I have been sending message around the world for 30 years on that "useless and pointless" radio theory. It is obvious you do not grasp the technical intricacies. Many of the statements you have made in this thread are contrary to the science.
Quote those 'many statements'... All you posted about 'radio theory' is copy-n-pasted from the web links you dug up while googling.
That is because they are allied documents, Wotan, not Luftwaffe. They are the post war de-briefs and POW interrogations of Luftwaffe personnel from the end of the war. IMHO they have a large degree of creditability. They give the reader a picture from the perspective of the Germans.
The initial interviews and interrogations were done in German then translated to English and published in the various 'studies'. The originals can no longer be located. The parts we are concerned with (chapters 6 - 8 in the book) can be found in 'USAFE Posthostilities Investigation, German Air Defenses, AFHRA, file no. 519.601' as noted in your post of the chapters.
Kitchens overall opinion of the value of Isby's work isn't what is in contention. Since you made Isby's book the 'last word' on this subject then its perfectly reasonable to explore what value it has to this discussion.
If as SES suggests (and I will find when the book arrives) it is full of:
They asked stupid questions and got silly answers.
and bad and inaccurate translations then its value is meaningless as the 'end all source' you seem to think it is...
Sure, I absolutely agree with Tony Williams. Great example of the point he is making is the use of GM-1 and C3-Enspritzung together in my research or 100/150-grade extensive use. Both are areas in which there is plenty of documentation, photos, and "facts" to make a case of operational adoption that may not be true.
So you finally admit GM-1 was never serialized? I, and others, told you that 2 1/2 years ago and you argued just as hard that it was as you are arguing in this thread... Should I check back in 2 1/2 years to see if you changed positions on this subject?
FYI:
They spanked you in that other thread about 8th AF usage of 150 grade fuel. While I agree that the evidence for widespread 150 grade usage by the 8th is weak, you certainly didn't mount a convincing argument in that thread.
Documents must be carefully weighed in context with events and cross referenced with other documentation.
That's right, and Isby himself doesn't say his work is the 'end all source' you claim it is. He states:
My goal was never to do synthesis. I was not paid for #$%ing synthesis! Nor was it my objective. People want to hear from those who were involved at the time as well as those who have the benefit of 60 years work. It was to select and present a group of documents in their historical context, raise warning flags where approrpriate, and provide an annotated bibliography and description of the authors.
There's nothing wrong with that, especially if the book is cheaper and quicker then ordering the original documents. But as Adam in that thread says:
To whatever degree, those of us who frequent this board are of a learned background and similarly such publications as Fighting the Bombers and Luftwaffe and the War at Sea sahould be seen as a necessary and acceptable part of the overall study of history. Whether we like it or not the writtings of Galland, Donitz, Hitler, Churchill or whoever are necessary aspects of history and as such deserve their place - untouched and uninterpreted by modern authors, historians, "exerts" or enthusiasts alike, despite - or perhaps because of - their short-falls and misrepresentations (Look at Churchill and his recounting of Dieppe). Without the coloured views such as Churchill's multi-volume works on the Second World War, Galland's First and the Last, Knockes, I Flew for the Fuhrer, etc all history would be lkeft with would be the likes of Mr Anotn (non-personal) that can only view the world with annotated bibliographies and footnotes. History is not black an white, rather it is coloured by the subjective understanding and intepretations placed upon it by the evidence left behind. Evidence such as that which was edited and published by Mr. Isby.
The question in this thread isn't whether or not works like this are 'a necessary and acceptable part of the overall study of history'. What is important, in the context of this discussion, is determining the value of the information contained in such a book as 'the end all source' as you present it. Until I readthe book all I have is 'your word' on it.
Whether or not Kitchens dismisses the work out of hand due to Isby's lack of PhD is of much less importance to this discussion.
Nowhere did I say the allied ECM capability did not exist, I said it was not effective according to those who were subjected to it.
The image you scanned doesn't say anything about 'effectiveness' it says:
(f) The absence of large scale jamming and deceptive radio activity.
Jamming and 'deceptive radio activity' weren't used on a 'large scale' (massive jamming, used every mission etc...) but were used and effective when employed. The allies were well ahead of the Germans in terms of ECM. But like with the U-boats it may have been more useful to the allies to have the LW transmitting so they could monitor and triangulate transmissions.
Once the Allied fighters were deployed in advance of the bombers they were able to locate and break up the Gefechtsverbänd as they formed up. I am sure locating these battle formations and destroying then were all apart of the allied strategy.
I am not sure what you want those other scans to convey?
In regards to last scan:
The LW Gefechtsverbänd were envisioned to be about 50-60 plane formations. 10 formations of that size would mean 500-600 fighters. The LW were rarely able to deploy that number of fighters. The Gefechtsverbänd at times would be made of up no more then 20 aircraft. A quick flip through the 'Jadgwaffe: Defending the Reich' and Reschke's 'JG 301/302 Wild Sau' it seems that the average number of LW fighters sent up against Ami bombers was in the range of 200-250.
We can go round and round I guess but I need to read the book. I maybe completely wrong but I doubt it...
