Destroying German FLAK Batteries with Proximity Fused Fragmentation Bombs, Bomber Payback Case Study

[@cowbdave99]

I love this channel it's not bombarded with commercials it talks about stuff that normally you would never ever hear. My uncle did two tours on a flying fortress.

[@steveredacted1394]

And he show's his sources, so we can have confidence in his information

[@dukecraig2402]

It's not "bombarded" with commercials. I see what you did there, pretty clever. If it was he could make a video about it. That was my turn at being clever.

[@maxstr]

KZbin doesn't allow monetizing WWII history content

[@billbrockman779]

The cop eyed me briefly as I approached him and snapped a shot. Without taking his eyes off the traffic he waved me to his side. Tall, slender, with an attentive face, he was a few years older than I. When I stood next to him, he quickly looked me over and asked, “Where are you from?” “Germany,” I said. “Where in Germany?” “Düsseldorf.” He nodded and looked at me directly. “I bombed Düsseldorf.” It was a blunt statement of fact. There was neither regret nor satisfaction in his voice. Taken aback, I blurted out, “I was an anti-aircraft gunner in “Düsseldorf.” He smiled. Suddenly we were two survivors who had once experienced dread at the same place. Bending close to me, he said, “Isn’t it great to be alive?” From book “Flakhelfer to Grenadier”. Karl Heinz Schlesier

[@billbrockman779]

I should add this was in the 1950’s when Schlesier was arriving in Chicago to continue his university studies.

[@JK-rv9tp]

67 year old WWII nerd and still learning all sorts of new things on this channel.

[@billyponsonby]

There’s only old WW2 nerds here

[@marrymekatsuya]

​@@billyponsonbyI'm only 20 years old lol

[@alfnoakes392]

@@marrymekatsuya Think of yourself as a Cadet WW2 Nerd 🙂

[@sjb3460]

@@marrymekatsuya By studying history, you will have a much broader worldview than your peers studying gender identity politics. But, you will not be admired nor understood by them. Everything in the world, access to minerals, and human rights, is affected by war.

[@lastguy8613]

​@@billyponsonbyI'm 49now but have been a WW2 nerd since I was 8, it's always fascinated me and there's so many more stories and details available now on KZbin and such. Some of them are even true lol

[@DavidSmith-ib5jl]

I have been learning about VT fuses and this helps with that.

[@edwardpatalon1701]

Your videos have to be the most informative WWII videos I have ever seen. These videos would be a great supplement to history class in high school and college. As always, well done sir.

[@andrewholburn3094]

Yet there is more information even within them for the consumer EG Map detail @ 2:24 would have helped me in my knowledge quest. No question I will delve into this channel and add anything beyond 'history class in high school and college.' if the publisher does not consider this a 'faite accomlie'? Out of curiosity, do you allow your students to review the comments on your foc teaching platform?

[@MDsteeler1]

Interesting, I never knew that heavy bombers were used for dedicated anti-flak missions.

[@Heike--]

B-24s were medium bombers, but point taken.

[@peabase]

@@Heike-- *Heavy bombers. The twin-engined B-25 Mitchell and B-26 Marauder are medium bombers. The B-24 Liberator has four engines, which makes it rather heavy.

[@Heike--]

@@peabase It's mission, not engines, that makes a heavy bomber. The Kondor wasn't a heavy bomber. Tactical strikes on AA batteries strikes me as light, barely medium.

[@peabase]

@@Heike-- Bombers are categorised as mediums and heavies by payload, not by engines, but higher payloads require more engine power, meaning more engines.

[@woopimagpie]

@@Heike-- I have no idea what literature you're reading, but every aircraft classification text ever written has the B-24 classed as a heavy bomber. With a payload capability of up to 8000 pounds, it could carry the same as a B-17. The B-24 was unquestionably a heavy bomber. This is indisputable. Only the B-29 Superfortress, Short Stirling and the Avro Lancaster could carry more. I wonder if you're inadvertently confusing the B-24 with the B-25?

[@WBtimhawk]

Awesome, I had been wondering about this very topic since one of the first flak effectiveness video from way back. This channel keeps delivering high quality niche but relevant content.

[@mineown1861]

Wild weasel wwii style ? Another excellent video , another wwii subject I've never read or seen covered elsewhere . Thank you once again.

[@myZcarlife]

I was going to comment that this sounds like one of the early methods of Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD).

[@robertslugg8361]

He was an OWW.

[@f1b0nacc1sequence7]

I had an uncle who flew (as a gunner) on these missions, and he was VERY proud that he had.

[@Frank-dv3st]

was he on missions to industrial or defense targets or cities ?

[@f1b0nacc1sequence7]

@@Frank-dv3st Both

[@gregsutton2400]

after all these years of learning about WW2 I am amazed that I can learn so many things in a 10 minute video.

[@ralphpomm4943]

So the proximity fuse was made designed and manufactured in Cincinnati ,Ohio by crosly. In my opinion I believe it was 1 of many inventions that changed the outcome of the war. When you think about how many bright minds were coming up with these ideas in such a short amount of time it's truly amazing 🙏

[@robertslugg8361]

Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab might disagree with the design part.

[@MilBard]

@@robertslugg8361 Designed for functionality (JHAPL) versus engineered for mass production (Crosley) are two separate tasks. Both are required to have a major wartime impact.

[@davidpf043]

Excellent presentation. First time I've heard of this tactic with heavy bombers.

[@johnciummo3299]

I cannot believe how much learn from your videos. You are simply amazing! Please keep up the good work.

[@billybobsnorton9196]

I was expecting a bot to be narrating this brief documentary, and was delighted to be wrong. That happened once before. I had been curious about the deployments of proximity fused munitions. The research you've done is obvious. I grew up on US Navy bases, I was born in the Truman administration, on Camp Pendelton, during the Korean War. My father served in WW2, Korea, and was KIA on his third tour in Viet Nam. My favorite place on a navy base was the library, the pool and the gym. Just found this site today, will leave a like and subscribe.

[@michaeldavid6284]

Outstanding video. I knew USAAF 8th, 9th, and 15th bomb groups flew anti-flak missions but did not know tactics or details...and I've been a WW2 air combat nerd for over 50 years.

[@Hawkeye2001]

Very interesting. I wasn't aware that the VT fuse had been added to bombs.

[@gort8203]

Great subject and research.

[@swohio3418]

Thanks for this. WW2/History buff here, so I really enjoyed the vid. An aspect of the air war I hadn't knew about. Excellent job!

[@jbrown7403]

The range of destruction from a proximity fuse 17 feet off the ground is really terrifying to imagine.

[@williamashbless7904]

You continue to find really obscure and niche topics and bring them home. Great job!

[@glallee]

Thanks so much for responding directly to my earlier questions on this. I’m impressed with your sources, as well. Always interesting as well as informative.

[@rubbishmodeller]

Excellent as always. Your videos really show the importance of Allied intelligence gathering, including the debriefing of aircrew after raids. Just a minor point: at 07:07 you say the bombers navigated the corridor two and a half hours after the flak suppression attack. I thought it a bit strange that they would wait that long before flying through - surely there would be some recovery by the flak units by then. The document actually states ''...for a period of two and a half hours...'', so I assume that means the bombers started going through the corridor fairly soon after the flak was attacked and continued doing so for the time period mentioned. Looking forward to your next video.

[@dkcorderoyximenez3382]

An excellent technical briefing, thank you...

[@Paughco]

The first Wild Weasels!

[@ryanprosper88]

It's fascinating seeing the difference between the 2 maps of 1943 and 1945 air defense. It reveals how once the allies punched through the Rhine, there really was nothing left to fight against

[@bf-696]

Thank you, first I heard of this. But I had always wondered why the Allied air forces never directly attacked the flak batteries. Now I know that they did and it was very effective.

