Archie to SAM: A Short Operational History of Ground-Based Air ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ANTIAIRCRAFT DEFENSE THROUGH WORLD WAR II Figure 25. Wasserfall. Wasserfall at Peenemünde in the fall of 1944. It was a smaller version of the V-2 and the largest of the German flak rockets. (Adapted from Air Force Historical Research Agency.) fuze, and the Allies had a lead in electronics that probably could have nullified, certainly degraded, the German’s radiocontrolled guidance system. A number of problems inhibited German flak. Flak personnel declined in quality, especially after 1943, as Germany combed out its forces to make good the war’s heavy attrition. The Germans employed women, old men, young boys, factory workers, foreigners, and even prisoners of war in flak units. In November 1944, 29 percent of flak personnel were civilians and auxiliaries; in April 1945, 44 percent. German flak strength peaked in February 1945, when it fielded over 13,500 heavy and 21,000 light pieces. The increasing number of guns deployed by the Germans consumed tremendous amounts of materials, reveal- 40
ANTIAIRCRAFT DEFENSE THROUGH WORLD WAR II ing another difficulty—a shortage of ammunition—that in early 1944 forced the Germans to restrict their firing. Another ammunition shortage occurred in November 1944 and was attributed to the bombing of German chemical plants and transportation. One consequence of this shortage was that some German shells were filled with inert materials. By the end of the war, flak units could deliver only one-half of their firepower potential because of these shortages. Another indication of the decline of efficiency of German flak was the increasing number of shells required to down an Allied aircraft. In the first 20 months of the war, it took 2,800 heavy flak rounds per kill, whereas in 1944, 16,000 flak rounds of 88 mm/model 36-37 or 3,000 rounds of 128 mm caliber rounds were required. 72 Nevertheless, German flak was effective in World War II and grew increasingly potent as the war continued (fig. 26). Through 1944 German gunners inflicted about one-third of Allied aircraft losses and two-thirds of the damage; and after that, they inflicted about two-thirds of the losses and almost all of the damage. To be precise, not only did German flak become more effective through the course of the war but proportionally more important as German aircraft were swept from the skies. In June 1944, for example, the Germans deployed 10,900 heavy and 22,200 light guns in the west. The AAF lost 18,418 aircraft in combat against Germany in World War II (fig. 27). The American Airmen credited AAA with downing 7,821 of these and enemy aircraft with 6,800. 73 In addition to downing and damaging Allied aircraft, flak also degraded bombing accuracy. A 1941 British report estimated that one-third of bombing accuracy degradation was attributed to flak. A postwar study of Eighth Air Force bombing errors between May 1944 and February 1945 credits almost 40 percent of these errors to enemy guns. An additional 22 percent of the error was attributed to the increased altitude required to counter flak. The Mediterranean air forces put the same message across in another way: with little or no flak opposition, fighters required 30 bombs to hit a bridge, but against intense flak, it took 150 bombs per hit. Medium bombers not encountering flak destroyed 21 percent of the bridges attacked and completely 41
Page 2 and 3:
Report Documentation Page Form Appr
Page 4 and 5:
Air University Library Cataloging D
Page 6 and 7:
Contents Chapter Page DISCLAIMER .
Page 8 and 9:
CONTENTS Chapter Page 7 BALLISTIC M
Page 10 and 11:
CONTENTS Figure Page 30 George Pred
Page 12 and 13: CONTENTS Figure Page 70 Blowpipe .
Page 14 and 15: Foreword Dr. Kenneth Werrell’s hi
Page 16 and 17: About the Author Dr. Kenneth P. Wer
Page 18 and 19: PREFACE excluded from the original
Page 20 and 21: PREFACE always been a factor in air
Page 22 and 23: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Artillery Institute
Page 24 and 25: ANTIAIRCRAFT DEFENSE THROUGH WORLD
Page 34 and 35: Figure 7. British 40 mm light antia
Page 92 and 93: FROM GUNS TO MISSILES American air
Page 94 and 95: FROM GUNS TO MISSILES company deliv
Page 96 and 97: FROM GUNS TO MISSILES (discussed la
Page 98 and 99: FROM GUNS TO MISSILES flak rockets
Page 100 and 101: FROM GUNS TO MISSILES 1953, the rat
Page 102 and 103: FROM GUNS TO MISSILES to 1,285 in J
Page 104 and 105: FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Figure 40. Ar
Page 106 and 107: FROM GUNS TO MISSILES cember 1958,
Page 108 and 109: Figure 42. Nike Hercules. The Nike
Page 110 and 111: FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Airmen test-f
Page 112 and 113:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Bomarc failed
Page 114 and 115:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Despite knowl
Page 116 and 117:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Figure 47. Ha
Page 118 and 119:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Army decided
Page 120 and 121:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES The third fam
Page 122 and 123:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES with both les
Page 124 and 125:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES that fired ov
Page 126 and 127:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Figure 53. Br
Page 128 and 129:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES The two-decad
Page 130 and 131:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES A. H. Peterso
Page 132 and 133:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES “SAMs Spur
Page 134 and 135:
Chapter 3 Airmen versus Guerrillas:
Page 136 and 137:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS the next y
Page 138 and 139:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS war with t
Page 140 and 141:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS Figure 56.
Page 142 and 143:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS firings fr
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS and Navy c
Page 148 and 149:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS American A
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS but modifi
Page 156 and 157:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS In all, du
Page 158 and 159:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS least an e
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS War Vietna
Page 164 and 165:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS D.C.: Depa
Page 166 and 167:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS 97, 121; a
Page 168 and 169:
Chapter 4 Operations between Vietna
Page 170 and 171:
OPERATIONS BETWEEN VIETNAM AND THE
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Chapter 5 Ballistic Missile Defense
Page 204 and 205:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE Army cons
Page 206 and 207:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE Figure 80
Page 208 and 209:
Figure 81. Spartan launch. The Spar
Page 210 and 211:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE a limited
Page 212 and 213:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE these wer
Page 214 and 215:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE ment to c
Page 216 and 217:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE developin
Page 218 and 219:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE Radar Int
Page 220 and 221:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE when the
Page 222 and 223:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE casualtie
Page 224 and 225:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE fluential
Page 226 and 227:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE missiles
Page 228 and 229:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE psycholog
Page 230 and 231:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 6. Army O
Page 232 and 233:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE April 196
Page 234 and 235:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 54. Reiss
Page 236 and 237:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 74. GWAPS
Page 238 and 239:
Chapter 6 Ground-Based Air Defense
Page 240 and 241:
GROUND-BASED AIR DEFENSE SINCE 1990
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Chapter 7 Ballistic Missile Defense
Page 260 and 261:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE IN THE 19
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Figure 96. Arrow launch.The Arrow i
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Chapter 8 Summary, Trends, and Conc
Page 292 and 293:
SUMMARY, TRENDS, AND CONCLUSIONS ev
Page 294 and 295:
SUMMARY, TRENDS, AND CONCLUSIONS te
Page 296 and 297:
SUMMARY, TRENDS, AND CONCLUSIONS EC
Page 298 and 299:
Index A-1, 128, 227-28, 232 A-4, 12
Page 300 and 301:
INDEX Convair, 98 Crotale, 158 D-da
Page 302 and 303:
INDEX Gulf of Tonkin incident, 115
Page 304 and 305:
INDEX Remagen, 24, 57, 270 RF-4C, 1
Page 306 and 307:
INDEX SAM, 34, 74, 81-82, 84, 87, 9
Page 308:
Archie to SAM A Short Operational H
show all

Archie to SAM: A Short Operational History of Ground-Based Air ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?