How good were German a/c radios?

[zorstorer]

Wow fellas never thought a question about A/C radios would bring the piss and vinegar out like this

[Bruno]

Wow!

You don't get it. The antenna is the best amplifier. Adding anything else only works to a very narrow point and there is nothing that can amplify a signal that is not present.

No you don't get it. There was a signal present as you can see it the accounts posted above. They had radios, they used them and they worked so there was a signal. LW master station antenna were more then adequate.

You linked to an amature radio sight and cherry picked a paragraph that said:

That, of course, is not the case, since every amplifier creates noise that makes the reception worse, if not impossible. This fact is the cause for a radio-amateur saying that "Antenna is the best HF amplifier."

They are talking about AM / HF radio on that site. If you read that site they say in following paragrahs; speaking about the very same amature AM / HF radio:

The most obvious shortcoming of the receiver described in the previous chapter is that it can perform the sound reproduction loud enough only in case when the programme from some local or very powerful radio transmitter is being received, which can create very strong signal in the reception antenna. The reception of signals from other transmitters is too weak. The only thing that can be done is either to increase the length of the antenna, which, of course, does have its limits, or to insert an amplifying stage into the receiver.

and

In HF amplifier the signal coming from the radio station is being amplified in its original form. In our case, this means that AM signal is led at input of the HF amplifier, and on its output the same shaped signal is obtained, only with bigger amplitude. This device got its name because it is used to amplify HF signals, although more precise term for it is the Selective Voltage Amplifier (that's how it is called in professional books).

So your own source doesn't agree with you over what you posted about AM / HF radio.

As for VHF the master stations didn't require line of sight for duplex communication with fighters in the air. In one of the examples I gave Dahl's formation was vectored over very mountainous terrain to engage 15th AF bombers. Obviously there was a 'signal'.

The range from the master station to the fighters was never that far and well with in range of on board radio as well as RDF and IFF.

On a side note:

Duplex communication was never that important for intercept. Many times the LW pilots were ordered to leave there R/T off or complete radio silence to avoid the possibility of the allies triangulating their signals. Many times the Allies could jam LW communication or give out false vectors etc... The LW did this too to the Allies.

Your post does nothing except reinforce EXACTLY was Generalleutnant Josef ('Beppo') Schmid relates.

You haven't established that Schmid said any such thing. What we have is you posting a cropped scan that never mentions Schmid and doesn't include a page number or book title. With your constant 'cherry picking' of facts no one will take your word for it. What is the ISBN or the name of the book where that scan comes from?

However on that day, the USAAF hit many targets all over Occupied Europe:

So? the LW didn't have the forces to engage every raid or every section of a bomber stream.  When 3./JD sent out 226 fighters on 2 April '44 that represented the entire operational day fighter strength of the division.

The example I gave for 7 July '44 only deals with Luftflotte Reich whose forces concentrated on the raid headed towards Oschersleben . The LW never had the strength to hit the every section of a bomber stream or every stream. My example doesn't say anything about what was going on else where. Other LW squadrons in other sections were dispatched against some sections of those other raids.

[Bruno]

Oh and read the description of the FuG 10 I quoted above (See Harry's Reply as well). It mentions HF and MF frequencies not VHF. Neither the FuG 10 or FuG 7 were VHF.

The FuG 16 didn't enter service until well into '44...

[Crumpp]

Neither the FuG 10 or FuG 7 were VHF.

No the FuG 16 was VHF.  The radio that replaced the FuG VII in 1943.

http://noding.com/la8ak/29b.htm

Find a fighter the FuG 10 was used in??

It was a bomber radio.