[@mkaustralia7136]

Great video. Well documented material.

[@ivekuukkeli2156]

This is an excellent knowledge channel, thans very much. Findings here reveal many reasons to essential WW2 decisions. These reasons have not been openly published before.

[@billyponsonby]

Fascinating. Several yt channels have the VT fuse story and its AA role over the pacific but I had no idea about its use by bombers over Europe. Thanks.

[@magnemoe1]

Use over land in Europe was limited to controlled areas until Battle of the Bulge It was restricted in fear Germans could recover duds and replicate it or simply make countermeasures as in jammers.

[@pauldietz1325]

The proximity fuse used in bombs was different because it didn't have to withstand the huge accelerations of being launched from a gun or spinning very rapidly. It was a much easier problem.

[@FrankJmClarke]

On a tactical scale Rudel would run flack suppression with Stukas on the Eastern front. My impression was that Thunderbolts had heavy losses in low level flack suppression. Interesting to see that high level attacks were safer for the attackers.

[@sjb3460]

Yes, that was my opinion too.

[@magnemoe1]

Guess they added low level flack to the mix to make low level attacks harder. But heavy bombers only faced the heavy flack, downside was low accuracy but carpet bombings don't need high accuracy. It would make sense to send in dive bombers to continue to attack targets.

[@milferdjones2573]

@@magnemoe1by the numbers of German Guns there were a lot more light AA guns by a large Amount. Thus the battery big guns had plenty of low level protection.

[@Joe-bx4wn]

PayBack is a proximity fuse

[@WilliamHarbert69]

Another excellent presentation. Thank you.

[@Warmaker01]

Sounds like early SEAD / Suppression of Enemy Air Defense. VT fuse bombs and White Phosphorous sounds really nasty.

[@williamstearns7490]

Sounds like the roots of modern SEAD/DEAD missions and units. The motto for these hunters is “YGBSM” or “you’ve got to be sh*tting me” which was a quote from one of the first Wild Weasel crews. “This was the natural response of an educated man (Jack Donovan), a veteran EWO on B-52s and the like, upon learning that he was to fly back seat to a crazy self-absorbed fighter pilot while acting as flypaper for enemy SAMs.” 😂

[@R.W.Raegan]

Very insightful video! Thank you for sharing this review of military tactics!

[@rsfaeges5298]

Very cool video: I'd not learned about this flak suppression work previously.

[@vvvci]

Very informative and technical (nerdy!) video on USAAF flak suppression efforts over Germany in WW II. One _not-so-little_ contrary point is that the big German Flak Towers - a hundred feet high built of massive reinforced concrete with several 128mm AA guns on top of each - were still effective to the last days of the war, for example around Berlin, where they took a deadly toll on Allied aircraft, ground troops, and armor alike. Some good news is that the Germans did not have the VT fuzes the allies had later in the war; and as good as they were, the big German guns (88mm and 128mm) were not as good as the U.S. Navy's dual 5"/48cal guns used to fend off Kamikazes and attacking Japanese air swarms. Also in the Pacific, General Keeney, commanding the 5th AAF, resolved early in the war (1942) to CONFRONT Japanese AA in heavily defended targets HEAD ON - he envisioned "COMMERCE DESTROYERS" low-level bombers able to SUPPRESS enemy AA fire long enough for his bombers to bomb heavily defended enemy ships. Upon assuming command of the 5th AAF, Kenney stumbled upon a former Navy aircraft mechanic turned airline exec drafted as an AAF Col (after the fall of the Philippines) who was "hacking," modifying Douglas A-20 light bomber aircraft in Australian air depots by adding several forward firing .50 machine guns in the nose of the A-20 Havocs. The experiment was a success, and Gen Kenney thereby drafted Col "Pappy" Gunn to make the same modifications to bigger B-25 Mitchell bombers. These were even more successful - up to 8, EIGHT forward-firing fifty-caliber machine-guns in the nose, PLUS 2 MORE on each side of the external fuselage, under the cockpit, for a total of TWELVE forward-firing .50 machine-guns (plus two more if the top turret was facing forward!) on "STRAFER" B-25s. Kenney's B-25 "strafer" squadrons would attack Japanese airfields line abreast, like a murderous scythe from hell, the pilots machine-gunning any targets ESPECIALLY enemy AA guns as the bombers roared over and released their "para-frag" bombs _(slowed, retarded by parachutes to prevent low-dropped bombs from blowing up the departing bomber)_ These tactics - swarming surprise attacks and GUNNING DOWN enemy AA guns - of course greatly enhanced the bomber's survivability. The Japanese had no counterparts to the HEAVILY ARMED and ARMORED U.S. medium bombers constantly BLASTING enemy airbases at low altitudes _(Japanese bombers were lightly armed and would flame up after just a few hits)_ and the war of attrition, although grim in 1942 especially _(the Japanese could feed in hundreds of Aircraft from home, whereas USAAF had to ferry aircraft thousands of miles - and at that time almost all U.S. aircraft were going to Europe)_, but with these superior tactics and aircraft constantly wiping out enemy AA guns and aircraft the tide turned for the Allies against the Japanese by 1943 and especially by 1944.

[@robbkiker6861]

Great channel. Very through and informative. Thanks for all the effort.

[@richardpcrowe]

This is the first reference I have seen to flak suppression in the WW-2 European Theater.

[@casparcoaster1936]

Like all elderly WW2 affecianados (who's uncle fought in the Ardens, neighbor at Anzio, and neighor was a Lithuanian Jewish ref), love any and all WW2 details, especially on heavy bomber campaigns, much obliged!!

[@avoice423]

Thanks for producing this. I had googled this subject before and not found anything. I had wondered why suppression wasn't carried out, given the number of losses to flack. Now I see it was done, but seemingly only late in the war.

[@redtobertshateshandles]

I always wondered. These flak battery people stood out in a steel shower. Unimaginable.

[@whos-the-stiff]

This is one of, if not the most educational channels on WW2

[@stage6fan475]

Outstanding! I never heard of this. Learning all kinds of things on this channel.

[@robertslugg8361]

The sooner a counter measure is incorporated, the faster the enemy will need to come up with a new measure.

[@sjb3460]

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Excellent tactic and analysis. I had wondered about the methods used to suppress flack and I thought it would be very dangerous for fighters to attack directly as their low-level flying would put them in the sights of every soldier around.

[@stevenbartlett5867]

Fifth! Great Channel. We are so fortunate to have any and all interests right here.

[@peterrasmussen6720]

Very interesting. Never heard of that before.

[@unclemike8467]

one of your best

[@Vatniks_are_clowns]

Thanks for the video, i was always curious about this subject!

[@carsonhaught9934]

A kind of early Wild Weasel then? Have always wondered why the RAF did not have dedicated flak suppressors like this; jammers yes but these specific munitions sound like a revelation. Another great video, thanks.

[@islandmonusvi]

Forever …there are those of us who wonder why protection from Flak Batteries was not a consideration during development of the longer range heavy lift Bombers tasked with deep penetration into enemy territory. Four years of devastating losses with minimal impact on German production according to the Strategic Bombing Survey …and Albert Speer. Seems to me that suppression of Flak would be essential to crew expertise while eventually achieving sufficient accuracy. Fortunately, the Dimwits in Bomber Command weren’t allowed in the door at Ultra wherein cost effective results actually mattered.

[@kirotheavenger60]

As discussed in the video, you can see what a significant difference the VT fuse made to the effect of the operation. Meaning this type of operation would not be possible prior to the introduction of the VT fuse over Europe

[@eric-wb7gj]

It was considered, and acted on, Bomber Command did attack Flak batteries, but as you could see from the map around Munich, they're small & scattered about, & you're doing it in darkness. Twin engine planes were used for this. Up until 1942, the RAF had difficulty finding a city, sometimes even a country in bad weather (like most air forces during darkness), let alone pin point targets - which is why 'Area Bombing' was adopted. The other thing is during the early war years, it was the German fighters that caused most of the Allied bomber losses (around 70%). It was only when the Germans ramped up AA gun production & combined it with radar, that it became more effective - - THIS IS AS LATE AS JUNE 1944 from the graph shown @ 0.22 in the video. Therefore Allied resources would naturally go towards the bigger threat. Strategic Bombing did have an big impact, & Albert Speer was always one to show his achievements in the best light, not necessarily the truth to his Allied captors. I'd be the first to agree that it didn't have the impact 'Bomber' Harris said it would, but;- 1) For years it was one of the only ways for Britain could strike back against continental targets. 2) Morale factors for Allied cause, in Britain, across Europe, & America etc for both civilians & fighting troops. 3) Morale factors for Germans against the Axis cause, especially as the war went on. Goring said no Allied bomber would bomb Germany, so when they did, he (& the regime) were discredited. German soldiers on leave were horrified what was happening to their cities - they took this news back to the front lines. 4) Strikes on V1 & V3 sites, providing crucial delays in their programme. Imagine V1 & V3 weapons being fired at Allied ports 6 weeks earlier, i.e just before D-Day. 5) Loss of production as German workers sought shelter. Speer did increase production massively, but that was partly due to how inefficient the Nazi economy & system worked. This couldn't always be analysed when Bomber Commands missions were set. There would have been an even faster exponential rate of increased production without Allied attacks. The British Bombing report which made Churchill mad, was during the early war years - Bomber Command became FAR more effective. 6) Allied strikes against tank & aircraft factories etc, delaying production. 7) Strikes against German Navy battleships & battlecruisers in port - this had a major effect on German naval plans in the Atlantic & Artic, against Allied convoys. The battleship Tirpitz was also sunk by Bomber Command. 8) British bombing of Berlin during the Battle of Britain caused Hitler to change the Luftwaffe's mission, just as they were winning. 9) British technological developments, advancements & capabilities during the war. 10) Allied bombers caused Germany to withdraw many Flak batteries back to Germany, instead of being used on the eastern front. One of the reasons for the Stalingrad front collapse (& subsequent Axis failures to hold the line) was a lack of Axis anti tank guns, for which the German 88mm was very capable. 11) Allied bombing of Axis fuel supplies was critical. This should have been identified better, & earlier, but the critical Romanian oilfields weren't in range early on. One of the reasons Hitler went into Yugoslavia & Greece (& Crete) was to keep Allied bombers away from this target. 12) Attrition of Axis fighter pilots (especially skilled ones) throughout the war, culminating in 'Big Week' of Feb 1944, which broke the back of the Luftwaffe before D-Day, which was critical. Also, without enough skilled fighter pilots, their bombers wouldn't be able to counter attack effectively on D-Day, or afterwards. 13) It helped keep Stalin in the war (admittedly not by much, but it was still a factor). 14) Due to lack of fuel, Germany depended on it's railways, Allied bombing of marshalling yards was vital, both for supplies going east, & after the D-Day landings. 15) Strategic bombers helped break the German line in Normandy during Operation Cobra, which helped the Americans break out & ensured their collapse ahead of schedule. 16) Dambuster raid, helped Allied morale & did hamper the German war effort for a short while. 17) Strategic bombing forced Germany to relocate various advanced weapon programmes (like the V2, & Me262 jet fighter) underground, imposing critical delays. It unfair to call those in Bomber Command leadership 'Dimwits'. Were they effective as they could have been, no, of course not - but who was? The Germans neglected their own strategic bomber force, which caused them major problems, especially against the Allied Atlantic convoys & against the Soviets. The Americans had to do a complete about turn about requiring fighter escorts & effectiveness of their bomb sight. Did many RAF men sadly die from any mistakes made?, yes. It was a time of great technological advancement, expanding forces (& all the logistics needed to train & supply), at a time when nothing was certain, especially military intelligence about enemy capabilities in economy, technology & combat capability.

