What did I say Crumpp? Here I will quote myself for you:
Then why bring it up in a discussion on
daylight fighter control?Except to strawman when the relevant facts do not lead to the conclusions you wish them too?
The ranges and distances weren't that great.
Sure, Late in the war by the time it was long past making a difference, the system did become adequet. The ranges decreased daily as the allies closed in.
Radio Equipment in German fighters, bombers and transport aircraft was during the WW2 superior to the equipment of British and American similar equipment, both in construction details, performance and handling.
You quote a BBS posting?? That's your proof?
If the transmitter / signal is too weak, as would be the case with range, inserting an amplifying stage into the receiver will allow the transmission to be heard.
And the wheel goes round and round, round and round....
Once again. Only to a very small point.
All electronics emit RF energy.
The more power the more interference. Your are talking about increasing the power at the point of reception, you know.
Additionally if your reception is poor, amplifying a poor signal results in a louder poor signal.
It's not magic and does not create reception.
Range wasn't an issue with the radios on board aircraft and in air control was maintained on the Gruppe/squadron level.
Range was the issue. That is why control had to be pushed down to the Gruppe level and below.
Your source contradicts you, not itself.
I really don't think you even understand what the article is saying. It clearly does not contradict anything written in the antenna portion.
Let's not cherry pick our quotes either Bruno.
While I did say this:
No such thing. The best you can do to recieve is built a good antenna. However it is subject to the law of reciprocity.
If you bother to read further in the same post I also wrote:
An amplifier could help but the absence of signal means nothing to amplify. An unreadable transmission really loud is still an unreadable transmission. It is just louder static.
Obviously I am aware that Reciever amplifiers exist. Difference is your lack of understanding of their capabilites and place in communications.
They do not
create signal nor can they deduce the meaning of a poor signal and they can only amplify within the narrow confines of interference.
The Antenna is the best amplifier available.
All crews don't report to ground control, only the leading elements.
Read the begining. Nowhere does anyone claim the Germans did not use ground control. You keep posting these anecdotes with little understanding of the argument. Much less the equipment.
On a strategic level, the Germans were unable to compete. They could not launch fighters from Holland, Berlin, and France with the idea of controlling them to intercept the bomber stream at a specific point simutaneously.
Why? They needed better radios.
That book didn't get good reviews
All the best,
Crumpp