Do you consider Prof. R.V. Jones to be an oxymoron? Or any other
kind of moron?

Mike


I wonder if he understands what "oxymoron" means.

Ron

Caveat Lector wrote:
"A WWII B-24 bomber (Lady Be Good) ran out of fuel because they were not
sure of the DF readings."

Too bad they ran out of gas and drash landed in the Libyan desert. The
B-24 must have been covered with sand for most of the time because there
was still most of it intact to be found.

On April 4, 1943, the Lady Be Good radioed for a directional reading
from the high frequency direction finding station at Bernina as the
earth was covered with clouds and there were strong winds causing
navigational errors. They needed a position fix.

I had breakfast this morning with a WW-2 B-24 pilot who flew in the same
area. He said that requests for position fixes were often answered by
Germans pretending to be the direction finding facility, and they would
intentionally lead the questioners astray.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

"Richard Harrison" wrote in message
...
Caveat Lector wrote:
"A WWII B-24 bomber (Lady Be Good) ran out of fuel because they were not
sure of the DF readings."

Too bad they ran out of gas and drash landed in the Libyan desert. The
B-24 must have been covered with sand for most of the time because there
was still most of it intact to be found.

On April 4, 1943, the Lady Be Good radioed for a directional reading
from the high frequency direction finding station at Bernina as the
earth was covered with clouds and there were strong winds causing
navigational errors. They needed a position fix.

I had breakfast this morning with a WW-2 B-24 pilot who flew in the same
area. He said that requests for position fixes were often answered by
Germans pretending to be the direction finding facility, and they would
intentionally lead the questioners astray.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Interesting -- code operators could tell one operator from another just by
their style or fist.
Wonder if CW was used for the request and reply ???

--
Caveat Lector (Reader Beware)
Help The New Hams
Someone Helped You
Or did You Forget That ?

In message , David G. Nagel
writes
M. J. Powell wrote:
In message , David G. Nagel
writes

And your problem is?
Being of German descent with relatives in Germany, I feel that the
German people got what they deserved. Actions by the Luftwaffe were
just as horrific in London, Warsaw, Stalingrad and Antwerp to name a few.
The Luftwafe had similar devices to locate their targets in England
with the same results when their systems were captured by British
Military Intelligence (what an oxymoron).
Do you consider Prof. R.V. Jones to be an oxymoron? Or any other
kind of moron?
Mike

Individuals are always the exception...

He had plenty of good companions. Blumlein for one. Who paid the price.

Mike

In message , J. Teske
writes
Intellgence agencies when they did HFDF used huge antenna arrays
called CDAAs (Circular Disposed Antenna Arrays). They were also known
as Wollenwebbers (presumably after an inventor).

Is 'Wollenwebber' really 'Wollenweber', which I reckon could be
translated as 'wool weaver'? Possibly a graphic description of the
antennas.
Ian.

--

In message , Crazy George
writes
Wullenweber: German for wool weaver. Germans had several in WW2, none
existed elsewhere. Sites were stripped and
burned and the big iron goniometers buried during the closing days of
the war. Took quite a bit of effort by ONR and
OSS to retrieve enough material to reconstruct the concept. And a lot
of work at U of Ill. and ITT/FTR to make one
work. Beamformers, not TOA. That came a lot later.

The initial question was set in the WW2 time period, I believe.

Crazy George
the ATTGlobal.net extension is a SPAM trap. Use att dot biz instead.




--

In message , Crazy George
writes
Wullenweber: German for wool weaver. Germans had several in WW2, none
existed elsewhere. Sites were stripped and
burned and the big iron goniometers buried during the closing days of
the war. Took quite a bit of effort by ONR and
OSS to retrieve enough material to reconstruct the concept. And a lot
of work at U of Ill. and ITT/FTR to make one
work. Beamformers, not TOA. That came a lot later.

The initial question was set in the WW2 time period, I believe.

Crazy George
the ATTGlobal.net extension is a SPAM trap. Use att dot biz instead.



Ah, Crazy, you got in first!
Ian.
--

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 18:21:07 -0600, "Crazy George"
wrote:

The initial question was set in the WW2 time period, I believe.

I started the topic. It was set in WW2 because I see so much about
RDF at that time. i realize it has to have improved by now but the
heart of the question is 'since it was possible to be accurate then,
why can't hams accurately do it today?'

I am thoroughly enjoying this thread.

Thank you to ALL that have replied.

Buck
N4PGW

--
73 for now
Buck
N4PGW

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 10:18:25 -0500, Buck wrote:

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 18:21:07 -0600, "Crazy George"
wrote:

The initial question was set in the WW2 time period, I believe.

I started the topic. It was set in WW2 because I see so much about
RDF at that time. i realize it has to have improved by now but the
heart of the question is 'since it was possible to be accurate then,
why can't hams accurately do it today?'

I am thoroughly enjoying this thread.

There is really two types of DF. Long haul and close in. The close in
type which generally uses some sort of null loop from a mobile
platform (such as a car or on foot) is what is generally used in "fox
hunting" types of transmitter hunts by hams and other hobbists.
By extension, the military also use some of this close in technique
from tactical aircraft although the technology is different.

Long haul, such as was employed in WW II for sub hunting in the
Atlantic was done from fixed shore facilities for the most part
which exchanged their lines of bearings via a dedicated secure
network.

Close in DF is accurate only in the sense that the hunter can usually
move in close to the target to the point that they can actually see
the antenna.

Long Haul DF cannot pinpoint a target. Long haul DF stations have
known error tolerances and so-call "fixes" are stated with circular or
elliptical errors of probabilities. So one might DF a transmitter
operating in the Atlantic from shore stations around the perimeter of
the Atlantic. The fix will be stated with some degree of tolerance
such as there is a 90% chance the target is within an ellipse 100
miles long and 50 miles wide and a 10% chance it is within a 15 by 5
miles area within that larger circle. This is of course still many
hundreds or even thousands of sqare miles to hunt for a target. I do
not know what technology the Allies used during WW II for their HFDF
or what sort of accuracy they achieved.

In a WW II scenario, it would be an important intelligence fact if
one could discern if a target was near Bermuda or if it was near the
Azores. Then a destroyer or subchaser or small carrier with aircraft
would have to be dispatched to try to find it if it were on the
surface. Allied sub hunting was successful because German doctrine
called for frequent situation reports from submarines to shore
commands in France and Germany.

US submarine operations in the Pacific were more successful in a
defensive perspective since they usually operated with a doctrine of
radio silence and only rarely sent messages to shore station or to
each other. It must be remembered that WW II era subs generally
operated on the surface and submerged mostly for attack or self
protection. The German sub commanders were in essence victims of
Doenitz' tendency to micromanage and they sustained casualty rates of
70% or greater. US sub forces by comparison had casualty rates of 15%
which was still among the highest among US forces. Germany had roughly
four or five times as many submarines as did the US.

[Folks unfamiliar with WW II history must also note that the US had
almost no sub forces in the Atlantic since Germany had only a very
small surface Navy and almost no coastal or open ocean shipping. A sub
of that era was a poor platform to wage war against another submarine.
Japan, being an island, was dependant upon ocean shipping for supplies
and so was more of a natural target for anti-shipping submarine
operations. US subs of course also attacked combatants, but many of
those combatants were escorts for shipping convoys. Virtually all US
submarines operated in the Pacific Theater. The Brits did have some
submarine operations in the Atlantic.]


Jon W3JT
Thank you to ALL that have replied.

Buck
N4PGW

Jon, W3JT wrote:
"Folks unfamiliar with WW II history must also note that the US had
almost no sub forces in the Atlantic since Germany had only a very small
surface Navy amd no coastal or open shipping."

The emphasis should be on the "almost"!
Germamy began the war with 3 formidable "pocket battleships" as I
recall. There were American submarines in the Atlantic. Headquarters are
at New London, CT. My brother was a WW-2 U.S. Navy submarine officer.
His boat was stationed in the Atlantic operating from the U.S. Virgin
Islands. He managed a leave home by snagging rides on Catalina flying
boats conducting anti-submarine patrols in the Atlantic. He observed
real anti-submarine actions while a passenger aboard the Catalinas. My
brother was assigned to a new ship from its keel laying. He took it
through the Panama Canal to the Pacific where after several missions it
became a craft on permanent patrol as the result of enemy action with no
known surviors. His family misses him.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI