Timeline for Did WWII fighters do a roll before engaging to identify themselves to radar operators?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
29 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 20, 2023 at 14:42 | comment | added | Charles Bretana | Another important fact is that the radars operated by the British in WWII did not rotate as modern radars did, they were more or less fixed cross-shaped antennae which could be only slightly adjusted in direction, and the operator used a device called a goniometer to estimate direction of the received signals. | |
| Apr 2, 2022 at 17:13 | comment | added | Michael Hall | I can't imagine a WWII era German radar system being able to distinguish between a planned 360 degree aileron roll vs an allied (or German) snap roll to begin an engagement. In the heat of an aerial battle there would likely be numerous "fades" and "huge blips" at each rotation of the antenna. | |
| Apr 1, 2022 at 20:06 | comment | added | quiet flyer | I have never once heard of this-- doesn't seem right. | |
| Apr 1, 2022 at 18:25 | answer | added | totalMongot | timeline score: 3 | |
| Sep 10, 2021 at 2:38 | comment | added | bruh_weed | Note that lots of allied aircraft in WW2 had to roll before diving as their Merlin engines used carburetors, this meant that in a regular nose down the fuel was lifted out of the float bowl by the negative G's, starving the engine. This could be contributing to people thinking they would roll to identify themselves | |
| Sep 10, 2021 at 0:03 | comment | added | DJClayworth | I think that could be an answer (or an addition to an existing one). | |
| Sep 9, 2021 at 23:30 | comment | added | Charles Bretana | @DJClayworth, This "peel-off" maneuver is done, again, simply to set the wings so that the lift vector (imagine an arrow pointing vertically out the top of the canopy) is pointed at the target. The lift vector determines the plane of the resulting turn (change in velocity vector) and to attack (or defend oneself) for any specific threat, you want to point at him, and/or rotate your vulnerable tail cone away from him. In either case, you put the lift vector on the enemy and pull on the stick to turn towards him. If he is below you, then.... well, there's your "peel-off" maneuver. | |
| S Sep 9, 2021 at 22:20 | history | suggested | terdon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Your friendly neighborhood pedant strikes again!
|
| Sep 9, 2021 at 21:26 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Sep 9, 2021 at 22:20 | |||||
| Sep 9, 2021 at 18:22 | history | edited | b degnan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
expanded folklore.
|
| Sep 9, 2021 at 18:21 | comment | added | DJClayworth | I'm guessing this is a reference to the classic WWII fighter "peel off" manouver, in which the fighters roll (and sometimes invert) before diving down to attack the bombers. I believe the Spitfire did it because its fuel cut off in negative g, but I don't know why others did. Or it may be just to change direction and dive at the same time. Here is a link: youtu.be/depF3lU-ADw?t=130 | |
| Sep 9, 2021 at 14:33 | comment | added | Charles Bretana | Also, as Todd mentions, almost every air-to-air engagement would start with a fairly aggressive, rapid roll, to set the wings for the first turning maneuver, but it would be unlikely to be a full 360 degree aileron roll. Also just normal Combat Air Patrol (CAP) involves regular and frequent high rate of roll to set the wings to perform the turns to maintain CAP position and patrol orbits, which would be indistinguishable from a rapid roll used to initiate an engagement with an actual threat. | |
| Sep 9, 2021 at 11:24 | comment | added | TypeIA | This question could be improved by referencing a specific source of this "folklore." | |
| Sep 9, 2021 at 8:48 | comment | added | Todd Wilcox | In air combat maneuvering, turning is the fundamental tactic. You turn to move your velocity vector off your foe's flight path when you are on the defensive, and you turn to bring your guns to bear on your target when you are on the offensive. High-G combat turns start with a roll. So unless the closure is head-to-head (or very rarely, head-to-tail), the first thing every fighter does to engage (up to the present day) is roll to then execute a turn. | |
| Sep 8, 2021 at 22:40 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Sep 8, 2021 at 21:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackAviation/status/1435709543728701454 | ||
| Sep 8, 2021 at 18:20 | history | edited | Pondlife | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 4 characters in body; edited tags; edited title
|
| Sep 8, 2021 at 17:08 | history | edited | b degnan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
in order to better answer the question, I've cleared up what I know to actually be authorative regarding behavior
|
| Sep 8, 2021 at 17:06 | comment | added | b degnan | @CharlesBretana Due to the low quality of the radar systems, it's actually why I believe that this could be true. You basically "pumped" the capacitors at an angle for targets. As the radar aperture spun, you would have continue to add charge to bank for that division of the rotation when you had a reflection. When a target changed aspect ratio, you would drain the voltage and cause the "blip" to disappear. My question is about behavior and I'll update the question to reflect this. | |
| Sep 8, 2021 at 15:53 | comment | added | Charles Bretana | @bdegman, Also, 1) the phenomenon would be heavily dependent on radar aspect angle, and 2) other things could also create the same "fade-in" and "fade out", so this phenomenon, even if an operator could detect it, would not be a reliable indicator. | |
| Sep 8, 2021 at 15:49 | comment | added | Charles Bretana | @bdegnan, yes I agree, but I do not believe this phenomenon would have been useable in the 40s. In the 70s, a technological capability called non-cooperative IFF (Identification, Friend or Foe) that attempted to use this phenomenon was investigated, and it was heavily dependent on Digital Signal Processing. I believe that for a radar operator in the 40s to be able to "see" this phenomenon on a raw radar display would be unlikely. Possible, but not likely. | |
| Sep 8, 2021 at 15:42 | comment | added | b degnan | @CharlesBretana That's not true. The roll could cause a "fade and huge blip" due to the capacitance on the line between the tube that is the receiver and the base-band mixdown. I am an analog designer who has made some radars, and as far as technology, I am sure it would have worked circa 1940. If it's folk lore, it is still feasible. | |
| Sep 8, 2021 at 15:38 | answer | added | Charles Bretana | timeline score: 23 | |
| Sep 8, 2021 at 15:38 | comment | added | GdD | That sounds like an answer @CharlesBretana | |
| Sep 8, 2021 at 15:37 | comment | added | Charles Bretana | For a radar to be able to detect/recognize/distinguish the electromagnetic signature of a "roll" requires very sophisticated real-time Signal Processing, that was not available until digital computers were designed into and became part of the radar system, which did not happen until the late 60s and early 1970s (at the earliest). | |
| Sep 8, 2021 at 15:28 | comment | added | GdD | That theory doesn't pass the smell test. If it was that easy it's the first thing that the allies would have copied. | |
| Sep 8, 2021 at 15:21 | comment | added | John K | Would a Wurzburg C or D be able to resolve a JU-88 30 miles away well enough to do that? The ground based radars were mainly used to place the night fighters into the bomber stream. Targets were acquired by the on-board radar to within a couple hundred yards, and then visually by detecting the target's exhaust for getting in close enough to fire. | |
| Sep 8, 2021 at 14:40 | history | edited | Bianfable |
edited tags
|
|
| Sep 8, 2021 at 14:36 | history | asked | b degnan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |