Hi AikinutNY,
I think your question could be rephrased as:
Did the Germans not get any tactical warning of the airborne landing and did they not detect the invasion fleet. If so, why did they not react more promptly and effectively? And the answer to that is VERY lengthy and it does involve radars. The answer lies to a great extend in Operation FORTITUDE.
Please see:
http://www.normandiememoire.com/NM60Ang ... _p5_gb.htm
http://www.mod.uk/aboutus/dday60/fortitude.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 14army.htm
Quote from the above site:
"When the invasion came at Normandy, German resistance was stiff, but there was no counter-attack by reserve panzer forces. These were being held in preparation for the "real" invasion at Calais. The German High Command remained transfixed by the phantom First U.S. Army Group and the specter of Patton wading ashore with his troops at Calais".
So the answer is much more than radar-detection, it is very succesful deception at the strategic and operational level.
bregds
SES
Radar site at Normandy
Interesting
It is very interesting to see just how taken in the German General Staff was with Operation Fortitude and that they ignored all the "real" information coming from the radar sites on the coast.
I wonder what the first radar crewman thought when he went outside for a break and saw that thew blips were real. "Herr Captain! Wir haben ein grosse problem!"
I wonder what the first radar crewman thought when he went outside for a break and saw that thew blips were real. "Herr Captain! Wir haben ein grosse problem!"
Hi,
We are still not quite there yet. There was Operation TAXABLE and GLIMMER. please see:
http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/h617.html
http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:p1V ... sion&hl=da
http://www.hellzapoppin.demon.co.uk/glimmer.htm
http://windsofchange.net/archives/005015.php
http://www.vectorsite.net/ttwiz9.html
These operations were tactical and operational deceptions.
bregds
SES
We are still not quite there yet. There was Operation TAXABLE and GLIMMER. please see:
http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/h617.html
http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:p1V ... sion&hl=da
http://www.hellzapoppin.demon.co.uk/glimmer.htm
http://windsofchange.net/archives/005015.php
http://www.vectorsite.net/ttwiz9.html
These operations were tactical and operational deceptions.
bregds
SES
Hello SES -
From the introductory page on your web site:
But this raises a very puzzling question. How was Michael Holm magically able to provide the exact location, the code name, and the Ln-Kp. for each and every one? Your map just gives a general location with no other information. Since I have personally gone through all of the microfilmed Luftnachrichten documents as well as Hoffmann and discovered none of this information, I am very perplexed, indeed. This information is not to be found in the Allied wartime intelligence documentation, either.
Do you have any ideas on this, SES? Where could this very precise information have come from? How could Michael Holm (who never cites his sources) have come up with it when everyone else failed to find it?
--Larry
From the introductory page on your web site:
My sentiments exactly. I, too, have spent many years searching for this highly elusive information: where were the radar sites in France, what were their code names and what was the identity of the Ln-Kp. that operated each one. You found the map and I didn't.It always frustrated me that there nowhere I could find, was a complete map of the radarstations in France like the one to be found in K.O.Hoffmann Band II, Teil 1 p. 329. I just received a package from BAMA containing o.a. RL 8/97. Therein is the map that I've been looking for for years. It's not the world best copy I've got, some names I cannot read and some I might have gotten wrong, so I solicit comments and corrections.
But this raises a very puzzling question. How was Michael Holm magically able to provide the exact location, the code name, and the Ln-Kp. for each and every one? Your map just gives a general location with no other information. Since I have personally gone through all of the microfilmed Luftnachrichten documents as well as Hoffmann and discovered none of this information, I am very perplexed, indeed. This information is not to be found in the Allied wartime intelligence documentation, either.
Do you have any ideas on this, SES? Where could this very precise information have come from? How could Michael Holm (who never cites his sources) have come up with it when everyone else failed to find it?
--Larry
Radar site at Normandy
Hi Larry,
I allways thought M.H. was using Tessin as his main source.
Apart form the map you refer to there are 3 other very important sources, whcih I only got privy to recently:
BAMA RL 2 V/9 K1, 2 and 3, which depicts all Sellungen within Das Reich incl., those planned. The 3 maps are dated June 1944.
I should, however, emphazise that the radar sites, which detected the invasion fleet were part of the Kriegsmarine, although it was not unpresedented for Luftwaffe radars-sites also to report shipping.
bregds
SES
I allways thought M.H. was using Tessin as his main source.
Apart form the map you refer to there are 3 other very important sources, whcih I only got privy to recently:
BAMA RL 2 V/9 K1, 2 and 3, which depicts all Sellungen within Das Reich incl., those planned. The 3 maps are dated June 1944.
I should, however, emphazise that the radar sites, which detected the invasion fleet were part of the Kriegsmarine, although it was not unpresedented for Luftwaffe radars-sites also to report shipping.
bregds
SES
SES wrote:
Did you know there were HUGE multi-volume studies done after the war on the Luftnachrichten organization, including all of the Flugmeldemeßstellungen? I have not been able to locate it, but I did locate the one covering the Ln.Funkhorch/Funkaufklärung organization. It's called the "Seaborne Report" and runs to 15 volumes and was still classified TOP SECRET until about 1991. In it there is fairly frequent reference to another study series on the Flugmeldemeßstellungen. These studies were done between 1945 and 1948 by Allied intelligence investigators together with scores and scores of former Luftnachrichten officers. It provides great detail on all of the sites, including those in France. I have looked for this study for 20 years now at AFHRA Maxwell and at the U.S. National Archives and I haven't been able to find it.
Grüß
--Larry
Thats for your reply, SES. Michael Holm uses more than just Tessin. He has incorporated much of the data from the Flak- und Bodenorganisations-Karten in BA-MA Signatur RL 40/Kart in his unit write-ups, as well as information from a limited number of other sources. What he did not do was conduct a thorough, long-term, painstaking research investigation into all or most of the unpublished and published sources on the Luftwaffe. Because of that, his unit write-ups lack detail, are full of gaps, and a great deal of his information is either flat out wrong or in conflict with other sources. Except for his organizational information (i.e., KStN/KAN), which is almost always correct, I never use his material unless I can corroborate it with other sources. The information he has taken from Tessin and from the BA-MA maps is correct, but his other information should be treated cautiously.I allways thought M.H. was using Tessin as his main source.
Did you know there were HUGE multi-volume studies done after the war on the Luftnachrichten organization, including all of the Flugmeldemeßstellungen? I have not been able to locate it, but I did locate the one covering the Ln.Funkhorch/Funkaufklärung organization. It's called the "Seaborne Report" and runs to 15 volumes and was still classified TOP SECRET until about 1991. In it there is fairly frequent reference to another study series on the Flugmeldemeßstellungen. These studies were done between 1945 and 1948 by Allied intelligence investigators together with scores and scores of former Luftnachrichten officers. It provides great detail on all of the sites, including those in France. I have looked for this study for 20 years now at AFHRA Maxwell and at the U.S. National Archives and I haven't been able to find it.
Grüß
--Larry
Do you have the name of this report?
Larry D. wrote:SES wrote:
In it there is fairly frequent reference to another study series on the Flugmeldemeßstellungen. These studies were done between 1945 and 1948 by Allied intelligence investigators together with scores and scores of former Luftnachrichten officers. It provides great detail on all of the sites, including those in France. I have looked for this study for 20 years now at AFHRA Maxwell and at the U.S. National Archives and I haven't been able to find it.I allways thought M.H. was using Tessin as his main source.
Grüß
--Larry
"Information not shared . . ."Larry D. wrote:No, I haven't. There most certainly should be copies at the PRO (now U.K. National Archives), NARA WashDC, and at the U.S. Air Force Historical Research Agency at Maxwell AFB in Montgomery, Alabama.Have you also tried the PRO in London?
Please let me know if you manage to locate it.
--Larry
Brgeds
SES
RS 1800 -
No, I'm afraid I don't recall the exact title. It has been 14 years since I used the Seaborne Report and all I recall is that there was mention of the other report series. It was classified, too, but I think only SECRET. These archives in the U.S. hold an enormous volume of documents, but they are poorly indexed and in many cases there is no index at all. I probably examined 800+ boxes of material, but that is less than one-tenth of one percent of the total. It's like looking for the proverbial needle in the haystack.
Sorry.
No, I'm afraid I don't recall the exact title. It has been 14 years since I used the Seaborne Report and all I recall is that there was mention of the other report series. It was classified, too, but I think only SECRET. These archives in the U.S. hold an enormous volume of documents, but they are poorly indexed and in many cases there is no index at all. I probably examined 800+ boxes of material, but that is less than one-tenth of one percent of the total. It's like looking for the proverbial needle in the haystack.
Sorry.
NOTICE
I have just received an e-mail from Michael Holm and my apologies to him are in order. Michael DID indeed do the detailed and thorough research for the information on the radar sites in France. In fact, he was more thorough than I was. We used essentially the same documentation from the PRO in London, only Michael used more of it than I did and thus came up with more detailed coverage. So I will do what is not often done here and retract anything I said that might be interpreted as negative insofar as it applies to his work on the Luftnachrichtenregimenter und sonstige Einheiten. As we say, "Michael can talk the talk because he walked the walk." He did his homework and his information on these formations is probably as good as we will ever see, excluding perhaps the postwar study on the Flugmeldemeßstellungen that I eluded to previously.
My sincere apologies, Michael, for anything I might have said that was offensive.
--Larry
I have just received an e-mail from Michael Holm and my apologies to him are in order. Michael DID indeed do the detailed and thorough research for the information on the radar sites in France. In fact, he was more thorough than I was. We used essentially the same documentation from the PRO in London, only Michael used more of it than I did and thus came up with more detailed coverage. So I will do what is not often done here and retract anything I said that might be interpreted as negative insofar as it applies to his work on the Luftnachrichtenregimenter und sonstige Einheiten. As we say, "Michael can talk the talk because he walked the walk." He did his homework and his information on these formations is probably as good as we will ever see, excluding perhaps the postwar study on the Flugmeldemeßstellungen that I eluded to previously.
My sincere apologies, Michael, for anything I might have said that was offensive.
--Larry
Re: Radar site at Normandy
Hi,
You might be able to help me/ I might be able to all some information.
In 1943 an uncle of mine he volunteered for the Navy, after training he was told to report to HMS Odessa. After a long search he was directed to a long building and told that he (along with 7 others) were to be trained as a Naval commando and radar specialist.
In May 1944 they were told that along with Royal Marines, US Rangers and some Canadians they were to be formed as Naval commando Party Number 2 commanded by Peter Scott (the wild life expert). Their objective was a Radar station at Hill 213 half way between Lion sur Mer and Caen. My uncle stated that they were landed by submarine - moved inland towards the radar station and disabled it (thus the Germans would not be able to spot the aircraft flying over). Later with other forces they surrounded the radar station and after about a week captured the station including about 200 prisoners.
Subsequently in the War Naval Party Number 2 spent some time in Blankenburg were a Casino was used as a Radar station.
The units final action was on Walcheren where they were one of the first units to land and suffered heavy casulties getting to the beach (once on the beach the firing was lighter as the Germans were firing at other landing craft behind them and the main fleet). Because of these losses Naval Party Number 2 was split up.
After the war with Germany ended Navap Party Number 2 was reformed in 1945 to go to Japan for a september invasion but with the war ending this never happened.
From the comments above which my Uncle told me about many years ago (fortunatly I had to write a war story for school and kept the essay).
I have never seen any mention of forces landing by submarine at Normandy.
On the basis that the same action took place on other radar stations it would explain why the paratroopers were not spotted.
I have never seen any mention of HMS Odessa.
I did have a Unit photo (now lost and all the different units wore thier own uniforms)
Heres hopig that this helps/ someone can explain/ add to the dtails
You might be able to help me/ I might be able to all some information.
In 1943 an uncle of mine he volunteered for the Navy, after training he was told to report to HMS Odessa. After a long search he was directed to a long building and told that he (along with 7 others) were to be trained as a Naval commando and radar specialist.
In May 1944 they were told that along with Royal Marines, US Rangers and some Canadians they were to be formed as Naval commando Party Number 2 commanded by Peter Scott (the wild life expert). Their objective was a Radar station at Hill 213 half way between Lion sur Mer and Caen. My uncle stated that they were landed by submarine - moved inland towards the radar station and disabled it (thus the Germans would not be able to spot the aircraft flying over). Later with other forces they surrounded the radar station and after about a week captured the station including about 200 prisoners.
Subsequently in the War Naval Party Number 2 spent some time in Blankenburg were a Casino was used as a Radar station.
The units final action was on Walcheren where they were one of the first units to land and suffered heavy casulties getting to the beach (once on the beach the firing was lighter as the Germans were firing at other landing craft behind them and the main fleet). Because of these losses Naval Party Number 2 was split up.
After the war with Germany ended Navap Party Number 2 was reformed in 1945 to go to Japan for a september invasion but with the war ending this never happened.
From the comments above which my Uncle told me about many years ago (fortunatly I had to write a war story for school and kept the essay).
I have never seen any mention of forces landing by submarine at Normandy.
On the basis that the same action took place on other radar stations it would explain why the paratroopers were not spotted.
I have never seen any mention of HMS Odessa.
I did have a Unit photo (now lost and all the different units wore thier own uniforms)
Heres hopig that this helps/ someone can explain/ add to the dtails