Battle of Britain

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Post Reply
User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Battle of Britain

#1066

Post by phylo_roadking » 13 Jan 2009, 00:24

There were at least five raids on the Southhampton plant...but did the Germans even KNOW about Castle Bromwich in 1940??? :wink:

User avatar
Simon K
Member
Posts: 1425
Joined: 19 Jul 2008, 20:25
Location: London U.K

Re: Battle of Britain

#1067

Post by Simon K » 13 Jan 2009, 00:30

The shadow factories were unknown to Beppo Schmidtt IIRC.


User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002, 13:15
Location: UK

Re: Battle of Britain

#1068

Post by Tim Smith » 13 Jan 2009, 09:21

Wasn't Castle Bromwich bombed by accident in 1940? I think the Germans hit it while trying to hit something else.

User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008, 22:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: Battle of Britain

#1069

Post by bf109 emil » 13 Jan 2009, 09:50

Tim Smith wrote:Wasn't Castle Bromwich bombed by accident in 1940? I think the Germans hit it while trying to hit something else.
Tim, maybe the Germans where trying for the spitfire factory, i found this...
Wartime maps reveal bomb targets
http://www.expressandstar.com/2008/05/1 ... b-targets/
In August 1940 a German plane flew over the West Midlands taking photographs of sites they hoped to obliterate with their bombs.

For 60 years, these photographs, showing many important sites, have been hidden away under the bed of a Birmingham man - but now they have been uncovered and donated to the RAF Museum at Cosford.
The maps show that the Germans planned to bomb the Spitfire and Lancaster Bomber factory at Castle Bromwich, the Singer car company at Acocks Green, Longbridge in Birmingham and the Rover works in Solihull.
-Jim

User avatar
Michael Emrys
Member
Posts: 6002
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 19:44
Location: USA

Re: Battle of Britain

#1070

Post by Michael Emrys » 13 Jan 2009, 15:46

What was Singer making at this time?

Michael
Incoming fire has the right of way.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Battle of Britain

#1071

Post by phylo_roadking » 13 Jan 2009, 16:16

From the Singer Owners Club page...
Then onto another war-and this time from the five Singer factories came a miscellany of vital armaments...air frames for Wellington bombers, guntrailers, shell cases, pumps, Spitfire engine mountings, landing gear for aircraft, fuselages for the Halifax and wing panels.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10054
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: Battle of Britain

#1072

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 03 Feb 2009, 03:01

bf109 emil wrote:......

.....-regarding your ? when the time the decision was taken and implemented...
-from Winterbotham, to add to your question, in August, the officer in charge could also make sure that only those people authorized to handle signals would in fact receive them and nothing would be left lying about. the SLU were given a sound-proof cubicle 'down the hole' as the deep underground operations room at Stanmore was called,and I (Winterbotham) had a direct teleprinter installed from HUT 3. I also had put Air-Vice Marshall Park,the commanding officer No.II Group, and his controllers in the Ultra picture, so that they would know what Dowding was talking about if and when we began to get information of raids. No.II Group, which directly commanded all the fighter squadrons in the south of England, was to take the brunt of the great attacks.sourcehttp://www.amazon.com/Ultra-Secret-F-W- ... 71-9388168
That accounts for Enigma decrypts & analysis. There were other sources of signal intel on the GAF. Traffic analysis of the aircraft signals, their ground stations, direction finding on the same, and any other low level traffic not encrypted with the Enigma machines. This was not all directed thru the ULTRA system? If not, what other intel channels were used to direct information to Dowding & his subordinates?

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

Re: Battle of Britain

#1073

Post by Andy H » 04 Feb 2009, 17:03

In Anthony Furses book Wilfred Freeman (The Genius behind Allied survival and air supremacy 1939-1945), he states (Pg73) that "the 350ft masts though fragile looking, were difficult to damage and needed high quality/special imported timber" for there construction.

Does anyone know what the timber type was and where it was sourced from?

Regards

Andy H

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Battle of Britain

#1074

Post by phylo_roadking » 04 Feb 2009, 17:25

Andy, I've indeed heard the system used timber...the receiving towers at one end of the wire antenna were wood, the taller transmitting towers were steel. From B.T. Neale's 1985 article, produced in 1985 for GEC -
Each station employed four (later stations were reduced to three) in-line, 360 feet steel transmitter towers spaced approx 180 feet apart, each tower being fitted with cantilevered platforms at 50, 200 and 350 feet. The transmitter 'curtains' were slung between towers and fed by strained 600 ohm transmission lines leading from the heavily protected transmitter building nearby. Two identical transmitters (Type T.3026) were used in a main and standby role, with rapid change-over arrangements in the event of failure of the operational transmitter.

Typical operating conditions were:-

Frequency: 20 to 30 MHz

Peak Power: 350 kW (later 750 kW)
p.r.f.: 25 and 12.5 p.p.s.

Pulse Length: 20 us

Four 240 feet wooden receiver towers, usually placed in rhombic formation, carried the receiver arrays. These towers and the associated receiver building were some hundreds of yards from the transmitter buildings and in some cases, were in a separate compound; truly bistatic in fact!

and

http://www.radarpages.co.uk/mob/ch/chainhome5.htm

...but I've never seen anything about the TYPE of timber. However, I DO know that when the Australian government imported British-made equipment to protect Australia in 1942, and built the ACO ("Advanced Chain Overseas") nine-station early-warning line, they just sourced timber harvested locally from local timber merchants...

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

Re: Battle of Britain

#1075

Post by Andy H » 04 Feb 2009, 17:53

Hi Phylo

Thanks for the clarification, yes the recieving masts were wooden to stop interferring/influencing the recieving equipment.

Regards

Andy H

PS: Map showing the CH and CHL stations http://www.radarpages.co.uk/mob/ch/chainhome11map.htm

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Battle of Britain

#1076

Post by phylo_roadking » 04 Feb 2009, 19:24

Andy, I'd guess however that with Chain Home gradually being expanded...there wouldn't be a lack of timber stockpiled? One or two stations needing reapired or replaced would just mean one or two at the extreme ends of the growing system being delayed a some time. Priority would probably go to "battlefield repairs" :wink:

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

Re: Battle of Britain

#1077

Post by Andy H » 04 Feb 2009, 19:30

phylo_roadking wrote:Andy, I'd guess however that with Chain Home gradually being expanded...there wouldn't be a lack of timber stockpiled? One or two stations needing reapired or replaced would just mean one or two at the extreme ends of the growing system being delayed a some time. Priority would probably go to "battlefield repairs" :wink:
Hi Phylo

Well as we both well know, British timber imports were greatly affected by the German occupation of Norway and the resulting closure of the Baltic supplies. Equally imports from the Empire intially fell due to sinkings etc.

I dont doubt that British timber could and would have been used if needed. But why wasn't it used intially, when we were using 'special' imported timber prior?

Regards

Andy H

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Battle of Britain

#1078

Post by phylo_roadking » 04 Feb 2009, 19:50

I dont doubt that British timber could and would have been used if needed. But why wasn't it used intially, when we were using 'special' imported timber prior?
No, I meant I'd have assumed as "resource" as important as a "special" timber for the Chain Home stations would have been bought in and stockpiled in quantity. If there WERE supply issues identified... and remember, Britain was after all shipping iron ore out of Narvik TOO - but suffered very high losses to U-Boats once immediately outside the Norwegian three-mile limit :wink: - it would have been a severe oversight NOT to lay in enough once the initial requirement was identified....?

(general timber imports may have been affected...but I won't assume this requirement was affected until we KNOW what the wood was. Could have been something odd from the Empire...)

User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008, 22:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: Battle of Britain

#1079

Post by bf109 emil » 09 Feb 2009, 10:42

Unsure if Timber was vital or special type of lumber/variety...Britain at this time in history was a highly industrial nation...it needed to trade, sell goods to keep employment going likewise for countries with a lucrative forestry industry, i.e. whom many cords of timber does Norway trade for a Lee Enfield rifle?? Perhaps since this trade for a resource was suddenly stopped, and maybe due to British forestry industry, having over the years not needing to be self reliable, or from trading with Commonwealth countries such as Canada, never pressed or had online a quick solution to stem what might be called a crises due to a trade or lack of such...all in all i reckon a few church pews would have handily been sacrificed quickly if need be or survival/radar was lacking due to a timber shortage as this time and moment in History

User avatar
FireFoxy
Banned
Posts: 347
Joined: 07 Nov 2008, 10:26
Location: Melbourne Austraila

Re: Battle of Britain

#1080

Post by FireFoxy » 25 Feb 2009, 05:31

Wolfgang H wrote:[Moved from the Polls section]


I think the Brittish would have fallen and would have been invaded.
How about the rest of you?


What would have happened if the Luftwaffe kept targeting the Brittish airfields instead of London?

Britain would have fallen and been invaded
Britain would still have repelled the Luftwaffe and won the Battle of Britain
Germany would have complete air superiority, but the Brittish would have still defeated Germany with their navy
Being on home turf ,the English had more of the advantage over Germany!Germany would had to get supplys flowen in and by sea and i doubt that America and the R/N would sit by and just watch but this would only by time. In saying this I can see England being invaded but only for a short time only!
Down the track of the war America and Russia would come to the resue with the help of the R/N, that would free up the R/A/ F causing germany to head out of England and back to Germany.
V = VICTORY

Post Reply

Return to “What if”