Mikel2 Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 I've heard the argument that a surprisingly large percentage of the damage London suffered from the Blitz came from the ordnance that was fired from the ground against the German planes. I suppose a great deal of those shells were timed to explode at a certain altitude, while others had contact fuses. Were these fuses disabled on the way down? Is there any data on how much of this damage really occurred in London during that time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ssnake Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 1) All the fragments would eventually succumb to gravity; assuming that some jagged steel fragments might weigh 50g or more, and approach 100m/s terminal velocity, they are clearly dangerous 2) There's going to be rounds failing to explode in the air, maybe one in 50. They might explode after falling to the ground, or being complete duds still fall down as massive and potentially dangerous chunks of metal mixed with explosive fillings with a terminal velocity easily in excess of 200m/s; I see them easily crashing through rooftops and possibly several floors - if of a bigger caliber, and if the floors are mostly planks nailed to wood beams, stuffed with straw. The question is what's the metric for "damage from the Blitz". The value of damaged property, the number of lives lost, the number of injuries sustaing (irrespective of severity), ...? I'm not here to belittle the suffering, but the wording is so vague that it could be literally anything from dents in car roofs and flattened tires to lives lost. And what's "a surprisingly large percentage"? That depends about 50% on the initial expectations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougRichards Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 British heavy AA was, during the Blitz, time fuzed and not contact fuzed. Lighter AA, such as 40mm Bofors and 2pdrPom Poms were contact fuzed but had a self destruct, usually linked to the tracer, but the Bofors self destruct was between 3,400 and 5,500 yards. It isn't as if the self destruct would reduce the shell to something resembling talc falling from the sky, more like a collection of nail heads, that would have been slowed significantly by atmospheric friction. Even so, at low angles I would not like to be in a position in line at 5,600 yards from the gun when the shell self destructed at 5,500. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougRichards Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 But see: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/drop-penny-off-empire-state-building-2015-12?r=US&IR=T Now that is a US 'penny', a small one cent coin. It weighs 2.5 grams. A British penny was 9.4 grams (same as an Australian penny of the same era). A British decimal penny is much less lethal from a height than the old penny, being only 3.6 grams. So it seems that if the fragments of a shell were around 2.5 grams it may have stung a bit, but anything heavier may have been problematic. Hence the use of Tube stations as air raid shelters. A direct hit from a 250kg German bomb may have been of interest to those sheltering in a tube station but the bits and pieces from AA shells landing above them would not have interrupted the singing of 'Knees Up Mother Brown' or 'Roll Me Over in the Clover"...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 I doubt there would be that much damage from gunfire. As Doug suggests, the real problem was shrapnel to exposed personnel. Which is why you saw wartime policemen and ARP wardens wearing tin helmets. I remember reading Bravo 2 Zero, and the author talked about how the iraqi's, overjoyed they had captured someone, celebrated by firing AK's in the air. As he pointed out, it would be just his luck if one of those bullets came back down and slotted him in the head. It didnt, but it makes you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 I mildly wonder about the area during the Pearl Harbor raid? How many .50 caliber rounds came down and where? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Becker Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 They'd be a lot more dangerous IMO. The machine guns were fired at low flying planes, so the angle of elevation was probably low and .50 BMG is great for very long range machine gun fire like it was done in WW1. Up to 4,000 yards with .303 IIRC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shep854 Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 I once read a dispatch from a French reporter in Hanoi describing an air strike during the height of the Rolling Thunder campaign. He noted that the all clear was not actually sounded until about a half-hour after the shooting stopped. During that time, he noticed a gentle patterning like rain. When finally allowed out of his shelter, the ground was covered with shards of metal from the AAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ssnake Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 It really depends on the fragmentation characteristics of the shells involved (if they were reliably breaking into small bits or if the fragments were of vastily different masses (case in point, M107 155mm HE shell which produces anything from 1.5g to 200g and even bigger), and on the dud rate. Anything that doesn't reliably self-destruct is a hazard. Even if the dud rate is small, if you throw up enough of them a noticeable number will come down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 Local army SOP is that if there is AA activity over your position is that in absence of shelter with overhead cover you should lie down, helmet moved more rearward on the head, as a danger was more of unexploded projectile coming down and exploding on hitting ground than from the fragments just falling down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ssnake Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 I suppose that with modern munitions more emphasis is put on uniform fragment sizes, and once that they are small enough their terminal velocity isn't that problematic. I'm not so sure about WW2 munitions in general (quality control, scarcity of some metals), and the larger calibers in particular. That being said, I also have no positive knowledge that this was a notable problem. It's something I inferred from the initial question. Which may be a bogus claim, of course. I don't think that dud rates in WW2 were so high as to warrant the phrase "surprisingly large percentage of damage"; as far as my criticism of the wording is