[@kirotheavenger60]

@eric-wb7gj I totally agree with every point you made, except one. The Luftwaffe was not about to win the Battle of Britain. The Germans thought they were, because they underestimated the British defence. And the British thought they were, because they overestimated the Germans. But we can see from reviewing both sides with the clarity of hindsight, that the RAF was holding the line as the Luftwaffe was atrophying men and machines. They'd also fallen below levels of pilots that the RAF considered beyond critically low, and were just a couple months away from falling below the number of planes the RAF had as well. Luftwaffe bombing of airfield, radar, and similar targets were generally ineffective. In short, the Luftwaffe was on a trajectory to lose the BoB. They changed tact because they finally accepted "the last 50 Spitfires" weren't going to stop coming any time soon.

[@dpeasehead]

@@kirotheavenger60 If things had ever really gotten bad, Fighter Command always had the option of withdrawing to airfields which were beyond the effective range of the short legged German fighters and continuing to operate effectively against German air raids. The Luftwaffe was too small, it was operating at the limits of its ranges, and it didn't have the techniques or the technology required to smother the RAF and the integrated air defense system that it functioned within.

[@kirotheavenger60]

@dpeasehead absolutely right People think that if Britain lost the BoB, the consequence would be the total destruction of the RAF and ultimately the successful invasion of Britain. But neither is true. In fact, one can make the argument that it would have been better for German to have won the BoB, causing the RAF to withdraw from the cost. This was have encouraged the Germans to pull the trigger on their invasion. Which, given the German invasion plans and capability would have rapidly seen the entire German army sunk in the channel and maybe an end to the war much much earlier.

[@SihombileMahanjana]

Wonderful presentation

[@jhumpich0311]

Great video as usual

[@brealistic3542]

From aldoph gallands book, The First and the Last, Hitler actually wanted to switch fighter production into all flak guns which us very silly because production of Flak guns is a totally different industry to making fighters.

[@eric-wb7gj]

Yes, but Flak guns don't require the fuel Germany never had enough off, scarce metals, could be operated by reduced numbers, less skilled & younger personnel. Lots of Flak crews were 15 years old, they would go to school in the day, & do Flak work by night. Flak guns also don't use the rare metals or chemicals that the latest fighters required for their engines. Up until around 1943, around 70% of bomber kills were by German fighters, when pilot attrition & lack of fuel reduced the number of fighters, Flak gun production was ramped up, & the kill % reversed. Flak guns are a different industry, but Germany's options reduced each year the war progressed after 1941.

[@mchrome3366]

This channel is superb especially this video which answered questions I’ve always had and some I didn’t have but probably should have to better understand the subject covered. Thanks for your work.

[@user-tl5fi9lz9z]

I learn so much from this channel

[@stuckp1stuckp122]

I was surprised by how late proximity fuses came into play

[@mikemarcum9563]

Great research

[@edfurrow2605]

It’s called SEAD now. Suppression of Enemy AIr Defense.

[@danieloehler2494]

One should have in mind that the crews of these FLAK guns in the last months has been mostly young teenagers having school classes in non combat times.

[@agrxdrowflow958]

Early SEAD technologies.

[@KenshiroPlayDotA]

The intent of this comment is to note that in the following decades, cluster bombs became the favorite choice for SEAD/DEAD missions, after firing some ARMs to suppress enemy radars, as they could damage/destroy the large number of soft targets of a SAM site spread across a wide area. Which begs the question ; were cluster bombs considered for SEAD use in WW2, and were there circumstances precluding their widespread use in that role ?

