Eric & Mic,
Your posters are not something often seen. Period training material I assume? Very intresting.
Chet
Your posters are not something often seen. Period training material I assume? Very intresting.
Chet
-
Zinc stinks! -
mine
...Comment
-
more
picsComment
-
more pics
...Comment
-
last pic
what is this marking ???
556 3 LIP-1 E-66
it looks like the Original German marking was removed and this new marking was put in it's place...Last edited by foy1944; 02-25-2014, 04:54 AM.Comment
-
My Flak 88 rounds ???
Hello Eric:Originally posted by Heer Flak View Post
Interesting thread. As close as I can come is a
jar full of 88 flak fragments from a USAAF vet.
He picked them up from inside his B-17 after
combat missions over Europe.
OFW
(below) My 88 flak fragment from actual WW2 air combat.
PS/ The following might be of some related interest...
"...flak fragments ...caused 545 casualties in B-17's... There was one known
battle casualty for every 54 B-17's dispatched to enemy territory..."
REPORT: Armament Research Department Explosives Report October 1943.
Directional Density of Flak Fragments and Burst Patterns at High Altitudes
GERMAN 88 MM. HIGH EXPLOSIVE ANTIAIRCRAFT SHELL
The material in this chapter was obtained at the same time that a survey of missile casualties was being conducted by the Medical Operational Research Section, Professional Services Division, Office of the Chief Surgeon, ETOUSA (p. 547). The survey covered all of the battle casualties sustained by the Eighth Air Force during a 6 months' period beginning on 1 June 1944. More than 99 percent of the flak fragments recovered during the survey were probably from German 88 mm. HEAA (high explosive antiaircraft) shells. Only two fragments observed were definitely identifiable as fragments from shells larger than 88 mm. Because of this, a discussion of German ammunition will be limited to the 88 mm. shell.
Details of the structure of the shell are contained in USSTAF Ordnance Memorandum No. 5-6, 29 March 1944, and are shown in figure 293. The filled weight of the shell is about 21½ pounds, the average weight of the filling is approximately 2 pounds, and the charge-weight ratio is 8.6 percent. The body of the shell which gives rise to the majority of the fragments is composed of 0.72 percent carbon steel and its wall averages nine-sixteenths of an inch in thickness. The mean burst velocity of fragments observed in trials carried out at Millersford was 2,280 f.p.s. The velocity of the projectile at the instant of burst at the altitude at which the shell is fired at heavy bomber aircraft is estimated to range from 1,000 to 2,000 f.p.s., being greatest when the angle of fire is nearest vertical and lowest the more the angle of fire deviates from the vertical.
In order to bring out certain points with respect to the flak risk run by aircrew personnel, it is necessary to consider certain elementary facts relating to the manner in which the shell wall breaks up into fragments.
FIGURE 293.-Structure of German 88 mm. HEAA shell.
Considering the distribution of fragments from such a projectile after they had traveled, say, 100 feet from the point of burst, would amount to considering the distribution of fragments in a sphere whose radius was 100 feet. Since the projectile broke up uniformly, the relative density of fragments-that is, the number of fragments per unit area on the surface of the sphere-would be the same all over the sphere. Since, however, the annular bands subtended on the surface of the sphere, per unit angle at its center with respect to the equatorial plane, decrease in area as one proceeds from the "equator" to its "north or south pole," the number of fragments in each annulus will decrease accordingly in spite of the fact that the density per unit surface area remains the same. This is shown in table 233 and figure 294. Column 1 of the table lists the annular zones with respect to the equatorial plane in 30° bands. Column 2 indicates the percent of fragments which will be found in successive annular zones on the surface of the sphere, if the boundary of each of these zones subtends an angle of 30° at the center of the sphere. Column 3 is merely a statement that the density per unit area on the surface of the sphere is constant.