concerned, see my previous post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucklucky Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 (edited) This author puts those killed almost as half of causalities. I think that is exaggerated but it is clear that were a significant number. https://www.historyhit.com/how-thousands-of-civilians-were-killed-by-british-shells-in-the-london-blitz/ Quote In the Midlands district of Tipton, 23 civilians were killed during air raids during the Second World War. 11 of these deaths were caused by German bombs, but 12 died during an incident on 21 December 1940, when a wedding party was taking place in a pub in the village of Tividale. An artillery shell weighing 28 lb (12.7 Kg) was fired from nearby Rowley Hills and sailed down the chimney of the building where the party was being held. The bride was killed, the bridegroom lost both legs and 11 other guests died. Edited February 3, 2021 by lucklucky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On the way Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 Wow, it must have been crazy over Germany, especially Berlin, during WW2. They were firing so much AAA at Allied bombers, and all of that must come back down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougRichards Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 1 hour ago, On the way said: Wow, it must have been crazy over Germany, especially Berlin, during WW2. They were firing so much AAA at Allied bombers, and all of that must come back down. As did the shot down bombers and pieces of the bombers..... But I think that you will find that the idea was to shoot down bombers outside of a 'ring' around a city. Of course the Flakturm didn't really fit in with this idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Lindquist Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 On 1/12/2021 at 7:46 AM, Markus Becker said: They'd be a lot more dangerous IMO. The machine guns were fired at low flying planes, so the angle of elevation was probably low and .50 BMG is great for very long range machine gun fire like it was done in WW1. Up to 4,000 yards with .303 IIRC. No .50cal BMG in WWI. The US copied the .50 round from the German WWI TuF (Tank und Flugger) round and scaled up the .30 BMG to fire it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R011 Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 21 minutes ago, Richard Lindquist said: No .50cal BMG in WWI. The US copied the .50 round from the German WWI TuF (Tank und Flugger) round and scaled up the .30 BMG to fire it. Perhaps in concept. The German round is shorter, even though wider, and semi-rimmed (13.2 x 92 SR) while the .50 BMG is longer and rimless (12.7 x 99). As I understand it, Browning scaled up the .30-06 round as well as the M1917 machine gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Becker Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 37 minutes ago, Richard Lindquist said: No .50cal BMG in WWI. The US copied the .50 round from the German WWI TuF (Tank und Flugger) round and scaled up the .30 BMG to fire it. My point was the danger zone for a lack of a better term. If .303 goes 4k yards those .50 cals on the ships must have been capable of causing harm even further out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Lindquist Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 8 hours ago, Markus Becker said: My point was the danger zone for a lack of a better term. If .303 goes 4k yards those .50 cals on the ships must have been capable of causing harm even further out. Max range of the US caliber .30 was 3,500 yards at 30 degrees elevation. Max range for the US .50 was 7,275 yards at 35 degrees elevation. Both measures using ball ammunition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardaukar Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 If we talk about friendly damage, Operation Bodenplatte in 1 January 1945... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bodenplatte Secrecy for the operation was so tight that not all German ground and naval forces had been informed of the operation and some units suffered casualties from friendly fire. Luftwaffe got "good news" from own flak when returning from attacks, because AA units had not been told about operation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ssnake Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 They also received their greetings on the way to the target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiloMorai Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 Very good book on Bodenplatte. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichTO90 Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 I know of a very specific USAAF P-38 shot down by friendly fire near Argentan, on 17 August 1944. It was shot down by my Dad's Battery A, 537th AAA AW Bn, when it attacked the 343d FA Bn, killing four and wounding two artillerymen. Interestingly, the 343d FA account says the plane struck a telephone pole and crashed, hitting the 4th Gun Section truck of Battery B and killing and injuring the men, but my Dad said they took him out on his second pass, after he shot up the truck in his first pass. The 537th Bn's AAR is equivocal, but my Dad was pretty detailed on the events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 My auntie shot down a spitfire when she was in an AA battery. Does that count? The pilot was very nice about it apparently... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardaukar Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 3 hours ago, RichTO90 said: I know of a very specific USAAF P-38 shot down by friendly fire near Argentan, on 17 August 1944. It was shot down by my Dad's Battery A, 537th AAA AW Bn, when it attacked the 343d FA Bn, killing four and wounding two artillerymen. Interestingly, the 343d FA account says the plane struck a telephone pole and crashed, hitting the 4th Gun Section truck of Battery B and killing and injuring the men, but my Dad said they took him out on his second pass, after he shot up the truck in his first pass. The 537th Bn's AAR is equivocal, but my Dad was pretty detailed on the events. I have read a saying from US ground forces in 1944..."if it flies, it dies" ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Lindquist Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 2 hours ago, Sardaukar said: I have read a saying from US ground forces in 1944..."if it flies, it dies" ... Shoot them all down and sort them out on the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now