1944: Flak Alone Blasts the Allies out of the Sky

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Post Reply
User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: 1944: Flak Alone Blasts the Allies out of the Sky

#136

Post by T. A. Gardner » 20 Oct 2015, 00:58

A working SAM is what Germany really needed. That would have required not just a working missile but a working fire control and guidance system. I've suggested elsewhere something like the US RIM 8 Talos only much larger. For mid 1940's you need a big missile for two reasons: First to make up for inaccuracy. Second, to potentially take down more than one plane in a bomber box.
If they were going for a single missile single downing, it is possible they could get a missile operational. A low supersonic beam rider using interferometer. That is you have four spaced antenna that measure the return beam signal off the target. When all four inputs are equal the missile is on target. If unequal, it moves towards the strongest input signal(s). It's a simple wheatstone bridge circuit.
The missile could be liquid fueled or solid propellant. All the firing battery has to do is keep the target painted with the beam. Even without millimeter wave (magnetron) radars, the Germans could produce a very tight beam for a missile to ride.
Command detonation in addition to an impact fuse or a proximity fuse working off the return signal strength could be used.

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: 30 Apr 2003, 06:16
Location: Canada

Re: 1944: Flak Alone Blasts the Allies out of the Sky

#137

Post by Paul Lakowski » 20 Oct 2015, 08:34

OK change to win or even make difference would have to happen early not late. Historically 30- 40,000 major rockets [V-1- V-2 & ASM] were built through the end of the war ; of which about 1/2 were guided, however these were spread over 3 dozen secret programs. Thus only 1/3 of these rockets & 1/6th of the guided missiles were actually utilized in war. Most missiles/rockets were wasted on secrete development programs that would never see light of day.

Given a mission vs requirement for 15-20,000 guided missiles SAMS look like a waste. With maybe a hit chance of a few % , they may shoot down 500-1000 bombers ....going on the previous post that's maybe 20% increase in bomber losses. You could achieve the same results by changing all 88 production to flak 41.

Now if that same guided missile hit chance was combined with a large ASM with say an air launched mini V-1 , that could result in 500-1000 more Merchant ships destroyed @ ~ 5000t each -representing an additional loss of 2.5-5 million tons. That could push the allied axis by 6 months delaying D Day until early 1945.


Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: 30 Apr 2003, 06:16
Location: Canada

Re: 1944: Flak Alone Blasts the Allies out of the Sky

#138

Post by Paul Lakowski » 21 Oct 2015, 20:56

Question .

Above it is mentioned that the 1944 LW shot down 3500 US bombers from flak and another 600 from fighters [RAF lost 70-90?] . Clearly this was not enough to halt any bombing campaign. Was there ever any notion of what it would take to halt the bombing campaigns in terms of bombers lost per year?

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: 1944: Flak Alone Blasts the Allies out of the Sky

#139

Post by stg 44 » 21 Oct 2015, 21:02

Paul Lakowski wrote:Question .

Above it is mentioned that the 1944 LW shot down 3500 US bombers from flak and another 600 from fighters [RAF lost 70-90?] . Clearly this was not enough to halt any bombing campaign. Was there ever any notion of what it would take to halt the bombing campaigns in terms of bombers lost per year?
I think anything over 5% loss rate of total sortees was considered unsustainable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic ... E2.80.9345
297,663 night sortees 5% loss rate= 14,883 which is half of the OTL RAF losses at night.
Not sure what USAAF sortee stats were.

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: 30 Apr 2003, 06:16
Location: Canada

Re: 1944: Flak Alone Blasts the Allies out of the Sky

#140

Post by Paul Lakowski » 22 Oct 2015, 05:13

Acording to oxford dic of WW-II 15TH USAFF sent 114,000 sortie in 1944 and lost ~ 2000 bombers or less than 2%. I recall the figure of 3%, suggesting the 15th air force would have been stopped with 4000 losses in that year. So to counter the ~ 300,000 sorties mentioned above should require > 10,000 bombers shot down.

According to oxford dic of WW-II the 400,000 sortie against Nazi Germany in 1944 lost 6500 or 1.7%. TO stop this onslaught in 1944 should require about 14,000 sortie destroyed.

according to this sit allied losses were massive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_of_the_Reich

losses 22,000 British-Canadian aircraft[2] and 18,000 American aircraft[2]

losses at least 15,430 LW aircraft in combat[Note 2] PLUS Est. 18,000 aircraft through bombing[3]

33,500 LW planes lost to VS 40,000 allied planes lost.

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: 1944: Flak Alone Blasts the Allies out of the Sky

#141

Post by Sheldrake » 22 Oct 2015, 11:04

A| scenario based on some German technological breakthrough ignores the potential for the allies to develop counter measures. The allies had well developed ECM for German radars and quickly developed these for the Hs 293 ASM and Fritz X ASW. I dare say that SAMs would have been jammed.

A proximity fuse would have multiplied the effectiveness of flak, but would this have won the war? Hitler needed his technology to deliver significant strategic advantage. V weapons that forced Britain to surrender. Jet bombers that could sink any cross channel assault. A step improvement in Air defence of the Reich whether through flak or jet fighters would not deliver this strategic pay off.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: 1944: Flak Alone Blasts the Allies out of the Sky

#142

Post by stg 44 » 22 Oct 2015, 14:15

Proximity fuses aren't really helpful for high flying bombers; it works really well for low flying fast aircraft as borne out by US experience in the Pacific:
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-075.htm
What was more successful was improved guidance technologies like gunlaying radar of the centimetric range. It would seem direct hit shells worked best in that situation.
Really a strategic defense that kills an unsustainable number of aircraft for the attacker (BoB for instance) won't necessarily win the war, but it deprives the enemy of the ability to actually fight the war. The air attacks were the only significant means of Wallied attacks on the Axis in Europe and depriving them of that badly effects their ability to fight and creates a political problem for them, especially if the result is the Germans don't experience an economic collapse as a result. More than any wonder weapon the mundane defensive weaponry of strategic air defense was a better way to spend resources to the eventual outcome (though the V-1 was highly successful in diverting Allied resources for low cost).

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: 1944: Flak Alone Blasts the Allies out of the Sky

#143

Post by stg 44 » 22 Oct 2015, 21:44

Courtesy of the artillery forum:
ROLAND1369 wrote:While the gun barrel may be somewhat cheaper the additional steps to make the sabot make the rounds more expensive. An additional problem is that the projectile must utilize fins for stabilization in flight and this increases dispersion at longer ranges, thus decreasing accuracy. As an example during the 70s in germany we made some tests between the 105 MM rifled M 68 gun on the m 60 tank and the 115 mm gun of the T 62 tank. the results were up to 500 meters both had a 95% hit rate. At 1000 meters the rifled gun made 80% while the 115 mm smoothbore dropped to 65%. At 3000 meters the rifled barrel hit 65%, while the smooth bore dropped to 20%. This dispersion factor would tend to degrade the chances of a hit. Thus, I would say that the complication of the sabot rounds does not give enough overall advantage to overcome the disadvantage. A more sucessful approach was taken by the British in their 3.7 inch Mark 7 post-war AA gun. In this application the gun was rifled with a system which became shallower as it approached the muzzel and became smooth fro the last 6 inches of the barrel. This smoothed out the rifling marks obturation ring of the shell and smoothed the airflow. As this was done on a 4.5 inch aa gun the cartrige case contained more powder than the normal 3.7 inch and thus achieved a higher vertical range and velocity with less dispersion at altitude due to spin stabilization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF_4.5-in ... nd_service
Colonel Probert of the Armaments Research Department developed rifling with tapered groove depth, and with the last few inches of the barrel being smoothbore. This was used with a 4.5 barrel lined down to 3.7 inches, but retaining the large chamber, allowing a large propelling charge to be employed. Ordnance, QF 3.7 inch Mk 6, only on a static mounting, entered service in 1943 and continued in service until 1959. It had an effective ceiling of 45,000 feet.[13][14]
From Ian Hogg:
Using a special driving band that was squeezed down a taper bore principle was developed without having the entire shell tapered, which was different than the German taper bore guns. The smooth section essentially flattened out the driving bands so that there was no wind resistance caused by protrusions.

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: 30 Apr 2003, 06:16
Location: Canada

Re: 1944: Flak Alone Blasts the Allies out of the Sky

#144

Post by Paul Lakowski » 23 Oct 2015, 03:46

cant see SAM solving the high altitude bomber, but give a short range wire guided AAM to any descent 'two seater' fighter and the kill rate should sky rocket.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: 1944: Flak Alone Blasts the Allies out of the Sky

#145

Post by T. A. Gardner » 23 Oct 2015, 08:41

Paul Lakowski wrote:cant see SAM solving the high altitude bomber, but give a short range wire guided AAM to any descent 'two seater' fighter and the kill rate should sky rocket.
I've suggested this elsewhere: The Luftwaffe adopts an AAM based on the V-1. It is a high speed, unguided missile that is jet or rocket propelled fired from a twin engine aircraft at a range of several miles from a bomber box. The plane has a rudimentary fire control that allows accurate aiming such that the missile will arrive in the box.

