Slashdot Mirror


WWII Code-Breaker Dies At Age 95 (washingtonpost.com)

An anonymous reader quotes an article from the Washington Post: Jane Fawcett, a British code-breaker during World War II who deciphered a key German message that led to the sinking of the battleship Bismarck -- one of Britain's greatest naval victories during the war -- died May 21 at her home in Oxford, England. She was 95... Fluent in German and driven by curiosity, Mrs. Fawcett -- then known by her maiden name, Jane Hughes -- found work at Britain's top-secret code-breaking facility at Bletchley Park, about 50 miles northwest of London. Of the 12,000 people who worked there, about 8,000 were women. Bletchley Park later became renowned as the place where mathematician Alan Turing and others solved the puzzle of the German military's "Enigma machine," depicted in the 2014 film "The Imitation Game"...

The sinking of the Bismarck marked the first time that British code-breakers had decrypted a message that led directly to a victory in battle... Mrs. Fawcett's work was not made public for decades. Along with everyone else at Bletchley Park, she agreed to comply with Britain's Official Secrets Act, which imposed a lifetime prohibition on revealing any code-breaking activities.

Meanwhile, volunteers from The National Museum of Computing at Bletchley Park finally tracked down an original keyboard from the Lorenz machine used to encode top-secret messages between Hitler and his general. It was selling on eBay for 10 pounds, advertised as an old machine for sending telegrams.

120 comments

  1. Worth a try by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    finally tracked down an original keyboard from the Lorenz machine used to encode top-secret messages between Hitler and his general. It was selling on eBay for 10 pounds, advertised as an old machine for sending telegrams.

    Maybe NASA can find the Apollo 11 tapes on eBay.

  2. Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Greetings from Poland. Our enigma clone and hard work of our best code breakers is yours for free. You can forget us later. Or better still, make us the bad guys when you make a film about all this.

    1. Re: Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hated how cumberbatch in the film dismissed the work of marian rejewski jn a throwaway line. Im sure the real turing was more of a team player than shown in the film.

    2. Re: Propaganda by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Im sure the real turing was more of a team player than shown in the film.

      Who are you to be sure? Nowadays movies about heroes are all about emphasizing good points and hiding weaknesses/flaws. So it is likely the real Turing was even less of a team player.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    3. Re:Propaganda by GrahamCox · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Please ignore the movies. There are many excellent books about the work of Bletchley Park, and while I can't claim to have read the majority of them, the ones I have read do acknowledge the Polish debt, and it's pretty clear that the personnel of Bletchley were extremely grateful for the head-start.

      A good book for example is "The Secret Life of Bletchley Park" by Sinclair McKay

    4. Re:Propaganda by PmanAce · · Score: 2

      Please ignore the movies.

      Doesn't work for the majority who don't read books and take everything they see in movies as factual.

      --
      Tired of my customary (Score:1)
    5. Re:Propaganda by Ferocitus · · Score: 1

      No problem. We have almost forgotten that Poland and Germany invaded Czechoslovakia together in 1938.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      It was all fun and games then, wasn't it!

      --
      USB, USB, USB!
    6. Re:Propaganda by Ferocitus · · Score: 1

      There are many others too, e.g. Churchill's 2nd World War Memoirs in which he compared Germany and Poland to "vultures landing on the dying carcass of Czechoslovakia."
      The Polish contribution to Enigma helped a little to make up for their previous vile treachery and acting as "Hitler's jackals" in 1938.

      --
      USB, USB, USB!
    7. Re:Propaganda by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      They're too trusting. Only stuff you read about on Twitter is actually real.

    8. Re:Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The French and the British were spineless hacks willing to give Germany anything they wanted for the sake of something called Peace. Poland made an accommodation with the Germans to stave off a German invasion. France and Britain would have ceded Poland to the Germans just like they did to Czechoslovakia. The Poles were screwed at the beginning of WW2 and at the end of WW2 when Russia parked their army on the out skirts of Warsaw and watched the last of the Polish resistance get slaughtered by the Nazi's before stepping in and taking over the country. The Polish contributions in deciphering the Enigma machine were substantial. Without their contribution the war would have been over before the British or anyone else could break the enigma codes.

    9. Re:Propaganda by Ferocitus · · Score: 1

      They Polonized their little bit in Czechoslovakia and threw out the local leaders.That wasn't done to appease the Germans at that time.
      No doubt that Poland was treated absolutely appallingly by the Nazis later. But Poland's vile actions also meant that several later allies baulked at entering sooner.

      --
      USB, USB, USB!
    10. Re: Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, pretty much everything I've read about Turing makes it pretty clear he was in no way a team player

  3. ROT13 by BlackPignouf · · Score: 4, Funny

    EVC

    1. Re:ROT13 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cracked the code, means EVC

    2. Re:ROT13 by dohzer · · Score: 1

      True that; double true!

  4. I wonder about the morals of this. by OpenSourced · · Score: 3, Informative

    "We said 'Thank you very much, how much was it again?' She said '£9.50', so we said 'Here's a £10 note - keep the change!'"

    The ethics of doing that, as opposed to informing the owner that she has a possibly valuable artifact are murky for me. I'm not questioning legality, but morality. I think that, in some way, Mr. Wetter tricked that woman out of the difference between 10 pounds and whatever she could have gotten at an auction not in eBay but at Sotheby's.

    One can argue that she didn't do her due diligence, but the piece was a very specialized one. One can argue that Mr. Wetter's efforts in getting his specialized knowledge grants him the possible boons of that knowledge, like in the joke of the engineer and the 10.000 dollar bill for turning a screw. One can argue that Mr. Wetter didn't want profit himself, but wanted to preserve the artifact for the community. All these are valid points.

    But in the end, the basis of morality boils down to "Do unto others". I know I wouldn't like that happening to me, and so wouldn't Mr. Wetter, I'd guess.

    --
    Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
    1. Re:I wonder about the morals of this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You probably would have tracked down it's origins had it come into your possession.

    2. Re:I wonder about the morals of this. by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Seller beware. I wouldn't want that happen to me either any more than finding out that my numbers in the national lottery were off by one from those winning millions. And in both cases I'd blame no one but myself. Besides, the value of a piece like that is probably historic rather than monetary. You'll get more than 10 quid but more than 100?

