MilAvHistory

Sneakpeak: German Flak - Deadly or overrated?

Added 2019-06-12 11:00:21 +0000 UTC

Hey all,

In one of the upcoming video I will be looking at German Air Defenses and their effectiveness versus incoming bomber streams. I always felt like this is an element worth analyzing, since Air Defense is more than just the often discussed fighter interceptors.

With the German Flak, I've got the advantage of being able to look at the German primary sources material, as well as the American and British sources. I will focus mainly on the USAAF, since night defense is a topic of its own. Some of the material I found is very interesting. The Americans, as they tend to do, analyzed bomber losses to Flak to excruciating detail - the sources I found alone are heaped with different loss calculations, analysis of bomber damage, crew injuries, shrapnel and explosive radius, difference of damage when exposed to fighters or Flak and more.

One quote I'd like to share here is on the development of protective equipment for bomber crews:

Subsequent to this, in early October 1942, an analysis of wounds incurred by U.S. Eighth Air Force combat personnel revealed that approximately 70 percent were due to relatively low velocity missiles. In one survey involving 303 casualties and conducted before the adoption of body armor, it was found that flak fragments were responsible for 38 percent of the wounds; 20 mm. cannon shell fragments, 39 percent; machine-gun bullets, 15 percent; and secondary missiles, 8 percent. A later survey of 1,293 casualties revealed a similar breakdown of missiles. In addition, it seemed that protection provided to the regions of the chest and abdomen would bring about the highest rate of return in reducing both fatalities (mortality) and total numbers of hits (morbidity).