WWII Flak Suppression
Jonathan Perkins
The recent series of postings about the likelihood of bomber
air gunners shooting at searchlights prompts me to ask whether the
Allied air forces ever put in a concerted effort at flak suppression
around major targets. From all memoirs that I've read, it appears
that there were quite a number of well-known flak sites along key
target routes, or around key cities/industrial targets. Presumably
some of these sites were partly hardened (i.e., such as the heavy flak
towers in some key cities), and others sites were composed of mobile
guns, but for those which weren't, was there any attempt to hit the
key flak sites themselves with concentrated raids? If not, what
was the issue (practical/doctrinal) that prevented this from happening?
Granted, going toe to toe with flak sites is not going to be fun, but
if the threat they posed was sufficiently high, I had thought that
there would have been attempts (even if unsuccessful) at dealing with
them directly.
Deas gu cath...
--
----------
Jon Perkins--Ottawa, Canada
jper...@ccs.carleton.ca "fortiter in re, suaviter in modo"
john....@postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Jonathan Perkins wrote:
>
> The recent series of postings about the likelihood of bomber
> air gunners shooting at searchlights prompts me to ask whether the
> Allied air forces ever put in a concerted effort at flak suppression
> around major targets.
Robert Johnsons book "Thundebolt" discribes missions like that
going after flak towers ETC:
I remember seeing towers leftover from the war when I lived in
Germany in the 1954-1955, many showed a large amount of damage
up near the gun platforms.
Also remember seeing a very large railyard full of wrecked steam
locomotives, waiting for scrapping.
Brian Morgan
In article <671s8e$l...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
> Robert Johnsons book "Thundebolt" discribes missions like that
>going after flak towers ETC:
>
>I remember seeing towers leftover from the war when I lived in
>Germany in the 1954-1955, many showed a large amount of damage
>up near the gun platforms.
>
after seeing a fuzzy picture of one of these towers in
another book about a thunderbolt pilot i'm kind of curious
about them. first, h ow tall were they? and were they just scattered
about the countryside or only built near important installations?
in the picture, the tower seemed to have a roof and a few struts
to hold it up, though, again, it was so blurry it was hard
to tell. a roof seems illogical as the gunners would only be
able to fire to the sides. but the photo (from gun camera
footage) was shot straight from the side, suggesting that
was the only unprotected angle.
as far as flak supression goes, i believe the thunderbolt
pilot said something about "mostly leaving those things alone."
- b
ch1...@earthlink.net
Hey Brian,
I can't comment with authority about the locales though if I recall,
Johnson's book _Thunderbolt_ shows a razorback going nose-nose (consider
that he had a wingie /taking/ those shots too!) with such a tower and it
is indeed an impressive monolith of relative size.
Considering this and the limited shot-grazing angles I don't think you'd
find them anywhere but at Main Ops Bases late in the war when the
fighter scourge was really starting to be more of a hassle in pattern
and 'ramp' kills than A/A losses (though of course by then we were
whooping up here too...;).
At any rate, I think Johnson said that, bad as it was, /somebody/ had to
assume the Iron Hand and that this cycled as a sortie-return duty
through the squadron/flights while the other guys worked over the
fields.
Yet I've also heard other accounts which say it was a 'one pass haul
ass' philosophy and /any/ secondary attacks were verbotten (A crazy Pole
'dragged' an FW-190 deliberately over a field, shooting it up and
letting the poor German eat his desserts as it were...) because surprise
was the only saving grace.
Probably a function of war-stage timing again.
dave pierson
Not expert on these but:
> after seeing a fuzzy picture of one of these towers in
> another book about a thunderbolt pilot i'm kind of curious
> about them. first, how tall were they?
10s to 100 or so feet. High enough for a clear field of fire.
> and were they just scattered about the countryside or only built near
>important installations?
high value targets, including cities.
> in the picture, the tower seemed to have a roof and a few struts
> to hold it up, though, again, it was so blurry it was hard
> to tell. a roof seems illogical as the gunners would only be
> able to fire to the sides.
All a/c approach from the side. By the time they are above you, its
too late....
thanks
dave pierson |the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation |the opinions, my own.
334 South St |
Shrewbury, Mass USA pie...@gone.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing." A J Raffles
Maury Markowitz
In article <67bma7$bam$1...@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>, pie...@gone.enet.dec.com
(dave pierson) wrote:
> > after seeing a fuzzy picture of one of these towers in
> > another book about a thunderbolt pilot i'm kind of curious
> > about them. first, how tall were they?
> 10s to 100 or so feet. High enough for a clear field of fire.
There were some "basic" plans for these, which consisted of a tower
about 50 feet on a side, about 80 feet tall. They had a "balcony" just
down from the top of the tower that ran around the outside with four
circular "plates" in the walkway, one at each corner. These carried 20mm
guns (I've heard 40mm too) and the roof carried 1 or 2 88's.