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    3. Re:I wonder about the morals of this. by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      For me the price would depend on where you plan to put it.

      A museum? Here, it's yours, and here's a cup for the road.
      Your private collection? The price is 200 billion dollars in cash and your firstborn's heart on a platter. Only the heart. You can keep the rubbish.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:I wonder about the morals of this. by pjt33 · · Score: 2

      To add complication, they recognised it as a Lorentz machine, but they didn't realise exactly what they had bought until they got it back to the museum and cleaned it.

    5. Re:I wonder about the morals of this. by dcw3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hell, I'd have paid her 100 for it, and I'd bet others would have paid a 100 times that. Just my $.02 (sorry, no quid in my wallet), but he should have given her at least 10% of it's actual value.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    6. Re:I wonder about the morals of this. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      One can argue that Mr. Wetter didn't want profit himself, but wanted to preserve the artifact for the community. All these are valid points.

      She deserves to get only the ten quid in exchange for almost selling a historical artifact to a scrap dealer, which is what would have happened if nobody figured out what it was and bought it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:I wonder about the morals of this. by carlos92 · · Score: 1

      I wonder about the morals of this story too. But it looks that the value of the artifact was not preserved by that woman, or by the people that owned the artifact before, and that value was restored by Mr. Wetter - I mean it doesn't have any value if nobody knows what it is and who can put it to use.

    8. Re:I wonder about the morals of this. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      That's part of the problem. People actually interested in the history wanted the device. If they had shown up and offered $1000 for it the seller would know something was up; price would be raised, lots of people would take notice, and then there's a good chance it would end up in the home of a collector or some cheezy museum.

    9. Re:I wonder about the morals of this. by dcw3 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It would have been a simple matter to make the purchase, and then hand her another check for the additional "finders fee", and explain why. At that point the sale's concluded, and the seller has no claim to the item. For that matter, what's keeping them from doing so now?

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    10. Re:I wonder about the morals of this. by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      Lack of money's what's keeping them from doing so now.

  5. But....but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....it's only the Muricans that did all that stuff !

    All the movies say so..........

    WW2 was merely escapades by a bunch of bumbling fools until the US charged in over the hill to save the day all by itself !

    Golly, those silly Brits and Canadians and Australians and New Zealanders and South Africans and remnants of the French and Polish forces must have been so grateful when the US arrived to capture all those U Boats and decode the Enigmas and single-handedly invade Europe and Win Everything All By Itself !!!!

    Hurruh !!!

    1. Re:But....but.... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Ohhh, can I be there when you try to tell that to a Russian WW2 veteran? Pretty please?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:But....but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *whooooooosh*

    3. Re:But....but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Soviet Union entered the war half way through 1941. By that time Britain and her Commonwealth allies had stood alone against the might of the Nazi war machine for roughly two years.

      Books, amazing things huh ? You should try them sometime.

    4. Re: But....but.... by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Or a finn fighting off the russians.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    5. Re:But....but.... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      But never forget that by the end of the war over half of the Bombes were being built and run in the US.

      Poland figured out how to break Engima.
      Britain worked out how to do it on a industrial scale.
      The US provided a large part of the industrial effort.

      And, before we get all starry eyed about Bletchley Park, don't forget the the Government cipher school became GCHQ and the American side became the NSA.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    6. Re:But....but.... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Like, oh, I don't know, the United States?

      Besides, the Winter War was in full swing by the end of 39, maybe that could count for something.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re: But....but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're clutching at straws and you still don't understand.

      The OP was making the point that as far as the Americans are concerned the war pre 1941 was of no importance, and post 1941 it was all about them and them only (according to them).

      Do try and keep up.

    8. Re: But....but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're clutching at straws and you still don't understand.

      The OP was making the point that as far as the Americans are concerned the war pre 1941 was of no importance, and post 1941 it was all about them and them only (according to them).

      Do try and keep up.

      Responding to the AC that started this sarcastic thread,
      I'm an American, and I do not know any American that holds such an ignorant opinion about WWII in the European theatre. However, I am from the baby boomer generation and we probably know more than the average millennial about WWII due to its being much closer in time to our formative years.

      Whenever I see this kind of "Americans don't know ...." statement, I have to ask this question: do you personally know people who are so ignorant, or are you making up something to slander people that you don't know?

  6. This is all well and good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But how can we encourage more women and minorities to join stem fields?

    1. Re:This is all well and good by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Why? Nobody really gave me a sensible (!!!) answer to that question. And before "why" is answered sensibly there is exactly zero reason to continue the discussion.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:This is all well and good by Eunuchswear · · Score: 2

      Because (roughly) half of all the people in the wold are women, and only an idiot wastes half of all his resources.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    3. Re:This is all well and good by dcw3 · · Score: 2

      So, those women decided to choose other career fields. Does that mean they chose incorrectly? Does that mean those career fields are in some way inferior? Your statement assumes those resources aren't already put to good use, doing something that they actually desire instead of some politically correct idea that all women want to be like men.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    4. Re:This is all well and good by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Until we figure out, we just won't ever know. This is the entirety of the issue, which you seem to have missed entirely.

    5. Re:This is all well and good by dcw3 · · Score: 2

      Until we figure out, we just won't ever know. This is the entirety of the issue, which you seem to have missed entirely.

      Yeah, maybe my 40+ years working in computing, with women, for women, and hiring women, makes me clueless. And fwiw, I was raised by a single mom, was a single dad with a daughter, and married a women who's in the field and makes more than me. So, no I'm sure I don't understand the issues...other than the fact that SJWs think they can change nature. I'm all in favor of giving women equal opportunities. What I'm not in favor of is doing so at the expense of others. Nor am I in favor of social experiments at the expense of others...until we "figure out" that we don't know what we were talking about in the first fucking place.

      I see in my own company, women being hired over more qualified men, being given larger pay raises, and more promotions. All because of this perceived injustice. But nobody gives a shit that someone else has to pay for that. Am I bitter? Not at all, I've done very well for myself. But when I see people being promoted because of their sex or race instead of their skills, it pisses me off.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    6. Re:This is all well and good by Sique · · Score: 5, Interesting

      See, and I come from a slightly different social background, and here, women especially in computer science, physics and math are much more common. So apparently, you raise your daughters so differently from us, that you don't have that many women in STEM. And here is the point: What are you doing differently, and why do you think your way of doing things is somehow normal?

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    7. Re:This is all well and good by AchilleTalon · · Score: 2

      You are absolutely right. We are back to the original point. Giving promotion, pay raises, etc based on sex or race because we decided faked equality is more important than rewarding genuine talent is a huge waste of resources.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    8. Re:This is all well and good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But how can we encourage more women and minorities to join stem fields?

      It seems when science and technology are difficult women flock to it. Today with the dumbing down of STEM the smartest women choose to pursue a doctorate degree in the hard sciences and avoid computer science and engineering. I have had the privilege of being taught by highly-knowledgeable female instructors as well as highly-knowledgeable male instructors in the fields of mathematics, genomics, and forensics all under the umbrella of data science. There is no shortage of women in STEM except a few fields that many people in general consider dull, boring, and suited to loners.

    9. Re:This is all well and good by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      other than the fact that SJWs think they can change nature

      Oh, dear. You're one of "those". End of conversation.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    10. Re:This is all well and good by rochrist · · Score: 0

      I'm sure some of your best friends are black, too!

    11. Re:This is all well and good by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I didn't get the memo that forbade women to enter STEM fields, when did Saudi Arabia start dictating our laws?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:This is all well and good by Opportunist · · Score: 0

      Not only that, talking to "old school" feminists you can get a load of hatred towards this kind of "equality". And I can understand it. Imagine struggling throughout your life to have your achievements and exploits recognized, only to be now brushed aside as the "token woman" who allegedly got her promotion not based on the countless hours she invested or the good work she does, but being marginalized AGAIN and seen as someone who could only get ahead and promoted by getting handouts and freebies.

      It sure would piss me off to no end.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re:This is all well and good by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      It's not location either, it's time. America had a lot more women in computer science, math, and engineering discliplines 30 years ago.

    14. Re:This is all well and good by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Computer science isn't much about science anymore, and only a passing recognition of computers. It's all about programming and IT now. So you have major universities treating their computer science departments as mere trade schools. In the past I saw lots more women in computer science, my first after-college job was half men half women.

      It's not aobut promoting the best and brightest though. Because every where I've worked there are men who are utter morons who get promoted quickly. In my view you won't have equality until dumb women get hired at the same rate as dumb men, whereas those preferring the status quo naively claim we have a merit system.

      One snag I see is that most jobs are acquired through networking. Someone knows someone else and refers them. So men tend to refer men more often. I have also seen when one person leaves a job and goes elsewhere that an entire group of friends also leaves and follows. Some jobs you see large chunks of workers who all knew each other at a previous company. Lots and lots of networking, so trying to get a foot in the door by submitting a blind resume isn't so effective.

    15. Re:This is all well and good by dcw3 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      other than the fact that SJWs think they can change nature

      Oh, dear. You're one of "those". End of conversation.

      Apparently, you're one of "those" who can't handle the truth.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    16. Re:This is all well and good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure some of your best friends are black, too!

      No, but your insinuation that I'm racist is offensive. And I'm fine with that because I accept that it's coming from someone who's speaking out of his ass.

    17. Re:This is all well and good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      9/11

  7. Really?? by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...that led to the sinking of the battleship Bismarck -- one of Britain's greatest naval victories during the war...

    Really? Sinking one dreadnought, that was one of the highlights of British WWII naval operations? I realise that there wasn't much traditional dreadnought on dreadnought action for the British surface fleet in the European theatre of operations during WWII since the Germans hardly bothered to build any dreadnoughts but the importance of the hunt for the Bismarck has quite frankly been blown up to quite ridiculous proportions. This epic conflict between the Bismarck and the Royal Navy is a bit like the epic football rivalry between Germany and Britain, it's very important to the British while the Germans hardly know it exists (They are obsessed with beating the Dutch). To the Germans the Bismarck was just another warship that was sunk during WWII albeit a pretty big and expensive one but it's not the national trauma that you'd think given what an epic status the Bismarck hunt has attained in the UK. The Norwegian campaign proved once and for all that he who rules the seas is he who can project the most air power over strategic distances, not he who owns lots of battleships because aircraft will slaughter dreadnoughts in the absence of carrier cover; so why build dreadnoughts? Germany, with a tiny surface navy, occupied Norway in a series of amphibious and airborne operations that left it painfully clear that even if the British fleet had the firepower to intervene they were not able to do so because the fleet lacked even the airpower to simply figure out what was going on let alone challenge the Luftwaffe for air superiority over the battlespace. Even if the Royal Navy had had a couple more carriers available during the Norway campaign the Germans still would have swept their aircraft from the skies because the Luftwaffe would still have outnumbered the Royal Naval Air Arm by 5:1, they could project way more airpower over strategic distances. If there was anybody left who believed that dreadnoughts were still part of the future of modern navies (Ronald Reagan was one of the last hold-outs I think) then that illusion was dispelled by Pearl Harbour, Midway and other carrier battles in the Pacific. The Bismarck was just one more nail in the coffin of the dreadnought and the death of the big battleships hit the British quite a lot harder than the Germans if only because they had invested ridiculous amounts of money in them. The Americans on the other hand quite matter of factly phased the dreadnought out in favour of carriers and, apart form Reagan bringing the USS Missouri out of mothballs for a while in a fit of romanticism and nostalgia, they never looked back. Of course the Americans could afford that in the aftermath of WWII while the British could not afford to modernise and transition to a carrier navy that could hold a candle to the old dreadnought navy in terms of size and relative firepower.

    1. Re:Really?? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      This epic conflict between the Bismarck and the Royal Navy is a bit like the epic football rivalry between Germany and Britain, it's very important to the British while the Germans hardly know it exists (They are obsessed with beating the Dutch).

      And the rest of the world, even the soccer-loving world, doesn't give a shit about either.

      So yeah, your analogy is VERY accurate.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Really?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you had changed the tone of this post slightly, it would have come across as being interesting and informative.

      As things stand, you sound like a arrogant loudmouth trying to promote some kind of non-neutral viewpoint.

      And you forgot to use paragraphs. Better luck next time you post.

    3. Re:Really?? by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't think you quite understand what the Bismark was meant to do...

      By itself, it might not have been successful, but it would have been very painful had they not stopped her.

      Germany came very close to cutting the convoys off from Britian, a few more U-Boats, the Bismark and Tirpitz, and she might have done it.

    4. Re:Really?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you had changed the tone of this post slightly, it would have come across as being interesting and informative.

      As things stand, you sound like a arrogant loudmouth trying to promote some kind of non-neutral viewpoint.

      And you forgot to use paragraphs. Better luck next time you post.

      Let me guess, you are British?

    5. Re:Really?? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Really? Yes really.

      I don't think you've understood the conditions of the time nor the battle of the Atlantic very well.

      The problem wasn't the Bismark being some big super-weapon on the loose. Yes, everyone knows that carriers, especially now and even then to some extent are a better projection of power. But that wasn't the point. The UK is an island nation, and part of Germany's tactics was to cut off shipping to the UK, and additionally cut off supplies to Russia which didn't really have it's act together.

      The role of the Bismark was commerce raiding. It was large enough to deal with just about any convoy escort (though the good guns on otherwise obsolete WWI era ships like the Ramilles were often a sufficient deterrent), fast enough to chase down any convoy and had better endurance and was substantially faster than the then state of the art aircraft carriers, so it could stick around sinking convoys far longer.

      Also, the sea is big, really big. And back then with the state of the art locating tech, a small commerce raiding party could hide very well in the Atlantic. Merchant ships were not designed to hide and gave off smoke, making them much easier to find. But land based aircraft didn't generally have the range to find and attack a distant battleship, leaving it only open for aircraft carriers. The North Atlantic is also much harsher than the Pacific theatre, and there were a lot of very long nights, providing excellent cover for ships.

      The Bismark would likely have been very dangerous if it had had escaped to be able to perform commerce raiding, as such the Bismark was a big threat.

      While it's true that WWII was the clear end of the battleship as the top dog of the sea, most of WWII was not fought top-dog to top-dog. Much of the battle of the Atlantic was U boats and commerce raiders versus merchant ships, merchant ships armed with guns obsolete in WWI and outdated warships. The UK couldn't afford to commit new capital ships to escort duties, so it hardly matters what the best capital ship was.

      As for the other comment, neither side in the war had a carrier planes that were anything like a match for the land based fighters of the time.

      When it came down to actually hunting a capital ship it was different. There, the British Navy could afford to deploy serious force. And naturally enough, the the fatal blow to the was in fact dealt by an aircraft carrier.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:Really?? by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      After the Bismarck sank HMS Hood, large parts of the British Navy were moved around (or kept in port) depending on where Bismarck was. This put big constraints on Navy operations. Early in WW2, air power did not extend into the middle of the Atlantic (due to lack of range) leaving surface ships free to wreak havoc on convoys which were not equipped to deal with a battleship.
      Given the thin margin of supply Britain operated under, leaving Bismarck free to hunt British convoys would have been a major mistake.

    7. Re:Really?? by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

      You're right, of course.
      The battle was a big deal for the British since the Bismark had just sunk the Royal Navy's "invincible" battlecruiser, HMS Hood.
      (Which actually was a pretty poor ship).

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      To your point about ai rpower, it is unlikely that the RN would have sunk, (or even found), the Bismark without aircraft - both land and carrier based. See:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    8. Re:Really?? by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 1

      Also, the sea is big, really big....

      That bit sounds you borrowed a line from the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.

      The Bismark would likely have been very dangerous if it had had escaped to be able to perform commerce raiding, as such the Bismark was a big threat.

      A large surface navy has never made sense for Germany unless it was at peace with or allied with Britain. With Britain as an enemy the only naval forces that make sense for Germany are smaller surface vessels, long range naval aviation and a large numbers of submarines. The Bismarck was a big capital ship with a very limited life expectancy once it got into the open Atlantic. Yes, the Bismarck might have mauled a few convoys before it was sunk, no it wasn't really such a huge threat the survival or fall of Britain hung in the balance. The U-boats were a real threat, sinking the Bismarck was a propaganda coup for the British while building it in the first place was a waste of resources for Germany. The resources that went into the Tirpitz and the Bismarck would have been better spent expediting development programs like the 'Elektroboot' series of subs which were a very serious threat indeed and might have made a huge difference had Howaldt, B&V, DWK, Krupp, etc... started churning them out in series some a 18 months or so earlier than they did. Even converting the Tirpitz or the Bismarck into aircraft carriers, grouping some of the cruisers and destroyers that survived the Norway campaign into a carrier group and operating the thing out of Norway would have made more sense if you want to dominate the N-Atlantic than sending a dreadnought to sink convoys. Having said that I still think pouring all those resources into developing high tech subs and stand off missiles for naval aviation would have made better sense than building huge sitting-duck dreadnoughts.

    9. Re:Really?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This epic conflict between the Bismarck and the Royal Navy is a bit like the epic football rivalry between Germany and Britain, it's very important to the British while the Germans hardly know it exists (They are obsessed with beating the Dutch).

      And the rest of the world, even the soccer-loving world, doesn't give a shit about either.

      So yeah, your analogy is VERY accurate.

      Soccer is for pansies, real men play football (the kind where you kick the ball with your feet, not the kind where you grab the thing and run around the field with it).

    10. Re:Really?? by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 1

      If you had changed the tone of this post slightly, it would have come across as being interesting and informative.

      As things stand, you sound like a arrogant loudmouth trying to promote some kind of non-neutral viewpoint.

      And you forgot to use paragraphs. Better luck next time you post.

      I just think that while the sinking of the Bismarck was interesting and important propaganda wise it was of limited importance in the grand scheme of things since the Bismarck and the Tirpitz were a liability to the Germans in every way. There are many British naval victories more deserving of being put on the list Britain's greatest naval victories of WWII than the sinking of one dreadnought. The way the Bismarck hunt gets plaid up today you might think they sank some sort of super ship that could have sunk half the Royal Navy if it was not disposed of. The Bismarck was certainly one of the most modern members of a mostly obsolete class of warship but it was not **that** much more powerful than the Royal Navy's own dreadnoughts.

