loyalists
Amor...@aol.com
> I read some where that the British had noting but contempt for the American
> militia and not much love for the loyalists troops in their own services----
> how could leaders of such a first rate military not use these troops in a
> much better fashion ???
Speaking of Loyalists, I heard somewhere that British prisoners of war
were treated OK, but loyalist were treated like shit. They said
something about encouraging smoking in one of the buildings to cover
up the smell of the loyalist POWs.
Amor...@aol.com
> the milita usually showed up but it melted before the sight of bayonets .
> good leadership could make use of the milita as greene, morgan and stark
> showed . but otherwise they could be a distinct liability on the field as
> the battle of camden sc showed . loyaist milita with professinal brit
> officers and sgts attached did better and canadian milita wasn't bad .
I remember one militia won a crucial battle because of this. The
British thought the line had broken, and the Americans were running
away from British bayonets. The militia stopped, turned, and fired and
decimated the British.
bob
<Amor...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9218a0e.04022...@posting.google.com...
there's good info on the p.o.w. from the a.r. on the net written by a ( Paul
j. raster) the site is under ( archiving early America ) good reading, keep
coming back we need new blood
bob
Vaughan Sanders
Tarleton's British Legion was very effective (cavalry), raised New York
1778, contained one regular troop of the 17th Dragoons, Irish regiment I
think.
Captured Maj-Gen Charles Lee, a half pay English officer who was third
in command of the CA to George Washington. No relation to Col 'Light
Horse Harry' Lee (father of Robert E Lee) another effective militia
leader.
POW officers were usually exchanged, other ranks were given their
parole, breaking of parole would lead to the death penalty if captured
again.
Loyalist and CA militia engagements were often not much more than
personal feuds, and the conventions were not always respected where
POW's were concerned. Kings Mountain for example where some of the
Loyalist POW's were executed, the Over Mountain Men then packed up and
went home rather than join the main CA that was under pressure from
Cornwallis and Tarleton.
Jamie
Vaughan Sanders
The tactic of the British regulars against the long rifle was to take
the first volley, then reply with a bayonet charge. This tactic usually
broke the militias before they had time to reload. To counter this the
Continentals stationed regular ranks out of site, so that the British
pursuing the retreating militia ran into the volley fire of the
Continental regulars. This tactic met with some success the first time
it was used, but less so once the British regulars were wise to it.
The long rifle of the militia could out range the regular's muskets but
took about four times as long to reload.
Jamie
bob
I would have to say that the loyalists in the a.r. really bit the big one
for standing up to what they believe in, even though they may have not
always the best intensions they commit themselves to one side, and in the
end these people,*most of which would never see the u.s. again*
bob
John Gilmer
> I remember one militia won a crucial battle because of this. The
> British thought the line had broken, and the Americans were running
> away from British bayonets. The militia stopped, turned, and fired and
> decimated the British.
That may be a battled we studied in R.O.T.C. a LONG time ago. Cowpens?
The American commander "set up" his own militia troops: his first lines were
set up some distance before a natural barrier (a stream?). When the
militia started running, they soon ran out of room to run and were forced to
turn back and face the British. The American commander also had some of
his own "regulars" at the secondary defense line.
raymond o'hara
the battle was cowpens , daniel morgan was the american commander , he
positioned the militia in the fromnt line , he told them to fire two volleys
and they were thru for the day .{ morgan had noticed that the militia
usually got in two fires before fleeing .} the brits advanced and the
militia fired their two shots and then the brits fired back and charged
without reloading the militia fled . the regulars in the second line fell
back and the briits lost their formation during the charge . morgan signaled
the regulars and they couterattacked sweeping the brits away . the militia
rallied and fired anotherineffectual round into the disorganized brita , the
noise being more effective than the bullets . ir was the regular troops
that did the fighting and won the battle .
raymond o'hara
"John Gilmer" <gil...@crosslink.net> wrote in message
news:4041eb71$0$62...@dingus.crosslink.net...
there was a river a mile back of the battlefield but it didn't figure into
the battle . it would have cut off any retreat for the americans .though .
morgan understood the militia , he knew they would fire twice and run . so
he ordered them to fire twice and retreat . he hoped that ordering them to
do what they were going to do anyway might cause them to panic less and
maybe he could reform them . they acted as he hoped and rallied , but they
were more just a presence on the field and really didn't do much more
fighting firing only one more ineffectuall volley . the delaware and
maryland continental infantry won the fight .
raymond o'hara
after and went back to their farms
raymond o'hara
by all the worlds people , the americans and brits actually were " good" by
the standards of the day .
Vaughan Sanders
"John Gilmer" <gil...@crosslink.net> wrote in message
news:4041eb71$0$62...@dingus.crosslink.net...
>
>
Yes this seems to be Cowpens but it was the CA regulars that decimated
the British infantry, a misunderstood order made it look like the CA
were breaking and in retreat. This induced the British infantry to break
ranks and pursue only to be met by a crashing volley and a bayonet
charge by the CA regulars.
At the start of the battle Morgan had ordered the Militia to fire two
volleys and then retreat through his regulars stationed 150 yds behind,
this they did but regrouped in the wrong place and were ridden down by
Tarleton's Dragoons. William Washington commanding the Continental
Dragoons counter attacked and drove off the Legion Dragoons.
Tarleton's orders were to cut off Morgan and drive him on to the main
army of Cornwallis coming up from the south.Tarleton's force consisted
of about 1200 men and only 300 made it back to Cornwallis.
British losses were 210 killed and 710 captured, of whom 179 were
wounded, Morgan reported 12 killed and 60 wounded among the regulars and
80 casualties among the Militia, out of a force of about 1600.
Maj-Gen Daniel Morgan was one of the seven recipients of the Gold Medal
awarded by Congress.
Jamie
bob
i guess treatment was good by the standards of the day , but theres no way
that i would want to be one of those poor slob's on the jersey , it held
around 1,200 pow at a time ---- dysentery / yellow fever /and smallpox
edidemics would keep makeing the rounds. it was a true horror story of the
war, i know the british tried to better on those ships but its something
that they will have to live with for ever.* admiral john byron of the b.r.n.
worked to improve but the times were against him. ----
bob
>
>
bob
>
> "bob" <bayv...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:LNl0c.6544$by4.1...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> >
> > <Amor...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:9218a0e.04022...@posting.google.com...
> > > "raymond o'hara" <re...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:<WLz_b.111348$jk2.496131@attbi_s53>...
