PDA

View Full Version : What is "automatic flak"?



partic_3
12-01-2005, 03:45 AM
Mon-sewer Clostermann mentions this thing called "automatic flak" in his book The Big Show. Does he mean "automatic" as in an "automatic weapon" or is it un-manned or something? Could it have been radar guided? Or should I stop smoking this stuff?

jugent
12-01-2005, 03:51 AM
Consider Clostermans book as pure fiction. Check the details around his story and you will find that there isnt much that is correct.

ImpStarDuece
12-01-2005, 04:31 AM
Well, it's a cracking read. Closterman likes to embellish a bit, and the translations can be somewhat inaccurate, bit its good fun.

I think he is refering to light flak, 20mm or so in calibre, which had quite high rates of fire.

The Germans had several different rapid firing 20mm automatic flak cannons;

The FlaK 30 had a RoF of 120 rpm, but was being pahsed out by the beginning of 1939.
The Flak 38, an improved Flak 30, upped the rate of fire to 220 rpm. There was also a lightened version of this weapon.

The FlaK 38 was the standard German 20mm weapon of the war. It was used as a fixed position gun, a transoprtable light gun as well as being fitted to halftraks and panzers for mobile anti aircraft support. The most deadly application of it was the 'veirling', a 4 gun mounting, firing up to 800 rpm.

Th Germans also had a triple Mg151/20 mount, which was fitted to a half-track or used as a stationary mount. Rate of fire was around 1200 rpm.

tomtheyak
12-01-2005, 06:16 AM
There were Radar directed flak sites in Germany and on the Dutch coast during the war. Generally of 100-150mm bore, they used a radar predictor.

How this worked I don't know, whether it was fully automated with servo controlled guns or a hybrid system with both human and machine controlled elements, your guess is as good as mine. Also, whether there were any actually based in France is unclear (since I would assume that this is where Clostermann flew the majority of sweeps being in a Spit squadron).

Sturm_Williger
12-01-2005, 06:19 AM
Originally posted by jugent:
Consider Clostermans book as pure fiction. Check the details around his story and you will find that there isnt much that is correct.

Really ?? Are you saying he got dates wrong, missions weren't flown that he says were flown, kill claims exaggerated ?

And, not having a vast library of WWII information, where would one check these details ?

Xiolablu3
12-01-2005, 07:40 AM
Yes, there was automatic, non manned flak and search light batteries connected to radar in the german defences.

The British bomber crews said they could tell if they were caught by the radar because rather than the manned searchlights scanning the sky for bombers, it would just 'click' straight onto them, and next minute around ten or more flak guns would open up on them all at once.

If it was manned searchlights/flak it would be more gradual. The 'automatic flak' he talks about was straight on you, intense from the go, as soon as the radar clicked onto your plane.

They could still lose the 'lock' but it took a lot of violent manouvres. I saw a veteran talking about it on the History channel.

Estocade85
12-01-2005, 07:45 AM
Wow that's pretty deadly for the time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

BGs_Ricky
12-01-2005, 07:50 AM
I think that Clostermann talks mainly about "automatic" quad 20mm and single 37mm tubes. They were operated by hand, but were automatic in the sense they could shoot in burst mode.

WOLFMondo
12-01-2005, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by jugent:
Consider Clostermans book as pure fiction. Check the details around his story and you will find that there isnt much that is correct.

His DFC's, photo's and other pilot accounts, including German pilots, that corroborate his are also made up? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

The 2nd TAF volumes which use actual records also corroborate his events during that period. The only think questionable were a few kills he made which can't be disproved or proved with any certainty.

He's considered Frances greatest living citizen and most decorated. Whats your credentials?

Kocur_
12-01-2005, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
The FlaK 30 had a RoF of 120 rpm, but was being pahsed out by the beginning of 1939.
The Flak 38, an improved Flak 30, upped the rate of fire to 220 rpm. (...)The most deadly application of it was the 'veirling', a 4 gun mounting, firing up to 800 rpm.


