Ramblings of an Old Vector Vender

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Ramblings of an Old Vector Vender RAMBLINGS OF AN OLD VECTOR VENDER By: Col Lawson P. Wynne In the early years of air surveillance we were completely dependent upon the British for information and direction. Radar was a secret word and few were entrusted with its management. The few who were, had insufficient equipment to really make a difference and were faced with those crusty old pilots who had built the Air Corps and insisted that they would “fly” by the seat of their pants. New technology always brings out the dreamers and the “Not invented here” crowd. One ready to save the situation through the immediate application of the great break- through and the other clinging to the tired and proven solution. I remember, in May of 1942, listening to a Lt Colonel tell us how radar was going to win World War II only to have those beautiful dreams dashed by another colonel who saw radar as a toy that was siphoning resources from the war effort. To this latter soul the ground observer corps was all that was required, and the “failure” of radar to prevent Pearl Harbor was his living proof. At the outbreak of World War II we did not have enough ground radars for a general defense so the limited number of “270” radars we had were deployed in point defense at carefully selected targets. These were augmented by a ground observer corps that was employed primarily along the costal area and served to fill in the low altitude coverage which the 270’s could not supply. For those who are unfamiliar with the naked eye and upon spotting an aircraft they would use their binoculars to attempt to identify it. They would then report the sighting as so many miles in such a direction. This information was received at a ground observer filter center where it was plotted and then reported to the Air Defense Control Center where it was combined with radar information on a large horizontal plotting board. Time lags of 5 to 7 minutes were common and reporting errors often caused great delays in determining when a raid was actually under way. The weapons controller practiced his skill by dead reckoning fighters to the vicinity of the incoming raid. To aid in the tracking of the fighters there was a system of direction finding stations that reported the azimuth of transmissions given out by the lead aircraft. The system was controlled by a clock in the fighter so that the pilot was free to concentrate on flying. The clock was divided into sections which were color and on queue from the controller was told to push “contactor in.” This activated an automatic transmission from the aircraft which would continue at specific intervals permitting the direction finders to provide positional information on the fighters. The controller, and his individual plotting board, would then plot a course that would permit the fighters to intercept the track of the incoming raid. The skill of the controller, the accuracy of the plotters, the timelessness of the combined track data, and the accuracies of winds aloft data combined to give the system something less than 100% effectiveness. These functions were carried out at the Air Defense Control Center (AN/TTQ-1) and the controller’s principal aid was a small plastic manual computer (E6B) to aid in dead reckoning. This system remained in effect until the development of more sophisticated ground radars: the first of which was the SCR-527. The SCR-527 consisted of two bed spring-like antenna, one for transmitting and one for receiving, separated by about 200 feet. The big innovation, as far as the controllers were concerned, in the SCR-527, was the Planned Position Indicator (PPI). This was our first radar scope that presented the controller with a 360 degree sweep of the air space. This would, for the first time, permit the direction of intercepts from the radar site without the delays and inaccuracies of the plotting boards. Direct control of fighters from the SCR-527 was not easy. The pips were elongated sausages about 2 miles in depth and 5 degrees in width. The antenna had some loping and returns frequently faded from the scopes. The SCR-527 was, however, mobile and well suited to a war of movement. The SCR-527 was quickly assigned to history with the emergence of the AN/CPS-1 or Microwave Early Warning (MEW) radar. The CPS-1 was our first radar that would permit precise control of aircraft. The set was designed by MIT and produced by General Electric. Its antenna looked much like a bulldozer blade with a half blade on the back of the full blade. The full blade sent out a low beam that could detect a bomber at 200 miles. Fighters could be tracked to 120 miles and the antenna beam width of .9 degrees gave excellent resolution. The high angle antenna, half a dower blade, gave coverage to about 90 miles and up to 40,000 feet. The set was a controllers dream. The CPS-1 was produced in its mobile form and the first units went to Europe where they were assigned, I believe, to the 9th and 19th TAC.I don’t know where all the units were assigned, but we carried unit number 5 into Kyushu, Japan in 1945. There was also a CPS-1 just north of Tokyo. During World War II several special purpose radars were developed to round out the air surveillance system. The TPS-1 and TPS-3 were small one-operator early warning sets and the CPS-4 was the companion height finder for the CPS-1. When we went into Japan we