"Wirblewind, Ostwind, Flakpanzer...were they effective?" Topic

This vehicles were used as mobile flak guns but i was wondering if they made an impact on the battlefield or if they were innefective in their role.

Insomuch as flak is ever effective, then yes – they put fighter bomber pilots off their aim and provided a morale boost for the ground troops around them. They even shot the odd plane down.

The main thing is they provided a flak platform with similar mobility charactersistics to the vehicles they were supporting.

In Meyers book "Grenadiere" he describes an ancounter between allied ground attack planes and a few Wirbelwind tanks. He was full of praise for them.

In general I would say that the quad 2cm guns were ore effectice vs. low flying bomber due to their higher ROF compared to the single 3,7cm and their larger bullet cone.

Cheers,

Burkhard

They were also hell on ground targets such as soft skinned vehicles and infantry.

Better than nothing. The ground troops feel better about their lot in life, if something nearby is actually able to fight back.

-Kle.

Usually it made the ground attack aircraft look somewhere else for easier pickings. Why go into a place where you might get shot down if you can just go a few miles further and hit something else with no risk?

They were used with effect against ground targets in Warsaw.

massively effective in terms of discouraging FB attacks…Fighter bombers generally didn't press their attacks against flak opposition and would prefer to attack unprotected targets, where they could take their time (and stay alive)

Seems they were effective from the reading I've been doing, a good number of aces were shot down due to flak taking out the engine at low level.

as there were usally no "wild weasel" missions then, i would say they were a deterent to "jabo" attacks. i guess it might be relative to the importance of a given interdiction mission, but i concur with what has been stated here before…. most pilots wanted to go home at the end of the day. i do recall Doug Baders's last mission against a quad 20mm though…. sometimes a pilot can be too aggressive against a nominal ground target. the NVA later took advantage of this tendency above "the (HCM)trail".

They would have clarified nicely where the target was.

" a good number of aces were shot down due to flak "

There is of course a difference between light flak in general, and the particular SP Flak mounts the thread is about.

NWE was awash with static light flak positions guarding key installations, bridges, airfields etc

German light Flak near the front lines was considered very effective. The 37mm Flak were actually preferred to the quad 20mm due to the longer range and larger shell.

Fighter bomber losses went way up when they were used in close support of ground troops in Europe due to the light flak guns, including the SP guns mentioned. Most targets were assigned far enough behind the lines to escape the flak concentrations located there and the USAAF and the RAF both kept their fighter bombers attacking the German supply lines rather then providing direct support to troops.

The main exceptions to this were pre-planned attacks and the fighter bomber support of moving Allied columns. The former were often supported by artillery firing Flak suppression or going in after the heavies had dropped their loads (all over the place, usually). The later avoided the flak concentrations since the planes were supporting ground units behind the main German lines and running into a flak concentration would have been a matter of bad luck.

The main advantage of the SP mounts was they could move with the German armor and quickly be in action. As already mentioned, if there weren't any air targets (Germans Russia 41) Flak was good against ground targets. We used Quad M2HB heavy machineguns, the British 20mm and 40mm, and the Germans 20mm and 37mm against troops, light armor, and soft skins.

TG

I believe the RAF's Roland Tuck was also brought down by this sort of fire. If I had to face those weapons, I'd rather be piloting a P-47 Thunderbolt!

The main advantage of the SP mounts was they could move with the German armor and quickly be in action.

Very much true.

Also, the armour would provide protection against shrapnel and such, though the larger size of the vehicle would probably make it a bigger target and bit more difficult to camouflage than a regular AA-gun.

Also other countries than Germans had self-propelled AA-guns.

Griefbringer

Look at the loss rates of aircraft flying ground support missions, and/or attacking enemy airbases.

Granted, the mobile flak weapons were probably not employed in the defense of these most of the time, but they did use the same weapons. Of course, the density of air defenses at air bases and other strategic targets was higher than would normally be found in the field too, but it does give you an idea of the lethality of those weapons.

Allied aircraft losses on strafing and low-level ground attack missions were very high. Certainly much higher than those engaging in aerial combat against the Luftwaffe.

Besides the total losses of aircraft, lighter damage could still mean that they would not be able to fly soon again due to the time needed to repair the damage.

Griefbringer

OTOH: Is the mobility advantage of the tank-hull mounts over a half-track mount worth the investment of a potential assault-gun hull?

Let me add a comment from the personal vantage point of a former Apache pilot. Finding camouflaged targets on the ground is hard. Once you find something juicy, you want to blow it up. period. I've never heard of ANYONE saying "this is too rough, lets go somewhere else". Once you take damage, however, all bets are off. It's time to go home and fight another day. Another variable is the tactical situation. If you're just on a rhubarb looking for trouble, it's not as important. If you're supporting "our boys in contact", you press home the attacks almost no matter what. A third variable is the perceived importance of the target. A pilot might salvo ordnance when hitting a "suspected truck park" under triple canopy jungle. If he saw a column of Panthers on a road, however, he's going to go after it. Pilots are generally pretty aggressive people…being shot at tends to make you mad.

