[softcactus]

Sorry I worded my previous response poorly.

> The 8.8cm german flak gun WAS a radar-guided AA gun.

The Kommandogerat 40 was a rangefinder/computer, not a radar. It had the capability of being radar-guided, but was not necessarily radar-guided by itself.

For the Kommandogerat 40 you needed a direct line-of-sight (they were still used in overcast conditions though) but it would compensate for the velocity vector of the incoming targets, altitude, wind, and would relay fire controls to all the flak pieces in the battery. Not as nice as a radar, but it was able to be fielded in mass quantities, and I think it deserves its place as 2nd most devastating weapon of WWII. Especially since towards the end of the war, the Germans were the ones playing defense. It made the strategic bombing campaigns of the allies very painful. The RAF bomber crews had a 44% death rate. That's deaths, not casualties.

It also excelled in direct fire roles against ground targets.

[WalterBright]

I read that it took 16,000 88 flak shells to bring down one bomber. I infer the success of the flak was due simply to quantity.

I've also read numerous times that the searchlights would find and "pin" a bomber so that the crews could dial in the coordinates for firing. Wouldn't need that with radar guided guns.

I well know the death rate for B-17 crews - my father flew 32 missions in 1944 in one. The casualty rate was 80% (killed, wounded, POW). He told me that the way he dealt with it was simply accept that since he was going to die, he'd do the best job he could. I have the letter he wrote his father, dryly saying he'd completed his missions and would be coming home.

The Bismarck was well equipped with anti-aircraft batteries, which failed to stop the torpedo attack by slow-moving, obsolete biplanes. The Japanese navy didn't have much success with anti-aircraft batteries, either.

Regardless, the 88 was an excellent cannon.

[softcactus]

> I read that it took 16,000 88 flak shells to bring down one bomber. I infer the success of the flak was due simply to quantity.

I am not trying to be pedantic, just wondering out loud. 16,000 shells per bomber sounds like a lot, but I am sure you are familiar with the statistic that 250,000 small-arms rounds were fired for every insurgent killed in Afghanistan, and 25,000 rounds fired per kill in WWII. I can't find an actual hard source on the ratio of bullets per kill though. Bombers obviously cant hide behind cover, but I wonder if that 16,000 number isn't as unreasonable as it seems.

> I well know the death rate for B-17 crews - my father flew 32 missions in 1944 in one.

He sounds like an amazing man. I get queasy in light turbulence. I can't imagine the stress and horror of even a single bombing run. That's more than anyone should ever have to go through.

[WalterBright]

He said many of the men cracked under the strain. Some would deal with it by drinking themselves to oblivion.

> He sounds like an amazing man.

He was, but I'm rather biased :-)

He told me once he wouldn't trade that experience for anything, and wouldn't do it again for anything. He also said that when he felt down, he'd think of the men he knew who didn't get the chance to live, and would fix his attitude.

[WalterBright]

> 250,000 small-arms rounds were fired for every insurgent killed in Afghanistan

To be fair, only a small part of that is aimed. Much of it is "covering fire", the intent of which is to cause the enemy to hide while your guys advance. There are also soldiers who do not wish to kill, and do not aim their shots.

The larger point is that if the accuracy of the flak were doubled with radar guidance, it would have been impossible for the 8th AF to continue the mass bombing campaign. If 5% are lost on a mission (and that did happen now and then) repeatedly, then it ain't long before there isn't an Air Corps left.