For those interested in AA, I came across this WW2 Ministry of Information film that I thought worth sharing. Ignore the caption that says this is about Bofors(!!!), it looks more like a 4.5 Vickers! ........and the enemy aircraft in the film is a...?
Thank you for posting the film clip which I found very interesting. It gave me an insight as to what my father did. He was an Anti-Aircraft Gunner with the 254/ 81st HAA Regiment Diane
I like these old films. Training films and newsreels are so natural, unscripted and unposed !!!! The narrators are always especially good. Seriously though I do like them. Thanks for posting this one. Mike
That is a good one. The drawing of the plane in the diagram looks like an He 111E but the proportions seem a bit off. That might have been done on purpose so they didn't reveal how much they knew about the He 111 or it might have been a best guess. Looks like a shot down Do 17 and a Ju 88 at the end of the movie.
On a second viewing I wonder where this was filmed, the map in the plot room seeming to indicate it's one of the Thames and Medway sites - any thoughts?
Thank you for sharing, wonderful clip and link. My Father did some training with the 24th HAA Ack Ack. It was was interesting to see he did. David
I’ve spent a bit more time looking at this gem of a film. While I don’t want to detract from its undoubted value, I think it could be misleading to rely on it being an accurate ‘documentary’ of the life and working of an AA battery. The first clue comes from the publishers, the Ministry of Information so it was very much intended for the man on the street. My next slight concern is that someone is credited for ‘special effects’ and while there is clearly some good and authentic footage of both the guns (firing) and their emplacements and the associated ranging equipment, I have a strong suspicion that some of the film was possibly studio or model based. Behind this is the inevitability that the film was produced under strict wartime security restrictions and I am pretty sure that while the plotters map indeed shows the 6th AA Division / Thames and Medway area, the real plotting map (probably horizontal on a special table)and plotting process would have been a lot more sophisticated especially where guns had radar control, something that the commentary very briefly alludes to. I would be interested in any views on whether the verbal orders to fire were a deliberate attempt to convey a misleading impression about the sophistication of the fire control which in many setups was being relayed direct from the predictors to dials on the guns and to which the gun layers / fuse setters responded. If you look at point 7.34 there is a very small clip of what looks like real footage of the men in the emplacement grimacing as the gun is fired. The shock from these guns especially if in twin mounts was significant and became a particular issue with the later 5.25" The interior of the mess hut is interesting but perhaps a little palatial for while some may have been of brick like this one, the majority of the gun sites were hutted with mostly wooden or Nissen type structures and many (at least early in the war) had little more than tents. Another thing to note is of course the fact that a lot of HAA batteries were mixed, ie men and women and it is interesting, although perhaps deliberate, that this is not picked up at all in this film. As for where the film was actually shot, that may not necessarily be impossible to identify. I am pretty sure that one of the AA diaries I have has a reference to a film unit working at a battery but off the top of my head I think it may have been a light AA battery. If this HAA battery was as diligent in recording its daily activities that information may just be sitting in a diary somewhere at Kew ready to be discovered. Once again, thanks for posting. Here’s a link to a short clip of 3.7” guns in action against V weapons by which time, radar control, automatic loading and fuse setting / proximity fuses had been substantially improved.
Didn't Churchill write something about one of their biggest values being that their sound alone boosted civilian morale by letting them know they were fighting back?
The attached page giving the ammunition expenditure for just one month over part of London gives an indication of just how impressive these barrages must have been.
Early in the war the AA originated largely from TA units, and were all male. Mixed and all female batteries became more common as men were sent overseas. The AA at the beginning of the war largely used sound locators to locate aircraft at night, so it was pretty much a hit and miss affair until the GL radars became more common (particularly where these were linked to searchlights as well as the guns), and even then the rate of success directly attributable to AA fire was minimal. For example, only 2 aircraft were credited directly to AA in Bristol throughout the war, despite thousands of rounds being fired. However, and a very big however, there were two benefits from the barrages put up, being firstly that the barrages did lessen the effectiveness of the raids by making life exceedingly difficult for the pilots through having to take avoiding action or turning away to avoid life threatening damage. Secondly, the barrages could break up formations, making it easier for RAF to pick off individual aircraft: the barrages also helped RAF see where the raids were - important though that the coordinated control between RAF ( Fighter Command managing the aerial defences through sector control rooms from 1939) and AA, standing the guns down so that RAF could engage the enemy. Interesting seeing the accuracy of the guns on the FBs. Advantage here is that they fly in a straight line, so the Predictor has a good chance of calculating the correct intercept. Radar by the time of the FBs was much advanced by comparison with the beginning of the war, particularly with the introduction of mobile units by the time of the Sicily landings in '43. By the time the guns reached the Gothic Line they were sufficiently refined that they could identify enemy mortar positions and put over airburst to destroy them, something they did as a key role in the April offensive in 1945.
