PDA

View Full Version : Fighters vs flak



MucusG
05-28-2006, 07:06 AM
I am curious.

I know that the losses suffered during daylight bombing was initially very bad. How much was due to ground based fire vs the effect of LW fighters??

Thanks for any info.

MucusG
05-28-2006, 07:06 AM
I am curious.

I know that the losses suffered during daylight bombing was initially very bad. How much was due to ground based fire vs the effect of LW fighters??

Thanks for any info.

Agamemnon22
05-28-2006, 08:03 AM
I don't have any concrete facts, but from general WW2 reading it seems to me that the Germans found AA more effective and bomber crews feared it more than fighters.

p1ngu666
05-28-2006, 08:27 AM
flak musta been really bad in the bomber boxes, because u cant jink about or anything, just got to take it.

think the germans had over a million ppl on flak guns http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Kocur_
05-28-2006, 09:34 AM
I just read an article on 10,5 and 12,8cm Flak guns. In conclusion author states, that German AA was very effective - in 1944 LW fighters were able to down ~2.900 USAAF planes, while AA downed 3.501 US planes!

Xiolablu3
05-28-2006, 01:29 PM
Depened what job the fighters were doing.

I know that when Spitfires got pressed into ground attack roles, pilots were scared stiff of flak.

Even CLostermann in his Tempest reports how the flak affected his nerves. I think it was his book which talked about the Hurri bombers? They got massrcred, I think 3 out of 4 that he was escorting were shot down by flak.

Maybe when they are high up, they were not too worried, but when attacking ground targets I think losses were very high.

tigertalon
05-28-2006, 01:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Depened what job the fighters were doing.

I know that when Spitfires got pressed into ground attack roles, pilots were scared stiff of flak.

Even CLostermann in his Tempest reports how the flak affected his nerves. I think it was his book which talked about the Hurri bombers? They got massrcred, I think 3 out of 4 that he was escorting were shot down by flak.

Maybe when they are high up, they were not too worried, but when attacking ground targets I think losses were very high. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Been a long time since I read "The big show" last time, but I can remember him telling about an attack (a single pass!!) in which 6 out of 8 tempests were lost... german quad 20mm were devastating.

danjama
05-28-2006, 01:44 PM
Its worth mentioning that german ackack certainly became much more fierce as the years passed (partly due to the innefectiveness of the dying luftwaffe).

The calibre of which planes were facing is also of relevance.

High altitude B17's would face large cal artillery, such as 88mm or 105mm, while ground attackers would face smaller rounds, like the 20mm that tt mentions.

Vipez-
05-28-2006, 02:11 PM
Click me (http://www.ww2guide.com/flak.shtml)

Bremspropeller
05-28-2006, 02:15 PM
Think of "Wirbelwind" - 4x 20mm on a tank-chassis.
Or "Ostwind" - same thing, but with four 30mm guns.

Could pretty much ruin your day http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

CD_kp84yb
05-28-2006, 02:27 PM
Funny to see ,in the last 2 years of the war the allied shot at everything that moved on the ground (maybe even at the mouses http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif ). and the germans shot at everything that flew.

They had a saying "if you see a plane its probly an allied plane, if it attacks its certanly an allied plane, if you dont see a plane, hold your fire, its ours

Btw wirblewind and ostwind where rare,
hmmm the best anti aircrafttank they where developing, was the Kugelblitz. They where very impressed by the ballturret of the B17, so they started to make something like that turret on a PZKW IV chassis. IRRC only three where made, but never completed. there is one turret left in the UK.

regards

Vike
05-28-2006, 02:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vipez-:
from:
Click me (http://www.ww2guide.com/flak.shtml)

"An incredible 56 bombers were destroyed or crippled by flak during a B-17 raid on Merseburg in November of 1944" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What a slaughter! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Anyway,Germans guns were very impressive...

p1ngu666
05-28-2006, 05:07 PM
its a matter of effeciency, fighters where better aprently, but with AAA u dont need so much fuel etc..

german night time bomber losses over the UK where pretty painful, once radar etc was setup. i think it was around 7% per sortie. and they didnt achive much either...

german flak was certainly prodigious, and the benchmark..

ImpStarDuece
05-28-2006, 05:26 PM
The official USAAF statistics for losses in the ETO are as follows

Fighters:

Aircraft: 1,691
Flak: 2,449
Other: 1,184

Heavy Bombers:

Aircraft: 2,452
Flak: 2,439
Other: 657

Light + Medium Bombers:

Aircraft: 131
Flak: 492
Other: 192

Total:

Aircraft: 4,274
Flak: 5,340
Other: 2,033


So, on the whole, Flak was actually more dangerous to bomber and fighter pilots than enemy fighters were.

WWMaxGunz
05-28-2006, 05:37 PM
Ostwind: Single 37mm flak gun.

IL2 series and current hardware cannot support the AI's and shell paths of as many AAA as real
so what you get are faster and more accurate AAA. That is an example of compromise for reality.

MucusG
05-28-2006, 05:54 PM
Thanks for the info folks. Really appreciated.

After reading this stuff and the excellent web link it seems as though our flak and AA is pretty weak in game!

Xiolablu3
05-28-2006, 06:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
The official USAAF statistics for losses in the ETO are as follows

Fighters:

Aircraft: 1,691
Flak: 2,449
Other: 1,184

Heavy Bombers:

Aircraft: 2,452
Flak: 2,439
Other: 657

Light + Medium Bombers:

Aircraft: 131
Flak: 492
Other: 192

Total:

Aircraft: 4,274
Flak: 5,340
Other: 2,033


So, on the whole, Flak was actually more dangerous to bomber and fighter pilots than enemy fighters were. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you should add, to US pilots there. Remember that by the time the USA had large scale assualts, the LW were getting short of planes, and near the end of the war there would be far more losses to flak becasue there were hardly any enemy planes in the air.

If you took British or Russian losses I think you would find it more balanced or even more kills by German planes.

WOLFMondo
05-28-2006, 06:37 PM
2nd TAF losses were almost all flak. Dunno about Bomber Command or fighter command prior to 2nd TAF taking over operations on the continent.

Beaufort-RAF
06-02-2006, 04:56 PM
Bomber Command at night was different.

Once the Germans really established their radar equipped night fighter force they were by far the biggest menace.

You could be unlucky with flak and take a direct hit and aircraft that strayed off track over a heavily defended area could be in big trouble but fighters claimed the vast majority of victims.

Jaws2002
06-02-2006, 06:04 PM
That's because the british AAA was very ineffective.

VW-IceFire
06-02-2006, 10:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Depened what job the fighters were doing.

I know that when Spitfires got pressed into ground attack roles, pilots were scared stiff of flak.

Even CLostermann in his Tempest reports how the flak affected his nerves. I think it was his book which talked about the Hurri bombers? They got massrcred, I think 3 out of 4 that he was escorting were shot down by flak.

Maybe when they are high up, they were not too worried, but when attacking ground targets I think losses were very high. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
In one of the attacks he lead...8 Tempests hit an airbase and within 5 seconds of them passing the base at 400mph they lost all but two Tempests. Him and one other. Everyone else was lost in the span of 5 seconds....and they were doing easily 400mph or 450mph on the deck...just screaming along in a diving pass.