[@milferdjones2573]

They did not have a well working cluster bomb but as you could see with the fighter they went with lots of individual small bombs.

[@felixk8640]

In essence, it's "prehistoric" Wild Weasel.

[@mpetersen6]

Well, this answers a question l had. That was if flak batteries had ever been attacked intentionally? Destroying the guns would be a difficult target. Killing the crews manning them is a different matter.

[@indigohammer5732]

Was Mustard gas ever considered as an anti flak battery weapon?

[@milferdjones2573]

Had chemical weapons available and the branch of the Army to use them so of course some planing was done as some of the personnel’s job was planning deployment. But everyone stuck to the no chemical weapons treaties. Did not want V-1 and V-2 dropping chemical weapons in England and did not want a last ditch German chemical weapon defense on the ground as Germany had plenty of the weapons to use as well. Might have seen Chemical Weapons used during ground invasion of Tokyo, what was left of Tokyo there plenty of photos that you can’t tell which are Tokyo or Hiroshima. Greatest number of civilians killed in one bombing was Tokyo from firestorm deliberately set by large numbers of US Bombers. All but one Japanese City destroyed by US bombing for some reason this use of the other weapon of mass destruction Firestorm not covered even though it killed more Japanese.

[@JohnSmith-vs2ri]

This is such a brilliant piece of analysis! Am I right in thinking the US possibly re-learned and re-applied these lessons in Vietnam and has definitely remembered them in later actions?

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

Okay, maybe[?!] I missed it: Were the _proximity fuses_ of the bombs dropped from the bombers equivalent to the radto-transmitter types used on US antiaircraft shells?

[@michaelgugu8549]

Just found. Lovely channel!

[@markpaul-ym5wg]

Ya know, most people have no idea that the germans had dish guided radar flak cannons,im many different caliburs,to include 20 and 40mm guns.I dont know exactly why the information has been sensored,but it has.I am glad you mentioned it.Could you do a video on all caliburs of these radar dishes please?

[@robertslugg8361]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/kIWmkIWujLOSrtE Explains how the "really early" Silicon Valley guys did the radar thing.

[@markpaul-ym5wg]

@@robertslugg8361 Thanks.

[@gregpeterson9260]

I always wondered if they attempted bombing flak positions or if they were too small and hard to hit or too mobile and didn't know where they were. Seems like medium bombers and attack aircraft would be used for it.

[@Bryan-cs9to]

Love the channel!!

[@archiegeorge3969]

Good data on the effects

[@IPMSOC]

great info - thanks!

[@sailordude2094]

I never even knew about these tactics, thanks for the info! I wonder if they sent low level fighter bomber sweeps to strafe the flak coordinated with the bombers flying overhead?

[@benpayne4663]

excellent

[@cowbdave99]

I really wish I would have been able to talk to him about it but I never knew that till I read it in the obituary

[@Treblaine]

Some things make you wonder why they didn't do them sooner. I suppose for this to be really effective it needs VT fuses which couldn't be used over land sooner.

[@robertslugg8361]

They didn't want the enemy to gain technology from unexploded ordnance. They were used in the Pacific because unexploded 5" AA shells usually ended up in the water and thus 'gone." Over Europe the war was winding down and it was unlikely the Germans could incorporate any new technology in a useful time frame.

[@ulrichbehnke9656]

German Flak were often manned with pupils. 15 year old boys. And also a lot of girls of that age.

[@cameronalexander359]

I didn't think proximity fuses were used over Germany during WW2. I thought they were reserved for use over England.

[@paulp4201]

They were used on the continent from the battle of the bulge onward. The Western allies decided that the war in Europe would be over before the Germans could reverse engineer the fuse.

[@dufushead]

Great stuff.

