6 replies to this topic

[Dave Franklin]

In the RAT_KM.pdf file, Prinz Eugen is listed as getting R+ SW Radar (FuMo81) in November 1944. The problem is the second page of the German Surface Gunnery Chart only has R- SW radar listed.What should the stats be for German R+ SW radar?My first thought for ease of use would be to use the R- row with a 1 column shift left.The reason I'm interested is I'm doing up a scenario that uses my hypothetical late war Gneisenau with 15" guns, and Prinz Eugen is along too.Dave

[Cpt M]

The German naval radars were, generally, not that great compared to the equipment built by the US and UK. For example, they didn't get into developing microwave radars until late into war (following the recovery of a magnetron from a crashed H2S equipped Lancaster in 1943), and they never really devoted that much effort to the naval sphere (their main effort being for the Luftwaffe and air defense). So, in general, their equipment tended to be at least one generation behind the Allies.Which brings us to the FuMo81. According to Friedman's Naval Radar, this was a microwave set (one of their first) that was originally developed for S-Bootes (but never deployed) and first went to sea aboard the Prinz Eugen in 1945 (not 1944). Based on the data Friedman presents (and, remember, this is not underway operational data, but test range data), the FuMo81 appears to be on par with the British 271/273 series of radars (which are represented by the RN R- line). So for the FuMo81, as a rough analogy, I'd use the data from the RN R- line.

[Dave Franklin]

So in other words, the RAT_KM.pdf file is wrong, and needs to be updated, right?

[Lonnie Gill]

Co-diver,Perhaps I should clarify a bit on this. The Kriegsmarine RAT is not "wrong." Rather it reflects an early design decision I made to limit the radar types listed to the main ones used in each navy to maintain clarity and ease of use. This was an area of rapid technological development and change during the WWII years. Most of the major navies developed and tried out a number of experimental, limited production and one-off types of sensors. Trying to list many of these would have made the charts quite difficult to read and confusing to use. The Kriegsmarine chart reflects the German Navy's approach to active sensors. While at the very forefront of radar development in 1939, concerns that the Allies would employ radar detectors resulted in limited improvement in the active radar sets deployed at sea and limited use of those. This is discussed briefly in the NHT box on page 1-15 and at length in a number of sources and several web sites. The Germans made tremendous scientific discoveries, but didn't always make good decisions about how to use them. The end result was that the Kriegsmarine remained fairly static in this area during the time frame of practical naval operations. Hence, I did not include a "R +" row on the German Radar Detection table.Coastal has posted a good suggestion for those who would like to explore "what -ifs" and some of the plethora of German technological developments that became available in the final few, hopeless months of the war. The FuMo 81 that didn't go to sea until 1945 - far past useful operations for the Reich - is one of these examples.Cheers,LONNIE

[Dave Franklin]

Lonnie,I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't trying to say the RAT_KM.pdf file is wrong becasue it lists Prinz Eugen as having R+ SW radar. I was saying it is wrong because it says it is available in Nov. '44 (vice some time in '45).Dave

[Cpt M]

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't trying to say the RAT_KM.pdf file is wrong becasue it lists Prinz Eugen as having R+ SW radar. I was saying it is wrong because it says it is available in Nov. '44 (vice some time in '45).

Welcome to the world of research. Conflicting sources, especially for the very late war German equipment, is not uncommon (even among highly respected authors such as Friedman and Whitley), given the chaotic nature of the time. Based on what I know of Mal's research, I'd say that there is strong possibility that his information is based on very solid ground, as is Lonnie's and mine. That being said, often the best you can do is to judge the sources and accept that which is most convincing or most reliable (and accept that others may judge differently). In this case, I don't really see any serious conflict, since my best sources say early '45 (Jan-Feb, possibly) for the installation while Mal's say late '44 (Nov) for a rough installation date of Nov '44 to Feb '45. This may well be the best that anyone can determine.

[Lonnie Gill]

Dave,OK, I see what you mean now. Sorry for the confusion. I'm slogging through some temporary eye problems which will take a bit more care in reading posts until I get them sorted out.LONNIE