    11. Re:Really?? by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 1

      After the Bismarck sank HMS Hood, large parts of the British Navy were moved around (or kept in port) depending on where Bismarck was. This put big constraints on Navy operations. Early in WW2, air power did not extend into the middle of the Atlantic (due to lack of range) leaving surface ships free to wreak havoc on convoys which were not equipped to deal with a battleship. Given the thin margin of supply Britain operated under, leaving Bismarck free to hunt British convoys would have been a major mistake.

      I still do not see how one dreadnought and it's bodyguard would have caused more trouble than the U-boats. The Bismarck was tracked by reckon aircraft it's departure would have been quickly detected and even if the Bismarck and the Prinz Eugen had gotten into a couple of convoys they were still sitting ducks once they were tracked down by a carrier group. Whenever this is discussed British and US historians don't mention fact that German Navy war-games in 1940-41 that investigated the feasibility of sending large surface ships into the Atlantic for commerce raiding concluded that it would be a stupid idea to do so and that submarines were a far more effective and less costly option. Somehow this all gets curtly ignored so the myth can be sustained that if it had not been sunk by the RN the super ship Bismarck would have attacked and the island of Britain and caused it to sink into the sea like they mythical Atlantis (<== that last bit was sarcasm).

    12. Re:Really?? by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 1

      I don't think you quite understand what the Bismark was meant to do...

      By itself, it might not have been successful, but it would have been very painful had they not stopped her.

      Germany came very close to cutting the convoys off from Britian, a few more U-Boats, the Bismark and Tirpitz, and she might have done it.

      U-boats yes, Bismarck and Tirpitz... ummm... no! Roughly calculated the Germans cold literally have built 45 Type X submarines or 105 Type VIIC subs from the steel that went into the Bismarck and Tirpitz. Just to make clear what that means, the German navy mobilised every available sub including obsolete training subs to cover operation Weserübung, that submarine force counted 35 boats. They would have been better off taking the money that went into those dreadnoughts and pouring it into high-tech submarine design.

    13. Re:Really?? by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      Hardly the only time the Germans made a "bigger is better" mistake involving military production during the war. Hell, if they had stuck to one consistent tank design instead of trying to make supertank after supertank.... of course, it didn't help that the German tanks were such precision vehicles that they were very difficult to repair in the field.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    14. Re:Really?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Americans on the other hand quite matter of factly phased the dreadnought out in favour of carriers and, apart form Reagan bringing the USS Missouri out of mothballs for a while in a fit of romanticism and nostalgia, they never looked back. Of course the Americans could afford that in the aftermath of WWII while the British could not afford to modernise and transition to a carrier navy that could hold a candle to the old dreadnought navy in terms of size and relative firepower.

      Actually, all of the WW2 Battleships were reactivated as part of Reagan's 600-ship Navy plan. The British were effectively dissolving their empire, so had no reason to keep up a worldwide reaction force, so instead their strategic plan was to counter the Russians in the North Sea and Atlantic, which meant a focus on ASW.

    15. Re:Really?? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I realise that there wasn't much traditional dreadnought on dreadnought action

      Well, maybe they didn't feel like being dreadnaughty...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    16. Re:Really?? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      That bit sounds you borrowed a line from the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.

      Well spotted :)

      A large surface navy has never made sense for Germany unless it was at peace with or allied with Britain. With Britain as an enemy the only naval forces that make sense for Germany are smaller surface vessels, long range naval aviation and a large numbers of submarines.

      That's true, but those ships weren't tasked for engaging equally matched ships. Also, the long range naval aviation wasn't up to much. It was enough to stop the ships getting anywhere near land, but nothing like up to the task of protecting convoys.

      Having said that I still think pouring all those resources into developing high tech subs and stand off missiles for naval aviation would have made better sense than building huge sitting-duck dreadnoughts.

      Possibly, but remember it was laid down in 36 and launched in 39. In 42 or 43 so, they could have considered developing standoff missiles perhaps but even then the tech was very primitive. Even a scant 5 years earlier, I don't think it would have amounted to anything.

      Hindsight is 20/20 and it's clear now that U boats were the way forward, however the pace of technological change was fast and things changed a lot between 1939 and 1942---when the surface raider threat was more or less defeated.

      Yes, the Bismarck might have mauled a few convoys before it was sunk, no it wasn't really such a huge threat the survival or fall of Britain hung in the balance.

      well... it was too big of a threat to not devote a lot of resources too, and in that role, the German ships were very successful in taking up far more British resources than a direct confrontation would have involved. Bear in mind also, the surface threat was early in the war, so Britain han't sorted itself out with convoys properly.

      Even converting the Tirpitz or the Bismarck into aircraft carriers, grouping some of the cruisers and destroyers that survived the Norway campaign into a carrier group and operating the thing out of Norway would have made more sense if you want to dominate the N-Atlantic than sending a dreadnought to sink convoys.

      I don't think they ever aimed to dominate the Atlantic in head to head Naval confrontations, that would have been too resource intensive by a long way. The entire idea was to sink convoys to cut off the UK from imports. There were some devastating encounters between surface ships and convoys---the surface ships had to be stopped.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    17. Re:Really?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soccer is for pansies, real men play football (the kind where you kick the ball with your feet, not the kind where you grab the thing and run around the field with it).

      American Football is for pansies.. real men play Hockey.

    18. Re:Really?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Germany came very close to cutting the convoys off from Britian, a few more U-Boats, the Bismark and Tirpitz, and she might have done it.

