limit of man portability) in 1 war. Likewise the Assault gun. The StüG III, and SU76M rapidly became Tank Destroyers, because they realized in the first generation. The same engineers that invented the Sturmgeshutz, and Samokhodnaya Ustanovka realized that you can use them as a tank destroyer immediately started making Tank Destroyers which can also be used as Assault Guns. Dive Bombers, Battle Rifles, Infantry Carbines, the FG42, anti-tank grenades, radar jamming, signal flags, observation balloons, derigibles, mechanical encryption machines, slide rules, and Aero-space planes. The SR-71 Blackbird flew for a mere 33 years, and today, there are no derivatives from that entire line of research. We're still flying U2s, and A10s today. So, I'm going to have to call the SR71 Blackbird the most successful dead-end in military history. So far...

[@Psiberzerker]

The Uboote turret on a Tank chassis isn't an anomaly (In the Century of successful dead-ends) either. Honestly, the Tank was invented by the National Landship Committee. The plan all along was to use Naval design, and strategy in land warfare. That's why Tanks are built like Battleships today. That's why Tank Turrets are mounted in Tank "Hulls" today. If you look at a naval turret, and a tank turret, it doesn't take long to realize that one is the child of the other. You just can't make a tank the size of a battleship. Though they sure tried. (Also, the tracks were derived from Locomotive technology, but that's a little less obvious. Still, they run on "Tracks." They just redesigned them so the Tractors could carry them with them.)

[@MatthewBaileyBeAfraid]

Only there is a derivative of the Blackbird. It is just another one of those instances that we used to read about in the newspapers in California and Nevada in the 1980s: “There was no Aircraft crash anywhere near Nellis or Andrews AFB that the Military then didn’t have to stop all traffic on the highways to recover. And the aircraft that didn’t crash most definitely wasn’t a triangular, black plane that the US Military says doesn’t exist.” The replacements for the SR71 are currently in that category, save that the government has gotten better at hiding them from the public than they were the F-119, which pretty much the only thing the residents of California and Nevada who lived near its usual airfields didn’t know about it was its name. But you are otherwise correct that we’ve allowed all manner of technology to languish. Note that Elon Musk spent hundreds of millions of dollars finding the wrecks of Saturn V boosters to recover the F1 engines, as we had lost the means (and most of the blueprints) to even make them (Russia is in even worse shape in that regard). We have entered a kind of languishing stagnation that goes FAR BEYOND just high technologies outside of the computer or tech fields. A friend who used to be a Musicology Professor at UCLA was a part of a multi-decade study of Music who has said that we have a similar stagnation in Music, not just in the quality and number of musicians who can actually play an instrument, but in the knowledge to actually BUILD the kind of high-quality musical instruments that were the norm in the 19th and 20th Centuries. One of the things the study showed was the proliferation of people calling themselves “DJs,” who do nothing but change CDs or select a playlist of mp3 files. There are computer programs that can do that, as well as doing what the techno/rave era DJs were doing better than any Human DJ… Yet these people persist because of a population that is itself no longer conversant musically. The SR71 is really only a dead-end in that the technology involved has never moved out of a single company, and a single group within that company still doing the exact same things. The only technologies that have come out of the SR71 and associated developments have ironically been used principally in the kitchen. The SR71 (and then Have Blue and Tacit Blue) gave us Microwave Browning Trays to create better Microwave Pizza. The various ceramics likewise have allowed for the creation of better cookware and heating elements in stoves (and toasters), and some of the metallurgy gave us advanced coffee filters that were made from a single piece of metal, rather than a screen. I’m sure other fields have benefitted as well…

[@Psiberzerker]

@@MatthewBaileyBeAfraid Okay, there's a lot to unpack here. I assume you mean the F117, because the F119 is a British turbofan, not really a secret project. Secondly, my point wasn't that we let technology "Languish." War tech quickly becomes obsolete when the enemy comes up with countermeasures. So, you make a more powerful Anti-tank Rifle, and the enemy welds more Armor on their Tanks until you can't carry effective Anti-tank rifles once 20mm Lahti isn't powerful enough any more... (So, Anti-materiel rifles find a new role shooting out engine blocks, and helmets instead.) The Blackbird had a good run, until people could make missiles capable of shooting it down. So, we retired the Blackbird fleet, because it wasn't unshootdownable any more.

[@Psiberzerker]

There's no use commenting on projects I don't know about any more (Or I shouldn't know about, or if I did, I wouldn't be able to talk about in the comment on U2be.) Groom Lake is closed, and has been since the 90s, when it stopped being a secret test site. IDFGK where they're testing now, but if I had to guess, I'd say offshore. There's a lot of south Pacific islands with nothing around. Enough of them that we could test nuclear weapons in secret, until the Soviets had satellites that could detect them, too. Then, we created anti-satellite missiles to shoot down their satellites... Arms races just naturally produce technological dead ends, because Experiments like Have Blue create niches that weren't there before. So, the enemy doesn't have any countermeasures until they develop countermeasures, and we go back to the drawing board again. Rinse, repeat...

[@Psiberzerker]

@hognoxious Nitpicky, are we? All right, you managed to find 1 number that was off, in all that. An entire century of 'successful dead-ends." Where shall I send the cookie?

[@Anlushac11]

A book I have on the Bf109 mentioned that fighter pilots liked the 30mm Mk103 when engaging fighters because its higher muzzle velocity made it easier to hit maneuvering fighter sized targets. However the Mk108 while having a lower muzzle velocity and a much more curved trajectory, also had a significantly higher HE charge which was much more important when engaging slow lumbering bombers.

[@williamzk9083]

The Mk 103 and Mk 108 could use the same minengesuchuss ammunition.

[@cameronmoss2933]

I would definitely like to see more replicated footage from war thunder in future videos, these videos are GREAT for information but they can sometimes lose me, the war thunder footage is a really good way to keep some of us engaged.

[@cameronmoss2933]

Didn’t expect to see one of those accounts here

[@paganshredhead599]

Could we have a video on doctrine and actual frontline use of Flakpanzer in general in the Wehrmacht? How they were integrated in formations, on the march etc.?

[@Riceball01]

For that matter, which branch of the Wehrmacht was responsible for fielding and operating Flakpoanzers, the Heer of the Luftwaffe? Because the Heer was responsible for Panzers, wiith the exception of the one Luftwaffe Panzer division, while the Luftwffe were responsible foir anti-aircraft guns. So who did the Flakpanzers belong to, the Luftwaffe or the Heer?

[@WeWillAlwaysHaveVALIS]

Great video! I surprised myself today though, it appears that all my years playing ww2 stuff, watching documentaries about the war and reading books on it; has given me a sort of passive understanding of German. I completely understood the whole " Leichter flakpanzer IV mit 3 cm MK 103 als zwilling waffle", I am genuinely pretty astounded by that.

[@wacojones8062]

Turret design for AA is based on sighting and aiming on the one hand vs. loading the guns at a reasonable rate to keep up fire rates. The ZSU-57=2 and M-42 Duster both used manual clip loading into the loading chutes on the gun top. ZSU-23-4, Flakpanzer Gepard and the US M247 Sgt. York used internal ammo storage with relatively complex feed systems that took a considerable amount of time and physical labor to reload fully. These later designs had to take chemical and nuclear effects into account thus the sealed up crew area and remote sighting and tracking setups.

[@CrhisLulz]

Oh my God War Thunder reference Jokes aside, great video, happy I could learn more about a lesser known German SPAA design.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

thank you!

[@alex_zetsu]

If the WW2 Germans played War Thunder, they would know armor beyond what is needed to stop machine gun bullets on an AA vehicle is mostly a dump stat and the few times it comes into play, the situation is mostly hopeless anyways, therefore they should focus on speed by just dumping any weight doing nothing like heavy armor!

[@OtterTreySSArmy]

@@alex_zetsu almost like that's the exact conclusion all of the WWII generals in the Wehrmacht/Bundeswehr who weren't hanged came to.....

[@rogerlucy8817]

With resoect to AA tanks with fully enclosed turrets there was also the Canadian Skink,with fourx20mm magazine-fed Polsten cannon. It was mounted on an M4 chassis. The project was cancelled for the lack of potenetial targets by mid-1944, but three were completed and one was sent to Europe for field trials in spring 1945. Due to the lack of German aircraft by that stage of the War it could only be used against ground targets, Curiously I have never seem any mention of ventillation within the enclosed turret being an issue.

[@damagingthebrand7387]

Excellent video, I feel like I know quite a bit about WW2 vehicles and I had never heard of this one. If you take requests, how about the Ta 154? Cool plane.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

thank you, I don't do request and also planes are for Military Aviation History :)

[@JPGoertz]

fabulous video and graphics!

[@501Mobius]

I found some data on the H-Pzgr.Patr.L'spur 3 cm projectile in an aircraft munition manual. It has a MV of 960 m/s/ 356 gr. A graph shows that it will penetrate 0° 100mm @ 100 meters and 95mm @ 300 meters of 100 kg/mm^2 quality armor but only 77.5mm @ 100 meters and 73.5mm 300 meters of 150 kg/mm^2 quality armor. German tests on small projectiles were typically tested on 105-125 kg/mm^2 armor. But, there is a graph for a 3cm H-Pzgr.Patr.L'spur Falk 18 that will penetrate 137mm @ 100m and 95mm @ 600m of unknown muzzle velocity. The 3cm H-Pagr L'spur cross section contains a subcaliber penetrator of Wolfram-Karbid. 231 g.

[@supersarge24]

What aircraft munition manual is it?

[@supersarge24]

Are you giving a link? Try giving a name. Otherwise, post a vid with it as the title or something lmao

[@501Mobius]

@@supersarge24 I posted a link and it has disappeared a number of times.

[@supersarge24]

@@501Mobius KZbin HATES links, try saying the name in plain text.

[@501Mobius]

@@supersarge24 I had to make a YT vid just to make a link. kzbin.info/www/bejne/mKjMinh5qdKMaJY

[@davidmeehan4486]

I have only previously heard of "kugelblits" as a theiretical energy source that works by collecting Hawking Radiation off of a captive black hole. Which sounds a bit advanced for the 1940s.

[@williamlloyd3769]

Surprised Germans didn’t take an aircraft ball turret from a captured crashed bomber and adapt it / use it as a starting spot for this weapon.

[@NoName-sb9tp]

Kugelblitz is one of my favorite vehicle in the german tech tree. Thanks for the interesting video about it. I’d also love to see you in war thunder. :))

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

thank you!

[@killfordosh1]

For as much as you can say about War Thunder as a game, it makes a fantastic visualisation tool

[@In_Our_Timeline]

Guns and tanks and planes are nothing unless there is a solid spirit, a solid heart, and great productiveness behind it. Dwight D. Eisenhower

[@arminius8631]

From memory ConeofArc did a video on this vehicle and records state 28-30 vehicles were manufactured.

[@robertmarsh3588]

Interesting! If you want to see a more modern "equivalent", there is a Z 23 -4 Shilka at the British Army Flying Museum in Middle Wallop. This has its own radar, but also features 4 x 20mm AA canon.

[@douglasparkinson4123]

the crew coordination required to have one doing vertical and one horizontal with such crazy agile targets as planes must have been near impossible.

[@PizzarooThePizza]

Look at ww2 battle ships with quad boffors, they had the same arrangement just alot more fire power

[@ineednochannelyoutube5384]

@hognoxious It was a good enough system to adopt to literally every medium AA mount in use. Having to only worry about keeping lead or elevation is easier for the crewman. All it takes is trust your buddy also does their job.