> > >
snip
> > I would have to say that the loyalists in the a.r. really bit the big
one
> > for standing up to what they believe in, even though they may have not
> > always the best intensions they commit themselves to one side, and in
the
> > end these people,*most of which would never see the u.s. again*
> >
> > bob
> >
> >
> many famous loyalists went to canada after the war but most stayed here
> after and went back to their farms
>
>
ray --hope this is the right way to snip to the right part if not sorry---
i have just finish reading this book called ( divided loyalties) by richard
m. ketchum about the commimg of the revolution to new york it bring up an
issue that you never really hear about in high school where most of us learn
our history of the revolution , it's story between the have and have not's
is truly great reading, I think more should be said on this.the side that
lost every thing.
bob
Michael P. Reed
> there was a river a mile back of the battlefield but it didn't figure into
> the battle . it would have cut off any retreat for the americans .though .
>
> morgan understood the militia , he knew they would fire twice and run . so
> he ordered them to fire twice and retreat . he hoped that ordering them to
> do what they were going to do anyway might cause them to panic less and
> maybe he could reform them . they acted as he hoped and rallied , but they
> were more just a presence on the field and really didn't do much more
> fighting firing only one more ineffectuall volley . the delaware and
> maryland continental infantry won the fight .
True, but Morgan's method was not the only successful one, and, IMHO, could
only work with relatively small numbers. It failed at Guilford Court House,
because large bodies of men, even when not panicked and are well trained, were
damned hard to rally and reform. There were other successful uses of the
militia in combination with the Continentals. Rhode Island being the best
example, where the tactics were opposite. Continental light troops were used
to skirmish in the enemy, and were continually reinforced in their fighting
withdrawal to the main line, which was manned by Continentals. The militia
(like in the south, making up the bulk of the Eastern Army) were then fed into
the battle to reinforce and stiffen the Continentals. IMHO, those are the
tactics Greene ought to have used at GCH (N.B. Greene was at Rhode Island, and
that was perhaps his finest performance of the war--on a tactical level).
--
Regards,
Michael P. Reed
Michael P. Reed
>
> <Amor...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:9218a0e.04022...@posting.google.com...
> > "raymond o'hara" <re...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:<WLz_b.111348$jk2.496131@attbi_s53>...
> >
> > > the milita usually showed up but it melted before the sight of bayonets
> > > good leadership could make use of the milita as greene, morgan and stark
> > > showed . but otherwise they could be a distinct liability on the field
> as
> > > the battle of camden sc showed . loyaist milita with professinal brit
> > > officers and sgts attached did better and canadian milita wasn't bad .
> >
> > I remember one militia won a crucial battle because of this. The
> > British thought the line had broken, and the Americans were running
> > away from British bayonets. The militia stopped, turned, and fired and
> > decimated the British.
>
>
> I would have to say that the loyalists in the a.r. really bit the big one
> for standing up to what they believe in, even though they may have not
> always the best intensions they commit themselves to one side, and in the
> end these people,*most of which would never see the u.s. again*
No, most remained. The number of loyalists (by war's end) probably numbered in
the region of 450~500,000. Of these, only some 50~70,000 left the country.
D. Spencer Hines
Battle of Cowpens, with Mel as Daniel Morgan -- and a good deal of
artistic license.
DSH
"Michael P. Reed" <mg...@dontspamme.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Tuc1c.9783765$Of.16...@news.easynews.com...
raymond o'hara
"D. Spencer Hines" <D_Spenc...@usa.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:KAc1c.63$th4....@eagle.america.net...
> Mel Gibson's film _The Patriot_ treats this tactic of the militia at the
> Battle of Cowpens, with Mel as Daniel Morgan -- and a good deal of
> artistic license.
>
> DSH
you know the swamp fox .
talk of what you know , in other words shut up .
D. Spencer Hines
Mel was playing a COMPOSITE figure in _The Patriot_.
One of the characters in the fictional composite was Daniel Morgan --
particularly at Cowpens.
This pogue needs to learn some facts before, or better instead of,
shooting off his ignorant mouth.
DSH
"raymond o'hara" <re...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:40d1c.168729$uV3.722684@attbi_s51...
D. Spencer Hines
shooting off his pig-ignorant mouth:
"Benjamin Martin"
"Portrayed by: Mel Gibson"
"Suggested by:
Francis Marion (Film Fact or Fiction)
Elijah Clarke (Film Fact or Fiction)
Daniel Morgan (Film Fact or Fiction)
Andrew Pickens (Film Fact or Fiction)
Thomas Sumter (Film Fact or Fiction)
The character of Benjamin Martin was originally meant to be The Swamp
Fox, Francis Marion, but for the sake of telling the best 'dramatic'
story and perhaps avoiding some controversy, the filmmakers
fictionalized the character and the story. They then added elements of
the historic figures of Elijah Clarke, Brigadier General Daniel Morgan,
Andrew Pickens and Thomas Sumter to the character of Benjamin Martin.
Such a move also covered for the historical inaccuracies that always
appear in films.
Martin's hit and run tactics and nickname 'The Ghost' were inspired by
Francis Marion, while the tactics of using the militia on the front to
draw the British in the final battle were based on similar tactics used
by Daniel Morgan at the Battle of Cowpens. Thomas Sumter and Andrew
Pickens' influence seems to be that both rejoined the fight after the
British burned their homes and in Sumter's case, made his wife and son
watch their house burn.
Benjamin Martin is the central character of the film since the film
focuses on the Martin family, of which Benjamin is the patriarch.
However he isn't THE Patriot. That title belongs to his son, Gabriel.
Benjamin is a man who has been through war before with the French and
Indian War and has a large family to care for now. Since his wife,
Elizabeth died of illness in 1773, he is a single parent when war
begins. So his family is his priority and, as he tells Colonel Harry
Burwell, his convictions are secondary.
However, the actions of his oldest sons, Gabriel and Thomas, force him
to join the fight not so much out of patriotism, but in an effort to
protect and keep as much of his family together as he can. The backdrop
of war is an extreme case, but Benjamin Martin's decisions and personal
sacrifices are common to all parents."
http://www.patriotresource.com/characters/benjamin.html
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
322
"D. Spencer Hines" <D_Spenc...@usa.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:...
raymond o'hara
> Here is the sort of thing Pogue O'Hara SHOULD have read ---- BEFORE
> shooting off his pig-ignorant mouth:
>
> "Benjamin Martin"
>
> "Portrayed by: Mel Gibson"
>
> "Suggested by:
one } pogue is a limey term, and has no meaning to an american and should
not be used by an american either although we don't wish to claim you .
two} the story is mainly based on marion and not on morgan as you said .
they added elements of others but one line of advice lifted from morgan does
not make him that character .
let me use a word any american will know . asshole it describes you well .
and lose the word honor from your tagline you have none
Michael P. Reed
Well, in that scene he was "Morgan" right down to the little late night before
the battle pep-talks. Marion, of course, not being at Cowpens. Then again,
neither was Greene of Cornwallis or any M. Froggie.
