P-47D vs. Hawker Tempest

[Matthew Beesley]

Which fighter-bomber was better, the P-47D or the Hawker Tempest? When I
mean best, I mean its capabilities, not its actual contribution to the war
effort. As far as I can tell, they both had massive engines, were both
very fast, both often carried rockets and bombs, and both were heavily
armed, gun wise. I beleive all the structural problems of the Typhoon
were fixed in the Tempest, and both the P-47 and the Tempest are credited
with shooting down ME-262s and V-1 "doodlebugs" (as my grandmother calls
them still). Both could dive rapidily, both were huge (compared to say, a
P-51 or Spitfire). Both were used extensively in D-Day operations against
ground targets such as railway lines and supply depots. Lastly, both had
great range capabilities, finally giving the British a medium range
interdiction aircraft. The similarities between these two aircraft
therefore are obvious, but which was was better? Any thoughts?

Matthew Beesley

[Jeffrey H. Boatright]

In article <D7Bt0...@freenet.carleton.ca>, ao...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
(Matthew Beesley) wrote:

> Which fighter-bomber was better, the P-47D or the Hawker Tempest? When I
> mean best, I mean its capabilities, not its actual contribution to the war
> effort.

I'd want my ground attack a/c to have an air-cooled engine. "Stick a
hatpin in the belly of a Mustang and it'd bleed to death" -(can't remember
the source).

Is the Tempest air- or liquid-cooled?

[Geoff Alexander]

ao...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Matthew Beesley) wrote:
>
> Which fighter-bomber was better, the P-47D or the Hawker Tempest? When I
> mean best, I mean its capabilities, not its actual contribution to the war

> effort. As far as I can tell, they both had massive engines, were both
> very fast, both often carried rockets and bombs, and both were heavily
> armed, gun wise. I beleive all the structural problems of the Typhoon
> were fixed in the Tempest, and both the P-47 and the Tempest are credited
> with shooting down ME-262s and V-1 "doodlebugs" (as my grandmother calls
> them still). Both could dive rapidily, both were huge (compared to say, a
> P-51 or Spitfire). Both were used extensively in D-Day operations against
> ground targets such as railway lines and supply depots. Lastly, both had
> great range capabilities, finally giving the British a medium range
> interdiction aircraft. The similarities between these two aircraft
> therefore are obvious, but which was was better? Any thoughts?
>
> Matthew Beesley

P47's forte was high altitudes, she was'nt much of a fighter below
20.000 ft, both where used in the fighter role and my bet would go to the
Tempest, bear in mind the Germans had little to oppose them with.
Tempest flew with Napier Sabre, and Sabre in its most advanced form
gave just short of 3.600 hp, there was'nt an engine out there that could
equal that.
You will no doubt have read that it was a P47 that took the piston speed record
at a touch over 500mph, this is fact, what they don't tell is the P47
was a stripped ship, or that Spiteful did 499.9 mph with full tank s
and full ammunition lockers. All of the aircraft designed by Syd Camm
where beautiful aircraft, and they all handled like dreams. Ask anyone
who's flown any of his aircraft from those lovely silver bi-planes
to Harrier.

GRA

[Brian Raven]

In article <jboatri-2004...@clone-1.eushc.org>

> Is the Tempest air- or liquid-cooled?

The Tempest mark V, which was I think the only mark to enter service in
WW2, was liquid cooled (Napier Sabre). The mark II with the air cooled
Bristol Centaurus didn't quite make it, but performed well in service
after the war.

--
Brian Raven | B. F. Raven Limited
Phone: +44 (0)1707 269857 | 26C Homestead Road, Hatfield, Herts.,
email: bra...@oskar.demon.co.uk | AL10 0QW

[Matthew Saroff]

Hi,
Early model Tempests used a water-colled X-24 Napier, later
models used an ari-cooled Radial Centaurus (sp?)

Jeffrey H. Boatright
(jbo...@eagle.cc.emory.edu) wrote:
: In article <D7Bt0...@freenet.carleton.ca>, ao...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
: (Matthew Beesley) wrote:

: > Which fighter-bomber was better, the P-47D or the Hawker Tempest? When I
: > mean best, I mean its capabilities, not its actual contribution to the war
: > effort.

: I'd want my ground attack a/c to have an air-cooled engine. "Stick a

: hatpin in the belly of a Mustang and it'd bleed to death" -(can't remember
: the source).

: Is the Tempest air- or liquid-cooled?
--
--Matthew Saroff| Standard Disclaimer: Not only do I speak for
_____ | No one else, I don't even Speak for me. All my
/ o o \ | personalities and the spirits that I channel
______|_____|_____| channel disavow all knowledge of my activities. ;-)
uuu U uuu |
| In fact, all my personalities and channeled spirits
Saroff wuz here | hate my guts. (Well, maybe with garlic & butter...)

[Chris Butterfield]

In article <3ndshu$eqn$1...@mhade.production.compuserve.com>
10012...@CompuServe.COM "Dick Bristow" writes:

> If we are talking ground attack then the true comparison should
> be P47/Typhoon. The Typhoon did not really work as a fighter, but
> was a very successful Ground Attack weapon, especially in the
> Battle of Normandy. It was, I believe, Typhoons which did much of
> the damage in the Falaise pocket, and thereafter. The Tempest had
> the speed to do the V1 intercepts, but it was the postwar Tempest
> II which finally worked, but then the jets came along.
>
> --
> Dick Bristow Marlow, Buckinghamshire England
>

I have seen pics. of the Typhoon with rockets under the wings, I've not seen
a photo of a P47 with anything other than a 500lb bomb or gas tanks.

By the way if you are interested in wartime tempest flying a good book is :
FireBirds (flying the Typhoon in Action) by Charles Demoulin.
ISBN 0 906393 48 5, published by Airlife publishing of Shrewsbury England.

Hope this helps

Cheers,

Chris B.
--
*******************************************************************************
* Chris Butterfield * Hedgehog Corner, *
* ch...@freareng.demon.co.uk * Wragholme Road, *
* Aviation nut at large. * Grainthorpe, *
********************************************** Louth, *
* * Lincolnshire, *
* "I'm not broke, just fiscally challenged." * LN11 7JD, *
* * England. (01472) 388179 *
*******************************************************************************

[Dick Bristow]

[Dick Bristow]

AMAF the main difference between the Typhoon and the Tempest was
that the former had a thick wing (great for holding cannon and
wide tyres, both of which were Good Ideas), which ran into
compressibility problems at the new, high, speeds that the engine
allowed. The Tempest had a thin wing, which reduced the chance of
a breakup at high speed.

[Crawfojr]

Matthew:

As I'm a Yank, I'd have to say the P-47D. I'm a big Gabby Gabreski fan.

Rob
J. Robert Crawford
AOL: Crawfojr

[Anthony de Vries]

In article <798663...@freareng.demon.co.uk>, ch...@freareng.demon.co.uk (Chris Butterfield) writes:
> In article <3ndshu$eqn$1...@mhade.production.compuserve.com>

> >
> I have seen pics. of the Typhoon with rockets under the wings, I've not seen
> a photo of a P47 with anything other than a 500lb bomb or gas tanks.
>
> By the way if you are interested in wartime tempest flying a good book is :
> FireBirds (flying the Typhoon in Action) by Charles Demoulin.
> ISBN 0 906393 48 5, published by Airlife publishing of Shrewsbury England.
>
> Hope this helps
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris B.

Well I have seen pictures of P-47's with rockets under the wing. Their launched from tubes. Under each wing is hanging a triple launchtube.

So like this:

/---\
_______________( * )_______________
O+O \___/ O+O
O O

You can see, I'm not really good at ASCII art.

Anthony.

[The Yedi Knight]

P-47's carried rockets (3.75" bazookas) from 43' onwards and were quite devastating with them. In fact, 2 500lb bombs and 2 triple rocket pods became became standard 9th AF gound attack ordinance.
Jon Bernstein Bern...@brick.purchase.edu

[beesley.a...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 20, 1995 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Matthew Beesley wrote:
> Which fighter-bomber was better, the P-47D or the Hawker Tempest? When I
> mean best, I mean its capabilities, not its actual contribution to the war

> effort. As far as I can tell, they both had massive engines, were both
> very fast, both often carried rockets and bombs, and both were heavily
> armed, gun wise. I beleive all the structural problems of the Typhoon
> were fixed in the Tempest, and both the P-47 and the Tempest are credited
> with shooting down ME-262s and V-1 "doodlebugs" (as my grandmother calls
> them still). Both could dive rapidily, both were huge (compared to say, a
> P-51 or Spitfire). Both were used extensively in D-Day operations against
> ground targets such as railway lines and supply depots. Lastly, both had
> great range capabilities, finally giving the British a medium range
> interdiction aircraft. The similarities between these two aircraft
> therefore are obvious, but which was was better? Any thoughts?
>
> Matthew Beesley

Wow, I wrote this more than 20 years ago, and it's still online. Goes to show that nothing ever vanishes on the web. Matthew Beesley

[dumbstruck]

On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 1:25:58 AM UTC-10, beesley.a...@gmail.com wrote:
> Wow, I wrote this more than 20 years ago, and it's still online. Goes to show that nothing ever vanishes on the web. Matthew Beesley

Try reading "Duels in the sky" by acknowledged skygod erik brown who compares not only relative performance of opposing aircraft but ones that didn't oppose or were on the same side as you posit. He was a test pilot that tried every WW2 aircraft (downed and patched up) except for some of the Russian and Italian ones during the war in order to make reports.

Maybe start with the end where he makes various ranking lists, but you won't realize his huge gravitas without reading the earlier bits (and his other books, sometimes listed under erik spelling). He would dogfight for long periods against a top enemy pilot in an equally top aircraft until they both quit because neither made mistakes and neither could win.

[dumbstruck]

On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 6:14:51 PM UTC-10, dumbstruck wrote:
> (and his other books, sometimes listed under erik spelling).

I meant under "Eric" spelling

[Eunometic]

You are thinking of the Rolls Royce Vulture which was an X-24 engine based on the V12 Perigine. It never entered service on the Typhoon and definetly not the Tempest.

The Vulture did fly on the Manchester where it was under powered due to airframe weight growth.

[Eunometic]

I don't think any V1 were shot down by P-47, even the specialist P47M which at sea level speed of 367mph was slowish at low altitude compared to the V1. They might have caught a few of the slower defective V1.

The P51 was the stand out speed machine at sea level.

[Keith Willshaw]

On 12/04/2017 09:40, Eunometic wrote:
> I don't think any V1 were shot down by P-47, even the specialist P47M which at sea level speed of 367mph was slowish at low altitude compared to the V1. They might have caught a few of the slower defective V1.
>
> The P51 was the stand out speed machine at sea level.
>

The P-47M did not enter operational service until after the V-1 sites
used against London were overrun so its performance is pretty academic

When comparing test results the caveat is that it all depends on the
exact model measured and things like fuel load and even paint condition
but the Tempest and P51D were pretty closely matched in speed

from North American Aviation, Inc.
Inglewood, California
Report No. NA-46-130
At Sea Level 368 MPH
At Low Blower A.C.A.* 414 MPH/11,300 ft.
At High Blower A.C.A.* 440 MPH/24,500 ft.

From testing at the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment
at Boscombe Down 16 Dec 1944

At Sea Level 379 MPH
At 12000 ft 395 MPH
At 24,000 ft 440

For the Tempest V 731
From testing at the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment
at Boscombe Down 1 May 1944

At Sea Level 379 MPH
At 12000 ft 408 MPH
At 24,000 ft 425

For the Tempest V 763
From testing at the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment
at Boscombe Down August 1944

At Sea Level 390 MPH
At 12000 ft 410 MPH
At 24,000 ft 415

KeithW

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

"Eunometic" <euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:7dfac1cf-bd8a-4bf2...@googlegroups.com...

>I don't think any V1 were shot down by P-47, even the specialist P47M
> which at sea level speed of 367mph was slowish at low altitude compared
> to the V1. They might have caught a few of the slower defective V1.

Ah, time to catch one of the slower defective contributions. Start
with the allied attempts to catch V-1 with fighters were effectively
over before any P-47M were built.

Also of course the V-1 tended to fly at 1 to 2,000 metres, with
the Tempest rated at around 410 mph at 6,000 feet, the Spitfire
XIV 390 mph.

The USAAF day fighters did not take formal part in the V-1 patrols,
they did some but mostly it was opportunity.

The USAAF credits it P-47 units with 17 kills, including one from
an Emergency Rescue Squadron, P-51 units 12 kills, P-61 units
10 kills.

> The P51 was the stand out speed machine at sea level.

Sea level,

P-51A was around 325 to 340 mph, the D around 365 mph.
P-47D around 340 mph, P-47M 365 mph, P-47N 360 mph.

Spitfire XIV 365 mph
Tempest V 378 mph

The RAF credited Tempests with 851.75 V-1 kills, Spitfire
XIV 377.67 kills, Mustang III (P-51B/C) 246.5 kills.

Mosquito VI / VIII / XIII / XIV / XVII / XIX were credited with
586.5 V-1 kills.

The above speeds are on 100 octane fuel. The Spitfire added about
30 mph to its low level speed with 150 octane.

Engine reliability was the big problem, then weight growth, plus the
drag of turrets etc. and the desire for bigger bomb loads. Also each
engine turned out to weight half a ton more than initially forecast.

Robert Kirby has put out a second edition of his Manchester book, 500
pages including index.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[Eunometic]

Allied attempts to intercept V1 required 150PN fuel, only the Tempest and the P-51 might match a well functioning V1 so much of your data is irrelevant.

V1 cruised at a range of speeds determined by:
1 distance from the launch point and fuel burn up.
2 manufacturing quality of the fuel pressure system
3 quality of the airframe
4 disintegration of the pulse jet vanes and the quality of the construction of the engine.
5 the long range reduced warhead versions also cruised faster.

A good version achieved 650km/h or 404 mph at 600m, the speed of 645 achieved by the development teams in the summer of 1944. This was beyond any allied aircraft. Some dawdled at only 340 mph. German radar tracks showed that the the missiles were flying 80kmh or 50mph below the anticipated speed. This was due to the fact that after 20 minutes of flight a gradual disintegration of the pulse jet vanes reduced the speed of many to most. It was this problem that gave the interceptors a chance.

As the quality control of the V1 manufacturing system became more consistent speeds improved. A few experimental versions were reaching 485mph, this was achieved with a high pressure fuel system. Aerodymic improvements drove this to 830km or 505 mph beyond the speed of the early allied jets. Ten test launches in Jan/Feb achieved this speed.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

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

news:d7d8747a-39a2-4a0a...@googlegroups.com...

> Allied attempts to intercept V1 required 150PN fuel, only the Tempest
> and the P-51 might match a well functioning V1 so much of your data
> is irrelevant.

The basic rule with Eunometic, the less other people's text makes it to
the non reply more accurate that text is. Note for example the deleted
Spitfire XIV and Mosquito kill awards.

Translation, the V-1 as used in 1944 was just within the low level speeds
of the latest allied fighters, adding 150 octane gave them a speed boost,
plus of course diving onto the target.

> V1 cruised at a range of speeds determined by:
> 1 distance from the launch point and fuel burn up.
> 2 manufacturing quality of the fuel pressure system
> 3 quality of the airframe
> 4 disintegration of the pulse jet vanes and the quality of the
> construction of the engine.

Think of the above as a credibility attempt. By the way similar
things were in play for all aircraft. And of course the France
to London distances were similar.

> 5 the long range reduced warhead versions also cruised faster.

The versions Eunometic dreams of, basically less warhead, more
fuel, so at the end of the flight less weight for similar thrust. The
V-1 tended to speed up as fuel was burnt.

> A good version achieved 650km/h or 404 mph at 600m, the
> speed of 645 achieved by the development teams in the summer
> of 1944.

So 400 mph and of course note at best it was development versus,
yet again, allied production.

> This was beyond any allied aircraft.

Eunometic versions only of course.

Think of it like the claim about P-51 sea level speeds, the claim that
had to be ignored in the non reply.

> Some dawdled at only 340 mph. German radar tracks showed that
> the the missiles were flying 80kmh or 50mph below the anticipated
> speed. This was due to the fact that after 20 minutes of flight a gradual
> disintegration of the pulse jet vanes reduced the speed of many to most.
> It was this problem that gave the interceptors a chance.

In the Eunometic version the Germans defeat themselves, no one else
can. They are a sort of perpetual motion war machine, they go to war,
then defeat themselves and repeat.

Meantime the allies noted plenty of around 400 mph V-1 incoming,
that some V-1 underperformed is not surprising given the V-1 workforce
and its motivations. However Eunometic requires the brilliant Germans
to start operations with well underperforming V-1 which they must have
known about from tests, the usual Eunometic hatred of the Germans.

> As the quality control of the V1 manufacturing system became more
> consistent speeds improved.

Think of the above as fewer underperformed, not more went faster than
the 400 mph speeds.

> A few experimental versions were reaching 485mph, this was achieved
> with a high pressure fuel system.

Fascinating, given the effect on fuel consumption. Smith and Kay go for
493 mph in tests.

> Aerodymic improvements drove this to 830km or 505 mph beyond the
> speed of the early allied jets. Ten test launches in Jan/Feb achieved
> this
> speed.

Eunometic has been told several times about the P-80 sea level speed,
558 mph, but of course simply ignores it. Also it would be interesting to
see where such test launches were done given the Red Army activities
January to March 1945, Warsaw to Berlin. As for the 505 mph in tests,
this at least is a reduction from the previous claims production models
were doing it and "a large proportion" were even faster. Over the years
Eunometic has slowly scaled back the E-1 into the actual V-1. Still a
way to go though.

Meantime in March 1945 some 100 V-1 were detected by the British
defences, with London the target, 57 were destroyed over the sea, 43
made it over UK territory, and 18 of them were destroyed over land,
11 hit the target area. Some 73 of the V-1 launchings were at night, 6
at dusk, 6 at dawn.

And of course after the end of the attacks from France and the way the
front line was so close to Antwerp the allies largely stopped using fighters
against V-1, though not the He111 launching them. The Tempest units
mostly moved to Europe.

[Keith Willshaw]

On 13/04/2017 03:19, Eunometic wrote:
> Allied attempts to intercept V1 required 150PN fuel, only the Tempest and the P-51 might match a well functioning V1 so much of your data is irrelevant.
>

Reality is a bitch but as already posted records show that the real
situation was that The most successful fighter types at shooting down
V-1's in order from highest to lowest were

Hawker Tempest
DH Mosquito
Spitfire Mk XIV
Mustang III (P51B/C)

There is a rather famous photograph out there of a Mosquito which lost
most of its paint flying through the fireball of an exploding V-1.

By Jan/Feb 1945 the war was lost with nothing much outside Belgiun even
being in range of the V-1. The success rate in attacks against the1r
targets was poor. From October to March 1945 the Germans launched 4883
V-1 towards Antwerp. Only 211 of those actually hit targets in the
designated area, by then the radar guided guns of the US and British AA
forces were very effective against targets flying straight and level.

[Dean Markley]

And your latter statement about accuracy is telling. If I recall, the V-1 had abysmal accuracy.

[Eunometic]

A good example of the Lockheed P-80A could just exceed 500mph in mid 1946. See here. Not the date of the tests.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-80/P-80.html

If you want higher speeds you have to wait till 1947 or 1948 when more powerful engines became available, and the nose of the P80 is reprofiled along with many other detail refinents or in the case of record aircraft compressibility strips added: knife sharp leading edge covers made of brass.

So experimental V1 in Jan/Feb 1945 were faster than experimental P80. You can find acconts of factory fresh Me 262 hitting 560mph and experimental versions doing 568 though at 20,000ft.

People that worked manufacturing V1 were reasonably well treated and fed, it was understood they needed to perform, irrespective of whether they were German (effectively conscripted) foreign contract labour or impressed (forced Labour). The quality problems often had more to do with shortages of alloying materials etc and the usual problems of training and communication of manufacturing procedures and problems.

Frankly I don't care about your holohype. So go whoreship at your Ann Frank Shrine while Muslim fuck your grand daughter up the arse, use them as under age prostitutes run over them in trucks as in Nice, Stockholm or Berlin or shoot them in theatres as in Bataclan and Africans and Blacks chimp out turning western cities into violent crime zones and parasite welfare states.

Hitler was right. Allied soldiers fought on the wrong side. Had the Germans have won our civilisation would be OK.

Officially Only 110,000 Jews died in Germany proper during WW2, the same casualty rates as two big Bomber command carpet bombing raids and that can be attributed to the breakdown of the German transport system in 1945 as food, water and electricity died. The 6 million nonsense keeps shifting further east.

Frankly I don't give a shit about the holohype or Jews. Stop watching (((Hollywood))). They hate us.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Keith Willshaw" <keithw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c122aff9-a2d8-d1ae...@gmail.com...

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/733387.pdf

[Eunometic]

If cross and headwinds were reasonably well known the V1 as an 'system' had an accuracy of 4km by the time it entered service though it was 7km in 1943. A guidance package called Ewald II was testing in 1944/45 that would have reduced this to about the same level as high altitude and night bombing.

At the time a decision had been taken to mass produce the V1 system in 1943 the British Government were conducting a terror campaign of carpet bombing against German civilians. The euphemistic terminology the British used to avoid potential war crime allegations and reduce moral objections from within their own ranks was " Area Bombardment" (instead of carpet bombing), dehousing (instead of civilian targets) and "demoralisation" ( instead of terror.)

In that context 4km accuracy is adaquet as a reprisal. A single V1 could knock out an entire row of houses or wipe out a theatre or factory if it hit.

The system worked by having Ewald I beacons on about 6% of V1 launched. These would be tracked and triangulated and the data used to correct the aim of subsequent launches. The V1 was controlled by a magnetic compass in its autopilot and a odometer working of the angemietet propellor on its nose. This turned a 25:1 gearbox which drove a threaded rod that had a nut that engaged switches to first conduct a turn mid flight to avoid allied radar back tracking and then initiate the dive attack sequence.

Unfortunately the Luftwaffe was assured that German agents in London were providing accurate impact data and ignored the Ewald I tracks. In fact the German agents were double agents and gave distorted data under the double cross system. They must have suspected something because Ewald was installed on nearly 50% of V1 at the end. Had they have had Ar 234 or Me 262 operating photo recon they also might have achieved better accuracy.

The " Ewald II " system worked by the V1 sending out a single pulse at a predetermined time. This was recorded by three separate ground stations which used trilateration of arrival time of the pulse to calculate the position of the V1. Sort of GPS in reverse. A coded pulse sequence then corrected the course of the V1. The pulse sequence was recorded on an endless loop of magnetic tape. A midcourse correction could achieve about 2km accuracy but it depends on what is defined as midcourse ie half way or a few Kim from target. Designed to be difficult to jam.

The V2 missile also had high accuracy systems in development. There was "vollzirkel" or "full circle" which used beam riding during the 70 seconds of V2 boost with doppelter for speed cut off and radar for range cutoff. It was a long time in development but had problems with the 50cm wavelength due to ground plane interference but this was solved when they went to 9cm. There was also the SG-66 inertial guidance package (3 were test launched) which added lateral accelerometers to correct for cross winds. Both vollzirkel and SG-66 were to be able to achieve 500m accuracy though missile tumbling might have made this worse.

There were also two winged versions of the V2 launched known as the A4b. Apart from greater range these offered accuracy as good as 120m.

The system was to be a similar one to that of the midcourse Ewald II of the V1 only using beam riding and a transponder with the SG-66 type inertial navigation system autopilot. A midcourse system is hard to impossible to jam.

However the "Wasser Spiegel" guidance package was likely to be used. This took a giant ultra Lon range German Wassermann early warning radar and laid it on its side to achieve a bearing accuracy of 0.01 degrees. An transponder similar to the IFF transponder gave accurate range.

The missile did a glid reentry and then conduct a high altitude bunt to clear the radar horizon and then a vericle dive to target.

Just as the allies introduced H2S, H2X, Oboe so would have the Germans improved accuracy over time.

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

"Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> writes:

> In the Eunometic version the Germans defeat themselves, no one else
> can. They are a sort of perpetual motion war machine, they go to war,
> then defeat themselves and repeat.

Oh golly, I need to frame this (half-German/Namibian, half-Austrian, grew up in
South Africa).
--
NNTP on Emacs 24.5 from Windows 7

[Eunometic]

Around 1000 V1 were shot down by allied aircraft, that's possibly an over claim by the typical amount of 50%, but 200 allied aircrew lost their lives in anti V1 operations. A cost effective outcome considering a late model V1 cost less than 280 hours to make, including its autopilot.

AAA Shot down more V1 but the cost of 100 rounds of 9.7 inch is 28 pound amunition in weight of material , in including an expensive radar proximity fuse and its battery while the 21 lb cartridge had another 10lb in propellants. The material man hours is more than the cost of the V1.

Furthermore the key problem that made anti V1 AAA reasonably effective is that the allied invasion had restricted the coastal zone over which the V1 had to fly that the missile had to fly over to only a few km in which the radars and guns could be densely concentrated.

The longer ranged and faster variants whether using better pulse jets or the 109-005 turbojet would have forced a dilution of defences and their effectiveness and the faster versions likewise.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and the US ford built copy known as the JB2 loon shows this. It was intended to be used against Japan, some were to be radar guided by the accurate SCR-584 radar.

[Eunometic]

Typo Note. I meant 3.7 inch not 9.7 inch gun which refers to the British Army Ordanance QF 3.7 Inch anti aircraft gun which fired a 28 pound round using a 21 pound cartridge. It was rather a monstrous weapon compared to the US M3 90mm and German 8.8cm FLAK 37 and their much smaller lower velocity 20lb rounds.

Improved, faster and longer ranged V1 with more powerful pulse jets, disposable turbojets and midciurse guidance would have continued to be a cost effective drain on British defenses.

[Eunometic]

South Africa Facts:
1 intentional Homicide rate under ANC Black Majority Rule 28,000/year
2 the same homicide rate under White rule was 800/year.

Murder of Whites in Sth Africa is characterized by extreme and unnecessary cruelty. Old women's breast ironed, purse snatching that involve killing the woman, rape, unsafe taxis.

The communist Jew (((Joe Slovo))) ran the ANC and after their takeover the Billionaire Jew Harry Oppenheimer revealed he had funded it. Like BLM (Black Lives Matter). The ANC was a Jewish created anti White operation.

Around 1/4 of White Afrikaners now live in shanty towns because they are not unemployable since the BEP Black Empowermnt Points system taxes whites so heavily it's too costly to employ them.

The first concentration camps were created by the British in order to conduct the overthrow of Boer Governments at the behest of the British Rothschilds who controlled the British parliament. Cecil Rhodes was their agent. Thousands of white Boer children contracted typhus and hundreds died. Of course the British and their Jewish bankers were more culpable since unlike Bergen Belsen they had intact transport and food supplies.

(NB British took Boer women and Children into concentration camps to control the countryside, imagine if Nazis had of done that in WW2)

In 1963 a group of Jews founded the "African" National Congress. The ANC was founded by Lionel Bernstein, Bob Hepple, Dennis Goldberg, Arthur Goldreich, Hazel Goldreich and James Kantor, with a few African front men -- Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Govan Mbeki (father of Thabo Mbeki), Raymond Mhlaba, and Ahmed Kathrada. In this, the ANC followed the model the Jews established when they founded the NAACP in the United States, with the exception that the ANC was a much more violent and openly communist organization. These Jews and their African National Congress received funding and support from both the Soviet Union and the US CIA.

In particular, Ruth First, the Jewish wife of Jewish Soviet KGB Colonel Joe Slovo, a leader of the South African Communist Party, was primarily responsible for funneling funds to this "African" National Congress.

[bbrought]

On Friday, 14 April 2017 07:15:36 UTC+2, Eunometic wrote:
> Around 1/4 of White Afrikaners now live in shanty towns because they are not unemployable since the BEP Black Empowermnt Points system taxes whites so heavily it's too costly to employ them.

You really should cross-check the facts that you pick up at white supremacy websites before you parrot them here. I'm a white Afrikaner, living in South Africa. You are right to criticize South Africa, because there are a lot wrong with this place, but the sentence above is completely incorrect. By the way, I did my PhD in the United States and spend a lot of my time on projects in Western Europe and the Middle East, so I have had ample opportunity to compare.

1) The claim about 1/4 of us living in shanty towns is complete BS. The percentage of white people in the country living in poverty is only about 1%. That is not 1% of the population - it is 1% of white people, who in turn makes up less than 7% of the total population. You would be very hard pressed to find any of them living in shanty towns. I get to drive past those shanty towns every day and through them occasionally - I have yet to personally see a white person live there. I've heard of a few exceptions through the media, but they are the absolute minority. Land and housing is cheap here, so the majority of white people live in lose-standing houses ranging from relatively humble through to what can only be called mansions.

2) There is no such thing as "BEP Black Empowermnt Points". There is such a thing as "Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment". It has nothing to do with taxes: The way it works is that companies that do not comply are unable to get government contracts or government funding. It is indeed a failed system, because it has had very little impact on improving the lot of the poor black population in South Africa. It has helped make some people in the black middle class very rich, but it has completely failed in its main goal to help lift the poorer blacks living in those shanty towns you talk about out of their impoverished state. At the same time, the black middle class itself has grown quite slowly, as it is mostly the people who are already well-off that benefit from the BBBEE rules. The level of BBBEE on which a company operates is not at all listed on any tax form. It has zero impact on tax. If your company works in an industry where the majority of your clients are international, or if it is small enough (stay below a certain turnover and you automatically get a good BBBEE rating, even if your entire company consist of white people) or if your client base is all private, then you don't even have to think about BBBEE.

3) White Afrikaners are by no means unemployable. Because the vast majority of white people still fall into the highly skilled and semi-skilled groupings, they still provide a big proportion of the better-paid workforce. To give you an example, my company, which works in the aerospace/defence industry, are 75% black owned but about 90% of our engineers are white. We are trying to improve that situation, but the majority of engineers who graduate from the better universities are still white, while those black engineers that do qualify are often head-hunted into other industries that offer bigger salaries, like banking. In fact, I personally teach one of the post graduate subjects at one of our universities part time, simply in the hope to get my hands on more qualified black engineers before someone else gets to them. Unfortunately, black students still make up a small minority in my class - it is completely disproportionate compared to the demographic of the country. The result is that the last 3 engineers hired by our company were all white males. We were able to hire a female black accountant over the same period though, but the company demographic is still badly skewed.

There is more than enough wrong with this country that you don't have to invent your own facts to prove it, like the sentence that I quoted in the beginning.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Arranging the two messages into one.

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

news:941f8703-75e8-44bc...@googlegroups.com...

> Around 1000 V1 were shot down by allied aircraft, that's possibly an over
> claim by the typical amount of 50%, but 200 allied aircrew lost their
> lives in
> anti V1 operations.

So the idea is the V-1, which never returned (unless almost straight away,
well before allied fighters could usually engage), has the same over claim
rate as normal air combat. Despite the obviously much easier ability to
record the kills accurately.

You see it goes like this, allied bombers hitting V-1 launch sites lost men
and
planes. The bombing also helped convince the Germans the Pas-de Calais
area was where the invasion would happen.

The anti V-1 patrols did lose men and aircraft but not 200 KIA. As usual
with Eunometic the facts are ignored or misused. Note by the way the
cost of building and repairing the launch sites it missing, plus the V-1
lost
to allied bombs and the Germans killed in the raids.

Everyone agrees the V-1 campaign was cost effective for the Germans, but
not cost effective enough for Eunometic. So allied fighter patrols become
high casualty rates for much lower returns than reality.

And of course the number of claims for the top 4 V-1 killer aircraft types
comes to over 2,000, but Eunometic will halve that, the halve the half. The
kill lists in Diver Diver Diver by Brian Cull come to 2,314 if I have added
them correctly.

> A cost effective outcome considering a late model V1 cost less than 280
> hours
> to make, including its autopilot.

That seems to be a generous estimate in favour of the Germans, as usual.

> AAA Shot down more V1 but the cost of 100 rounds of 9.7 inch is 28 pound
> amunition in weight of material , in including an expensive radar
> proximity
> fuse and its battery while the 21 lb cartridge had another 10lb in
> propellants.
> The material man hours is more than the cost of the V1.

Fascinating the British produced millions of rounds of 3.7 inch,
yet they are that costly? Want to try again?

Australian costs (the wartime pound multiplied by 2 for dollars)
and it is known the shorter production runs meant higher costs.

$12,000.00 3.7 inch AA gun, ordnance and mounting
$14.31 Cartridge, Q.F. 3.7 inch gun HE shell

> Typo Note. I meant 3.7 inch not 9.7 inch gun which refers to the British
> Army Ordanance QF 3.7 Inch anti aircraft gun which fired a 28 pound round
> using a 21 pound cartridge. It was rather a monstrous weapon compared
> to the US M3 90mm and German 8.8cm FLAK 37 and their much smaller
> lower velocity 20lb rounds.

By the way R V Jones says around 77 rounds with proximity fuses.

And of course being non German something bad has to be said about
the gun, rather than things like greater shell weight in terms of burst
radius and so on.

In 1944 the 88s were requiring around 16,000 rounds per kill, the 128 mm
3,000 rounds per kill. In the first 20 months of the war the heavy guns,
88mm
and above were scoring a kill per every 2,805 rounds, in late 1943 it was
every 4,000 rounds, the wartime average was apparently around 5,000
rounds per kill.

Work that out given the claimed cost of shells.

> Furthermore the key problem that made anti V1 AAA reasonably effective is
> that the allied invasion had restricted the coastal zone over which the V1
> had
> to fly that the missile had to fly over to only a few km in which the
> radars and
> guns could be densely concentrated.

Ah yes, the concentration on London apparently had no effect on the
disposition
of allied defences. Try the invasion cut off the Normandy launch sites, the
transport
plan cut off the south of the Seine ones.

And try and understand Britain had plenty of AA defences thanks to the need
to defend against conventional attacks.

> The longer ranged and faster variants whether using better pulse jets or
> the
> 109-005 turbojet would have forced a dilution of defences and their
> effectiveness
> and the faster versions likewise.

Eunometic will hand the Germans Tomahawks if necessary. Of course when
those better V-1's came along the firing arcs and targets would have been
rather reduced given where the allied armies were. Plus of course there
were more higher performance allied fighters appearing.

> Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and the US ford built copy
> known as the
> JB2 loon shows this.

The USN was doing more than just JB-2 production and it was a
dead end.

> It was intended to be used against Japan, some were to be radar guided by
> the
> accurate SCR-584 radar.

Not used, unlike the TDR-1, which had its problems.

> Improved, faster and longer ranged V1 with more powerful pulse jets,
> disposable
> turbojets and midciurse guidance would have continued to be a cost
> effective drain
> on British defenses.

Think Tomahawk except the Eunometic V-1 has higher performance, and of
course arrives years before any sort of historical timetable.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

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

> news:22453670-cbb9-4d22...@googlegroups.com...

> If cross and headwinds were reasonably well known the V1 as an
> system' had an accuracy of 4km by the time it entered service though
> it was 7km in 1943.

Remember by the way in another post Eunometic blames quality
control and had lots to most of the V-1 fired going slow, but of course
here that lack of quality does not effect the accuracy.

And of course the accuracy figure does not include a range, the
usual Eunometic accuracy figures tend to be for part ranges, not
the distance to real target.

Like everything in the Eunometic views, it either well under or well
over performs versus reality and switches between the two as
the fiction requires.

Simply put Antwerp was on the front line for much of its time in
allied hands in 1944/45 and the subject of a major V weapons
attack, so point blank range target. If the V-1 and V-2 had
anything like the Eunometic accuracy Antwerp would have
been reduced to rubble, not be the biggest single allied port
in Europe.

> A guidance package called Ewald II was testing in 1944/45 that would
> have reduced this to about the same level as high altitude and night
> bombing.

By the way when Eunometic talks about high altitude and night bombing,
it is using radar through total cloud cover, the worse possible result.

And of course the V-1 and V-2 are benerv accuracy and cost compared
to their allied equivalents, the fighter bombers.

And Ewald II was still under test at the end of the war.

> At the time a decision had been taken to mass produce the V1 system in
> 1943 the British Government were conducting a terror campaign of
> carpet bombing against German civilians.

Actually against German cities, in the understanding they could usually
hit them at night and the effects on production from worker's losing
accomodation, shops and so forth and the factories losing power
and water supplies were usually more than bombing the plants,
unless a big fire developed.

By the way note in the Eunometic version no one attacks German
things, only civilians.

The fundamantal reality is Arthur Harris claimed about half of
around 70 German cities were destroyed, they had a pre war
population of around 23 million.

Marin Sorge in the Other Price of Hitler's war claims 410,000
civilians killed and "hundreds of thousands" missing. The 410,000
figure appears to be German civilians killed, then add 23,000 police
and civilians working in the military, 32,000 foreign workers and
PoWs plus 128,000 displaced persons, total 593,000. This total
is from the post war investigations of the German Statistical Office.

So if the allies were after German civilians they did a really bad job,
wrecking half the cities but killing at most 2.6% of the people, or
around 20 times as much destruction has killing.

Do not worry, later on Eunometic will announce how inefficient
the allied bombing campaign was.

> The euphemistic terminology the British used to avoid potential war
> crime allegations and reduce moral objections from within their own
> ranks was " Area Bombardment" (instead of carpet bombing),
> dehousing (instead of civilian targets) and "demoralisation" ( instead of
> terror.)

You see when someone attacks Germany it is automatically a crime
in Eunometic terms. And the RAF was not was avoiding war crime
allegations through labelling. The conduct of all air forces had made it
clear attacking built up areas was allowed.

Noted by the way Hitler's public ideas about what to do to British
cities? And the Luftwaffe bombing results that clearly backed up
the ideas? Sea mines under parachutes.

> In that context 4km accuracy is adaquet as a reprisal. A single V1
> could knock out an entire row of houses or wipe out a theatre or factory
> if it hit.

By the way V-1 does this good, allied bomb does this bad. The RAF
was using the lessons of the Blitz and places like Coventry. And few
factories were one hit fills.

And of course the accuracy figure is repeated in the hope
it is believed.

Now we move onto a Eunometic regular feature, a whole lot of guidance
systems the Germans did not use or were less accurate than the Eunometic
versions. A part list from a few years ago now,

"Viktoria-Hawaii"
"AFAIKT the front runner for the ultimate form of boost phase
electronic guidance was called Hawaii IIb,"
"A more advanced system was "Cerubus" "
"A final system, which may have become the default, was the SG-66"
"It was to be productionised as the SG-72"
"Equiped with the "Wasserspiel" guidence system"

Essentially the number of Eunometic V-1 and V-2 guidance systems
is in danger of exceeding the number of V-1 and V-2 used, once you
factor in the different versions with the same name but usually increasing
performance that have been presented over the years.

> The system worked by having Ewald I beacons on about 6% of V1 launched.
> These would be tracked and triangulated and the data used to correct the
> aim of subsequent launches.

So far Ewald I searches come back to Eunometic. And again note
the troubles when you do not have direct lines to the transmitter.

You see it seems the above is at best an over statement of technology but
above all the Germans could not get the rates of fire heavy enough to make
much use of and previous results. English weather rules.

> The V1 was controlled by a magnetic compass
> in its autopilot and a odometer working of the angemietet propellor on its
> nose.
> This turned a 25:1 gearbox which drove a threaded rod that had a nut that
> engaged switches to first conduct a turn mid flight to avoid allied radar
> back
> tracking and then initiate the dive attack sequence.

Think of the above repeatng without attribution as an attempt at
credibility.

The mechanism of course had the usual mechanical errors.

> Unfortunately the Luftwaffe was assured that German agents in London
> were providing accurate impact data and ignored the Ewald I tracks.

Or to put it another way Ewald was not that good given the
limitations due to V-1 speed, altitude and radio power. the
1940's radios were bulky and heavy.

> In fact the German agents were double agents and gave distorted data
> under the double cross system.

Moving the effective aiming point from the centre of London.

> They must have suspected something because Ewald was installed
> on nearly 50% of V1 at the end.

You see the Germans see through all, Eunometic cannot cope with
them not being that good.

> Had they have had Ar 234 or Me 262 operating photo recon they
> also might have achieved better accuracy.

You see an Me262 did fly over London in July 1944 and brought back
pictures, the first since 1941 to give an idea of how good the defences
were. They showed lots of new damage where the agents said there
was. Damage from post 1941 picture sortie conventional raids but
claimed by the V weapons people.

Do not worry, later on the wonder Me262 and Ar234 will return, flying
over England at will, seeing all.

> The " Ewald II " system worked by the V1 sending out a single pulse
> at a predetermined time.

The more elaborate the Eunometic description the less it was used,
and indeed the less hardware actually existed.

> This was recorded by three separate ground stations which used
> trilateration of arrival time of the pulse to calculate the position of
> the V1.

You see the V-1 is flying fast and low, no direct line of sight to
any German station. Think of the various paths any signal takes
to arrive.

> Sort of GPS in reverse.

Think of the above as an attempt at trying to convince people the
Germans had 21st century accuracy and technology.

> A coded pulse sequence then corrected the course of the V1.
> The pulse sequence was recorded on an endless loop of magnetic tape.

So apparently it was a standard correction, not one based on
any radio signal.

> A midcourse correction could achieve about 2km accuracy but
> it depends on what is defined as midcourse ie half way or a
> few Kim from target. Designed to be difficult to jam.

By half way to London at those altitudes the V-1 was out of direct
line communications, think of the above as designed to sound
impressive. But not to worry, for a device moving at around 10
km a minute Eunometic offers in 1944 close to real time highly
accurate position calculation followed by a real time reply and
control system that can meaningfully alter the course and power
cut off times. Just think waht an allied transmitter could do with
a radio control system awaiting instructions.

And if you think the V-1 guidance systems were more hope than
reality stand by for the V-2 ones.

> The V2 missile also had high accuracy systems in development.
> There was "vollzirkel" or "full circle" which used beam riding during
> the 70 seconds of V2 boost with doppelter for speed cut off and
> radar for range cutoff.

Except last time I looked all the web references were Eunometic.
And the German radars had problems with doppler, the ability to
keep a stable frequency.

> It was a long time in development but had problems with the 50cm
> wavelength due to ground plane interference but this was solved
> when they went to 9cm.

Or in other words H2S.

> There was also the SG-66 inertial guidance package (3 were test
> launched) which added lateral accelerometers to correct for cross
> winds. Both vollzirkel and SG-66 were to be able to achieve 500m
> accuracy though missile tumbling might have made this worse.

You see vapour ware counts, along with ideas that were at best
starting tests.

> There were also two winged versions of the V2 launched known as the A4b.
> Apart from greater range these offered accuracy as good as 120m.

Wings breaking off tend to give worse accuracy. The A4b is a Eunometic
wonder weapon, it never few successfully so it must be near perfect.

> The system was to be a similar one to that of the midcourse Ewald II
> of the V1 only using beam riding and a transponder with the SG-66
> type inertial navigation system autopilot. A midcourse system is
> hard to impossible to jam.

Given they did not exist the final sentence is quite correct. Essentially
imagine code names, imagine imagining accuracy and you have the
E-1 and E-2.

> However the "Wasser Spiegel" guidance package was likely to be
> used. This took a giant ultra Lon range German Wassermann early
> warning radar and laid it on its side to achieve a bearing accuracy
> of 0.01 degrees. An transponder similar to the IFF transponder
> gave accurate range.

Oh this one returns. I see it has been improved from 0.02 in 2011
to 0.01 in 2017, should be ready just in time to use when Brexit
occurrs.

The Wassermann series had an accuracy of 0.25 degrees with 0.75
degree elevation accuracy. Note the Eunometic guidance upgrade.

And surprise, the web searches for the code name keep ending up
with Eunometic.

Then add the obvious, the shoot and scoot V-2 method stops when
you need to add a radar station with big antennas plus the need
to calibrate the radar for the site.

> The missile did a glid reentry and then conduct a high altitude bunt
> to clear the radar horizon and then a vericle dive to target.

The more you manoeuver the more errors you introduce.

> Just as the allies introduced H2S, H2X, Oboe so would have the Germans
> improved accuracy over time.

However years become seconds to make Eunometic technology work..
And by the way check out how good Eunometic thinks the German aircraft
guidance systems were, the E versions are so good there should have
been no reason to develop new ones for the V weapons.

Geoffry Sinclair

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

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

news:3ccde1f9-8e98-4687...@googlegroups.com...

> A good example of the Lockheed P-80A could just exceed 500mph in mid 1946.
> See
> here. Not the date of the tests.

> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-80/P-80.html

Once again I am so accurate none of my text is allowed in the non reply.

lets see now, the engine they had problems with did 510 mph, the
replacement was 15 mph faster at 25,000 feet decreasing to 5 mph
at 35,000 feet, so maybe 20 mph faster at sea level.

Then we move onto the paint job which adds 10 mph at 5,000 feet,
so now we are reaching 540 mph at sea level, still 20 mph lower
than the reference I used.

However I do note the graph of the painted 44-85077 comes to
around 565 mph at sea level, or more than I reported. Not to be
confused with the modified 44-85123.

And the unmodified 44-85123 doing 556 mph at 2,000 feet.

> If you want higher speeds you have to wait till 1947 or 1948 when
> more powerful engines became available, and the nose of the
> P80 is reprofiled along with many other detail refinents or in the
> case of record aircraft compressibility strips added: knife sharp
> leading edge covers made of brass.

No. Actually read past the first page.

> So experimental V1 in Jan/Feb 1945 were faster than experimental P80.

No.

> You can find acconts of factory fresh Me 262 hitting 560mph and
> experimental versions doing 568 though at 20,000ft.

You can find Eunometic imaginings, not reality.

By the way note how Me262 can have higher speeds than official
tests but not P-80 has lower.

> People that worked manufacturing V1 were reasonably well treated and fed,

By the way the above is by Nazi standards. Don't expect Eunometic to
volunteer to join such a work force. By February 1945 only Mittelwerk
was in the V-1 making business. The place that ensured more people
died making the weapons than were killed by them. German industry
was running on around 20% non German workers in mid 1944, few
big places avoided the SS providing "workers" and not the V weapons.

> it was understood they needed to perform, irrespective of whether they
> were German (effectively conscripted) foreign contract labour or impressed
> (forced Labour).

Nazi slave labour goes away in the Eunometic version. Performance
when the SS was around was about avoiding instant execution.

> The quality problems often had more to do with shortages of alloying
> materials etc and the usual problems of training and communication
> of manufacturing procedures and problems.

You see Eunometic thinks working people to death ensures they pick
up the work place skills better and the work force becomes experienced.

> Frankly I don't care about your holohype.

Apparently this is why Eunometic replies, to show indifference. If
Eunometic likes something it is ignored I suppose.

> So go whoreship at your Ann Frank Shrine while Muslim fuck your
> grand daughter up the arse, use them as under age prostitutes run
> over them in trucks as in Nice, Stockholm or Berlin or shoot them in
> theatres as in Bataclan and Africans and Blacks chimp out turning
> western cities into violent crime zones and parasite welfare states.

Anne Frank has a shrine now? The truck attacks ran over under
age sex workers while they were indulging in anal sex?

According to the sexual health people there is plenty of anal sex
in the west, mostly by non Muslims. And the number of people
wanting under age sex is rather large and supplied locally by the
usual criminals.

And given the number of people killed by vehicles the deliberate
ones are still a minority, with most of the "normal" crashes having
a degree of driver error including drugs. The number of women
killed by their partners is also high enough and ongoing. And so
on. Look up how many people are being killed in a given society,
how and why. Sort of like the most dangerous animal in most of
the west is the horse, based on the number of people killed. With
honourable mentions for things like bees.

Strangely enough most of the crime in a society is committed by
the majority groups in that society, similar when it comes to the
need for assistance. And new migrants as a group tend to be
more law abiding than the average citizen.

Eunometic welfare sort of reminded of the old Andy Capp comics,
he never worked, using his wife's money and noted one day during
a major economic down turn how he had gone from layabout to
victim of the system.

> Hitler was right. Allied soldiers fought on the wrong side. Had the
> Germans have won our civilisation would be OK.

Or to put it another way things like this would not exist as dictatorships
do not like free communication.

And given the Nazi creed was power makes right and how that really
works in practice, society as a whole would be much worse off, not
to mention a lot smaller as more groups were targeted when the
promises of paradise failed to happen. The Jews are gone, still lots
of problems, it must be all those (insert convenient group here), time
to kill them.

> Officially Only 110,000 Jews died in Germany proper during WW2,

By the way, the main killing camps were outside Germany. Lots more
opponents of the Nazis died in Germany, along with the handicapped
etc. the Nazis decided did not deserve to live. Note the careful selection
of location.

> the same casualty rates as two big Bomber command carpet
> bombing raids

No, not as much as the total deaths from the four firestorms and by
the way casualty rates are about percentages, the casualty rates
for German Jews in Germany in September 1939 was higher than
the rate at Pforzheim.

The 110,000 is about twice the dead in the series of raids on Stalingrad
as the Germans approached. And of course the Luftwaffe was bombing
lots of civilians, like all air forces. In the end the death toll from air
raids
in the USSR was comparable to the German one.

> and that can be attributed to the breakdown of the German transport
> system in 1945 as food, water and electricity died.

You see the idea is the camps (all of them) ran out of stuff except more
prisoners than the buildings could handle, shipped in from the east, but
the guards, the German Army, the people living around the camps were
well fed and in good health.

Apparently the idea is the allies selectively cut supplies to the camps,
in all weather, showing a precision modern air forces lack.

> The 6 million nonsense keeps shifting further east.

Actually it has stayed at around that figure, then add all the other deaths,
Gipsy, communist, Polish intellectual and so on. The various hate
groups have to keep coming up with new fictions with different figures
as the fictions keep being shown wrong.

> Frankly I don't give a shit about the holohype or Jews.

Hence all the claims about what they do instead of ignoring them.

Still wondering how they are supposed to have started the Japan
China war for a start.

At the Christian festival of death and forgiveness here comes
Eunometic and hatred.

> Stop watching (((Hollywood))). They hate us.

Fascinating, at least we know Eunometic watches little visual
material in English. I presume Rupert hates as well.

Who are us by the way, the refugees pining for the old South Africa,
(the only way Eunometic can get anywhere is if appearance matters
far more than ability), the fiction as history writers? The wonder
German hatred club? And so on.

Ah I get it now, Eunometic is Jewish, the target of Mel Gibson's
outburst. Eunometics start wars, it all fits.

[Diogenes]

I once heard a story about US Army AA gunners vs. V-1s in England. The
VT radio proximity fuze was conceived in Britain but developed in the
US and production started in 1943. Most of the top-secret fuzes went
to the Pacific but some were sent to US Army units on the eastern
coast of England.

In 1944 an American AA unit replaced a British one and proceeded to
run up a string of successful V-1 kills. The local civilians, who had
watched the British gunners bang away with little result, were amazed
to see the recently-arrived Yanks blasting one buzz bomb after another
out of the sky, often with only one or two shells.

They asked the American commander the reason for his men's amazing
success. He of course could not mention the VT fuze, which was top
secret, so he put on his best straight face and told the locals that
all his gunners were backwoods men from the hills of Tennessee who had
learned to shoot a rifle almost before they learned to walk

The villagers accepted the story and one even commented "Now I know
how you Yanks won your revolution."

----
Diogenes

The wars are long, the peace is frail
The madmen come again . . . .

[Eunometic]

You've spent too much time in the USA developing Cuckism and Stockholm syndrome. Too coward to speak the truth anymore. Go along to get along.

The Black Empowerment Points system (it doesn't matter what you call it because the name has changed twice) effects every company because larger companies are compelled to impose them on their small subcontractors. It also effects charities even rape charities (rather a black speciality in Sth Africa and they do target Whites). Suppliers, clients are all effected. Furthermore it is only one of several form of discrimination against Whites.

The claim that only 1% of Whites are effected. Is absurd since the absolute numbers are over 100,000 with Afrikaners disproportionately effected.

The fact that the murder rate has jumped from 800/year to nearly 30,000/year under the ANC Since Whites clearly are a major victim.

http://barelyablog.com/white-shanty-towns-of-south-africa/

Finbarr O’reilly of Reuters reports: “At least 450,000 white South Africans, 10 percent of the total white population, live below the poverty line and 100,000 are struggling just to survive, according to civil organisations and largely white trade union Solidarity. South Africa’s population is about 50 million. …”

For syndication rights to http://BarelyABlog.com or http://IlanaMercer.com, contact il...@ilanamercer.com. Read more @ http://barelyablog.com/white-shanty-towns-of-south-africa/#ixzz4eKSRi6oF

http://knowledgenuts.com/2014/02/27/the-white-shantytowns-of-south-africa/

The murder rate in all Black countries is around 10 the White murder rate. Sth Africa is worse at around 50 time.

[Eunometic]

So the P-80A, an aircraft that never entered service during WW2, only flew unarmed PR flights in Italy to boost Allied moral is your great hope for something to catch the V1. It's speed at sea level was no faster than the advanced versions of the V1,which were testing at 830kmh i.e. 515mph.

Fuck Ann Frank and all the other Holocaust bullshit that money grubbing yids drip like venom into innocent European children from birth.

The holohype didn't happen in Eastern Europe though it's been necessary to transfer the 6 trillion billion Ann Franks there forbaccounting reasons since they clearly didn't die in Germany. Interestingly I now note the Jews are now saying the Poles killed more than the Germans. Maybe the Poles now have money for the Israelies to grab?

Judaism is a religion of resentment and hate always alert for an opportunity to undermine White people.

[Daryl]

> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
>

Rave on, Lunatic. The P-80A was sent to Italy because of the
overflights of the AR234s. Right after they arrived, the overflight
stopped. The P-80As were armed but never fired a shot. There were also
NO ME262 flights over that part of Italy so no combat was possible.
Meanwhile, the allied prop jobs handily took care of the various
Luftwaffe Prop Jobs.

[bbrought]

On Saturday, 15 April 2017 16:53:04 UTC+2, Eunometic wrote:
> You've spent too much time in the USA developing Cuckism and Stockholm syndrome. Too coward to speak the truth anymore. Go along to get along.

I live and work in South Africa. I do some of my projects in collaboration with overseas countries, therefore travel a lot, but here is where I live except for the 5 years studying in the USA, and I've been back for more than a decade. You have not proven that any of the points I responded to in your first post were true or accurate. I never argued your points about the unacceptable murder rate or violent crime rate, so you are wasting your time going down that route. I agree with you on those points. I even stated it, but I suspect you got so excited to respond that you didn't bother reading my post to the end.

I note your attempts at insulting me by calling me a "Coward" and suffering from "Stockholm syndrome". Good luck with that. Africa is a pretty tough place, literally and physically, not from tiny minds trying to insult you, so I'm happy to take a few insults if the venting helps you with your stress problems. Glad to help.

To come back to the claims that I did respond to, and I was quite specific in the sentence that I quoted:
1) White people and more specifically, white Afrikaners, are not unemployable. I gave you specific first hand examples that countered your false claim.
2) 1/4 of white Afrikaners do not live in shanty towns. Very, very few of them live there. Your claim was false and not even vaguely ballpark. See below for more about these so-called "shanty towns", because I suspect I know where you got this ridiculous "fact".
3) There is no such thing as a "Black Empowerment Points system" - I corrected the term that you used, but I see you insist in using your own made-up term. You also clearly don't know how the actual BBBEE system works. I do, because I am involved every year when my company's status is reviewed.
4) There is no tax implication for companies that employ white or white Afrikaner people. Your claim was false. I take the fact that you didn't bother repeating or supporting that claim further as an admission that you wrote it without bothering to check how things worked first.

The Finbarr O'reily report is ridiculous and below what one expects from Reuters. How do I know that? The place he refers to is in the town of my birth and where my parents live - Krugersdorp. I visited the so-called white "shanty town". It is the equivalent of a US redneck trailer park and the people living there would have lived there regardless of the political situation. It is telling that the neighbourhoods surrounding their so-called "shanty town" (as I said, it is actually a trailer park) are mostly inhabited by, wait for it, white Afrikaans middle glass people, who apparently have no problem finding work in the country and maintaining their standard of living.

Your problem is that you read one (very flawed) report and now think you can extrapolate what you read to the situation in the whole country. As I said, there is a lot wrong with the place, and I also supplied you with some great ammo of why the BBBEE system is a complete failure, if you bothered to actually read what I wrote. My issue is with you making up your own facts and with you not even bothering to cross-check your "research".

[Eunometic]

The pre production YP-80A (how many were there in Italy? Two only in fact and another two in the U.K. ) This hardly constitutes a high level of operational readiness especially since the YP-80 had killed and was to go on killing its experienced test pilots for a while ) were there primarily mysterious reasons i.e. They were there with clear orders i.e. for moral boosting PR public relations. (Not PR photo reconaisance)

There is very little information on the speed of the YP-80 in combat worthy condition in 1945 i.e. with armament and exposed gun ports engines rated to 11500rpm. The 1946 tests DON'T reveal a big speed advantage over the Ar 234 and no advantage over the Me 262 (slower in fact at realistic combat altitudes around 20,000ft and even sea level).

I concede that the 1946 tests reveal there was a speed advantage over the Ar 234B by 10% (though not the undercarriagless Ar 234A). Given the limited warning time of a jet moving at 200 meters a second it questionable whether the YP-80A would have gotten an intercept for even the Ar 234B unless very lucky.

Recon Me 262 also had cameras and could carry out much of the same mission as the Ar 234, these were mounted in the gun compartments. The Ar 234A and Ar 234B merely had the advantage of a longer range. (1050 miles instead of 650 miles) and could also exceed 500 mph at sea level and I assert the Me 262 could outrun the P-80A at altitudes used for reconnaissance.

Note: at the time the YP-80A was in Italy the Luftwaffe had received its first Ar 234C at its Rechlin test field which with 4 x BMW 004 engines was much faster than the YP-80A/P-80A).

So if the YP-80C starts getting intercepts on the Ar 234B then the Luftwaffe can switch to the Me 262 or Ar 234C.

[Eunometic]

An odd story because various VT fuses were designed to be screwed into the USN 5" shell, the RN 4.5" shell, the US Amy 90mm shell and the U.K. Army QF 3.7" 28 pounder. Technically The proximity fuse was available for the over powering UK Army gun. The SCR-584 radar was designed to communicate directly to the US Army M9 director as well as the U.K. ARMY predictor.

So in theory UK Army gunners would have had the fuse just not the scr-584 radar. Also because the QF 3.7 gun was such a beast it's massive recoil required concrete foundations to be accurate. It's all about the alignment of the gun and the predictor radar or optics.

The story of he VT fuse is this. The U.K. had experimented with proximity fuses in the 1930s but without success.
In 1939 two things happened to cause them to try again.

1 German bombs used during the BoB used a programmable electronic fuse both to arm the bomb for safety reasons and as a time delay. They used a type of vacuum tube called a "cold cathode tube" that was surviving the bombs impact as well as shock hardened capacitors and shock hardened copper oxide and selenium diodes.
2 A German crypto Jew (Hans Ferdinand Mayer) who worked in scientific publications betrayed German plans for a electronic proximity fuse using the cold cathode tube to trigger of the electrostatic field of a moving aircraft. The letter, which was handed to the British via Norway, was called the "Oslo Letter". The British phycist John Cockcroft (a Nobel laureate for his discovery of the neutron) was put in charge of the resurrected program.

In part because Cockcroft had to develop an an atomic bomb the work was handed over to the Americans who made rapid progress because of their mastery of miniature hearing aid vacuum tubes.

In fact the circuit used in the US fuse came from a design by New Zealand born U.K. Army radar designer W. A. S. Butement.

The U.K. Army in fact continued to develop their fuse. The fuse worked by having a corner reflector in the shell. When the target reflection merged with the shell reflection a double radar pulse triggered the shell. A few tests were made and as the British were relying on US money and lacked the manufacturing resources they adopted the more autonomous US fuse which was further along.

The Germans fired around 1000 successfully test rounds of their fuse in 1943. It was improved and was essentially ready for production in 1944. Goering said mass production for a VT was scheduled in 5 months when Spaatz asked him. The Germans also had a design for an electronic time fuse using the same tech.

There was a program for thermionic shock hardened tubes at Siemens.

[Keith Willshaw]

On 14/04/2017 02:37, Eunometic wrote:
> If cross and headwinds were reasonably well known the V1 as an 'system' had an accuracy of 4km by the time it entered service though it was 7km in 1943. A guidance package called Ewald II was testing in 1944/45 that would have reduced this to about the same level as high altitude and night bombing.
>

Meanwhile back in the real world the V-1 failed to achieve its
objectives. Britain was not knocked out of the war and Antwerp was not
destroyed. IN fact the main problem with using Antwerp had been the
presence of German troops in the Scheldy estuary

> At the time a decision had been taken to mass produce the V1 system in 1943 the British Government were conducting a terror campaign of carpet bombing against German civilians. The euphemistic terminology the British used to avoid potential war crime allegations and reduce moral objections from within their own ranks was " Area Bombardment" (instead of carpet bombing), dehousing (instead of civilian targets) and "demoralisation" ( instead of terror.)
>

A method we were graphically taught by the Luftwaffe at Coventry. Th RAF
were quick learners.

The V-1 could be considered a cost effective weapon in that it forced
the allies to divert resources to defending against it. The V-2 was a
strategic disaster costing the Germans more money and lives to produce
than the damage it did. Neither weapon of course would stop the real
threat to Germany which was a Red Army out for revenge.

[Keith Willshaw]

On 14/04/2017 22:17, Diogenes wrote:

>
> I once heard a story about US Army AA gunners vs. V-1s in England. The
> VT radio proximity fuze was conceived in Britain but developed in the
> US and production started in 1943. Most of the top-secret fuzes went
> to the Pacific but some were sent to US Army units on the eastern
> coast of England.
>

The reason most VT fuzes went to the pacific is very simple, there was
greater need for them there. In the ETO the allies enjoyed air
superiority, some were however rushed to the Meditteranean and used in
the invasion of Italy. Note that the British Pacific Fleet aka Task
Force 57 also had VT fuzes. The RN was in fact given second priority in
the VT supply chain just behind the USN and ahead of the US Army. In the
PTO of course the major threat was the kamikaze and in the Med the
Germans had deployed glide bombs which could be guided to their target.

> In 1944 an American AA unit replaced a British one and proceeded to
> run up a string of successful V-1 kills. The local civilians, who had
> watched the British gunners bang away with little result, were amazed
> to see the recently-arrived Yanks blasting one buzz bomb after another
> out of the sky, often with only one or two shells.

The problem for the British Army was that the initial batch of fuzes
could only be used by the large 3.7" AA guns so the smaller 3" and 40 mm
guns still in service had to use conventional fuzes. The major gun sites
were in a good position to defend against high level manned aircraft but
not well placed for defense against the low level V-1 In 1944 over 1000
gun emplacements had to be established for the very large 3.7" guns
which weighed over 9 tons and had a barrel 15ft 5" long. The first batch
of guns redeployed came from the South Downs to the channel coast in Mid
June 1944.

The final disposition of air defenses for London utilized a combination
of air intecept zones and gun zones. Pursuing a V-1 into one of those
gun zones could be fatal for the allied pilot.

KeithW

[Eunometic]

No orders to intercept Ar 234 are known to have been given. It's all conjecture by historians.

[Daryl]

On 4/16/2017 3:34 AM, Eunometic wrote:
> The pre production YP-80A (how many were there in Italy? Two only in fact and another two in the U.K. ) This hardly constitutes a high level of operational readiness especially since the YP-80 had killed and was to go on killing its experienced test pilots for a while ) were there primarily mysterious reasons i.e. They were there with clear orders i.e. for moral boosting PR public relations. (Not PR photo reconaisance)
>

There were 5 production P-80As in Italy. They were there for one reason
and one reason only; to prevent any AR234 Recon flights. The P-80A was
one hundred percent successful since the Luftwaffe respected the P-80A
enough to cease all over flights.

> There is very little information on the speed of the YP-80 in combat worthy condition in 1945 i.e. with armament and exposed gun ports engines rated to 11500rpm. The 1946 tests DON'T reveal a big speed advantage over the Ar 234 and no advantage over the Me 262 (slower in fact at realistic combat altitudes around 20,000ft and even sea level).
>

No, but there was enough info on the P-80A at 520mph with exposed and
active gun ports.

> I concede that the 1946 tests reveal there was a speed advantage over the Ar 234B by 10% (though not the undercarriagless Ar 234A). Given the limited warning time of a jet moving at 200 meters a second it questionable whether the YP-80A would have gotten an intercept for even the Ar 234B unless very lucky.
>
> Recon Me 262 also had cameras and could carry out much of the same mission as the Ar 234, these were mounted in the gun compartments. The Ar 234A and Ar 234B merely had the advantage of a longer range. (1050 miles instead of 650 miles) and could also exceed 500 mph at sea level and I assert the Me 262 could outrun the P-80A at altitudes used for reconnaissance.
>

The ME262 of any model didn't have the range to do overflights over
southern Italy.

> Note: at the time the YP-80A was in Italy the Luftwaffe had received its first Ar 234C at its Rechlin test field which with 4 x BMW 004 engines was much faster than the YP-80A/P-80A).
>
> So if the YP-80C starts getting intercepts on the Ar 234B then the Luftwaffe can switch to the Me 262 or Ar 234C.

Again, the range of the 262 wasn't enough to do overflights over
southern Italy. And those 5 P-80s were not YPs, they were P-80As with a
top speed of 520 mph.

In order to do the southern Italy Overflights, the AR234 had to reduce
it's speed for range. Since it was already about 80 mph slower, that
makes it an even better target for a P-80A. Then, add to the fact, even
the AR-234C (had it been in service and it wasn't) would still be about
40 mph slower than the P-80A.

Now, add to the fact that a P-80A could run closer to it's maximum speed
to intercept the AR-234B that was in service. It would be about the
same as flying your Condor and being jumped by a P-38 and we all know
how that would come out. About the same speed, range, climb and ceiling
ratios. The 5 P-80As, just being there, stopped ALL overflights by ANY
Luftwaffe Recons.

[Daryl]

On 4/16/2017 7:29 AM, Eunometic wrote:
> No orders to intercept Ar 234 are known to have been given. It's all conjecture by historians.

No orders were needed since the AR234 overflight stopped as soon as the
P-80A arrived in southern Italy.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

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

news:e42d5ef1-6c0f-4912...@googlegroups.com...

> The pre production YP-80A (how many were there in Italy? Two only
> in fact and another two in the U.K. )

Which is infinitely more than advanced V-1 present, divide by zero.

> This hardly constitutes a high level of operational readiness

But remember folks zero V-1 are a major operation.

> especially since the YP-80 had killed and was to go on killing
> its experienced test pilots for a while )

Remember about a third of Me262 were lot to accidents, but lower
losses by the P-80 is declared a Eunometic death trap.

An investigation apparently found 1/3 of Me 262 crashes
due to engine failure and 1/3 due to undercarriage problems.

And go look up how many fatal accidents the P-80 had in say the
1940's. Of the 10 Me262 prototypes 2 had fatal accidents

> were there primarily mysterious reasons i.e. They were there with
> clear orders i.e. for moral boosting PR public relations. (Not PR
> photo reconaisance)

Actually they were there for publicity and evaluation purposes.

> There is very little information on the speed of the YP-80 in
> combat worthy condition in 1945 i.e. with armament and
> exposed gun ports engines rated to 11500rpm.

Mainly because Eunometic deletes them as they do not fit
the fiction.

> The 1946 tests DON'T reveal a big speed advantage over the
> Ar 234

You see American 560 or so mph is about the same as the
German 460 mph in Eunometic maths. But stand by for the
Ar234 speed boost.

> and no advantage over the Me 262 (slower in fact at realistic
> combat altitudes around 20,000ft and even sea level).

Actually faster, the reality is the straight wing meant as the speed
of sound dropped the Me262 with slightly swept wings gained an
advantage. Except the Me262 engines were in trouble above
20,000 feet in terms of reliability.

> I concede that the 1946 tests reveal there was a speed advantage
> over the Ar 234B by 10% (though not the undercarriagless Ar 234A).

Or to put it another way the Ar234B speed is quoted above. the
A model did not make it out of prototype runs.

> Given the limited warning time of a jet moving at 200 meters a
> second it questionable whether the YP-80A would have gotten
> an intercept for even the Ar 234B unless very lucky.

Or to put it another way jets moved much faster and so were obvious
to track, the rat catching system in 1944/45. And of course apparently
the Ar234 are going to spend almost zero time in allied radar range,
in Eunometic sorties anyway.

> Recon Me 262 also had cameras and could carry out much of the
> same mission as the Ar 234, these were mounted in the gun
> compartments. The Ar 234A and Ar 234B merely had the
> advantage of a longer range. (1050 miles instead of 650 miles)
> and could also exceed 500 mph at sea level

The Me262 could go faster and the Ar234A and B versions
were not doing 500 mph at sea level.

Me262A-1a, 525 miles at 20,000 feet, 652 miles at 30,000 feet
on internal fuel.

The Ar234A and B are quoted as maximum range 1,013 miles,
the C version 765 miles, the extra engines and weight.

> and I assert the Me 262 could outrun the P-80A at altitudes
> used for reconnaissance.

Eunometic's assertions are wrong as usual, and of course it
would be fun to push an Me262 to full power, given the resultant
fuel consumption, as usual the US design had a longer range.

780 miles internal fuel, 1,440 with external fuel.

> Note: at the time the YP-80A was in Italy the Luftwaffe had
> received its first Ar 234C at its Rechlin test field which with
> 4 x BMW 004 engines was much faster than the YP-80A/P-80A).

Remember P-80 test in field conditions, Ar234 at test airfield are
the same in Eunometic terms. And the 530 mph speed of the
Ar234C version is generously declared faster than the P-80.
Eunometic gets out and pushes the Ar234 to make it so.

> So if the YP-80C starts getting intercepts on the Ar 234B
> then the Luftwaffe can switch to the Me 262 or Ar 234C.

You see there is always a quality race but Eunometic needs
to handicap to achieve the preferred results. Given the German
jet engine fuel consumption pushing the Me262 or Ar234 to top
speed for a while could run them out of fuel.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Yet again I was so accurate all the words had to be deleted.

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

news:f81a67f5-e9ff-41c1...@googlegroups.com...

> So the P-80A, an aircraft that never entered service during WW2,
> only flew unarmed PR flights in Italy to boost Allied moral is your
> great hope for something to catch the V1.

No actually, the Tempest did it quite well. Then add by 1945 the allies
largely left anti V-1 operations to the AA guns. Quite simple really.

By the way note all the German devices that never entered service
during WWII that Eunometic counts. In any case the P-80A was in
production from February 1945 on.

> It's speed at sea level was no faster than the advanced versions
> of the V1,which were testing at 830kmh i.e. 515mph.

Ah, the Eunometic V-1 boost again, note how top speeds are upped
even from the start of this thread, 485 to 505 mph now 515, it will be
supersonic by the weekend, while the allied fighter speeds are
dropped. Note how the reference Eunometic provided showing
Eunometic wrong has been deleted.

I simply note the V-1 as deployed to the end of the European War
was catchable by the standard allied fighters.

The V-1 which in theory would come if the war lasted into the second
half of 1945 would be matched by the P-80A which began production
in February 1945.

Simple really, the E-1 requires late 1945/early 1946 performance
matched to allied fighter 1944/early 1945 performance.

The E-1 is really that bad.

> Fuck Ann Frank

How long have you had these desires for emaciated under age
Jewish females? Classic psychology would indicate the rage is
from them handing out rejections.

> and all the other Holocaust bullshit that money grubbing yids drip like
> venom into innocent European children from birth.

My but someone is discovering all they have left is the rage over the
world deciding to judge them according to their true worth.

> The holohype didn't happen in Eastern Europe

Actually it largely did, including the non gas executions.

>though it's been necessary to transfer the 6 trillion billion Ann Franks

Interesting given the actual numbers of people alive then and where
Anne Frank lived and died. I gather all bacteria etc. is Jewish and
counted in order to arrive at the above population figure

> there forbaccounting reasons since they clearly didn't die in Germany.

From the very start the world had the evidence the Nazis largely moved
the actual killing outside Germany. It is interesting to note Eunometic
decides where the people were killed makes the program better.

>Interestingly I now note the Jews are now saying the Poles killed more
> than the Germans.

No. They are upset about the collaborators, as are/were the Poles.

> Maybe the Poles now have money for the Israelies to grab?

Or maybe Eunometic keeps fleeing forward, erasing history to write
another version where Eunometic goes from absolute failure to just
total failure.

> Judaism is a religion of resentment and hate always alert for an
> opportunity to undermine White people.

So they undermine themselves given most are fair skinned? All
that living in Europe for centuries.

You see Eunometic undermines Eunometic so much someone
else has to be blamed.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

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

news:ec62edde-7508-4f50...@googlegroups.com...

> An odd story because various VT fuses were designed to be
> screwed into the USN 5" shell, the RN 4.5" shell, the US Amy
> 90mm shell and the U.K. Army QF 3.7" 28 pounder. Technically

No technically about it and it was also the shells being made to
accommodate the fuse as well as the other way around, and note
the RN 5.25 and 4 inch guns.

And at the start of the campaign as has been noted many times
the proximity fuse was not available in England, it arrived as
part of the defensive measures.

> The proximity fuse was available for the over powering UK
> Army gun.

Being a British gun Eunometic must declare it bad.

> The SCR-584 radar was designed to communicate directly to
> the US Army M9 director as well as the U.K. ARMY predictor.

Now there is a shock, the fire control radar could talk to the fire
control.

> So in theory UK Army gunners would have had the fuse just not
> the scr-584 radar.

Actually they ended up with both, but not at the start. Partly as R V
Jones pointed out due to uncertainty about what heights the V-1
was likely to use.

> Also because the QF 3.7 gun was such a beast it's massive recoil
> required concrete foundations to be accurate. It's all about the
> alignment of the gun and the predictor radar or optics.

You see the idea here is the 3.7 inch is somehow unique in the
annals of high velocity guns that it has recoil issues. Not that it
is an issue for all of them.

> The story of he VT fuse is this.

Actually it is wall to wall fiction, the idea is once again the Germans
basically did it all and better. The standard Eunometic pitch.

> The U.K. had experimented with proximity fuses in the 1930s but
> without success.

Concrete proposals from 1939, trials in mid 1940, nothing
before that in the standard histories.

> In 1939 two things happened to cause them to try again.
> 1 German bombs used during the BoB used a programmable
> electronic fuse both to arm the bomb for safety reasons and as
> a time delay.

Yes folks, the Battle of Britain was in 1939 this time to make it fit,
and apparently the handful of bombs dropped on British soil
(versus the ones against ships) had so many duds the British
recovered lots. Real good recommendation for the fuse.

Actually the Germans had sent fuse catalogues pre war. The
trouble was finding them in 1940 when UXB teams were
suddenly needed in large numbers.

> They used a type of vacuum tube called a "cold cathode tube"
> that was surviving the bombs impact as well as shock hardened
> capacitors and shock hardened copper oxide and selenium diodes.

Cold cathodes were around in 1936 for example the new ideas at
Bell labs but of course think Neon lighting, think cold cathode, think
1910 demonstration by Georges Claude in France.

The copper oxide and selenium diodes were around in the 19th
century, valves largely replaced them in the 1920's but they were
revived in the 1930s and during WWII.

> 2 A German crypto Jew (Hans Ferdinand Mayer)

A coded person?

> who worked in scientific publications betrayed German plans

Apparently Germany was so welcoming of Jewish people at the time.

> for a electronic proximity fuse using the cold cathode tube to trigger
> of the electrostatic field of a moving aircraft. The letter, which was
> handed to the British via Norway, was called the "Oslo Letter".
> The British phycist John Cockcroft (a Nobel laureate for his
> discovery of the neutron) was put in charge of the resurrected program.

Or rather W. A. S. Butement. By the way Eunometic likes to announce
how the allied fuse was inferior to the Eunometic German version, with
occasional diversions into it was a copy. We are back at copy stage.

Try Cockcroft was more senior, head of the Air Defence Research and
Development Establishment, so looking at all projects. And it was not
until 1944 he moved full time into nuclear projects, after spending much
of the war on radar development.

Also Cockcroft gained his Nobel Prize post war and it was not for
the discovery of the neutron.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/

for their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei by artificially
accelerated atomic particles.

The prize for the discovery of the Neutron went to James Chadwick
in 1935.

Essentially Eunometic's report on proximity fuses is below the
standard of the Eunometic biography of John Cockcroft.

> In part because Cockcroft had to develop an an atomic bomb the
> work was handed over to the Americans who made rapid progress
> because of their mastery of miniature hearing aid vacuum tubes.

Or rather with Britain now really stretching their economy they handed
over all their latest to the much bigger US electronic industry and the
ideas were combined.

Try this for an explanation,

"One method that was experimented with used radio waves transmitted
from the ground. These radio waves would be reflected by the target and
received by the fuze. Once the radio waves were at a sufficient level, the
fuze would activate causing the shell to explode.

Another method that was more logical and became the accepted means,
was to develop a fuze which was capable of obtaining its own intelligence
and of using it to ignite the shell. When assembled this fuze consisted of
four major parts: A miniature radio transceiver, complete with amplifier
and capacitor; a battery; an explosive train; and the necessary safety
devices. The theory was that the fuze transmitter, alone, would not
produce sufficient signal intensity, to trigger a thyratron tube switch.
However, as the projectile approached a target the radio waves reflected
by the target would gradually increase and come more and more into phase
with the fuze-generated signal. Once the signal level was high enough, the
fuze would know that the shell could do a maximum amount of damage,
and the thyratron tube switch would be triggered releasing the energy in a
charged capacitor and thus igniting the shell."

> In fact the circuit used in the US fuse came from a design by New
> Zealand born U.K. Army radar designer W. A. S. Butement.

Who was part of the system from the start.

> The U.K. Army in fact continued to develop their fuse. The fuse
> worked by having a corner reflector in the shell. When the target
> reflection merged with the shell reflection a double radar pulse
> triggered the shell. A few tests were made

And discovered the real problem was accurately measuring the
ranges to the precision required and that is on a 1 on 1 situation,
not a many on many.

> and as the British were relying on US money and lacked the
> manufacturing resources they adopted the more autonomous
> US fuse which was further along.

Or to put it another way after sending their designs to the US they
reaped the rewards of what the US came up with.

> The Germans fired around 1000 successfully test rounds of their
> fuse in 1943. It was improved and was essentially ready for
> production in 1944.

In case people are wondering Eunometic has simply subtracted
a year from the previous claimed German (Eunometic) dates.

> Goering said mass production for a VT was scheduled in 5 months
> when Spaatz asked him.

You see if the fuse was ready to go in 1944 it should have appeared
in numbers before the end of the war, apparently now it is late 1945.
And I would really like to see the Goering quote. Let alone the real
production schedule and definition of mass production given how
stressed Germany's electronics industry was.

Essentially like others the Germans had ideas about proximity fuses,
but the great problems in terms is small electronics surviving the
major G forces in working order was a major barrier. Think of the
fact a bomb fuse essentially only has to survive for a short time as
impact occurs and a free fall bomb is usually travelling much
slower than a shell.

> The Germans also had a design for an electronic time fuse using
> the same tech.

Remember sketches on dinner napkins count for the Germans.

> There was a program for thermionic shock hardened tubes at Siemens.

Along with lots of such programs around the world as the military tends
to place valves (electronics) in harms way a lot.

[Keith Willshaw]

On 16/04/2017 14:29, Eunometic wrote:
> No orders to intercept Ar 234 are known to have been given. It's all conjecture by historians.
>

No orders were given to intercept ANY type of aircraft - they were all
fair game except of course in the run up to D-Day when the allies WANTED
the German recon aircraft to see all the dummy tanks, army camps and
invasion barges around Dover. The Germans were nicely cooperative and
swallowed it hook line and sinker.

[Eunometic]

The Germans never used Area Bombardment in the BoB or even the so called Blitz. They attacked a specific target but did plan to destroy supporting streets, housing in a wide area around the factory or target (such as docks). Remember housing was often built on to the factory wall. Obviously an attack on Docks needed to destoy the area immediately around the docks such as warehousing, transportation, housing and streets since a dock was a relatively small target that on its own could be repaired.

By contrast Arthur "Bomber" Harris honestly noted that in the Area Bombardment attack on the Medieval Town of Lübeck that no specific target was bombed but that area bombardment of the geometric centre of the town was chosen. Harris was only following orders, and ssentially those of Churchills court Jew Lindemann.

Note also the Germans had an accurate beam riding night bombing system called X-Geräte that could drop bombs in about a 120m square. It even calculated ground speed so could compensate for wind drift from headwinds and even side winds from the amount of crabbing required to keep the first aircraft on beam.

Analysis of the Coventry raids on the British machine tool industry is conjecture as to German tactics since large parts of the town burned. Propaganda said/suggested the Germans burned the magnificent cathedral deliberately, this is clearly the usual demonisation evident in the British propaganda press that dehumanises Germans, Assad, Russians,

No area actual area policy was evident in the leftwaffe orders. With X-Geräte the Luftwaffe had a system about as accurate as Oboe from day 1 of the war. They had no need of Area Bombardment nor could they drop enough tonage.

British fire fighting was hamstrung by non standardised fittings.

Let me take a moment to honour the lives of British fire fighters.

[Keith Willshaw]

On 17/04/2017 03:32, Eunometic wrote:
> The Germans never used Area Bombardment in the BoB or even the so called Blitz. They attacked a specific target but did plan to destroy supporting streets, housing in a wide area around the factory or target (such as docks). Remember housing was often built on to the factory wall. Obviously an attack on Docks needed to destoy the area immediately around the docks such as warehousing, transportation, housing and streets since a dock was a relatively small target that on its own could be repaired.
>

As expected the claim is that its OK for Germany to mount area attacks
on Britain but not the other way around.

>
> By contrast Arthur "Bomber" Harris honestly noted that in the Area Bombardment attack on the Medieval Town of Lübeck that no specific target was bombed but that area bombardment of the geometric centre of the town was chosen. Harris was only following orders, and ssentially those of Churchills court Jew Lindemann.
>

Sir Arthure Harris had indeed promised this response when standing he
said on film "The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish
delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was
going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw and half a hundred
other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They
sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind."

Your anti semitism is alreay well known - no need to advertise it further.

>
> Note also the Germans had an accurate beam riding night bombing system called X-Geräte that could drop bombs in about a 120m square. It even calculated ground speed so could compensate for wind drift from headwinds and even side winds from the amount of crabbing required to keep the first aircraft on beam.
>

For about 3 months, after that the British jammed and spoofed it into
uselesness. The Germans followed up with Y Gerat which was jammed almost
immediately by the disued BBC TV transmitter at Alexandra Palace which
was powerful enough to swamp all the German radio receivers. By 1942
Germany no longer had a usable beam system.

The British Gee system on the other hand was shared with the US who
developed the basic idea into the LORAN system which was in widespread
use into the 1990's

>
> Analysis of the Coventry raids on the British machine tool industry is conjecture as to German tactics since large parts of the town burned. Propaganda said/suggested the Germans burned the magnificent cathedral deliberately, this is clearly the usual demonisation evident in the British propaganda press that dehumanises Germans, Assad, Russians,
>

Make your mind up old boy. Either Germany had accurate bombing which
means the cathedral and old city centre were targetted or they missed
their real targets by miles. We know that the Luftwaffe had accurate
maps of the Coventry area and we know that their main target point was
the mediaeval city centre. The Rolls Royce aero engine factory 2 miles
away was completely untouched as were most of the machine tool
factories. Joseph Goebbels was however VERY pleased with the results and
bragged about it on film promising that such tactics would become the
new normal treatment.

The bomber offensive launched by the Luftwaffe in 1940 was clearly
propaganda driven. They made little or no attempt to bomb strategic
industries on the British east coast which would have been easy to find.
I grew up and still live on Teesside. Finding the large chemical works
and steel industries there would have been a trivial exercise as all
they had to do was fly along the Tees to the big loop and drop their
bombs on the south bank to hit steel plants and the north bank to hit
the chemical works. You cannot really black out blast furnaces and
coking plants and the river is hard to disguise

The authorities expected mass attacks on these targets but NONE came.
The few minor attacks were small scale disruptive attacks on the centre
of Middlesbrough. The only significant damage was to a department store
and the glass roof of the railway station.

On Tyneside and Teesside the shipyards churning out the escort vessels
for the Battle of The Atlantic were ignored and bombing concentrated on
the city centres. No bombs were dropped within miles of the massive
munitions plants around Eaglescliffe and Urlay Nook. All of these
targets were within easy reach of German bomber bases in Norway, Denmark
and Holland.

Letting propagandists pick your targets is not a smart policy. They got
the worst of both worlds convincing the British public that retaliation
was justified while achieving NOTHING to further the war effort.