So frequency control in FuG 10 had to be by a free-running oscillator. But the working conditions could hardly been more unfavourable. The transmitters of the FuG 10 were of the MOPA type (Master Oscillator Power Amplifier = VFO/PA). In the final amplifiers two RL12P35 pentodes were in parallel. The oscillator used the same 35W pentode in order to provide sufficient driving power for the final amplifier (Photo 2). A good solution from a logistic point of view, hut a technological nightmare for the development engineers. Almost all German transmitters used grid block keying of all stages. This made full break-in possible. Therefore the VK) stage would only warm up during transmissions. The stage never reached a stable temperature, due to the intermittent operation. The internal dimensions of the valves in the VFO and final amplifier, and with them the inter-electrode capacitances, were constantly changing, resulting in frequency drift.
The recently developed ceramic capacitors, having controlled temperature coefficient, opened the way to counter the frequency drift. But they could not follow changes in environmental temperature immediately due to their thermal lag. This problem was solved by increasing the surface. Where, for instance, a 100pF capacitor was required ten capacitors of 10pF in parallel were used and mounted at strategic locations within the transmitter. However, this did not help in the case of the inter-electrode capacitances of the valves that changed quickly when the Morse key was operated, but Lorenz also countered this problem. There were available not only capacitors with a controlled temperature coefficient but also ones with a controlled loss resistance. Capacitors of this kind were included in the tuned circuit of the oscillator. The RF current flowing through them during transmission heated the capacitors in step with the valves and so frequency drift was sufficiently eliminated.
The low air pressure in a high-flying aircraft can cause sparking in the variable capacitors of a transmitter. This can be avoided by increasing the spacing between the plates, but this also increases the dimensions of the capacitor. This was not a viable solution for the FuG 10 transmitters, covering 300-600kHz for the long wave (S10L) and 3000-6000kHz for the short wave transmitter (S10K), packed in a cabinet of only 210 x 220 x 220mm and delivering 70-80 watts to the antenna. Here the invention of the dust iron cores by Hans Vogt brought the solution. Instead of varying the capacitance of the tuning circuits these were fixed and the inductance varied by using variometers. Inside the sphere-shaped coils on their ceramic formers were cores of sintered dust iron. The variometers of the master oscillator and final amplifier were ganged and tuned by a single knob.

None of these solutions equal the performance of quartz.  The Germans made it work because they had too.  It was not a reliable system in comparision.

http://noding.com/la8ak/10a.htm

No single engines fighters used the FuG10:

Starting from 1939, it became the preferred equipment for larger aircraft with several crew members (e.g. Ju 88, He 111, DO 217, ME 110).

http://www.qsl.net/ab4oj/fug10e/fug10e.html

As for the FuG VII and FuG VIIa, it was phased out by 1943 when the need for a long-range coordinated control was not an issue.

The book:

TABLE OF CONTENTS
chapter title authors Source
List of Figures and Maps
INTRODUCTION David C. Isby, editor
GLOSSARY
SECTION 1 - The Defense of the Reich
Chapter 1: Reich Air Defense in World War II. A Strategic-Tactical Survey Von Rohden (compiler) USAFHRA file 512-045-4. OB from AUL 940.544943 R737e
Chapter 2: The Overall Defense of the Reich 1940-44 (January) Weise USNARA RG-338 D-111 Foreign Military Studies
Chapter 3: Development of Nightfighting July 1940 - 15 September 1943 Kammhuber USAFHRA file 519.601
SECTION 2- A Battle of Increasing Numbers and Technology
Chapter 4: Technical and Communications Equipment Used in the Reich's Defense von Rohden AUL 940.544943 R737e
Chapter 5: German Nightfighting from 15 June 1943 to May 1945 "Beppo" Schmid USAFHRA file 519.601
Chapter 6: German Dayfighting in the Defense of the Reich from September 15, 1943 to the End of the War "Beppo" Schmid USAFHRA file 519.601
SECTION 3 - Developing Technology to Defend the Reich
Chapter 7: Fighter Control Galland USAFHRA file 519.601
Chapter 8: Luftwaffe Radars Martini USAFHRA file 519.601
Chapter 9: Luftwaffe Radars and Radios OKL Staff USAFHRA file 519.601
Chapter 10: the Me-262: Development, Experience, Success and Prospects Messerschmitt German Naval Archive, Operational Archives Branch, Naval Historical Center, Washington, D.C
SECTION 4 - Applying the Technology: Operations and Tactics
Chapter 11: Commanding the Night Fighters Kammhuber USAFHRA file 519.601
Chapter 12: Night Fighter Control Ruppel USAFHRA file 519.601
Chapter 13: Night Fighter Direction Sandmann USAFHRA file 519.601
Chapter 14: Night Fighter Operations Sandmann USAFHRA file 519.601
Chapter 15: Night Fighter Tactics (NJG 4) Schnaufer USAFHRA file 519.601
Chapter 16: Night Fighter Tactics (NJG 6) Scholls USAFHRA file 519.601
Chapter 17: Night Fighter Missions Scholls USAFHRA file 519.601
Chapter 18: Fighting the P-61 Ruppel USAFHRA file 519.601
SECTION 5 - Summing Up
Chapter 19: Looking Back Von Rohden AUL 940.544943 R737e
Biographies editor

