Report on German Air Force at Normandy

[a425couple]

Here is what I believe is an interesting report.
It is a USN ONI's report on the German Air Force at Normandy.
Covers April through July 1944.
It's not clear when it was declassified.

http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/gaf_invasionnormandy.htm

I see in
http://www.amazon.com/review/R36RJKTELE9LUM
(about similar / search Walter Gaul)
"----struggle for control ---- from the point of view of the German
offices - Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe - that fought it. The contributing
authors were involved in all aspects of German attempts to control
the seas, from the use of Ju-87 Stuka dive-bombers in the invasion
of Norway to the missions of ---
These reports were either written as secret reports during the war
for the benefit of the Oberkommando der Luftwaffe - the Air Force
General Staff - or were written immediately after the war when most
of the authors were prisoners of war or working for the US military."

[a425couple]

"a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message...

> Here is what I believe is an interesting report.

> http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/gaf_invasionnormandy.htm

This is one part I found interesting:
"8 This decline was a clear warning. It showed that the fighting potential
of Luftflotte 3 was being sacrificed to retaliation propaganda at a time
when the Allies might any day spring the decisive operation of the war.
In the place of a planned economy of forces in, attacks on the allied
invasion fleet, ----"

[Jim Wilkins]

"a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jom0f...@news4.newsguy.com...

Hitler firmly believed that offensive action could win a war, defense
could only prolong the defeat.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <jom2hm$368$1...@dont-email.me>,

.... and he and his henchmen never did have a clear picture of strategic
offensive airpower.

Again, adding support to my hypothesis that Hitler was one of our most
valuable assets in sabotaging the German war effort.

[a425couple]

"a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message...
> "a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message...
>> Here is what I believe is an interesting report.
>> http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/gaf_invasionnormandy.htm

Another IMHO, interesting (surprising fact or distortion?)

"CHAPTER II --
11.
But by 5 June all the signs pointed to a coming major operation: ---
Also about 2300 ---
Shortly before midnight, London radio announced that the invasion was
to begin within the next 48 hours from 6 June 0000.*"

[SolomonW]

I think he was right about this. In the long term the allies would
overwhelm him. He had to win quickly.

[Jim Wilkins]

"SolomonW" <Solo...@citi.com> wrote in message
news:1rnckbp7gjdsg$.108e680u4l9dp$.dlg@40tude.net...

I was looking through "The Luftwaffe War Diaries" for a reference and
noted repeated hopes that the Allied bombing campaign could be halted
once Russia collapsed and removed the enormous drain on resources. In
early 1944 when Me-109 production exceeded 1000 per month, only a few
hundred were left over to oppose the bombers after supplying other
more critical fronts. The clumsy and vulnerable Me-109G bomber
destroyer shows how badly they misjudged the immediate future of the
air war.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9v109g.html

In contrast to the Allies who had the resources to attack multiple
fronts in parallel, the German hope was pinned on a serial chain of
stopping the convoys, neutralizing Britain, and wearing down the Red
Army, not one of which was achievable.

jsw

[SolomonW]

On Sun, 13 May 2012 10:56:12 -0400, Jim Wilkins wrote:

> German hope was pinned on a serial chain of
> stopping the convoys, neutralizing Britain, and wearing down the Red
> Army, not one of which was achievable.

A better description would be Nazi Germany hope was that it could knock the
USSR out of the conflict, then hope that the British and US would not be
prepared to lose enough men required to defeat Germany.

[Jim Wilkins]

"SolomonW" <Solo...@citi.com> wrote in message

news:vi2cst6v33au.1h7jakjodu1vx$.dlg@40tude.net...

I based that on remarks in German memoirs, which weren't necessarily
official policy.

