1) “Quantity is its own quality” when it comes to ciphers. We can break many reduced-round ciphers easily but have no practical attack on the full version. This

1) “Quantity is its own quality” when it comes to ciphers. We can break many reduced-round ciphers easily but have no practical attack on the full version. This is not always true but it is close enough (even today) that nobody should mistake the impact of additional rotors as being “merely quantitative.” 2) Consider the fact that you felt the names Rejewski, Zygalski and Rozycki could be placed in an HN post without further explanation. Do people know who they are and what they did? Yes, they do. They’re not unknown or uncredited (though many others certainly are, as is the case with every other massive technical effort.) 3) I don’t think anyone has ever seriously suggested that Turing broke Enigma alone. And I don’t take Hollywood seriously: this is a medium that requires “the Enterprise bridge crew” of seven people to effectively solve every problem that comes up. But Turing’s contributions were very significant. And he never had a chance to brag about them: he maintained secrecy while many of his colleagues lived to see the work declassified.