A new English-language collection of immediate postwar writings by senior Luftwaffe commanders and fighter pilots is in print. Entitled FIGHTING THE BOMBERS: THE LUFTWAFFE'S STRUGGLE AGAINST THE ALLIED BOMBER OFFENSIVE; it is being published by Greenhill in the UK and Stackpole in the US. It is currently available on both US and UK Amazon.com web sites. I edited the volume.

Those familiar with the previous volume done by Greenhill, THE LUFTWAFFE FIGHTER FORCE: THE VIEW FROM THE COCKPIT will find this similar. However, it is not simply the bits that would not fit into the first volume. Rather, these are a selection of immediate post-war interrogations and writings by a number of key figures in the Luftwaffe. I believe such post-war accounts, while by no means the last word, are valuable and should have a broader availability than being in the archives at Maxwell AFB. This volume is much more an attempt at putting together a narrative from multiple Luftwaffe viewpoints.

The book itself is 256 pp, hardbound, with a glossary. The book is illustrated with lots of b&w photos and drawings throughout. The table of contents shows the source. USAFHRA is the US air Force historical Research Agency. Appendix B-4 holds a listing of file 519.601 material. AUL is the Air University Library (reproduced typescript). USNARA is the US National Archives.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1853675326/102-8219486-0993745?v=glance&n=283155

they worked so there was a signal.

Umm Yeah!:huh   And how do you prove the ones they did not hear?  Maybe ask someone who was there?  

The man in charge of JagdKorps I says differently.  Sorry but he was there and you were not.  

In HF amplifier the signal coming from the radio station is being amplified in its original form.

Guess your not tracking.  Instead of quiet garble, you get loud garble.  Which is exactly what I said in the beginning.  

That, of course, is not the case, since every amplifier creates noise that makes the reception worse, if not impossible. This fact is the cause for a radio-amateur saying that "Antenna is the best HF amplifier."

http://www.mikroelektronika.co.yu/english/product/books/rrbook/chapter3/chapter3b.htm

The site is explaining the importance of the antenna to the receiver.  The principal it lays down above does not change for the duration of the article.  Nowhere does it contradict the above statement.

You simply assume it does because it goes on to explain radio receiver amplification.

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.

You think it might interfere with that antenna attached to it???

You don't get it. The antenna is the best amplifier. Adding anything else only works to a very narrow point and there is nothing that can amplify a signal that is not present.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

The FuG VII is a Medium Frequency radio that just reaches into the low HF range.
 

Medium Frequency range:

Mediumwave signals have the property of following the curvature of the earth (the groundwave) at all times, and also reflecting off the ionosphere at night (skywave).

Which is probably why it was phased out.  MF would give you excellent range if you were on the ground.  In some cases hundreds of miles.

Unfortunately most airplanes in flight are not on the ground or near it.

The Skywave propagation of MF is unpredictable at night.  HF is much more predictable for long range Skywave propogation.

However being such a low frequency for the HF spectrum it useful is doubtful for skywave propagation.

