Wartime Grass Airfields

Not that it mattered a jot since virtually every aircraft involved in a night raid would do an air test the afternoon before, including a w/t check which the Germans sat quietly and counted.

They knew in advance the strength of the coming night’s raid virtually every time

Good point. But remember – 1. in the military, just because it’s pointless isn’t a good reason not to do it. Hence radio silence.

2. Who knew what about who was listening.

3. ‘When’ and ‘where’ was more important than ‘how many’ in regards to the raid(s) by 1944 the news would be if there WASN’T going to be a raid that night! But the air test intercepts told them nothing about the target, though there was a limited window of oportunity depending on distance for timing.

In 1939 – 1940 it was quite a different game.

Back on topic, one thought is a grass no-runway airfield would be harder to put out of action than a tarmac runway if your bombers were accurate enough…

In 1939, the biggest landplane in RAF service was twin engined. Thus airfields were essentially similar, despite being fighter, bomber or training, and units were expected to operate day or night – so Moggy’sd first post would be correct for all unit’s infrequent night training. Once the bigger bombers came inter service, and larger heavier fighters too, the recquirements for the landing area started to change – hence runways on bomber bases, while quite a few fighter bases remained grass to the war’s end; and night figters ended up based on fields with better & dedicated night equipment – flarepaths and runways.

In addition to listening into the w/t during the daytime air tests,the Germans also had highly sensitive listening devices on the Dutch coast which could hear the bombers’ engines while they were still over East Anglia! Wouldn’t be much use for predicting precisely where a raid was headed though I don’t suppose.

Indeed. But it would be a scale & risk item. Radio chat at the start of the raid woruld jepordise the whole raid and all the crews.

Not that it mattered a jot since virtually every aircraft involved in a night raid would do an air test the afternoon before, including a w/t check which the Germans sat quietly and counted.

They knew in advance the strength of the coming night’s raid virtually every time.

See Bomber (Deighton) for the fictionalised version of this.

Moggy

presumably using radio on the return leg would be risky too, giving away their position to nightfighters?

Indeed. But it would be a scale & risk item. Radio chat at the start of the raid woruld jepordise the whole raid and all the crews. Radio chatter on the return leg might save your crew, or put them at risk – but not others.

But there certainly were intruders lurking at British airfields on occasion. However I don’t think they had radio intercept gear.

Good point (& question!)
In 1944 bomber fields used radio; but when? Probably not for departure – a nice signal to the German listening stations.

presumably using radio on the return leg would be risky too, giving away their position to nightfighters???

I can’t access the MOD/RAF site from work (how bizzare!) so cant research when the RAF ATC ‘trade’ came in being… I suspect it was 1944 looking at the NATS website as thats the date they quote for the opening of RAF flying control centres, although again thats for en-route rather than aerodrome control…

interestingly, it was a requirement from 1926 for airliners operating out of Croydon to carry a wireless and a licensed operator..
http://www.nats.co.uk/library/history3.html

Neil.

Good point (& question!)
In 1944 bomber fields used radio; but when? Probably not for departure – a nice signal to the German listening stations. Certainly in 1939, they briefed and left in radio silence. When did procedure change?

I seem to recall that, from my visits to the tower at East Kirkby, bomber fields did use voice comms.

Moggy

I again presume the concept of controlling a/c on the ground and in the circuit via radio was a post-war one, as was ATC in general I suppose ?

Good question. Air trafic probably grew out of a demand / need at Empire Air Training School airfields and UK training fields, particularly those flying twins – Oxford & Anson. But I don’t know.

Aerodromes

Two of the nicest Grass airfields I’ve ever seen are Newton in Nottinghamshire and kirton Lindsey in Lincolnshire. Beautifull examples of aerodromes, sadly, niether are in use as airfields now as far as I know. Although my first ever flight was in a Chipmunk from Newton in 19-hundred-frozen stiff.
Ahhhh happy days.

A few of the older aeroplanes landing onto the longer grass at the recent Old Warden show were because the main runway had a strong crosswind, so the pilots elected to land into wind regardless rather than risk losing control.

To see how an into wind airfield continues to work today, take a look at the Bicester visiting pilots instructions on www.windrushers.org.uk

thanks for your replies… I’d noticed some aeroplanes at OW landing in the longer grass and had wondered if that was on purpose and to aid ‘retardation’ (brakes, what brakes!)

So on departure I presume it would be a case of ‘follow the leader’ especially for the bombers as they are normally portrayed as being ‘launched’ by a man with a very-pistol…
I again presume the concept of controlling a/c on the ground and in the circuit via radio was a post-war one, as was ATC in general I suppose ?
I notice that what we refer to these days as ‘Air Traffic’ is normally a ‘watch tower’ staffed by ‘Ops’ people, with radio (voice) comms restricted to fighter control activities,the bombers sending back messages in morse code? must admit I sometimes find the story of those on the ground as interesting as the more obvious ones of the flyers – think ‘ll watch my Night Bombers DVD tonight.. :rolleyes: 😀
Neil.

Hence the station sign:

“RAF Feltwell.

No Deposit, No Return.” 😀

RAF Feltwell was, and is, a grass field.

During the war RAF Methwold was built with concrete runways, and the stations jointly housed a number of units.

I understand it was not uncommon for fully loaded aircraft to take of from Methwold, but then return empty to Feltwell.

Trouble is I cannot remember where I heard / read this, so it could be a complete fiction.

Moggy

Early W.W.II RAF airfields were essentially the same as pre-War and W.W.I ‘fields’ which were aim into wind at all times – hence the interwar symbol for an airfield being a landing circle marked in white.

The ‘tarmac’ in front of the hangars was the start and finish point of your flight, though you’d taxi to the apropriate bit of the field to take off into wind. Because of the ruts created around the edge of the field, Perimiter tracks were built (coming before runways) to stop that problem. The Perri track then defined the edge of the useable field.

The problems started with heavier bomber aircraft, like the Wellington and Manchester – first proposed solution was ‘accellerators’ (we’d say catapults) an example of which was refound recently at the ex-RAF Harwell (IIRC) to fire the bomb & fuel loaded aircraft off a ramp into the air – landing a lighter aircraft (sans bombs and fuel) was regarded as OK on the grass. Some bright spark realised that two longer strips of tarmac probably was more flexible in use and simpler than one concrete one with lots of Heath Robinson machinery.

Old Warden illustrates a variation to the points made by the others above; in that you’d assume that aircraft would land on the mown ‘runways’ and stear clear of the longer grass. However it’s common for certain of the aircraft to run into the longer grass to act as a brake on occasion!

Interesting…

All-grass airfields were predominantly operated into wind, although there were usually preferred take-off runs giving you the longest length and/or smoothest run available. They would normally be kept cut and rolled for the majority of the landing area.

The normal procedure was for the general landing direction to be shown by a ‘landing tee’, a t-shaped wooden structure visible from the air. Much easier to see than a windsock.

Later in WW2, a ground control caravan, the ice-cream van, would be set up at the start of the take-off/landing area. Aircraft would normally take-off from the left of it, land to the right of it.

Similar procedures continue to operate at some all grass gliding sites today. When I fly from Bicester, the rule here, is simply ‘land on the big green bit’

Large grass airfields like White Waltham and Sywell were operated on an into wind basis till relatively recently. The need to have CAA licenced runways for commercial and training operations now means that we have to land in crosswinds. Progress eh!

Largely point into wind and go.

Flarepath would be laid with burners for night ops.

Moggy