Talk:Chain Home

List of Chain Home / AMES Type 1 Sites

I have added a list of CH sites from the book RDF1 mainly. I will add links to maps for those sites where I know the location and would also like to add a link a page with a few pictures etc for those sites that I have visited. Later I will do the same CHL etc but I will do that on a different page. jmb 08:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Kleine Heidelberg Parasit

Was Kleine Heidelberg Parasit used operationally?

• I did a GOOGLE search and one match suggests that it might not have been used operationally but the publication is a subscription one so can't get at the article. The GOOGLE reference shows as below --jmb 12:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

JSTOR: Clifford Paterson Lecture: Radar: New Techniques and ...

This 'Kleine Heidelberg' scheme, as the Germans named the proposal, was never operational. It is a possible form of 'multi static radar' not without ...[1]

As I read it, the book referenced indicated it was, but I'll try to get my hands on the book again. It said the British were aware of the system and tried unsuccessful countermeasures. Also mentioned was that it could penetrate Window, but why it could do so wasn't explained. The book was written by a British author drawing mostly on German sources. Karl Kleimenhagen 22:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I was able to read this work again, and I have added to the article references to this work. Karl Kleimenhagen 12:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

My immediate thought on window jamming (being an ex military radar operator familiar with window) is entirely due to frequency. Chain Home was low frequency HF (25Mhz) while the German sets were high end VHF on 250Mhz. Window then and now is metal strips cut to a harmonic length of the frequency being jammed thus you'd need different length foil strips for either radar? You also don't tend to jam you own transmitters! I would make an educated guess that if the Brits dumped window to jam 250Mhz it wouldn't have much effect on Heidleberg Parasit which would be working down in HF as a passive reflector / receiver from the Chain Home. There was a much more sophisticated version of this device used in the 'Linesman' anti jamming / ECM suite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.125.178.14 (talk) 12:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I found this...55 pages in PDF regarding the device..enjoy! http://www.cdvandt.org/K-H%20final.pdf Cmpltd (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

" ... device used in the 'Linesman' anti jamming / ECM suite" - article here: Linesman/Mediator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Great Bromley

This message was sent through the geograph.org.uk web site as an email to RHaworth

The picture you have of a Chain Home mast looks very much like the the one near me, except perhaps for the power lines. I just had a spare moment this morning, (I live in Frating) and went for another look. The reference I have for the mast is around 609216,226013 (TM 09216 26013) *1*. 'Just off Hilliards Road' is correct.

We watched the four wooden receiver masts being dismantled in the early 70's. *2*

About a mile away at 608902,225355 (TM 08902 25355) are the remains of a small accommodation 'village' used I am told by locals to house quite a large number of people involved in operating the radar station. Most of the wooden buildings are very dilapidated but the brick ones and shelters are still in good condition. Apart from today, the last time I went there was 15 years ago, I met someone then who said they lived there and there are still some signs of habitation and repair.

It seems a pity that these important sites are decaying unrecorded.

I have not been able to find out if the people who worked the radar did this in huts near the masts or from the nearby 'village'. Do you know of anyone who might be interested or have some information on this?

Regards, J.

• Please check your *1* grid ref above. No disrespect, but I think it is plain wrong. I am very confident that the photo I took is of the mast that is marked on the map at TM 104 265. Also, it looks very much like the mast in the picture on the article page and it is close to Hilliards Road so I am sure that is the mast you are talking about.

I am a bit puzzled about *2* above. Do you mean the antennae themselves being removed from the mast in my picture or are you talking about some other masts?

Just to add to the confusion, I see a mast marked at TM 086 251 close to where Frating Road goes over the new A120 road. I cannot remember but I suspect that this is a modern mobile phone mast. It would be nice if you could pop up there and confirm. -- RHaworth 15:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There would be a large camp where the personnel lived, were fed etc. Also an army guard on the site. The operators were in the large concrete blocks which often survive on site, one was the Transmitter block and the other the Receiver block. There would also be a reserve site nearby with its own Transmitter and Receiver buildings which might be underground on vulnerable East coast sites. English Heritage have been promising a book on WWII radar for some years but it has not appeared yet. There are a number of books on WWII radar, I would recommend Colin Latham's Radar A Wartime Miracle as a good introduction, RDF1 is a detailed history on the development of the British WWII ground radar system. You can find a list of books here. --jmb 15:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

JFYI the exact site of the former RAF Rye is actually this one: N 50.97195 E 0.79994.

Using mapperacme.com the site is here: [2]

You can see the transmitter or receiver block and the two sets of four tower mounting feet concrete foundations in the aerial view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.231 (talk) 12:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

2016 BBC News item on the station at Bawdsey: [3]

Restructure?

I'd like to restructure the article from it's current two parts, Overview and Sites, into three: Development, Operations, and the German Response. The current Sites section is rather dominant visually, and I'd propose repackaging its list into one paragraph within the new Operations section. Karl Kleimenhagen 19:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any problem with that though I think the "German response" should just be a passing mention with more details on a page on German radar systems. I started making up a list of CH sites in attempt to find their locations so thought that if I put on Wikipedia then others would be able to add to information to the list. Two things that do need adding to the page are a mention of the use of some CH sites for tracking V2 rockets and also the use of some sites post-WWII. I keep meaning to sit down and do the same for CHL sites as there are even more of those that I am not sure about. --jmb 19:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Moving the German use of Chain Home to another radar page occurred to me as well, and I nearly did so when adding the recent updates. However, it was not a primary German system, and it was useless without Chain Home. A brief mention of the Heidelberg device is already in the Passive Radar article as well, but expanding on it there would, I feel, be no better a fit than leaving it here. After following a few cross links through the Wikipedia radar articles, perhaps sticking the Heidelberg section here into the History of Radar article would be the best fit. Creating a mini-article on the Heidelberg would be another solution, but it would be a very small article. I'll ponder this before making any changes. Suggestions as to where best to move the Heidelberg section are wanted. Karl Kleimenhagen 21:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

LZ-130 Mission

The paragraph on the LZ-130 mission has become rather awkwardly worded. Pritchard found in German sources that the mission did find the Chain Home signals. He also says these emissions were suspected to be radar. Pritchard did not mention if the emissions were thought to come from the towers being investigated, but the assumption the Germans didn't bring a radio direction finder on such a mission runs rather unlikely. The assertion in the paragraph that it was "very likely" the Germans thought such a string of towers, emitting 20 microsecond pulses at even intervals, were for communication also looks to be unlikely. Perhaps the Germans imagined it to be a positioning system, such as GEE, but Pritchard didn't elaborate. References backing claims contrary to Pritchard need to be provided. Such sources should ideally reference German documents, for the question is over what the Germans knew at the time. Karl Kleimenhagen 20:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I remember reading somewhere (it may have been R. V. Jones' Most Secret War) that the Chain Home signals swamped the receivers on board the airship due to them resonating with the airship's large aluminium structure and the Germans therefore concluded that the towers were unlikely to be connected with an Early Warning system. Ian Dunster (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I see that book is at my local library, and I'll pick it up when I return home. KarlWK (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just finished reading Most Secret War. There is no reference to the airship, so it must have been in another work. There would have been no "resonance" from within the airship frame. There could, of course, have been reflections which might confuse the receiving electronics. Pritchard's book remains the best source I've seen. KarlWK (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what book it must have been then - perhaps Alfred Price's Instruments of Darkness? - unless it was my memory playing tricks. Thanks for letting me know anyway. It may also have been in Bernard Lovell. A Biography by Dudley Saward, but it was a while ago (ten or fifteen years) when I read them. You could also try A. P. Rowe's One Story of Radar - Camb Univ Press - 1948. Ian Dunster (talk) 22:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hindenburg: an illustrated history, 1994, R.Archbold (ISBN 0-446-51784-4) mentions the LZ-130 missions. Under the engineer Ernst Breuning, radar surveillance was attempted from the Graf Zeppelin II. The ship's metal frame affected their direction finders, and they then tried listening from a basket suspended well below the ship. In early August of 1939, British Spitfires noticed this work, and the British demanded to inspect the ship.[p.207] The ship landed early and off loaded its equipment before the British could conduct their inspection inside. The results of the work of Breuning and his men was not conclusive, for despite his objections, other Luftwaffe work was interfering with their ability to hear signals at the frequency of the British radars, and Breuning's men listened to other frequencies.[p.208] Perhaps the Luftwaffe was seeing if they could jam the British signals?; no explanation was given. KarlWK (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, although I wonder why the airship didn't just monitor the transmissions from out to sea rather than entering UK airspace and being made to land. IIRC (possibly not - LOL!) the Chain Home signals should have been detectable from as far as out as over the French and Belgian coasts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.8 (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

There's the 1977 BBC programme The Secret War based on R.V. Jones' book, with the episode "To See for a Hundred Miles" on YouTube here: [4] This mentions the May 1939 Graf Zeppelin flight along the British coast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

An August 1939 Flight news item about the LZ 130 Graff Zeppelin being reported 'in the vicinity of the Scottish Coast' during the preceding week, here: [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.153 (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The Germans never detected the Chain Home emissions because Chain Home operated on a longer wavelength than the Germans were expecting, the wavelengths the Germans were monitoring were the shorter ones that their own systems were operating at after earlier German experiments having seemingly ruled out the usefulness of a system operating on a longer wavelength. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.127 (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Length of pulses?