Since the ionosphere often reflects HF radio waves quite well, this range is extensively used for medium and long range terrestrial radio communication. [/b]However, suitability of this portion of the spectrum for such communication varies greatly with a complex combination of factors:[/b]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_frequency

This is why HF radios generally cover the entire HF spectrum.  Best Frequency to use changes considerably during the course of the day/night.

The usable frequencies fall between the Lowest Useable Frequency and the Maximum Useable Frequency.  

Maximum usable frequency (MUF) describes, in radio transmission, using reflection from the regular ionized layers of the ionosphere, the upper frequency limit that can be used for transmission between two points at a specified time. This index is especially useful in regard to shortwave transmissions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_usable_frequency

The lowest usable high frequency (LUF), in radio transmission, is that frequency in the HF band at which the received field intensity is sufficient to provide the required signal-to-noise ratio for a specified time period, e.g., 0100 to 0200 UTC, on 90% of the undisturbed days of the month. The amount of energy absorbed by the lower regions of the ionosphere (D region, primarily) directly impacts the LUF.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowest_usable_high_frequency

And the best frequency for the conditions is the Frequency of Optimum Travel:

n the transmission of radio waves via ionospheric reflection, Frequency of Optimum Transmission, often abbreviated FOT, is the highest effective (i.e. working) frequency that is predicted to be usable for a specified path and time for 90% of the days of the month. The FOT is normally just below the value of the maximum usable frequency (MUF). In the prediction of usable frequencies, the FOT is commonly taken as 15% below the monthly median value of the MUF for the specified time and path.

The FOT is usually the most effective frequency for ionospheric reflection of radio waves between two specified points on Earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_of_optimum_transmission

Considering the HF spectrum is 3mHz to 30mHz, the 750KHz that the FuG VII reaches into it is a very narrow slice.  Highly unlikely it will fall into the usable band.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Angus]

The Brits were already into VHF in 1940. But Crumpp has brought up a lot of interesting stuff.
And as for Harry's answer, - I'll rather take the words of a Wartime ace than some "Tom, Dick or Harry" from the internet. I do not know whether the 262 sported a different radio (well, it's more spacious aft fuselage than a 109,  apart from being a newer design alltogether), but the main point is that they didn't get out of the way of the magnettos disturbing quite a bit.
Not sure as well over what frequency the magnettos give "noise", but if you've been in a piston engined aircraft and on the radio, you'll bloody well know that this is not a problem today. And the frequency today? Lower or higher???????

[Bruno]

Find a fighter the FuG 10 was used in??

It was a bomber radio.

What did I say Crumpp? Here I will quote myself for you:

bombers and Recce used FuG 10, fighters used FuG 7 then FuG 16

None of these solutions equal the performance of quartz. The Germans made it work because they had too. It was not a reliable system in comparision.

They did not have to be 'equal to quartz'. The ranges and distances weren't that great. It was plenty reliable in terms of a functional design. Of course like all things German late in the war production quality was suspect due to poor materials and quality control.

There used to be a TOCH forum member (Old TOCH) by the nic of Radiomonitor. He was a Luftwaffe radio operator (he was there). He wrote in an old post that can be found on LWAG:

From TOCH!:

Radiomonitor
Radio Equipment
Thu Sep 19 07:54:39 2002
80.33.178.189

02.09.19-0636z---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. The fighters' FuG16 and FuG17 - radio telephone equipment - working on 39 mHz upto 47 mHz were constructed in moduls, were lightweight and assembled for quick tuning and easy and quick maintenance. The radios also worked as direction finding - df - equipment, and for "Zielflug", i.e. homing devices, using the radio beacons in the German airspace. The equipment was usually built-in in the aft section of the aircraft, with distance-tuning from the pilot's seat - The ground control officers had even so-called transponder facility, i.e. a radio equipment which could identify "friend and foe" in the air, as well as usual commanding mode traffics-vy73-KAL-(former Luftwaffe radio operator)+

I have a contact email for him and I sent him a message. Maybe he will clear things up..



The email bounced. There is no TOCH member currently registred as 'Radiomonitor' and I currently can't ask him to clarify.