John Cartmell
<re...@comcast.net> wrote:
> one } pogue is a limey term, and has no meaning to an american and
> should not be used by an american either although we don't wish to claim
> you .
Always assumed it to be an American term as it certainly isn't used here.
> two} the story is mainly based on marion and not on morgan as you said .
> they added elements of others but one line of advice lifted from morgan
> does not make him that character .
It's fiction. It's not even myth - but the use of real names of characters
helps produce & perpetuate new lies.
--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines
John Gilmer
>
> It's fiction.
duh!
>It's not even myth - but the use of real names of characters
> helps produce & perpetuate new lies.
It's a MOVIE!
It has had the side effect of encouraging folks to look up some of the real
events of that time. The only MOVIE I have seen which does a really good
job of following the original was the Ten Commandments.
Slight OT: I like to read "historial fiction." These novels invent
characters and put words into the mouths of historical characters. Only
the very silly would expect these to be history texts.
raymond o'hara
"John Cartmell" <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4c89d35...@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
> In article <JLd1c.26948$ko6.261285@attbi_s02>, raymond o'hara
> <re...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > one } pogue is a limey term, and has no meaning to an american and
> > should not be used by an american either although we don't wish to claim
> > you .
>
> Always assumed it to be an American term as it certainly isn't used here.
>
> > two} the story is mainly based on marion and not on morgan as you said .
> > they added elements of others but one line of advice lifted from morgan
> > does not make him that character .
>
> It's fiction. It's not even myth - but the use of real names of characters
> helps produce & perpetuate new lies.
>
one sees pogue on english news groups all the time as an epithet . the
movie was over the top with the church burning scene and they changed
everybodies name . tarleton became tavendish or some such thing .
it was a typical mel gibson movie .
raymond o'hara
>
>
> >
> > It's fiction.
>
> duh!
>
> >It's not even myth - but the use of real names of characters
> > helps produce & perpetuate new lies.
>
> It's a MOVIE!
>
> It has had the side effect of encouraging folks to look up some of the
real
> events of that time. The only MOVIE I have seen which does a really good
> job of following the original was the Ten Commandments.
>
> Slight OT: I like to read "historial fiction." These novels invent
> characters and put words into the mouths of historical characters. Only
> the very silly would expect these to be history texts.
the silly make up a good portion of the public
John Cartmell
<gil...@crosslink.net> wrote:
> >
> > It's fiction.
> duh!
> >It's not even myth - but the use of real names of characters helps
> > produce & perpetuate new lies.
> It's a MOVIE!
Some cinema attempts to portray truth; some are plain fiction; some use
facts as background for fiction; some pretend to portraythe truth and
contain fundamental lies. They're all movies.
> It has had the side effect of encouraging folks to look up some of the
> real events of that time. The only MOVIE I have seen which does a
> really good job of following the original was the Ten Commandments.
Crap! Unless you were there of course! ;-)
> Slight OT: I like to read "historial fiction." These novels invent
> characters and put words into the mouths of historical characters.
> Only the very silly would expect these to be history texts.
Then Mel Gibson is *very* silly as he seems to believe (or at least want
others to believe) that what he produces is a portrayal of the truth.
a.spencer3
raymond o'hara <re...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Wxm1c.172059$uV3.729960@attbi_s51...
>
> > one sees pogue on english news groups all the time as an epithet .
Does one? One doesn't, except from Hawaii.
Surreyman
John Cartmell
raymond o'hara <re...@comcast.net> wrote:
> one sees pogue on english news groups all the time as an epithet .
I've never heard anyone use the word or seen it in print. Of course this is
(mainly) a British ng and you're using the word...
> the movie was over the top with the church burning scene
You mean they changed it so that the side that did something like that
became the side that suffered from that? That's *not* what is meant by
'over the top'.
> it was a typical mel gibson movie .
Lies from beginning to end masquerading as truth.
Paul J Gans
> one } pogue is a limey term, and has no meaning to an american and should
>not be used by an american either although we don't wish to claim you .
Pogue has a very definite meaning in the US Navy. It is a term
used to describe those who will accept buggering out of either
sexual need or fear. "Presents" given to such a person are known
as "pogey bait".
Do not confuse this usage with the Irish term or the musical
group with the same or a similar name. Slang in different
nations often overlaps more polite usage elsewhere.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>>
>> It's fiction.
>duh!
>>It's not even myth - but the use of real names of characters
>> helps produce & perpetuate new lies.
>It's a MOVIE!
>It has had the side effect of encouraging folks to look up some of the real
>events of that time. The only MOVIE I have seen which does a really good
>job of following the original was the Ten Commandments.
>Slight OT: I like to read "historial fiction." These novels invent
>characters and put words into the mouths of historical characters. Only
>the very silly would expect these to be history texts.
But John, you aren't the one citing movies as authorities for
everything from history to manuals of ethics.
---- Paul J. Gans
FF
It's an Irish word. That's why the Yanks think it's English. DSH uses it because
someone once called him a pogue and he thinks it makes him look hard.
Liz
John Gilmer
>
>
> the silly make up a good portion of the public
Yeah. But it seems that those who are paid to be teachers in colleges and
universities are as silly as any.
John Gilmer
>
> > It has had the side effect of encouraging folks to look up some of the
> > real events of that time. The only MOVIE I have seen which does a
> > really good job of following the original was the Ten Commandments.
>
> Crap! Unless you were there of course! ;-)
Oh, I read the BOOK.
>
> > Slight OT: I like to read "historial fiction." These novels invent
> > characters and put words into the mouths of historical characters.
> > Only the very silly would expect these to be history texts.
>
> Then Mel Gibson is *very* silly as he seems to believe (or at least want
> others to believe) that what he produces is a portrayal of the truth.
No. He makes MOVIES that folks like to watch!
John Gilmer
> But John, you aren't the one citing movies as authorities for
> everything from history to manuals of ethics.
>
In particular, I don't know what you are talking about. Do you?
In general, fiction can be and often is quite useful in helping folks
understand history and ethics.
John Cartmell
<gil...@crosslink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > It has had the side effect of encouraging folks to look up some of
> > > the real events of that time. The only MOVIE I have seen which
> > > does a really good job of following the original was the Ten
> > > Commandments.
> >
> > Crap! Unless you were there of course! ;-)
> Oh, I read the BOOK.
ISTR that's Gibson's stupid idea - that because somebody wrote a book that
must tell a true story.