For your comments it seems that mobile AA defenses were pretty effective against fighter bombers so…

…why was the allied aircraft so feared in NWE campaign that vehicles should move at night? There wasn´t enough AA defences around tank formations? Too many aircraft?

The amount of SP-flak in a panzer division was limited, even though there were some attempts to increase it in the later phases of the war – I don't have the TOE numbers around. And of course as the campaign progressed, these units suffered their fair share of losses.

However, the major issue would probably be the serious air superiority of the western Allies – they had massive amounts of planes, and the Luftwaffe could provide rather limited defence against these.

The air defence of the panzer divisions was most likely not designed to operate on isolation, but on presumption that there would be some air cover to help. The flak units probably could not provide effective coverage over the whole division area of operations, but could be more likely to be concentrated on the points considered most vital.

BTW: one German officer that was present in Normandy wrote that he was quite unhappy with the German tanks not having AAMG mounts (like the US tanks had) for self-defence, even though working designs had existed in Germany, leaving them rather helpless when attacked by aircraft.

Griefbringer

The fear would suggest that they weren't all that effective. And how heavy were 2TAF casualties as a percentage of sorties flown?

Often in documentaries, and perhaps even on YouTube, you see nose-cam footage of attacks on trains, bridges, marshaling yards, vehicles, etc. I don't recall ever seeing such footage from an attack where the plane was taking incoming fire from something like a 20 or 37m flak gun. Has anyone ever come across such footage?

I'm not saying that this means such attacks were never made, but if there is a great deal of footage from attacks on "defenseless" targets, and none from attacks on small flak guns or targets near small flak guns, then this might mean something.

Or is that such rounds wouldn't be seen on this footage?

"…why was the allied aircraft so feared in NWE campaign that vehicles should move at night? There wasn´t enough AA defences around tank formations? Too many aircraft?"

Certainly a combination of factors but some numbers from June-August 44 in NW Europe is illuminating.

On Jun 6th 1944 in the vicinity of Normandy the 21st Panzer Division, 12 SS PD, Panzer Lehr and 17th SS PzGD (17 June for this unit) each had a total of 12 Flakpz 38 for mobile AA defense, this was for the whole division!

2nd Pz, 2 SS Pz, and 1 SS Pz also had 12 Flakpz 38.

In July and August 116 Pz, 9 Pz and 11 Pz each had 8 Flakpz IV (37), the Ostwind.

In September timeframe Panzer Brigades 105, 106, 107, and 108 each had 4 of either the Ostwind or Wirbelwind. 111, 112 and 113, roughly twice the size of the first 4 had 4 of each for a total of 8.

Panzer Lehr in Nov of 44 had 4 of each as well for a total of 8.

As you can see, not many assets to cover a division!

AAA fire is not very effective against fast moving aircraft but it is better than nothing! My next door neighbour was a gunner on DEMs during WW2 and in all the 6 years he served and in all the actions he was in he never heard of a bomber or fighter being shot down by a ship..Even the big battle wagons had problems shooting down attack aircraft over flat open seas..And they had a lot more and a lot more powerful and well directed guns…
I think the reason the NWE campaign was so rough on ground attack aircraft was that for the gunners it was a target rich environment and so a large total of aircraft were shot down…
I wonder if there are any stats for planes shot down per sortie or how many flak shells it would take to shoot down a Jabo???

"485 Spitfire Squadron … crossed to France at the end of August 1944 and by the end of the following February had flown more than 1390 sorties from bases in France, Belgium, and Holland. Dive-bombing and strafing attacks in support of the Canadian Army absorbed much of this effort, but pilots also flew many armed reconnaissances over enemy territory and escorted Mitchell, Boston, Lancaster, and Halifax bombers. For most of this period No. 485 continued to enjoy almost incredibly good fortune in that, from 21 October 1943 until 6 January 1945, not a single casualty was incurred on operations."

Jefferysl:

"Let me add a comment from the personal vantage point of a former Apache pilot. Finding camouflaged targets on the ground is hard. Once you find something juicy, you want to blow it up. period. I've never heard of ANYONE saying "this is too rough, lets go somewhere else".

Talk to my old dad, a Hurricane and typhoon ground attack pilot.. That was PRECISELY his,and he says, his comrades,attitude in NWE.
I think pilot losses in his squadron was 1 pilot in the 3 months prior to the landings, by D+ 10 or so they had lost another 5 pilots, all to ground fire. 5 dead/MIA in a week or so, nearly 50%…didn't take long for the penny to drop.
Subsequently they simply weren't interested in attacking high risk (ie defended) targets. Get over the target, and if there was ANY flak opposition, drop all ordanance and go home…(totally different deal against undefended targets) I have no idea if this was discussed at the time amongst these pilots or whether it was an attitude that developed, but by that stage of the war they simply wished to stay alive.
With all due respect,this may be a difference in attitude between yourself, presumably a volunteer career pilot,flying against opposition which actually has relatively little chance of shooting you down and a man like my Dad,essentially a civilian who decided to fly as an alternative to becoming an infantryman and who had many contempories who were casualties…
Fortunately, I don't have, nor will I ever have, a clue about such motivations in such situations. From a strictly personal perspective (and I think I speak for my sisters here too!) I'm glad the old boy got gun shy

I wonder how many planes were brought down by German decoy vehicles hand winched up and down roads by smiling cheerful Paras.

