He 111 loss 19 August 1940 (& Other losses)

[Andy Saunders]

Rudi

An interesting piece of detail and seems to indicate that 6096 may not have been missing after all!

Of course, the Ultra intercepts cannot be regarded as absolute in terms of accuracy. Many things could corrupt the detail recorded. Incorrect information could have been transmitted - ie an aeroplane that was originally reported "missing" could have later turned up. On the other hand, the message sender could have sent an incorrect number in error or misunderstood the detail of the message. Equally, something could have gone awry in the intercept stage and perhaps an incorrect number transcribed. Many other possibilities for error, too!

At best the Ultra intercepts offer up some little nuggets of information that need careful examination and interpretation in light of collective information and data that is now to hand, thus enabling us to better understand the sense and context of those fragmented intercepts.

Not an exact science, unfortunately!

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Andy Saunders

Rudi

At best the Ultra intercepts offer up some little nuggets of information that need careful examination and interpretation in light of collective information and data that is now to hand, thus enabling us to better understand the sense and context of those fragmented intercepts.

Not an exact science, unfortunately!

I've only minimal acquaintance with the 1940 stuff but the 1944/45 material is in a completely different league in terms of the interpretation and context that Bletchley Park were able add to the basic messages. The more information they amassed, the more they could understand.

It's never 100% reliable but they did get extremely good as time went on. I love the comments where they point out that the Germans are making mistakes in their own reports.

[RudiS]

And, of course, Radtke could have made a typo in his loss list too.

Kind regards,
Rudi.