BTW - *which* book did you read?
> >
> > > Slight OT: I like to read "historial fiction." These novels
> > > invent characters and put words into the mouths of historical
> > > characters. Only the very silly would expect these to be history
> > > texts.
> >
> > Then Mel Gibson is *very* silly as he seems to believe (or at least
> > want others to believe) that what he produces is a portrayal of the
> > truth.
> No. He makes MOVIES that folks like to watch!
And pretends that they're history. His words. Your description of his
words.
John Cartmell
<gil...@crosslink.net> wrote:
But mainly you & Mr Gibson.
John Cartmell
John Gilmer <gil...@crosslink.net> wrote:
It's certainly a good lesson in the ethics of lying to advance a cause.
Paul J Gans
Oh, I surely do. Most of these threads start when the local
loon (actually, he's not so local any more) starts to praise
some movie and tells all democrats, liberals, socialists, etc.,
etc., that they ought to see it because it will teach them
something.
The last example of that was the Mel Gibson movie "The Patriot"
where he claimed that the putative hero of the movie was a good
role model, not only in the movie but in real life.
That set things off since the character in the movie is just
that, a character in a movie.
On the other hand, you are right when you say that fiction can
be useful. But not when read by the gullible.
---- Paul J. Gans
raymond o'hara
a.spencer3
> > It's certainly a good lesson in the ethics of lying to advance a cause.
>
No, come on John.
There's nothing wrong with history made easy. I'm all for it. And *good*
historical fiction does do that very well.
It's *bad* history made easy that we're all against. And that certainly does
include our Mel.
Trouble is, the gullible don't read these ngs (well, some obviously do!),
and they soak it up.
The stuff we see on this ng from the brainwashed variety of USians
demonstrates that only too well.
Surreyman
a.spencer3
Surreyman
a.spencer3
Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:c2582r$b79$2...@reader2.panix.com...
Hopefully, you don't have a fanny and your wife ain't homely ... etc., etc!
Surreyman
John Cartmell
<a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
I've no problem with historical fiction. I'm quite happy with stories of
people who *could* have been there but weren't recorded and with the
reasonably 'correct' drama going on around them; I'm even willing to accept
'dramatised' versions of the big picture. I object strongly to history
being re-fashioned as a prop to a (almost invariably US ) need to prop up a
false mask. What national sense of pathological insecurity required that
the daredevil capture of enigma secrets was done by US personnel rather
than the RN? Why was there a need to underline false myths and develop new
ones in the Patriot? We have Orwell's state where history is available to
be re-written to suit the masters. What Orwell got wrong was the
enthusiastic complicity of non-governmental agencies (eg Hollywood) in the
process.
a.spencer3
Oh sure, totally agree.
Surreyman
John Gilmer
>
> I've no problem with historical fiction. I'm quite happy with stories of
> people who *could* have been there but weren't recorded and with the
> reasonably 'correct' drama going on around them; I'm even willing to
accept
> 'dramatised' versions of the big picture. I object strongly to history
> being re-fashioned as a prop to a (almost invariably US ) need to prop up
a
> false mask. What national sense of pathological insecurity required that
> the daredevil capture of enigma secrets was done by US personnel rather
> than the RN?
What a silly old ass you are.
It's a MOVIE.
The UK is quite welcome to make its own MOVIES.
(Actually, the "Bond, James Bond" movies are filmed in UK studios. I don't
see Americans complaining that there really isn't a secret UK base in Hong
Kong. I guess Americans have better things to do with their time than
worry about the "accuracy" of works of mostly fiction.)
John Cartmell
<gil...@crosslink.net> wrote:
> It's a MOVIE.
Are you *really* as stupid as you're pretending? Can you name *one* Bond
film that pretends to be based an an historical incident? Although bits are
stuck in from reality (eg the composite Gates/Murdoch figure) none of it
pretends to be anything such. I'm only quoting from films that are
*directly* based on historical incidents and pretend to some historical
authenticity whilst having to have major aspects of history modified or
even reversed in order to bolster fragile US pride.
BTW was our Hong Kong base one of the secrets we managed to keep from the
US? ;-)
a.spencer3
>
>
> >
> > I've no problem with historical fiction. I'm quite happy with stories of
> > people who *could* have been there but weren't recorded and with the
> > reasonably 'correct' drama going on around them; I'm even willing to
> accept
> > 'dramatised' versions of the big picture. I object strongly to history
> > being re-fashioned as a prop to a (almost invariably US ) need to prop
up
> a
> > false mask. What national sense of pathological insecurity required that
> > the daredevil capture of enigma secrets was done by US personnel rather
> > than the RN?
>
> What a silly old ass you are.
>
> It's a MOVIE.
>
> The UK is quite welcome to make its own MOVIES.
>
> (Actually, the "Bond, James Bond" movies are filmed in UK studios. I
don't
> see Americans complaining that there really isn't a secret UK base in Hong
Kong
There almost certainly was when the film was made
I guess Americans have better things to do with their time than
> worry about the "accuracy" of works of mostly fiction.)
Precisely - and I hate to think of the score the US would now get if a
survey of USites who saw the film asked 'Who first captured Enigma'!
>
D'you mean we could even go as far as suggesting that the Brits were
fighting the Japs in the jungles a bit before Errol Flynn. Wow, let the
imagination run loose, lads!
Surreyman
Paul J Gans
<grin>
But now you have it, the true meaning of the term as it uses it.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>> It's a MOVIE.
Hong Kong was a cover story. The base was actually in Hawaii.
Guess who the station master was?
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>It's a MOVIE.
Until they are presented as the truth.
---- Paul J. Gans
raymond o'hara
"a.spencer3" <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:maH1c.2535$6Z.1245@newsfe1-win...
the poles got the first enigma machine .
the brits started fighting in the jungles the same day everybody else did
on dec 7th 1941 . but of course you knew that .
then of course theres that accurate movie , breaking the sound barrier ,
about how glen dehavilland breaks the sound barrier . the movie zulu is dead
on and take gunga din there's another movie that never strays from the
facts . yes brit movie making is nothing but the literal truth and we are
all blessed by this .
Thur
"raymond o'hara" <re...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Bue2c.56296$PR3.1053727@attbi_s03...
The history of the enigma machine is complex, just like to story of who
invented television, and who invented the computer.
Posting simplicities like this is the opposite of the historian's view.
The previous poster was referring to the equally crucial acquisition of
the naval enigma, which was more complex and better operated,
causing great difficulty for our code-breakers.
There is no denying of the fact that the first acquisition was pre-war,
and a commercial version. There has been no attempt to deny the
very useful start Bletchley was given by Polish Intelligence, and the
German traitor.
