Is Alan Turing's effort code-breaking effort to the war exaggerated?

It has been claimed that the advent of Turing resulted in an increasing speed of decodings of Enigma messages : this is wrong : there were such periods but there were also periods when the speed was slowing :

exemple : in february 1943 the U boat code was during 18 days broken in 2 days or less ,which was a good result .But in june 1943 the U Boat code was broken in 2 days or less during only 1 day : a bad result .

It has also been claimed that an increasing speed of decodings of U boat messages resulted in less merchant ship losses,but this is wrong :the good result of february 1943 produced a loss of 88 merchant ships;the bad result of june 1943 resulted in the loss of 27 merchant ships .

Thus ...the influence of Turing and Enigma is mostly a myth created by the BP lobby .

An other exemple : december 1942 : key was broken in 2 days or less during 5 days ,resulting in 76 merchant ship losses.In march 1943 the key was broken in 2 or less days during 8 days (speed was going up) and the result was ...that in march more merchant ships were lost = 131 .

Why were more merchant ships lost in march ?

possible reasons : weather, number of convoys, number of escorts, number of U Boats, chance , human errors, or a combination of all .

 

Sigh...no it doesn't and the difference has consequences. If on 24 July 1943 all the BC sorties - 795 of them in 8 missions (another word with specific, distinctive, and important meaning, which is not synonymous with "aircraft" and "sorties") - were shot down the consequence to the remaining tens of thousands of missions that year and the next would have been enormous. However, if only 12 were lost - which is true rather than a fictive - then the effect on the future missions is much less.

 

Well LJAD, you just want to ignore the basic fact that sailing through an area occupied by Uboats means the chance of sinkings goes up. I suppose you just want to believe in the Bermuda triangle theory that the ships just sunk with out any assistance

 

Correction : sailing through an area "occupied by Uboats" (= where Uboats were sailing ) means that the chance of sinkings , goes up by an undetermined factor .Given that ships sailing through an area where Uboats were sailing mostly left this area indemned,because the ships were to fast, to heavy protected,because the Uboats did not find the ships, because there were not enough Uboats,.because most merchant ships were not lost in areas were Uboats were sailing.,because,because ..,we can discard this chance .

Uboats could be overall, and a concentration of Uboats in a certain area did not mean a bigger chance to sink merchant ships, it could also mean a bigger chance to sink Uboats .

 

The truth is that the Germans won the secret intelligence war in the Atlantic,but lost the Uboat war.

This truth is of-course unwelcomed,because he will hurt the sensibilities of those who are convinced of the Allied intelligence superiority and are convinced that this was decisive for the outcome of the war .

 

No, the truth is the B-Dienst broke BAMS and Naval Cipher #3 and #5. However, by mid 1943 Allied cryptographers were aware of that and changed codes again. Not the same thing at all as "winning" the secret intelligence war.

Truth seems to be eluding you more and more my friend as you become more and more dogmatic in every post. Dogmatism is great...if you're a dog.

 

so why didn't the Germans discover the DDay invasion by intel??

 

Because the Germans were winning the intelligence war in the Atlantic...Right up to the point that they lost the intelligence war in late-1943.

 

Do you really think that there were radio messages where D-Day will happen? And then there was "Operation Fortitude" which always added wrong information to fool german intelligence.

What did the B-Dienst knew? B-Dienst knew, that there was a convoy underway, not much more.

 

We are talking about the U Boat war not about Overlord .

 

The German strategy about Overlord was not depending on information, but on what was available .

B Dienst knew that there was a convoy underway, which on itself was not very important, and BP knew that the Germans knew that there was a convoy underway, which was also not very important .Thus,what Turing did was also not very important .

Fortitude was talking about an other landing after Overlord, but as the Germans had no additional forces to use against an other landing, the information was not very important .

 

"We" are? Since when? "We" are talking about the effect of Alan Turing's code-breaking work. Viz:

Is Alan Turing's effort code-breaking effort to the war exaggerated?

 

Was the work of Turing important for the success of the laning in Normandy ? Answer : it was not .

 

Well, yeah of course what he did WRT cryptology wasn't important for NEPTUNE. He was in the US until March 1943 and was only a consultant at Bletchley after his return. He turned to working on encryption systems and helped develop SIGSALY.

 

Is that bleeding obvious? Answer: yes it is.

 

LJAD you are the master of proving you are incapable of logic and reach conclusions that impossible to fathom. You spent how many posts claiming the Uboat menace was underrated and now you claim the Germans won the intel war. How could they have won the fight if the Uboats were not achieving anything???

 

Because his most likely source says so...
http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2012/05/b-dienst-vs-bletchley-park-invasion-of.html

This despite the source clearly stating...

Thus, we have the supposed "winner" of the intelligence war having been "effectively defeated." in late-43/early-44.

Ponder this for a moment...The "winner" is "effectively defeated.

The he is not the "winner" then is he?


This webpage also seems to be the source for LJAd's hilarious claim that the U-Boats were "primitive". Unfortunately, LJAd does not grasp the difference between his "primitive" and the article's claim that the U-Boats were "technologically obsolete."

Someone should point out to the author of the article that all submarines of the time - Axis & Allied - were not true submarines but submersible surface vessels.

 

That all submarines of the time were not true submarines but submersible surface vessels ,is irrelevant because the discussion is not about the allied submarines, but about the German submarines . Or maybe your point is that the fact that the allied submarines were technologically obsolete,was important for the outcome of the UBoat war ?

That the Germans had lost the intelligence war in late 1943/early 1944 is also missing the point, as the discussion is about the correlation between the intelligence war and the outcome of the U Boat war ,and the truth is that Germany failed to win the U Boat war, while it was prevailing in the intelligence war and that Germany lost the U Boat war,while it was prevailing in the intelligence war .This indicates that the so-called relation between intelligence war and U Boat war (BP deciding and directing the UBoat war on British side ) does not exist (BP and Turning did not shorten the U Boat war/did not shorten WWII) .

Germany prevailed in the intelligence war till the autumn of 1943 and lost the u Boat war in the spring of 1943 .
And there is no contradiction between primitive and technologically obsolete .

 

That's nice : you don't know the difference between "intelligence " and "fighting " :it is perfectly possible to win A and to lose B ,or the opposite . ONE exemple : the Teth offensive : US were surprised by the Teth offensive (they lost the intelligence war ) but defeated the NVA (they won the fighting ).An other : Barbarossa : Germany won the intelligence war (Barbarossa was a surprise) but lost the fighting already after a few weeks , or Anzio .,or the Ardennes . While there are exemples of losing both, there is no corelation between losing the intelligence war and the fighting : Third Ypres and Overlord

The Germans failed to win the U Boat war ,and later lost him ,not because they lost the intelligence war ,but there never existed a chance to starve Britain using a few primitive /technologically obsolete submarines . There were to much merchant ships (some 80 million GRT on allied side ) , to few submarines and Britain was during the war less depending on imports than before the war .

 

Your whole tangent on U-Boats is irrelevant because this discussion is about Alan Turing...Not U-Boats.

Dear lord...You have no clue about what you are discussing. Please get one before continuing this discussion.

If I missed it, then you need to restate your "point." Your "point" was...

which as the rest of us all know is wrong. The Germans lost the intelligence war in the Atlantic, just as they lost the u-boat war.

Do we blame alcohol, drugs, ignorance, or all of thee above for this statement?

The Turtle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle_(submersible)
was primitive...German WW2 U-Boats were not. The nuclear-powered USS Sturgeon class are "technologically obsolete", but they are far from "primitive."

Further, your source clearly states that from 1939-42, the U-Boats were not "technologically obsolete" and never states that they ever were "primitive."