Trent Telenko Profile picture
Dec 29, 2021 22 tweets 9 min read Read on X
The subject of this thread will be the electronic warfare history of the Battle of the Bulge.

This history is almost unknown in military history circles, let alone the public, because there have been exactly two articles on it in 75(+) years.
1/
STRATEGIC JAMMING IN PERSPECTIVE.
Long range jamming platforms have been the focus of air campaigns against integrated air defense system (IADS) since WW2. There have never been enough of them and their allocation is a strategic level concern in every war fought since 1945.
2/
The 8th Air Force's 36th Squadron was its heavy jamming unit. It supported 8th AF bomber streams forming up to attack German with VHF band barrage jamming to prevent the Luftwaffe hearing formation chatter & it had a jamming major role during the D-Day invasion of Normandy.
3/
Where the 36th HBS gets involved in the Ardennes involves ART-6 through ART-11 "Jackal" series communications jammers. The photo below shows one of a series of six jammers targeted against German tank radio traffic.
4/
aafradio.org/countermeasure…
The "American Jackal" jammer was a piece of kit that duplicated a British tank radio jammer used in the Western Desert to cover 8th Army in Wellington twin engine bombers.

The Luftwaffe sent Me-109's after them and it didn't turn out well.
5/
spitfirespares.co.uk/radio%202l.html
Despite the highly classified nature of the 36th Jamming Sqd’s capabilities, their were liaison teams of the British Branch of the American MIT Radiation Laboratory (BBRL) all over North West Europe from two months before D-Day to the Ardennes offensive.
6/
Starting in April 1944 BBRL was briefing every senior US Army staff officer it could catch. The flag rank briefer was named John Trump, the uncle of Pres. Donald J. Trump. So Ninth and Third Army senior staff would have been well aware of the capabilities of
7/
...the British build Jostle and American built Jackal tank radio jammers in the 36th Squadron’s B-24’s.

The problem with this 36th HBS Jackal tank radio jamming capability was the 8th AF bomber generals hated it.

They didn't want to share B-24's penny packet with the Army.
8/
Spaatz, Doolittle etc wanted to pass this mission to Ninth AF medium bombers.

This wasn't practical for the simple reason training up & equipping a medium bomber sqd to the 36th's capability would take too long.
9/
Now that we have the context established, lets get to the meat of the 36thJamming Squadron's involvement with the Ardennes offensive.

Short form: Everyone in Allied high command knew where the German Ardennes offensive attack force was.

With one exception, everyone
10/
...thought it was a _DEFENSIVE_ counter-attack force waiting for an allied attack.

The sole exception being 1st Army's G-2 intelligence officer Colonel Benjamin "Monk" Dickson.

 As  Jörg Muth author of "Command Culture: Officer Education in the U.S. Army and the
11/
...German Armed Forces, 1901–1940" recently put it on the H-War e-mail list:

12/
The full story of Colonel Benjamin "Monk" Dickson's Intel report 37 has to await another Ardennes thread, but it gives context to US Ninth Army's G-2 not only identifying 6th Panzer Army's assembly area, but also convincing  Lt. Gen. William Hood Simpson to request the 36th
13/
Heavy Bombardment Squadron (RCM) to fly sorties to jam their radios days before the attack.

 A request which was "officially" denied by 8th Air Force because of the German IADS heavy Flak gun threat B-24 to jamming planes. 
14/
This is how Maj. Richard Riccardelli's 1985 article "Electronic Warfare in WWII" described the process by which Ninth Army asked for and was denied jamming support.
15/
The word that jumps out is -staffing-. The Ninth Army request for jamming had to be well staffed to make it through the approval process to get to 8th AF & get rejected there on the grounds of vulnerability to German Flak gun concentrations in the proposed jamming orbit of
16/
...Sixth Panzer Army radio emitters.

This staff work for requesting the 36th Jamming Sqd's support was akin to a request asking for the Operation Cobra type carpet bombing and had to include as a minimum the following:
17/
So, to be clear, LTG Simpson & staff, General Bradley & Staff, General Eisenhower's SHAEF staff, and 8th AF all knew where the Sixth Panzer Army was and its capabilities.

LTG Simpson wanted to do something about it and was denied.
18/
After the German's attacked, things changed.

General Patton's 3rd Army asked for the 36th HBS (RCM) to provide support. The 36th flew jamming missions on the 28th & 31st of Dec 1944 near Bastogne.

Three more jamming missions were flown 2 - 7 Jan 1945 supporting Patton.
19/
The biggest reason the EW history of the German Ardennes Offensive is unknown has less to do with the esoteric nature of EW than the light it places on the Allied command decisions before the attack.

The surprise of the attack wasn't intel failure. It was command failure.
/End
Article P.S.

Maj. Richard Riccardelli, "Electronic Warfare in WWII", Army Communicator, Winter 1985, pages 40 - 49
ibiblio.org/cizewski/signa…
Article P.P.S.