Thur
Paul J Gans
Don't allow the subject to drift. The complaint is about
folks who *claim* that their movie is history.
As an example you might consider the Fifth of the Four
Gospels, the Gospel according to Gibson.
---- Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
Pogues here are obviously quite ignorant of the American role in
breaking it and continuing to break it -- particularly with respect to
the _Kriegsmarine_.
Read up on Admiral Dan Gallery and U-505 ---- for starters.
DSH
William Black
"D. Spencer Hines" <D_Spenc...@usa.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:axn2c.18$Oo5....@eagle.america.net...
Yeah, right...
June 1944 was a touch late to start on the Kriegsmarine traffic, as they
didn't actually have that much still floating...
--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government
Dale Farmer
"D. Spencer Hines" wrote:
What was captured from U505 was basically useless. The allies
already had by then the ability to break naval enigma on a fairly
regular basis. Gallery was nearly court-martialed for mishandling
the capture. SOP was to present to the U-boat survivors the illusion
that the U-boat had sunk, taking all it's secrets to the bottom with
it. U-boat survivors were kept on deck and able to watch the salvage
efforts for some time, and no effort was made to conceal it from the
german survivors.
This forced the US to keep those germans in a special high
security POW enclosure, and not to notify the germans or red cross
that they had been captured. Badly handled by Admiral Dan. USN
made much propaganda hay after the war about it, further concealing
the fuckup.
this is not to say that it was all done by the brits. But much of the
heavy lifting was done by the Polish, then the French, then the British,
and finally the Americans late in the war. The story is complex and
full of goofups, accidents, and luck.
--Dale
D. Spencer Hines
Admiral Dan Gallery was NOT court-martialed.
Many other German vessels were captured with cipher materials intact
earlier in the war, including trawlers, weather ships and supply
ships ---- very useful in identifying U-boat rendezvous points. 'Nuff
Said....
And then OP 20-G should get a great deal of the credit. 'Nuff Said....
One does not just break a cipher ONCE and for all time -- a continuous
effort is a _sine qua non_.
DSH
Peter Skelton
You mean the damn fool who just wouldn't take the hints of
highers up and duplicated intelligence we already had at great
risk of letting the secret out?
Americans did very good work assisting the British with enigma,
but this was no part of it.
Peter Skelton
WKensit
bob
"D. Spencer Hines" <D_Spenc...@usa.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:zpo2c.23$Oo5....@eagle.america.net...
this news group is the best, now let me see u-505 / enigma / ------------
American revolution ???????????
bob
Dick Wisan
>
>Nonsense.
>
>Admiral Dan Gallery was NOT court-martialed.
>
>Many other German vessels were captured with cipher materials intact
>earlier in the war, including trawlers, weather ships and supply
>ships ---- very useful in identifying U-boat rendezvous points. 'Nuff
>Said....
That's true, but mostly, they were captured for the purpose when it
was needed. That's not what Adm. Gallery did. He acted on his own,
apparently not aware of the enigma project and what had been done.
It's true that the action embarrassed the Navy (& everyone else)
because it added nothing needed and could easily have blown the
whole enigma-reading program.
I know nothing, btw, about the way he handled the prisoners aboard
ship.
--
R. N. (Dick) Wisan - Email: wis...@catskill.net
- Snail: 37 Clinton Street, Oneonta NY 13820, U.S.A.
- Just your opinion, please, ma'am: No fax.
Julian Richards
As this is posted into soc.history.medieval, I can only assume that
the term Enigma is used in its Tudor connotations, i.e. that is it a
euphemism for a woman's private parts.
This explains a lot. That the German navy kept an Enigma machine on
each submarine for use by the crew and that Winston Churchill was very
keen for one to be captured and brought to him.
--
Julian Richards
julian-richards "at" ntlworld.com
Usenet is how from the comfort of your own living room, you can converse
with people that you would never want in your house.
D. Spencer Hines
You "Liberal" academics believe the wildest things imaginable when it
comes to DEBUNKING historical nonsense ---- yet seem to have no respect
for or even understanding of the concept of operations conducted with
SKILL, RISK and DARING ---- particularly when it comes to military and
naval affairs.
Now, Wisan-san, you are an academic, with a Ph.D. from Columbia, as I
recall.
Is that correct?
You understand that academics should check their facts, review their
evidence and not just shoot off their mouths carelessly -- voiced or on
paper. You teach college students Philosophy in Upstate New York.
Right?
Please show us your evidence for this off-the-top opining:
| ...That's not what Adm. Gallery did. He acted on his own,
| apparently not aware of the enigma project and what had been done.
| It's true that the action embarrassed the Navy (& everyone else)
| because it added nothing needed and could easily have blown the
| whole enigma-reading program.
DSH
P.S. Why, I believe some of you academic pogues would take General
Washington to task for crossing the Delaware and attacking those "poor,
allegedly intoxicated, defenseless Hessians" on Christmas Day 1776 ----
and then we might very well not even have a United States of America.
Even Howard Fast, a hard-core Communist thought that was a brilliant
stroke by Washington.
P.P.S. And DO tell us just how [then Captain, later Admiral] Dan
Gallery "acted on his own" against the wishes of Ernie King and others
in Washington, D.C. and blew the mission.
This should be fun.
DSH
"Dick Wisan" <wis...@catskill.net> wrote in message
news:c2dej...@enews1.newsguy.com...
Dick Wisan
I have to admit I can't put my hand on the book(s), but I didn't
invent the thought, and I don't retract anything. I hate to sound
so much like Inger.
Adm. Gallery's own account (in "U-505") claims the capture
enabled us to read German code, but that book was published in
1957, well before Winterbotham broke the story about British
codebreaking in "The Ultra Secret". (A book that dimmed a
number of reputations.) At the time, and until Winterbotham's
book, the secret held, and I do not doubt that Adm.Gallery acted
and wrote in good faith. Nobody in on the secret could have
mentioned it to him or to anyone else at the time.
It's more likely that my source was British since they would have
been quicker to mention a blunder by the USN, but it would have
had to be a much later book than "U-505".
Jim Watt
wrote:
>As this is posted into soc.history.medieval, I can only assume that
>the term Enigma is used in its Tudor connotations, i.e. that is it a
>euphemism for a woman's private parts.
Thank you for that information, in future we can classify Spencer
Whines as an Enigma, rather tha nthe more moden term
I previously employed.
--
Jim Watt
Gibraltar Information and Images
http://www.gibnet.com
Don Phillipson
news:diok40t44p7n8fk1c...@4ax.com...