They sacrificed most of their navy trying to halt the Murmansk supply
convoys. Convoy PQ-18 for example brought enough to equip an entire
new field army.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convoy_PQ_18

jsw

[J]

On May 15, 4:46 am, "Jim Wilkins" <muratla...@gmail.com> wrote:

> They sacrificed most of their navy trying to halt the Murmansk supply
> convoys. Convoy PQ-18 for example brought enough to equip an entire
> new field army.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convoy_PQ_18

What does "BL" mean in the phrase "BL 14-inch (360 mm) Mark VII"? I
haven't been able to find the answer.

I followed Jim's link and read the article. I clicked on the HMS Anson
link in it [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Anson_(1940)] out of
curiosity. In reading about this British battleship, the BL 14-inch
(360 mm) Mark VII main gun is mentioned.

Thanks in advance.

Cheers . . . J

[Jim Wilkins]

"J" <eme...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:81c598b2-2551-4ed1...@j10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

On May 15, 4:46 am, "Jim Wilkins" <muratla...@gmail.com> wrote:

> They sacrificed most of their navy trying to halt the Murmansk
> supply
> convoys. Convoy PQ-18 for example brought enough to equip an entire
> new field army.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convoy_PQ_18

What does "BL" mean in the phrase "BL 14-inch (360 mm) Mark VII"? I
haven't been able to find the answer.

-I followed Jim's link and read the article. I clicked on the HMS
Anson
-link in it [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Anson_(1940)] out of
-curiosity. In reading about this British battleship, the BL 14-inch
-(360 mm) Mark VII main gun is mentioned.

-Thanks in advance.

-Cheers . . . J

BigLoud??

This says Breech Loading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_ordnance_terms#BL
though I don't know why anyone would confuse it with muzzle-loaders in
the 1930's. Then again they sized WW2 artillery in "pounders", a
long-obsolete holdover from the weights of black powder cannon balls.

jsw

[J]

On May 15, 10:11 am, "Jim Wilkins" <muratla...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This says Breech Loadinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_ordnance_terms#BL

Jim, thanks for the response. I appreciate the effort.

Thanks . . . J

[J]

On May 15, 10:11 am, "Jim Wilkins" <muratla...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This says Breech Loadinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_ordnance_terms#BL

I forgot to say I got a kick out of the "de Bange" mention. :-)

[Jim Wilkins]

"Jim Wilkins" <murat...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jou2lk$7tv$1...@dont-email.me...

>
>
> This says Breech Loading
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_ordnance_terms#BL
> though I don't know why anyone would confuse it with muzzle-loaders

> in the 1930's. ...> jsw

OIC, didn't read far enough. Breech Loading refers to guns too big for
one piece cartridges, having separate shells and powder bags. The
smaller ones are QF for Quick Firing.

This describes all the monkey motion needed to serve them:
http://www.hnsa.org/doc/destroyer/fiveinch/index.htm
In particular the Shell Loader (Ch.9) has to pick up and move the
equivalent of a bag of cement very precisely into place every 3 or 4
seconds until the Kamikazes are all gone.

jsw

[Peter Stickney]

Almost the same - the 5"/38 used semi-fixed ammunition, with the powder
charge stored in a brass case. (Like a 105mm Howitzer)
The BL guns used bag charges, like the Army's 155 Hows.

The Germans, never able to figure out how to make obturation (Making the breech
gas-tight) that worked over an extended period of time, used semi-fixed ammo
on everything up to the 15" guns on the Bismark and Tirpitz.

--
Pete Stickney
Failure is not an option
It comes bundled with the system

[Jim Yanik]

Peter Stickney <p_sti...@verizon.net> wrote in
news:db0b89-...@Heimdall.local.net:

why would "breech loading" only refer to guns that use separate projectiles
and propellant charges?

IMO,"breech loading" is any gun that loads from the end opposite of the
muzzle,cartridge or separate components. Both have "breeches".

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

[Ian B MacLure]

"Jim Wilkins" <murat...@gmail.com> wrote in news:jou2lk$7tv$1@dont-
email.me:

BL is in fact "Breach Loading"
The alternative was usually termed "RML" or
"Rifled Muzzle Loading"
"SB" or "Smoothbore" if far enough back.
"QF" ( "Quick Firing" ) was also a term of art.

