4 ms·

> I beg to differ. It was radar-guided anti-aircraft guns The 8.8cm german flak gun WAS a radar-guided AA gun. > and proximity fuzes for artillery shells The

> I beg to differ. It was radar-guided anti-aircraft guns The 8.8cm german flak gun WAS a radar-guided AA gun. > and proximity fuzes for artillery shells The axis may not have had proximity fuzes, but the 8.8cm flak was so accurate that during a statistical analysis it was determined that the part of the gun that introduced the most accuracy were the timed fuzes. They switched to shells that detonated on impact and actually ended up scoring more kills than before. The actual piece of equipment that made this thing so accurate was the fire control computer, the Kommandogerat 40. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1UnrEetRYIuLoUT--ic0irCNXbCC7UcWf?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1UnrEetRYIuLoUT--ic0i... Here is a Google Drive link to some scans I made in college of the book written by the designer. It explains all the calculations that the analog computer is doing.

WalterBright 4y ago
Thanks for the reference! It seems that not that many were built: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%BCrzburg_radar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%BCrzburg_radar
- softcactus 4y ago
  Sorry I worded my previous response poorly. > The 8.8cm german flak gun WAS a radar-guided AA gun. The Kommandogerat 40 was a rangefinder/computer, not a radar. It had the capability of being radar-guided, but was not necessarily radar-guided by itself. For the Kommandogerat 40 you needed a direct line-of-sight (they were still used in overcast conditions though) but it would compensate for the velocity vector of the incoming targets, altitude, wind, and would relay fire controls to all the flak pieces in the battery. Not as nice as a radar, but it was able to be fielded in mass quantities, and I think it deserves its place as 2nd most devastating weapon of WWII. Especially since towards the end of the war, the Germans were the ones playing defense. It made the strategic bombing campaigns of the allies very painful. The RAF bomber crews had a 44% death rate. That's deaths, not casualties. It also excelled in direct fire roles against ground targets.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    I read that it took 16,000 88 flak shells to bring down one bomber. I infer the success of the flak was due simply to quantity. I've also read numerous times that the searchlights would find and "pin" a bomber so that the crews could dial in the coordinates for firing. Wouldn't need that with radar guided guns. I well know the death rate for B-17 crews - my father flew 32 missions in 1944 in one. The casualty rate was 80% (killed, wounded, POW). He told me that the way he dealt with it was simply accept that since he was going to die, he'd do the best job he could. I have the letter he wrote his father, dryly saying he'd completed his missions and would be coming home. The Bismarck was well equipped with anti-aircraft batteries, which failed to stop the torpedo attack by slow-moving, obsolete biplanes. The Japanese navy didn't have much success with anti-aircraft batteries, either. Regardless, the 88 was an excellent cannon.
    - softcactus 4y ago
      > I read that it took 16,000 88 flak shells to bring down one bomber. I infer the success of the flak was due simply to quantity. I am not trying to be pedantic, just wondering out loud. 16,000 shells per bomber sounds like a lot, but I am sure you are familiar with the statistic that 250,000 small-arms rounds were fired for every insurgent killed in Afghanistan, and 25,000 rounds fired per kill in WWII. I can't find an actual hard source on the ratio of bullets per kill though. Bombers obviously cant hide behind cover, but I wonder if that 16,000 number isn't as unreasonable as it seems. > I well know the death rate for B-17 crews - my father flew 32 missions in 1944 in one. He sounds like an amazing man. I get queasy in light turbulence. I can't imagine the stress and horror of even a single bombing run. That's more than anyone should ever have to go through.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        He said many of the men cracked under the strain. Some would deal with it by drinking themselves to oblivion. > He sounds like an amazing man. He was, but I'm rather biased :-) He told me once he wouldn't trade that experience for anything, and wouldn't do it again for anything. He also said that when he felt down, he'd think of the men he knew who didn't get the chance to live, and would fix his attitude.

WalterBright 4y ago

Thanks for the reference! It seems that not that many were built: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%BCrzburg_radar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%BCrzburg_radar

softcactus 4y ago
Sorry I worded my previous response poorly. > The 8.8cm german flak gun WAS a radar-guided AA gun. The Kommandogerat 40 was a rangefinder/computer, not a radar. It had the capability of being radar-guided, but was not necessarily radar-guided by itself. For the Kommandogerat 40 you needed a direct line-of-sight (they were still used in overcast conditions though) but it would compensate for the velocity vector of the incoming targets, altitude, wind, and would relay fire controls to all the flak pieces in the battery. Not as nice as a radar, but it was able to be fielded in mass quantities, and I think it deserves its place as 2nd most devastating weapon of WWII. Especially since towards the end of the war, the Germans were the ones playing defense. It made the strategic bombing campaigns of the allies very painful. The RAF bomber crews had a 44% death rate. That's deaths, not casualties. It also excelled in direct fire roles against ground targets.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  I read that it took 16,000 88 flak shells to bring down one bomber. I infer the success of the flak was due simply to quantity. I've also read numerous times that the searchlights would find and "pin" a bomber so that the crews could dial in the coordinates for firing. Wouldn't need that with radar guided guns. I well know the death rate for B-17 crews - my father flew 32 missions in 1944 in one. The casualty rate was 80% (killed, wounded, POW). He told me that the way he dealt with it was simply accept that since he was going to die, he'd do the best job he could. I have the letter he wrote his father, dryly saying he'd completed his missions and would be coming home. The Bismarck was well equipped with anti-aircraft batteries, which failed to stop the torpedo attack by slow-moving, obsolete biplanes. The Japanese navy didn't have much success with anti-aircraft batteries, either. Regardless, the 88 was an excellent cannon.
  - softcactus 4y ago
    > I read that it took 16,000 88 flak shells to bring down one bomber. I infer the success of the flak was due simply to quantity. I am not trying to be pedantic, just wondering out loud. 16,000 shells per bomber sounds like a lot, but I am sure you are familiar with the statistic that 250,000 small-arms rounds were fired for every insurgent killed in Afghanistan, and 25,000 rounds fired per kill in WWII. I can't find an actual hard source on the ratio of bullets per kill though. Bombers obviously cant hide behind cover, but I wonder if that 16,000 number isn't as unreasonable as it seems. > I well know the death rate for B-17 crews - my father flew 32 missions in 1944 in one. He sounds like an amazing man. I get queasy in light turbulence. I can't imagine the stress and horror of even a single bombing run. That's more than anyone should ever have to go through.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      He said many of the men cracked under the strain. Some would deal with it by drinking themselves to oblivion. > He sounds like an amazing man. He was, but I'm rather biased :-) He told me once he wouldn't trade that experience for anything, and wouldn't do it again for anything. He also said that when he felt down, he'd think of the men he knew who didn't get the chance to live, and would fix his attitude.