      That was always the public story and it was a source of great suffering and hardship for the British people during the second world war, no doubt about that. However, between the code breakers at Bletchley Park, which was top secret at the time for obvious reasons, and the development of ASDIC (SONAR), HUFF-DUFF (fast radio direction finding) and RADAR combined with improved anti-submarine weapons, like HEDGEHOG, and ever greater ship and war material production from fortress America, the long run outcome strongly favored the Allies and not the Axis. The best chance of cutting off Britain came between 1940 to 1942. After that, the u-boats were on the defensive and losing the overall Battle of the Atlantic even though they continued to have isolated tactical victories against individual convoys right up to the end of the war, albeit less and less frequently as the war dragged on. By about 1943 certainly the strategic minds on both sides understood that the u-boat campaign had failed and would not succeed in starving Britain into submission. The best that the Germans could hope for after 1943 was to prevent 100% of war materials from reaching Britain and even then the shipments became so massive by 1944 for the build up to the Normandy invasions and D-Day that every military mind in Germany, except Hitler and some of his inner circle, understood by then that the war was, for all intents and purposes, already lost. They continued mainly because they had a forelorn hope that somehow Hitler could be deposed and the Allies would be willing to negotiate a conditional surrender of Germany. This was also delusional looking back now, but arguably less so than the delusion entertained by Hitler and his yes men that the war could somehow still be won.

    19. Re:Really?? by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      By 1943 Germany did have hundreds of U-Boats, so they could have had both, had they been prepared for war.

      The advantage to Bismark and Tirpitz is their speed and firepower. A few destroyer escorts would not have been all that useful. Had Bismark come across a large convoy, she might have sunk the whole think.

      Even in cases when a wolfpack of 6 U-Boats encountered a large convoy, they only ever could sink part of it and had to run away when the escorts engaged.

      The battleships also could have hunted the really big ships, the large oceanliners such as the Queen Elizabeth which were much too fast for U-Boats.

      ---

      You also have to consider why Bismark and Tirpitz were built. They were laid down in the 1930s when the French were the big threat, and when Germany was trying to have a "fleet". A lot changed between 1935 and 1940.

      Hitler started WWII completely unprepared for it on the high seas, played catch up, and in 1941 almost got the UK cut off, but couldn't quite pull it off.

      Had Operation Rheinübung had the full fleet it was meant to, they could have ripped the convoys a new one...

    20. Re:Really?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And naturally enough, the the fatal blow to the was in fact dealt by an aircraft carrier.

      Ironically, it was actually obsolete swordfish torpedo biplanes flying from the carrier Ark Royal and it just so happened that a lucky torpedo shot from one of these obsolete biplanes jammed the Bismark's rudder. If it hadn't been for that jammed rudder, Bismark probably would have been able to escape the pursuing British and make it back to the relative safety of French coastal waters.

    21. Re:Really?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comments miss the point. You've imported the post-war knowledge about battleships and assumed that the Admiralty knew that at the time.

      The Royal Navy could not ignore a battleship. Battleships were important force projection tools and the existence of even one out of port was sufficient to raise red flags all over. Hell, even in port, you can be sure that the government closely tracked their location, right up to and including Churchill's level.

      After the war it became clear that battleships never played the first rank capital ship level, that they played in previous wars. That honor transferred to aircraft carriers. Looking back it became clear that the navies of the war had always avoided committing their battleships. And the reasons for doing so were not simply to protect a valuable war machine. The battleships had become too vulnerable to submarines and aircraft, without having a weapons range beyond about 50 miles.

      The warring navies eventually committed their aircraft carriers to battle, after taking appropriate precautions. The battleships they held back. And when the battleships did venture out they tended to have short lives (Bismarck, Yamato, etc.). And then there was the whole Pearl Harbor thing.

    22. Re:Really?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well plaid, sir!

    23. Re:Really?? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      If there was anybody left who believed that dreadnoughts were still part of the future of modern navies (Ronald Reagan was one of the last hold-outs I think) then that illusion was dispelled by Pearl Harbour, Midway and other carrier battles in the Pacific.

      Others have corrected you on the Battle of the Atlantic - so, I'll tackle this one. No, only armchair experts had their illusions dispelled by those carrier battles in the Pacific. Every one of them that resulted in the loss of a battlewagon came down to one of three cases - luck, a poorly defended battlewagon, or overwhelming air power. Naval experts date the end of the battlewagon to September 9, 1943 when a flight of six Dornier Do-217's each armed with a single Fritz-X glide bomb sunk the Italian battleship Roma and seriously damaged the battleship Italia. On the 9th and 13th of that month, two light cruisers were struck with a single Fritz-X each and were put out of action for months. On the 16th, the British battleship Warspite was put out of action by a single Fritz-X for most of a year - and probably would have been sunk had the second hit square rather than nearly missing. It was the guided glide bomb, essentially a forerunner of the modern cruise missile, that ended the dreadnought era.

      You don't hear about this one so much, at least not in America, because all this happened in the Med (a secondary theater for the USN) and mostly to non-American vessels.

    24. Re:Really?? by redlemming · · Score: 1

      The Norwegian campaign proved once and for all that he who rules the seas is he who can project the most air power over strategic distances, not he who owns lots of battleships because aircraft will slaughter dreadnoughts in the absence of carrier cover; so why build dreadnoughts?

      Not at all true.

      In fact, during the Norwegian campaign the British aircraft carrier Glorious was sunk by two unaccompanied German battleships, with huge loss of life.

      The battleships won that one (aided by radar controlled anti-surface guns, allowing them to achieve some of the most remarkable shooting of any navy during the entire war).

      The most decisive naval battles of the Norwegian campaign were actually fought by surface units at Narvik - including a British battleship, which an incredibly ballsy admiral took into the fjords. These battles devastated the German destroyer force, crippling it for the rest of the war.

      As the war went on, the Germans repeatedly attacked the conveys to Russia - which didn't even have battleships defending them, at least not in close escort - with air units, and were never all that successful. They certainly didn't rule the seas, despite their superior strategic air power. They actually did much better with naval units, particularly the submarines.

      It was very difficult to sink warships with good anti-aircraft capabilities. The British anti-aircraft cruisers were particularly formidable. This was especially true when a large number of ships were present, and it got even harder when radar was combined with anti-aircraft guns.

      Worse, lots of highly trained pilots would inevitably be lost when going up against good defenses, which meant that it wasn't an operation that could be attempted too often - terrible for morale and disastrous in terms of lost experience. That was especially true in Northern waters, where pilots could be sure that going down meant inevitable death from the chill waters: otherwise minor damage could result in sure and certain death.

