Talk:Battle of the Beams

message: Someone has 'helpfully' included links to 'main' articles.  As the main articles contain less information than this article, some rationalisation is clearly required.
Because the "#redirect" is broken and will not redirect to subsections, I have created articles  for each subsection.  
This has several beneficial side effects:
* It makes links in other articles easier to make.
* It also helps navigation within the "World War II German electronics" Category.
It would be nice if someone who knows could write a section or an article on German use of radio navigation in other theatres. For example I have seen an article that says that the Germans  used radar beams in the East as a navigation system. Philip Baird Shearer 23:59, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section 

message: The article could do with some dates for the use of the various systems.  --jmb (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates

message: When the "Medical Diathermy devices were used to cause interference to German radio beams", I am curious:
Which kind of medical diathermy?
The diathermy article draws a distinction between "shortwave diathermy", "microwave diathermy", and electrosurgery.
--68.0.124.33 (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  medical diathermy 

message: If Knickebein operated on 40 MHz and X-gerät on 60 MHz, I would not consider X-gerät's frequency to be "much higher" than Knickebein's. The precision would increase linearly, i.e. by a mere 50 percent, or am I wrong? Mumiemonstret (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's 50% higher.  I don't see that precision would increase linearly.  The higher frequency allows you to install a more complex (i.e. directional) aerial in the same space.  Thus part of the imporovement in directivity would be down to the increase in frequency and part due to the increase in aerial directivity.  Thus, it seems to me, that the increase in precision would be much greater than 50%.  If the Germans were to provide an even more directional aerial system on a larger site then the precision rises accordingly.  86.183.175.94 (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  40 MHz vs 60 MHz 

message: How could they aim the beams ? There is nothing on that here. They must have used spies. --Moritzgedig (talk) 08:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A compass?--Ykraps (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aiming the beams 

message: In the section about Y-Gerat (sorry, no umlaut here...), the article says "It turned out their conclusion about code name Wotan was incorrect as it did not in fact imply a single beam." But later on the article says the Y-Gerat did use a single beam.  I guess what the quoted part is saying is that 'Wotan' did not refer to a one-eyed god, or that somehow the inference from a one-eyed god to a single beam was mistaken (although it sounds like it was in fact correct).  I don't have access to the ref (Jones' book).  Can someone who does clarify this quoted sentence? Mcswell (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion 

message: I realize this is still start class, but I want to say that the language and structure of this article is very engaging.   I read it start to finish, without skipping a word.  Very well done.  Thank you for the effort.  Btw, you're on the front page of Reddit today.   Ian Furst (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  To the editors of this page; fantastic job 

message: This is given as Hooton (1999). Is this a typo for 1994? 86.130.154.27 (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote 24 

message: The article says that the beam systems originally were "blind landing" systems.  I'm not sure that's accurate; it seems the Low-frequency radio range is a closer fit.  Also, judging by the discussion of that system and ILS systems in the 1939 "Practical air navigation" manual, radio ranges were fully operational then while the analogous beam-type instrument landing systems were still experimental (though what was being evaluated at that time indeed is exactly the still-current localizer and glide slop system used in ILS). Paul Koning (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin?