I'm tempted to suggest that there might well have been sites north and south of the Clyde - being an attempt to simulate population centres thereof. Apart from protecting shipyards and other vital industries it should be remembered that the Tail of the Bank was one of the two major convoy terminals [the other being the Mersey] from North America - and that fact above all others gave this area top priority of air defence.
All the known gun sites are listed on the AA Batteries Clyde page, mostly with direct links to aeriel imagery to make life a bit easier if hunting for them.
I reckon any open and unpopulated area away from potential targets would have been fair game for a decoy, provided it also qualified as being reasonalby close to fool the navigators.
I'm guessing you've all seen the documentaries where they (navigators) have revealed that they could barely plot their positions to better than 5 miles of their true postition, and that was using their instruments on the ground at their airfield, not in flight while avoiding defenders.
As regards the number of decoy sites, I ferreted this quote away some time ago:
Quoted Text
Masterminded by Colonel Sir John F Turner, Royal Engineers, Day Decoys (K Sites) and Night Decoys (Q Sites) were established throughout Britain early in the war to deceive enemy bombers and reconnaissance aircraft. Much of the design and building of these sites and the dummy aircraft was done by Sound City Films at Shepperton Studios whose General Manager was Campbeltown born Scot Norman Louden. Simulating factories, railway yards, docks, urban layouts, airfields and the effect of incendiaries, the K sites, QF (Q Fire), QL (Q Lighting) and SF (Special Fire or “Starfish”) sites were built in many parts of Scotland. There were for example four Starfish sites around Edinburgh and nine in the Glasgow and Lanarkshire area. Specifically for the purposes of the D-Day deception plan dummy Boston and Spitfire aircraft were displayed at Peterhead, Fraserburgh and Fordoun.
Haven't come across anything that details any other areas unfortunately.
I think the filing system has crashed as far as AA sites are concerened. Mathernock is not on the list but is shown on the attached map. When you click on the pin it gives you a reference no. that appears to be that of Linwood. When you click on the Linwood one it refers you to Bishopton.
Matternock (or Mathernock, one must be wrong ) is on Line 33 of the table, and seems fine on the map too, so I'm at a bit of a loss as to what's wrong for you with link and pin
Unfortunately, there is a small bug in the code that handles the text (and no fix apparent yet), and as you should see there is an anomaly in the formatting of certain links that involve certain combinations of upper case characters at the start of the name, and you'll see them as having a sort of 'double entry' with an apostrophe and right arrow (that's '> and dashed too) stuck in the link and wasting it a bit.
Hmmm... You're having a senior moment (shhh) Mat(t/h)ernock is AS6, Linwood is S6.
Though I'd also add that the page is very much a scratchpad, just pulling the assorted sources of info into one spot, rather than having to jump around between individual pages and sites.
Need to get a fix on the spelling of the place now
The Linwood jump back from the pin is fine (programatically, it has to be as it's automatic). If you hover your mouse over it, your browser status line should show the link leads back to an anchor that ends with #Linwood.
Do you mean Drumcross/Bishopton (S7)? The jump back tries to put the original line in the text at the top of the page. If your page size and browser window size don't allow it reach that bit of the page, then the 'wrong' line will be there, and there's no sort of feedback from the browser that it couldn't reach the anchor cleanly.
I have found a reference to two Naval decoy sites south of Greenock. I think I can see something interesting on one of them. Try 55* 55' 17.7 N 04* 46' 28.4 W ( Yes I know it is not decimal !) Have a search around on a reasonable magnification.
Gave it a good try, but no luck (55.9215833333333,-4.77455555555556)
The land and roads are a bit bland for markers, but if there are any that that might point to the outlines, it's worth a try.
I'd have to say that all the decoys I've come across were bigger than boats, generally being laid out to be geographically similar to a target area, with 'identifiable' features marked out by pits or areas that could be filled with fuel and set alight.
That said, even with the knowledge of reasonably accurate locations, the Drumnessie Decoy shows very little that can be recognised from the aerial pics. The bunker is reasonable, but the fire baskets located a short way away are next to invisible. Probably have better luck on foot with the Mk I eyeball
I definitely plan to transport a couple of Mk 1 eyeballs to the site when the weather is a bit more clement! I am surprised to hear you say that the land and roads are a bit bland as using my favourite flashearth.com the topography comes up quite clear and the Lat/long I quoted should transport you to the centre of one of the boat shapes. The other site listed is further to the SE on the north shore of the bigger of the Gryffe reservoirs but I cannot see anything on the aerial shots.
I visited the AA Battery on the shore at Cardross yesterday, it is very different from Larkfield although interestingly it has the same strange trenchlike structure outside one of the command post doors. The site is not in very good condition now. I found a listing site lastnight that suggested that it had a role in the protection of " The Cardross Boom". Might be worth some more digging. The shore between the site and the timber yard is littered with old bricks and concrete and it appears that some shoreline buildings have been bulldozed onto the beach at some time. It could have been quite a big complex.