[@0Turbox]

I wish, the war thunder multiple gun aa's would shoot each gun after another. The wirbelwind usually shot with 2x2 guns at a time. All guns together only in emergency situations.

[@comentedonakeyboard]

No Flak-Panzer in Dec 45? Sad! Would have made such a great Christmas gift.

[@whitenight82]

Awesome to collab w/ warthunder on this. Great game, and the footage from the game compliments your videos nicely.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Glad you enjoyed!

[@althesmith]

"If the aircraft are green, they're British/Commonwealth, if they're silver, they're American, if they're non-existent, it's the Luftwaffe."

[@MyTv-]

A enclosed turret probably have many advantages over a open one! Protection against foul weather, light discipline at night, grenade bursts and handhold throwing weapons, and hiding the occupants form being clear targets. How much m depends on the armour.

[@bradward7576]

I think it's great how so much information can be presented in such a short time. I really enjoy these videos. I have to ask myself, why didn't they develop a Gatling type gun?

[@leeionicatlas6461]

Do you have any images or more info about the Kugel-Blitz 38?

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

I think there is a photo of a wooden mock-up and definitely a blueprint from the side, but I think that is not original.

[@leeionicatlas6461]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Okay, and thanks so much for replying.

[@warpartyattheoutpost4987]

Would be a cool piece in Axis&Allies.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

I want one for Steel Division 2. They already have a Flak Panther (field modification) in there.

[@warpartyattheoutpost4987]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized, I'll check out SD 2. I just looked for tabletop Kugelblitz pieces on Shapeways and they have a couple different versions but not in the correct scale for my game so I'm going to ask them if they can 3D print some smaller units... I'll need to brush up on my painting skills.

[@SteamCrane]

Not much mention of the turret crew moving with the guns. The crew is always looking where the guns are pointing. This is similar to the very successful USAAF Ball Turret. Really good looking design, glad they didn't get it into production.

[@betabilly]

That kind of reclined seating would have been a real luxury. Wish I had one integrated into a gaming chair/monitor stand.

[@Lucas-vv7lw]

Nice video :) 😄👍 I would love to see another about the flakpanzer V or the ostwind ^^

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

maybe next year :)

[@Lucas-vv7lw]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized would be awesome ^^ Have a great time 😄

[@Graham-ce2yk]

Very interesting. As someone who's always been interested in orders of battle I hope at some point you cover that proposed armoured AA company and any surviving doctrinal notes.

[@emiliomoreno3256]

9:36 How does a report from April 11th,1944 predict how many were produced in Feb. 1945?

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

November 1944, that was a planning document

[@tacticalmanatee]

don't forget about the Canadian Skink, an enclosed-turret quad 20mm AA tank based on the Grizzly (M4 Sherman) hull

[@DIREWOLFx75]

If the Soviet report on it had an "error", i would say it is more likely that they had captured a prototype rather than a production model. As it is perfectly possible that a prototype might have a different max elevation than the production model. Unless the vehicle captured was badly broken, it's not exactly the kind of easy mistake to make.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

yeah, wording was not the best

[@ineednochannelyoutube5384]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Discrepancy might be the word you were looking for :)

[@ineednochannelyoutube5384]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Discrepancy might be the word you were looking for :)

[@TheGhostofCarlSchmitt]

let's ask the question this way: how many flakpanzers would a panzer division have to have to provide any meaningful semblance of air defence?

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

has little do to with the video, but I might do a calculation on that one in the future.

[@peceed]

There is quite a big chance that 110 mm penetration for MK 103 was obtained when shoot from moving airplane, it adds at least 100 m/s. P.S. After checking details - 120 m/s could add 27% kinetic energy (940 m/s for APCR), it is an upper limit of penetration increase. So penetration values should be understood as 75 mm from stationary gun, 95 mm from flying aircraft (52-42 mm for 60 degree).

[@williamzk9083]

It was also with tungsten core. Hartkern. Albert Speer mentions that after the German Atomic Bomb program was suspended the Uranium stocks were released for use in Armour piercing ammunition. Uranium was a good substitute of tungsten and I suspect it was used in Mk 103..

