D Day 1944. One for the Yanks.

[Weatherlawyer]

I've been led to believe it was the British met Office that scored
with the hole in the weather allowing the Normady Landings.

According to this:
>
http://weathersage.com/texts/boesen/chapter7.htm
It was everything but.

The reason for Krick and Hoizman's stubborn optimism was a "wedge
development" or high-pressure belt over the Atlantic which they
expected to reach the British Isles on June 4, pushing a cold front
ahead of it into France and bringing clearing weather in its wake. The
wedge had not yet shown up on the daily weather charts, however, so
Krick and Holzman decided it was useless to argue and accepted the
majority opinion.

Also, this brought a fleeting measure of peace to Colonel Yates down
at Portsmouth, who had phoned Krick and Holzman that it would make his
job a lot easier if they would agree with the others. Yates didn't say
so, but the strain had become too much for Group-Captain Stagg, who
had collapsed, leaving Yates to carry the whole load. Nor did it help
Yates that the Russians were sending Eisenhower cables advising him
not to go.

But at the first conference on June 4, at three o'clock in the
morning, with the Admiralty now saying that the outlook was even
blacker than they at first thought, Krick and Holzman fought for their
views.

"Colonel Krick presented in great detail the Widewing viewpoint in
order that the reasons for our optimistic position would be made
perfectly clear to the other members of the conference," Hoizman wrote
in his notes of the meeting. "Our final statement was that we were in
fair agreement with the wind forecast for Sunday (the day now begun),
but not the cloud forecast for that day, and that beyond Sunday we had
no confidence whatever in the conference forecast (which was for all
bad weather)."

But it was no use. The conference forecast prevailed, and the invasion
of Normandy was canceled for both Sunday and Monday, June 4 and June
5.

So matters stood through the day until the five o'clock discussion in
the afternoon. Suddenly the British wavered. The Admiralty now said it
favored Krick and Holzman's picture over that of the Air Ministry,
which went on seeing the worst, including fog on June 6 over the
beaches in Normandy.

When all again talked things over, at three o'clock in the morning of
June 5, Dr. Petterssen began to retreat from his position, indicating
he was no longer sure of his pessimistic stand. The Admiralty, which
had wavered the day before, wavered some more, saying that
"developments seemed to be going somewhat better than they had hoped
for." Krick and Holzman "continued to reiterate their optimistic
picture."

>>>
With a hold on Europe solidly established, General Eisenhower
removed the British from all forecasting functions and assigned this
responsibility exclusively to the forecasters of the United States
Strategic Air Forces.
<<<

He elevated Krick to chief of his weather information section, in due
course stationed at his forward headquarters at Rheims, forecasting
for all operations in the re-conquest of the continent.

[Derek Lyons]

Weatherlawyer <weathe...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I've been led to believe it was the British met Office that scored
>with the hole in the weather allowing the Normady Landings.
>
>According to this:
>>
>http://weathersage.com/texts/boesen/chapter7.htm
>It was everything but.

An unsourced book dedicated to proving that Dr Krick was the Einstein
of WWII weather forecasting... that's a source I'd take with a couple
of cubic meters of salt.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

[Weatherlawyer]

On Aug 6, 10:31 pm, fairwa...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:

> Weatherlawyer <weatherlaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I've been led to believe it was the British met Office that scored
> >with the hole in the weather allowing the Normady Landings.
>
> >According to this:
>
> >http://weathersage.com/texts/boesen/chapter7.htm
> >It was everything but.
>
> An unsourced book dedicated to proving that Dr Krick was the Einstein
> of WWII weather forecasting...  that's a source I'd take with a couple
> of cubic meters of salt.

And that remark is precisely the sort of remark that the US Weather
Bureau would come up with.

His method is what is widely accepted practice these days except for
the whole earth thing.

The alternative is mesoscale watching with ever larger computers
pretending the operators know exactly what heat and pressure values
are going to occur over the next few days at 500 DAM.

But you are right it could be a fake and there is no such thing as
official FUD. Never has been and the Met Office website has improved
no end since the Climate controllers took it over.

Did you know that Bill Gates' charity has nothing to do with taxes,
Apple only exists to help Chinamen live happy healthy lives and Pearl
Harbour was really just a way for the US military to get rid of its
old scrappers without the tax payers getting annoyed at silly 1920's
planning?

[Derek Lyons]

Weatherlawyer <weathe...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Aug 6, 10:31�pm, fairwa...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:
>> Weatherlawyer <weatherlaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >I've been led to believe it was the British met Office that scored
>> >with the hole in the weather allowing the Normady Landings.
>>
>> >According to this:
>>
>> >http://weathersage.com/texts/boesen/chapter7.htm
>> >It was everything but.
>>
>> An unsourced book dedicated to proving that Dr Krick was the Einstein
>> of WWII weather forecasting... �that's a source I'd take with a couple
>> of cubic meters of salt.
>
>And that remark is precisely the sort of remark that the US Weather
>Bureau would come up with.

Since I'm not part of the US Weather Bureau, I fail to see your point.

>His method is what is widely accepted practice these days except for
>the whole earth thing.

Which has precisely no bearing on his activities then.

>The alternative is mesoscale watching with ever larger computers
>pretending the operators know exactly what heat and pressure values
>are going to occur over the next few days at 500 DAM.
>
>But you are right it could be a fake and there is no such thing as
>official FUD. Never has been and the Met Office website has improved
>no end since the Climate controllers took it over.
>
>Did you know that Bill Gates' charity has nothing to do with taxes,
>Apple only exists to help Chinamen live happy healthy lives and Pearl
>Harbour was really just a way for the US military to get rid of its
>old scrappers without the tax payers getting annoyed at silly 1920's
>planning?

I see. You're utterly full of shit.

Have a nice life.

[Keith W]

For the record Group Captain James Stagg of the Air Ministry was
awarded the US Legion of Merit on the recommendation of Dwight
Eisenhower for his services in the run up to D-Day. Hardly likely
had he failed in his duty.

In fact it seems to have been a Norwegian called Sverre Petterssen
who produced the critical analysis. In fact Krick maintained as
late as 1984 that a successful invasion could have been launched
on June 5th - a time when winds in the channel were blowing force six

Since Landing craft would be swamped in a force four following
this advice would have brought disaster

http://www.meteohistory.org/2004proceedings1.1/pdfs/08fleming.pdf

Keith

[a425couple]

"Weatherlawyer" <weathe...@gmail.com> wrote in message...
> D Day 1944. ---- with the hole in the weather allowing the Normady

> Landings.
> According to this:
> http://weathersage.com/texts/boesen/chapter7.htm

> Nor did it help Yates that the Russians were sending Eisenhower
> cables advising him not to go.

It does say the above two lines, but nothing more.
Can anyone add more, support, or clarify?

[Weatherlawyer]

On Aug 7, 8:47 am, "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> For the record Group Captain James Stagg of the Air Ministry was
> awarded the US Legion of Merit on the recommendation of Dwight
> Eisenhower for his services in the run up to D-Day. Hardly likely
> had he failed in his duty.
>
> In fact it seems to have been a Norwegian called Sverre Petterssen
> who produced the critical analysis.  In fact Krick maintained as
> late as 1984 that a successful invasion could have been launched
> on June 5th - a time when winds in the channel were blowing force six
>
> Since Landing craft would be swamped in a force four following
> this advice would have brought disaster
>
> http://www.meteohistory.org/2004proceedings1.1/pdfs/08fleming.pdf

Thanks Keith. I was hoping that someone on one of these groups would
have access to the research. It's a pity that sci.military isn't what
it was. I think the swiftboating ruined it forever. Another George
Dumbarse Bush odour merit.

I've downloaded it and will read it later.

It is a pity that the book I was quoting doesn't have an addendum
referenced.

Can anyone tell me if in fact he was the pioneer of modern meteorology
or did the two government agencies use the methods described in the
book without any urging from Crick or CalTech?

For instance who actually gave Paton the go ahead for the North
African landing. (Bearing in mind the US Weather Bureau of the time
was in charge of all the final records.)

Is there another source that is completely free of their ordure?
I would have thought some on the other group might know of an access
route to get at the truth.