A. 88 mm. shellburst (static, nose, down; density in shaded zones not observed). B. 90 mm. shellburst (static, nose up) C. 90 mm. shellburst (moving vertically 2,000 f.p.s.).
trials in which AA shells were detonated experimentally in such a way that it was possible to measure the number of fragments in different annular zones
AIRCRAFT BATTLE DAMAGE DATA
Density of Flak Hits on Aircraft
If all AA shells were fired vertically, the burst pattern shown in figure 295C would represent the directional fragmentation densities of flak in the atmosphere. This figure would also represent the relative importance of the different directions from which protection would be required by aircrew personnel in heavy bombers. However, an enemy AA battery may fire at a formation of heavy bombers throughout approximately 12 miles (3 minutes) of the bombers' flight course and is actually unable to fire directly vertically. Therefore, fragments from bursting projectiles from one battery are likely to produce a composite burst pattern that differs from that of shells bursting only in a vertical orientation.
It was thought desirable to construct a composite burst pattern that would represent the aggregate of flak bursts that actually occur under operational conditions. In order to do this, the frequency of flak hits on plane horizontal and vertical surfaces of a sample of aircraft was determined. All the B-17 and B-24 aircraft that were hit by flak and returned to the United Kingdom during July 1944 were examined. If the number of MIA aircraft due to flak damage were sufficiently great, the distribution of flak hits on them might materially influence the observations made on the July sample of aircraft. Accurate data as to how many MIA aircraft were lost because of damage due to flak were not available. However, 15 percent of MIA personnel were evaders who returned to the United Kingdom and who were interrogated by representatives of the Operational Research Section, Eighth Air Force. It is estimated on the basis of information obtained from the personnel questioned that approximately 60 percent of both types of MIA aircraft were lost because of damage due to flak during July 1944. During that month, 134 B-17's and 107 B-24's were missing in action. Thus, 3,053 B-17 aircraft, of which 2,973 were examined and of which approximately 80 (2.6 percent) were missing in action, were possibly damaged by flak. Also, 958 B-24 aircraft, of which 894 were examined and of
621
FIGURE 296.-Location of flak hits on 2,961 B-17 aircraft, plane surfaces only.
which approximately 64 (6.7 percent) were missing in action, were possibly damaged by flak. It is unlikely that the small incidence of MIA flak-damaged aircraft, could they have been included in the analysis, would have greatly changed the observations pertaining to either type of aircraft.
Only the flat portion of the main wings lateral to the numbers 1 and 4 engines and the "unprotected" surfaces of the vertical stabilizers of both aircraft were used for these observations. Figures 296 and 297 show the location of flak hits on the plane surfaces of the two types of aircraft. The surface areas were determined by planimeter measurements of scale drawings of the aircraft and are given in column 1 of table 237. This table shows the data obtained from the battle damage reports for 2,961 B-17's and 888 B-24's. The manner of
622
FIGURE 297.-Location of flak hits on 888 B-24 aircraft, plane surfaces only.
calculating the "standardized" densities of hits on plane surfaces was the same as that given for the calculation of "standardized" directional fragmentation densities, and the values obtained are given in column 6 of table 237.
The figures in columns 3 and 6 of table 237 show that the greatest density of hits occurred on the bottom surfaces of B-17 aircraft. The density of hits on vertical surfaces was only slightly less, whereas the density of hits on top surfaces was approximately one-third as great as that on bottom or vertical surfaces.
Corresponding figures for B-24 aircraft (columns 3 and 6) show that vertical surfaces suffered the greatest density of flak hits. The latter was 54 percent
623
TABLE 237.-Densities of flak hits on the plane surfaces of 2,961 B-17 and 888 B-24 aircraft,respectively, during July 1944
Surface struck
Density of Flak Hits on Fuselages of Aircraft
It is the hits on fuselages of aircraft which principally cause casualties, and therefore it was thought worthwhile to determine the densities of flak hits on the fuselages of the two types of aircraft. Actually, the standardized values for such hits should agree with those for hits on plane surfaces. Flak hits on MIA aircraft, while they might not have influenced the observed densities and distribution on plane surfaces, might materially affect the observed density and distribution of hits on the more vital fuselage surfaces, could they have been included in the observations. Differences could be due in part to the personal error introduced by the engineer officer who makes a record of flak damage to an aircraft and who has to distinguish between hits on the top and side or side and bottom of a tapering cylindrical structure whose curved surfaces cannot readily be demarcated from each other.
Density of Flak Hits on Casualty-Bearing Aircraft
In a selected sample of casualty-bearing aircraft, one might expect to find an increase in the number and variations in the distribution of flak hits on all surfaces generally. The casualty-bearing portion of the aircraft, that is, the fuselage, in a sample selected for casualties might be expected to show the greatest increases in density and variations in the distribution of hits. The observed relationship between flak hits and casualties is likely to be greatly different from observations that would include MIA flak-damaged casualty-bearing aircraft. The fatality rate in MIA aircrew personnel is known to be
629
approximately 20 percent. Such a high fatality rate would correspond to an even greater casualty rate. Thus, it is likely that most MIA aircraft due to flak damage were also casualty-bearing aircraft. If all MIA flak-damaged aircraft were to be regarded as bearing one or more flak casualties, then there were approximately 781 B-17 flak-damaged casualty-bearing aircraft during June, July, and August 1944. Of this number, 461 aircraft returned and were examined and 320 (41 percent) were not examined (86 returned and not examined and 234 MIA). There were 465 B-24 flak-damaged casualty-bearing aircraft during the same period. Of this number, 172 aircraft returned and were examined and 293 (63 percent) were not examined (112 returned and not examined and 181 MIA). Such proportions of casualty-bearing aircraft, for which observations were not available, would therefore greatly alter the flak-damage data pertaining to both types of aircraft.
Tables 241 and 242 show the densities of flak hits for plane surfaces and fuselages of all the aircraft examined in which there were flak casualties. The aircraft concerned were examined in the same way and by the same personnel who examined all aircraft to which the data in tables 237, 238, 239, and 240 pertain. Figures 300 and 301 show the location of flak hits on casualty-bearing B-17 and B-24 aircraft from which the data in tables 241 and 242 were obtained.
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
With reference to the protective armor in aircraft (p. 585), the significant difference in battle casualty rates in two types of heavy bombers merits special attention. There was one known battle casualty for every 54 B-17's dis...
639
patched to enemy territory as compared with one for every 80 B-24's dispatched. The relationship between casualties and flak damage to the two types of aircraft may be well expressed by the ratio of casualties to flak hits sustained on the fuselages. For every 100 hits sustained on the fuselages of casualty-bearing aircraft, there were 34 casualties in B-17's as compared with only 19 casualties in B-24's.
It has been learned unofficially that the more difficult and more heavily defended enemy targets were attacked by B-17's and that the targets of lesser importance were usually attacked by B-24's. If this is true and in view of the fact that the rate of planes failing to return from enemy territory was the same for both aircraft (approximately 1 percent), it is possible that the B-24 is more vulnerable to attack by lower burst velocity projectiles. The lower incidence of casualties in proportion to hits in B-24 aircraft may be regarded as a measure of the relative ineffectiveness against personnel of low-velocity flak and the relative effectiveness of low-velocity fragments against B-24 aircraft.
The total projected surface areas of the personnel-bearing portion of both types of aircraft exposed to flak (that is, the fuselage) were approximately the same. The B-24 fuselage presented approximately a 5 percent greater total exposed surface than the fuselage of a B-17. However, the area of an aircraft exposed to highest velocity flak fragments is its bottom surface. The projected bottom surface of the fuselage of a B-17 was 25 percent greater than that of a B-24 (476 square feet for a B-17 as compared with 380 square feet for a B-24). This difference may account in part for the increased vulnerability of B-17 personnel to flak. The "lateral" projected surface of a B-24 fuselage exposed to flak (of relatively lower velocity) was approximately 36 percent greater than the corresponding surface of a B-17.
