Talk:Ultra

Missing image Key-crypto-sideways.png WikiProject on Cryptography

This article is part of WikiProject Cryptography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cryptography in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Template:CryptographyReader

	Pending tasks for [[Template:Articlespace:Ultra]]: (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:Ultra&action=purge)	edit (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:Ultra/to_do&action=edit) - watch (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:Ultra/to_do&action=watch) - purge (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:Ultra&action=purge)
	Talk:Ultra/to do

Contents

1 major revision needed 2 out with dict def 3 misc stuff not actually Ultra 4 on terms (M4, Triton, Shark...) 5 Page move?? 6 Overlap 7 ULTRA and FISH, etc 8 Illustrations 9 'Strategic implications' section problems

major revision needed

Much of this article, at this time, is seriously in need of revision. There are misconceptions, mistakes of fact, and general inadequacy. I haven't time to do the revision as I type this, but have added it to my plans. Watch this space, I suppose...

In the meantime, beware. This article will get you into serious confusion.

ww (4 Aug 03)

It took me a while (I forgot it was 'on my list', actually), but those watching this space can finally relax. Quite a lot of moving around, headings, corrections, rephrasing, ...

Comments?

ww 18:05, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

out with dict def

I am deleting the dictionary definition of the word Ultra from this article. It is nothing more than a dictionary entry and I see little hope of it becoming anything more. The text of what I deleted is shown below. I also removed a large section discussing sigint in the Pacific, that better belongs in an article on Purple or Magic. -SimonP (18 Dec 02)

Difinition: Ultra- is a prefix used to denote something above or higher. It is derived from the Latin word ultra ("beyond", "farther", "over and above"). It is also used for indicating superiority or higher quality. Examples include "ultrasound" and "ultraviolet".

misc stuff not actually Ultra

Pacific Stuff (already to be found in the article on Purple): well before Pearl Harbor. [Actually, the Japanese Purple machine ('alphabetic typewriter B') was an outgrowth of an earlier Japanese design the SIS called Red and was not an outgrowth of the Enigma or similar rotor machines; it treated vowels differently than consonants and used no rotors -- it used stepping switches instead. One of the reasons it was cryptanalytically vulnerable was that the key scheduling was poorly done]. Resultant revelations of Japanese plans led to U.S. naval victories in the battles of the Coral Sea and Midway, crushing the offensive power of the Japanese fleet, and enabled American flyers to find and shoot down the plane carrying Admiral Yamamoto Isoroku, the Japanese commander in the Pacific in April 1943. [Actually all of these things resulted from American (and possibly British, though this is less clear) breaks into the Imperial Navy's chief high level system, called by the Americans JN-25. It was regularly changed throughout the War, but after Pearl Harbor, the Americans were able to more or less keep up. Purple carried only diplomatic information -- very valuable, of course -- but carried no military tactical information at all.]

Actually, although a group of six letters was handled differently from the other twenty, IIRC they weren't the vowels: which letters where in which group was selected with a plugboard. (I have no idea why the did it this way - because the group of 6 was only scrambled through a single level of stepping switches, whereas the group of 20 was done through 3, it represented a vulnerability.) Noel (talk) 21:20, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

on terms (M4, Triton, Shark...)

The Germans used several names for their (various non-commercial) Enigma machines. The one that sticks in my memory is the Navy's which was 'M' in some variants. 'M4' was, as I recall, the name of the 3.5 (or 4, depending on viewpoint) rotor machine adopted by the Navy well into the War. Bletchley Park used different names for assorted Enigma networks. Thus, the Navy in the Atlantic may have been talking back and forth (using the M4 machine), and BP might call that network 'Shark'. While the Navy in the Med (using the SAME machine, mind, though with different traffic patterns and different key schedules) might be called Porpoise by BP. Thus, it is necessary to keep clearly in mind the difference between a network (determined by who talks to whom and is therefore using the same keys) and the machine used to implement that network. Some recent edits have been going round and round on this somewhat slippery ground. ww 19:46, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yep, we need to be careful. Before 1 February 1942, the Shark network used M3, the 3 rotor machine. The M4 was also used by other networks, e.g., Seahorse. — Matt 22:49, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Page move??

On Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ultra-, someone wants this article renamed. Any opinions?? 66.245.111.194 20:29, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Overlap

There's considerable overlap between the Breaking the code section and the article Cryptanalysis of the Enigma. This would be okay, if the section were briefened to a summary. Can anyone take this on? Derrick Coetzee 05:01, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Now that I look, there's a considerable amount of overlap in other sections as well. According to the header at the top of Cryptanalysis of the Enigma, this article should focus primarily on how the information was used, which seems like a pretty good idea. If someone feels having a large overlap is important, either merge these articles or create a template which is placed in both; this allows updates to be made in one place (otherwise, the updater may not even be aware redundancy exists.) Derrick Coetzee 05:58, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, and yeah, I think most of the overlap can be cut out; entire books have been written on ULTRA that spend about a paragraph explaining what the Enigma was and even less space explaining how the information was produced! For background, until a few months ago, we had just two articles: Enigma machine and ULTRA. Both articles attempted to give the entire story of (1) the machine, (2) the cryptanalysis and (3) the intelligence produced. I spent some time relocating the intelligence and cryptanalysis parts of Enigma machine into Ultra and Cryptanalysis of the Enigma respectively, but I haven't got round to working on the latter two articles yet. — Matt 09:35, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Now, that I've noticed this, I'm going to speak up for the Average Reader. Both these articles (Enigma and Ultra) were, it seems to me, mostly introductions or articles of first resort at the time Matt mentions. As such, the AR will be most helped in my view with something that doesn't require much chasing of pointers to specialized articles in order to get a first level overview. Such an article will, it seems to me, necessarily be less than maximally sparing of duplication of content. I was satisfied with the degree of overlap that Matt mentions, at least after a series of extensive edits I did. This is, I think, a policy which differs from that of some others, in this instance Matt. We have had similar differences at other articles in crypto corner. I have mostly been unwilling to do more than disagree, but the same disagreement seems to return from time to time. I don't think that the article style we now frequently have in the crypto corner, thus

topic

subtopic

main article somewhere else

comments

subtopic

main article somewhere else

comments

etc etc

is felicitous. The AR, who is not a cryptiac, nor a devotee of maximal economy of words across many related articles, is not best served this way. The standard to which we should be rallying is instead, maximum intelligibility for AR. Admittedly, this is not so clearly a standard in favor of duplication of content that some excess words cannot be trimmed. It is, though, a significantly different criterion of judgement about potentially trimmable alleged excess.

Comments? ww 19:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the suggestion here is not a topic-subtopic structure, but a division between intelligence and codebreaking. The general rule is simply to stay "on topic", and one can write and read quite successfully about ULTRA intelligence without needing to know anything at all about the techniques used to break Enigma (or the mechanics of the Enigma machine). This division is a very natural one -- it started during the War in the division of duties between Hut 3 and Hut 6, or between Hut 4 and Hut 8. This separation is not going to cause any confusion for your Average Reader (although it may make for a less entertaining story, but Wikipedia is a reference work). The only "crossover" that I would think necessary is when various problems in the codebreaking caused an intelligence blackout (such as the introduction of the four-wheel Naval Enigma on Shark). Having multiple articles which all tell the whole story of "How Enigma came to be broken" is quite undesirable. — Matt Crypto 20:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ULTRA and FISH, etc

The term "Ultra" also covered material gathered from the decryption of FISH ciphered material, not just Enigma, right? (Not to mention various other Italian and German codes and ciphers?) I ask because the current article talks almost exclusively about Enigma.

I do know that later in the war the US and UK standardized on "Ultra" as a term for all SIGINT material (West, SIGINT Secrets, pp. 238). Budiansky gives (Battle of Wits, pp. 254-255) a memo from Travis which says ULTRA is to be used as a term for all "special intelligence"; Budiansky says the latter term referred to all "high-grade and machine ciphers".

However, West also contains a quotation from Peter Calvocoressi that "Ultra was the name given by us to intelligence we derived from breaking Enigma" (pp. 22). So I gather that the enlargement of the coverage of the term was a later wartime development.

It may even have been a UK edict, as nearly as I can make out. Certainly the term MAGIC for another source of SIGINT material continued in use in the US. ww 20:12, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In particular, Ultra covered the TUNNY and STURGEON systems (Lorenz SZ 40/42 and Geheimfernschreiber respectively), I gather. (Although it was mostly TUNNY that the attention of GCHQ was focussed on, with the Colossus, etc.)