Guess your not tracking. Instead of quiet garble, you get loud garble. Which is exactly what I said in the beginning.

It's you making the assumption of 'garble' no one else. I said the antenna design was important but as it says this quote:

The most obvious shortcoming of the receiver described in the previous chapter is that it can perform the sound reproduction loud enough only in case when the programme from some local or very powerful radio transmitter is being received, which can create very strong signal in the reception antenna. The reception of signals from other transmitters is too weak. The only thing that can be done is either to increase the length of the antenna, which, of course, does have its limits, or to insert an amplifying stage into the receiver.

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. Remember you brought up 'range':

They simply could not carry a vacuum tube radio large enough to give them the range needed to co-ordinate their entire effort in the air.

I said:

Range wasn't an issue with the radios on board aircraft and in air control was maintained on the Gruppe/squadron level.

Then you did your little pee dance and jumped to 'no signal', 'garbled signals', on board equipment 'not powerful enough' and 'bad antenna' etc...

The site is explaining the importance of the antenna to the receiver. The principal it lays down above does not change for the duration of the article. Nowhere does it contradict the above statement.

You also said (in reponse to amplifiers):

No such thing. The best you can do to recieve is built a good antenna. However it is subject to the law of reciprocity.

Your source contradicts you, not itself. The article is clear despite your 'cherry picking'

In HF amplifier the signal coming from the radio station is being amplified in its original form. In our case, this means that AM signal is led at input of the HF amplifier, and on its output the same shaped signal is obtained, only with bigger amplitude. This device got its name because it is used to amplify HF signals, although more precise term for it is the Selective Voltage Amplifier (that's how it is called in professional books).

Now I gave you examples of LW air-to-ground communication on a large scale. If you question those examples email the webmasters. Falkeins posts on several forums and is a published author. You can ask him if he might:

ask someone who was there

try LEMB...

In Norbert Hannig's book 'Fighter Ace' he writes of radio (posted for no real reason other then to ad-lib some sarcasm; I need the work):

pg 79:

Our call sign was 'Rotkäppchen', I recall, and the weather was ideal for our mission. A solid layer of high cloud covered the base, but off to the north, in the direction of the front, this gave way to clear blue sky. We took off and headed northwards in a steady climb. Almost as if on cue ground control, Anton 1, came on air:

"To cyclists in area Schlum, single furniture van nearing the front heading north, Frage Viktor?"

Frage Viktor? damn doesn't ground control know that LW radios don't work? They can't possible expect a clear answer from fighter with bad antennas and radio with no power...

This account goes on describing R/T air - air communiction between the flight.

Hannig describes another incident where while escorting a group of bombers here he hears the:

Triumphant cries of 'Abschuß'

and then

Suddenly the unmistakeable tones of Nowotny, the Kommandeur I Gruppe and one of our leading Experten over the R/T:

"There's another one! Pauke! Pauke!"

- attack, attack!

Man with all that 'garble' and lack of signal how could Hannig recognize Nowotny's 'Austrian' voice...

All crews don't report to ground control, only the leading elements. The location of friendly aircraft is tracked via IFF and there's no need for 'running' commentary. GCI gave vectors and directed those in the air to the fight. It was up to the the flight leader to pick targets and decide upon attack and withdrawal strategies.

Until my book order arrives I still can't comment of Schmid. That book didn't get good reviews but for $24 USD WTF, we will see...

[KD303]

Originally posted by Angus
I would think the 190 had a good space for radio, - you could stuff a man in there.

I think you could even squeeze two in...gulp.

[Crumpp]

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

[Angus]

Man & a Woman

There was a woman escaping on that day Rudel got away. Nobody knows who she was.
Wonder where I read up on that though.

[Bruno]

Then why bring it up in a discussion on daylight fighter control?

You said:

We are dealing with VHF radios, Bruno. NOT HF.

I replied with an FYI that only the FuG 16 was VHF and said:

Oh and read the description of the FuG 10 I quoted above (See Harry's Reply as well). It mentions HF and MF frequencies not VHF. Neither the FuG 10 or FuG 7 were VHF.

In order to point out that both the FuG 10 and FuG 7 were MF / HF. I never mentioned 'dayfighter' in reference to the FuG 10. In fact if you read the FuG 10 description as I suggested you could where I answered Milo's question as to whether the FuG 10 was used in fighters or bombers.

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.

The ranges were never that great early in the war either. In Fact LW dayfighter range was considerably smaller.

One thing about  your 'line of site' in regards to the FuG 16 and VHF (quasi-optische Sicht).  When I said range wasn't an issue I included that LW ground stations were well distributed through out the operational areas ( Jafü / JD). Fighters would switch between ground stations. The grounds stations were linked upwards through the command and control structure.

I think a better term would be 'direct path' since since VHF band using low power and small antenna like the LW used with FuG 16 did require an unobstructed path for best reception.

VHF ranges by nature are 'limited' for example the approximate effective range numbers I have for the FuG 16 are:

Air-to-air traffic:
30 km at 300
200 km at altitude.

Ground-to-air traffic:
100 km at 1000m
200 km at 4000m
250 km at 6000m

These ranges may or may not be 100% accurate but they are supported by the following:

Lt. Henning (USA) wrote in 1946:
About the middle of the 1941, the FuG-16 apparatus began to come into use on multiengined(?) aircraft. This covered a frequency band from 38.6 – 42.2 megacycles for R/T only and was used chiefly for air-to-air communication and fighter control. The Tx is of the electron coupled oscillator type with following amplifier. The receiver is a nine tube superhet with AVC and low temperature coefficient inductances.

The same type of pentode is employed thought the different connections for the various functions. Both Rx and Tx have adjustable stop tuning, which may be set for predetermined frequencies together with optional remote control equipment. The effective range for air-to-air traffic varies height being about 30 km at 1000 ft to 200 km at great heights. For ground-to-air traffic, the range is approximately 100 km at 3000 ft increasing to 200 km at 13,000 ft.[\quote]

The LW weren't complete idiots and planned for their effective radio ranges by distributing equipment through out their operational areas (Jafü / JD etc). Even in the East where the ranges were much greater. This makes sense for other reasons as well. For one the Allies wouldn't not be able to knock out the LW communication structure as easily.

Those ranges I listed aren't a product of poor radio design. For example,

the rule-of-thumb in determining the maximum direct path distance (the distance to the horizon) between an aircraft and a ground station, in nautical miles, is equal to the square root of the aircraft height, in feet, above the underlying [flat] terrain.

For air-to-air communications the LOS distance is the sum of two 'distance to horizon' calculations: i.e. One aircraft at 5000 feet the other at 10 000 feet: the maximum LOS distance will be 70 + 100 = 170 nm. It may be a bit more than that because of wave diffraction at the intervening horizon. Intervening mountain terrain may reduce the distance.

So when I said range wasn't an issue in was the context that it was not something that could not be over come. It was...

You quote a BBS posting?? That's your proof?

My 'proof' of what? Everything I typed is supported by fact while you dance a jig switching directions as many times as possible.

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.

I didn't say an amplifier created a signal. I said that weak signal could be boosted enough to compensate for range. You then jumped to 'no signal' 'garbled signal' etc..

I never said the site was incorrect I said you were incorrect when you stated clearly:

No such thing. The best you can do to recieve is built a good antenna. However it is subject to the law of reciprocity.

The statement 'no such thing' is not ambiguous. My replies about 'amplifiers' are specific and are supported by your own source.
 

Read the begining. Nowhere does anyone claim the Germans did not use ground control.

You are saying that the German on board radio / antennas weren't powerful enough to transmit to ground control, or at least some percentage of the fighters in the air could not. My reply is 'they all didn't need to'. All they needed to hear was the instructions from their flight leader. Are you saying that the on board radios couldn't even transmit between fighters a few thousand meters away?

You keep posting these anecdotes with little understanding of the argument.

Those anecdotes address your specific claim:

While the allies could communicate with all of their aircraft, the Luftwaffe could not.

