Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: THE THREAD!!!

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> RE: THE THREAD!!! Page: <<   < prev  680 681 [682] 683 684   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: THE THREAD!!! - 7/8/2013 3:41:09 PM   
nashvillen


Posts: 3836
Joined: 7/3/2006
From: Christiana, TN
Status: offline
And, a Camp Boxwell INP!!!

_____________________________


(in reply to nashvillen)
Post #: 20431
RE: THE THREAD!!! - 7/8/2013 5:10:41 PM   
USSAmerica


Posts: 18715
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Graham, NC, USA
Status: offline
Scout Camp wifi.

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to nashvillen)
Post #: 20432
RE: THE THREAD!!! - 7/8/2013 5:12:20 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

Scout Camp wifi.

Man. Scout Camp has changed a lot since I'd been. It's like Private Benjamin's army. You know-the one with the condos and the country clubs?

_____________________________


(in reply to USSAmerica)
Post #: 20433
RE: THE THREAD!!! - 7/8/2013 5:32:04 PM   
nashvillen


Posts: 3836
Joined: 7/3/2006
From: Christiana, TN
Status: offline
Helps when work provides you with an unlimited hot spot and specifically tells you, "you can use it for anything, including personal use since it is unlimited". Hence, posts from scout camp while the boys are out doing classes. It will be put up before they get back and they will never know. My son will suspect, but that is it!

_____________________________


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 20434
RE: THE THREAD!!! - 7/8/2013 5:53:57 PM   
Dixie


Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

How is the visibility from the rear turret Martin?

IIRC the Lancaster rear gunners very often complained that visibility was poor (or perhaps this was due to high altitude flying and freezing of perplex)?


Leo "Apollo11"


It's not too bad, the gunsights would be an added lump in the way of the vision I suppose. The gunners would either cut some of the perspex out or remove the whole sheet due to the thing either icing up or getting scratched. The side panels etc didn't matter too much as they would rarely keep the turret still for long. Taking out the perspex improved the view but at the cost of removing any potential of keeping warm in there. Ours has the hydraulics disabled so the only way to turn it is by rotating by hand. I'm not a big fan of only being held in by a pair of sliding doors though!


As sat in the turret with it locked facing rearwards your eyeline is 'above' most of the metal work in the turret as viewed directly rearwards. The view from 9 to 11 o'clock, and 1 to 3, is partly obscured by framework and gun mountings. There's a clear view directly out at 9 and 3 o'clock past the rudders.

There was an improved turret made by Rose Brothers which came along late in the war, it was much bigger and had better visibility as well as twin .50 cals instead of the Browning .303 guns of the Fraser Nash turrets. The gunner could also wear his parachute whilst sat in the turret instead of having to stow it outside so bailing out was a matter of just tumbling over the guns and into space.



_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 20435
RE: THE THREAD!!! - 7/8/2013 9:05:44 PM   
alaviner


Posts: 764
Joined: 3/8/2007
From: Blacksburg, Va
Status: offline
I need another week to recover from vacation TITHE

_____________________________




(in reply to nashvillen)
Post #: 20436
RE: THE THREAD!!! - 7/8/2013 9:08:49 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie


quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

How is the visibility from the rear turret Martin?

IIRC the Lancaster rear gunners very often complained that visibility was poor (or perhaps this was due to high altitude flying and freezing of perplex)?


Leo "Apollo11"


It's not too bad, the gunsights would be an added lump in the way of the vision I suppose. The gunners would either cut some of the perspex out or remove the whole sheet due to the thing either icing up or getting scratched. The side panels etc didn't matter too much as they would rarely keep the turret still for long. Taking out the perspex improved the view but at the cost of removing any potential of keeping warm in there. Ours has the hydraulics disabled so the only way to turn it is by rotating by hand. I'm not a big fan of only being held in by a pair of sliding doors though!


As sat in the turret with it locked facing rearwards your eyeline is 'above' most of the metal work in the turret as viewed directly rearwards. The view from 9 to 11 o'clock, and 1 to 3, is partly obscured by framework and gun mountings. There's a clear view directly out at 9 and 3 o'clock past the rudders.

