Talk:Operation Biting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Open source Text

I deleted the Open Source Text below after much reflection. All in all, it converted one nice little article into nice little articles. I would propose that Wiki is not a scrapbook. But then again, I could be wrong. [[Paul, in Saudi 08:30, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)]]

Text removed:

Taken from The Battle Of The Beams. There is a open source verification for this text on the home page Greg Goebel / In The Public Domain.
In the months leading up to the Channel Dash, R.V. Jones had been ramping up his hunt for Wuerzburg. Jones requested intensive aerial reconnaissance of known Freya sites in hopes they would turn up a Wuerzburg as well. On 22 November 1941, a PRU Spitfire had taken a picture of a radar site at Bruneval, a village on the French coast near Le Havre, that revealed a suspicious, indistinct object sited at the end of a path leading from the station.
Word of the mysterious object reached a daring RAF reconnaissance pilot, Flight Lieutenant Tony Hill, who decided to investigate personally. He overflew the site in his Spitfire on 5 December. The pictures revealed a neat radar dish about 3 meters (10 feet) in diameter. Jones decided it had to be Wuerzburg. Further reconnaissance missions over other locations revealed more Wuerzburgs, plus a new radar that other intelligence tagged as "Wuerzburg-Riese (Giant Wuerzburg)", of which more is said in the next chapter.
Jones suspected that Wuerzburg was critical to German air defenses and that the British needed to learn about it in detail. The German radar site at Bruneval was near the sea and had a convenient beach, raising the possibility that it could be seized in a raid. Jones hesitated to recommend such a risky plan but became convinced that it was justified. Churchill was enthusiastic about raids, both to bolster British morale and to keep the Germans off-balance, so a request went upstairs to Lord Louis Mountbatten, Chief of Combined Operations.
Mountbatten like the idea very much, and so a plan was devised to send in a team of paratroopers to photograph the radar in detail and carry off whatever components they could. A technical specialist was trained to make the jump with them and inspect the radar. The group would be picked up off the beach by a small naval task force. The operation was codenamed BITING.
On 27 February 1942, the raiding party of 120 Scotsmen under Major John Dutton Frost was dropped on Bruneval from twelve Armstrong-Whitworth Whitley bombers. Nothing went very much according to plan, but the raiders improvised competently and the raid was a success, with the paratroopers returning with vital Wuerzburg components, and a technician as a prisoner. Two British were killed and four taken prisoner, all four of whom survived the war. Five Germans were killed and two taken prisoner, including the technician.
British examination of the Wuerzburg components showed that it operated over a very narrow band, and had no provisions for dealing with countermeasures. It was much better built than British radars, with a modular design that made hunting down faults relatively simple. On the other hand, the technician proved to be much more poorly trained than his British counterparts.
BITING was the first operation of the newly-minted British paratrooper force, and a significant boost to British public morale at a time when the war was not going well for the Allies. It did much to make up for the failure to stop the Channel Dash two weeks earlier. Even the Germans, who generally had a low opinion of British troops, were impressed with the skill and dash of the raiders, and it remains the stuff of action movies.
Ironically, the success of BITING made the brass worry that the Germans might pull the same stunt on the TRE at Swanage, and so intelligence about German paratroops across the Channel quickly forced the mad relocation of the TRE to Malvern. The Germans, who were notoriously hard to trick twice, also promptly fortified their radar stations. A raid to seize Freya components on 17 August 1942, during the hideously botched "practice invasion" on the French port of Dieppe, ran into stiff German defenses and went home empty-handed. In compensation, the fortified radar stations were easy to spot and, if necessary, target.

I am going to restore it. There is a lot of useful information in the opensource text which does not appear in the initial article. If you have strong objections, then spend the time to intergrate the text into the initial article before removing the open source text. Philip Baird Shearer 11:36, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

--- Lemme get around to it. I will have to arm-wrestle it into format. Perhaps you could help? [[Paul, in Saudi 03:45, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)]]

Phil, if you added this text to the article, I would propose you should integrate it into the existing text. [[Paul, in Saudi 05:31, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)]]

Dear Phil- Sorry you did not choose to reply to my note. I hope we can come to some sort of understanding on this. Your addition is simply a cut and paste from another source. As presented, it acts as something like a second article. Could I propose we use an 'external link' for this? I appreciate your thoughts on this. [[Paul, in Saudi 12:56, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)]]

I am happy including the text. I do not think it is out of place and that it adds considerably to the article. Your original suggestion was that you will arm-wrestle it into format. You have not begun that that task. BTW the obvious way to do that is to take each paragraph of the additional text and integrate it into the Wikipedia article and then delete the second additional paragraph. If you start the task then I would probably help you, but it is you who object to it the second source not I. BTW as no one has joined in this discussion it suggests that this is a minority interest either way. Philip Baird Shearer 16:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Phil- I cleared some time to arm-wrestle this as promised. I printed out a copy of the text is dispute, and laid it beside the existing text. I am very sorry to say that I found almost nothing new in the text worth including in the article.

I hope you do not take this in any way an attack on you. I simply could not find any important fact in the text that was not already in the article.

