Bomber Saturation Tactics to Mitigate German FLAK - Tactics Review, Case Study, and Effectiveness

During WWII Bombers modified their tactics and equipment to mitigate the effects of German FLAK on the bomber loss rates. One of the most effective tactic was for the bombers to saturate the target area by reduction in Trail. Trail is the distance between formations. Analysis and case studies showed, this saturation tactic as the most effective method to reduce bomber losses from FLAK. The video will address US saturation tactics, German response and review the results of a case study where bomber losses were reduced by 50% by reduction in trail distances were adopted.

[@higgydufrane]

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!

[@neilwilson5785]

Seconded. The detailed content here is a real education for me.

[@notbobrosss3670]

I really appreciate your academic focused presentations.

[@jamesjohn9460]

No unnecessary diatribe ,just pure information. Excellent presentation,other YT channels take note,this is how it’s done

[@mattwilliams3456]

Literally every video you’ve produced has been worthy of my time. I don’t anticipate that changing.

[@neilwilson5785]

Your videos are just what I like, giving precise details on tactics that other videos do not usually cover.

[@WilliamHarbert69]

Thank you. A tremendously informative analysis and presentation. Thank you for the hard work, artistry and diligence you put into your KZbin channel.

[@randomnickify]

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.

[@AlexanderBellOpelika]

per gun emplacement. There were multiple batteries at 5:14 example shows 200+ guns in 20+ batteries

[@unmutualchap6753]

Amazing work !

[@biasedaudio]

My dad flew in WWII . Please keep up the great work creating videos! It helps add details to my dad's stories.

[@stage6fan475]

Fantastic work. I love these details, which I have not been able to find anywhere else.

[@richardschaffer5588]

Keep up the good work!

[@erickent3557]

Fantastic video, and fantastic channel!

[@MrHanslustich]

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.

[@frankb8898]

What an excellent work You are doing Sir! Many thanks.

[@philiphumphrey1548]

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.

[@johnculver2519]

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.

[@bfberna]

@@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?

[@johnculver2519]

@@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.

[@bfberna]

@@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.

[@BIG-DIPPER-56]

Man your information is fascinating!

[@Compulsive_LARPer]

Outstanding work as usual! Engaging for the algorithm.

[@BruceGCharlton]

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.

[@adamstrange7884]

Like convoys in the Atlantic, a convoy isn't that much larger than one ship in the ocean.

[@mitchwatson6787]

FLAK playlist. Love it.

[@ZeroBoyComedy]

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.

[@ypaulbrown]

always wonderful......Paul in Florida

[@bowenisland100]

So informative - thank you.

[@ypaulbrown]

you do a wonderful job.....

[@WWIIUSBombers]

Thanks for contribution to the channel, by super-thanks. It is appreciated.

[@bfberna]

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.

[@agrxdrowflow958]

Priceless knowledge blessing.

[@ruperterskin2117]

Appreciate ya. Thanks for sharing.

[@kidmohair8151]

already subbed so commentingandliking to feed the maws of the algo-deities

[@markfung5654]

Thank you. I really enjoy your content. It's weird but I do.

[@billyponsonby]

Interesting

[@DavidSiebert]

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.

[@chriskortan1530]

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.

[@RStout59]

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.

[@notreallydavid]

Flak! - no c from Flugabwehrkanone, 'air defence cannon' Please kick me. All best.

[@nightjarflying]

Different units went for the flak positions I think

[@kirotheavenger60]

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

[@Moredread25]

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.

[@nightjarflying]

No. Separate formations on different routes makes more sense.

[@WildBillCox13]

Fascinating. Thanks for posting.

[@jbrown7403]

I wonder if we know the number of bomber loses due to collisions between two (or more) bombers in the tightly compact formations?

[@sjb3460]

Yes, he has covered that issue in another video.

[@willscarlet7625]

Did they ever attempt to bomb the flak batteries?

[@kirotheavenger60]

He already has a video on that exact topic. But short: yes.

[@post1084]

very Worthy of my time

[@Knuck_Knucks]

Ah. "The danger zone." I get it now ! "Ride. In. to. the danger zone... " 🐿

[@robinbrowne5419]

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.)

[@m777howitzer4]

First! Thanks for the hard work.

[@andersoncox6892]

First