There was an improved turret made by Rose Brothers which came along late in the war, it was much bigger and had better visibility as well as twin .50 cals instead of the Browning .303 guns of the Fraser Nash turrets. The gunner could also wear his parachute whilst sat in the turret instead of having to stow it outside so bailing out was a matter of just tumbling over the guns and into space.




What's with the fishbowl on the ventrum of the turret there?

_____________________________


(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 20437
RE: THE THREAD!!! - 7/8/2013 9:12:38 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Probably one of the ESM receiver types the RAF experimented with to detect nightfighter radars.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 20438
RE: THE THREAD!!! - 7/8/2013 9:53:53 PM   
Dixie


Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
T is in the right area. It's the housing for the Village Inn automatic gunlaying system. The signals were received and transmitted through to the Wireless Op (or Nav, I forget which) who would then relay the information back to the gunner via intercom. In theory it would allow the gunner to have all the data he would need to fire blind and still hit the nightfighter. Obviously a lot more use with .50s than the usual Brownings as they could make use of the extra range although iirc it was ued with both types of turret. From memory it was only ever used by about half a dozen squadrons operationally.

_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 20439
RE: THE THREAD!!! - 7/8/2013 10:31:31 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
I forget the name of the system that actually made the Luftwaffe's job easier, but there was one ESM system that the nightfighters could home in on...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 20440
RE: THE THREAD!!! - 7/9/2013 6:36:51 AM   
Dixie


Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I forget the name of the system that actually made the Luftwaffe's job easier, but there was one ESM system that the nightfighters could home in on...


You're probably thinking of the Monica system?

_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 20441
RE: THE THREAD!!! - 7/9/2013 7:15:50 AM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

Good morning!


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 20442
RE: THE THREAD!!! - 7/9/2013 7:18:45 AM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

How is the visibility from the rear turret Martin?

IIRC the Lancaster rear gunners very often complained that visibility was poor (or perhaps this was due to high altitude flying and freezing of perplex)?


It's not too bad, the gunsights would be an added lump in the way of the vision I suppose. The gunners would either cut some of the perspex out or remove the whole sheet due to the thing either icing up or getting scratched. The side panels etc didn't matter too much as they would rarely keep the turret still for long. Taking out the perspex improved the view but at the cost of removing any potential of keeping warm in there. Ours has the hydraulics disabled so the only way to turn it is by rotating by hand. I'm not a big fan of only being held in by a pair of sliding doors though!


As sat in the turret with it locked facing rearwards your eyeline is 'above' most of the metal work in the turret as viewed directly rearwards. The view from 9 to 11 o'clock, and 1 to 3, is partly obscured by framework and gun mountings. There's a clear view directly out at 9 and 3 o'clock past the rudders.

There was an improved turret made by Rose Brothers which came along late in the war, it was much bigger and had better visibility as well as twin .50 cals instead of the Browning .303 guns of the Fraser Nash turrets. The gunner could also wear his parachute whilst sat in the turret instead of having to stow it outside so bailing out was a matter of just tumbling over the guns and into space.




RGR!

BTW, how high does your Lanc fly these days? Always low?


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 20443
RE: THE THREAD!!! - 7/9/2013 9:28:15 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I forget the name of the system that actually made the Luftwaffe's job easier, but there was one ESM system that the nightfighters could home in on...


You're probably thinking of the Monica system?


That's the one.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 20444
RE: THE THREAD!!! - 7/9/2013 10:11:33 AM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I forget the name of the system that actually made the Luftwaffe's job easier, but there was one ESM system that the nightfighters could home in on...


You're probably thinking of the Monica system?


That's the one.


The "Monica" was almost totally unusable because it gave enormous number of "false alarms" due to proximity of other friendly bombers in the bomber stream... most Lancaster crews simply turned it OFF...


Leo "Apollo11"


P.S.
Germans also developed very successful passive radar receiver that homed on "Monica" signals - it was not good thing for the RAF...