IBM

[Ian B MacLure]

"Jim Wilkins" <murat...@gmail.com> wrote in news:joubvv$704$1@dont-
email.me:

Some of the weapons dragged back into service from the Admiralty's
warehouses were long in the tooth by 1939
A friend of my dad's was gun crew on a Canadian corvette that had a
4" gun separately loaded with shell and bagged charge which by the
way would have had one of Monsieur de Bange's suet filled obturation
pads.

IBM

[Ian B MacLure]

Peter Stickney <p_sti...@verizon.net> wrote in
news:db0b89-...@Heimdall.local.net:

Didn't the 80cm Gustav have a stub ahell casing?
Yup, steel, 1.3m long by 960mm diameter.

IBM

[Jim Wilkins]

"Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote in message
news:XnsA054C5C792D4C...@216.168.3.44...
> ...

> why would "breech loading" only refer to guns that use separate
> projectiles
> and propellant charges?
>
> IMO,"breech loading" is any gun that loads from the end opposite of
> the
> muzzle,cartridge or separate components. Both have "breeches".
>
> --
> Jim Yanik

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_ordnance_terms#BL
"BL" contrasts with QF guns, for which the propellant charge was
loaded enclosed in a brass cartridge case which expanded on firing and
sealed the breech. For instance, Britain before World War I had both
QF and BL 6 inch guns. Both were "breech loading" in the general
sense, but in the formal nomenclature it separated 6 inch guns with
breeches designed for charges in brass cartridge cases (QF) from those
designed for cloth bag charges (BL)."

My guess is that since BL came first it was retained by custom for
non-QF guns.

jsw

[Jim Wilkins]

"Peter Stickney" <p_sti...@verizon.net> wrote

> On Tue, 15 May 2012 15:50:49 -0400, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>>
>> This describes all the monkey motion needed to serve them:
>> http://www.hnsa.org/doc/destroyer/fiveinch/index.htm
>

> Almost the same - the 5"/38 used semi-fixed ammunition, with the
> powder
> charge stored in a brass case. (Like a 105mm Howitzer)
> The BL guns used bag charges, like the Army's 155 Hows.

> --
> Pete Stickney

I posted that only because I hadn't found the owner's manual for
bigger ones.

This is for an Iowa-class battleship gun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=AU&hl=en-GB&v=0OmOQs0ziSU

jsw

[SolomonW]

I am not sure who is "their navy" but to the British and US it was vital to
keep Russia in the war.

[SolomonW]

The big problem for Germany was they lacked adequate weather intelligence.
Since they thought the weather was unsuitable, they disregarded several
warning signed. The most important was the Germans knew the invasion code
for the French resistance that signified the opening of the second front.
They ignored it.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <1tsgk3ipwjqsm$.1gggaefjdmnwm$.d...@40tude.net>,

An old friend (since deceased) jumped into Normandy with the pathfinfers
the night before. One of their orders was, "Do NOT contact the Maquis!"
He said that several of his med did so and were promptly turned over to
the Germans.

[Ian B MacLure]

"Jim Wilkins" <murat...@gmail.com> wrote in news:jp06c6$364$1@dont-
email.me:

If you visit the Wisconsin(?) at Norfolk VA they have a replica set
of main battery charge bags ( 6 x 110lb ) just forward of A turret.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Ian B MacLure" <i...@svpal.org> wrote in message
news:XnsA055ED7AFA7...@216.196.121.131...
> "Jim Wilkins" <murat...@gmail.com> wrote

> >>
>> This is for an Iowa-class battleship gun:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=AU&hl=en-GB&v=0OmOQs0ziSU
>
> If you visit the Wisconsin(?) at Norfolk VA they have a replica
> set
> of main battery charge bags ( 6 x 110lb ) just forward of A
> turret.

The training video makes this easier to understand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_turret_explosion

I didn't like the bench vise handle and sharp-cornered first aid box
protruding from crowded, moving platforms.

jsw

[Eunometic]

On May 14, 12:56 am, "Jim Wilkins" <muratla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "SolomonW" <Solom...@citi.com> wrote in message

>
> news:1rnckbp7gjdsg$.108e680u4l9dp$.dlg@40tude.net...
>
> > On Sat, 12 May 2012 12:20:32 -0400, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>
> >> Hitler firmly believed that offensive action could win a war,
> >> defense
> >> could only prolong the defeat.
>
> > I think he was right about this. In the long term the allies would
> > overwhelm him. He had to win quickly.
>
> I was looking through "The Luftwaffe War Diaries" for a reference and
> noted repeated hopes that the Allied bombing campaign could be halted
> once Russia collapsed and removed the enormous drain on resources. In
> early 1944 when Me-109 production exceeded 1000 per month, only a few
> hundred were left over to oppose the bombers after supplying other
> more critical fronts. The clumsy and vulnerable Me-109G bomber
> destroyer shows how badly they misjudged the immediate future of the

> air war.http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9v109g.html

>
> In contrast to the Allies who had the resources to attack multiple
> fronts in parallel, the German hope was pinned on a serial chain of
> stopping the convoys, neutralizing Britain, and wearing down the Red
> Army, not one of which was achievable.
>
> jsw

This variant of the Me 109G had additional "Gondella" weapons added
under the wings; the added weight impaired performance.

The FW 190A6 of the same period provided quite a bit more fire power
to bring down a heavy bomber.

Spitifre performance generally doesn't compare apples with apples.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Eunometic" <euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote

>
>Spitifre performance generally doesn't compare apples with apples.

Spitfires and Mustangs were the knives that carved up those juicy
apples. They didn't have to double as bomber destroyers because the
Luftwaffe failed to create an effective offense and could only delay
inevitable defeat.

jsw

[Daryl]

When France fields became available, the Spits started being
horrors to the Luftwaffe. The Mustang, Lightning and Thunderbolt
always were more than a headache to the Luftwaffe. It just added
the numbers of Spits to the mix at that time.

Of course, before D-Day, the Luftwaffe was pretty much shattered
when the Mustang was given the go ahead to engage any and all
targets after it got the bombers back to a certain point and
turned them over to another of fighter group. With the P-51
finally being in a large quantity, it released the P-38 and the
P-47 to attack anything even if it didn't move. By D-day, the
Luftwaffe was pretty much a memory with only one last hurrah left
in their basket and that failed.



--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

[Keith W]

This one does, Sptfire IX versus Me-109 G, close contemporaries in fact

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9v109g.html

The Spitfire IX beats the 109 hands down. The test concluded that the
Spitfire IX was faster, could turn better and outclimb the 109. While
the 109 had better initial acceleration in a dive its limiting speed
was lower.
.
Keith

[David Lesher]

A dumb question. Attacking Pointe du Hoc was very costly.

I understand it was resistant to naval gunfire. But wouldn't
dive bombers have been able to successfully damage it? But I've
never read anything about Allied use of dive bombers except in
Pacific naval battles.



--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Gordon]

On May 25, 8:01 pm, David Lesher <wb8...@panix.com> wrote:
> A dumb question. Attacking Pointe du Hoc was very costly.
>
> I understand it was resistant to naval gunfire. But wouldn't
> dive bombers have been able to successfully damage it? But I've
> never read anything about Allied use of dive bombers except in
> Pacific naval battles.
>

The purpose-built ones were treated rather roughly right from the
start, and from that experience, we weren't in a rush to sacrifice
them in the face of enemy air opposition. That said, much of Normandy
was under blistering dive bombing and rocket attacks from "tief-
fliegers", the terror-flyers in Typhoons and Thunderbolts, assigned
directly to support of Army operations. These guys lived on forward
airfields without a hint of glamour or prestige, grinding out dozens
of dive-bombing sorties a week, with appalling losses that no one
seemed too concerned about.