>
>
> No area actual area policy was evident in the leftwaffe orders. With X-Geräte the Luftwaffe had a system about as accurate as Oboe from day 1 of the war. They had no need of Area Bombardment nor could they drop enough tonage.
>

The weapons carried by the Luftwaffe and the tactics used prove
otherwise. In the attack on Coventry they dropped some SAP bombs which
were good at breaking fire mains along with large numbers of light case
blast bombs to blow the roofs off buildings accompanied by 36 thousand
incendiaries to start fires. To make life really better the following
waves then dropped anti personnel bombs to kill the firefighters and
rescue workers. The SD2 better known as the Butterfly Bomb was one of
their favourite loads. They were in fact early cluster bombs dropped in
canisters holding up to 100 bomblets designed to spread over a large
area. Those with the type 70 fuze were especially good at killing
children who would pick them up to see what these metal butterflies
were. At this point they would explode. Their last victim was in 1981 on
Malta where they were widely disperesed to terrorize the population. A
farmer picked up what he thought was an old tin can which exploded
killing him

During operation Barabarossa the Luftwaffe refined this further
deploying the AB-250 bomblet dispenser could hold 144 of these weapons.
They became increasingly unpopular with German ground and air crews due
to their propensity to go off prematurely.

> British fire fighting was hamstrung by non standardised fittings.
>

Partly true but they were mostly hampered by being bombed and having the
water mains cut. There were problems caused by different sized hydrant
valves but adaptor manifolds were routinely carried.

> Let me take a moment to honour the lives of British fire fighters.
>

Hypocrite.

KeithW

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

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

news:6069d256-fb96-4c29...@googlegroups.com...

> The Germans never used Area Bombardment in the BoB
> or even the so called Blitz.

Is the Blitz so called because it was so ineffective? The Luftwaffe
bomb tonnage dropped on Britain was more than the RAF bomb
tonnage dropped on Germany until late in 1942.

And if you are going to drop sea mines suspended under parachutes
you are area bombing. Or most of your night bombers having no
bombing aids or pathfinders available.

Much of this is cut and paste of the usual refutation.

> They attacked a specific target but did plan to destroy supporting
> streets, housing in a wide area around the factory or target (such as
> docks). Remember housing was often built on to the factory wall.

So deliberately bombing housing is apparently acceptable provided
the Germans do it or the label area bombing is not used.

The German orders for Coventry specifically mention bombing housing.

> Obviously an attack on Docks needed to destoy the area immediately
> around the docks such as warehousing, transportation, housing and
> streets since a dock was a relatively small target that on its own could
> be repaired.

Yes folks, the Germans are allowed to bomb housing because it is
militarily effective over and above bombing specific targets. And the
big ports are big and usually contain a lot of rail and warehouses
within the docks, customs checks you know.

> By contrast Arthur "Bomber" Harris honestly noted that in the Area
> Bombardment attack on the Medieval Town of Lübeck that no
> specific target was bombed but that area bombardment of the
> geometric centre of the town was chosen.

You see when the Germans bombed Coventry they only had one set
of pathfinders, so the target for the most accurate bombers the Germans
had was the centre of the city, to mark it so other bombers could attack
different targets in and around the city. The pathfinder fires attracted
more than just pathfinder bombs, lots of night bombers throughout the
war when unsure decided bombing the biggest fire was the best choice,
one reason dummy sites did so well.

However Eunometic has decided this is acceptable.

> Harris was only following orders, and ssentially those of Churchills
> court Jew Lindemann.

Get the feeling Eunometic is more about religions than history?

> Note also the Germans had an accurate beam riding night bombing
> system called X-Geräte that could drop bombs in about a 120m square.

X Gerat took the decision of bombing out of the crew's hands. They flew
along an approach beam, like the first Knickebein beam. The first cross
beam was at 50 km from target, it was a warning to align with the approach
beam. At 20 km the second beam told the navigator to start a special clock,
one hand of which started rotating. At 5 km the third beam told the
navigator to press the second button on the clock, to stop the first hand
and start the second hand, when the second hand caught up to the first
hand the bombing circuit was complete and the bombs dropped.

A good crew could manage 50% of bombs within 120 yards at 70 miles,
at maximum range of 180 miles the 50% zone was around 350 yards.
Of course the closer to the transmitter the lower the aircraft could fly,
which also helps accuracy.

However Eunometic will generously assume all targets were within 70
miles of the beam stations and all pathfinder crews were good. A simple
check of a map shows how far even London is from France.

R V Jones reports the 26/27 October 1940 raid on Birmingham by
three aircraft. The middle bomb line was 150 to 200 yards from where
the British had calculated the centre of the beam was, the two outriding
bomb lines were a half mile from the beam, either side, leading to
speculation this was deliberate as a target marking method.

Birmingham was attacked on the 19th, 20th and 22nd November, with
some 677 bombers attacking over the three nights.

The US 9th Air force medium bombers managed 60 to 80% of their
bombs within 1,000 feet of the aiming point in the period May 1944 to
March 1945.

The 8th Air force managed, using visual bombing, 30% within 1,000
feet in the period September to December 1944.

> It even calculated ground speed so could compensate for wind drift from
> headwinds and even side winds from the amount of crabbing required to
> keep the first aircraft on beam.

Or to put it more correctly, the aircraft moved to keep itself in the beam,
rather than the ground station sending orders.

> Analysis of the Coventry raids on the British machine tool industry is
> conjecture as to German tactics since large parts of the town burned.

By the way above there is no conjecture for Lübeck. The well known
Luftwaffe orders for Coventry are ignored.

On the Coventry raid the night was clear, almost like daylight. The
next night the clear weather was over Germany, Hamburg reported
its worst raid for the war so far with "heavy damage" to the dockyards.

> Propaganda said/suggested the Germans burned the magnificent
> cathedral deliberately,

Anybody else having trouble laughing given the number of times the
above theme of deliberate bombing appeared in Nazi propaganda?

And we know where the X beams were laid, across the centre of
town, to mark the middle of the target area.

> this is clearly the usual demonisation evident in the British propaganda
> press that dehumanises Germans, Assad, Russians,

Remember folks, the British accuse the Nazis of doing something
wrong and it is propaganda. And given Assad gasses people you
can see why Eunometic likes him and any backers, presumably
Iran and Hezbollah as well.

> No area actual area policy was evident in the leftwaffe orders.

The leftwaffe, the communist Luftwaffe.

I like this, so all those worker houses and the centre of town
were precision area bombed. A hundred acres of the city centre
including the cathedral were gutted.

It actually goes something like this, about 5% of the German attack
force had X-Gerat, acting as pathfinders, the rest relied upon the
pathfinders dropping incendiaries, and their own eyesight on a very
clear moonlight night. Coventry was around 175 miles from the
nearest part of Europe, and further from the actual beam stations.

You know one day Eunometic will read books like Moonlight
Sonata by A W Kurki, or The People's War by A Calder and
note the bombing tore the heart out of the city, but the industry
was on the outskirts of the built up area, one to two miles
from the centre, and it was a moonlight night with very good
visibility.

Or perhaps just the orders for KG4, "In addition to destruction
of industrial targets, it is important to hinder the carrying out of
reconstruction works and the resumption of manufacturing by
wiping out the most densely populated workers' settlements."

> With X-Geräte the Luftwaffe had a system about as accurate as
> Oboe from day 1 of the war.

No, not as good as Oboe.

Also Oboe theoretical accuracy is something like 120 yards at
250 miles, given aircraft measurement accuracy of speed of
around 0.5 mph and distance to 17 yards. Oboe was accurate
enough the measurements had to take into account the change in
the speed of light as atmospheric density changed, as well as,
along with X-Gerat, the way the Earth is not a perfect sphere.

http://www.radarpages.co.uk/mob/navaids/oboe/oboe1.htm

> They had no need of Area Bombardment nor could they drop
> enough tonage.

Yes folks all the housing destroyed in Britain in 1940/41 was
deliberately and accurately bombed.

Clydebank was left with 7 undamaged houses out of 12,000,
with three quarters of the population made homeless. The
count of damaged houses in Plymouth over the series of raids
exceeded the number of houses in the city. And so on.

The term needing is the funniest of them all. Britain did not
need to area bomb under the same rules, there was no need,
just the reality of what bombers did when in numbers or at night
or in bad visibility or in large formations and so on.

> British fire fighting was hamstrung by non standardised fittings.

Not in Coventry as such that night, but in other cities that had
essentially formed by towns growing together. Municipalities
tended to go their own way in things like fire fighting equipment.

Getting fire fighters from nearby cities took time.

> Let me take a moment to honour the lives of British fire fighters.

Presumably by draping their coffins in the Nazi flag and pointing out
their efforts helped stop Eunometic's preference for Hitler to win.

LUEBECK, E.809 - Min. of Pub. Inf. & Propaganda, E.1011 - Gestapo, CD.1272
Factory ARP Luebeck. 28/29 MARCH. Bombs dropped: 300 H.E. (500 lb), 6000
incendiaries, 300 oil bombs (250 lb)

Damage: 25 public buildings either destroyed or damaged, including 2 police
stations, 1 police wireless station and the railway station. 1918 buildings
were completely destroyed, 5928 damaged.

Casualties: 305 dead, 782 injured and 15707 homeless.

Industrial: Among those concerns which suffered severe damage are the
following: Draegerwerke: Damage to the value of RM.5,000,000, - Production
practically stopped. Deutsche Weapons and Munitions Factory: Damage to the
value of RM.1,090,000 – Production at complete standstill. North German
Dornier Works: Damage to the value of RM.4,050,000 – Loss of about 70,000
working hours.

Note these particulars are dated 21st April, 1942.

The North German Brush Industry Hess & Olie: The main building was burnt
out. Paul Schulz & Co.: The main production shop was destroyed by fire and
the spare part and small machine room completely desolated by H.E. and fire.
Draegerwerke: A metal store containing a large stock of metal rods and bars,
was a total loss as a result of a direct hit by H.E. and an ensuing fire.
The Foundry was also demolished by an oil bomb and H.E. The boiler- house
was severely damaged and pipes leading from it severed. The building where
the packing cases were made was destroyed by an oil bomb, likewise the
testing plant in the next building. The joiners shop was burnt out. Also
the packing room for filters which was filled with filters ready for
packing.

LUEBECK, CD.1272 Factory ARP Luebeck. 16 July. Considerable damage was
caused by H.E. to the Blast Furnace Works and the North West German Power
station. A series of photographs shows the damage wrought. At least 17 H.E.’s
fell on the two plants, destroying in the Blast Furnace Works the Tar
Distillation Plant. One direct hit damaged a pitch container causing the
contents to run out. Splinters from this same bomb also caused damage to a
gasometer. At the Power Station a direct hit was scored on the boiler
house. A transformer station was also completely destroyed.

Ignore Lübeck was a port with ship building and had a chemical
industry. The pre war population was about 130,000.

Bomber Command War Diaries:

Raid of 28/29 March 1942, 400 tons of bombs, about two thirds
incendiary, aimed at the centre of the old city, narrow streets, half
timbered construction. Either 312 or 320 people killed, 1,425
buildings destroyed, 1,976 seriously damaged, 8,411 lightly
damaged, about two thirds the city's buildings. In the destroyed
or seriously damaged category were some outstanding cultural
structures and 256 industrial or commercial ones. The Draeger
work building, making oxygen equipment for U-boats was one
of the destroyed.

Of the destroyed or badly damaged buildings 3,070 were
residential, 70 public, 256 industrial/commercial, 5 agricultural.
Total damage 200 million marks or 20 million pounds.

In Bomber Command's terms 130 acres of built up area, 30%
of the city area, destroyed.

To pre-empt the usual no war industry line the port slip ways,
supposed only building trawlers,

http://www.uboat.net/technical/shipyards/flender.htm

Seems some of the "trawlers" went underwater to catch their "fish".
Around 41 U-boats built in Lübeck 1937 to 1944.

Then we can add the 717 ton Minesweepers M.20 to M.24, no
doubt trawling for fishy mines.

An agreement to use the port for Red Cross supplies spared it
any further large raids.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Keith Willshaw" <keithw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:od2h92$553$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 17/04/2017 03:32, Eunometic wrote:

> ..............

> For about 3 months, after that the British jammed and spoofed it
> into uselesness. The Germans followed up with Y Gerat which was
> jammed almost immediately by the disued BBC TV transmitter at
> Alexandra Palace which was powerful enough to swamp all the German
> radio receivers. By 1942 Germany no longer had a usable beam system.

> .....
> KeithW

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Beams
"Countermeasure" describes how R V Jones cleverly used the BBC
transmitter to convinced the enemy their own equipment was defective.

"The Luftwaffe, finally realising that the British had been deploying
countermeasures from the very first day that the system was used
operationally, completely lost faith in electronic navigation aids (as
the British had predicted) and did not deploy any further system
against Great Britain."
-jsw