German 88mm FLAK Combat Effectiveness against Bombers: Characteristics, and Ballistics - Deep Dive

[@WWIIUSBombers]

Video Correction: Continuously pointed FLAK fire destroyed a bomber every 2,500 rounds, not 25,000 rounds.

[@steveperreira5850]

Thanks for including the chart, all of the charts, because we could ascertain directly from there that you made an audio error

[@Moredread25]

I think the flat but animated presentation style is what makes this channel interesting and gives it it's unique style.

[@ddegn]

It's really just right. I like this channel a lot.

[@malm8477]

100% unlike modern mainstream documentaries I am actually learning new stuff I couldn't have just read about on Wikipedia.

[@spykezspykez7001]

I agree.

[@AdamMann3D]

It's an academic style. It's excellent.

[@mbryson2899]

I think his narration style perfectly complements the objective facts he shares with us. His very occasional bits of dry humor are perfectly delivered, too.

[@Compulsive_LARPer]

When you are continuously pausing to read, analyze (and admire) each primary source, these videos become incredibly enjoyable and detailed documentaries of the time period and context of the subject. That enjoyment is only amplified by this long format. You somehow managed to out-do what was already more-than-outstanding. TL;DR: MOAR LONG VIDEOS LIKE THIS ONE, PLZ !!1

[@Absaalookemensch]

Excellent video, well researched and informative as always. Thank you

[@ypaulbrown]

wish I could afford more.....thank you so much for your wonderful coverage on WWII US Bombers....Paul in Florida

[@WWIIUSBombers]

Thanks for the contribution Paul, very much appreciated.

[@gerard-nagle]

That’s my morning coffee video sorted for tomorrow 😊

[@stephenrickstrew7237]

The 88mm was a feared weapon by ground forces and tankers as well ..

[@Heike--]

It's just a giant rifle. "The 88 MM is basically a gun for firing on moving targets. The crew is also specially trained for firing on highly rapid moving targets, primarily on airplanes. The whole control apparatus is designed for fast moving targets with a very rapid rate of fire: 25 rounds per minute. The gun is capable of great volume fire and extreme accuracy against moving targets of any type. It is equally efficient on targets on the ground as well as in the air. For attacks on armored vehicles, it is provided with a special armor-piercing shell." -- American military observer in Germany, 1940

[@stephenrickstrew7237]

@@Heike-- it had that automatic breech … just shove in another round .. plus it could be fired while still hooked up to a half track ..

[@amerigo88]

Rommel's 88mm (Luftwaffe crewed) guns in N. Africa wetter quite lethal in the antitank role thanks to long ranges in the desert and poor British armour tactics. Once the war had moved to Italy and Northwest Europe, the bulky Flak 88 gun was highly vulnerable to being seen and killed with high explosive rounds. Those battlefields were much better suited to smaller, dedicated antitank artillery weapons like the Pak 40 (75mm). To a significant extent, the 88mm AA gun was a 90% solution to multiple problems, but not 100% for any of them. The Allies weapons development had not been hindered by the Treaty of Versailles so their Soviet 85mm, US 90mm, and UK 90mm anti aircraft guns remained focused on shooting down aircraft.

[@donallen8414]

Great video, and I will study some of the documents you mentioned in detail 😍 I have two points to mention: 1. The Flak war did not end for the USAF in 1945. During the bombing of North Vietnam alone, around 700 US aircraft were shot down mostly by 37mm Flak. Interestingly, Flak over North Vietnam had also a higher rate of destruction than fighter aircraft or guided missiles. Total aircraft losses over North Vietnam are around 1000 USAF aircraft until 1973. 2. General Josef Kammhuber was responsible for organizing and commanding the Nazi German air defense until 1945. The British named that air defence the "Kammhuber Line". Between 1956 and 1962 he was organizing and commanding the new West German Luftwaffe. In this new function he met many of his former adversaries. He retired on 30 September 1962.

[@marcusmoonstein242]

Those filmed flak bursts are astonishing in their accuracy, both in 3-dimentional space and in their timing. It's all the more impressive when you realize the flak gunners were working exclusively with analogue/mechanical systems.