Bit of a stretch that though, since there are only two or three who I
would deal with on there shields down and gloves off. And I can't
remember if any are USAnians.

It's not that they are nasty, I'm quit at home with nasty. It's just
that they can't think and are nasty.

(Is it USAnians or USAnies?)

On Aug 7, 1:34 pm, "a425couple" <a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > http://weathersage.com/texts/boesen/chapter7.htm

> > Nor did it help Yates that the Russians were sending Eisenhower
> > cables advising him not to go.

It does say the above two lines, but nothing more.
Can anyone add more, support, or clarify?

The Russians badly needed a Western Front so they would not have sent
those weather reports had they not been convinced.

The British Met Office warned that there were going to be swells too
high for the landings as Keith said. But without clarifying what
reconnaissance reported free of the mendicant indecencies if any...

Sadly I doubt any records survived outside the war department and they
would have been got at by the cadre of Colonels trying to smash the
upstart Lieutenant.

According to the account his commanding officer did a Sobel on him and
Hap Arnold just scribbled the bad report out and wrote excellent
service over the top.

That should be on record somewhere unless it did a George Bush
Military Service History. (In which case where would the author have
got the story?)

It sounds like I am bashing the US but wouldn't the people in charge
of it now be pleased to set the matter straight?

Who did come up with the idea of matching past weather records?

To be honest I can't see that it wasn't done in the time of FitzRoy.
It was the first thing I tried to do when the only access to weather
records I had was old newspapers in town libraries and the Annual
reports in Whitaker's Almanac.

But there was an amazing hiatus after FitzRoy died; when the experts
couldn't put a decent forecast together to save their lives.

Are scientists that tied to dogma that they can't think outside the
box?
No wonder we have super computers and no decent 6 day forecasts!

[Weatherlawyer]

"The Japs have gone on radio silence up in the North Pacific," an
Army intelligence officer remarked to Krick one day in late May, 1942.
"What do you make of that?"

Krick studied the weather maps for the region and saw that there was a
cold front between the place where the enemy had been known to be, and
the Aleutian Islands, curving south-westward in a long arc from the
Alaskan mainland.

He knew that US planes, flying reconnaissance out of Alaska, were
unable to penetrate this cold front without icing up and therefore
wouldn't know what the enemy was up to.

They could be planning to attack the Aleutians," Krick said.
He studied the maps further, then he stuck his forefinger on the
calendar and said:
"This is the day they'll attack Dutch Harbor- June 3."

The intelligence officer reported the conversation to his chief,
General George Strong, who rushed Krick before General George C.
Marshall, Army Chief of Staff. Marshall immediately ordered an airlift
of troops and supplies to Alaska, so that when the Japanese attacked,
hitting Dutch Harbour with four bombers and about fifteen fighters on
the very day Krick had predicted, the Americans were ready.

The raid "was not a surprise and the station was pre- pared to meet
it," reported Rear Admiral C. S. Freeman, commandant of the 13th Naval
District, as quoted by the United Press. Afterward, Army staff
intelligence asked and received verification of the accuracy of
Krick's Alaska forecast.

Weather Bureau Chief Reichelderfer, knowing nothing about that
forecast, meantime kept after him. In a long memorandum to Krick the
day after the forecast was verified, Reichelderfer repeated that he
considered long-range forecasting humbug, no better than "those to be
expected by random process, that is, without skill.

" Indeed" Reichelderfer wrote, "None of the long-range methods now
under development by the Joint Weather Central [a grouping of Army,
Navy, and Weather Bureau forecasters under the Weather Bureau's roof,
all making their own forecasts] is as yet appreciably superior to pure
guesswork for periods beyond three or four days."

The fact that there had been acceptance of Krick's work, Reichelderfer
went on, presumably having in mind Krick's paying clients, wasn't
enough to prove anything.

"For example [astrologers] enjoy a popular reputation for far-
sightedness, yet their predictions have been proven valueless."

General Arnold, much impressed by Krick's Alaska forecast, wanted him
in Air Force uniform. He wrote to Admiral Ernest King, commander in
chief of the Navy, asking for Lieutenant Krick's release.

In no time Krick was out of the Navy and in the Air Force but only
with the rank of major, inferior to the colonels (his former students)
he would be working with.

***

Chapter ends:
Millikan's message bore the name of Paul S. Epstein in addition to his
own.
Epstein had been characterized by President Karl Compton of MIT as
"the dean of American theoretical physicists."
Millikan wrote two letters to General Arnold, including the message
from the Colonels. In praise of Krick he wrote:

"A number of us who had a chance to observe the work of Dr. Krick for
the past ten years . . . have been impressed by the sanity and
intelligence of his approach to meteorological problems as we saw
them . . . We had also become pretty thoroughly convinced that he was
introducing some new methods which had a good deal of promise for the
ultimate development of very valuable long-range forecasts . . ."

In his second letter to Arnold, Millikan included this striking
comment by Epstein:

"Before Krick's theory of weather types and sequences was advanced,
the problem of long-range forecasting was so vague and diffuse as to
be altogether hopeless. But with the help of Krick's theory (which I,
personally, regard not as a theory but as an established fact) the
problem can be given a precise mathematical formulation."
>
http://weathersage.com/texts/boesen/chapter4.htm

I don't know where to get the reanalysis for that part of the world
from those days. I have got WetterZentrale's upper air charts (500
millibars) for the North Atlantic for June 1944.

It is interesting to note that in the PDF Keith gave a link to one of
his adversaries ascribed the day before the landing as too dangerous.
It doesn't appear to be, as far as the chart goes, granted it is only
upper atmosphere.

What was required was light, upper and surface level stability and bad
weather to the north and east.

Also required were more days to follow the initial landings so that
the supplies could get through IIRC the book said 400 tons per legion
(per week?)

How the Met Office and the official US weather bods camew up with that
isn't mentioned. Just the disp[araging remark about the day too soon -
which was not true as far as I can tell (which isn't reliable enough
to go to court with I admit.)

I am pretty certain that WetterZentrale also holds the SSPs for the
relevant dates but I forget how to find them.

I don't think Patton's region will be covered by the North Atlantic
Charts either but here are the dates for that:

For the landings along the coast of French Morocco in North Africa,
General Patton called for at least three days with sea swells below
eight feet.

The weather where the boats were putting in should be clear so that
the Air Force could support the landings, dropping men and supplies.
Once the landings were committed, there could be no turning back.

At the same time, to the east and north, where enemy aircraft would
strike from, it would be well to have cloudiness that screened the
landings from air attack until they were well under way and Allied
airfields were established.

It was a demanding order.

Krick talked things over with Professor H. H. Sverdrup, Director of
the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at La Jolla, California, an
expert on Pacific Sea swell prediction.

Combining Professor Sverdrup's expertise in sea behavior with his own
in long-range weather prediction, Krick, on October 17, prepared a
chart for transmission to General Patton aboard the flagship of
Operation...
[text missing]
... occur between November 7 and November 14.

On the seventh, the sea would be at a peak of fifteen feet, extremely
high for that time of year, but it would be falling, reaching five
feet or less by the fourteenth of the month.

As it turned out, the peak came on November 1, two days early.
If the time of the peak had been two days late instead, the landings
could have been a disaster. But they were successfully carried out
beginning on November 8.

Following the success of the sea and swell forecasts for Operation
Torch, a number of Air Force weathermen were trained in the method
used.

They were assigned to perform this function for all amphibious
landings for the rest of the war. Two such specialists were stationed
in the British Admiralty to handle the task for the Allies during the
invasion of Normandy.

So far as Colonel Zimmerman was concerned, however, Krick was a total
loss.

As General Patton's tanks pushed farther into Africa and started the
enemy on his long retreat, Zimmerman characterized his performance as
"unsatisfactory" in the four efficiency report categories of handling
officers and men, performance of field duties, administrative and
executive duties and leadership.

In the space provided for "a brief general estimate of this officer
in your own words," Zimmerman wrote, among other things, that Krick:

"...has repeatedly disregarded instructions to deal through
established military channels. In my judgement he is also disloyal and
unreliable.

