Early Access: Fighters vs Flak - What Killed More Bombers?
Fighters and Flak (Anti-Aircraft Artillery) were both used by Germany to shoot down Allied Bombers like the B-17, B-24 and Lancaster. However, which one was more successful? The answer is not that straightforward, so let's have a detailed look.
Thank you so much for the support! This video is the first of many that includes a quickfire Q&A session at the end of the video. You recently submitted questions here, feel free to add new ones in the original post - and if I haven't answered your message on screen, I have as a written reply and saved it for future videos!
What Killed The Most US Bombers in WW2? German Fighters vs Flak (YouTube)
Comments (6)
Did the British have significant AA battery deployment during the battle of Britain, and if so: can one learn anything about this issue by examining the effectiveness of those guns vs fighters (from the RAF) in that conflict?
very interesting & good to see data /facts based argument rather than just opinion - Excellent & Thankyou !
My opinion of flak is it was part of a layered defense. Possibly the work flow and industry was set up to produce gun barrels, etc. From the other side, you always hear / read flak was something aircrews did not want to fly into. Sure, the ground gunners could score a direct hit. But say there is a curtain of this exploded steel 300 yards to the front and several feet / meters high. The bomber fly's through this stuff damaging prop's, engines, enters the skin of aircraft, etc. I'd imagine the air crews could actually hear this stuff hitting the fuselage. Scary situations and brave men.
Always interesting to see what can be learned from a review of the historical data... as well as learning that there are holes in the data and we'll never be certain of some things. The discussion of flak reminds me of a bomber jacket at the USAF museum in Dayton. It has the usual pin-up gal, with the text "Mrs Aldaflak", or "misses all the flak". Nice that they were able to maintain a sense of humor. :) Here's a link: https://live.staticflickr.com/7267/13340903334_989c882e3d_b_d.jpg
I would have thought that the Flak would have been the most deadly, particularly in high concentration, such as the Ruhr Valley (nicknamed Happy Valley by RAF aircrew) before watching this video, so it was a surprise that it was more nuanced than that, in that Flak was more likely to kill/injure crew and cause damage, than outright destroy the bomber. Having said that, I had a family member that served in Bomber Command and his plane was hit by Flak and shot down (he and his crew bailed out and were interned in Switzerland). Out of curiosity, if a bomber was hit by Flak and then finished by a fighter, was it claimed by the gunners or the pilot - or both?
Thnx m8!