So presumably either i) this article needs to cover those other systems as well, or ii) we should rename the current contents of article to something which refers specifically to the intelligence gained from break of the Enigma, and do a new "Ultra" article which covers all the systems?

Another issue is that later in the war, attacks on Enigma (particularly the Naval Enigma) were very much a joint US-UK effort, and of course technically, later in the war the term Ultra covered the Magic material as well! So technically an article on Ultra should cover all Allied cryptanalytically-derived intelligence.

However, I think it makes sense to keep separate the campaigns against the German (+Italian?) communication systems, and Japanese systems into two separate articles; the two are logically fairly separate, and putting them in one would create an unwieldy beast.

Still, it would be nice to have an article titled Allied SIGINT in World War II (with alternative titles Allied cryptanalytic intelligence in World War II, etc) which gives a brief overview of the whole field, and references all the appropriate lesser articles.

And no, I don't have time to do it! Sorry, too much else to do here...

What I will do for now is rework the intro section to add brief references to at least TUNNY and STURGEON, and mention the importance of TUNNY: West says (pp. 228) that "it was to be GCHQ's most valued source", and Budiansky described (pp. 315) its output as "priceless". Noel (talk) 22:38, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I removed this sentence from the intro:

The corresponding name used by the Americans for analogous intelligence from Japanese decrypts in WWII was Magic

because, as far as I can make out, MAGIC was only applied to PURPLE decrypts, and is not really analagous to Ultra (which covered a multitude of sources). E.g. Lewin, American Magic (pp. 14) "the machine that came to be called Purple. All information gathered from this source was known then, and throughout the war, as Magic." I've looked through a large number of references, and can't find any use of Magic for anything except Purple decrypts. Noel (talk) 02:39, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PS: I've just noticed that Edward J. Drea, MacArthur's ULTRA (pp. xi, pp. 240 footnote #2) gives a lot more detail on the usage spread. He gives 13 May 1940 as the first British use of Ultra (by the RN, per Beesly, Very Special Intelligence); US usage started in Europe and the Med, but there was no uniform naming system in the Pacific, and it did not gain currency there until March 1944.

He also notes (pp. xi) that MAGIC applied to the diplomatic decrypts. Noel (talk) 02:50, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would caution that West's evaluation of 'most valuable' is one made from a considerable distance in time, though of course by a well informed observer. I suspect in any case that what he had in mind was the very high level strategic insight the Fish cypher decrypts were supposed to have made available. I would suggest that Enigma decrypts, as applied to N Africa and the Atlantic (when things were very much in doubt) were valued indeed. Later on, when the Germans were on the run in N Europe and things in less ultimate doubt perhaps less critical? As for May 1940 first use, that seems to me about right, and would apply to most likely Luftwaffe or Wehrmacht as Naval Enigma was rather more resistant and took longer to begin to produce usable results.

As for the scope of reference/inclusion for MAGIC, I would note that JIN cyphers and JIA cyphers began to produce useful material before Midway (June 1942) and continued to do so throughout the war in increasing quantity. Thus Pacific SIGINT material covered rather more than merely the diplomatic PURPLE, and the British / Dutch / Australians contributed to more than a little of that, perhaps especially JIN intercepts. ww 20:12, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Illustrations

How about an illustration or two for this article — e.g. an Allied aircraft approaching a German ship on the Mediterranean, or a submarine torpedoing an Allied merchant ship? Logologist 10:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. I just had a quick look to see if Wikipedia had anything we could use on other pages (like Second Battle of the Atlantic, or U-boat), but I didn't turn up anything. — Matt Crypto 10:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

'Strategic implications' section problems

The recent addition of this section seems to me to present some difficulties. As it stands now, it is largely rhetorical questions intended to show the importance of Ultra. While I more or less agree about the intended importance, I have some difficulty with the format / structure. We're supposed to be reporting facts here (as much as we can manage anyway) and our joint opinion is not such. We should change this section to report contemporary opinion (eg Churchill to the King) or later scholarly judgement. Even if the same result is achieved, a highlight of Ultra's importance.

Comment? ww 20:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. While the occasional rhetorical question spices up the text, I think it should be used sparingly. I don't think that fixing it would be terribly hard, though; replace "Might Japan have opened a second front against the Soviets?" with "Historian Bob suggested that Japan might have opened a second front against the Soviets (Bob, 1997)". — Matt Crypto 20:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)