[@BasementEngineer]

Later on in the war they had radar guidance support. Not automatic, but verbal information. My father was assigned to such a FLAK battery during his recovery from injury on the eastern front.

[@eddieslittlestack7919]

25 mins! I'm looking forward to this!

[@twentyrothmans7308]

What goes up, must come down.I wonder how much shrapnel and duds caused damage when they fell to earth. Oh, you covered that at 10:50 with controlled fragmentation. Very comprehensive, I'm very thankful for your research. I hope that you can cover some of the less notorious raids, against Mainz, Hannover, etc, at some point.

[@R281]

I was told chikdren in Germany picked up the flak pieces to exchange for money. This was by a curator at a museum

[@gort8203]

Excellence is the standard set by this channel, but this video is particularly outstanding. No other KZbin channel on aviation history even comes close.

[@ddegn]

Great video as usual. Thank you.

[@mattwilliams3456]

Enjoyed it enough that I didn’t skip any of the ads. Excellent as always.

[@mattheide2775]

The 88 was devastating in AA and AT roles. Thank you for the video ❤

[@bm7024]

The number of people killed and munitions effectiveness represented in such huge measurements is always so staggering

[@rg3412]

I have never the “brain” of FlAK ever mentioned in any detail in any other video out there. You’re doing great work

[@196cupcake]

Thank god the Nazis didn't have proximity fuses.

[@bber45]

yeah the damage would have been even worse. They would have used them to even greater effect if they captured/stole the proximity fuse.

[@dukecraig2402]

They experimented with over 50 different proximity fuse designs including IR based systems among other's, and I'm pretty sure a radar system also, I believe their problem with that was one that the Allies solved that they couldn't and that being the tremendous amount of G forces the electronics, namely the little vacuum tubes, had to survive being inside of a shell that gets fired from a gun, starting from a dead stop and accelerating to around 2,700 fps within the length of the barrel creates G forces that I wouldn't even want to run the number's for it'd be so high, I think I remember reading that was the obstacle they couldn't overcome with a radar based system so they passed on trying to adopt it for a proximity fuse and moved on to other systems to base it on like IR and acoustic, after Germany surrendered an Allied team found their research facility where they were trying to develop them.

[@196cupcake]

@@dukecraig2402 Yeah, another KZbin channel did a video about it.

[@kirotheavenger60]

For this reason proxy fuses were prohibited from being used on or near the European mainland until very late in the war, for fear that a blind would be recovered and reverse engineered. Proxy fuses did great service in the Pacific for many months before they were greenlit for Europe - late enough that it was considered the war would be over by the time any reverse engineering could occur

[@gregorymalchuk272]

​@@196cupcake What is the name of the video?

[@StarGazer568]

Excellent as always. Thanks!

[@davefield8100]

My dad was a lead bombedier in Europe. He was more concerned with flak than German fighters. It got worse as the Germans retreated and took their guns into a more concentrated area.

[@curtiscarlson8958]

Great discussion, very thorough.

[@nickel18833]

Great video!. Lots of details and primary sources!!

[@benpayne4663]

excellent

[@Token_Civilian]

Very worthy of my time. Great stuff as always.

[@jR060t]

I love the deep dive and that you show your sources. Thank you.

[@raleighthomas3079]

Great video, loved the detail and film clips. Great stuff!

[@charleshaggard4341]

This is great information. There was a young man from our town that was a ball turret gunner whose B-17 was shot down and crashed in the North Sea and was MIA until he was declared KIA after the war. His twin brother was a B-17 ball turret gunner in the Pacific and died a few years ago hoping that his plane would be found. I, like many others, thought fighters were the main cause of bomber losses.

[@HandyMan657]

Your emphasis of ride into the danger zone was spot on. Cheers

[@ned900]

Love this long form format Love your channel, superb content. Well done, Bravo.

[@chrismeadors7314]

Danger Zone!

[@WWIIUSBombers]

Well...I have to amuse myself somehow

[@swright5690]

I understood that reference gif here.😂

[@basilb4733]

Excellent. Impressive how you manage to dig up all these primary source documents. Also thx for showing the late war developments. Hardly believable that Germany did not pursue the development of proximity fuzes until it was too late for them although these fuzes were already mentioned by the Oslo report. Rheinmetall had some working prototypes of proximity fuzed AA shells by the end of the war.

[@Knuck_Knucks]

My wife is fitted with a short fuse. 🐿

[@PL-rf4hy]

Barrage or continuous fire?

[@FutureFlash2034]

Con you do a video on the effectiveness of the 128mm Flak 40 Zwilling anti-air mounts?

[@مراد-ش8ط]

Amazing as always. Thank you and keep up the great job.

[@williamharvey8895]

I just love these in depth videos, the longer the better. ❤

[@craig2809]

Jimmy Jr. took us right into the Danger Zone 🤪

[@pedzsan]

Can I make a request (which might be hard to do). At 1:16 you show a graph show bombers lost due to enemy aircraft. That graph (and practically all graphs and statistics) needs to be in percentages. What is the percentage of bombers lost verses sorties. Raw numbers are deceiving since a rise in loses due to enemy aircraft could be because the number of sorties were 1000 times greater.

[@bat2293]

Yes, that would certainly be useful. Perhaps in Part II this might be addressed. (However, it may simply be that data is not available, or just too hard to parse.)

[@richardvernon317]

Rough 8th AAF heavy bomber sortie figures (targets in France and Low Countries not included) July 1943 (Blitz Week) - 1644 (Norway raids included) August 1943 - 706 September - 573 October - 2174 (Black Week) November - 1592 (all raids done with H2S/H2X and fighter escort) December - 3203 (all raids done with H2S/H2X and fighter escort. Use of Window started)) 1944 January - 1763 February - 4903 (Big Week) March - 5493 (Berlin Raids) April - 4740 May - 5069 June - 747 (vast majority of attacks on France because of bad weather and D-Day / Anti V-1 ops) July - 7960 August - 6782 September - 8445 October - 12158 November - 8228 1945 February - 9850 March - 15054 April - 11240 I'm not going to cover the two missing months because most of the two months the 8th were mostly grounded by weather. 15th Air Force could up up as much as 850 heavies in a raid, but their records are hit and miss.

[@nickc6882]

@@bat2293 it would take 20 seconds if you have the original data in a csv table. I’m assuming that’s how the original graph was completed. So if you have the raw data to make the first chart, the requested chart would be easy.

[@williamromine5715]

I don't know why, but this video affected me more than any other FLAK videos I have seen. I got a pit in my stomach as I watched it.

[@kiloux00]

Best channel on this topic!! All the facts stated are well described and supported by excellent documentation and research and very interesting even to a layman. Bravo !!!! .

[@RonLWilson]

Great video, as always!

[@WilliamHarbert69]

Highly informative and interesting. Great presentation.

[@antonioperez2623]

Excellent. This is the best video explaining flak effectiveness. Thanks

[@idontcare9797]

I believe that the Germans used the larger 120mm on their flak towers. 88mm was more mobile.

[@JohnDoe-oq8eh]

At 11:06 narration does not match document re: controlled fragmentation ammunition for 12.8 and 8.8cm rounds

[@sjb3460]

Thankyou for another well done video. I have a request for another topic: submarine depth charges and the effectiveness of the Japanese Navy tactics. Thanks for all of your hard work.

[@JimmySailor]

Great video. At 23:04 I think you misspoke saying 25,000 instead of 2,500 in regards to predicted aimed fire vs barrage fire..

[@WWIIUSBombers]

I added a correction card at that time stamp.

[@AviationHorrors]

I love how “danger zone” is literally spelled out at 9:27

[@cristiangarces5832]

Marvelous video! Side note: What is the source of the images explaining the types of AA fire (15:48)?

[@studinthemaking]

Fun Fact. The British had an 88mm gun also. It was called the 25 pound gun.

[@panhead55]

At 9:22, something was telling me to watch Top Gun…

[@rm5902]

Very well researched

[@dennisfox8673]

As always, a great and informative video. Plus, I just wanted to say I caught the Kenny Loggins reference, but in my mind I heard it in Archer’s voice!

[@peterwright217]

thats very interesting regarding the fragmentation of the shells💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥 top show

[@Legitpenguins99]

I had no idea how complicated fuzes were! Its impressive to think of how many millions upon millions were made in those 6 years!

[@ypaulbrown]

well done, as always

[@witeshade]

I wonder if it would have been effective to set off explosions with some kind of coil or wire-based sharpnel (similar to the expanding wire ones they use now) and detonate them ahead and above the bombers so they'd have to pass through a descending cloud of stuff that could end up in the engines and so on. I imagine they must have thought about trying something like that, and the fact nobody did it serves as pretty good evidence that they decided it wouldn't have been effective.

[@joewright2304]

Excellent and informative.

[@johnw1078]

nicely done 👍

[@nivlacyevips]

Awesome channel

[@wolfganggugelweith8760]

Brave German soldiers!

[@ronbednarczyk2497]

This was a great explanation on how Flak worked. Your animations and drawings show connections between the fire control units and the guns. What actually happens at the guns? Is elevation and azimuth controlled autotomatically or does they gun crew turn wheels and cranks based upon information provided by the fire control?

[@pistolpete6321]

Interesting and informative!

[@BIG-DIPPER-56]

Excellent - Thank You! 😎👍

[@TroyBlake]

My first thought was chaff would surely have mitigated some of the effectiveness of the German guns, but it looks like the allied forces were hesitant to use chaff in the war out of fear that the Germans would gain the knowledge and use it to potentially launch another blitz against England. With the limited bandwidth of German radar, it would have been relatively easy to confuse, so it was tested in 1942 showing promising results. It was actually used in a few raids in 1943, by British aircraft, and was found very effective at confusing German fighters and ground crews using radar to locate allied bombers. I guess it was also assumed it would make allied use of radar too difficult during a bombing run, so it wasn't used very much in combat. Modern aircraft use it all the time to effectively confuse enemy radar.

[@kirotheavenger60]

One thing that amuses me of WW2 radar development, is that both the Germans and British developed chaff at essentially the same time. But both sides sat on it for approximately a year, for fear of the enemy reverse engineering it. Then both sides decided to go for it at again almost exactly the same time. Reminds me of the spiderman pointing meme a bit. "Wait you had chaff this entire time?!" But yes, chaff proved very effective in disrupting German night fighter operations in particular. Less effective during the day, as visual spotting was much more effective.

[@higgydufrane]

Wonderful presentation. Where on earth do you get access to these old documents, both allied and enemy? I would love to know. Thanks again for your efforts.

[@victorboucher675]

Thank you!

[@Tesserae]

What was the reason the lead bombers didn’t drop their ordnance on the flak batteries? They presented a too-small target?

[@sachi_komine9318]

Здравствуйте, а будут видео про тактики защиты Японии воздушными камикадзе, во время налётов B-29 ?

[@utubejdaniel8888]

Were the flak batteries ever intentionally tageted? I have only read sketchy accounts .

[@sjb3460]

yes, there is a very good video just released this month.

[@grafknives9544]

One question, are there any calculations whether a VT proximity fuse would make a difference? Or a stable altitude od bomber path makes it not as important?

[@BasementEngineer]

The FLAK shell fuses were set to explode at a given altitude, as instructed by stereographic observers and later by radar operators.

[@grizwoldphantasia5005]

@23:04 Minor correction. Video shows 2500 shells/shootdown, audio says "25 thousand". Not worth redoing the video.

[@stevep5408]

Early bomber offensive was mostly the sacrifice the western allies had to do to relieve pressure on the Soviets. Imaginge if the 75-80 percent of 88 mm were on the eastern front being used in their dual purposes? 4 times as many guns to add to flak and antitank roles.

[@markbowles2382]

I always wondered how long before the luftwaffe got their hands on proximity fuses - now I at least know whats in the records, thanks

[@17cmmittlererminenwerfer81]

23:08 - 25 hundred, isn't it?