Aircraft are "lost" or reported missing in action only when the enemy has been successful in crippling a ship to such an extent that it is unable to return to its base. A ship is unable to return to its base if its engines are "knocked out" or if certain vital mechanical parts of the ship are damaged. Also vital to a ship, however, are certain of its crew members or combinations of personnel and mechanical parts of aircraft, and an aircraft might not return to its base if its pilot or copilot should be killed or wounded. Other crew members might not be so vital to a ship's operation, but if these men were killed or wounded it might still influence the ship's chance of returning to its base. Followup studies have shown that the fatality rate in MIA aircrew personnel is approximately 20 percent (1 out of 5) as compared with 1.2 percent for all aircrews that sustained battle casualties and only 0.017 percent (approximately 1 out of 6,000) for aircrew personnel returning from combat missions. The known high fatality rate among MIA personnel implies that there is as well a higher casualty rate in MIA personnel. It is likely that most aircraft that did not return to their bases carried casualties, if not fatal casualties.
By regarding all MIA aircraft as casualty-bearing aircraft, it was found that 1,014 (390 MIA and 624 known to be casualty bearing) B-17's probably carried casualties and that 623 (303 MIA and 320 known to be casualty bearing)
640
B-24's probably carried casualties. Thus, 2.55 percent of B-17 as compared with 2.08 percent of B-24 aircraft sustained casualties or were missing in action. A chi-square test of the significance of the difference in these values gives x2=16.35 (where n=1, P less than 0.01). The difference is very clearly significant.
With respect to body armor, the main conclusion reached in the case of B-17 aircraft was that personnel were protected laterally by body armor and neighboring equipment and personnel and that a given weight of armor would provide the best protection from below in addition to, but not instead of, the protection already apparent from horizontally dispersed fragments. In the case of the B-24, a need for protection of personnel from above, as well as from below, was indicated. The B-24 was subjected to the greatest density of hits from just above the horizontal, and vulnerable parts would be best protected from this direction.
OFWsigpic
.......^^^ .................... some of my collection ...................... ^^^...
Comment
-
Mic, Nice Poster!!!!! I think it would look better in my room! Once again, Really nice poster!
Eric
Originally posted by Mic Heinrich View PostCool posters, this is mine for a training round
I once flew in a B-17, B-24, & a B-25. Next, I want to fire an 88 round.Comment
-
OFW, I would show them to you, but the BAM show won't let them through the door.
I wish ordance was aloud.
EricI once flew in a B-17, B-24, & a B-25. Next, I want to fire an 88 round.Comment
-
Posters
Thanks Eric, I was going to say the same thing! Chet is correct that these are rarely seen, it took me a long time to find this one.Comment
-
I have had my poster since about 2004-2005. For about two years it was stored under a bed until I could find a place to display it. I was not in search of a poster at the time when I got it. I was busy looking for anything Heer Flak. My father was the one who came across it and gave me a call. I still remembered what I paid for it and it was not cheap. These types of poster sure make a war room look great!Originally posted by Mic Heinrich View Post
Mic, what are the measurements on your poster?
EricI once flew in a B-17, B-24, & a B-25. Next, I want to fire an 88 round.Comment
-
Yep had mine for a few years, it has always been folded therefore keep most of its colour. Have just had it framed but you can still see the fold line but I didn't want to stick it to the backing. Tried to flatten as best as possible (underbed between ply)
I remember what I paid and it wasn't cheap either. I'll get the mesurements on the weekend.
I would love to see some more so if anyone else out there has one please post
Last edited by Mic Heinrich; 02-27-2014, 06:41 AM.Comment
-
-
Thanks Mic! That's a nice size! Love the color on your poster!Originally posted by Mic Heinrich View Post
EricI once flew in a B-17, B-24, & a B-25. Next, I want to fire an 88 round.Comment
-
Nice thread! These are mine.Comment
-
Two of these rounds are Kriegsmarine. The one at the left and the one at the right. Some more photo's.Comment
Comment