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.

They communicated well enough, there was no need for one command to have control over every fighter in western Europe. There was coordination between commands as shown in those 'anecdotes'.

They did attack specific points of bomber stream en mass and caused considerable losses at those points. The LW was defeated not due to 'bad radios' but because they couldn't put up the numbers necessary to combat Allied air superiority.

[Angus]

There certainly seems to be no problem with the range then.
More of a question about reception and reliability.

[Crumpp]

Range was only part of the problem.  Statement (b) clearly qualifies range as an issue.  The fighter radios lacked the range for reliable duplex communication.

The system was plagued by a number of technical and training issues.  To characterize it as efficient or adequet is pure fandom revision of History.

I think a better term would be 'direct path' since since VHF band using low power and small antenna like the LW used with FuG 16 did require an unobstructed path for best reception.

It required an unobstructed path for ANY reception.

You are saying that the German on board radio / antennas weren't powerful enough to transmit to ground control, or at least some percentage of the fighters in the air could not.

That is what your clouded fandom vision thinks I am saying.

Nowhere do I claim the Germans could not communicate in the air.  I am saying their system was not reliable nor effective in gaining strategic control of the battle.  They could not coordinate large strikes at the same time from different parts of the Reich.  Their control was just not good.

Just as GeneralLeutnant Schid says, they had local control.  Although they did attempt to coordinate theater wide responses via ground communications before the aircraft launched, once in the air, the Gruppe or Staffle was an independant unit.

The allies had the advantage and could coordinate strikes flooding the Reichs airspace and overloading the defenses.  Not only did they grossly outnumber the Luftwaffe, but they had the force multiplier of effective strategic control.

From your statements on the reciever amplifier, it is obvious you do not understand the technical side of communications although you are struggling to do so.

You still have no clue and fail to understand that a reciever amplifier is not a miracle or magical piece of equipment.  On the reciever end, the antenna is what matters with any amplification being a band-aid or worse, interference.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Bruno]

The fighter radios lacked the range for reliable duplex communication.

As already explained there was no pressing need for 'duplex communication' between all crews and the ground as it says in your scanned image. In fact the allies where perfectly capable of triangulation LW transmission signals. Duplex communication, especially those transmissions coming for the fighters back to ground, would give away the location of the LW formation. There are many instances where the LW pilots were ordered to leave there R/Ts off or to maintain complete radio silence. There was no need for every LW fighter in the air to maintain a running commentary with GCI.

Nowhere do I claim the Germans could not communicate in the air. I am saying their system was not reliable nor effective in gaining strategic control of the battle. They could not coordinate large strikes at the same time from different parts of the Reich. Their control was just not good.

Sure they did, I gave examples do you need more? The example I gave for 2 April '44 is recounted in Jadwaffe: Defending the Reich 1944-1945, Vol 3, Section 5, in the chapter entitled: 'Mass against Mass 1 - Gefechtsverbänd, pg 209. It states that mulitple fighter units from mulitple JD (from JD 3 and 7) were sent up, and then vectored to target via GCI in a coodinated attack on the Allied bombers headed toward Styr. This was all the fighters available within range.

just as GeneralLeutnant Schid says, they had local control. Although they did attempt to coordinate theater wide responses via ground communications before the aircraft launched, once in the air, the Gruppe or Staffle was an independant unit.

Local control at the (Jafü / JD) as controlled from the ground. In the air the at the Gruppe or Staffel level. Even the Allies didn't have single control of all their fighters / aircraft in the air over Europe. The LW would have never intercepted Allid bombers if the only instruction from the ground they received was 'pre-flight'. The bombers didn't fly straight to target. They were tracked and vector updates were sent from the ground up to the fighters, just as described in my examples.

The allies had the advantage and could coordinate strikes flooding the Reichs airspace and overloading the defenses. Not only did they grossly outnumber the Luftwaffe, but they had the force multiplier of effective strategic control.