      Finally, aircraft of that era simply couldn't operate under as many conditions where ships could - even night flying was problematic, let alone bad weather. In the Northern regions, huge numbers of aircraft were lost due to bad weather, far more than in combat.

      Look up the campaigns in the Solomon Islands, and the Aleutians, for more examples of situations where ships played an important role. The ships still had a critical role, as they do today. Combined arms wins wars, not air power.

    25. Re:Really?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As for the other comment, neither side in the war had a carrier planes that were anything like a match for the land based fighters of the time.

      Not at all true during the later war. US Navy fighters repeatedly defeated Japanese land-based air. Many of the later aircraft models were superb, such as the Corsair (with some help from the Brits) and the F6F Hellcat, and as capable as any land-based fighter. The Corsair would continue to see use into the Korean war, outfighting many Soviet land-based fighters.

      Some fighters were designed to win dogfights using superior maneuverability, others for energy combat. Either approach could work, if the pilot was experienced and skilled. It is a mistake to compare performance appropriate to one type of combat when the aircraft is designed for the other.

    26. Re:Really?? by redlemming · · Score: 1

      I still do not see how one dreadnought and it's bodyguard would have caused more trouble than the U-boats. The Bismarck was tracked by reckon aircraft it's departure would have been quickly detected and even if the Bismarck and the Prinz Eugen had gotten into a couple of convoys they were still sitting ducks once they were tracked down by a carrier group.

      The Scharnhost and Gneisenau repeatedly sortied prior to the Bismark. They weren't tracked down by a carrier group on any of these occasions, and weren't sunk by air power. It was a LOT harder to track ships back then than one might suppose. The most famous commerce raider, Atlantis, would survive for over 600 days. (Scharnhorst would later be sunk by the battleship Duke of York and her escorting destroyers, Gneisenau would survive the war: carrier groups again did not play the dominant role one would suppose).

      The U-Boats were a danger, but they were slow, had poor visibility, and were greatly hampered by radar. They also had a dependency on radio communications that made them quite vulnerable to intercept: the Battle of the Atlantic went through periods where one side or the other was dominant depending on who was doing a better job of reading the other side's communications.

      The big problem posed by the major surface combatants was that they invalidated the entire convoy strategy. That strategy depended critically on having large numbers of small vessels to fight the U-boats. Even full size fleet destroyers were too large in some respects for maximal efficiency in this role, which fell to the smaller sloops, corvettes, and DEs. Cruisers would supplement the smaller ships when attack by smaller enemy surface combatants was possible, or when greater anti-air defense was needed. But none of these ships had much chance against a well-handled battlewagon, which could annihilate (or capture!) an entire convoy in a matter of hours - a major disaster. Just the goods alone could amount to over a billion dollars in today's money, and the ships would be a lot more. Then there's the loss of life, and the corresponding negative effects on morale to consider ...

      This meant that major surface combatants had to be kept close enough to respond to a sortie by their opposing counterparts, which was very expensive in terms of fuel and normal wear-and-tear, and also exposed the big (and very expensive) ships to subs, aircraft, and mines: a lucky hit could result in the loss of a big ship, with huge casualties (such as happened when the battleship Barham was torpedoed by a German sub). Worse, there simply weren't enough big surface warships to do the job, given the huge number of convoys that were needed.

      Aircraft carriers could and would be used in this role as well, but the weather might not permit using the aircraft (especially during the long Northern nights and frequently-bad North Sea weather). Several of the carriers were sunk by subs as well.

      Hence, the big warships posed a serious problem, and the Germans had to be taught that using them was not a workable option.

      I would be happy to agree with you in the conclusion that purchasing the battleships was a bad investment for Germany, but they certainly tied up a huge amount of Allied resources for most of the war.

    27. Re:Really?? by Totaku · · Score: 1

      Also, U-Boat deployment consumed immense amounts of Allied resources to counter (Atlantic escorts, coastal escorts, air patrols). This remained so even after the turning point in the Battle of the Atlantic

    28. Re:Really?? by Totaku · · Score: 1
      An example of how successful German commerce raiding could be was with DKM Scharnhorst and DKM Gneisenau during Operation Berlin.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    29. Re:Really?? by Totaku · · Score: 1

      Good point - there was also the morale and propaganda issue that the loss of the HMS Hood caused. She was considered the pride of the Royal Navy. That the RN, renowned as ruling the oceans, lost their flagship in a traditional line-of-battle engagement, was massive.

  8. ROT13 by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    RIP

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  9. Re:Stunning news! by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    You have a 6 digit user ID

    He's selling it on ebay

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  10. Re:Stunning news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think he already sold it to someone with serious Aspergers

  11. Re:Stunning news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    as opposed to humorous Aspergers?

  12. Re:Stunning news! by Barny · · Score: 2

    No, worse. Dramatic Asperger's.

    --
    ...
    /me sighs
  13. Re:Stunning news! by Hylandr · · Score: 1

    Keep in mind in the years and decades to come you will yourself creep closer to the years where the number of your peers dwindle or fall by the wayside.

    Suddenly, 'someone old died' becomes much more important to getting an idea how much time you have left, or what the world might change like by the time you get there.

    We want details.

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  14. Re:Stunning news! by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    So, you don't care about historical geeky stuff. Then don't fucking read it.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  15. Re:Stunning news! by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    Details? People get old and die. I hear it is very common.

  16. Official Secrets Act - wonder how that'd go today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    she agreed to comply with Britain's Official Secrets Act, which imposed a lifetime prohibition on revealing any code-breaking activities.

    Somehow it seems that could work in WW-II, but today it wouldn't, even under wartime conditions. You'd have people blabbing about everything on Facebook and posting selfies of themselves and the equipment.

  17. Re:Stunning news! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    and not the best starting point for a nerdy discussion.

    Yeah, why would the history of cryptography interest Slashdot readers?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  18. Sink the Bismarck by rossdee · · Score: 1

    It might have been a strategic victory, but a very pyhric one.
    The Hood went down with only 3 survivors

    Code breaking was more important in the fight against U-Boats

  19. Re:Stunning news! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A 95 year old woman dies. Is this what "news for nerds" has become?

    No matter how interesting her early life, the death is hardly news, and not the best starting point for a nerdy discussion. So I will just moan about the editors instead.