carried TPS-1s, TPS-3s, and a CPS-4. World War II was the development vehicle for controlling. Prior to that time, aerial combat was see and be seen. In World War II we progressed from dead reckoning daylight intercepts to precise control of night interceptions. This was great progress, but the controller was not yet recognized as an essential member of the fighting team. Nothing exemplifies this more than the Army Air Force records that list “Snuffy” Smith as our first Night Fighter Ace, but gives no mention of the controller who directed the intercepts. I entered the Army Air Force Controllers School in the latter part of World War II. The school was located at Hammer Field, Fresno, California. After several weeks of study and practicing dead reckoning intercepts, my class was shipped to a desert location where we were able to work with an SCR-527 and the hottest thing out, the Microwave Early Warning radar (AN/CPS-1). It was really exciting, but the heat took enough out of us to keep things in perspective. We were controlling BT-13’s out of Tulare Lake Airfield. We were all eager to develop our talents so competition for a scope time was immense. We were there only one week and each man spent about two hours on the scope actually controlling aircraft. I believe I actually ran nine interceptions in daylight and one at night. We were returned to Hammer Field in 1945 where we were given orientation visits to see the P-70, P61, P-38N and the P-59. Only the P-59 was not a night fighter, but it was our first jet fighter. There was nothing but speculation and jokes that evening about the plane with no propeller, but it would be many years before any of us would see an operational jet. I shipped out of school to a job at Abilene, Texas and found myself back in the dead reckoning business. With D/F stations at Baird, Stamford, Abilene, and Sweetwater it was my job to help jug (P-47) pilots find their way home. This sounds simple, but many of the pilots were from Turkey and Brazil. It was a real trick to get a Turk headed back to base when he was having trouble with navigation. I remember one in particular who called in asking for help. He was convinced he had insufficient petrol to return to base. He was actually only 40 miles out, but he did not want to fly the course I gave him. As his fuel got lower he got more excited, but he did not take a heading to base. Several transmissions between ground and plane took place and with each transmission he became more excited. Finally when only about 10 miles out he chattered wildly and then bailed out. The plane crashed 8 miles out. We were all in a learning situation and the language barrier was obviously the culprit. After a couple of months of giving vectors to confused pilots I was shipped to Salt Lake City replacement Depot, then to Vancouver for overseas transport. President Truman had made the decision and the “A” bomb had been dropped, so my ship sailed directly to Japan. Landing in Yokohama I was sent to the Fifth Fighter Command at Fukuoka, Japan. The war was over, people were going home and there was a great need for support personnel. No one seemed to know what a controller was. I was assigned as a supply officer. I was, of course, angry and went to the club to ease my sorrow. There a Lt. Col. Baird was helping me cry in my beer be cause he was concerned about the lack of incoming trained personnel. When he discovered I was a trained controller assigned to supply he exploded. Needless to say, I was reassigned to the 35th Fighter Control Squadron Separate.
Recommended publications
  • List of United States Air Force Aircraft Control and Warning Squadrons from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
    List of United States Air Force aircraft control and warning squadrons From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Contents [hide ] • 1 Content • 2 Site codes o 2.1 Sites Within the United States o 2.2 Sites Outside the United States • 3 Squadrons • 4 See also • 5 References • 6 External links Content [edit ] The List of United States Air Force Aircraft Control and Warning Squadrons identifies Squadron Emblem or patch Location, Air Force Station (AFS), or Air Station (AS) North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) code or other identification code for the location Any pertinent notes, including dates active and other designations. Site codes [edit ] Sites Within the United States [edit ] • DC-xx Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) Direction Center/Combat Center. • F-xx Alaskan air defense sites. • H-0x Hawaiian air defense sites. • L-xx Original Air Defense Command (ADC) 1946 "Lashup" Radar Network of temporary sites to provide detection at designated important locations using radar sets left over from World War II . • LP-xx "Lashup" site which was incorporated into the first ADC permanent radar network in 1949. • P-xx Original 75 permanent stations established in 1949. • RP-xx Sites that replaced a permanent 1949 station. • M-xx 1952 Phase I Mobile Radar station. • SM-xx 1955 Phase II Mobile Radar Station. • TM-xx 1959 Phase III Mobile station. • TT-x Texas Towers , radar tower rigs off the East Coast of the United States, named because of their resemblance to oil drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. • Z-xx NORAD designation for sites after 31 July 1963. P, M, SM, and TM stations active after that date retained their numbers, but were designated "Z-xx".
