Register here

Author Topic: German Late War Radar Development  (Read 6615 times)

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7550
German Late War Radar Development
« on: October 04, 2015, 06:10:03 am »
Tests for Radar absorbing materials were actually done in Germany around 1944, but not
for aircraft, but for the snorkels of the Uboats (http://www.uboataces.com/snorkel.shtml ,
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schnorchel_%28Schiffsteil%29 ). Those wrappings and coatings
were partially succesful, but the used materials to my opinion weren't very useful for aircraft.
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline newsdeskdan

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 214
  • AWACS Thunderhead: "All units, engage."
Re: German Late War Radar Development
« Reply #1 on: October 04, 2015, 07:23:45 am »
Tests for Radar absorbing materials were actually done in Germany around 1944, but not
for aircraft, but for the snorkels of the Uboats (http://www.uboataces.com/snorkel.shtml ,
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schnorchel_%28Schiffsteil%29 ). Those wrappings and coatings
were partially succesful, but the used materials to my opinion weren't very useful for aircraft.

This is correct. The files are there at TNA on radar absorbing materials for U-boat snorkels.
“This modular concept we have called MUSTARD (Multi Unit Space Transport and Recovery Device), and has been the subject of considerable detailed work.” Tom Smith, BAC Preston

Offline newsdeskdan

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 214
  • AWACS Thunderhead: "All units, engage."
Re: German Late War Radar Development
« Reply #2 on: October 04, 2015, 07:26:29 am »
They were not working on materials that had anything to do with radar either. I would ask you to show me a single WW2 document that mentions the effect of aircraft shapes or materials with regard to radar but I know that such a thing does not exist.

I did see a UK technical report from 1941 or 42 that outlined this in theory, how a RAM would work, what materials might be suitable etc. It was in the back of an old textbook but could probably be found in TNA.

I haven't seen anything on this but I can well believe it. The British were way ahead on all aspects of radar.
“This modular concept we have called MUSTARD (Multi Unit Space Transport and Recovery Device), and has been the subject of considerable detailed work.” Tom Smith, BAC Preston

Offline Wurger

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 716
Re: German Late War Radar Development
« Reply #3 on: October 05, 2015, 03:29:41 am »
newsdeskdan said: "The british were well ahead on all aspects of radar". Actually it`s not true, the germans were catching up very fast, as the north-americans acknowledged after the war. Much has been said ( by the brits) on british superiority on radar, but it is now very debatable and this is being deflated, especially in America. The AI Mk IX radar was a total flunk on the british side, to take an example. If you stick to Alfred Price`s works  on Luftwaffe radars and Norman Friedman on german naval radar you just get biased and extremelly sketchy information in german electronics. I suggest this unsuspected site, made by dutchmen and free from british selfcentered radar propaganda:


http://www.cdvandt.org/index.htm















Offline newsdeskdan

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 214
  • AWACS Thunderhead: "All units, engage."
Re: German Late War Radar Development
« Reply #4 on: October 05, 2015, 05:10:44 am »
newsdeskdan said: "The british were well ahead on all aspects of radar". Actually it`s not true, the germans were catching up very fast, as the north-americans acknowledged after the war. Much has been said ( by the brits) on british superiority on radar, but it is now very debatable and this is being deflated, especially in America. The AI Mk IX radar was a total flunk on the british side, to take an example. If you stick to Alfred Price`s works  on Luftwaffe radars and Norman Friedman on german naval radar you just get biased and extremelly sketchy information in german electronics. I suggest this unsuspected site, made by dutchmen and free from british selfcentered radar propaganda:


http://www.cdvandt.org/index.htm




I wouldn't call it an unsuspected site! It's a fantastic site full of useful primary source material - the CIOS, BIOS and FIAT reports in particular have been very useful. I'd hate to think that I was responsible for spouting self-centred British radar propaganda. Which particular aspects of radar were the Germans catching up fast on? I'm fully prepared to be proven wrong.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2015, 05:40:29 am by newsdeskdan »
“This modular concept we have called MUSTARD (Multi Unit Space Transport and Recovery Device), and has been the subject of considerable detailed work.” Tom Smith, BAC Preston

Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3166
Re: German Late War Radar Development
« Reply #5 on: October 05, 2015, 07:10:26 am »
"The british were well ahead on all aspects of radar"

I agree

Offline Wurger

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 716
Re: German Late War Radar Development
« Reply #6 on: October 05, 2015, 02:46:49 pm »
German decimetric radar was well ahead of British radar, and they were quickly catching up on centímetric, emulating american magnetrons ( from the 3cm h2x ), but pursuing their own line of investigation. German engineering was recognized by the British to be excellent (they had this transpired after the bruneval raid ) as compared to theirs, And the Germans reckoned the British sets to be clumsy And bulky ( in their wording, "too much air in the box" ). 

True ,the British had good ideas on radar but, as the americans often said, it was up to them to put it in hardware good enough to be made in mass numbers. They had very good production engineers, the brits dont. Us radar was damn good, not the British ones.

Also, as often unrecognized by anglo-saxon sources, the resonant magnetron was not invented in the UK, it was in germany by hollman.

 Much of my amateurish arguments can be well researched in that website, as well as in the excellent fritz trenkle's books ( both published and unpublished ).

Although many cios/bios/fiat reports are interesting, those made by British officials differ from those made by us personnel, more willing to acknowledge the german achievements. From memory I recall one on German aircraft fire control, in whih they were extremely advanced, where, despite the many types refered and the interesting techniques described, the authors concluded that German technology was behind the British acomplishments, whatever they were.

Many articles in that website cite the British proclivity to underestimate foreign technology, even in the many conferences Mr. Bauer attended and participated with his own research.















Offline newsdeskdan

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 214
  • AWACS Thunderhead: "All units, engage."
Re: German Late War Radar Development
« Reply #7 on: October 05, 2015, 03:11:11 pm »
German decimetric radar was well ahead of British radar, and they were quickly catching up on centímetric, emulating american magnetrons ( from the 3cm h2x ), but pursuing their own line of investigation. German engineering was recognized by the British to be excellent (they had this transpired after the bruneval raid ) as compared to theirs, And the Germans reckoned the British sets to be clumsy And bulky ( in their wording, "too much air in the box" ). 

True ,the British had good ideas on radar but, as the americans often said, it was up to them to put it in hardware good enough to be made in mass numbers. They had very good production engineers, the brits dont. Us radar was damn good, not the British ones.

Also, as often unrecognized by anglo-saxon sources, the resonant magnetron was not invented in the UK, it was in germany by hollman.

 Much of my amateurish arguments can be well researched in that website, as well as in the excellent fritz trenkle's books ( both published and unpublished ).

Although many cios/bios/fiat reports are interesting, those made by British officials differ from those made by us personnel, more willing to acknowledge the german achievements. From memory I recall one on German aircraft fire control, in whih they were extremely advanced, where, despite the many types refered and the interesting techniques described, the authors concluded that German technology was behind the British acomplishments, whatever they were.

Many articles in that website cite the British proclivity to underestimate foreign technology, even in the many conferences Mr. Bauer attended and participated with his own research.

There certainly appears to be a case there for a dispassionate study. As much as I'm interested in your revisionist attitude, I can't help but be a little put off by your rather general claims about British, German and American technology. The Americans have good production engineers, "the Brits don't". Really? The British sets are clumsy and bulky with too much air in the box. Really?
The British seem to acknowledge the excellence of German engineering achievements in numerous instances. Read the Farren report on the work that went into the He 162. The same is evidently not true the other way around.
Regarding fire control, it's a shame you haven't read about any of the British technology you're so certain wasn't up to the job. Ever heard of Predictor No. 11 developed by the Telecommunication Research Establishment?
I would be quite prepared to concede the superiority of German radar technology, or American, if you could provide some real evidence that what you are saying is correct. As it stands, you have convinced me that you have a strong dislike of British WW2 technology but beyond that I am unpersuaded.
“This modular concept we have called MUSTARD (Multi Unit Space Transport and Recovery Device), and has been the subject of considerable detailed work.” Tom Smith, BAC Preston

Offline Wurger

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 716
Re: German Late War Radar Development
« Reply #8 on: October 06, 2015, 04:42:48 am »
Yes, I`ve heard about the Predictor No. 11 developed by the Telecommunication Research Establishment, Ian Hogg happened to mention it, but it was an AA director. Have you heard about the electronic experimental AA directors ( 3 successive versions ) developed by Askania? Or the ones on development by AEG?