[@peceed]

@@williamzk9083 And natural uranium is not much more radioactive than depleted in practice, so it is quite safe.

[@T0rrente18]

So like 3 prototypes and 1 production model, and the one operational got taken out by tanks. Were their efforts in vain and would it be more prudent to focus more on building more aircraft instead?

[@LowStuff]

Building more planes matters little if you lack the fuel and trained pilots.

[@paoloviti6156]

The Germans was having a chronic shortage of fuel that left many airplanes stranded and of course a shortage of trained pilots...

[@T0rrente18]

@@paoloviti6156 so the only hope was to secure fuel at all costs. Kind of a dumb move then to ignore the suez canal to deny resources to britain and not taking over egipt for limited, but precious oil

[@terribleauthority]

All their efforts were in vain by then.

[@paoloviti6156]

@hognoxious for the simple reason is that a half track or much less a truck will never have a good off road capability as a tank! The AA guns primary job is to defend their tanks from the enemy fighter ground attacks...

[@mbr5742]

Can you do one on Coelian? The idea was a Panther based AA tank. They build either a mockup or a prototype. The thing sounded a lot like a WW2 Gepard

[@FRFFW]

SPAA ✔ Infantry fighting vehicle ✔ Light armored vehicle ✔

[@hnomis9918]

Are there any records on how these Flak Panzers actually performed? Seems quite the investment...

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

I think I haven't come across anything so far in that regard, although I found all kinds of stuff about what weapons can be used to shoot at planes and that included some ridiculous weapons and one of that was actually an official pamphlet not just some weird suggestion.

[@andrew3203]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized I have seen examples of man-portable rail guided multi-rocket launchers. They did look awesome, though no idea if they worked.

[@Sniper5875]

probably the coolest vechical of the german designs, i know everyone loves the fighting vechicals, but outside of the kettenkrad this is my favourite

[@kommo1]

At the very least I find the Kugelblitz is much more pleasing to look at, than the winds.

[@keithrosenberg5486]

It amazes me that they were spending resources on the Kugelblitz at a time when resources were becoming less available with every passing day.

[@mbr5742]

One of the reasons for the lack of resources where air attacks. So building AAA vehicles makes sense

[@jonhart7630]

It stems from the German personality trait to achieve perfection: a trait that has obvious advantages and disadvantages. It's fine when you have got time, but time was the one commodity the Germans were running out of fast.

[@MisterApol]

Von Senger und Etterlin writes that 6 Kugelblitz were produced, but he doesn't differentiate between prototypes and production vehicles.

[@-JA-]

Thank you.

[@mats92b22]

Military History Visualized You should do a video about german radios and development, evolution of them and also the radio operators as well I am sure it would be intresting

[@ChrisS-fh7zt]

But I'll add this the Mk 103 had a higher muzzle velocity over the Mk 108, 30mm cannon I also think the 103 had a higher fire rate also so it would make since you would want a screen of flak and rounds in the air in almost instantaneous for attacking aircraft to fly into.

[@williamzk9083]

Mk 108 had a higher rate of fire. Both shared some kinds of ammunition such as the HE minengeschuss.

[@Archangelm127]

00:20 - "Too much of a good thing is *wonderful.* " --Hedy Lamar

[@c.tedbarber4140]

Used the same turret ring as a Tiger I......with that info modelers are now working on Tiger I with kugelblitz turrets for their dioramas.

[@xsonohx7961]

Had this video link saved and just saw it's sponsored by WT when I got home to watch it. I mention this as I was also going to mention that I have the Kugelblitz unlocked on WT and was about to get it. Also a comment for the algorithm, yes.

[@penzorphallos3199]

"By 1943/1944 not so much the case anymore" C:(

[@laurenz4572]

can you do a video on the Flakpanzer V Coelian next?

