Tenby flying sites
Note: This map only shows the position of Tenby town within the UK. If anbody can kindly offer advice about the exact location of the sites used in and around Tenby, this will be most welcome.
TENBY: Temporary aerodrome
Note: Picture of the South Beach by the author.
Operated by: Monsieur H Salmet
Location: On the South beach, which is close to the town centre
Period of operation: 1913
NOTES: It would appear that Monsieur Henri Salmet was sponsored by the Daily Mail to undertake a fairly extensive tour of at least the southern part of England and Wales in 1913 operating passenger carrying flights.
He also operated from a site in/near to the later WOODLEY aerodrome in Berkshire. He certainly visited Cirencester too but apparently in 1912? I have identified several of the sites Salmet used during his tours, but is a full list of his venues known today?
If nothing else it seems to prove what a practical, (and generally reliable?), machine his Blériot Monoplane was. It appears he undertook a fairly extensive Tour in the south of the UK in 1912.
TENBY: Temporary aerodrome?
NOTES: On the 8th and 9th of September 1933 Sir Alan Cobham’s No.2 Tour displayed at Tenby. Did they also use the beach as their venue?
TENBY: Military airstrip
Military user: US First Army ‘V’ Corps 2nd Infantry Division Artillery HQ
Location: Presumably not on the beach used by Monsieur Salmet in 1913? Tenby is at the end of the A478, 8nm E of Pembroke
Period of operation: 1944/5 only?
NOTES: It appears that seven Piper L-4 Grasshoppers and one Stinson L-5 Sentinel were based here.
TENBY: Semi-permanent Royal Navy flying base
NOTES: In his book The Urge To Fly, (well worth reading), Don Robertson tells an account of flying across to TENBY from LEE-on-SOLENT in a Walrus to test ASV radar. A few years ago I would probably have dismissed the notion of a Walrus being based at Tenby to conduct top secret trials, as, (to me then), obviously PEMBROKE flying boat base was the more likely location? However, I now realise that a large military base is not best suited for secret trials - quite the opposite in fact.
But not so it seems and I will quote this from his book, Ella being his wife: “Being posted to Tenby made a welcome change with Ella being able to be there with me and for years after we still talked about the super Dover sole we had at one meal at the Imperial Hotel where we were given one of the best rooms overlooking the sea.”
“There are a number of small islands off the coast and we used these to calibrate the radar tube. On crossing the coast I would shout ‘Now!’, at which point Banner would pencil a mark on the tube. By repeating this at various heights and crossing the coast at different angles, a fair polar diagram was established.”
He then goes on to explain that the Admiralty were not much impressed by the idea of airborne radar: “Apparently their Lordships were not convinced of the use of ASV for the navy so decisions to proceed were painfully slow and money was sluggish in being forthcoming.” Indeed, at one point he tells of a director of the company producing the sets, Harold Grenfell, offering to pay for twenty sets - “if the navy would not.”
SOMETHING TO CONSIDER
This seems worth examining? In essence, the Lords of the Admiralty could not envisage the advantage of airborne radar! Today, having read some history, I am not now surprised, not at all. But, as is so often the case, I remain utterly astonished that such utterly stupid, utterly ignorant, utterly incompetent, utterly arrogant and utterly unimaginative people managed to remain in control the Royal Navy. (Or indeed the other military services for that matter). As Don Robertson says, “It now seems incredible that the usefulness of airborne radar could have been questioned.”
Surely a ten year old child would leap at having this huge advantage, if it was a game.
But, let us remind ourselves, these fools were still obsessed, in part, with the concept that a battleship was the ultimate weapon in naval warfare. As we now know the battleship, by WW2, was both obsolete and virtually useless. the most useless naval concept ever.
THE BATTLE OF THE ATLANTIC
It is perhaps not too well understood that there was a point in WW2 when the 'Battle of the Atlantic' during 1942 especially, was on the point of being lost due to the supremacy of German U-boats inflicting more shipping losses than could be replaced. Even the Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, seems to have been in denial, to some extent, of this reality. Perhaps believing that the ascendent RAF bombing campaign of Germany would resolve the war?
As we now know, he was mistaken. The emergence of Sonar and radar, the latter being used by aircraft and surface ships, proved to be effective to counter the U-boat threat.
DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND?
The military mind is so very often difficult to fathom? Take the German ‘Bismark’ battleship for example in WW2. Having been sent out and unleashing it’s fury, the Royal Navy went into a rage which arguably hasn’t been seen since. Everything was thrown at it, including obviously suicidal attacks, it HAD to be sunk at any cost. And it was.
The Germans then appear to have realised that the supreme battleship idea was now defunct, so stuffed the ‘Tirpitz’ up a fjord in Norway where it could do no harm whatsover. However, the obsession with sinking the ‘Tirpitz’ was quite extraordinary and went on for years. Without much doubt an utter waste of life and resources? After the ‘Bismark’ debacle is there any proof the Germans even once seriously considered sending the ‘Tirpitz’ out to sea? The whole debacle appears to revolve around perceived risk.
The ‘Tirpitz’ was eventually sunk by aerial bombardment. Even then three raids in September, October and November were mounted with ‘Tallboy’ bombs, the third raid succeeding on the 12th November 1944. It really does seem that it was not the military threat this battleship had; it was instead what it represented. In effect a status symbol for the Nazi regime.
And perhaps, an example of the ‘red rag to a bull’ syndrome I suppose? And of course, in military tradition the act of flying a flag and sounding a bugle is it appears far, far more important than having the suitable weapons, a clear strategy and proven tactics to quite effectively defeat the enemy. Also, being somewhat cynical I often get the impression that, even though you might have the ability to shoot the enemy dead at a considerable distance with a rifle; if you failed to salute an officer correctly, you were done for.
I only wish this was a ridiculous parody of the truth!
Thankfully, in Europe at least, the miltary have become far more aware and intelligent.
We'd love to hear from you, so please scroll down to leave a comment!
Leave a comment ...
Copyright (c) UK Airfield Guide