> . . . the German navy kept an Enigma machine on
> each submarine for use by the crew and that Winston Churchill was very
> keen for one to be captured and brought to him.
Romantic fallacy . . . Every Kriegsmarine ship
and every Wehrmacht command vehicle had an
Enigma-type coding machine. The "secret" was
not the machine (sold commercially for a decade
before the war) but the cipher wheels and daily
cipher settings.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada)
Eugene Griessel
Indeed. In fact GCHQ even considered adopting the commercial Enigma
sometime in the mid 1930s and did in fact purchase two machines for
trial purposes. The principles were thoroughly understood - in fact
the British first ran into Enigma encoded signals during the Spanish
civil war and spent some time analysing them, however budget
constraints meant that little progress was made at the time. What was
important was the wiring and order of the rotors, the day keys, ground
and ring settings and plugboard settings - although the latter was not
that important as Gordon Welchman devised a system which almost
nullified it.
Although GCHQ owned a number of Enigma models, including AVA made
machines, they were seldom if ever used in decryption as the modified
TypeX machines were better suited to the task and less labour
intensive.
BTW IIRC U-505 yielded very little of importance, crypto-wise, other
than a current Adressbuch which included some keys for disguising grid
references.
By the time of her capture Kriegsmarine codes had been consistently
and regularly read for some years.
Eugene
Jim Watt
wrote:
Interestingly enough research into Enigma theory has continued and
there is software out there to decode messages (of sufficient length)
without the need for cribs.
D. Spencer Hines
It's good to see someone here for a change who actually knows what he is
talking about.
Do pay attention, Wisan-san.
I have often used the American version of Enigma [much improved of
course] and this chap, DP, is not bugling nonsense ---- such as
Wisan-san, and some others, have been.
Why are many, not all, of these academics so flakey, Lord?
DSH
"Don Phillipson" <dphil...@trytel.com> wrote in message
news:BxF2c.2346$G3.19230@localhost...
D. Spencer Hines
Please remember, THIS is what you wrote:
| ...That's not what Adm. Gallery did. He acted on his own,
| apparently not aware of the enigma project and what had been done.
| It's true that the action embarrassed the Navy (& everyone else)
| because it added nothing needed and could easily have blown the
| whole enigma-reading program.
So, we are still awaiting the solid proof for all that.
Note:
Wisan-san is so dumb about this he doesn't even understand the
difference between a code and a cipher.
His Ph.D. [Columbia] is in PHILOSOPHY ---- which has very little
relevance here -- although it SHOULD have taught him how to THINK and
EXPRESS himself CLEARLY -- and obviously has not.
DSH
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wisan-san where DO you get these thoroughly loony ideas of yours?
You "Liberal" academics believe the wildest things imaginable when it
Is that correct?
DSH
This should be fun.
DSH
| D. Spencer Hines D_Spenc...@usa.yale.edu says...
| >
| >Nonsense.
| >
| >Admiral Dan Gallery was NOT court-martialed.
| >
| >Many other German vessels were captured with cipher materials intact
| >earlier in the war, including trawlers, weather ships and supply
| >ships ---- very useful in identifying U-boat rendezvous points.
'Nuff
| >Said....
|
| That's true, but mostly, they were captured for the purpose when it
| was needed. That's not what Adm. Gallery did. He acted on his own,
| apparently not aware of the enigma project and what had been done.
| It's true that the action embarrassed the Navy (& everyone else)
| because it added nothing needed and could easily have blown the
| whole enigma-reading program.
|
| I know nothing, btw, about the way he handled the prisoners aboard
| ship.
|
| --
| R. N. (Dick) Wisan - Email: wis...@catskill.net
| - Snail: 37 Clinton Street, Oneonta NY 13820,
U.S.A.
| - Just your opinion, please, ma'am: No fax.
"Dick Wisan" <wis...@catskill.net> wrote in message
news:c2ec3...@enews4.newsguy.com...
raymond o'hara
"Jim Watt" >
> Interestingly enough research into Enigma theory has continued and
> there is software out there to decode messages (of sufficient length)
> without the need for cribs.
>
>
>
> --
> Jim Watt
> Gibraltar Information and Images
> http://www.gibnet.com
the german habit of starting messages with hiel hitler helped alot .
the u-505 capture could have caused the germans to modify their codes and
codenames if it became known . it's capture didn't help code breaking but it
could have hurt it .
the u-505 does make a nice artifact of the war .and having their code
broken reallky didn't help the western allies as much as it might because so
much was held back from the field commaners . the russians did much better
with their high placed spy.
William Black
"D. Spencer Hines" <D_Spenc...@usa.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:nTL2c.93$Oo5....@eagle.america.net...
> I have often used the American version of Enigma [much improved of
> course] and this chap, DP, is not bugling nonsense ---- such as
> Wisan-san, and some others, have been.
I always though that the US in WWII used a version of the Swiss Hageline
<sp> machine (after Billy Friedman made the US Navy code machine designers
look like idiots anyway) that used cams and not a rotor based system at all.
I'd have thought that all the mechanical code machines would have been long
retired by your time in the service though...
raymond o'hara
that is the general opinion on gallery's capture . nobody claims it wasn't
a nice feat . it did have the chance of compromising the code reading
efforts though . the fact the navy suppressed the news untill after the war
is proof enough of their concern over this .
gallery wanted to capture a u-boat for his own ego and for the fun of it
that is had a boarding party ready and trained for just such a chance .
gallery was unique , his novels are a hoot and who knows if the tirpitz had
ever showed up off of iceland when dan was in command he might have sunk it
, he had that plan worked out and ready .
Paul J Gans
I do believe that Julian Richards was making another somewhat
humorous point which you have all missed. Go back and read
his original post.
---- Paul J. Gans
Keith Willshaw
Hardly
When Sorge reported the Germans were planning to invade the
Soviets did not act on his reports. The fact that they later accepted
his reports that Japan would not attack the USSR were a more
intelligent use of his reports but the initial mistake cost millions
of lives.
Keith
Jack Linthicum
One of the ways to increase protection against decypherment is to have
a random alphabet on the rotors, the U.S. enigma look alike (KL-47)
used snap on rotor rings in addition to the random alphabet. The
Germans used A-B-C...etc. on every rotor.
raymond o'hara
"Keith Willshaw" <keit...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c2g4tn$rl1$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
i wasn't thinking about sorge . yes he was well placed . but i was refering
to "lucy ' most likely martin borman ,but who knows for sure , . lucy had
access to all the nazi high command plans instantly { the fact that srgues
for borman } and they acted on them in a timely fashion
Julian Richards
wrote:
>I do believe that Julian Richards was making another somewhat
>humorous point which you have all missed. Go back and read
>his original post.
I'm glad that someone was paying attention.
Keith Willshaw
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7164002b.04030...@posting.google.com...
> eug...@dynagen.co.za (Eugene Griessel) wrote in message
news:<2dcfe288.04030...@posting.google.com>...
>
> One of the ways to increase protection against decypherment is to have
> a random alphabet on the rotors, the U.S. enigma look alike (KL-47)
> used snap on rotor rings in addition to the random alphabet. The
> Germans used A-B-C...etc. on every rotor.
I recall an interview with one of the senior code breakers
at BP who recalled that when one of the Polish codebreakers
told him this his reaction was stark disbelief. It was the one
combination they had never even considered on the basis that
nobody could be THAT stupid.
Keith
D. Spencer Hines
And several other clever mechanical, cryptologic and electrical
enhancements.
DSH
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7164002b.04030...@posting.google.com...
| One of the ways to increase protection against decypherment is to have
Paul J Gans
>On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 21:26:29 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com>
>wrote:
>>I do believe that Julian Richards was making another somewhat
>>humorous point which you have all missed. Go back and read
>>his original post.
>I'm glad that someone was paying attention.
I'm used to it. Once the loon gets hold of something,
misrepresents it and crossposts it to the known world,
this is exactly what happens.
One can't blame the later responders. They only saw
the one or two unclipped sentences (which, by the way,
made no sense by themselves -- a clear warning that
lots of context was missing.)
---- Paul J. Gans
Julian Richards
wrote:
>In alt.history.british Julian Richards <s...@sig.co.uk> wrote:
>>On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 21:26:29 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com>
>>wrote:
>
>>>I do believe that Julian Richards was making another somewhat
>>>humorous point which you have all missed. Go back and read
>>>his original post.
>
>>I'm glad that someone was paying attention.
>
>I'm used to it. Once the loon gets hold of something,
>misrepresents it and crossposts it to the known world,
>this is exactly what happens.
He is indeed something of an enigma himself.
>One can't blame the later responders. They only saw
>the one or two unclipped sentences (which, by the way,
>made no sense by themselves -- a clear warning that
>lots of context was missing.)
You were still the sharpest in the cutlery drawer this time.
Peter Kemp
Probably the most foolish "could have been" that one, but the one that
made day to day cryptanalysis of the Ultra traffic was the Stecker
board.
In theory is massively increases the numbers of variables, but the
weakness of not being able to encrypt a letter as itself allowed the
solution space to be shurnk far more than if the stecker had not been
used.
---
Peter Kemp
Life is short - drink faster
Jim Watt
wrote:
> the german habit of starting messages with hiel hitler helped alot
An interesting but doubtful suggestion.
>the u-505 capture could have caused the germans to modify their codes and
>codenames if it became known . it's capture didn't help code breaking but it
>could have hurt it .
>
>
> the u-505 does make a nice artifact of the war .and having their code
>broken reallky didn't help the western allies as much as it might because so
>much was held back from the field commaners . the russians did much better
>with their high placed spy.
Well, if you read the various books on the topic that have come out
the point about what Bletchley achieved was an integrated collection
decoding, collation, interpretation and dissemination system which
delivered useful information to field commanders in real time.
Thats certainly what Winterbotham claimed. The big problem was
the lack of trust in the intelligence with the recipients as they did
not know its source.
Jim Watt
Linthicum) wrote:
>One of the ways to increase protection against decypherment is to have
>a random alphabet on the rotors, the U.S. enigma look alike (KL-47)
>used snap on rotor rings in addition to the random alphabet. The
>Germans used A-B-C...etc. on every rotor.
Not so, the Enigma had ring settings, which altered the mapping
letters on the wheels It also had a plugboard to further randomise
the letter mapping. The three wheel version also used a selection
of three from five wheels.
Jim Watt
<keit...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
No, it does not really matter;
You have to assume that in the real world, particularly a war
that the ememy will acquire the hardware. Indeed the Poles
pinched a machine from the factory at an early stage.
At that point the details of the machine can be discovered.
Further the actual letters on the code wheels and the rings
are only for setting the machine and not directly involved in the
actual cyphering process. So in effect it does not matter
what is written on them, the important thing is the cross connections
within the wheels.
Having their labelling in an alphabetical sequence is simply
ergonomics in the operation of the machine. It give you no
knowledge of their internal order.
Howard Berkowitz
<wis...@catskill.net> wrote:
> D. Spencer Hines D_Spenc...@usa.yale.edu says...
> >
> >Wisan-san where DO you get these thoroughly loony ideas of yours?
>
> I have to admit I can't put my hand on the book(s), but I didn't
> invent the thought, and I don't retract anything. I hate to sound
> so much like Inger.
>
> Adm. Gallery's own account (in "U-505") claims the capture
> enabled us to read German code, but that book was published in
> 1957, well before Winterbotham broke the story about British
> codebreaking in "The Ultra Secret". (A book that dimmed a
> number of reputations.) At the time, and until Winterbotham's
> book, the secret held, and I do not doubt that Adm.Gallery acted
> and wrote in good faith. Nobody in on the secret could have
> mentioned it to him or to anyone else at the time.
>
> It's more likely that my source was British since they would have
> been quicker to mention a blunder by the USN, but it would have
> had to be a much later book than "U-505".
I've always been a Gallery fan, but he did make some statements
regarding security classification of the operation that captured the
U-505. It happened that I was researching the use of compartmented
security classifications, and he had described a "special top secret"
label on the records.
So, pre-1975, I went down to the Naval Operational Archives and looked
up the mission logs. Nothing compartmented, nothing even TS. Obviously,
I can't say if there were records concerning crypto capture that weren't
in the file box, but there were clear mentions of the sub capture.
Howard Berkowitz
<re...@comcast.net> wrote:
U-505 wound up at a museum (History & Industry?) in Chicago. Getting it
there was expensive, and Gallery set up a nonprofit organization to do
it.
He recounted receiving a substantial contribution from an Air Force
colonel he knew, with a letter hoping that the gift would help put all
submarines where they belonged -- on dry land.
Dick Wisan
No. I just can't find the book.
>
>Please remember, THIS is what you wrote:
>
>| ...That's not what Adm. Gallery did. He acted on his own,
>| apparently not aware of the enigma project and what had been done.
>| It's true that the action embarrassed the Navy (& everyone else)
>| because it added nothing needed and could easily have blown the
>| whole enigma-reading program.
>
>So, we are still awaiting the solid proof for all that.
Yup. I'm afraid you are.
>
>Note:
>
>Wisan-san is so dumb about this he doesn't even understand the
>difference between a code and a cipher.
Morse is a code. For that matter, language is a code. Enigma or
simple letter-substitution is a cypher. What's the mystery?
Paul J Gans
>On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 00:26:03 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com>
>wrote:
>>In alt.history.british Julian Richards <s...@sig.co.uk> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 21:26:29 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com>
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>I do believe that Julian Richards was making another somewhat
>>>>humorous point which you have all missed. Go back and read
>>>>his original post.
>>
>>>I'm glad that someone was paying attention.
>>
>>I'm used to it. Once the loon gets hold of something,
>>misrepresents it and crossposts it to the known world,
>>this is exactly what happens.
>He is indeed something of an enigma himself.
>>One can't blame the later responders. They only saw
>>the one or two unclipped sentences (which, by the way,
>>made no sense by themselves -- a clear warning that
>>lots of context was missing.)
>You were still the sharpest in the cutlery drawer this time.
Thank you. I spoke because I know it is no fun getting
beaten up for something you did not say.
---- Paul J. Gans
Eugene Griessel
> "D. Spencer Hines" <D_Spenc...@usa.yale.edu> wrote in message
> news:nTL2c.93$Oo5....@eagle.america.net...
>
> > I have often used the American version of Enigma [much improved of
> > course] and this chap, DP, is not bugling nonsense ---- such as
> > Wisan-san, and some others, have been.
>
> I always though that the US in WWII used a version of the Swiss Hageline
> <sp> machine (after Billy Friedman made the US Navy code machine designers
> look like idiots anyway) that used cams and not a rotor based system at all.
Boris Hagelin was Swedish, not Swiss - and yes the US purchased
upwards of 140000 of his machines for medium level crypto work as the
M209. It was basically a rotor machine. The French bought it too - in
1935(?) and it was used with much success by the Italians, some of
their ciphers never yielded to the Allied decryption efforts. Hagelin
"invented" it when he heard that Sweden was intending buying Enigma
machines - by basically simplifying the Enigma system. The French
then asked him to produce a device that could be carried in the pocket
- and the C36 resulted.
> I'd have thought that all the mechanical code machines would have been long
> retired by your time in the service though...
Yes - it must come as some surprise to the crypto community that the
US ever put an Enigma based system into service, knowing it to be
seriously flawed from the outset.
Eugene
Mark Borgerson
black_...@hotmail.com says...
>
> "D. Spencer Hines" <D_Spenc...@usa.yale.edu> wrote in message
> news:nTL2c.93$Oo5....@eagle.america.net...
>
> > I have often used the American version of Enigma [much improved of
> > course] and this chap, DP, is not bugling nonsense ---- such as
> > Wisan-san, and some others, have been.
>
> I always though that the US in WWII used a version of the Swiss Hageline
> <sp> machine (after Billy Friedman made the US Navy code machine designers
> look like idiots anyway) that used cams and not a rotor based system at all.
>
> I'd have thought that all the mechanical code machines would have been long
> retired by your time in the service though...
>
>
I hate to say it, but machines with wheels and plugboards were in use
well into the 70's. I remember spending a lot of time with my
crypto repairman maintaining the plugboard wires that were needed
to set up the encoding each day. The wires did not cope will with
shipboard vibrations. Almost every wire set had epoxy cement where
the wire came out of the plastic pin housing. They would get
intermittent after a few weeks at sea and you'd have to check
out a bunch of wires to get one set that worked. The machine
was used to encode paper tapes off line for transmission through
a radio center not cleared for our material and the evening
and mid watch often spent a lot of time trying to get the crypto
gear to work reliably. (I don't remember exactly how they
would determine when something was messed up for outgoing
traffic. For the incoming stuff, garbled traffic was a good
clue!
Mark Borgerson
a.spencer3
D. Spencer Hines <D_Spenc...@usa.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:nTL2c.93$Oo5....@eagle.america.net...
> >
> course]
Much improved out of all recognition by the time you were letting out
barracks, I'd have thought.
Surreyman
Jack Linthicum
If I read the literature correctly the Germans contributed to the ease
of breaking past certain crucial items by 1)Starting every message the
same way, Heil Hitler being a favorite, 2)Let the operators set the
day's key without having it checked by another, 3)Had the operator
pick his/or her own rotor settings for the message indicator,
4)Allowed sloppy practice without checking through a 'communications
security' reading of your own traffic, 5)In the submarines kept up a
line of essentially chatter between base and sub that helped verify
positions and offered extra traffic with known content to break.
There were also enough instances of material sent incorrectly and then
corrected.
We also came up with severe mud on our faces when we let the North
Koreans take the Pueblo, giving Walker a built-in sales pitch when he
showed up at the Soviet embassy with the IBM cards for the machines
the Russians had (probably) bought from the Koreans.
Julian Richards
wrote:
>Thank you. I spoke because I know it is no fun getting
>beaten up for something you did not say.
That's just what I'd expect a Marxist-Leninist-Trotskist-Florist like
you to say. < cheeky teasing smiley required >
Julian Richards
wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 20:55:35 GMT, "raymond o'hara" <re...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>> the german habit of starting messages with hiel hitler helped alot
>
>An interesting but doubtful suggestion.
And yet...
One good codebreaking time was Hitler's birthday as commanders used
the opportunity to toady up to the boss with a birthday greeting and
wishing him whatever gift he wanted (Malta, probably)
Another tale to tell is this. Pre-war, the Hindenburg was flown over
the North Sea to monitor RAF radar stations. When it radioed back its
position, the RAF were very tempted to contact it to tell the captain
that he had got the position wrong.
ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
Julian Richards <s...@sig.co.uk> wrote:
>Another tale to tell is this. Pre-war, the Hindenburg was flown over
>the North Sea to monitor RAF radar stations. When it radioed back its
>position, the RAF were very tempted to contact it to tell the captain
>that he had got the position wrong.
Nitpick: Graf Zep. 2, not Hindenburg, which has suffered combustability
issues by that time..
--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)
D. Spencer Hines
archive.
DSH
"Howard Berkowitz" <h...@gettcomm.com> wrote in message
news:hcb-4E345C.2...@text.giganews.com...
D. Spencer Hines
Wisan The Witless, who holds a Ph. D. in Philosophy, apparently can't
find a shred of proof for this academic debunking babble, bubble and
squeak he inflicted on us:
| ...That's not what Adm. Gallery did. He acted on his own,
| apparently not aware of the enigma project and what had been done.
| It's true that the action embarrassed the Navy (& everyone else)
| because it added nothing needed and could easily have blown the
| whole enigma-reading program.
How Sweet It Is!
DSH