It is command detonated by a highly directional receiver that can be programmed with a range of signal codes making jamming virtually impossible.

There are two types: The first is a 500 to 1000 Kg fragmentation / blast warhead designed to spray the box with fragments and take planes down by blast, not to mention break the box up. The second is fired at the top of the box and carries a 500 to 1000 Kg load of 1 to 2 Kg fragmentation sub munitions that are sprayed over the box using a combination of time and impact fuzes.
Several are fired on a particular formation over a short period. To give the twins time to get into position and fire, single seat fighters go in ahead and engage the escorts to keep them away from the twins. The twin engine launch planes might also have radar on them to allow aiming on the formation.

For night fighting against the RAF the fragmentation variant is detonated above the bomber stream and has a much wider dispersion pattern at the cost of fewer sub munitions. This gives a better chance of hitting more dispersed targets. Also, these missiles would include a large number of parachute flares that could illuminate the bombers for several minutes at a minimum. That would give night fighters time (particularly Wilde Sau ones) to engage the enemy.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: 1944: Flak Alone Blasts the Allies out of the Sky

#146

Post by stg 44 » 23 Oct 2015, 14:26

T. A. Gardner wrote:
Paul Lakowski wrote:cant see SAM solving the high altitude bomber, but give a short range wire guided AAM to any descent 'two seater' fighter and the kill rate should sky rocket.
I've suggested this elsewhere: The Luftwaffe adopts an AAM based on the V-1.
Won't work. V-1 was not designed or able to function on the vertical plane. This was as close as you'd get to the V-1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_117

The V-2 based missile instead of the V-2 would have been doable:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasserfall

User avatar
SpicyJuan
Member
Posts: 258
Joined: 14 Mar 2015, 03:08
Location: Luxemburg

Re: 1944: Flak Alone Blasts the Allies out of the Sky

#147

Post by SpicyJuan » 23 Oct 2015, 23:26

stg 44 wrote:Proximity fuses aren't really helpful for high flying bombers; it works really well for low flying fast aircraft as borne out by US experience in the Pacific:
Well over at ww2aircraft.net, it seems to be the opinion that proximity fuses is precisely what the missiles needed.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: 1944: Flak Alone Blasts the Allies out of the Sky

#148

Post by stg 44 » 24 Oct 2015, 00:02

SpicyJuan wrote:
stg 44 wrote:Proximity fuses aren't really helpful for high flying bombers; it works really well for low flying fast aircraft as borne out by US experience in the Pacific:
Well over at ww2aircraft.net, it seems to be the opinion that proximity fuses is precisely what the missiles needed.
They're allowed to think what they want, but USN experience in the Pacific indicates that the fuse only helped against non-Kamikazees by something like 30%.

User avatar
SpicyJuan
Member
Posts: 258
Joined: 14 Mar 2015, 03:08
Location: Luxemburg

Re: 1944: Flak Alone Blasts the Allies out of the Sky

#149

Post by SpicyJuan » 24 Oct 2015, 00:35

stg 44 wrote:
SpicyJuan wrote:
stg 44 wrote:Proximity fuses aren't really helpful for high flying bombers; it works really well for low flying fast aircraft as borne out by US experience in the Pacific:
Well over at ww2aircraft.net, it seems to be the opinion that proximity fuses is precisely what the missiles needed.
They're allowed to think what they want, but USN experience in the Pacific indicates that the fuse only helped against non-Kamikazes by something like 30%.
The link you provided only demonstrates the effectiveness of proximity fuses against (seemingly) low altitude aircraft compared to regular rounds. No mention of how effective it was at the altitudes the German FlaK's operated at is mentioned (no wonder, since by that time Japan was pretty much out of multi-engined bombers). Also keep in mind that firing at several small, low flying individual fighters/light bombers is completely different that shooting at hundreds (sometimes even thousands) of massive, slow bombers that are very close together.
Last edited by SpicyJuan on 24 Oct 2015, 00:41, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: 1944: Flak Alone Blasts the Allies out of the Sky

#150

Post by stg 44 » 24 Oct 2015, 00:41

AFAIK the non-Kamikazee aircraft were not low altitude attacks.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”