Talk:Robert Watson-Watt

False Primacy Claims

This article and statements that link to it such as the one on the main page of the Wikipedia today (26 February 2010) falsely claim that Watson-Watt "invented" radar and that his 1935 experiments were the first demonstration of radar. These claims are absurdly angophile (? The subject was Scottish, not Anglo-Saxon.) rewrites of history. By 1935 the Germans had working, commercial radars that were far more advanced than Watson-Watts laboratory experiments. The Seetakt system is only one of several working German radars that preceeded by years the work of any other nation. Experimenters at the Kiel shipyard were doing radar experiments at least as early as 1933. By 1935 both the NVA (Nachrichten-Versuchsabteilung) and GEMA (Gesellschaft für Elektroakustische und Mechanische Apparate) had multiple, working commercial radar systems they were selling to the German military. Calling Watson-Watt the father of radar and so forth is highly exaggerated. If anyone deserves this title it is Guglielmo Marconi whose 1922 speech sparked the first active interest in radar, and it was he that did the earliest radar-related experiments dating back to 1899. I notice someone has deleted all the references to this work from both the articles on Marconi and the history of radar. John Chamberlain (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Watson-Watt's work changed the course of history, whereas none of the other's work did. That's why he's regarded as the 'inventor of radar'.

You see, the Chain Home system, apart from being the first integrated radar system of it's kind anywhere in the world - a fully-worked out and usable Ground-controlled interception system, actually had important consequences that reached far beyond the limited effects of the other contributors. It played a vital role in winning a battle that enabled Britain and her Empire to keep fighting the most extensive war in history - World War II. This enabled the eventual defeat of Nazi Germany and later, the Empire of Japan. None of the other contributors or systems that you mention did this.

It was Watson-Watt who alone had the vision to see the application of radar and its uses as a whole rather than in various isolated and non-connected applications. He had the vision and got it implemented to the point where it changed the world, the others didn't. Compared to his work, and the output of the Telecommunications Research Establishment (TRE), all the other's efforts pale into relative insignificance.

If Watson-Watt and the TRE had only been responsible for H2S they would still have had an importance far above most of the others, as H2S has everything that an untrained observer today thinks of when a reference is made to a 'radar' set - a circular PPI display with a rotating sweep that goes around illuminating the scanned area, fed from a synchronised rotating parabolic aerial receiving echoes from a signal generated by a centimetric-wavelength cavity magnetron. H2S was, in-effect, the father of most, if not all, modern general purpose radar systems. I don't know what the Bawdsey Research Station and the later TRE cost to run, but the Air Ministry certainly got their money's worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Watson-Watt was undoubtedly a great and practical engineer and also Scottish.. but he was not the 'Father of Radar' as radar was being independently developed in at least 4 other countries at the same time. If you research the 'Tizzard' Mission' then you will find that the US radars were equally good but not integrated into a complete air defence system (if the Americans had protected Pearl Harbour with a Chain Home type system + reporting structure.?) Interestingly the operators of the US built set did track the incoming Japanese bombers and called in the reports but it was Sunday and the base was expecting a formation of B17's inbound at the same time. W-Watt did produce the first integrated system of air defence but he absolutely was not the 'Father of Radar.' Incidentally the first patent for 'radio location' was German in 1908! I suggest you edit your first line or I will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmpltd (talk • contribs) 14:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Inventor of radar, WW patently wasn't the 'inventor' as radar developement had been progressing in several counties for decades previous to 1935. What he did do was provide Britain with the worlds first integrated air defence system..but he din't invent the technology used..simply a brilliant adaption of commercially available equipment in service in 4 years. I therefore flagged the 'inventor' claim as dubious. Cmpltd (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I think a workable line would be something like:

"While other nations were also working on RADAR, Robert Watson-Watt was the first to effectively apply it to aerial defence during wartime. As such he is the originator of the world's first integrated RADAR defence system to be practically and effectively used in wartime. His work developed many recognisable features of modern RADAR. In this sense he is regarded by many as the 'father of modern RADAR'."

NB: Asserting that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.235.247 (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually the title 'father of radar' might be a better one to use. Whilst it is true that he didn't actually 'invent' radar, he did more than anyone else to make it a world-changing idea.

And as someone wrote above, his contribution - via the Battle of Britain - changed world history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.17 (talk) 10:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

BIRTH OF RADAR MEMORIAL

Better image and details can be found here: [1], [2] and [3]. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

But should all mention/ images be relocated to "Legacy" section? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Nice pictures of the Daventry memorial, but three? And not one of the Brechin statue? Come on, Scots...Protozoon (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

German Early Detection

The Robert Watson-Watts page says: They tested their theories with a flight of the Zeppelin LZ 130, but concluded the stations were a new long-range naval communications system. Whilst the Chain Home page says: German sources report the 12 m Chain Home signals were detected and suspected to be radar; however, the chief investigator was not able to prove his suspicions.[34] Other sources are said to report different results.

Suggest the chain Home page comment is more accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.2 (talk) 08:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

There are a number of different explanations as to why the Germans failed to recognise Chain Home as a radar system, such as listening in on too high a frequency - the Germans were working on higher wavelengths and so assumed the British were working in these same frequency bands - to the transmitted power from Chain Home resonating with the metal airframe of the LZ 130 and swamping the airship's onboard receiver - the Chain Home operators reported the airship as the biggest radar return they had ever seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.17 (talk) 10:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Citation Needed?

The first sentence of the section entitled "Contribution to the Second Woorld War" ends with "Citation Needed". The start of the sentence contains the reference... it on page 392 in the 2001 printing - how much more specific do you need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.45.182.9 (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

That full book source, with page number should be added as a ref, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

This is what I get from the Google books version of the book - Taylor AJP English History 1914-1945 Oxford University Press ISBN 0-19-280140-6 1965, 1975 (2001 printing)

quietly informed of radar's progress

What does that mean?

"Quietly informed". Does that mean some guy comes up and speaks quietly?

Either you are informed, or you are not informed.

Please use clear language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.242.200 (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

One might expect that the PM was briefed privately, presumably by Henry Tizard, or perhaps via another direct report in the Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, rather than by means of a formal report from the relevant Permanent Secretary that might have warranted discussion in the cabinet, or even a question in the House? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The work on RDF and Chain Home was secret, being related to defence, so they weren't going to go around telling everyone about it. So yes, he would have been informed privately, probably by personal conversation or by private handwritten minutes.

Discussing the matter in the House of Commons would have led to any speech made being reported in Hansard which was a freely available publication, thus defeating any attempt at maintaining security. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.17 (talk) 10:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Watt vs. Watson-Watt

Chain Home#cite note-9 claims (unsourced) that he was known as Robert Watt until his knighthood in 1942. Can anyone find a reference for this? If so, the article should be revised. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 07:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

High-frequency_direction_finding#Watson-Watt claims (unsourced) that he was Robert Watt as well, but this page claims that he was Robert Watson. No sources anywhere. Publications from the '30s, eg https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.1937.0181 are under the name "R. A. Watson Watt", even the "An instantaneous direct-reading radiogoniometer" is by "R. A. Watson Watt" https://digital.nls.uk/scientists/archive/75132037

FWIW, a quick look through google scholar for 1920-1940 has a lot of hits for RA Watson Watt (sometimes Watson-Watt), but nothing jumps out as just Watson, or just Watt. The closest is his name often written as "RAW Watt"

The insertion of that note is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Watson-Watt&diff=prev&oldid=789614867 I'm just gonna go ahead and remove it 136.25.136.203 (talk) 06:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Britsh-centred additions

Edward Highgate is adding information biased toward British in this and other articles. He is using Scottish refrecences to overstate the importance of Robert Watson-Watt in the development of radar while others from France, Germany, USSR and United States have been critical to the development of this device. When I tried to bring a more neutral language, he reversed me. Could someone be the juge in this situation? Pierre cb (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll let the other editors judge for themselves who is being biased. As seen on the radar talkpage, Pierre put forward his own personal viewpoint that the "Germans had a much better device", which I responded with a statement from the American physicists at the American Physical Society. Yeah these American physicists are clearly biased toward this Scotsman. Another personal viewpoint from Pierre is "Watson-Watt is not THE father of radar". No-one said he was. Again you are letting your own viewpoint distort what was stated. He was, what the BBC states, a pioneer. Neutral language? You mean moving away from what is said in the sources toward your own personal viewpoint. Edward Highgate (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

What Edward Highgate is relating has never be written in any article, just as an exchange in our personal discussion pages and taken out of context. But what is true is that he screws the radar article and this one with British bias. Pierre cb (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

What Watson-Watt did that no-one else did was to see the whole rdf/radar picture as a whole, which led to his complete working concept for an integrated early warning defence system that was to become Chain Home, tied-in with the fighters of RAF Fighter Command and operating in what became known as Ground-controlled interception (GCI). This was operational in 1939. It was instrumental in the RAF winning the Battle of Britain in 1940. A memo sent to Watson-Watt also led to the development of AI Mk. IV radar, the first operational airborne radar system, which was used in The Blitz.

Thus Watson-Watt's work directly influenced the course of a major conflict.

No one else did this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.180 (talk) 09:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Robert Watson-Watt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101117194902/http://gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=108&EventId=775 to http://www.gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=108&EventId=775
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110903051653/http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/gikii/docs3/corrigan.pdf to http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/gikii/docs3/corrigan.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)