I've been an avid reader of Pierre Clostermann's "Le Grand Cirque" (sorry, I don't know its title in English, litteral translation would be the Great Circus . He wrote this book shortly after the war, from the memories he'd written down inhis diary. As a Spitfire pilot, he'd been ordered to fly divebombing missions on V-1 Launch pads (codenamed Noballs) and road interdiction in Normandy.Later, when he upgraded to Tempests, he also flew a lot of road and rail interdiction missions, as well as airpoirts straffing runs. His personal bravery can't be called into question, he won the DFC & bar, nor his tactical expertise as he's the only foreigner, to my knowledge, who rose to command of a Wing in the RAF (122nd Fighter in the very last ddays, IIRC ). His attitude, regarding ground attack missiosns, can be summed up in a sentence from his book that struck me : "What's the purpose of risking a highcost aircraft and hard trained pilot for the stupid pleasure of busting an untility vehicle of the Wehrmacht?". From his testomony, Flak was very present over NWE, and very, very efficient, well beyond attack deterrence. I don't have the book handy here, but I remember an attack on a german airfield wher he led 2 flights on a strafing run. Only 2 planes, his included, survived the attack.

At work we have interviews with about a dozen RCAF Tiffie pilots, and a lot with American P-47, P-51, and P-38 drivers. Over 700 Typhoons went down over Normandy, and it was not from being intercepted by German fighters. All the pilots had a LOT of respect for the German light flak, and quite a few were shot down by it.

Its a good point about the German SP light flak, that spending a tank chassis to motorize a light flak mount is probably a bad investment, putting it on a half track is probably just as effective, albeit a bit more dangerous for the crew. SP flak, however, has the enormous advantage of being available while you're moving, while towed light flak, just as effective once its deployed, is worthless if enemy planes suddenly pounce on your convoy.

The Germans were constantly faced by the threat, anytime and anyplace in daytime in Western Europe, and for that matter in Eastern Europe too but in the West the numbers of Jabos were mind boggling. Yes, they had light flak, and effective light flak, but never enough, and even if you have it, it is not going to make you feel better about an airstrike. Sure your guys knocked down a plane, damaged a couple. That doesn't make you feel any better about what the rest of the flight did to you.

One final factor. Autocannon use a LOT of ammo, quickly. It is what makes them effective. The ammo is carried in trucks. Having enough ammo on hand, especially in a day of constant harassment by fighter/bombers, is a sometime thing.

Here's some info I saved from the airpower email list. It was researched by N J Hickman.

It's the US experience, but I think it shows how hard it is to shoot down an enemy aircraft. The best thing that light AA normally did was to increase the attack altitude thereby decreasing the accuracy.

Total enemy a/c encountered over US 1st Army (day and night): 5,372

A/c destroyed or probably destroyed by:

90mm (time fuze) 267
90mm (proximity fuze) 42.5
40mm 559
37mm 185
.50 machine gun 192
Total 1,245.5

Effectiveness of weapons: "rounds-per-bird"

90mm (time fuze) 364
90mm (proximity fuze) 233
40mm 501
37mm 622
.50 machine gun 50,133

[The vast number of .50 cal rounds expended are attributed to "morale-shooting", rather than aimed fire seriously intended to down the enemy!]

It all sounds highly suspect- overall a nearly 30% success rate?…

Christot;
You could be right, I never had to fly in FLAK infested skies. Got shot at a few times, but not by any quad twenties. I guess having empty chairs at the mess might get to you, I don't know. However, most of the old Vietnam guys had a rough time with AAA "up North". The NVA knew you were coming, when, and what direction you were coming from. The USAF and Navy still rolled in on the targets, to a high cost.

From memory,

The 37 or forty had a 30% hit rate accoriding to most sources (How to make war – vs modern ac)

Now this is per engagement. If you do not see incoming ac then that dose not count.

A hit is not a kill, size of ac matters.

Naval rates are about the same.

The US air defense of artillery vs german attack in north Africa showed about a 30% sucess rate.

light flak will kill ac after the attack (which is bad for the flak)

In the battle of the bludge the German formations had by toe 12 flak units per regiment. Which they mounted on anything they had and the American inf units hated this as it meant that 20mm where everywhere.

a picture from France 1940 shows a tandem mount mg 34 on a wagon in aa mount

if you look at it form a sortie rate you get a pk (percent kill) of 1 % of your attacking as. If you look at it from a air defense as per engagement ( AC are seen coming and airdefense is up) you get a Percent hit of 30 and a Pk of 10%.

a unit on the move means that the as will see them sooner and attack quicker which means less flak will be ready to engage.

thought lord Ghee

Battle of the Bulge opened with a massively effective alpha strike by the luftwaffe against allied airfeilds. The flight back home was marred by over 100 kraut kites being pranged by their own FLAK in red on reds.