[@AKlover]

Converting the then defunct Panzer 1 or 2 or 38T would have seemed A better resource use.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

the first two were not really around anymore from what I know.

[@liliwinnt6]

may i have the picture of the of 4x 12 degree gun sights? thanks

[@informitas0117]

This is my favorite ww2 vehicle. I love the shape and the mk103's.

[@Chiller01]

I would love to own a vehicle called Kugelblitz. Phonetically it’s just kind of comical to say. Makes me feel good.

[@mats92b22]

Military History Visualized You could make a video about German reconnaissance troops that used wheeled tanks such as the Panzerspähwagen. What were their tactics and objectives on the battlefield? and mention some historical or fictional examples of how they worked in practice and how effective they were I dont think you have made any videos about the Panzerspähwagen

[@heinerheise703]

"Panzerspähwagen" is the german word for "armoured recon car", so which one specially (every Wehrmacht vehicle has it's own Sd.Kfz. number :) )?

[@krishendrix4924]

I never read that the D in Panzer 38 D stands for Diesel. It makes sense but do you have a source for this? Yet, you also write 38 (d) which would indicate its Danish. Any source for this?

[@genghiskhan7041]

The Panzer 4 chassis was spectacular.

[@folegionnaire4404]

Great vid as always, Have you made a video about how the education system was like in Germany under the NSDAP? If not that would be a very interesting vid

[@3dcreeper]

Can u make video about deep battle tactic used in ww2 by the soviets .

[@MisdirectedSasha]

Oh, *now* you can widen the PzKfw IV's turret ring!

[@martentrudeau6948]

Looks like the Kugelblitz design was the future armored anti-aircraft vehicles.

[@mirkoplanow1297]

Hallo Bernhard, mal eine Frage zu dem Typ "Panzer 38(diesel), steht in den Dokumenten wirklich "Diesel" oder hast du den Suffix "d" als Diesel übersetzt? Die Frage kommt bei mir auf, da ja ein Panzer 38(d) geplant war, wofür der Suffix (d) für das "deutsch" stehen sollte um sich vom Suffix "t"(tschechisch) abzuheben und eine verlängerte Wanne und ein anderes Laufwerk als der gute alte Panzer 38(t) haben sollte, welcher aber mit dem 220PS Tatra Dieselmotor ausgerüstet werden sollte( deshalb auch die größere Wanne laut meines Wissens. MfG

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

> wofür der Suffix (d) für das "deutsch" stehen sollte um sich vom Suffix "t"(tschechisch) abzuheben der Suffix "(t)" wurde 43 oder 44 abgeschafft. Ansonsten macht es auch wenig Sinn, da dies nur für Beutewaffen verwendet wurde. Diesel hab ich schon öfter gelesen, dagegen hab ich von "(d)" für Deutsch bisher nur in der Comment Section heute gesehen, was ist deine Quelle?

[@mirkoplanow1297]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Hallo Bernhard, da ich leider keine Zugang zum Militärhistorischen Archiv habe, wie ihr(Neid^^) bin ich auf Sekundärquellen angewiesen, wie z.b. den Büchern von H.Doyle zum Jagdpanzer 38 D ( Encyclopedia of german Tanks of World war Two bzw .Jagdpanzer 38"Hetzer"1944-1945())(aka "Hetzer") die eine Umkonstruktion des Hetzers mit der 7,5cm Pak 42L/70 und dem 210P-220PS (unterscheidet sich von Buch zu Buch in der Pferdestärke)Tatra Dieselmotor vorsah, Markant an der Variante (D) sind die geraden Seitenflächen, die die Produktion vereinfachen sollten und mehr Platz im Innenraum für die Horizontale Ausrichtung der längeren Pak ermöglichte, U.a. in der Zeitung Clausewitz 3/2021 vom Autor Thomas Andersen zu sehen, der unter dem Projektnamen "Panzerjäger Reich" in 1945 anlaufen sollte, laut dem Autor, und den Suffix (d) erhielt(laut H.Doyle), weil sich die Produktion auf "deutschem Boden" befand, anstatt bei BMM in der annektierten Tschechei. Wie gesagt, ich habe leider nur sekundärquellen zur Verfügung, aber ich erachte Hillary Doyle schon als sehr respektabel und passender als z.b. Wikipedia, deshalb meine Frage, ob sich der Suffix auf den Dieselmotor bezieht, da der alte Suffix t ja für "tschechisch" stand und nicht für "benzin". evtl. hat aber auch H.Doyle etwas bei der Übersetzung der Primärquellen verwechselt, da er ja nicht primär deutsch als Muttersprache hat. Mich macht es nur Stutzig dass plötzlich ein Suffix der einen Produktionsort oder im Fall des Panzer 38(t) auf den Herstellungsort verweist, plötzlich zu einer Motorvariante wird, deshalb meine Frage. MfG

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

@@mirkoplanow1297 danke, nochmal in kurz hat es jetzt Doyle oder Anderson geschrieben? Und wenn ja, in welchen Werk?

[@mirkoplanow1297]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Doyle in den Beiden Büchern die ich dir zitiert hatte, und den Artikel in Clausewitz hatte ich noch im Kopf weil es erst vor kurzem(relativ gesehen) war, aber ich bin mir ziemlich sicher dass diese Ausgabe nicht die einzige war, aber ich habe noch nicht alle Ausgaben durchgeforscht, wo ich es gelesen habe, falls du magst werde ich etwas nachschauen und dir dann die Ausgaben von den beiden Militärgeschichtlichen Magazinen nennen, aber da müsste ich etwas nachschauen, da ich das nicht nur in einer Ausgabe gelesen habe, dass das "D" für Deutsch stehen sollte. Und da dein Kanal, ebenso wie der von Bismarck für mich sozusagen der "Goldstandard" ist, wollte ich einfach mal klären, wer nun "recht" hat, da ich schon gerne wüsste wieso in den Originaldokumenten, die du einsehen kannst etwas anderes drin steht als bei Doyle, welcher dann von Andersen und ich glaube Roman Töppel( nicht 100% sicher, da ich die Artikel noch nicht nachgesehen habe, aber ich meine mich zu erinnern das Gesicht von Roman am Ende des Artikels gesehen zu haben) in den Zeitschriften übernommen wurde. MfG

[@mirkoplanow1297]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Nachtrag ; Im Buch Jagdpanzer 38"Hetzer"1944-1945 wird der Panzer 38(d) auch als "Jagdpanzer 638/29 für 7,5cm PaK 42/1" bezeichnet, evtl. findest du unter dieser Typbezeichnung noch mehr zu dieser Fehlinterpretation bzgl.des Suffix im Militärarchiv

[@Helltanz98]

As you can see by the screen shot... dayum.

[@miroslavdockal9468]

Fortsetzung von any kugelblitz, war Shilka.Wunderbar Waffe.

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

In physics, a hypothetical blackhole made entirely of light is called Kugelblitz. Now imagine a SciFi with Nazi's using those as weapon.

[@VosperCDN]

I've got this in WT, and it's a pretty nasty vehicle when it can actually perform it's role.

[@DIEGhostfish]

Gaijin's muscling in on Wargaming's advertising turf. About time they learned.

[@chris_hisss]

Why not show the turret or remaining pictures of what is left?

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Copyright

[@NashmanNash]

So..to get the Kugelblitz,the germans fitted the PzIV with a larger turret ring and modified the superstructure....the original smaller turret ring being one of the reasons why the PzIV could not be upgunned further...makes sense..

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

you seem to forget that the turret ring must deal with the recoil etc. if you put a 88mm gun into that turret the forces are quite different to two 30mm.

[@NashmanNash]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized I was actually thinking about something like the 75mm KwK 42 or even 44^^

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

same

[@vladimpaler3498]

I cannot imagine they were all that effective. One of the things that stands out these days is how much bull manure there was back then. They told my dad and his crew that B-17's had so many guns that in formations no fighters could possibly get through. Turned out to be a lie. All those battleships and cruisers with 40mm flack guns and still the kamikazes came on through. It turns out the only good solution is strong fighter coverage overhead up until you get guided surface-to-air missiles.