< Message edited by Apollo11 -- 7/9/2013 10:13:37 AM >


_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 20445
RE: THE THREAD!!! - 7/9/2013 12:24:01 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I forget the name of the system that actually made the Luftwaffe's job easier, but there was one ESM system that the nightfighters could home in on...


You're probably thinking of the Monica system?


That's the one.


The "Monica" was almost totally unusable because it gave enormous number of "false alarms" due to proximity of other friendly bombers in the bomber stream... most Lancaster crews simply turned it OFF...


Leo "Apollo11"


P.S.
Germans also developed very successful passive radar receiver that homed on "Monica" signals - it was not good thing for the RAF...


Yeesh! So Monica really sucked, eh? Someone shoulda told Bill some 50 years later. Fnar fnar...

_____________________________


(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 20446
RE: THE THREAD!!! - 7/9/2013 1:10:47 PM   
fodder


Posts: 2160
Joined: 4/11/2010
From: Daytona Beach
Status: offline
Good Morning!

_____________________________


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 20447
RE: THE THREAD!!! - 7/9/2013 1:16:46 PM   
USSAmerica


Posts: 18715
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Graham, NC, USA
Status: offline
Good morning - Tithe.

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to fodder)
Post #: 20448
RE: THE THREAD!!! - 7/9/2013 2:09:34 PM   
Schanilec

 

Posts: 4040
Joined: 6/12/2010
From: Grand Forks, ND
Status: offline
Good mornig all. Finally a little rain. Really need an inch or so.

_____________________________

This is one Czech that doesn't bounce.

(in reply to USSAmerica)
Post #: 20449
RE: THE THREAD!!! - 7/9/2013 5:37:41 PM   
Dixie


Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

How is the visibility from the rear turret Martin?

IIRC the Lancaster rear gunners very often complained that visibility was poor (or perhaps this was due to high altitude flying and freezing of perplex)?


It's not too bad, the gunsights would be an added lump in the way of the vision I suppose. The gunners would either cut some of the perspex out or remove the whole sheet due to the thing either icing up or getting scratched. The side panels etc didn't matter too much as they would rarely keep the turret still for long. Taking out the perspex improved the view but at the cost of removing any potential of keeping warm in there. Ours has the hydraulics disabled so the only way to turn it is by rotating by hand. I'm not a big fan of only being held in by a pair of sliding doors though!


As sat in the turret with it locked facing rearwards your eyeline is 'above' most of the metal work in the turret as viewed directly rearwards. The view from 9 to 11 o'clock, and 1 to 3, is partly obscured by framework and gun mountings. There's a clear view directly out at 9 and 3 o'clock past the rudders.

There was an improved turret made by Rose Brothers which came along late in the war, it was much bigger and had better visibility as well as twin .50 cals instead of the Browning .303 guns of the Fraser Nash turrets. The gunner could also wear his parachute whilst sat in the turret instead of having to stow it outside so bailing out was a matter of just tumbling over the guns and into space.




RGR!

BTW, how high does your Lanc fly these days? Always low?


Leo "Apollo11"


Well we've certainly got no need for oxygen any more Honestly, I'm not entirely sure but we display at about 250'. I think the usual transit altitude is between 500 to 1000' under VFR, usually towards the bottom end of that scale. We have to watch out for various masts and hills on the routes.

_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 20450
RE: THE THREAD!!! - 7/9/2013 6:44:31 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I forget the name of the system that actually made the Luftwaffe's job easier, but there was one ESM system that the nightfighters could home in on...


You're probably thinking of the Monica system?


That's the one.


The "Monica" was almost totally unusable because it gave enormous number of "false alarms" due to proximity of other friendly bombers in the bomber stream... most Lancaster crews simply turned it OFF...


Leo "Apollo11"


P.S.
Germans also developed very successful passive radar receiver that homed on "Monica" signals - it was not good thing for the RAF...


I guess it's payback for how the Brit's exploited the Metox system that German U-boats used. Same deal , a ESM system that emitted a frequency that the coastal command RAF bombers could home in on.

_____________________________


(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 20451
RE: THE THREAD!!! - 7/9/2013 6:58:38 PM   
Kwik E Mart


Posts: 2447
Joined: 7/22/2004
Status: offline
...back in civilization tithe...although defininiton of "civilization" is relative...

_____________________________

Kirk Lazarus: I know who I am. I'm the dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude!
Ron Swanson: Clear alcohols are for rich women on diets.


(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 20452
RE: THE THREAD!!! - 7/9/2013 9:47:07 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I forget the name of the system that actually made the Luftwaffe's job easier, but there was one ESM system that the nightfighters could home in on...


You're probably thinking of the Monica system?


That's the one.


The "Monica" was almost totally unusable because it gave enormous number of "false alarms" due to proximity of other friendly bombers in the bomber stream... most Lancaster crews simply turned it OFF...


Leo "Apollo11"


P.S.
Germans also developed very successful passive radar receiver that homed on "Monica" signals - it was not good thing for the RAF...


I guess it's payback for how the Brit's exploited the Metox system that German U-boats used. Same deal , a ESM system that emitted a frequency that the coastal command RAF bombers could home in on.


Hi Steve,

I don't think that the Brits had any sort of passive homing apparatus to guide to Metox emissions. Certainly they perfected Huff-Duff and used that to bang-up (rimshot) effect, but Metox? I'm not so sure. Metox was marginally useful for the Germans, but they still had trouble until the end in identifying airborne ASW centimetric radar emissions. That was their greatest weakness. Not that Metox betrayed them, but just wasn't up to the task.

Well, that combined with suicidal "surface and engage" orders for dealing with airborne threats, nonsensical daily radio positional call ins that could be fixed and located, faulty torpedoes, poor range in their VIIc, 'war against the type XIV tankers', etc. etc.

_____________________________


(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 20453
RE: THE THREAD!!! - 7/9/2013 10:20:10 PM   
Dixie


Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I forget the name of the system that actually made the Luftwaffe's job easier, but there was one ESM system that the nightfighters could home in on...


You're probably thinking of the Monica system?


That's the one.


The "Monica" was almost totally unusable because it gave enormous number of "false alarms" due to proximity of other friendly bombers in the bomber stream... most Lancaster crews simply turned it OFF...


Leo "Apollo11"


P.S.
Germans also developed very successful passive radar receiver that homed on "Monica" signals - it was not good thing for the RAF...


I guess it's payback for how the Brit's exploited the Metox system that German U-boats used. Same deal , a ESM system that emitted a frequency that the coastal command RAF bombers could home in on.


Hi Steve,

I don't think that the Brits had any sort of passive homing apparatus to guide to Metox emissions. Certainly they perfected Huff-Duff and used that to bang-up (rimshot) effect, but Metox? I'm not so sure. Metox was marginally useful for the Germans, but they still had trouble until the end in identifying airborne ASW centimetric radar emissions. That was their greatest weakness. Not that Metox betrayed them, but just wasn't up to the task.

Well, that combined with suicidal "surface and engage" orders for dealing with airborne threats, nonsensical daily radio positional call ins that could be fixed and located, faulty torpedoes, poor range in their VIIc, 'war against the type XIV tankers', etc. etc.


I may be mistaken, but iirc the Brits couldn't actually detect Metox it was a ruse to disguise the efficiency of the latest radar. It was a fabricated story that was passed on to the Germans by a downed Coastal Command airman. The Germans were already suspicious that something was leading the aeroplanes to them in the darkness or bad weather and the lie about Metox convinced them to stop using it, thus giving them even less notice of an incoming attack. Any boat that didn't make it back wouldn't have been able to report they weren't using their Metox.

_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 20454
RE: THE THREAD!!! - 7/9/2013 10:29:49 PM   
Dixie


Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
http://youtu.be/hnTenYt-PMw

_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 20455
RE: THE THREAD!!! - 7/9/2013 10:47:06 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I forget the name of the system that actually made the Luftwaffe's job easier, but there was one ESM system that the nightfighters could home in on...


You're probably thinking of the Monica system?


That's the one.


The "Monica" was almost totally unusable because it gave enormous number of "false alarms" due to proximity of other friendly bombers in the bomber stream... most Lancaster crews simply turned it OFF...