In comparing this officer with all other officers of his grade and
component known to me, I would place him among the lower third."

Had these deficiencies been brought to Krick's attention before this
report was written?

"Yes," Zimmerman wrote.

Had there been any improvement?

"None."

General Arnold dissented with Zimmerman.
Glancing at the report, he quickly drew a heavy line through the
middle of the sheet and boldly wrote, "EXCELLENT-SUPERIOR!" and signed
his name
>
http://weathersage.com/texts/boesen/chapter5.htm

I have placed the relevant charts on my blog. I will also create
animations of them too, when I have settled into this new OS (Zorin is
slightly superior to Ubuntu 11:04 but The Gimp is not behaving like it
should.)
>
http://my.opera.com/Weatherlawyer/albums/show.dml?id=12397352
>
http://my.opera.com/Weatherlawyer/albums/show.dml?id=12397302

[Weatherlawyer]

On Aug 7, 8:47 am, "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>

> For the record Group Captain James Stagg of the Air Ministry was
> awarded the US Legion of Merit on the recommendation of Dwight
> Eisenhower for his services in the run up to D-Day. Hardly likely
> had he failed in his duty.
>
> In fact it seems to have been a Norwegian called Sverre Petterssen
> who produced the critical analysis.  In fact Krick maintained as
> late as 1984 that a successful invasion could have been launched
> on June 5th - a time when winds in the channel were blowing force six
>
> Since Landing craft would be swamped in a force four following

> this advice would have brought disaster.

Are you sure about that? A force 4 is pretty good yachting weather
where I come from.

They were put on the ships for the earlier date, though and for some -
because of the incompetence/treason of the US Weather Bureau and in a
slightly smaller part, the Met Office, it was a disaster.

My dad was a sailor on one of the liners used for the invasion and I
can clearly remember him recalling the appalling state of the troops
who had been on board long enough to get totalled by sea-sickness.

A lot of the cause of the flotsam that day was sick troops being
landed by cowards. I dare say there are a few more people besides the
weather men who want to leave all that forgotten.

But as far as I am concerned none of the clots in power from Churchill
down was worthy of the kids they killed. Not even nearly.

I wouldn't have buried him in Westminster Abbey, I would have buried
him in shit. In light of what happened to Eastern Europe immediately
after, I have no hesitation in believing the very worst and working
backwards from there; rather than doing the usual, the opposite:

Adulate the 2@s and hide the truth for a lifetime.
After all, what was the need for such secrecy when we won?
Doesn't make any sense at all.

It's not as if there were no survivors. It was nearly all common
knowledge.

[Keith W]

Patton was not of course overall commander of the Operation Torch
landings

> Is there another source that is completely free of their ordure?
> I would have thought some on the other group might know of an access
> route to get at the truth.
>

I think the whole nationalistic thing is nonsense. The reality is that
coming
up with reliable forecasts involved THOUSANDS of men drawn mainly
from the USA, Canada and the USA. The raw data came from fixed
weather stations on land, weather ships at sea and weather reconnaissance
aircraft flying patrols over the Arctic and Atlantic oceans.

A large team of analysts beavered away correlating this data and
trying to make sense of it. I think Group Captain Stagg had the
best policy was to name no names and give the credit to the team.

> Bit of a stretch that though, since there are only two or three who I
> would deal with on there shields down and gloves off. And I can't
> remember if any are USAnians.
>
> It's not that they are nasty, I'm quit at home with nasty. It's just
> that they can't think and are nasty.
>
> (Is it USAnians or USAnies?)
>
> On Aug 7, 1:34 pm, "a425couple" <a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://weathersage.com/texts/boesen/chapter7.htm
>>> Nor did it help Yates that the Russians were sending Eisenhower
>>> cables advising him not to go.
>
> It does say the above two lines, but nothing more.
> Can anyone add more, support, or clarify?
>
> The Russians badly needed a Western Front so they would not have sent
> those weather reports had they not been convinced.
>
> The British Met Office warned that there were going to be swells too
> high for the landings as Keith said. But without clarifying what
> reconnaissance reported free of the mendicant indecencies if any...
>

We know that there were actually miniature submarines lurking offshore
of the Normandy beaches from June 2nd onwards and coastal command
light vessels were also carrying out recon so there was a good degree
of confidence on actual conditions.

Keith

[Keith W]

Weatherlawyer wrote:
> On Aug 7, 8:47 am, "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> For the record Group Captain James Stagg of the Air Ministry was
>> awarded the US Legion of Merit on the recommendation of Dwight
>> Eisenhower for his services in the run up to D-Day. Hardly likely
>> had he failed in his duty.
>>
>> In fact it seems to have been a Norwegian called Sverre Petterssen
>> who produced the critical analysis. In fact Krick maintained as
>> late as 1984 that a successful invasion could have been launched
>> on June 5th - a time when winds in the channel were blowing force six
>>
>> Since Landing craft would be swamped in a force four following
>> this advice would have brought disaster.
>
> Are you sure about that? A force 4 is pretty good yachting weather
> where I come from.
>

Yes.

A landing craft is flat bottomed and shallow draft, You really dont want
to be operating off a beach in force 6 conditions or transferring troops
into them from the larger ships in a high sea state.

As it was almost all the Duplex Drive Shermans launched off Omaha beach
foundered and many Landing craft landed miles from their intended point.

> They were put on the ships for the earlier date, though and for some -
> because of the incompetence/treason of the US Weather Bureau and in a
> slightly smaller part, the Met Office, it was a disaster.
>

To attribute this to incompetence is grossly unfair. This was pne of the
worst summer storms to hit the channel for decades. Deferring the
invasion beyond the 6th would have given the Germans another
month to prepare their defences and greatly increased the chance
that the real target for the invasion would be discovered.

Keith

[Col]

Weatherlawyer wrote:
> On Aug 7, 8:47 am, "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> For the record Group Captain James Stagg of the Air Ministry was
>> awarded the US Legion of Merit on the recommendation of Dwight
>> Eisenhower for his services in the run up to D-Day. Hardly likely
>> had he failed in his duty.
>>
>> In fact it seems to have been a Norwegian called Sverre Petterssen
>> who produced the critical analysis. In fact Krick maintained as
>> late as 1984 that a successful invasion could have been launched
>> on June 5th - a time when winds in the channel were blowing force six
>>
>> Since Landing craft would be swamped in a force four following
>> this advice would have brought disaster.
>
> Are you sure about that? A force 4 is pretty good yachting weather
> where I come from.
>

What, Stoke-on-Trent?
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

[tim]

On 06/08/2012 19:39, Weatherlawyer wrote:
> I've been led to believe it was the British met Office that scored
> with the hole in the weather allowing the Normady Landings.
>

*yawn*

[Joe Egginton]

Waters don't get up much on Trentham gardens lake even in a Force 8 ;-)

[Jim H.]

On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 3:05:25 PM UTC-4, Keith W wrote:
.....

> A landing craft is flat bottomed and shallow draft, You really dont want
>
> to be operating off a beach in force 6 conditions or transferring troops
>
> into them from the larger ships in a high sea state.

> ....
> Keith

Not to mention having slab sides and neat-flat bow & stern, and not being overly powerful... whole worlds apart from any 'yacht' in sea-handling and dynamics. I've never seen an LCVP, but I've spent some hours watching Mike 6's & 8's, and pusher boats made by shortening Mike 6's.

I was once a qualified USN small boat cox'n, tho' I spend more time as stern-hook & engineer. I've dealt with the problems of coming alongside & boarding personnel in rough seas, tho' from accommodation ladder platforms, not cargo nets or wearing combat packs. I don't even want to think about bringing an old Elsie-Veep alongside, or loading burdened troops from a net, in rough seas.

Jim H.

[Weatherlawyer]

On Aug 7, 7:52 pm, "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Patton was not of course overall commander of the Operation Torch
> landings

I don't know who was in overall charge, it was some time before the
politicians in the USA started fecking things up soi he had a fairly
large responsibility.

He was the one who was delegated to finding out what the weather was
like or if you look at his MO he was the one who knew what he was
doing.

When he was asked to sort out Mongomerey's fuck up and rescue the
allies from the Ardennes fiasco he wrapped up his battles and was
ready to go with an action plan to that dick-head Eisenhouer's
surprise and distaste.

His tactics until then had the Germans totally screwed and his body
count was easily better than any other general in the Allied
offensives of WW 2 by an order of magnitude.

The point being he wanted the best and got organised accordingly.

> I think the whole nationalistic thing is nonsense. The reality is that
> coming
> up with reliable forecasts involved THOUSANDS of men drawn mainly
> from the USA, Canada and the USA.

And I think you missed the point.
Now back off.

[Weatherlawyer]

On Aug 7, 9:22 pm, tim <t...@nospam.osvif.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> *yawn*

Is that where your brain went?
I suppose no-one noticed.

If you get a retread, make sure to thread a string though it and tie
the ends tightly to your ears.
(First make sure it isn't Ronald Reagan's -or a walnut. But...
Will your mother be able to prevent herself from hanging your socks on
the line?)

[Weatherlawyer]

He said F4. I thought he knew what he was talking about. The allies
certainly did (outside the Met Office and the US Weather Bureau that
is.)

Had the lads been embarked on Cricks say so a lot more of them would
have been far more adroit when push came to shove.

They would have handled an F4 no trouble had they been sent off as
soon as they had embarked.

(Not that landing on enemy shores in deep water, at low tide, armed
with nothing better than M1's would have made any difference.

Just the sheer lack of experience of leaving a boat of any sort in
deep water with their boots on and heavy packs -all above their
waists, was plain murder.)

[Bill]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 16:35:54 -0700 (PDT), Weatherlawyer
<weathe...@gmail.com> wrote:

>When he was asked to sort out Mongomerey's fuck up and rescue the
>allies from the Ardennes fiasco he wrapped up his battles and was
>ready to go with an action plan to that dick-head Eisenhouer's
>surprise and distaste.
>
>His tactics until then had the Germans totally screwed and his body
>count was easily better than any other general in the Allied
>offensives of WW 2 by an order of magnitude.
>

Look out boys and girls, it's a trap...

[Weatherlawyer]

On Aug 8, 1:25 am, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Look out boys and girls,  it's a trap...

Look out boys and girls, this is what we pay taxes for:
http://www.met.ie/climate.../weather.../June1944_DDay-landings.pdf

Pity that Britain doesn't have the same FOI that the US enjoys. I
wonder how the Met Office would bury any serious questions that would
pull the scab off that ulcer.

Pointed ignorance, no doubt.

[Bill]

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:23:46 -0700 (PDT), Weatherlawyer
<weathe...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Aug 8, 1:25�am, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Look out boys and girls, �it's a trap...
>
>Look out boys and girls, this is what we pay taxes for:
>http://www.met.ie/climate.../weather.../June1944_DDay-landings.pdf

Your link doesn't work.

>Pity that Britain doesn't have the same FOI that the US enjoys. I
>wonder how the Met Office would bury any serious questions that would
>pull the scab off that ulcer.

As far as I'm aware there are now no WWII files involving operations
against Germany that are still classified, so you could go and look
for yourself.

[Weatherlawyer]

On Aug 13, 10:02 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:23:46 -0700 (PDT), Weatherlawyer
>

Where?

There is still plenty of misinformation and since there is a strong
possibility that the forecasts Crick made were based on astronomy
there is every reason to suppose a witch hunt has subsumed the
occulted.

You yourself are a party to it.
(Though in your case it is most unwittingly -for obvious reasons.)

Off at a tangent
Was Patton's fast forwards technique ever explained?

His betters didn't seem to grasp the principle of covering fire and
air support did they?

And that dim-wit Eisenhouer was easily led by that Victorian throwback
Montgomery.

Am I wrong?

[Keith W]

Weatherlawyer wrote:
> On Aug 13, 10:02 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:23:46 -0700 (PDT), Weatherlawyer
>>
>> <weatherlaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Aug 8, 1:25 am, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Look out boys and girls, it's a trap...
>>
>>> Look out boys and girls, this is what we pay taxes for:
>>> http://www.met.ie/climate.../weather.../June1944_DDay-landings.pdf
>>
>> Your link doesn't work.
>>
>>> Pity that Britain doesn't have the same FOI that the US enjoys. I
>>> wonder how the Met Office would bury any serious questions that
>>> would pull the scab off that ulcer.
>>
>> As far as I'm aware there are now no WWII files involving operations
>> against Germany that are still classified, so you could go and look
>> for yourself.
>
> Where?
>
> There is still plenty of misinformation and since there is a strong
> possibility that the forecasts Crick made were based on astronomy
> there is every reason to suppose a witch hunt has subsumed the
> occulted.
>

There are two very good ways of proving you wrong

1) You cannot even get his name right - It's Irving P. Crick

2) We know very well that he based his forecasts on previous
patterns of weather. His forecast of fair weather on June 5th
was based on the fact that no such storm had struck the channel
for 50 years. Unfortunately for him the weather can't read records
and sent one anyway. Krick was sufficiently divorced from
reality that he was insistent as late as June 5th that he was right
despite the storm raging outside the door of his hut.

The weather was so bad that the Germans were utterly convinced that
no invasion was possible giving Rommel the chance to go home for
a few days while the rest of the commanders went off to attend
a set of war games in Rennes.

The result was a major advantage for the Allies. The German command
structure was paralyzed for a crucial 24 hours and the allies maintained
tactical surprise.

Keith

[Bill]

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:52:59 -0700 (PDT), Weatherlawyer
<weathe...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Aug 13, 10:02�pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:23:46 -0700 (PDT), Weatherlawyer
>>
>> <weatherlaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Aug 8, 1:25�am, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Look out boys and girls, �it's a trap...
>>
>> >Look out boys and girls, this is what we pay taxes for:
>> >http://www.met.ie/climate.../weather.../June1944_DDay-landings.pdf
>>
>> Your link doesn't work.
>>
>> >Pity that Britain doesn't have the same FOI that the US enjoys. I
>> >wonder how the Met Office would bury any serious questions that would
>> >pull the scab off that ulcer.
>>
>> As far as I'm aware there are now no WWII files involving operations
>> against Germany that are still classified, �so you could go and look
>> for yourself.
>
>Where?
>

Well you could start with the on-line files of the PRO.

>There is still plenty of misinformation and since there is a strong
>possibility that the forecasts Crick made were based on astronomy
>there is every reason to suppose a witch hunt has subsumed the
>occulted.

Have you considered the possibility that you may need a tin-foil hat?

>You yourself are a party to it.
>(Though in your case it is most unwittingly -for obvious reasons.)

Nope.

I'm a black helicopter man.

We've got your name and details down for later...

[Weatherlawyer]

On Aug 14, 9:13 pm, "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> There are two very good ways of proving you wrong

Me?
I'm the one asking the questions.

> 1) You cannot even get his name right - It's Irving P. Crick

Fancy the author getting it wrong all through the book.

Madness.

> 2) We know very well that he based his forecasts on previous
> patterns of weather.

How would he find them and why would the combined might of the US
Weather Bureau and the UK Met Office censure him at every occasion
that presented itself?

> His forecast of fair weather on June 5th
> was based on the fact that no such storm had struck the channel
> for 50 years. Unfortunately for him the weather can't read records
> and sent one anyway.

Krick was sufficiently divorced from Crick.

> He was insistent as late as June 5th that he was right

> despite the storm raging outside the door of his hut.

Takes some staying power that does. Especially for a meteorologist.
(For the sake of the few non weather fans sticking with this thread,
making a forecast is about the most mentally fraught legal activity
there is.)

> The weather was so bad...

You have records for that?

[Weatherlawyer]

On Aug 14, 10:06 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> As far as I'm aware there are now no WWII files involving operations
> >> against Germany that are still classified,  so you could go and look
> >> for yourself.
>
> >Where?
>
> Well you could start with the on-line files of the PRO.

PRO?
Have you ever tried searching that thing?

[Bill]

Actually, yes.

I was reading the papers of Cromwell's 'Scoutmaster General' only the
other day...

But you could always write to them...

Or even send them an email.

My experience of them is that they're invariably helpful and polite
and well informed.