[@cmendla]

Col - Hmm, what should we call the groups attacking anti aircraft positions? rabid Racoons? - Nah angry gooses ? - Nah Fighting Possums? - Nah screwy Squirrels? - Nah Firey foxes? - Nah Oh wait I got it - WILD WEASELS!! Yep - sounds good.

[@robertpatrick3350]

Fascinating, were similar reports/ studies undertaken by RAF Bomber Command?

[@richardvernon317]

Flak suppression was done on Mosquito operations by 2 TAF and Coastal Command by the escort fighters (Mustangs or Typhoons). Flak wasn't so much of a problem for the night bombers, however on Daylight raids Bomber Command's flak damage to aircraft level's tripled. During the Battle of Berlin, Harris did try to use the Oboe Mosquitos to bomb German Night Fighter airfields on the ingress points of the Bomber stream, but a lot of raids failed due to Oboe Malfunctions.

[@jroch41]

Great info.

[@jeffreymcdonald8267]

Once these fuses were used in conjunction with dedicated flak suppression missions I imagine the threats used by the German Officers changed a bit. Instead of, "I will have you sent to the Russian front.", it may have been, "I will have you sent to the Flak batteries." LoL

[@georgealearnedjr855]

Why during a conflict is the obvious most commonly overlooked

[@clintonreisig]

In the last few months of the war, Allied bomber losses were huge

[@kidmohair8151]

I've already subscribed, so I will only be capable of liking and commenting...

[@jasonkrantz3643]

One thing I haven’t seen discussed-but this channel is ideal for it: Starting in June 1944, Germany controlled less and less territory in Western Europe with each passing month. This video mentions that flak batteries were moved towards and into Germany as the front proceeded eastward. So late in the war, Germany had fewer sites to protect with flak, with more “bonus” batteries coming in as the front moved. Surely, this effectively increased flak “density” at the sites still held by Germany. Is this broadly true? And if so, can we see this effect in per-mission losses? Or did things like Window and direct bombing of flak sites swamp the effects of increased flak density?

[@alfnoakes392]

Significant 'bonus's' of forcing the Germans to concentrate flak resources were the sheer manpower involved (as mentioned in the video) and the fact that 88mm guns were having to be used in this role rather than on the front line in their very effective anti-tank role.

[@Preciouspink]

I quess they were no longer interested is preserving the proximity fuse. I wonder why Germany didn’t tell the Empire of Japan of this technology

[@PaulMcCartGuitarTracks]

Did they ever bomb the flak towers?

[@beverlychmelik5504]

Shoran system?

[@Knuck_Knucks]

Or terror... Yup. Being bombed can be terrifying i reckon. 🐿 My biggest fear is white phosphorus.

[@David-wk6md]

Nice

[@joecook8352]

I always wondered why they didn’t do this to knock out the flak batteries, sounds like it wasn’t wide spread enough, why does it take the blockheads in charge of these ideas so long to implement

[@bloqk16]

Possible had to do with resources of aircraft and bombs, as they were a finite quantity. Take into consideration the buildup of provisions it took for the June 1944 D-Day Normandy invasion. Materials for that invasion meant a limited amount of bombs and aircraft fuel would be supplied to the USAAF for bombing missions. Which had the war planners considering: - Use aircraft and bombs to take out war critical manufacturing and destroy German infrastructure? - Or, divert them to take out the flak batteries? Note that in this presentation that taking out flak batteries was in 1945, a time when the flow of resources into England was on a massive scale since there was a huge volume of liberty ships from the US; along with the North Atlantic secure from U-boat attacks.

[@PhilipDarragh]

Hv U done a vid on the secret allied weapon tt confused the Luftwaffe? It was the humble carrot.😊

[@tzisme]

Was this the birth of the "Wild Weasel ?"

[@willlasdf123]

SEAD is always the key!

[@marccrotty8447]

The carnage created in war is horrible. But it is either destroy the enemy or be destroyed yourself.

[@bgw33]

I never heard of this tactic