Thought About Old Flak Cannons/AA Guns

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter maverick_starstrider
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the effects and implications of WWII flak cannons and anti-aircraft (AA) guns, particularly focusing on the behavior of shrapnel after explosions and its potential impact on both aircraft and the ground below. Participants explore historical contexts, technical aspects of shrapnel, and the consequences of falling debris during air battles.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether shrapnel from flak explosions falls to the ground at lethal velocities, considering the volume of ordinance used during air battles.
  • Another participant suggests that shrapnel pieces are small and would lose kinetic energy quickly, potentially falling at non-lethal speeds.
  • A different participant asserts that many injuries occurred in London during the Blitz due to falling shrapnel, indicating that terminal velocity can still result in serious injuries.
  • One participant discusses the transition from time fuzes to proximity fuzes in flak shells and compares the terminal velocity of falling shrapnel to dropping a penny from a height.
  • Concerns are raised about the size of shrapnel, with some arguing that larger pieces would be necessary for significant damage to aircraft.
  • Another participant counters that smaller particles moving at high velocities can effectively damage aircraft, emphasizing the importance of hitting critical areas.
  • There is a comparison made between flak and birdshot, noting that while individual pieces may not cause severe damage, the sheer number increases the likelihood of hitting a target.
  • One participant reflects on the portrayal of flak in war movies, suggesting that the intent may also include harming pilots, not just damaging aircraft.
  • A participant with experience in military technology mentions the use of various sized ball bearings in cruise missiles, drawing a parallel to the discussion on shrapnel.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the lethality of falling shrapnel, the effectiveness of small versus large shrapnel pieces, and the intent behind flak usage. There is no consensus on these points, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Some claims about the effects of shrapnel depend on assumptions regarding size, velocity, and impact dynamics, which are not fully explored or agreed upon in the discussion.

maverick_starstrider
Messages
1,118
Reaction score
7
I just had a thought about old WWII flak cannons. You know the one that shot shells into the air that then exploded in black smoke and shrapnel. You see things like Band of Brothers where the sky is basically covered with shrapnel explosions. My question is would all that shrapnel come down at lethal or near lethal velocities after? Just like a bullet fired in the air. In like air battles over London, what happened in all the country side underneath all the flak explosions? Does it fall harmlessly to the Earth or does it pepper the ground with hot lead? I mean they filled the sky with a LOT of that ordinance during the war.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Shrapnel is rather small individually isn't it? I would have thought that within a few seconds most of the kinetic energy would be spent and the pieces would fall to the Earth at slow, non-lethal speeds.
 
Many many people were killed or injured in London, during the Blitz, by falling AKAK shrapnel, I believe. The terminal veolcity of a falling lump of jagged metal is high enough to give a nasty injury.
It always amazes me that the 'irregulars' in the Middle East are always firing their guns, enthusiastically, up into the air. It must cause countless unexplained injuries in cities.
 
ww2 ak ak had time fuze early on then went to proximity fuze..if i remember correctly..it has same impact as dropping a penny off the top floor of empire state building..terminal velocity is reached and that's it..most ak ak injuries on ground were due to late fuze exploding..opposite of 'short round" mis fire
 
Deaths and injuries were very real possibilities from falling shrapnel. Even buildings were damaged at times.

http://wwarii.com/blog/archives/cbs-radio-news-man-berlin-endures-air-raid/"

http://youandyesterday.com/articles/Shattering_shrapnel_from_our_guns_was_lethal_danger"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ranger Mike said:
ww2 ak ak had time fuze early on then went to proximity fuze..if i remember correctly..it has same impact as dropping a penny off the top floor of empire state building..terminal velocity is reached and that's it..most ak ak injuries on ground were due to late fuze exploding..opposite of 'short round" mis fire

It surprises me that flak would have been so small. Wouldn't you need bigger bits if you wanted to do derious damage to 'planes - at least the size of cannon shells?
 
sophiecentaur said:
It surprises me that flak would have been so small. Wouldn't you need bigger bits if you wanted to do derious damage to 'planes - at least the size of cannon shells?

No. Small particles moving at high velocities can damage airplanes quite readily if they hit in the right place. More small particles = better chance of causing catastrophic damage.
 
Yep. It is like fire Birdshot out of a shotgun. Each round may not do that much damage compared to buckshot or slug, but you have a MUCH greater chance of hitting something. And you don't really have to do "serious" damage to a plane. A small amount of damage to a critical area like an engine can easily cause the loss of an aircraft. Similarly, heavy damage to non critical areas can have almost no affect. I know there were plenty of old bombers that came back to base with thousands of holes in them, but none caused critical damage.
 
Drakkith said:
Yep. It is like fire Birdshot out of a shotgun. Each round may not do that much damage compared to buckshot or slug, but you have a MUCH greater chance of hitting something. And you don't really have to do "serious" damage to a plane. A small amount of damage to a critical area like an engine can easily cause the loss of an aircraft. Similarly, heavy damage to non critical areas can have almost no affect. I know there were plenty of old bombers that came back to base with thousands of holes in them, but none caused critical damage.

If war movies are any indicator I always got the impression that the point of flak was just as much to shred the pilots as actually damage the plane.
 
  • #10
maverick_starstrider said:
If war movies are any indicator I always got the impression that the point of flak was just as much to shred the pilots as actually damage the plane.

Sure. That works too.
 
  • #11
I work on cruise missiles for the Air Force and the explosive in them is mixed with different sized "ball bearings". Literally different sized metal balls from BB to about big marbles or so.
 

Similar threads

Can Evolved State: Dichotomy Capture Your Imagination?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Do Movies Teach Us Realistic Life Skills?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K