[@nickdanger3802]

.22 Energy It is calculated by multiplying the mass of the bullet by the square of its velocity and dividing by two. For the .22 long rifle cartridge, the muzzle energy varies depending on the type and weight of the bullet, but it is typically around 100 to 150 foot-pounds1

[@TallDude73]

How did German fighters and flak divide the airspace over Germany so as not to have the German fighters get hit by their own flak?

[@nos9784]

I only know about a "hard thrasher" video on british fighter guidance, but there's propably some about the german side, too.

[@JoeHinojosa-ph8yw]

They started using German High school students as Flak crews. More interesting than going to class.

[@ShortArmOfGod]

23:04 The source shows 2500 rounds, not 25,000.

[@dlifedt]

Could you do a video on the tactics and successfulness of final maneuvers over the target? I guess bombers had to consider both target visibility and avoiding a path predictable for flak...

[@richardvernon317]

Limitations on manoeuvres over the target were driven by the limitations of the Norden Bombsight!!! To get any form of precision, the lead bomber had to fly straight and level for a few minutes.

[@MrB1923]

I've watched that training video. 👍

[@OtherWorldExplorers]

Just curious, How much of this do you know, and how much did you have to research. And were you surprised by any information you found. Because I have to say, you speak with such calm authority as to appear to be speaking from past experience.

[@kirotheavenger60]

Well, everything we know we've researched at some point. Question is over what timescale

[@james-faulkner]

I saw 25min. and thought "Hell yeah!"

[@gilgit6728]

I enjoy your videos, but I assume you want to know about mistakes. Others have mentioned you saying 25,000 when the document said 2500 per shootdown @23:04. Additionally @11:10 you said controlled fragmentation shells were developed for the 88 and 105 mm shells but the documents says "was produced only for 12.8 and 8.8, never for 10.5."

[@WWIIUSBombers]

Thanks for the point outs, I added a correction card at those time stamps.

[@stage6fan475]

Continuously pointed fire--the information is fed to the guns, but are the crew hand cranking the guns elevation and azimuth wheels? How did that work?

[@richardvernon317]

Indicators told the guys cranking the wheels what angle they had to set.

[@HandFromCoffin]

to get his with that .22 at 300 yards you'd have to aim almost 9ft above the target. This would be considered quite a long shot for a .22.

[@barrysheridan9186]

Excellent research, but information overload. The subject is worthy of a longer presentation.

[@RemusKingOfRome]

Excellent. I wonder why bombers didn't climb and dive to put off tracking ?

[@richardvernon317]

Norden Bombsight couldn't hack it!!! To be able to do its job, it had to be kept straight and level for a reasonable time before bomb release. The same was true for the British Mark XIV bomb sight, though that could be used with some pitch and roll angle on it at bomb release.

[@kirotheavenger60]

They did, standard procedure was to take some form of evasive action every 30 seconds or less when expecting flak However, over the target area you'd have to fly straight and level for a few minutes to make sure you got your bombs on target

[@Legitpenguins99]

Does anybody know why they chose 88mm and not 90mm? Did they find 88mm to be more aerodynamic?

[@chefchaudard3580]

Historical reasons, as it is often the case for artillery calibers : Germany used 88mm guns during WWI.

[@kirotheavenger60]

It's an old navy calibre Back when guns were measured by weight - a 9lb round shot was pretty much 88mm in diameter New guns tend to use old calibres for lots of reasons - it allows old jigs to be reused (IE if you have a drill that drills 88mm barrels, might as well keep using it), it fits old boxes and racks and such. Or even it just outright allows the new gun/ammunition to be used with old guns/ammunition You see this sort of thing over and over again - 152mm shells, 76mm shells, 37mm shells, etc etc Almost always (if not *always*) a result of a nice round number in one measurement system being referred to in another measurement system

[@grafknives9544]

Wow, i am amazed that kill zone is only 4m, which means that literally a direct hit is needed.

[@ivekuukkeli2156]

Thanks very much for this and previous presentations too. You content is so deep-dive, that YOU could apply a doctor degree (Mil.D or Ph. D.) with these presentation. Accurate, base on thorough investigation to orginal sources, clear results.