Leo "Apollo11"


P.S.
Germans also developed very successful passive radar receiver that homed on "Monica" signals - it was not good thing for the RAF...


I guess it's payback for how the Brit's exploited the Metox system that German U-boats used. Same deal , a ESM system that emitted a frequency that the coastal command RAF bombers could home in on.


Hi Steve,

I don't think that the Brits had any sort of passive homing apparatus to guide to Metox emissions. Certainly they perfected Huff-Duff and used that to bang-up (rimshot) effect, but Metox? I'm not so sure. Metox was marginally useful for the Germans, but they still had trouble until the end in identifying airborne ASW centimetric radar emissions. That was their greatest weakness. Not that Metox betrayed them, but just wasn't up to the task.

Well, that combined with suicidal "surface and engage" orders for dealing with airborne threats, nonsensical daily radio positional call ins that could be fixed and located, faulty torpedoes, poor range in their VIIc, 'war against the type XIV tankers', etc. etc.


I may be mistaken, but iirc the Brits couldn't actually detect Metox it was a ruse to disguise the efficiency of the latest radar. It was a fabricated story that was passed on to the Germans by a downed Coastal Command airman. The Germans were already suspicious that something was leading the aeroplanes to them in the darkness or bad weather and the lie about Metox convinced them to stop using it, thus giving them even less notice of an incoming attack. Any boat that didn't make it back wouldn't have been able to report they weren't using their Metox.


I've heard this story , and it's opposing view. But I don't think I've heard any official comment , or any well known historian comment on it. I'd really like to hear something definitive on the subject.

Most people don't realize that most RADAR detectors , such as the well know "fuzzbusters" give off a signal. The police of Virginia and the District of Columbia use that flaw everyday. Both those governments ban RADAR detectors with a very heavy (read "lucrative") fine. Governments and militaries take great pains to make sure their ESM systems don't give off such a signal (or for that matter other electronics). Crews instituting "EMCOM" procedures (emissions controls) generally have check lists as to what gear gives off what kind of emissions.

What I'm saying is that I don't know what the truth is about METOX. But It sounds plausible , the Germans certainly believed it. And with the tremendous skill that the wartime British government had with disinformation , I'd not be surprised that the claim was that. Does anyone REALLY know the truth about "The Coventry story/myth"? I simply use that as an example . As Churchill was said to have said "In wartime truth is so precious that she must be accompanied by a bodyguard of lies". So who knows? And does it really matter? The Germans ditched Metox as soon as they could.

_____________________________


(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 20456
RE: THE THREAD!!! - 7/10/2013 3:37:31 AM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
Hi Steve,

I'm finishing up the second volume of Clair's "Hitler's U-boat War". It's an 800 page slog, but interesting. He reviews the Metox usage and German's beliefs that they were being detected, whereas in reality, they were not. The second volume was written in this decade, IIRC.

I'm comfortable with his research on the matter and the conclusions that he draws from that, but I'm open to an even better countervailing opinion, if one exists.

_____________________________


(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 20457
RE: THE THREAD!!! - 7/10/2013 8:31:32 AM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

Good morning!


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 20458
RE: THE THREAD!!! - 7/10/2013 9:51:12 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Hi Steve,

I'm finishing up the second volume of Clair's "Hitler's U-boat War". It's an 800 page slog, but interesting. He reviews the Metox usage and German's beliefs that they were being detected, whereas in reality, they were not. The second volume was written in this decade, IIRC.

I'm comfortable with his research on the matter and the conclusions that he draws from that, but I'm open to an even better countervailing opinion, if one exists.


The Blair books came out in 1996 and 1998, respectively. Blair died in 98.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 20459
RE: THE THREAD!!! - 7/10/2013 12:31:11 PM   
fodder


Posts: 2160
Joined: 4/11/2010
From: Daytona Beach
Status: offline
Good Morning!

_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 20460
Page:   <<   < prev  680 681 [682] 683 684   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> RE: THE THREAD!!! Page: <<   < prev  680 681 [682] 683 684   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.718