Those numbers are correct, but are practical rof, i.e. cyclic rate "minus" time to reload and to replace hot barrel/keep it not overheated. If you were a terget you would "experience" theoretical rof too, being target of single burst (280rpm, 450rpm, 4 x 450rpm respectively):]


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Yes, there was automatic, non manned flak and search light batteries connected to radar in the german defences.


Oh really? Could you please give me example of German AA cannon that would be belt fed (other than MG151) and not need to have magazines (2cm Flak) or clips (3,7cm and 40mm Flak) replaced MANY times each minute (not to mention single shot larger guns) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif?

danjama
12-01-2005, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by jugent:
Consider Clostermans book as pure fiction. Check the details around his story and you will find that there isnt much that is correct.

Your American right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

berg417448
12-01-2005, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jugent:
Consider Clostermans book as pure fiction. Check the details around his story and you will find that there isnt much that is correct.

Your American right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Check his recent posts and you'll see how wrong you are. His English usage is definitley not American.

fighter_966
12-02-2005, 04:28 AM
Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jugent:
Consider Clostermans book as pure fiction. Check the details around his story and you will find that there isnt much that is correct.



Just before end of the war germans developed remote controlled fullauto antiaircraft guns
some of these saw also some action My source
Secret weapons of Third Reich..

Your American right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Check his recent posts and you'll see how wrong you are. His English usage is definitley not American. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ytareh
12-02-2005, 12:35 PM
It seems now that EVERY time a war veteran/personality is mentioned somebody has to try and belittle him.That cant be right....

darkhorizon11
12-02-2005, 01:30 PM
The kicker was the proximity fuse. The Germans never really developed an effective and reliable one but its believed that if they did flak would have been three times as effective.

danjama
12-02-2005, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jugent:
Consider Clostermans book as pure fiction. Check the details around his story and you will find that there isnt much that is correct.



Just before end of the war germans developed remote controlled fullauto antiaircraft guns
some of these saw also some action My source
Secret weapons of Third Reich..

Your American right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Check his recent posts and you'll see how wrong you are. His English usage is definitley not American. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why do you seem to quote me but add this to my quote

"Just before end of the war germans developed remote controlled fullauto antiaircraft guns
some of these saw also some action My source
Secret weapons of Third Reich.."

I did not say that ^^^ so do not quote me and add **** in like i said it!

jugent
12-03-2005, 05:16 AM
My home is europe, im an "EU-nuck" which means that I usually think first, and act afterwards.

I may been mistaken, I read this book many years ago.
Didnt Closterman wrote about the kill of Nowotny at wrong date and time.

He wrote about some german ace "Graffman" or something refearing to Herman Graf? flying a Yellow polished FW.
I tried to check the details of his book and found lots of details that couldn be checked because they wherent found in Google.

Compare this to "I flew for the Fuehrer" by Heinz Knoke, almost every detail can be checked up. Some dates are missing by a few days because the manuscript was set up some year after the war.
check http://www.chez.com/franckruffino/
and check the details with
http://www.feldgrau.com/luft.html
go to the units of Knokes and check it. It most exact and thrustworthy, IMO.

Eaven Ulrich Rudels book "Stuka Pilot" is more correct, although much is missing there too, as when he downed a russian ace in a Lag, dont remember his name, but no russian was lost that day in Rudels region.
My statement that many details are not possible to be confirmed correct in Clostermans book doesnt make the entire book false.

VW-IceFire
12-03-2005, 06:51 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jugent:
Consider Clostermans book as pure fiction. Check the details around his story and you will find that there isnt much that is correct.

His DFC's, photo's and other pilot accounts, including German pilots, that corroborate his are also made up? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

The 2nd TAF volumes which use actual records also corroborate his events during that period. The only think questionable were a few kills he made which can't be disproved or proved with any certainty.