[@barelyasurvivor1257]

There was a report on # and caliber of shells that were needed to down a heavy Allied bomber in WW2. I think it varied from 8,000 to 11, 000 shells per kill, I think it went down to as little as 6,000 shells for the really heavy guns, not positive on the last one though.

[@bber45]

The 88mm and MG42 where the two weapons that really let Germany hang around as long as they did. 88mm was a great weapon for land, sea, and air. The MG42 great on land and could really do some damage to infantry.

[@kirotheavenger60]

Eh, neither of those weapons were exorbitantly more effective than their Allied counterparts

[@bber45]

@kirotheavenger60 Doesn't matter. For the most part, the allies had the luxury of intact factories especially here in the states. Germany got bombed back to the stone age and yet able to produce thousands of mg42s and 88s. Including the ammo and shells for em.

[@alexeisavrasov888]

hey, fantastic work, man! You excelled yourself! I appreciate the long-form edition, just beautiful. You can get your teeth into it. I wish you'd let loose the source of your WWII archive...like where in internet hell do you find all those manuals and reports for God's sake! But I totally understand why you'd be keeping it a highly-classified secret. I love the Germans and their language, 'flakabwherkanone' or whatever it was...beautiful. "The director". I bet more than a few resistance operatives paid for info about that with their lives. I was thinking, I don't think there's a single WWII movie about flak gunners specifically. Maybe there is in another language, maybe Russian. If the Russians made one, I bet a few vodka shots it'd be a good one. You know, if we stopped letting certain people manoeuvre us into killing each other off, we'd have a damn good society.

[@glallee]

Why didn’t the Allies attack the flak batteries directly ahead of and in coordination with strategic bombing whatever the batteries were protecting?

[@richardvernon317]

The main Batteries had more that just Heavy AAA, they had a buttload of medium and light guns as well and all of it was located in some form of revetment. Not easy to hit by low level attack and the lighter stuff was very good at shooting down anything at low level if they could get a zero defection shot, which was exactly the position the attacker would have to be in to attack the Flak batteries in the first place.

[@randomnickify]

Multiple guns spread on large area, it would be trying to hit the needle in a haystack.

[@johnhagemeyer8578]

No tracers on 88.. Well I guess they had a small clip.

[@stuckp1stuckp122]

“Ride into the Danger Zone” for Maverick’s grand dad😅

[@peterrasmussen6720]

The Germans had the double fuze already by 1943, but Speer was aguably hesitant to deploy it due to fear of explosion when it was transported by train. Also, it was more complex and expensive, and Hitler only rewarded Speer for the mass of flak and not for results. So the double fuze threatened Speer's good munitions statistics. The double fuze is arguably the greatest lost oppertunity for German flak and was easily doable.

[@jefclark]

'Riiide in to the DANGER ZONE Take a ride into tha DANGER ZOOOONE!!!'

[@luxbeci2]

My grandfather died Stalingrad Don river 1943

[@brainfart22]

I found myself considering a fuze that would use atmospheric pressure to detonate at a perscribed altitude rather than the timed fuzing. Having a barometer that was small enough to fit in a fuze, durable enough to survive being fired from a cannon, more accurate than a simple timer, and cheap enough to be built in the millions is basically impossible with WW2 tech. Plus seeing the trajectory chart there are ranges where the shell would plunge onto a target, and a barometric shell would be useless for this kind of attack. All around not my best idea

[@randomnickify]

I doubt pressure change is linear, there can be layers of warm and cold air one over another.

[@kirotheavenger60]

Yup, it's not possible even with modern technology to get a atmospheric barometer that accurate, as the atmosphere is constantly in tumoil with winds and humidity and all sorts A time fuse is actually reasonably accurate as well, as the flight of a shell is reasonably consistent and extremely accurate timings could be obtained even then

[@stevep5408]

​@@kirotheavenger60plus they were counting on the shotgun effect. Burst below the plane to get a blast and shrapnel spread enough to shred the plane.