It's stated above the pulses were 20 microseconds in length. Can this be added to the article with a citation? Tempshill (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Neale's article (one of the ref's cited) mentions the 20 microsec pulses. I've seen more complete details in books, but none are at hand. I'll look around the local library the next time I'm there. KarlWK (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Range improvements

The section on the experimental work mentions that "the range was continually pushed out" and gives examples of improvements over periods of months, but doesn't say how this was done. One mention is made of increasing the transmission power, but it's unclear that the other improvements were due to that. Better antennas, receivers, something else? Mcswell (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

German knowledge

I've read of a dilemma faced sometimes by the British: If every German bombing run were intercepted, the Germans would certainly deduce that British radar worked well and should become the #1 target. Hence, British commanders sometimes decided not to intercept German bombing runs that had been detected, in order to decrease the probability that German commanders would deduce the significance (or existence) of Chain Home. You can imagine the difficulty of deciding this dilemma.

Is this a bunch of nonsense? If so, could someone write so in the article? The article currently states, pretty much, that Germany knew that the British most likely had radar, but somehow didn't ascribe it any importance. Tempshill (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've not read of the RAF avoiding intercepts for that reason, but they may well have done so. Neither have I read that the Germans were certain the British radar was as useful as it was. My impression is that the Germans were confident they'd win, radar or no radar. KarlWK (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have never seen such a claim. There have been suggestions that the Germans had not realised that the signals they were hearing from Chain Home were radar. The major advantage was what would now be called the Command & Control system behind the Chain Home radar sites and they would have no way of knowing how effective that was but it would rather defeat the object if you degraded its usefulness. --jmb (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be thinking about the breaking of the Enigma code. // Liftarn (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Dismantling of last Chain Home Wooden Reception Tower

When was the last of the Chain Home Wooden Reception Towers dismantled? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.46.198.148 (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Directions

I can't find the book now, but I've read that the radar had a problem with knowing if the echo came from the front (sea) or back (land). There was an incident with a group of RAF fighters being interpreted as German aircrafts so more fighters were scrambled and that resulted in even more echoes giving the impression of a major attack. // Liftarn (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That's true but I can't remember how they got around it. The A. P. Rowe book I mentioned earlier (One Story of Radar) is pretty good for information on Chain Home IIRC, as he was the head of the TRE at the time.

Chain Home was also the system IFF was invented-for, Watson-Watt had it all thought out (including the 'Filter' rooms and the organisation for co-ordinating the results with the fighter stations, using dedicated land lines, etc.) even before the system was built. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.8 (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

CHL

"The Chain Home Low stations operated at 200 MHz on the VHF band"

Is the addition of "on the VHF band" necessary? --jmb (talk) 08:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone knows that 200MHz is in the VHF band. Just as most people believe that domestic 'microwave' ovens operate in the microwave band - they don't they are actually UHF as the 2.4GHz is below the official start of the microwave band at 3GHz. 109.156.49.202 (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

New Leonard George Chapman Article

I've contributed a Chain Home related article Leonard George Chapman, could someone please have a look at it so it can get past the unreviewed state? ICouldBeWrong (talk) 11:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice work. I took it upon myself to remove the unreviewed tag. KarlWK (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Vulnerability to air attack

Had the Luftwaffe realised just how essential the radar stations were to British air defences, it is likely that they would have expended great effort to destroy them.

Have been reading the Subterranea Brittanica site [6] and according to their research the Chain Home sites not only had duplicated transmitter and receiver equipment, one as an immediate backup in case the other failed or was damaged by enemy action, they also had so-called 'buried reserves', in which a THIRD set of transmitter and receiver equipment was located in close proximity and which could be used in-extremis - [7], [8]

The transmitter masts themselves were relatively invulnerable to attack as little short of a direct hit on the mast legs would cause any serious damage, the open lattice work being relatively immune to blast damage.

The sites also had their own electricity generators (in a 'Standby Set House') so even if the supply from the national grid was interrupted the station could still operate.

All true, & not the point. What's at issue is German ignorance of the importance & value of CH/CHL. And actually, the most important part wasn't the masts or transmitter/receiver gear, it was the phone lines to the Sector Stations, which IIRC weren't even buried & were extremely vulnerable.... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This mythical standby generator didn't do the Dover station much good as the Germans hit the power grid feeding the station and put it off the air. Although standby generators would be a good idea, the system was set up such that the transmitted pulses were in sychronism with the national grid. One of the claimed (and unexpected) side effects of this is that following the reception of the signals aboard the LZ-130, is that they were dismissed as possible radar signals partly because of the very low repetition frequency (as against what the Germans expected such an application to use) but also because they matched the power frequency exactly, the Germans assumed the signal to actually be a brush discharge from defective electrical machinery. 109.156.49.202 (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Chain Home Low Minimum Height?

The opening paragraph says CHL "could detect aircraft flying at minimum altitude level of 500 ft."