[Keith W]

David Lesher wrote:
> A dumb question. Attacking Pointe du Hoc was very costly.
>
> I understand it was resistant to naval gunfire. But wouldn't
> dive bombers have been able to successfully damage it? But I've
> never read anything about Allied use of dive bombers except in
> Pacific naval battles.

If you look at a photograph of such installations you'll see
the gun is protected by thick concrete roof with the
barrel firing through a narrow slit which makes a difficult
target that was also typically ringed by heavy and light flak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:10.5cm_Gun_Casement.JPG

The capability of German light flak units is one reason
why true dive bombing was largely superseded by
bombing from a shallow dive and rockets. That said
its worth recalling that the first incarnation of the Mustang
in USAAF service was the A-36 dive bomber which had
fully functional dive brakes.

Keith

[Joe Osman]

The USAAF did continue dive bombing in the Pacific in land warfare when part of AIRCOMSOLS and AIRNORCOMSOLS. See " Close Air Support in the War Against Japan", by Joe G. Taylor (1955) available at
http://www.afhra.af.mil/studies/numberedusafhistoricalstudies51-100.asp

You might also be interested in historical studies written by Luftwaffe
officers for the USAF in the 1950s, especially "The German Air Force versus
the Allies in the West, The Air War in the West", by Josef Schmid and Walter
Grabmann (1954). They are available at
http://www.afhra.af.mil/studies/numberedusafhistoricalstudies151-200.asp

Joe

[John Szalay]

David Lesher <wb8...@panix.com> wrote in news:jpph1t$3ic$1
@reader1.panix.com:

>
> A dumb question. Attacking Pointe du Hoc was very costly.
>
> I understand it was resistant to naval gunfire. But wouldn't
> dive bombers have been able to successfully damage it? But I've
> never read anything about Allied use of dive bombers except in
> Pacific naval battles.
>
>
>

Allied dive bombers were used in the North African & mediterranean
theater.

If the emplacement was resistant to naval gunfire
seriously doubt that dive bombers would have done
any better.
OPINION:
Plunging naval gunfire should have been much more effective
then any dive bomber.

P-40 Warhawk 1,000 to 2,000lbs on three hard points
A-36 Apache 1,000lbs of bombs & obsolete by 1944
P-47 Thunderbolt up to 2,500lbs of bombs
P-51 Mustang up to 1,000lbs of bombs

16" naval projectile
AP Mark 8: 2,700 lb. (1,225 kg)
HC Mark 13: 1,900 lb. (862 kg)

14" naval projectile
HE 1,586 lb (719.40 kg)

AP sizes compared

8"AP 12"AP 14"AP 16"AP
Loaded wt. (lbs.) 335lbs 1146lbs 1500lbs 2700lbs

[Keith Willshaw]

Trouble is Naval Guns were designed to poke holes
in ships not demolish concrete bunkers and had SMALL
HE charges

HE Charge
8" AP 3.64 lbs
12" AP 25 lb
14" AP 22.9 lb
16" AP 41 lb
16" HC 153.6 lb

Keith

[Jim Wilkins]

"Keith Willshaw" <keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jrvfg3$k69$1...@dont-email.me...

> John Szalay wrote:
>> David Lesher <wb8...@panix.com> wrote in news:jpph1t$3ic$1
>> @reader1.panix.com:
>>
>

> Trouble is Naval Guns were designed to poke holes
> in ships not demolish concrete bunkers and had SMALL
> HE charges
>
> HE Charge
> 8" AP 3.64 lbs
> 12" AP 25 lb
> 14" AP 22.9 lb
> 16" AP 41 lb
> 16" HC 153.6 lb
>
> Keith

Also ships had trouble maneuvering around to hit the back door.
.
jsw

[John Szalay]

"Keith Willshaw" <keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote in news:jrvfg3$k69$1

>
> Trouble is Naval Guns were designed to poke holes
> in ships not demolish concrete bunkers and had SMALL
> HE charges
>
> HE Charge
> 8" AP 3.64 lbs
> 12" AP 25 lb
> 14" AP 22.9 lb
> 16" AP 41 lb
> 16" HC 153.6 lb
>
> Keith
>
>

Thus the AP , is still more of a threat then
500 or 1000lb iron bombs on concrete.