I wonder what .5" Jap is. Might be some captured Italian 12.7s which used the same cartridge as the Japanese Ho-103 but the document is dated Aug 1940 so it seems a bit early for captured Italian stuff. Also number of rounds seems tiny for the .5s. Only a couple of seconds firing.
One of the follow on films was https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP-jO97siVw This rare WWII British film shows the operation of a Sea Fort, a fortified tower equipped with anti-aircraft guns and heavy artillery. The fort in question appears to be Horse Sand Fort, one of the larger Royal Commission sea forts in the Solent off Portsmouth, Hampshire, England. It is 73 metres (240 ft) across, built between 1865 and 1880, with two floors and a basement and armour-plated all round. The original armament was to have been 45 10-inch and 44 12.5-inch rifled muzzle-loading (RML) guns on the gun floors and 10 12" RMLs on the roof in five turrets. In fact the turrets were never built and the limited space meant the 12.5-inch guns had to be operated with less than full charges of powder. In 1882, 12-inch rifled breech-loading guns were placed in alternate bays. Horse Sand Fort was built on a ring of masonry consisting of large concrete blocks with an outer skin of granite blocks, the interior being filled with clay and shingle and covered with a thick layer of concrete. The lower foundation walls of the fort are 18 metres (59 ft) thick. The fort is split into three levels with the top measuring 62.4 metres (204 ft 9 in) in diameter. The floors would have originally provided storage of armoury and guns and the things needed to sustain the men that were stationed on site. The top of the fort consisted of a lighthouse and various chimneys and ventilators. The fort has its own Artesian well (aquifer) which provided fresh water. The seaward side of the fort was covered in a heavy iron-armoured plating to protect it from seaborne attack. Access to the fort was by a wooden-decked landing stage supported on cast-iron piles. In the late 19th century the Solent forts were painted in a black/white checkered paint scheme as an early form of dazzle camouflage. In its unrestored state remains of this pattern is still visible on parts of Horse Sand Fort. During the Second World War extensive submarine defences were built in the form of large concrete blocks running about 1.8 metres (5.9 ft) below sea level from the fort to the shore at Southsea. With only a single narrow gap to allow small craft to pass through, this barrier (and a much shorter one running south from No Man's Land Fort towards Ryde Sands) remains as the cost of demolition is deemed too high. In March 2012, the fort was purchased by AmaZing Venues who operate the venue under the Solent Forts brand (owners of No Man's Land Fort and Spitbank Fort) and is to be converted into a museum. (For such "a crowded island" - why don't we just make a few more of these??? )
I've found the reference to AA guns being used for filming that I mentioned above. The attached page, from the 49th AA Brigade, refers to a 40mm Bofors being taken from VP122 (Northolt) for filming at Denham Studios on the 4th and 13th October 1941 and records the numbers of rounds fired. Elsewhere the diary records VP122 as being manned by 220 Bty of 73rd Lt AA Regt. As for the reference to 'JAP' ammunition, there are a couple of other pages in the 26th AA Brigade Diary, one referring to it fully as 'Japanese'. There is something on the internet about Japanese guns / ammunition having been imported by the British and used in WW1 but I would not know if these are linked in any way. Most references to LMGs in early AA or SL diaries are for Lewis Guns.
And here is a pic of an HAA Bdr on a Lewis gun due to the shortage of heavy guns at the beginning of the war.
Ah, thanks for that: the contemporary note I had with the pic was plainly misleading! Do you know if these were in use alongside Lewis guns? The contemporary War Diary indicates that the HAA troops were sent on a Lewis gun training course.
I don't think the AA Divisions had any Brens in the early stage of the war, as there was a serious shortage these were reserved for the field army. They did use vast numbers of Lewis guns, about 7,000 in the BoB period I believe. Around 60,000 Lewis guns (including aircraft guns converted for ground use) were taken from storage, repaired, refitted and issued by the British during the early years of World War II, according to Skennerton.
Interesting. The photograph that I posted is of a Bdr of 76th HAA Regt, and it can be dated as some time between Sept '39, and Mar '40, as the individual concerned only held the rank for this period. It is also known that he attended Lewis gun training in November '39, and writes home at this time to state that he is 'in charge of a gun station', this very possibly referring to the one featured in his photograph.
