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

Nonsense, you have to prove no such thing. Instead, you can create a "fictive", which proves whatever you want it to. At least that is what I have been reading.

Anyway, some facts rather than fictives. In 1938, the value of imports to Britain was 919.5 million pounds. Of those, 262.2 million were from northern Europe and France (23.6 million) and 46 million from the rest of Europe. In terms of foodstuffs, we can take processed beef as an example. In 1939, 602,000 tons were processed domestically and 610,400 tons were imported (plus 72,900 tons of all types of tinned meat). Imagining that none of the quarter of all imports were not foodstuffs from Northern Europe is silly.

On your unrelated topic, tankers - requisitioned of greater than 1,600 GRT totaled 143, 98 in 1940, 26 in 1941, and 12 in 1944. Prizes, transfers of flag, and so on were 279: 75 in 1939, 36 in 1940, 91 in 1941, 11 in 1942, 2 in 1943, and 2 in 1944. However, from 3 September 1939 there were just 117 under British flag and 42 built, but 81 lost (67 to war). 117+42+75-81=153 for a total of +36 in 1939. Great right? Except for 1940 the math was -217, in 1941 it was -86, and in 1942 it was -416. The corner wasn't turned until 1943 at +56 and 1944 at +175. For non-tankers the pattern was worse, 1939 was a negative as well.

...but lets cover that subject here. Seems you are exaggerating your fictives. At the start of the war the British had 14.352 million GRT of shipping. Net loss in 1939 was 13,000 tons, 1940 was 276,000 tons, 1941 was 983,000 tons, and 1942 was 1,923,000 tons. In 1943 1,231,000 tons was gained and another 1,541,000 tons in 1944 for a net loss in the entire period of 13,000 tons.

So, do you see why there was concern in 1941 and 1942?

Total Allied ship tonnage lost to German and Italian submarines was:

1939 - 509,321
1940 - 2,462,867
1941 - 2,298,714
1942 - 6,149,473
1943 - 2,510,304
1944 - 663,308
1945 - 284,476
Total - 14,878,463

So you over-fictived what the British started with by 20 to 28 percent and under-fictived the Allied losses to U-Boats by 33%...never mind you miss the totals you are quoting are actually for all Allied losses including the US...

Er, no, sorry, but that conclusion is hardly startling or "proof" of anything other than total merchant ship acquisitions by the Allies exceeded their losses to submarines. Aside from everything else, it ignores all merchant ship losses to causes other than German and Italian submarines...you know, those lost in other theaters of war, to other wartime causes, and to maritime causes?

Er, again no. If you look at the facts, rather than the fictives, the British were able to do no such thing. Britain was able to barely recover to the point she was on 3 September 1939 by 8 May 1945...less 13,000 GRT.

Sorry, but near incomprehensibility is not the same thing as a complex answer. Allied decoding provided much valuable information on U-Boat activities, which were valuable in countering them. It provided sailing dates, courses for individual boats, rendezvous points, time-stamped positions, movement orders, and so forth. No Enigma decrypt sank a sub...a bombe wasn't a bomb after all, but there were numerous cases where it was instrumental in naval or air assets sinking them. U-505 is a classic for example. Her course was decrypted and provided to the Guadalcanal HK group, which searched unsuccessfully along that line using HF-DF, surface and airborne radar, and visual search, until Chatelaine picked her up on sonar. Was her capture due to Enigma or to sonar?

1) What does "spying" have to do with SIGINT? And where has anything regarding "our" versus "their" intelligence or lack thereof been brought up in this thread? You seem to be the only chauvinist posting here my friend, but your chauvinism is with regards to historical determinism. That indeed is very ingrained in you.

2) "Juvenile" is using "fictives" rather than facts and then declaring they "proof" things they aren't even related to. "Juvenile" is also creating strawmen like supposed tropes about "spy stories", mysterious scientists in white coats", and "uncivilised Mongolian barbarians" in a discussion hwere they don't actually appear and then declaring they are yet further "proof" of your "fictive" assertions.

3) Again, yet another strawman. Who did that in this thread? Oh, perhaps you did when you made fictive assertions about Enigma technology, Allied cryptography, and anti-submarine war TTPs of the Allied powers in World War II?

 

Allied losses to German U Boats were some 14 million GRT, but Allied is not British ,from these 14 million must be subtracted those of the US and of the countries who declared war on Germany after PH .


About chauvinism, it has been claimed that the Soviets won at Kursk because of the informations from Enigma ,something which is a very chauvinistic attitude . (post 31 )

it has also been claimed that the sub menace was clearly shortened by Enigma (translation : the war was shortened by Enigma ) Post 7 . If I wrote that the B Dienst extended the war, most people would label this as a chauvinistic German post . And rightfully . The sub menace had never the importance it was claimed to have after the war by Winston,when he wrote his novel . And Enigma did not shorten the sub menace . The B Dienst messages did not indicate where would be the convoys and the Enigma messages did not indicate where would be the U Boats . Convoys and U Boats were mostly found by chance and were mostly not attacked .

About the fact that no Enigma message killed a U Boat, the same is true about the messages of the B Dienst : no B Dienst message killed a merchant ship . In both cases, most messages were worthless, most merchant ships were lost by individual U Boats ,intercepting a convoy / independently sailing merchant ship by chance, without any influence from the B Dienst . Few convoys were attacked bu wolf packs .

It was the same for Enigma : most U Boats were destroyed in fighting,when they were attacking convoys /independently sailing ships, or when the entered or left the Bay of Biscaye and relatively most U Boats were lost by aircraft,who operated without information from Enigma .:321 on a total of 782 .

Wolf packs were an exception : they were used to attack convoys : there were more than 10000 convoys during the war ,and only a few hundred were attacked by wolf packs, most of the attacks occurred by independently sailing U Boats, and in this case, there was no role for Enigma /B Dienst .

Where the B Dienst could not help, Enigma could not help,and this happened in most cases .On the average it took U Boats days before they killed a merchant ship, and on the average it took aircraft and warships days before they killed a U Boat . Most U Boats never kiled a merchant ship and most warshipsand aircraft never saw/killed a U Boat .

It was in both cases mostly a question of chance .

 

Every one is talking about Alan Turning, but the Germans also had their Turning : Wilhelm Tranow. And notwithstanding Tranow, the U Boats were defeated. Thus why would the others win because of Turning ?

The U Boats were not defeated because Turning was better than Tranow (change both from seats and the outcome would still be the same)but they were defeated because they were qualitatively and quantitatively inferior : U Boats were primitive surface ships and there were not enough of them .

 

Oh dear. I just GAVE YOU the actual figure. Why are you trying to foist off the "fictive" again? 14,878,463 GRT.

Why "must be subtracted of the US..."? A coherent reason please.

Meanwhile, the British figures I gave you were for...wait for it - BRITISH SHIPPING. In response to your "fictive" regarding - BRITISH SHIPPING.

I then gave you total losses for - ALLIED SHIPPING. In response to your "fictive" regarding - ALLIED SHIPPING.

Are you following now?

You mean "Tamino, the information the Soviets gained for Citadel most likely came from ultra. Due to secrecy we don't know the source, but the Soviets did gain valuable info and because of the British spy ring he gained information that collaborated intel"?

That isn't "chauvinism", its ignorance. And there is nothing there claiming the information gained won the Soviets the battle of Kursk. That is your claim.

Same poster, same ignorance rather than chauvanism. "The sub menace was clearly shortened by enigma. Could the invasions have been done in the same time frame??" Note that yet again you have altered the meaning of the post you just referenced. The "sub menace" was shortened, not your "translation" saying the war was shortened. Since when have you become the mind reader allowing your to translate the thoughts of other posters?

Meanwhile in the real as opposed to fictive world, Enigma de-crypts did contribute to sinking U-Boats. Sinking U-Boats did shorten the sub menace. Q.E.D.

Sigh. Except the work of B Dienst did in fact locate sailings of ships and convoys, its size, composition, speed, and general course, because they were intercepting SHIP SAILING and CONVOY ROUTING MESSAGES. Just as Enigma de-crypts did the same for U-Boats.

The locating of individual ships and subs and prosecuting attacks - successful and unsuccessful - were a consequence of that albeit chance enters into it.

Frankly, the reductio ad absurdam from your chain of reasoning is that the depth bombs didn't sink the U-Boats, chance did.

"Most"? How many? How many weren't "worthless"? What is your measure of effectiveness? And I suggest you do not employ a "fictive". Use some actual reasoning instead of arrogant assumptions.

BTW, where did I say a damned thing about "wolf packs"? If you want to argue with me I suggest you try arguing things I have said rather than your imaginings.

Yes, most U-Boats were sunk while attacking ships or while transiting the Bay of Biscay. So what? How many were not? Are they unimportant? Meanwhile, 321 of 782 is 41%. So what? Why is 41% more important than the remaining 59% which is, quite literally, the more SIGNIFICANT figure?