This is as much as I can make out, only in VE though, there's nothing in the alternative Google, these being what flashearth mashes its images from. I'd say it's just a natural feature (if I'm in the right spot).
I've found that even the best of the hi-res imagery can provide views that appear to conflict, or at least can be misleading if taken at face value without studying the surrounding area for clues in shadow detail. Worse still, the post-processing applied by Google and MS can add/obscure visual clues. They stretch the images to match edges, manipulate brightness/contrast to match them, and remove artefacts and 'holes. There are some famous pics of airports where there are shadows of planes on the ground, but no no planes. You can maybe get an idea of the sort of thing I have in mind if you have a look at the views of the building on the ROF Bishopton site. Some building/areas look quite different in shape/height depending which view you're looking at Flashearth as you switch between the two providers http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=55.897039&lon=-4.510594&z=18.7&r=0&src=msl
Cardross is odd, I think, as it's seldom referred to in listings of gun sites. I only found in an obscure reference and then by looking at the aerial view - of course, I found a grid ref shortly after. When I think of the number of times I've driven past it over the years...
Good luck on the Cardross Boom. There's even less info there than the one that ran from Otter Ferry
Spot on for position. It still seems to me that there are a number of boat shapes showing up around that area and I have not come across these sort of shapes anywhere else. What would a "Naval Decoy site " look like if not a collection of boat shapes. I assume that they were lit in some way to look like an assembled convoy. The shape of the water in Loch Tom and the Gryffe reservoirs mimics that of the Clyde at Gourock ( as does that of the West & East Kyles) . This area is exactly where the list of Naval Decoys said one was.
I look forward to a closer inspection but I do know that some of the land in the area has been extensively worked recently by the dreaded Scottish Water so I hope this area has been spared.
I'd have expected a Naval Decoy to look like a dockyard at night , since that kind of decoy isn't going work in daylight.
Boats wouldn't be discernible to bombers at altitude, and a convoy pattern would only exist as 'a convoy' when underway at sea, if you see what I mean. Blackout would have been the order of the day too.
The decoy towns depended on plausibility, and the difficulty of night navigation for bombers and pathfinders. The could navigate to the right area, but were still dependent on landmarks for their final fix. In the case of docks and factories, this would be the unavoidable highlights that would result from the machinery or facilities that couldn't be shut down at short notice. The aim of the decoys was to play on that, and give the spotters something to aim for. This was the purpose of things like fire baskets and fuel pools, which were deliberately ignited after the pathfinders passed, to simulate their incendiaries and attract the following bombers.
I've never even come across any references, but it would be interesting to know if the toll taken by the Clydebank Blitz would have been the same or greater if the decoy towns in the hills had not existed, or even if they were in play at the time. I'm beginning to suspect that they either weren't in play at the time, so no-one wants to bring them up lest there be a scandal, or there is simply no record remaining in that detail, due to the secrecy that would have been in place at the time.
If you've seen any of the English historical documentaries, the the problem with tracking these decoys down is that nature has reclaimed most of the sites. They tended to be fairly shallow surface features, and it doesn't take much natural growth to hide them. A handy helicopter, able to provide a low altitude view, and radio directions to ground walkers seems to be the necessary solution to cover an area.
A classic example of the difference between Google and VE images and post processing. Nothing evident in Google, but the same spot in VE shows the bunkers and surrounding features in detail.
Well done Appollo! The next question is which of the two quoted decoy sites did this generator house feed? Possibly both I suppose as it is inbetween the stated sites of both. Definitley one for a visit!
I imagine that the boat shaped features were lit in some way to resemble the shadows cast on the water by a ships at anchor at the Tail of the Bank.
Just been perusing your Flatterton entry and digging about on the Canmore files. Has anyone any idea what this GL Mat radar system looks like when it is at home?
I think you're on a hopeless quest, online at least.
As far as I can see, GL radar refers to the horns and dishes (and the associated hardware of course) that can be seen attached to many guns and searchlights in period pics. With a narrow band beam, these would have provided a radar return on invisible (to the eye) targets, and allowed the gun crews to have targeted items they couldn't actually sight.
From articles I've read, there were radar-guided searchlight that would lock on to, and track, target aircraft. This wouldn't work for AA guns, as their aiming position is not the same as the visual target, with altitude, windage, shell and charge size, and time to target all needing to be computed before firing commenced. I don't think that computing technology existed at the time, although I believe the Cold War guns that were sited on some of the earlier emplacements were radar guided, thanks to the increased computing power available, and more advanced ordnance available.
I've never found any operational details, only lots and lots of references similar to what you've seen. Bit depressing, but there's lot's of specialised items that still haven't made it 'here'.
DEFLATING BRITISH RADAR MYTHS OF WORLD WAR II http://www.uk-us.org/stinet/radar.pdf makes for some interesting reading. I haven't read too much into the 'politics' if the content, but as far as I can see, the technical content is correct, and there is no doubt today that Germany and Britain were working in parallel, and that Britain was sending 'recovery' missions to bring their technology back. The article is also clearly correct when it identifies the two side's ideologies as the reason that Britain got it working and used it successfully.
Thanks Appollo. I did an extensive web search on GLmat radar and came upon a couple of interesting itmes. One was an RAF oblique aerial photo of the battery in Blantyre. The GL mat receiver covered the whole of the field behind the site. Seems they involved a large area of horizantal wire mesh ( up to an acre) although the later ones were smaller. There is no way such a large net structure could have been built at Larkfield for instance. Apparently the octagonal shape was important in some way too. The transmitter was mounted a short distance away from the receiver too which set me wondering if the strange trench pattern found was the transmitter site or was it a base for a machine gun for shortrange defence of the sites. It must have had some purpose.
I also tripped upon another Decoy site in the Greenock area and have started a page. Actually this has resolved a niggle I have had for a while. When I found the pics of the starfish control bunker I knew I had seen one somewhere in my travels but could not remember where. It was the Larkfield one. My pals and I got brave one day and strayed into the area of the Greenock boys to have a look at it. It was demolisehed shortly afterwards. Didn't look inside it I am affraid - the Greenock boys might have been in it!
Good stuff, GL mats haven't given up any of their secrets to me yet. Is the oblique pic online?
I don't understand the mat references yet, as the ground meshes mean frequencies that would be too low to pinpoint aerial targets (and antenna arrays weren't even thought of then), but the mesh may have been used to improve the efficiency of the fairly new (and therefore inefficient) transmit/receive electronics and antennae in use at the time. That's why I was trying to track down more technical info. The octagonal shape was probably just efficiency again, a circle is best, and a square's corners are just wasted.
I'd tend to discount ideas of site defences - based on the info found regarding those at airfields - and would reckon that they were undefended in that sense, as it would be pointless. I'd reckon the order would be to detonate the magazine to deny the enemy in the worst case, while airfields would be heavily defended as resources, until overwhelmed in an invasion. But, I'm sure I could argue the converse too, if there were Nissen hits and camps near most guns, rather than airfields.
I'll have to catch up - no fun having been knocked off the web for almost 2 days
Yes the pic of Blantyre was on line. I think it is one of the photos held by Historic Scotland or whatever they are called although that is nor where I found it. Don't ask I don't know where it was.
As I understand it the mesh netting boosted the accuracy by producing an artificial horizon. What I found no trace of at all is the ramps mentioned as GL Mat radar features by Mr. Guy. Happy searching!
That's a revealing pic http://www.rcahms.gov.uk/scotland_screenres_800/1020790.jpg A nuisance that RCAHMS pics aren't always easy to get to, or are generally just listed by index, but not actually online. To be honest, I've given up on them as I've followed so many links that end up with a message that the pic is in the library, but not online.
Interestingly, that search only works with Google (at this time). 4 other searches didn't find it, although 2 linked here, and the post's only been here a day! At least proves it's a waste of money, paying even a penny to those that claim they can get you listed fast and high, though no-one believes me.
I'd initially thought the pan/tilt/zoom toys in Virtual Earth would have made it easy to match the oblique view with the present day aerial imagery, but the controls are too coarse, and the perspective too false (since it's effectively pretending and overhead shot is a perspective view) to allow it to be done accurately, although the view can be quickly configured to provide a general match. The images would need to be manipulated in a proper image editor to get some sort of match. The most irritating thing is the new track, running parallel to the original road on the east - it keeps pulling your eye to it an making you think it's the road, and the reworking of the land will have destroyed quite a bit of the original remains.
Intriguing to see just how much is obscured/lost today, and that the spoil tip or hill to the north west isn't hiding anything, or at least wasn't part of the original structure. The Nissen hut bases are clearly lost in the undergrowth, but there are some objects still poking through the grass in the area between their site and the gun site, though that may just be discarded remnants.
I'd reckon that after 50+ years, there won't be any of those mats discoverable, unless they're in places with no undergrowth or vegetation. So, at least theory 2 was correct now that the true size of the mat is revealed and other sites can be compared for their layout.
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
Bombing decoys, cities and Starfish
Print Thread
Report to Moderator
Logged
Private message
Site
) is on Line 33 of the table, and seems fine on the map too, so I'm at a bit of a loss as to what's wrong for you with link and pin 