William Cahill, "The Unseen Fight: USAAF radio counter-measure operations in Europe, 1943 to 1945," Journal of Aeronautical History June 2020
aerosociety.com/media/15088/20…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Trent Telenko

Trent Telenko Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @TrentTelenko

Jul 19
Sadly for Grikin, the damage done to Russia's energy transport sector is already permanent.

We are ~six months from a Russian systemic economic collapse just from Ukrainian damage inflicted to date.

Russian collapse 🧵
1/7
The additional accumulated damage - beyond revisits to already damaged refineries - to the Russian power grid and POL supply chain in the next two months may speed this up to four months, to late November 2026, AKA just in Time for the US elections.

Russia lost 83 power
2/7 Image
...sub-stations since 1 July 2026 in occupied Ukraine.

Russia will have to strip its own unique power grid to replace these losses, shutting down supply in "less significant" parts of Russia.


3/7ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/414…
Read 8 tweets
Jul 11
I've been advocating that Ukraine strike Russian tugs as part of a larger campaign against Russian riverine and littoral maritime traffic since 2022.

Ukraine has delivered on all my expectations of what that would accomplish in the last five days.

Brown Water logistics🧵
1/
This is where I underscored the historical Russian use of barge logistics in WW2 as a basis for what they would be doing in occupied Ukraine

2/
This 2023 post is where I posed the question of how large Russian riverine/littoral/brown water logistical efforts were to support Russian occupation forces in southern Ukraine.
3/
Read 9 tweets
Jul 10
Given the massive Ukrainian victory in the "Battle of the Azov Sea."

We can say Ukraine has achieved “Usable Drone Air Superiority" over the Sea of Azov in exactly the way the Chinese would in the waters around, & air over, Taiwan when it invades.
🧵

1/
united24media.com/war-in-ukraine…
The "Battle of the Azov Sea" shares a lot of historical elements of both the WW2 "Battle of the Bismarck Sea" and the slaughter of Allied oil tankers in 1942 during Operation Drumbeat (Paukenschlag) and Operation Neuland.

2/ Image
Image
Image
The Battle of the Bismarck Sea was the slaughter of 12 ships of a 16 ship Imperial Japanese convoy of eight IJA freighters and eight IJN destroyers moving 6,900 IJA troops.

Tipped off by IJN seaplane deployments & radio intercepts, only 2,700 IJA troops arrived w/o weapons or ammo.
3/Image
Read 12 tweets
Jul 2
Just...no. Russia HAS BEEN "Battle of the Cities" from the very beginning...targeting hospitals as a means of destroying ethnic minorities.

This has been Russian policy for DECADES.

Ukraine retaliating for atrocity is _RECIPROCITY_ per the Laws of War, not degeneracy.
1/2
I asked @grok to document this Russian policy of atrocity at the link, excerpt:

"February 24, 2022–present (Full-scale Russian invasion): The scale escalated dramatically. As of May 2026, the WHO had verified more than 3,000 attacks on healthcare via its Surveillance System for Attacks on Health Care (SSA). A coalition of organizations (including PHR, eyeWitness, Truth Hounds, etc.) documented ~3,095 attacks, with 1,632 damaging or destroying hospitals and clinics"

x.com/i/grok?convers…
2/
I'm afraid @cdrsalamander has gotten the moral vectors in the Russo-Ukrainian war wrong.

What is degenerate here isn't RECIPROCITY.

Degeneracy here is defined as using Woke NGO Elite definitions of morality, AKA claiming AFU RECIPROCITY per the laws of war as a war crime.
3/3 Image
Read 4 tweets
Jun 30
When I've talked about the legacy of Soviet industrial gigantism (one big factory) making Putin era Russia far more vulnerable to a drone strategic bombing campaign.

This is a very good example. ⬇️

Strategic Drone Airpower🧵
1/3
I've talked about this vulnerability in a couple of previous threads. Here is a shorter one:



Putin's decades long "Russian exceptionalism" propaganda campaign, that says WW2 was won on the Eastern Front, has made Russians incapable of seeing this.

2/3
If strategic airpower was irrelevant then. So is damage from it now. 🤦‍♂️

Here is the larger in-depth thread detailing the vulnerabilities of ex-Soviet "One-Big Factory" infrastructure (AKA gigantism) Ukraine is exploiting.

3/3
Read 4 tweets
Jun 28
There is so much to object to here that I'm going to restate some basic design observations on the FP-5 to clarify how the Russian reflexive control data fed AI slop that is polluting public discussions of the FP-5.

FP-5 🧵
1/
1. The FP-5 Flamingo is about four times the launch weight of a BGM-109 Tomahawk (i.e. ~13,200 lb), and 2-3 times the range (i.e. ~1,620 nmi) while carrying twice the warhead mass (i.e. ~2,000 lb).

2/ Image
Image
Image
2. The FP-5 design concept is modelled on the USAF MGM-13 Mace GLCM as Fire Point told Ukrainian military analysts - but designed with modern technology to be extremely cheap to make (claimed 1/6 the cost of a Tomahawk - likely not counting the engine cost).

3/ Image
Read 17 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(