He's considered Frances greatest living citizen and most decorated. Whats your credentials? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I believe the questionable kills thing is what alot of fighter pilots carried around. The RAF was somewhat stringent on counting kills and there were no doubt times where they would give a probable but never be able to confirm it. I think we'd be hard pressed to find an ace in the RAF (or many of the other services too) who didn't have a few questionable kills.

I like his book and it seems all very historical to me. He wrote it as it was happening too so I think we can forgive for some of the embelishment...certainly the emotions of the situation plays a factor.

BGs_Ricky
12-03-2005, 07:02 AM
He wrote the book during the war, as a memoir for his parents in case he was killed, and the book was published just after the war. At that time as a simple pilot he hadn't access to some informations.
In the last editions these mistakes have been adressed by the author, thanks to decades of WWII study that helped clarifying the whole story. He admits that some german units names and some events in his books have proved to be wrong. In the case of Nowotny, a pilot of his squadron really downed a Me-262 that was landing that day, back then they thought it was flown by Nowotny, but more recent studies proved that it was some other german pilot instead.

Xiolablu3
12-03-2005, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Yes, there was automatic, non manned flak and search light batteries connected to radar in the german defences.


Oh really? Could you please give me example of German AA cannon that would be belt fed (other than MG151) and not need to have magazines (2cm Flak) or clips (3,7cm and 40mm Flak) replaced MANY times each minute (not to mention single shot larger guns) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You misunderstand what I meant by 'automatic' and also what I think the OP meant too.

TomtheYak in his post describes what I am talking about by 'automatic', read that to understand what I am trying to say http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I mean 'automatic' as in electronified, no man controlling the guns or searchlight, the radar spots the plane and the searchlights and guns 'flick' onto the plane instantly. Maybe men load the guns but the radar, searchlights and flak find the target 'automatically'

Nothing to do with 'automatic fire rates'

I am not an expert on this, I am quoting how a RAF bomber pilot described it. He said something like

'You could tell when the *automatic radar guided flak* and searchlights were onto you, because it would 'flick' onto your plane and then the flak would come all at once. If it was manned batteries, it would be much more gradual, before it got really thick.'


I am not in a contest here, if you know better please tell me that there were not.

Kocur_
12-03-2005, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Yes, there was automatic, non manned flak and search light batteries connected to radar in the german defences.


Oh really? Could you please give me example of German AA cannon that would be belt fed (other than MG151) and not need to have magazines (2cm Flak) or clips (3,7cm and 40mm Flak) replaced MANY times each minute (not to mention single shot larger guns) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You misunderstand what I meant by 'automatic' and also what I think the OP meant too.

TomtheYak in his post describes what I am talking about by 'automatic', read that to understand what I am trying to say http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Emm, I think you should write your posts in a way, so that they could be understandable without looking for definitions from posts by others. You said :


Yes, there was automatic, non manned flak and search light batteries connected to radar in the german defences.

"NON MANNED"!


I mean 'automatic' as in electronified, no man controlling the guns or searchlight, the radar spots the plane and the searchlights and guns 'flick' onto the plane instantly.

Nothing to do with 'automatic fire rates'

I am not an expert on this, I am quoting how a RAF bomber pilot described it. He said something like

'You could tell when the *automatic radar guided flak* and searchlights were onto you, because it would 'flick' onto your plane and then the flak would come all at once. If it was manned batteries, it would be much more gradual, before it got really thick.'


I am not in a contest here, if you know better please tell me that there were not.

The way I understand that RAF pilot is, that he didnt see 'usual' search done by search-lights, which means they were pointed onto the target before they were turned-on. Thye only 'invisible' way to do that was radar of course. But note: search lights and only then - flak! Which means flak batteries were optically guided - not directly by radar. But we dont actually know what year that was. During WW2 it was nothing but race to operate radars at higher and higher frequency: tens of meteers, than meters, than centimeters. Thing is, that the higher frequency - the higher accuracy of tracking. SO it might be that pilots experience from earlier period, as finally there were flak radars to provide data for aiming without optics.

Now the rest is: were guns turned and elevated by servo-motors, i.e. signal from fire-director would affect gun without hand input or was it that there were gunners who watched somekind of indicator and their job was to keep needle of gun actual position on needle of required position. I would vote for the latter: 1. it was done bofore radar too, i.e. way before radars, there were fire directors, just that all the data input (range, alt,speed etc.) was optical, 2. you would need large and powerful electric motors to operate guns, you would also have to modify guns. So I guess it was nothing but usual fire director but with radar data input, and corrections on the guns were done manually according to data shown to gunners by indicator.

Xiolablu3
12-03-2005, 11:43 AM
Yes, flak which was not aimed by men. It may have been loaded by them, I dont know.


The radar and searchlights were totally automatic, they were electronically linked. I got the impression that the guns were too. I was answering the OPs question and confirming that there was 'automatic flak' in the way I described it.


I was pointing you to the other post to try and help you understand what I meant, noone else seems to want to pick holes in what I said. Tomyak said the same thing as I meant, but he explained it better.

Is that OK? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Kocur_
12-03-2005, 01:13 PM
I can assure you all guns larger than 3,7 Flak and 40mm Bofors (manufactured in Norway) were loaded manually. Even prototypes of 15cm auto-loaded guns had to have cartridges put on the feed line after first were shot.


The radar and searchlights were totally automatic, they were electronically linked. I got the impression that the guns were too. I was answering the OPs question and confirming that there was 'automatic flak' in the way I described it.

Well Im not as confident as you are about radars and searchlights being "totally automatic". Those were early days of electronics, and everything had to intepreted by humans.
Wuerzburg and Wuerzburg D artillery radars (latter of 25m range accuracy) had several CRTs giving reads in all dimentions - not even range and azimouth were on one. So range, azimouth and alt were processed not in two, but three paths. Later, until 3D radars came appeared, all surface radar systems had azimouth/range-finder and separate alt-finder.
But thats just guessing - if you will find some source I will be corrected.

danjama
12-03-2005, 02:11 PM
"I may been mistaken, I read this book many years ago.
Didnt Closterman wrote about the kill of Nowotny at wrong date and time.

He wrote about some german ace "Graffman" or something refearing to Herman Graf? flying a Yellow polished FW.
I tried to check the details of his book and found lots of details that couldn be checked because they wherent found in Google.
"

I do believe the version of his book that i have corrects/edits this in the back sections, along with other incorrect information he may have written about.

fighter_966
12-04-2005, 12:45 PM
First i got to ask apology from danjama because of that quote thing.. And then to that question.Automatic flak by Secret weapons of third reich: caliber of the gun was 55mm
and the project consist radar ,predictor and
some other gadgets.. it was used just before end
of the war ..from early 1944 to end of war.Rus-
sians copied the system but their caliber was 57mm..

fighter_966
12-04-2005, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
First i got to ask apology from danjama because of that quote thing.. And then to that question.Automatic flak by Secret weapons of third reich: caliber of the gun was 55mm
and the project consist radar ,predictor and
some other gadgets.. it was used just before end
of the war ..from early 1944 to end of war.Rus-
sians copied the system but their caliber was 57mm..
btw Iam Finn

Kocur_
12-04-2005, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
First i got to ask apology from danjama because of that quote thing.. And then to that question.Automatic flak by Secret weapons of third reich: caliber of the gun was 55mm
and the project consist radar ,predictor and
some other gadgets.. it was used just before end
of the war ..from early 1944 to end of war.Rus-
sians copied the system but their caliber was 57mm..

55mm Flak58 with electrohydraulic drive of azimouth and elevation with input directly from fire director with radar in set. Still however tha cannon had armour shield, so I guess was not so unmanned http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. But nothing more than pre-production examples were produced.
The soviet cannon, 57mm S-60 is not "copied" Flak-58, as S-60 is enlarged Bofors cannon, i.e. recoil operated, while Flak-58 was gas operated. And S-60 even with PUAZO radar fire director is cranked maually.

fighter_966
12-04-2005, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fighter_966:
First i got to ask apology from danjama because of that quote thing.. And then to that question.Automatic flak by Secret weapons of third reich: caliber of the gun was 55mm
and the project consist radar ,predictor and
some other gadgets.. it was used just before end
of the war ..from early 1944 to end of war.Rus-
sians copied the system but their caliber was 57mm..

55mm Flak58 with electrohydraulic drive of azimouth and elevation with input directly from fire director with radar in set. Still however tha cannon had armour shield, so I guess was not so unmanned http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. But nothing more than pre-production examples were produced.
The soviet cannon, 57mm S-60 is not "copied" Flak-58, as S-60 is enlarged Bofors cannon, i.e. recoil operated, while Flak-58 was gas operated. And S-60 even with PUAZO radar fire director is cranked maually. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
My author says that russians looked closely
that thing he doesnt use term flak-58 but..
you maybe right when I checked the picture
about the automatic issue maybe it was manned but well our army has S-60 and its not bofors!!
Been in Finnish army and shot the dam thing

danjama
12-04-2005, 02:35 PM
Ok i accept your apology mate, it's no big deal i just dont want people to be mislead on my views.

Kocur_
12-04-2005, 03:58 PM
My author says that russians looked closely
that thing he doesnt use term flak-58 but..
you maybe right when I checked the picture
about the automatic issue maybe it was manned but well our army has S-60 and its not bofors!!
Been in Finnish army and shot the dam thing

Well AFAIK S-60, not being Bofors, is internally pretty much similar to 40mm Bofors, with pretty much larger and heavier everything inside of course.

You fired it! So I will ask you - how the heck are those cartridges taken out of clip! I mean you put the clip in that feed frame above the gun, and what then? Are cartridges pushed down by gravity only, as there is no spring above them?

fighter_966
12-04-2005, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">My author says that russians looked closely
that thing he doesnt use term flak-58 but..
you maybe right when I checked the picture
about the automatic issue maybe it was manned but well our army has S-60 and its not bofors!!
Been in Finnish army and shot the dam thing

Well AFAIK S-60, not being Bofors, is internally pretty much similar to 40mm Bofors, with pretty much larger and heavier everything inside of course.

You fired it! So I will ask you - how the heck are those cartridges taken out of clip! I mean you put the clip in that feed frame above the gun, and what then? Are cartridges pushed down by gravity only, as there is no spring above them? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The loc mechanism handles cartridges to the feeding .We just tested the gun because that
was in our training program , we also tested
believe or not PaK 75mm and Russian version
of Vickers machine gun ...You want to know where I served 1980-82? Greenbarets at Upinniemi
And I also got a chance to shoot bofors 40mm..
That period was called shooting camp it lasted three days..

fighter_966
12-04-2005, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">My author says that russians looked closely
that thing he doesnt use term flak-58 but..
you maybe right when I checked the picture
about the automatic issue maybe it was manned but well our army has S-60 and its not bofors!!
Been in Finnish army and shot the dam thing

Well AFAIK S-60, not being Bofors, is internally pretty much similar to 40mm Bofors, with pretty much larger and heavier everything inside of course.

You fired it! So I will ask you - how the heck are those cartridges taken out of clip! I mean you put the clip in that feed frame above the gun, and what then? Are cartridges pushed down by gravity only, as there is no spring above them? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The loc mechanism handles cartridges to the feeding .We just tested the gun because that
was in our training program , we also tested
believe or not PaK 75mm and Russian version
of Vickers machine gun ...You want to know where I served 1980-82? Greenbarets at Upinniemi
And I also got a chance to shoot bofors 40mm..
That period was called shooting camp it lasted three days.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> and oh as I recall feeder uses rails to guide ammo...