[@Schwarzvogel1]

It probably wasn't particularly effective because it was deployed in too small numbers, too late. But keep in mind that AA defences in WWII was more about deterrence than actually swatting every aircraft out of the sky. If that row of Kugelblitzen made Ivan drop his bombs early and bug out rather placing his ordnance smack on the tank repair depot, then the Kugelblitzen performed their job well, even if they didn't shoot down a single Sturmovik. Likewise, those guns on the B-17s certainly made it _harder_ for Luftwaffe fighters to engage them, but they didn't make the Boeings invulnerable. As for the Kamikazes, they weren't particularly effective except as a psychological deterrent. They didn't stop the Americans' onslaught in the Pacific nor did they have the potential to change the outcome of the war. Whilst some Japanese sources may claim that kamikazes caused 80% of US Navy shipping losses in 1945, this is _not_ proof of kamikaze effectiveness. Rather, one also needs to consider: 1. The IJN was mostly at the bottom of the sea by 1945. 2. Japanese land-based and naval aviation had probably mostly given up on conventional strike missions by 1945, and had probably switched their priorities to kamikaze attacks on ships. 3. If most of the enemy attacks on your ships are from the air, and most of the enemy air attackers are kamikazes, it thus stands that most of your shipping losses would be from kamikazes. One could also argue that most Luftwaffe combat pilot losses in the west in 1944 and 1945 were caused by .50 BMG weapons. That doesn't mean that .50 BMG was the most effective aircraft weapon, just that most of the Luftwaffe fighter pilots were engaging American fighters in daylight missions (the RAF had switched to nighttime attacks some years earlier), and that most American fighters were armed with .50 BMG ordnance. Finally, SAMs are not the be-all-to-end all of air defence, either. Stealth aircraft, superior ECM, SEAD missions, stand-off munitions... all of these mean that you still need CAP to provide effective coverage of your ground-based assets.

[@williamzk9083]

@@Schwarzvogel1 German light FLAK during the Battle of France was very effective. Their 2.0cm FLAK C30 and C38 guns traveled with the German Army, sometimes on half tracks and sometimes towed. They Shredded the French Air Force and its one reason the Germans won so quickly. FLAK was effective. What happened is that Aircraft increased their range by using improved bomb sights and more powerful guns (longer ranged, higher rate of fire, bigger throw weight). The FLAK and AAA of course did the same (gyro sights).

[@alexandrsemenov1842]

Good content, shoutout to War Thunder for nice footage, feels like it improved the video further ^^

[@vonpredator]

The translation for Kugelblitz should be “bullet lightning”. As Kugel can also mean bullet. At least in Austrian…

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

pretty sure it was not referring to that Kugel.

[@kapitanbach7411]

Kugel is also meaning 'ball' I'm pretty sure. Like the Kugelpanzer from WW1.

[@vonpredator]

Like some words in German, they have two meanings. That’s why Rammstein songs are so epic! Keep up zee good work!

[@Schwarzvogel1]

"Ball" used to be almost synonymous with "bullet" in the sense of musket balls. The linkage still exists nowadays with the term "ball ammo" to refer to ordinary, FMJ projectiles (i.e. not AP, incendiary, tracer, etc.) So I'd imagine that "Kugel" would mean "ball" in the sense of a "musket ball," i.e. a bullet, rather than "ball" in the sense of a football.

[@kapitanbach7411]

@@Schwarzvogel1 I was thinking that but it slipped my mind, great insight!

[@podemosurss8316]

Very interesting.

[@4T3hM4kr0n]

yeahaa! our boy MHV and warthunder!

[@CarlsonWDane]

Ah good old german creative naming. Bernard doesn't even bat an eye is the best part, just ya normal German things.