So where did you get the idea that U-Boat sailing information was not used in setting air patrols in the Bay of Biscay?

Again, I suggest you use facts rather than fictives in your reply.

Sorry, but aside from arguing against something I never said, all that is a fictive. Find the data and argue it, otherwise you are just another trolling poster making stuff up. That may be unkind of me to say, but you need a wake up call to end your sloppy fictive postings. You can do better; I have seen you do it.

Really? So then since you making an assertion of fact you must have substantial data to back it up? Or is this another fictive?

So then all those U-Boats that sank just happened to have a depth bomb land "by chance" close enough to sink them? Then wouldn't it logically have been as effective to drop the depth bombs at random and depend on chance to sink the subs?

 

Perhaps they are talking about Alan TURING because the subject of the thread is Alan TURING and not Wilhelm Tranow? Nor is it about Tranow being better than TURING. The claim it is appears to be yet another fictive generated by you.

Meanwhile, in terms of general construction FOR THE TIME (not 75 years later, which you alleged is the way "others" were reasoning) U-Boat construction was very good and much better than comparable Allied boats. U-Boats didn't have onboard radar, which was problematic and were generally smaller and shorter-ranged than American fleet boats, but that doesn't mean they weren't good.

U-Boats FOR THE TIME were not primitive, while all submarines OF THE TIME were surface vessels which could submerge.

 

LJAD your numbers are clearly made up with no evidence. You claimed there were 100000 merchant ships. The US Merchant marine had Starting with SS America, laid down in 1937, and ending with SS United States in 1952, the U.S. Maritime Commission built nearly 6,000 ships under the mandate of the 1936 Merchant Marine Act. Besides the Emergency-type Libertys and Victorys, they built "non-emergency" T-2 Tankers, C-2, C-3, C-4 freighters and P-type passenger vessels, as well as miscellaneous tugs, refrigerated, and concrete ships. http://www.usmm.org/men_ships.html I challenge you to show one instance that your numbers are acquired from a reliable source American Merchant Marine training, ... Ships built during World War II. ... and over 144,900 men served on over 6,236 American and Allied ships.

 

I never said that the US Merchant Marine had 100000 ships, I said that during a certain period 100000 ships were saling over the oceans , which is not the same .

ONE exemple : in 1943 there were 12745 ships sailing in the principal North and Mid Atlantic Convoys ,and this was only a very small part of the total number of ships that was sailing that year: other ships were saling in convoys to the Far East, to the SU, in coastal convoys in the US and British coastal Waters, and thousands of ships (almost as many as those of the convoys ) were sailing independently .


To combat against these ships, the Germans had a few U Boats(inferior to the escorts and aircraft):in march 1943 there were 400 U Boats of which 222 front-line boats,of which 182 in the Atlantic,of which 44 were en route and 68 at base and only 70 patrolling of which 45 in the North Atlantic .

What could do 70 U Boats against those thousands of merchant ships and their escorts and aircraft ?

First they had to find them,mostly they couldn't.

When they found them, they had to attack them;mostly they didn't

When they attacked,a lot of the attacks failed and the others resulted in small losses for the merchant ships and big losses for the U Boats .

And when more U Boats were available, the results were worse .

 

One can not discuss the importance of Turning for BP and the outcome of the submarine war, without discussing the importance of his pendant (Tranow ) for the B Dienst and the outcome of the submarine war, because BP did not operate in a vacuum : essentially BP reacted on the B Dienst: the more messages from the Admiralty were intercepted /Decoded by the B Dienst (and the more reliable they were ), the more messages were sent and received by Dönitz ,and the more messages were sent and received by Dönitz, the more such messages would be intercepted/decoded by BP/Turing .

The less efficient the B Dienst and Tranow were, the less efficient would be BP and Turing .

About the U Boats,they were inferior to escorts and aircraft ,as were all submarines : to be save, they had to dive, but than they were no longer efficient . To be efficient, they had to surface, but than ,they were not save .

 

Some good reading on Alan Turning: https://www.linkedin.com/in/alan-turning-04b49a103

 

Turing please.

 

LJAD please show any basis what so over for 1000000 ships being available.

 

Why bother?

LJAd does not know the difference between sailings and bottoms...and He has confuddled the two, because it makes his position appear stronger.

For example...The British SS Rose Castle sailed in 42 different convoys in 1942, the SS Sandown Castle sailed in 13 convoys in 1943, the SS City Of Newcastle had 24 sailings in convoy and 3 as strictly independent in 1943.

