Comments by "William Cox" (@WildBillCox13) on "German AA Missiles - An Efficient Alternative to Flak?" video.
-
2
-
1
-
Interesting as always and thanks for posting, you two.
From the numbers is it possible that, for the equation developed to model the parameter, a primary factor considered was rate of fire, for those figures given for the number of rounds required for a kill are quite close to the relative difference in rates of fire of the successive FlaK Weapons. Disturbingly so, in fact. It's slightly odd, too, as the absolute performance figures for effective altitude of the lang 8.8cm and the 10.5cm guns are not nearly as different as were their relative rates of fire. It makes me wonder if the calculation wasn't more esoteric than literal, based on weight of metal over time rather than performance against enemy aircraft.
USAAF FlaK Doctrine was to vary height of the "Box", while in flight, to avoid predictor sights, which, perforce, required incoming the bombers to stay at the same altitude and bearing, while flying through the coverage area.
Watch this when you have a chance-if you haven't already: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIYVwqHM488 It's the USAAF Training Film on FlaK.
Ian Hogg admired the technical expertise of the enemy engineers and designers, but was skeptical that any decent Infrared or radio proximity guidance or fuse would've been effective at the current state of the art. (Secret Weapons of the Third Reich-Hogg). Looks at times as though his editorial bias leaned toward the wire guided Air to Air missile. The X4/R7 program was a big part of later research on both sides of the Iron Curtain.
Of course, you are aware of and have mentioned before, the relative differences in quantity of propellant for rocket weapons versus obturated tube artillery.
1
-
1