There are a large number of these in Vienna, and when you travel to
these older cities, you'll see why. Basically all of these European
cities are built about 4 or 5 stories high, with the buildings touching,
for lengths of several miles. The only open space with a field of fire
more than about 35 degrees off of vertical is outside the city or in the
large parks. Vienna also has a much larger circular tower in the main
police station, but they wouldn't let me in to see it.
> > and were they just scattered about the countryside or only built near
> >important installations? high value targets, including cities.
They were build in the cities simply because there was nowhere else to
put the guns otherwise.
> > in the picture, the tower seemed to have a roof and a few struts
> > to hold it up, though, again, it was so blurry it was hard
> > to tell. a roof seems illogical as the gunners would only be
> > able to fire to the sides.
I wonder if this was something the gunners rigged up for protection from
the rain? All the towers I've seen did not have such a rig.
Maury
DaveHAL2K
I saw a program on the Discovery Channel which mentioned the flak towers in
Berlin. Besides providing a platform for the guns, they also had bomb shelters
built in to protect the citizens of Berlin.
dave pierson
In article <67bma7$bam$1...@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>, pie...@gone.enet.dec.com (dave pierson) writes...
>Not expert on these but:
>> after seeing a fuzzy picture of one of these towers in
>> another book about a thunderbolt pilot i'm kind of curious
>> about them. first, how tall were they?
> 10s to 100 or so feet. High enough for a clear field of fire.
Dug into a couple of books. From memory & combining:
Located in city centers & near high value targets, 10-12 stories
high, to clear surrounding buildings... not built to standard
plans until 1944ish, so many variations... Originallly
built by Lufwaffe, so tended to be designed to defend against
dive/low level bombimg, since thats how LW atttacked...
Some had heavy guns on 'top' some had roof with radar...
... 'all' had lower galleries with smaller (20mm/40 mm) for
low level defense....
James Wilkins
In article <Pine.OSF.3.96L.97121...@christa.unh.edu>,
Dan Ford <d...@christa.unh.edu> wrote:
> Britain had them too, set up in river mouths mostly, although somebody
> once posted here mention of offshore flak "islands."
> Ben Schapiro sent me an article on the two varieties that were built to
> protect coastal cities, including London. True to type, the Royal Navy
> towers had their living quarters beneath the surface, while the army
> artillery stayed high and dry.
> - Dan (http://www.concentric.net/~danford)
Normally the Army lives half submerged on land while the Navy has dry
indoor quarters at sea.
The artillery guys must have remembered WW1.
James Wilkins
je...@mitre.org
scha...@notis.nospam*.com
In Article Re: WWII Flak Suppression (flak towers) , Dan Ford <d...@christa.unh.edu> wrote:
>
> Britain had them too, set up in river mouths mostly, although somebody
> once posted here mention of offshore flak "islands."
>
> Ben Schapiro sent me an article on the two varieties that were built to
> protect coastal cities, including London. True to type, the Royal Navy
> towers had their living quarters beneath the surface, while the army
> artillery stayed high and dry.
>
> - Dan (http://www.concentric.net/~danford)
>
> Brewster Buffalo / Flying Tigers / Germany at War / Japan at War
>
The best source I've seen for the Thames River AA forts is:
There is a good description, photos and a drawing in ARCHITECTURE OF WAR:
Author, etc.: Mallory, Keith.
Title: The architecture of war <by> Keith Mallory and Arvid Ottar.
Edition: <1st American ed.>
Published: New York, Pantheon Books <1973>
Description: 307 p. illus. 21 x 26 cm.
Notes: "Originally published in Great Britain as Architecture of
aggression."
Includes bibliographical references.
Library of Congress subject headings:
Military architecture--History.
Fortification--Europe--History.
The Army and the RN both had in the Thames, both designed by the RN but very different. The Thames Estuary was wide enough to allow large numbers of aircraft to fly up it out of range of shore based AA.
The RN used two cirular towers, like upended sub pressure hulls, on a barge like foundation that could be flooded or floated as needed. The two towers were topped with a two or three story structure with 3.5 or 5 inch AA and maybe a 40mm or two plus radar. The Crew, stores, magazine and generators all resided at or below water level in the towers. The RN design was used were the bottom was stable.
The Army design was completely different being designed for areas with a shifting bottom. The Army type was a laid out like a land based AA battery. Central Platform of steel pilings with radar, offices, mess and quarters and four o five radiating arms to other platforms with magazines and gun deck (one 3' gun per platform. The whole structure was connected by walkways and was some 40 or so feet up. I believe they were on the bit of real estate called Salton Sands, the gigantic shallow bar that streaches across the Thames. These became Pirate Radio Stations in the 60s and 70s and at least one SECRET AGENT episode was filmed on one. I believe two of the Army type forts were also installed off Bristol. Built on shore and floated to a site these structures pointed the way to todays off shore oil rigs.
Ben Schapiro