    [Show full text]
  • Design Temperature Limit Reference Guide (2019 Edition)
    ENERGY STAR Single-Family New Homes ENERGY STAR Multifamily New Construction Design Temperature Limit Reference Guide (2019 Edition) These 2019 Edition limits are permitted to be used with any National HVAC Design Report, and are required to be used for all National HVAC Design Reports generated on or after 10-01-2020 Introduction One requirement of the ENERGY STAR Single-Family New Homes and Multifamily New Construction (MFNC) programs is to use outdoor design temperatures that do not exceed the maximum cooling season temperature and minimum heating season temperature listed in this reference guide for the state and county, or territory, in which the home is to be certified. Only two exceptions apply: 1. Jurisdiction-Specified Temperatures: If the outdoor design temperatures to be used in load calculations are specified by the jurisdiction where the home will be certified, then these specified temperatures shall be used. 2. Temperature Exception Request: In rare cases, the designer may believe that an exception to the limits in the reference guide are warranted for a particular state and county, or territory. If so, the designer must complete and submit a Design Temperature Exception Request, including a justification for the exception, to [email protected] for review and approval prior to the home’s certification. To obtain the most accurate load calculations, EPA recommends that designers always use the ACCA Manual J, 8th edition, 1% cooling season design temperature and 99% heating season design temperature for the weather location that is geographically closest to the home to be certified. How to Use this Reference Guide 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A, HVAC Design Temperature Limits
    Appendix A (Normative) - Design Temperature Limits by State and County, and U.S. Territory Table A-1: Cooling and Heating Design Temperature Limits by State and County, and U.S. Territory 1 1.0% 99.0% HDD Weather Station(s) Weather Station(s) Weather Station(s) Cooling Heating State County / CDD Selected for Cooling Selected for Heating Selected for HDD/CDD Temp. Temp. Ratio Temperature Temperature Ratio (°F) (°F) Alabama Alabama Autauga 96 24 0.5 MAXWELL AFB AL (A) SELMA 13 WNW AL (A) CLANTON 2 NE AL (A) Alabama Baldwin 93 29 0.3 Mobile City Office Alabama (M) Mobile City Office Alabama (M) FAIRHOPE 3 NE AL (A) Alabama Barbour 97 27 0.4 WEEDON FIELD AL (A) TROY MUNICIPAL AL (A) TROY MUNICIPAL AL (A) TUSCALOOSA REGIONAL AL Alabama Bibb 95 24 0.5 SELMA 13 WNW AL (A) CLANTON 2 NE AL (A) (A) BIRMINGHAM SHUTTLES AL Alabama Blount 94 21 0.7 CULLMAN 3 ENE AL (A) CULLMAN 3 ENE AL (A) (A) AUBURN UNIVERSITY R AL Alabama Bullock 97 27 0.4 WEEDON FIELD AL (A) TROY MUNICIPAL AL (A) (A) SOUTH ALABAMA REGIO AL Alabama Butler 97 27 0.3 MIDDLETON FIELD AL (A) MIDDLETON FIELD AL (A) (A) Alabama Calhoun 94 21 0.8 Talladega Alabama (M) GADSDEN 19 N AL (A) GADSDEN 19 N AL (A) Alabama Chambers 95 22 0.6 COLUMBUS AP GA (A) Alexander City Alabama (M) La Grange Georgia (M) Alabama Cherokee 94 18 0.8 RICHARD B RUSSELL R GA (A) VALLEY HEAD 1 SSW AL (A) VALLEY HEAD 1 SSW AL (A) Alabama Chilton 96 24 0.5 MAXWELL AFB AL (A) CLANTON 2 NE AL (A) CLANTON 2 NE AL (A) Meridian Key Field Mississippi Meridian Key Field Mississippi Alabama Choctaw 94 26 0.4 KEY FIELD MS (A)
    [Show full text]
  • 166 Public Law 86-500-.June 8, 1960 [74 Stat
    166 PUBLIC LAW 86-500-.JUNE 8, 1960 [74 STAT. Public Law 86-500 June 8. 1960 AN ACT [H» R. 10777] To authorize certain construction at military installation!^, and for other pnriwses. He it enacted hy the Hemite and House of Representatives of the 8tfiction^'Acf°^ I'raited States of America in Congress assemoJed, I960. TITLE I ''^^^* SEC. 101. The Secretary of the Army may establish or develop military installations and facilities by acquiring, constructing, con- \'erting, rehabilitating, or installing permanent or temporary public works, including site preparation, appurtenances, utilities, and equip­ ment, for the following projects: INSIDE THE UNITED STATES I'ECHNICAL SERVICES FACILITIES (Ordnance Corps) Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland: Training facilities, medical facilities, and utilities, $6,221,000. Benicia Arsenal, California: Utilities, $337,000. Blue Grass Ordnance Depot, Kentucky: Utilities and ground improvements, $353,000. Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey: Research, development, and test facilities, $850,000. Pueblo Ordnance Depot, Colorado: Operational facilities, $369,000. Redstone Arsenal, Alabama: Community facilities and utilities, $1,000,000. Umatilla Ordnance Depot, Oregon: Utilities and ground improve­ ments, $319,000. Watertow^n Arsenal, Massachusetts: Research, development, and test facilities, $1,849,000. White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico: Operational facilities and utilities, $1,2'33,000. (Quartermaster Corps) Fort Lee, Virginia: Administrative facilities and utilities, $577,000. Atlanta General Depot, Georgia: Maintenance facilities, $365,000. New Cumberland General Depot, Pennsylvania: Operational facili­ ties, $89,000. Richmond Quartermaster Depot, Virginia: Administrative facili­ ties, $478,000. Sharpe General Depot, California: Maintenance facilities, $218,000. (Chemical Corps) Army Chemical Center, Maryland: Operational facilities and com­ munity facilities, $843,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Semi-Automatic Ground Environment - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia Page 1 of 11
