Thought About Old Flak Cannons/AA Guns

  • Thread starter Thread starter maverick_starstrider
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the lethality of shrapnel from WWII flak cannons and its impact on both aircraft and ground civilians. Participants note that while shrapnel is small, it can still cause significant injuries upon falling due to terminal velocity, similar to a bullet fired into the air. The effectiveness of flak is attributed to the high velocity of small particles, which can damage critical areas of aircraft without needing to be large. Additionally, historical accounts indicate that many injuries during air raids were caused by late-fuse explosions rather than falling debris. Overall, the conversation highlights the dangers posed by both flak cannons and the indiscriminate nature of shrapnel in populated areas.
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.
 
Back
Top