The purpose of this thank-you is to encourage you to keep up the fantastic work you have been doing. I always look forward to your next video. Thanks!
@neilwilson57854 ай бұрын
Seconded. The detailed content here is a real education for me.
@notbobrosss36704 ай бұрын
I really appreciate your academic focused presentations.
@neilwilson57854 ай бұрын
Your videos are just what I like, giving precise details on tactics that other videos do not usually cover.
@jamesjohn94604 ай бұрын
No unnecessary diatribe ,just pure information. Excellent presentation,other YT channels take note,this is how it’s done
@mattwilliams34564 ай бұрын
Literally every video you’ve produced has been worthy of my time. I don’t anticipate that changing.
@WilliamHarbert694 ай бұрын
Thank you. A tremendously informative analysis and presentation. Thank you for the hard work, artistry and diligence you put into your KZbin channel.
@biasedaudio2 ай бұрын
My dad flew in WWII . Please keep up the great work creating videos! It helps add details to my dad's stories.
@unmutualchap67534 ай бұрын
Amazing work !
@randomnickify4 ай бұрын
So, there are two things I just learned : 2,5 minutes of fire is shorter than most flak scenes in hollywod movies. Also, it sucks to be in first group. I wonder if they were rotating lead planes.
@AlexanderBellOpelika4 ай бұрын
per gun emplacement. There were multiple batteries at 5:14 example shows 200+ guns in 20+ batteries
@stage6fan4754 ай бұрын
Fantastic work. I love these details, which I have not been able to find anywhere else.
@richardschaffer55884 ай бұрын
Keep up the good work!
@MrHanslustich4 ай бұрын
Dangerzone, nice one! Anyway, I never knew I was interested in FLAK organization and mechanics to that detailed degree. Great job! I can recommend the book 'instruments of darkness' for anyone interested in WW2 electronic air warfare.
@erickent35574 ай бұрын
Fantastic video, and fantastic channel!
@frankb88984 ай бұрын
What an excellent work You are doing Sir! Many thanks.
@philiphumphrey15484 ай бұрын
It's the old problem of the wildebeest (gnus) and the crocodiles. If the wildebeest cross the river piecemeal or in small well spaced groups, quite a lot of them get eaten. If they all charge across the river in one big mass, the crocs only have time to get a few.
@johnculver25194 ай бұрын
It's not really that situation, bigger formations mean that a higher proportion of the shells fired will hit an aircraft, as there is no place a shell can go and not hit something. That's why the reduction in spacing also included a reduction in group numbers, to reduce the proportion of shells fired that actually hit something. Ideally, you would space out each aircraft to be further apart than the shells circular dispersion, then each shell would only have 1 plane in it's targeted area, so each shell wouldn't have multiple aircraft to hit in it's error radius. But that works against the requirements of the fighter protection box. If shells had accuracy/guidance (effectively the eyes of the crocodile), then the saturation approach would work.
@bfberna4 ай бұрын
@@johnculver2519 appreciate the response as it makes sense aka reduce trail and group size. But you mentioned this approach would go against the fighter box protection formation. This then begs the question…did the bomber formations tighten up before and after the target to get in a defensive position for enemy fighters? Then disperse formations prior to the bomber run? Just curious if formations changed on a given mission?
@johnculver25194 ай бұрын
@@bfberna It would be a good thing to do, but formation flying is dangerous, with the risks mainly in assembling a formation, which was normally done just after takeoff . If pilots were spending ten minutes or more carefully reassembling after a flak area, they would be very vulnerable to fighters in a known location, so staying in one formation the whole way makes a lot of sense. Every tactic has to be weighed for it's pros and cons.
@bfberna4 ай бұрын
@@johnculver2519 Thanks you for the response. That makes tactical sense. One has to weight the risks flak vs enemy fighter with respect to formation. It is risk management. I enjoy this channel. The level of detail and the comments are very insightful from a stratetegic and tactical perspective. The analysis and documentation at the time reflect how detailed the analysis and corrective actions were to mitigate the risks vs what the enemy was adjusting to...to use a boxing analogy. But understnd this was a serious war...lives were lost and saved thorugh everyone's efforts from the tip of the spear to backrooms of debrief et al.