Brits brag about of the development of Huff/Duff. Do you know about the german extraordinary developments on this? Please consult the refered webpage.

German aircraft radar fire control is most interesting. I suggest, apart form CIOS/BIOS7FIAT, the excellent US Naval Technical Mission in Europe reports. Fritz Trenkle`s also provided on this subject. FFO was working on AGLT probably ( they were working on it in late 1944, as reported) at the same time TRE was doing the same. The 1,5 cm FuG248 Eule was ahead anything the western allies had on short range fire control radar. And so on...

Reading and researching off the anglo-saxon range will make it more horizont-broadening. Unfortunatelly no widescope radar literature or research appeared on Germany since Fritz Trenkle, but even his work is now not up to date. There enters Arthur Bauer`s work which will fulfill some of the gaps. On those allied reports, I much prefer those made by the americans. They had this flair for gadjets much like the germans, with their pletora of sets which ultimatelly contributed to their demise but are, at least to me, technologically fascinating.

Offline newsdeskdan

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 214
  • AWACS Thunderhead: "All units, engage."
Re: German Late War Radar Development
« Reply #9 on: October 07, 2015, 01:04:33 am »
Yes, I`ve heard about the Predictor No. 11 developed by the Telecommunication Research Establishment, Ian Hogg happened to mention it, but it was an AA director. Have you heard about the electronic experimental AA directors ( 3 successive versions ) developed by Askania? Or the ones on development by AEG?

Brits brag about of the development of Huff/Duff. Do you know about the german extraordinary developments on this? Please consult the refered webpage.

German aircraft radar fire control is most interesting. I suggest, apart form CIOS/BIOS7FIAT, the excellent US Naval Technical Mission in Europe reports. Fritz Trenkle`s also provided on this subject. FFO was working on AGLT probably ( they were working on it in late 1944, as reported) at the same time TRE was doing the same. The 1,5 cm FuG248 Eule was ahead anything the western allies had on short range fire control radar. And so on...

Reading and researching off the anglo-saxon range will make it more horizont-broadening. Unfortunatelly no widescope radar literature or research appeared on Germany since Fritz Trenkle, but even his work is now not up to date. There enters Arthur Bauer`s work which will fulfill some of the gaps. On those allied reports, I much prefer those made by the americans. They had this flair for gadjets much like the germans, with their pletora of sets which ultimatelly contributed to their demise but are, at least to me, technologically fascinating.

I'm frequently surprised that more isn't written in Germany to acknowledge German WW2 technological advancements away from aircraft, tanks etc. The great wave of publications that came out during the 1990s (which suffered from the technological restrictions of the time i.e. no internet, printing that couldn't readily accommodate the full colour reproduction of original documents etc.) has crashed and gone, along with most of the authors responsible for it. With the original documents and tech available today, it must be possible to write truly authoritative works on German tech in many areas.
You certainly present a lot of interesting information and I accept that my assertion that Britain was way ahead in all areas of radar may be vulnerable when faced with a detailed challenge. In spite of German successes and advances in radar however, it is difficult to get away from the fact that German radar suffered operational vulnerabilities which led to, for example, the success of the D-Day landings and the implementation of Wilde sau night fighter missions which effectively bypassed (what was perceived by pilots to be ineffective) radar all together.
That said, someone should be looking at the purely technological aspect of radar and assessing its relative merits. Starting in, say, 1939, what's needed is a month by month look at what systems were in use by each side and whether they were effective or ineffective compared with those of their opponents. Also what was in development but not yet available in the field. That way, an evolving picture of relative strengths and weaknesses of radar throughout the war would emerge and we could either dismiss or acknowledge my original assertion fully.
With regard to reports, you surprise me. I can't say I prefer any one country's reports to any other's. Aren't we beyond that sort of analysis? The information presented is either good or it isn't. Some British/German/American report authors write well, others don't. If we're going to get to the truth, it might be as well to leave prejudice at the door and treat all sources dispassionately.
The Americans have done themselves no favours with regard to WW2 history. While Britain has benefited from well-kept cohesive archives, the Americans seem to have dispersed or buried most of theirs in inaccessible archives (prove me wrong someone!). And while Britain has seen a steady trickle of authors keen to blow the trumpet on British 'back room' technological achievements, those of the Americans are overshadowed by the work of authors who favour gung-ho achievements in the field to ground-breaking work in the lab.
Write me a book on German radar achievements Wurger, and I will buy it gladly. Show your sources, be fair in your assessments (ignore 'anglo-saxon' boastfulness, be wary of unsubstantiated claims from all sides and look at the facts) and we'll finally have the truth.
“This modular concept we have called MUSTARD (Multi Unit Space Transport and Recovery Device), and has been the subject of considerable detailed work.” Tom Smith, BAC Preston

Offline CJGibson

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 876
  • This is what they want!
Re: German Late War Radar Development
« Reply #10 on: October 07, 2015, 02:24:31 am »
"Write me a book on German radar achievements"

Aye, write one, but try getting it published. That's the reason it hasn't been covered - no mass market. Chances are that if you're into radar, anything in a book about radar will be old hat to you.

to widen the debate, there is plenty on the Wunderwaffen, but nowt on the radar, radio, chemistry etc. For example, there's a few academic works on the German war economy esp. synthetic fuels, but nothing in the mainstream press (that I have seen) that is in the style of David Edgerton's Britain's War Machine, which looked at fuel, energy and food supplies in wartime Britain.

Chris

Offline newsdeskdan

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 214
  • AWACS Thunderhead: "All units, engage."
Re: German Late War Radar Development
« Reply #11 on: October 07, 2015, 03:19:55 am »
but try getting it published.

Kindle Direct Publishing (and similar) - it's the way forward for niche publications. You get a worldwide market and it never goes out of print. Not great for clear reproduction of images but that wouldn't be essential for a book on radar anyway.
It's not going to make you rich either but you can put your ideas and analysis out there for others to read the way you'd like them to be read, no matter how niche.

EDIT: I'm also not convinced that there is no market for a book that's written the right way. There's no market for a boring book, that's true, but if you write it in the context of the big battles, the desperate struggle, the hair-raising consequences of failure etc., sitting the tech alongside the practical realities of how it was used, you get something appealing (in my view). Also, radar feeds into stealth, for which there seems to be an unending appetite. Perhaps the real problem we have here is a lack of authors who possess both a technical understanding of radar and the ability to present it in a clearly understandable, accessible and relevant format. The closest I think I've seen anyone come to that is the D-Day Operations Manual from Haynes.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2015, 03:35:07 am by newsdeskdan »
“This modular concept we have called MUSTARD (Multi Unit Space Transport and Recovery Device), and has been the subject of considerable detailed work.” Tom Smith, BAC Preston

Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3166
Re: German Late War Radar Development
« Reply #12 on: October 07, 2015, 09:42:39 am »
"Write me a book on German radar achievements"

Motorbuch Verlag Stuttgart ISBN 3-87943-668-1

Offline Wurger

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 716
Re: German Late War Radar Development
« Reply #13 on: October 07, 2015, 11:53:18 am »
I hope to present here soon a book on german (naval) radar, with a tiny contribution from me. Unfortunatelly, on german airborne radar, the old Fritz Trenkle books ( commercially edited by Motorbuch and Bernard&Graefe and the manuscripts from DGON) are still unknown in english language, and needing an update. Modern research in Germany is, to my knowledge, nonexistant, or close to it. Trenkle failed to mention, though, the german army (Heer) efforts on radar ( artillery and mortar location, field surveillance or AA defence ), but all I got `til now is a quite blurred image on this subject. But they had them in consideration, and up to testing experiments!

Offline lastdingo

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 408
Re: German Late War Radar Development
« Reply #14 on: October 07, 2015, 01:11:03 pm »
There was also a Waffen Arsenal booklet issue about German FuMG, in its usual style; many monochrome photos, some line drawings IIRC, not terribly much text, divided by types.