Why Not Destroy Radar during Battle of Britain?
- Thread starter wuzak
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I saw that video and Chis (AKA Bismarck) seems to put a lot of research into his work. I'm curious as to what you disagree with or what I am missing.
Well it is true that the Chain Home system wasnt as sophisticated as others in 1940 but that is because it was up and running calibrated and tested out all around the country. It was however far more sophisticated and capable than the Germans thought possible. They werent individual stations, they were an array phased on the national grid. The most important RADAR "information" comes from the side lobes not the "front throw" and in the SE corner of England these all overlapped. With a lot of trained operator skill they managed to plot reflections below the level of "grass" (a theoretical impossibility).
The Radar Pages - Chain Home
His example of a German bomber ignores what Park did. If such a raid was sent Park would send a flight up, he did have patrols stationed to counter possibilities. His example raid was unescorted because he only considers the bombers time directly to the target, add in an escort and then you lose time forming up. Pilots and historians accounts frequently ignore the number of times flights were sent up to patrol a section and returned without seeing any action. This isnt the same as mounting standing patrols, it is using RADAR (RDF as it was known) to advantage, so you dont get caught with your pants down. A few times they sent individual planes as a "rabbit" just to check on the size and bearing of a raid then zip out of the place.
It doesnt take a genius to realise that there was huge "redundancy" in the system, just look at the map of them. If you knock out Danby Beacon on the north east coast of England you would create a problem but that isnt within range of escorts. Those around the SE coast are many and close together you need to knock out 3 or 4 at the same time and keep them knocked out, then start to attack airfields which would have little warning. edited
SaparotRob
Last edited:
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
That was very informative. It never occurred to me that the stations were part of a greater array instead of acting as individual stations. That level of sophistication never occurred to me.
Last edited:
I only found out recently, the "national grid" was only made a national grid in 1935, and the requirements of RADAR were part of getting it done. I am sure it didnt occur to the Germans, thats why they thought it unsophisticated, their interrogation by Zeppelins etc just detected a massive wall of "noise". They used autogyros to calibrate the system just about the only wartime use I know of.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
In his memoirs, Churchill writes about visiting 11 Group's Ops Room (essnetially a land-based CIC). Forgive the Wiki moment, but it could point you out perhaps further references to run down and read:
Battle of Britain Bunker - Wikipedia
These Ops Rooms -- which were introduced into other fighter groups as well as it had proven its utility -- allowed for the collation of information on German strikes as well as the status of the group's squadrons. Chain Home provided much of the information, albeit with the "display" being moved by hand as positions changed.
That integration of information was a big reason why the British were often able to avoid standing patrols (which use fuel and planes up quicker, not to mention pilot fatigue).
Obviously imperfect, but just as obviously a very useful force-multiplier.
That visit by Churchill was not a coincidence, they knew from decoded messages that the following day was "Eagle day" but he couldnt mention that in his memoirs, it was still secret. Never before has a civilian leader of a country be able to see a battle take place in front of his own eyes in such detail, then jump in a car and go to discuss it with others. It was a long time before a superior electronic system was developed. Any layman can understand what it presents, when they put it in the Battle of Britain movie it had little explanation. However when you read about it, on the plotting table and around the room was a fantastic amount of information, needed by people like Park to make the decisions they made. What is rarely shown in movies or photographs is that there were more people involved and it was a much more chaotic scene than represented in movies away from the plotting board.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Indeed, the information-processing such a system provided was probably as useful as the radar itself, if not more so, and in my humble opinion was revolutionary -- limitations and all. After all, information is only as useful as what you do with it, and how quickly it can be done.
It saved the RAF from maintaining standing patrols (though I gather they did so anyway in some cases), and most importantly to my thinking provided for the principal of mass-of-force to be practiced in a quickly-changing aerial environment.
From the very first testing of RADAR it was shown that without a CaC system RADAR (RDF) had limited use. From wiki "
"In a similar test against the operational radar at Bawdsey in 1937, the results were comical. As Dowding watched the ground controllers scramble to direct their fighters, he could hear the bombers passing overhead. He identified the problem not as a technological one, but in the reporting; the pilots were being sent too many reports, often contradictory. This realization led to the development of the Dowding system, a vast network of telephone lines reporting to a central filter room in London where the reports from the radar stations were collected and collated, and fed back to the pilots in a clear format. The system as a whole was enormously manpower intensive."
Generally "patrols" in the BoB were not standing patrols, which would be a constant presence from sunrise to sunset. Flights or squadrons were sent up to patrol an area and height to cover possibilities against a detected raid. They would then be vectored to a new intercept or stood down. During the tip and run raid period, standing patrols were used and it was a massive exhausting effort.
On the German side Wiki says this "While CH was being installed in the UK, the Germans were working on their own radar systems and had deployed an excellent early-warning system known as Freya. The complexity of relaying the information from the radars to the fighters had not been addressed and was apparently never seriously considered at the time. During the Battle of the Heligoland Bight in 1939, over 100 German aircraft were scrambled to meet a small force of RAF bombers, but less than half of these found them. "
But the British efforts didnt start with RADAR they started with acoustic mirrors, which gave an idea of tying information from different stations together to get a better result and having to consider what you do with the information.
Last edited:
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Thanks for the correction in my terminology; it was these patrols I was thinking of when I wrote "standing patrols were occasionally done".
I didn't realize the difference between my usage and the actual practice, and so used the wrong term.
One more thing I learn here, and cheers for it.
Last edited:
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Sure, I get the differences in length-of-day varying according to latitude. I was simply saying I used the wrong term to describe those British sorties, from my not understanding "standing patrols" as meaning constant and throughout.
Last edited:
Thumpalumpacus
Major
I know that the closer you get to the poles, the more extreme are the lengths of day and night (depending on season). I don't have to live there to learn this stuff. Reading is a useful skill, for me.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Yeah, I get all that. I'm not dumb.
By the way, maintenance on an active flight-line often takes place at night regardless of latitude.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Local tides are quite a bit different from latitudinal differences in diurnal lengths. The latter is a global phenomenon easily understood once one understands the axial tilt of the Earth. The former is very much based on local conditions including seabed gradient and local currents.
I may not understand the tides anywhere in England, having not lived there, but have no problem understanding that days and nights have different lengths depending on latitude, as that is not subject to local conditions.