@BruceGCharltonАй бұрын
I've always found it interesting that the USAAF spent so much effort on close formation flying - this (plus defence against fighters) helps explain why.
@adamstrange78844 ай бұрын
Like convoys in the Atlantic, a convoy isn't that much larger than one ship in the ocean.
@Compulsive_LARPer4 ай бұрын
Outstanding work as usual! Engaging for the algorithm.
@BIG-DIPPER-564 ай бұрын
Man your information is fascinating!
@mitchwatson67874 ай бұрын
FLAK playlist. Love it.
@ZeroBoyComedy4 ай бұрын
Once again a great deep dive into arcane and interesting info. I hope to visit Seattle Next year to perform and will try to make the Boeing museum again.
@ypaulbrown4 ай бұрын
always wonderful......Paul in Florida
@ypaulbrown4 ай бұрын
you do a wonderful job.....
@WWIIUSBombers4 ай бұрын
Thanks for contribution to the channel, by super-thanks. It is appreciated.
@bfberna4 ай бұрын
It makes sense aka reduce trail and group size. But a fellow commenter mentioned this approach would go against the fighter box protection formation. This then begs the question…did the bomber formations tighten up before and after the target to get in a defensive position for enemy fighters? Then disperse formations prior to the bomber run? Just curious if formations changed during a mission? Excellent work, effect and analysis.
@bowenisland1004 ай бұрын
So informative - thank you.
@agrxdrowflow9584 ай бұрын
Priceless knowledge blessing.
@ruperterskin21174 ай бұрын
Appreciate ya. Thanks for sharing.
@kidmohair81514 ай бұрын
already subbed so commentingandliking to feed the maws of the algo-deities
@markfung56544 ай бұрын
Thank you. I really enjoy your content. It's weird but I do.
@billyponsonby4 ай бұрын
Interesting
@chriskortan15304 ай бұрын
Rate of fire doesn't seem to be addressed. Surely the rounds per minute will drop significantly without the 3.5 minute rest between groups. The germans didn't have enough personnel to have relief crews or specifically loaders.
@DavidSiebert4 ай бұрын
I wonder if dropping smoke to blind the FLAK batteries would have helped when combined with jamming and chaff to degrade the radar? Maybe using medium bombers or fast light bombers or attack aircraft like the A-20 using rockets and wp cluster bombs.
@WildBillCox134 ай бұрын
Fascinating. Thanks for posting.
@RStout594 ай бұрын
Did the bombers ever drop bombs with proximity fuses targeting the flack batteries on the first run. Then, standard bombs on the main target thereafter. Seems like you mentioned this in another episode but I can't remember. Really great stuff your putting out.
@notreallydavid4 ай бұрын
Flak! - no c from Flugabwehrkanone, 'air defence cannon' Please kick me. All best.
@nightjarflying4 ай бұрын
Different units went for the flak positions I think
@kirotheavenger604 ай бұрын
He's discussed flak suppression bombing in another video. Yes they did it, and it was highly effective with the use of proximity fused bombs. However, these were only available late in the war. Had the war continued, the USAAF was planning to raise a specialised taskforce dedicated to such flak suppression bombing
@Moredread254 ай бұрын
Did they ever try wide formations? I could see that not making sense because they could just be engaged by different guns, but would also be difficult to organize because you'd have to launch everyone at once which isn't workable because launching takes a while and you'd have to marshal everyone in a specific way which would give the Germans a lot of notice.
@nightjarflying4 ай бұрын
No. Separate formations on different routes makes more sense.
@jbrown74034 ай бұрын
I wonder if we know the number of bomber loses due to collisions between two (or more) bombers in the tightly compact formations?
@sjb34604 ай бұрын
Yes, he has covered that issue in another video.
@willscarlet76254 ай бұрын
Did they ever attempt to bomb the flak batteries?
@kirotheavenger604 ай бұрын
He already has a video on that exact topic. But short: yes.
@post10844 ай бұрын
very Worthy of my time
@Knuck_Knucks4 ай бұрын
Ah. "The danger zone." I get it now ! "Ride. In. to. the danger zone... " 🐿
@robinbrowne54194 ай бұрын
This is really interesting stuff. Thanks for posting it. (It is unfortunate that it is all for the purpose of young men killing each other.)