    Good job, and thanks much for your valuable input.

    Consider that if Slashdot pulled every article that some guy on the internet didn't think belonged there, there would be nothing.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  20. Re:Official Secrets Act - wonder how that'd go tod by GrahamCox · · Score: 2

    The Official Secrets Act still exists, and people still sign it. The fact that you thought it was some relic of WW2 proves that it's still effective - because people are NOT blabbing about their work or posting images of their equipment. For one thing, anyone who's invited to sign it has probably already been vetted and proven to be not that kind of person, and second, if they ever did do something of the sort, you can bet they'd be out of a job within less than 12 hours, at the very least, and most likely on a charge of some sort.

  21. Re:Stunning news! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2, Informative

    So, you don't care about historical geeky stuff. Then don't fucking read it.

    But I think bitching about Slashdot stories is some folks major contribution.

    Hard to imagine that early computing devices and the people that used them are considered not appropriate for Slashdot by some users.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  22. Dont be daft - it was an american woman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every one knows America did eveything to win the war despite the Russians , the Brits, the French, the Aussies and numerous other peoples. Hollywood told me it was a little old african american woman names Rosa parks decoded all the messages afetr Jessie Owens delivered them straight from Hitler by sneaker net.

  23. Re:Official Secrets Act - wonder how that'd go tod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lots of jobs require you to sign The Official Secrets Act some times it can depend on simply whom you work for as they may have military contracts as well. Sadly my office job was never deemed important enough the soviets deployed Natashia the gorgous honey pot spy to seduce me.

  24. Mostly women because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    someone has to do the typing, and the men are off saving the country from the Hun. Again!

  25. May she rot in hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She delayed the unification of Europe under German rule by half a century. All hail the glory of Europe! SIEG HEIL!

  26. Re:Stunning news! by jitterman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe history, codebreaking, and the passing of a generation of people who did amazing things seems neither interesting nor worthy to you, but trust me, your needless bitching is much less so.

    --
    For conscience is the wound, and there's naught to staunch it
  27. Re:Stunning news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, why would the history of cryptography interest Slashdot readers?

    Well, the events that occurred at Bletchley Park during WWII were key to the early history of computing. To assist in the code breaking efforts, early mathematicians, including Alan Turing, constructed a series of machines which later proved important in the development of what now call computers. Without those men and women at Bletchley, the computer as we know it today and all derivative inventions, like your smartphone and the Internet, might not have happened for another 50 or 100 years or maybe even longer. Imagine how much different your life might be today if the first electronic computers were constructed not in the 1940s but in the 2040s. You might say that the computer was such an important idea that somebody else would have taken the leap, but people like Alan Turing were so far ahead of their time that most other people thought they were crazy. Without the needs of the war, his machines and ideas would probably not have been funded, delaying the development of the computer, perhaps past your lifetime. That's why we're interested in code breaking and the history of cryptography here on Slashdot.

  28. The Bletchley Circle (TV series) by sbjornda · · Score: 2
    If you're interested in stories like this, I recommend the TV series "The Bletchley Circle". Four ex-codebreaking women reunite in 1952 to uncover a serial killer, using the same skills they used to break encrypted messages during the war. They rediscover a lost sense of purpose and struggle to obey the Official Secrets act within their family relationships. (For those who don't know, the UK's Official Secrets act is pretty strong stuff.)

    --
    .nosig

    1. Re:The Bletchley Circle (TV series) by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      If you're interested in stories like this, I recommend the TV series "The Bletchley Circle". Four ex-codebreaking women reunite in 1952 to uncover a serial killer, using the same skills they used to break encrypted messages during the war.

      The reality is, most of the 'codebreakers' at Bletchley Park (men and women) had no need of any particular analytical skill... Ninety percent of them just used a recipe written by the boffins or (later) operated machines that operated according to said recipe. If a readable message didn't come out, they reported that back up the chain and awaited the delivery of an updated 'recipe'.
       
      Which is not in any way to say that it wasn't important work, only that it's rote and mechanical nature is largely unknown and the glamour and skills largely overstated.

  29. Re:Stunning news! by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

    Must be a Reddit reject lol

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  30. Re:Stunning news! by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    My cynical Asperger's prevents me from laughing.

  31. Re:Stunning news! by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    Wow. What exactly do you have to do to get rejected by Reddit?

  32. Re:Stunning news! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    I dunno, but any day now, someone is going to be bitching about a new CPU.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  33. Re:Stunning news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting. 102 replies, yet its "hardly a starting point for discussion". You don't understand people well, do you.

  34. Re:Stunning news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't believe this reply belongs here.

  35. Re:Stunning news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Prolly a bit of a whoosh, there, but good answer.

  36. Re:Stunning news! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    It is extremely interesting, but considering that there were ten thousand people working at that facility, the death of one of the must have been a fairly frequent occurrence in recent times. Was she the last one, or something similar? Quite recently (a few years ago?), the last (combatant) survivor of World War I died, for example.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  37. Re:Stunning news! by quenda · · Score: 1

    Yeah, why would the history of cryptography interest Slashdot readers?

    Of course it does, but is this "history for nerds"? I'd prefer a genuine news item to lead in. The recent discovery of an encryption machine on eBay would be a slightly better example.

    Miss Fawcett, was not a "code breaker" but one of thousands of of clerical workers, and whose skills were typing and fluency in German.
    I'm sure her later career as an Opera singer would be far more interesting. RIP.

  38. Re:Stunning news! by quenda · · Score: 1

    She did actually have an exceptionally interesting life after the war. But somehow, I don't think slashdot wants to talk about her musical career or conservation work.
    A truly remarkable woman, but to slashdot, her death is just being used as excuse for another discussion on Bletchley Park, which of course is indeed very interesting.

  39. A "computer" meant a human before late 1940s by peter303 · · Score: 1

    A computer was someone who performed bulk computations ob paper or adding machine. Many were employed by military and insurance companies. During th first World War the profession shifted to female and stayed that way. The first machine computers in the 1940s where called electronic computers to distinguish from people. Then the bare word shifted meaning to just the machine. Some human computers became early coders, perhaps the highest fraction of females ever in that profession than any later time.