The kind of bomber used is new information, but it is not really important. The text claims the raiders were all Scots. That might be true (or not) but it is not important.

If you can find anything new or noteworthy in the text, I encourage you to include it. [[Paul, in Saudi 08:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)]]

Dear Phil- Let us consider this one paragraph at a time.

1. :In the months leading up to the Channel Dash, R.V. Jones had been ramping up his hunt for Wuerzburg. Jones requested intensive aerial reconnaissance of known Freya sites in hopes they would turn up a Wuerzburg as well. On 22 November 1941, a PRU Spitfire had taken a picture of a radar site at Bruneval, a village on the French coast near Le Havre, that revealed a suspicious, indistinct object sited at the end of a path leading from the station.

Who is R.V. Jones? where did he work? What did he do? If we are going to mention him, we need to tell the reader who this guy is. Who did ask for photographic coverage?

There is nothing much in Paragraph One worth including.

2. Word of the mysterious object reached a daring RAF reconnaissance pilot, Flight Lieutenant Tony Hill, who decided to investigate personally. He overflew the site in his Spitfire on 5 December. The pictures revealed a neat radar dish about 3 meters (10 feet) in diameter. Jones decided it had to be Wuerzburg. Further reconnaissance missions over other locations revealed more Wuerzburgs, plus a new radar that other intelligence tagged as "Wuerzburg-Riese (Giant Wuerzburg)", of which more is said in the next chapter.

Is the word 'daring' one we normally find in an academic encyclopedia? If the answer is no, then we should not use it. What 'next chapter?' This is simply a clipping without context it reads poorly and does not meet standards.

There is nothing much in Paragraph Two worth including.

3. Jones suspected that Wuerzburg was critical to German air defenses and that the British needed to learn about it in detail. The German radar site at Bruneval was near the sea and had a convenient beach, raising the possibility that it could be seized in a raid. Jones hesitated to recommend such a risky plan but became convinced that it was justified. Churchill was enthusiastic about raids, both to bolster British morale and to keep the Germans off-balance, so a request went upstairs to Lord Louis Mountbatten, Chief of Combined Operations.

Here the author is telling (a fairly interesting) story, but does a story belong in the Wikipedia? Why does this article require a story when none of the others do? 'Jones hesitated,' a clear example of story-telling.

There is nothing in Paragraph Three worth including.

And so it goes, but I have to run off to work. [[Paul, in Saudi 02:44, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)]]

[edit] Revert war

Looks like it's just going to be a continuous swapping of the text at the current rate. May I suggest Phil that the open-source text that you wish to include be represented differently? An external link and the point-form of the text itself included in the article? Having large chunks of open-source really doesn't seem to be a convention that's popular around here. Oberiko 04:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, O. I hope a few more people can look at this issue in order that together we might reach some resolution. [[Paul, in Saudi 02:21, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)]]

Oberiko you will notice that since you posted you missive I have not reverted the page and I have no intention of doing so now that you have voiced an opinion (2/3 to 1/3) However:

  • A number of contributors had added links in the open source which suggests that they did not object to the OS but helped to start to integrate it.
  • Only one person has objected to the source being included.
  • That person choose to repeatedly delete the text after saying "Lemme get around to it. I will have to arm-wrestle it into format". Paul, in Saudi has now spent far longer analysing and giving arguments against integrating the text than it would take to do it! This is a move from constructive criticism, to one of destructive criticism. For example who is R. V. Jones can be answered with R. V. Jones. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:24, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Phil- I have made a good-faith effort to integrate the text into the article. I honestly found nothing that the text added. If you can find anything, I would encourage you to add it to the article. [[Paul, in Saudi 02:16, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)]]

[edit] popular culture

hey this operation is based on a map for a PC game called enemy territory. its one of the six maps that come with the game. the allies have to steal 2 radar parts from 2 different radar trailers. in fact the radar trailers in the picture on the wikipedia site for wurzburg radar, are the same exact ones used in the game. enemy territory is one of the most popular first person shooters out there. its like quake3, unreal tournament, battlefield 2, etc its a 3-d online multiplayer first person shooter. heres some sources/references:

game: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfenstein:_Enemy_Territory#W.C3.BCrzburg_Radar

actual thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%BCrzburg_radar

heres some pictures of the radar trailers in game that i took and uploaded, its neat to see it in game, then look at the real thing in a picture. i had no idea that this map was based on a real operation in world war two.

pictures from mackel, enemy territory player

west radar trailer/parts:

http://www.house-of-frag.com/misc/macksjunk/radar/shot0001.jpg

http://www.house-of-frag.com/misc/macksjunk/radar/shot0002.jpg

east radar parts:

http://www.house-of-frag.com/misc/macksjunk/radar/shot0003.jpg

http://www.house-of-frag.com/misc/macksjunk/radar/shot0004.jpg

mackel mackel309@adelphia.net

oh yea i forgot, when the allies steal the parts, the radar dish folds exactly like in the picture of the real thing on the wikipedia wurzburg radar site. the resemblence is almost as if that same thing is in game. its exactly correct in its detail.

it would be a neat addition to this site —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.61.229.242 (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC).