Why the Buff formation is the most unbalancing item in the game.

[Furball]

Case in point: In Spring 1945, a few P-51 groups launched a massive formation of fighters that bunched up into a tight formation, and flew at typical bomber altitudes and speeds.  The Germans launched a massive group of fighters to intercept what they thought were unescorted bombers. (I don't remember the specifics of the units, but IIRC, this involved Yeager's group so you could cross reference this with that, if you so desire).

On D-Day 617 squadron under Leonard Cheshire flew a very careful flight plan at a set altitude dropping 'window' (chaff) from their aircraft, and managed to simulate a 14 mile wide convoy of ships heading towards France, fooling German radars into thinking an invasion convoy was heading towards that area and keeping troops stationed there while the invasion was taking place.

Another remarkable operation undertaken by the "Dam Busters" played an important part in the successful landings in Normandy on D-Day, 6th June 1944. Known as Operation Taxable it was the simulation of a large "ghost" convoy of ships crossing the narrowest part of the English Channel. Eighteen small naval vessels steamed towards France at seven knots, and to make their radar response correspond to that created by a large convoy, the Lancasters of No. 617 flew overhead in a continuous wide orbit, gradually nearing the French coast. Every four seconds throughout the three-and-a-half hours of the operation, bundles of Window (small metal strips which produced a false echo on the enemy radar screens) were thrown out of the aircraft. Meticulous timing was necessary, as an error of only four seconds would have been sufficient to make the "convoy" look suspect. As the last Lancaster turned for home its crew had the satisfaction of seeing the German guns open radar-predicted fire on the non-existent convoy. Meanwhile the real invasion force was nearing the coast many miles away.

From the RAF's web site.

[dkff49]

All these discussions about how radar was during the war is the reason I stated that there should just be a formation of dots (3) marking the formation. I never said that they could tell type by radar. I just was trying to state that a formation of aircraft would look different than a single.

With the additional dots implemented you would not be able to tell the difference between a group of guys that can hold a formation and a formation of bombers.

Let's face another reality here. Historical accuracies having nothing to do with this subject since (to the best of my knowledge which is not much) most aircraft that would be flying toward a common goal would be doing so in formation and not a bunch lone flyers. In reality if we were all worried about historical accuracies there would be no difference in radar sigs between a group of bombers and a group of fighters. In reality we would not have continuous furballs going on and there would be no one ticked off because their furball was ruined.

On another note, I think after Hitech's post there is most likely going to be no change to the current system. It also seems that those that want these changes the most fly bombers rarely if ever and no nothing of the likelyhood of a successful bomber sortie.

IMHO

[Chalenge]

There ya go.

Except Wikipedia is wrong in this case.

[Steve]

Except Wikipedia is wrong in this case.

See Furball's post above.

[mechanic]

ive killed a b17 with a spit mkI before! 

[BnZ]

ive killed a b17 with a spit mkI before! 

Hush Bat, you don't count. You killed Sputnik with the rear gun of a Ju-87 once.

[Chalenge]

See Furball's post above.

I did see them Steve and I know chain home radar could not fix a planes altitude. The brief reference in the articles to 'heightfinding' was unspecific because in practice the protecting fighters discovered the equipment to be imprecise at best with estimates off as much as eight-thousand feet. Like I said the early radars could not 'fix' altitude and there were quite a few times intercepting fighters were vectored to empty skies or intercept points with the intruders very high above them and impossible to catch.

During the war radar systems came along that could fix altitude but that is beside the point because at no time during the war and indeed even up until now radar systems cannot identify aircraft types without some other detection system helping. Transponders are used today to aid in aircraft identification and our most advanced fighter systems still depend on AWACS (airborne warning and control) for additional intelligence (identification).

The articles furball cited are a little biased even though they dont present untruths exactly. Specifically the British had some good fortunes with 'chaff' however the Germans later defeated the system 'window' in their late war radar designs that did see completely through chaff (Siemens & Halske: Jagdschloz FuMG 404) and determined altitude as well.

This all makes for interesting discussion yet nothing is likely to change online.

[BnZ]

I did see them Steve and I know chain home radar could not fix a planes altitude. The brief reference in the articles to 'heightfinding' was unspecific because in practice the protecting fighters discovered the equipment to be imprecise at best with estimates off as much as eight-thousand feet.

Right now our AH radar tells us that the enemy is somewhere between 500 and 50,000 feet.

[Chalenge]

Right now our AH radar tells us that the enemy is somewhere between 500 and 50,000 feet.

Right now your radar also fixes the exact position (north/south-east/west) and you have a gods eye view from the cockpit. Thats more then you should need since in practice the best a pilot could hope for in WWII was something like a sector darbar would give you and thats if and only if he had radio communication with a controller.

[Steve]

I did see them Steve and I know chain home radar could not fix a planes altitude.

I never said anything about alt.  I said radar can tell the difference between a lone fighter and 3 bombers.  You disagreed, and I was shown to be correct. I never said a word about alt.

[Chalenge]

I dont think so Steve.

[SD67]

I don't remember Steve saying anything about altitude either.
Challenge do you have any sources to support your theories about the inaccuracies of the CH and CHL systems?
So far the only linked/quoted sources refute your claims.

[Chalenge]

From the modern RAFs website:

The RDF information was crude by modern standards, but was more than sufficient to give bearing and range information on an incoming raid. The system consisted of two dials and a cathode ray tube that gave a screen presentation of the raids range. The two dials supplied time and bearing information. The height of the raid could only be accurately provided once the raid came within visual sighting range of the Observer Corps posts. With experience, RDF Operators could judge the size of the raid by the size and shape of the blip on the screen.

Back when I was more inclined to work hard for a living I studied things like radio signal ranging and high-energy radio interferometry (among other things) and I also remember quite a few conversations with a family member that was a military flier about how in movies the radar operator would say 'they are coming in at 27000 feet' to which he would say 'he cant know that.'

Note they use 'judge' which made quite a few problems over time. Atmospheric conditions could easily make one airplane look like a swarm.

[Furball]

Chalenge, do you know about the 'battle' the RAF had during the 'phoney war'?  I can't for the life of me remember what the name they gave it was to look it up.

Basically, in the early days of the CH radar, it would detect aircraft along beams away from the radar masts.  Unbeknownst to the radar operators, the radar would show a target along a straight line looking towards the channel, or back into Britain.

IIRC it went like this: One morning a squadron of Spitfires were upping for a patrol, this was detected on the radar screens due to the above flaw, and seen as an incoming German raid.  So more aircraft were scrambled.  The radar operators and control rooms thought the Germans were forming for a huge raid, so more RAF aircraft were scrambled.  This process repeated itself until nearly every available fighter the RAF had were up in the sky looking for a huge 'German' formation, when really the only aircraft in the sky were themselves!

The flaw was immediately fixed in time for the real battle.  I have it in a book somewhere, i will try and find it later.

Also, experienced AI radar operators of the intruder squadrons could tell a German nightfighter from the bombers in the bomber streams by looking at the 'blip'.  Mossies or Beaufighters would accompany the bomber stream and try to intercept the fighters as they went in for the attack.

[Stoney]

Also, experienced AI radar operators of the intruder squadrons could tell a German nightfighter from the bombers in the bomber streams by looking at the 'blip'.  Mossies or Beaufighters would accompany the bomber stream and try to intercept the fighters as they went in for the attack.

Are you sure about the terminology here Furball?  Being able to ascertain the type of aircraft from the "blip" itself is different from being able to ascertain the type of aircraft from watching what the "blip" does over time, and identifying the "blip" as something that conforms to the profile of a night fighter.

I've watched hours of primary radar returns behind some of the best gear the U.S. Navy has during combat operations, and I'll tell you that the whole process of classifying radar returns is still daunting and susceptible to errors.  Especially if the track isn't giving you hints from secondary sources.

Karnak has a link to some good WWII radar information we used to discuss how "stealthy" the Mosquito wasn't.  Is that the same link as you posted Furball?