Just answering the guys dive bomber question..

[John Szalay]

"Jim Wilkins" <murat...@gmail.com> wrote in news:jrvi4h$5uu$1@dont-
email.me:

>
> Also ships had trouble maneuvering around to hit the back door.
> .
> jsw
>
>

Plunging fire, does that make sense ?
its what warships attempted to use to get over the
armor belts


but after reading the comments made about the naval gunfire
improperly used during the invasion of Saipan. and the high loss
rates during the ground battles because of it.. maybe naval gunfire
is not all its cracked up to be..

have to look the quote up again..

either way, dive bombers would probably not made any difference
on the hardened bunkers..

[Jim Wilkins]

"John Szalay" <john.szalayATatt.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA079C2EC6AF4E...@216.196.97.142...

> "Jim Wilkins" <murat...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:jrvi4h$5uu$1@dont-
> email.me:
>>
>> Also ships had trouble maneuvering around to hit the back door.
>> .
>> jsw

> Plunging fire, does that make sense ?
> its what warships attempted to use to get over the
> armor belts

The shells still don't hook around to smash into the far side.
http://gbg-international.blogspot.com/2011/03/ranger-memorial-pointe-du-hoc-normandy.html

This has a table of angle of fall vs range:
http://www.combinedfleet.com/f_guns.htm
25,000 yards is about as far as battleships have ever been able to hit
each other, and then only rarely. Bismarck hit Hood at ~17000 meters
but couldn't score at half that distance in the final battle.

A smaller powder charge to increase the descent angle reduces the
penetration energy.

jsw

[Keith W]

John Szalay wrote:
> "Keith Willshaw" <keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote in news:jrvfg3$k69$1
>>
>> Trouble is Naval Guns were designed to poke holes
>> in ships not demolish concrete bunkers and had SMALL
>> HE charges
>>
>> HE Charge
>> 8" AP 3.64 lbs
>> 12" AP 25 lb
>> 14" AP 22.9 lb
>> 16" AP 41 lb
>> 16" HC 153.6 lb
>>
>> Keith
>>
>>
>
>
> Thus the AP , is still more of a threat then
> 500 or 1000lb iron bombs on concrete.
>

Actually not, neither will penetrate the bunker but any
ship that can hit thee bunker is vulnerable to return
fire.

Keith

[Gordon]

On Jun 30, 2:14 pm, "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote:

> > Thus the AP ,  is still more of a threat then
> > 500 or 1000lb iron bombs on concrete.
>
> Actually not, neither will penetrate the bunker but any
> ship that can hit thee bunker is vulnerable to return
> fire.
>

Since I am certain someone here will know, how did shore bombardment
do in duels with fixed emplacements? Tin cans and Cruisers against
Navaronesque pillboxes (or pillboxen perhaps). I know its off topic,
but we had a pair of massive "Singapore Cannons" on Diego Garcia,
mounted to cover the harbor mouth. They seemed hopelessly ineffective
if the IJN had ever actually dispatched a landing force greater than a
Spanish galleon or two.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Gordon" <Gor...@oldboldpilots.org> wrote in message
news:5114b5e8-2369-4536...@l6g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Cherbourg

jsw

[Keith W]

Not very well in practise. Both sides had large fixed emplacements
in the Dover Strait which proved rather ineffective in preventing
the movement of shipping. Most of the damage done to German
and British channel convoys was inflicted by MTB's and MGB's

Keith

[Alan Dicey]

> and British channel convoys was inflicted by MGB's

Yeah, they'd sneak up when no-one was looking and replace all the
electric items with Joe Lucas bits . . .

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

And thus ensuring episodes of 'Prince of Darkness', under which nefarious
deeds against the enemy could be accomplished ?

cheers....jeff