The Army Air Forces in World War II, Vol. 1 (archived PDF)

T H E A R M Y A I R F O R C E S I N W O R L D W A R I 1
organization applied to technically inadequate equipment used in
exceptionally difficult conditions.” lZ9 Progress would depend upon
giving all levels of command an understanding of the true capabilities
of radar, which, according to the British expert, could be found as a
happy medium between two absurd attitudes, one of which viewed
radar as an all-seeing, omniscient weapon, “a crystal ball on a truck,”
and the other extreme which regarded it as nothing more than a freak
gadget “producing snap observations on targets which may or may
not be aircraft.” Actually, radar, in the hands of trained technicians,
could provide a dependable warning system “in which continuity of
tracking is normal, [and] where the unexplained is rare.” But such
results could be achieved only with close organization and supervision,
a point at which the American warning service fell short.
Equally serious was the problem of equipment. In a report filled
with illuminating detail, the British expert found our seaward recon-
naissance grossly inefficient because of the total lack of ASV equip-
ment and because of the limited number of patrol aircraft of suitable
range. The radar screen along the West Coast was based on too few
stations, and the equipment itself had inherent defects which made it
“gravely unsuitable.” All radar experts were agreed that each set
represented a compromise between a variety of demands, but the prin-
cipal American radar was “unique in combining slow search with
poor cover in elevation, with lack of all facilities for height finding,
and with a grave danger of plotting false tracks.” Moreover, depend-
able employment of this radar had been made even more unlikely
because of a mistake in the selection of sites for its installation. Per-
sonnel to operate the radars had not been carefully selected and were
inadequate both in numbers and in training. The United States was
found to have repeated an early error of Britain in failing to provide
for the training of large numbers of skilled radar technicians.
Officials in Washington accepted the report in the constructive
spirit in which it was offered. The director of Air Defense at AAF
Headquarters concurred in every detail with the findings and called
the study “a damning indictment of our whole warning service.” 1 3 0
H e also expressed the view that the situation on the East Coast was
even worse than the conditions reported along the Pa~ific.’~’The
Chief Signal Officer and the Chief of the Army Air Forces agreed that
the causes of the trouble lay in the lack of time for improvement of
radar equipment and the limitations imposed by considerations of
2 9 2