You could likely take his 100,000 sailings and divide by 25 to give you a better approximation on the number of ship bottoms sailing the north Atlantic in convoy.


Still, returning to ULTRA and Turing. IMHO, Turing played his part, but so did many others. To say that Turing is the nexus that ULTRA revolved around does a great disservice to those individuals. Joseph John Rochefort was one of the more well-known US codebreakers, but US codebreaking during WW2 did not begin & end with him.

 

If the Rose Castle sailed in 42 different convoys, this means that not one ship sailed ,but 42 ships .

Returning to Tranow/Turing,B Dienst / BP: both had their merits as they helped to increase the number of decoded messages and the speed of the decodings ;but neither the number, neither the speed ,even neither the content of the messages was important :the only thing that was important was what Dönitz/the Admiralty could do about the messages :if Dönitz received a message about a big convoy and he had not the means to attack it, the message was worthless,had no value;if the Admiralty received a message from BP that the Germans knew about a nearing convoy and the Admiralty had no means to protect the convoy, the importance of the message was nihil .

If the Admiralty received a message that U Boats were sailing to an area where a convoy would pass,what could do the Admiralty ?

Order the convoy to return ,if it was possible,but mostly it was not

Order the convoy to disperse, but mostly it was considered to dangerous

Order the convoy to rerout, but if it could not be done ? Or if rerouting would increase the danger ?

Order reinforcements to be sent ,but if there were no reinforcements available ?

Order the convoy to continue .

Order to sent aircraft /ships to attack the U Boats ,but if there were no A/S available or if the attack failed ?

All these things determined the importance of the messages, not what Turing or BP could do .

It was the same for Dönitz .

 

The facts remain : in 1943 12745 ships sailed in the principal North and Mid Atlantic convoys; even if a lot of them participated in several convoys, the fact remains that there were 12745 ships and that the U Boats were faced by the task to attack 12745 ships .

If in the Pacific a US Task Force had 10 warships and an other 9 warships, of which 2 had already participated in the first one ,the fact remains that these 2 task forces had 19 warships .

In 1943 Bomber Command did 47,471 sorties above Germany, this does not mean 47,471 different aircraft, it means : 47,471 aircraft, and that's the only thing that's count .

 

No, it means 47,471 sorties. That's why they use that word, and not "aircraft", in that context. Once again you shouldn't lecture people about the English language, when your grasp of it is not quite what you hope.

 

so ljad, does your proposal mean that every time a soldier fires his rifle he's a different soldier????

 

So, if a U-Boat sank one ship in January, 1940...She sank 42 ships for the entire year, and would receive credit for having sunk another 42 ships in 1942, 1943, and 1944?

If the Rose Castle sailed in 42 different convoys, this means that not one ship sailed ,but 42 ships .


After all...Using your logic, that U-Boat by sinking that one ship in January, 1940 would mean that the U-Boat sank, not one, but, 42 ships. Then in 1942, would have sunk another 42 ships, another 42 in 1943, and another 42 ships in 1944. That is pretty impressive - sinking one ship and getting credit for sinking 168 ships over 4 years.

Nope...Not even close

Again...Nope. But that is exactly what we wanted the Japanese to think, hence the whole Task Force 38/58 deal.

It was a rather simplistic trick...Not that I am surprised you fell for it.

Sortie means just that...sortie.

During the entire war, Fighter Command & Bomber Command flew over 1 million sorties. Does this mean that Britain had 1 million aircraft? Nope, not even close.

 

No : it means 47,471 aircraft :in 1943 there were 47,471 British bombers above Germany .

 

If a soldier was wounded 2 times,that makes NOt one, but 2 wounded . If a German soldier fought in the SU in 1941, was wounded and going back to Germany to recover and in 1942 was again going to the east, he must be counted twice .

The Soviet Army had more wounded than men called up,because a lot were wounded several times .

 

No : if is not an argument , it is not because in the OTL the Rose Castle sailed in 42 different convoys, that,if she was lost in 1940, she could not have sailed in 42 different convoys, because there is no proof that in the ATL there would be 42 different convoys .

You are falling for /using the old tric : let's change something in the OTL and create an ATL:it is the same as saying : if Kennedy was not murdered in 1963, the future would have been the same for 99 % but different for 1 % .
It is the same as saying that without Turing, the U Boat war would have been different: it is only speculation, besides, all is indicating that without Turing the U boat war would have been identical .

It is the same as saying that without Hitler,there would not have been a second world war . This is only speculation and everything is indicating that WWII still would happen .

The fact remains that on allied side more than 100000 ships were sailing in 1943.