Operations says "Chain Home Low stations were placed between Chain Home stations to detect aircraft down to 2,000 ft (610 m)."

Both are sourced, though I don't have access to Holmes to check that citation. The CHL page itself doesn't list a minimum height. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.113.168.148 (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Page development?

Chain Home is a very complex topic as it feeds right through from British experiments in 1935 to finally decommissioning under ROTOR in 1955. There is an awful lot of information (technical and otherwise)which would be useful to put up. Perhaps a fundamental rebuild of the page might be in order? Starting with with the Daventry experiments, running through Orford and the final success as a BMEWS radar detecting V2's in 1945 (10 years earlier than the first US BMEWS system!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.125.178.14 (talk) 11:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Two sites?

Chain Home radar installations were normally composed of two sites.

There were separate Transmit and Receive blocks and antenna but I would not call them 'two sites' because they would be close to each other. I would think that 'two sites' more accurate describes the Main and Reserve sites which were often apart. jmb (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Chain Home. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051102043008/http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk:80/mbriscoe/PAGES/Brenish.htm to http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/mbriscoe/PAGES/Brenish.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060516211207/http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk:80/mbriscoe/PAGES/Kilkenneth.htm to http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/mbriscoe/PAGES/Kilkenneth.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Chain Home. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051123221128/http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk:80/mbriscoe/PAGES/LOTH.htm to http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/mbriscoe/PAGES/LOTH.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060620174303/http://helmsdale.org:80/news_2005.html to http://www.helmsdale.org/news_2005.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051104173025/http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk:80/mbriscoe/PAGES/PortMor.htm to http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/mbriscoe/PAGES/PortMor.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Chain Home. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090806025829/http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk:80/mbriscoe/PAGES/Nefyn.htm to http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/mbriscoe/PAGES/Nefyn.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090803040515/http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk:80/mbriscoe/PAGES/Sango.htm to http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/mbriscoe/PAGES/Sango.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chain Home. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130210182514/http://www.dunwichmuseum.org.uk/reslib/PDF/20120123112009RadaratDunwich11.pdf to http://www.dunwichmuseum.org.uk/reslib/PDF/20120123112009RadaratDunwich11.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The lead needs rewriting.

The lead needs to be rewritten to conform with WP:LEAD. At the moment it makes unique points not in the article body, rambles, and has granular details which are not a summary of the article as a whole. (Hohum ^@) 00:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you be specific? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Including, but not limited to: The quotation should be in a relevant place in the main body. The lead should summarize the body text, not make an isolated point. - The section about Tesla. This should be one sentence, or possibly not be mentioned in the lead at all. The lead is supposed to be a general summary of the entire article. (Hohum ^@) 17:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Hohum: The current lede is a general summary of the entire article. It covers CH's creation and deployment, BoB and impact on the war effort, late-war and post-war use. Tesla is most definitely mentioned in the body, there's an entire section on it, complete with an image. The issue with the quote is new to me, and I've definitely see it in the lede before. Is this MOS?Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chain Home. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121018182921/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andys.f/Nefyn.htm to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andys.f/Nefyn.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070825124259/http://www.shford.fslife.co.uk/ShingleSt/photos3.htm to http://www.shford.fslife.co.uk/ShingleSt/photos3.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chain Home. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719233849/http://www.scotlandsplaces.gov.uk/search_item/index.php?service=RCAHMS&id=81727 to http://www.scotlandsplaces.gov.uk/search_item/index.php?service=RCAHMS&id=81727

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chain Home. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150525040134/http://www.bawdseyradar.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Wilkins-Calculations.pdf to http://www.bawdseyradar.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Wilkins-Calculations.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

cleanup death ray section

Cleaned up this section Some of the material (Tesla) was un-sourced or primary sourced, and the one secondary source (Clark) noted Tesla was "forgotten" with no link to the 1934-35 run up to Radar. Trimmed back section to what can be specifically referenced. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

This Chain Home seems terrible "south coast" centric - this is a proposal for a new section

I own the WW2 bunker in Inverness: Inverness Bunker

This was used as a RADAR processing bunker from about 1940-46. In the Inverness vacinity there were three bunkers, my one was the filter/plotter pit for RADR signals. I am still researching the background, but was alarmed to see no information about Inverness on the topic.

Inverness processed RADAR signals from"about" Newcastle, up the east coast - Orkney and Shetland, Along the north coast Down the Outer and Inner Hebrides Barra chain home Part of Ireland The loch in the middle of "Northern" Ireland The south tip of the Isle of Man and part of England close to Liverpool.

Given the scale of this system and the quantity of data processing. I think a new section is in order?

Iainmalone (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The South Coast is where most of the attacking German aircraft were flying over to attack British targets, as the majority of the Luftwaffe forces in 1940 were based in Northern France. That's why it's "south coast" centric.

However, feel free to add to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Radar picket

Thanks Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)