The Allies didn't have a single command structure either. They did not have a single 'radio' station' popping out orders to every allied fighter plane in the sky. You over state their 'strategic control'. The allied victory was simple, put up more numbers then the LW, engage the LW when ever possible and shoot them down. That didn't require a lot of micro-management from the ground. The LW could track allied radio communication as well. The Allies didn't need a running commentary back to the ground either. Radio discipline and brevity was practiced on all sides.

From your statements on the reciever amplifier, it is obvious you do not understand the technical side of communications although you are struggling to do so.

My statements are clear and supported by your own source. Its you who jumped from 'amplifiers' don't exist to  'they can't possibly work'. It's you who claimed 'LW on board radios (or some %) were to weak to send out a signal over range' and / or that they could only send out 'garbled signals' and could not be heard on the ground. What I said was that weak signals due to range could be amplified so that they could be heard. Just as it states on the site you linked. Anything else read into that is on you.

In HF amplifier the signal coming from the radio station is being amplified in its original form. In our case, this means that AM signal is led at input of the HF amplifier, and on its output the same shaped signal is obtained, only with bigger amplitude. This device got its name because it is used to amplify HF signals, although more precise term for it is the Selective Voltage Amplifier (that's how it is called in professional books).

Same shaped signal with bigger amplitude...

LW radio communication was jammed, it was manipulated (false information being given out by the allies as GCI), it was used against the LW (the Allies could trace / triangulate radio signals and vector their fighters to intercept LW formations well before they reached the bombers). All these were real problems. None of them would have been overcome by putting Ami radio sets in LW aircraft.

[Crumpp]

Same shaped signal with bigger amplitude...

What??  Do you know what that means?

Same garble only louder.

Crump Says:
They could not coordinate large strikes at the same time from different parts of the Reich. Their control was just not good.

Bruno says:
Sure they did,

Guess you and General Schmid will just have to disagree.

They were tracked and vector updates were sent from the ground up to the fighters, just as described in my examples.

No has claimed anything different.  You just argue for the sake of arguing.

Of course the Germans had a system in place for controlling fighters.  You contend that it was a great reliable system on par with what the allies used.  It was not.

It is a question of reliability.

Let's look at your claims:

Range wasn't an issue with the radios on board aircraft

Not according the Schmid. see comment (b) in the documents posted in my last reply.

Again, you seem to know more about it than the man who actually directed Luftwaffe fighters in battle.

Your own source lists the range of two-way communications with the FuG16 series.  

Air-to-air traffic:
30 km at 300
200 km at altitude.

Nowhere has the argument for all fighters using radios came up in this thread.  We are discussing the Formation leaders communications with the Ground Controller.  Two-way communications, i.e., both radios can talk to each other.  

Now go look at a map of Europe.  It's much bigger than 200km's.  

They did not have a single 'radio' station' popping out orders to every allied fighter plane in the sky.

Umm the 8th USAAF did coordinate its efforts among multiple Fighter/Bomber Groups and could coordinate a response to the developing defensive conditions in the air.  The Germans had little or no capability to do this.

This was especially used when USAAF Fighter Groups began ranging ahead of the bombers.

Typical 8th USAAF Fighter Escort Screen:

http://img134.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc253&image=3575b_Fighter_Escort.jpg

Its you who jumped from 'amplifiers' don't exist to 'they can't possibly work'.

What a silly statement.  As I pointed out in the very same post you keep pointing too as "proof" I was denying receiver amplifiers did not exist, I talk about the characteristics of a receiver amplifier’s engineering limits.

The only “jumping around” is in your mind.

You do not understand the engineering trade-offs I pointed out.  Receiver Amplifiers are far from magic and the antenna is the best bet for good reception.

Speaking of Antennas lets look at some German propagation charts from a study of the effect of frequency on range.

This study shows the range of data found from various studies on frequency selection.  The power out varies from 100 watts to 20,000 watts.  Much more power than the FuG VII put out.  



The FuG VII is a much shorter-range radio with a frequency range of 2.5mHz to 3.75mHz only.  

All the best,

Crumpp