    Semi-Automatic Ground Environment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 1 of 11 Semi-Automatic Ground Environment From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) was a system of large computers and associated networking equipment that coordinated data from many Semi-Automatic Ground Environment radar sites and processed it to produce a single unified image of the airspace over a "Ground Environment of the CONUS wide area. SAGE directed and controlled the NORAD response to a Soviet air attack, Air Defense Systems" (1953)[1] operating in this role from the late 1950s into the 1980s. Its enormous computers and "Electronic Air Defense Environment" (1950)[2] huge displays remain a part of cold war lore, and a common prop in movies such as military C3 human-computer interface Dr. Strangelove and Colossus. Powering SAGE were the largest computers ever built, IBM's AN/FSQ-7. Each SAGE Direction Center (DC) contained two FSQ-7's for redundancy, filling two floors of a large cube-shaped concrete building. The upper two floors contained offices, operator stations, and a single two-story radar display visible to most of the DC's personnel. Information was fed to the DC's from a network of radar stations as well as readiness information from various defence sites. The computers, based on the raw radar data, developed "tracks" for the reported targets, and automatically calculated which defences were within range. Subsets of the data were then sent to the many operator consoles, where the operators used light guns to select targets onscreen for further information, select one of the available defences, and issue commands to attack.
    [Show full text]
  • Salute T O Louisiana Veterans
    A S A LUTE TO L OUI S I A N A V ETER A N S N O V EMBER 9-10, 2007 L OUI S I A N A ST A TE UNI V ER S ITY ✩ H A LL OF H ONOR I NDUCTEE S ✩ Alden L. Andre Captain, U.S. Army Alden L. Andre, a native and resident of Point Coupee Parish, graduated from LSU in 1961 with a bachelor’s degree in basic sciences. Commissioned that same year in the U.S. Army, he served two years on active duty and four years in the Army Reserve, achieving the rank of captain. Following military duty, Mr. Andre joined Baton Rouge Allied Chemical Plant and rose through management ranks until 1978, when the plant was sold to Imperial Chemicals (ICI), and he was immediately promoted to operations manager. ICI was sold to Formosa Plastics in 1981, and he held a number of positions, including plant manager, vice president of operations for Formosa Plastics Corporation USA, vice president of environmental/safety affairs, vice president for new business development, and vice president/general manager of the Baton Rouge plant. He is currently vice president for new business development. Active in community affairs and professional associations, Mr. Andre served in several capacities in the Louisiana Chemical Association and was also a member of the Chlorine Institute Board of Directors. He was a board member of the Greater Baton Rouge Chamber of Commerce and the Louisiana Economic Development Corporation and served as chairman of the Louisiana Process Technology Committee of Governor Mike Foster’s Workforce Development Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • TITLE I Army
    440 PUBLIC LAW 209-AUG. 7, 1953 [67 STAT. Public Law 209 CHAPTER 342 August 7, 1953 AN ACT t-i—^^^ To authorize certain construction at military and naval installations, and for the Alaska Communication System, and for other purposes. an'd^^AUsta" co^ ^^ i-t enacted hy the Senate and House of Re'presentatives of the Si'Salfltf^nlr'*^'" United States of America in Congress assembled^ C ons truction, etc. TITLE I Army. SEC. 101. The Secretary of the Army is hereby authorized to estab­ lish or develop military installations and facilities by the construction, conversion, installation, or equipment of temporary or permanent public works, including buildings, facilities, appurtenances, and utilities, as follows: CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES TECHNICAL SERVICES FACILITIES (Ordnance Corps) Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland: Research and development facilities, $738,000. Letterkenny Ordnance Depot, Pennsylvania: Storage and opera­ tional facilities, $783,000. Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey: Operational facilities, and utilities, $1,531,000. Pueblo Ordnance Depot, Colorado: Storage and operational facil­ ities, $563,000. Red River Arsenal, Texas: Operational facility and utilities, $1,808,000. Savanna Ordnance Depot, Illinois: Operational and storage facil­ ities, $572,000. Seneca Ordnance Depot, New York: Storage and operational facil­ ities, $312,000. Sierra Ordnance Depot, California: Storage and operational facil­ ities, $772,000. Watervliet Arsenal, New York: Operational facilities, $584,000. White Sands Proving Grounds, New Mexico: Research and develop­ ment facilities, and utilities, $2,917,000. (Transportation Corps) Kings Bay Ammunition Loading Terminal, Georgia : Ammunition loading terminal, including acquisition of land, $21,657,000. FIELD FORCE FACILITIES * (First Army Area) Fort Wadsworth, New York: Maintenance facility, $342,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Florida from 1939 to 1945 Anthony Atwood Florida International University, [email protected]
    Florida International University FIU Digital Commons FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations University Graduate School 10-25-2012 A State of War: Florida from 1939 to 1945 Anthony Atwood Florida International University, [email protected] DOI: 10.25148/etd.FI12120414 Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/etd Recommended Citation Atwood, Anthony, "A State of War: Florida from 1939 to 1945" (2012). FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 777. https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/etd/777 This work is brought to you for free and open access by the University Graduate School at FIU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of FIU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY Miami, Florida A STATE OF WAR: FLORIDA FROM 1939 TO 1945 A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in HISTORY by ANTHONY D. ATWOOD 2012 To: Dean Kenneth Furton College of Arts and Sciences This dissertation, written by Anthony D. Atwood, and entitled A State of War: Florida from 1939 to 1945, having been approved in respect to style and intellectual content, is referred to you for judgment. We have read this dissertation and recommend that it be approved. ___________________________ Ralph E. Clem ___________________________ Sherry Johnson ___________________________ Gwyn Davies ___________________________ Darden A. Pyron, Major Professor Date of Defense: October 25, 2012 The dissertation of Anthony D. Atwood is approved. ___________________________ Dean Kenneth Furton College of Arts and Sciences ___________________________ Dean Lakshmi N. Reddi University Graduate School Florida International University, 2012 ii © Copyright 2012 by Anthony D.
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting America: Cold War Defensive Sites
    PROTECTING AMERICA: COLD WAR DEFENSIVE SITES A NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK THEME STUDY Prepared by: John S. Salmon, Historical Consultant Produced by: The National Historic Landmarks Program Cultural Resources National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, D.C. October 2011 Contents Historic Contexts Foreword Introduction Part One: The Cold War to the Death of Stalin Part Two: From Deep Freeze to Détente Part Three: The End of the Wall Time Line: The Cold War Associated Property Types Types of Properties Associated with the Cold War Registration Requirements for National Historic Landmark Designation Methodology Study Results National Historic Landmarks National Historic Landmarks Study List Bibliography Appendices A. Registration Requirements for Listing in the National Register of Historic Places B. National Register Properties and Study List C. Cold War–Related National Park Service Units D. Preliminary National Inventory of Cold War–Related Sites and Resources 2 Historic Contexts Foreword On January 6, 2009, Congressman Rush Holt introduced H.R. 146, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, in the House of Representatives. The bill was entitled “An act to designate certain land as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System, to authorize certain programs and activities in the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, and for other purposes.” Cosponsors included Congressmen Earl Blumenauer, John Dingell, Eni Faleomavaega, Maurice Hinchey, James Langevin, James McGovern, Gary Miller, Patrick Murphy, Steven Rothman, and Peter Welch. The bill was referred to the House Natural Resources Committee, which reported it favorably to the House of Representatives on March 5. The House already had approved the bill on March 3, and the Senate approved it with changes on March 19.
    [Show full text]