Re: B-17's and Strategic Bombing (Was:Was D VII a good plane) [Archive]

Steven P. McNicoll

April 17th 04, 01:19 PM

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
>
> His writing "never let the facts get in the way of a good story."
> He wrote a lot of books, always giving far more attention to being
> entertaining than to accuracy. That, of course, is not so harmful
> where his numerous works of fiction are concerned; his works
> of history however... Caidin's works are spreading and
> perpetuating more aviation history myths and errors than those
> of any other author, of course also because they were so widely
> sold.
>
> And then there is the ugly wrangle he had with Sakai over the
> latter's so-called 'autobiography'.
>

Caidin's books may be riddled with inaccuracies, or they may not be. I
don't know, I haven't read a great deal of his work. But there's a
difference between saying his work is inaccurate and showing his work to be
inaccurate. You haven't shown any of his work to be inaccurate.

You're not the first in this forum to accuse Caidin of inaccuracy, that's
why I asked you about his track record. In January 2003 one "Felger
Carbon", replying to a statement about Caidin's truthfulness, wrote:

"Yep. Example, in a Caidin-authored paperback on test flying, with a
hilarious chapter on the Chance Vought Cutlass jet. He mentions the
twin-engine Grumman interceptor built to compete with the Lockheed
P-38. He states that the only prototype crashed into Long Island
Sound (true). He also clearly and unambiguously stated that the cause
of the crash was a problem with the nose gear. Problem: the Grumman
was a tail-dragger and had no nose gear."

But Caidin was correct. The aircraft was the XP-50, and it was not a
taildragger, it had tricycle gear. Grumman pilot Bob Hall was flying
the aircraft when one of the turbochargers let go. The blades cut the
hydraulic lines to the landing gear. He could lower the mains via the
manual gear extension system, but the nose gear wouldn't come down.
Seems the cables to the nose gear were cut as well. The airplane
could not land in that configuration, so he bailed out over Long
Island Sound. Felger had confused the XP-50 with it's sister, the Navy
XF5F, which was a taildragger.

On December 19th last you wrote in this forum:

"In fact the reconstruction attempt may be surprisingly
accurate. On 16 December 1903 the first flying attempt
failed under very similar circumstances -- the aircraft,
with Wilbur on the controls, stalled because the angle
of incidence became too high, and was slightly
damaged in a hard landing. It was repaired to fly on
the next day."

But the first attempt was not on the 16th, it was on the 14th. Should all
of your work be judged by this error?

WalterM140

April 17th 04, 01:57 PM

>Emmannuel's opinion of Martin Caidin as a historian does indeed pretty
>much agree with mine, though perhaps expressed more elegantly :)
>

If Caidin was an embellisher of stories or a poor checker of facts or
corroboration, so be it.

But you haven't shown such, and neither has Mr. Gustin. It's all been
character assassination by innuendo.

Caidin seems to have hit most of the important points on the this story of the
B-17/FW-190 collision, and Mr. Gustin needs to apologise for doubting it.

But of course that was part and parcel of the attacks on everything American
over on the moderated WWII newsgroup.

Walt

Cub Driver

April 17th 04, 09:55 PM

On 17 Apr 2004 12:57:56 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

>But you haven't shown such, and neither has Mr. Gustin. It's all been
>character assassination by innuendo.

Not at all! We happen to think that Mr. Caidin is a fabulist. There's
no innuendo! I'm saying it outright: he made stuff up! He made lots of
stuff up! Some of it was good (The Six Million Dollar Man, or anyhow
the book that led to it) and some of it was dreck (The Rugged, Ragged
Warriors).

I don't have to show anything. This is simply what I believe: he made
stuff up. That's how he was able to write 150 books in a rather short
lifetime.

You are of course free to believe otherwise. But since you do, then
don't expect me to take anything you post here seriously, since you
have demonstrated that you are likely to be gulled by fabulists.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

WalterM140

April 17th 04, 10:40 PM

>Not at all! We happen to think that Mr. Caidin is a fabulist. There's
>no innuendo! I'm saying it outright: he made stuff up!

Show it.

Walt

Steven P. McNicoll

April 17th 04, 10:42 PM

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> Some of it was good (The Six Million Dollar Man, or anyhow
> the book that led to it)
>

"Cyborg"

Chris Mark

April 18th 04, 06:59 AM

One example of how Caiden "sweetened" a story has been pointed out to me (by
two people, as a matter of fact):
In Fork-Tailed Devil, Caiden relates the death of William Sells. In the Caiden
account he says that "perhaps" only one scorched carbon sheet remains to tell
what happened to Sells, a paper Caiden found while working in Japan. However,
Sells career and death are fully documented in the usual routine way.
Caiden says the carbon he found is damaged so that the date of the episode and
Sells' unit are not known, although he suggests a possible fighter group. In
fact, Sells squadron, the individual plane he was flying, and the date of the
episode are fully documented.
The story Caiden then tells is fantasy. He says Sells took off alone on an
engine check only to discover dozens upon dozens of approaching Japanese
bombers and fighters bearing down on the field, none of which had been detected
by radar (how this could be is not explained). Sells gallantly attacks them
single-handedly and shoots down six (the shootdowns witnessed by those on the
ground) before running out of ammo. His plane riddled with bullets, an engine
on fire, himself bleeding profusing, he dives away and heads for a landing.
In fact, the Japanese did launch a very large raid that day. It was detected
by radar and several flights of fighters were sent up to intercept, including
one led by Sells. One of his four planes aborted, but three continued and Sells
led his wingmen (whose names are known) into an attack on a formation of Vals
escorted by Zeros. He ordered one of his wingmen to attack the Vals while he
and his wingman attacked the Zeros. Sells' wingman lost him in the attack on
the fighters and diverted to attack the Vals, damaging two before being chased
off by Zeros. The wingman who had been orderd to attack the Vals is bounced by
Zeros and has to break off his attack before inflicting any damage. He sees
Sells alone engaging 12 Zeros, goes to his assistance, attacks the Zeros and
shoots down one confirmed before having to dive out of the fight. No one sees
Sells shoot down any planes and he is not officially credited with having shot
any down.
In Caiden's account, Sells heads for the nearest field but P-40s are scrambling
from it and Sells is ordered to go around and his plane crashes while he is
attempting to do so.
Unit records say Sells was making an emergency landing on one engine at RAAF
Gurney when he was cut off on short final (gear down, full flaps) by a landing
P-40. In avoiding a collision Sells' plane ran out of flying speed and
crashed, killing him.
The real story of Sells' death is fully interesting enough. But apparently
Caiden felt the need to "massage" it.
Apparently, he didn't do this because he was a knucklehead, but because he had
discovered that the largest audience for mass-market paperbacks about WW2
aviation were junior high school and early high school boys, so he adjusted his
writing to make it as appealing as possible to this target audience.

Chris Mark

Cub Driver

April 18th 04, 10:32 AM

>Apparently, he didn't do this because he was a knucklehead, but because he had
>discovered that the largest audience for mass-market paperbacks about WW2
>aviation were junior high school and early high school boys, so he adjusted his
>writing to make it as appealing as possible to this target audience.

Even that may make it sound more deliberate than it was. Do the math:
he wrote 150 books in what? thirty? years? Forty at most. That's a
book every three months.

Ask Ed Rasimus what it takes to write a book.

(And he didn't have to do any research :)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

WalterM140

April 18th 04, 01:26 PM

>From: (Chris Mark)

>
>One example of how Caiden "sweetened" a story has been pointed out to me (by
>two people, as a matter of fact):
>In Fork-Tailed Devil, Caiden relates the death of William Sells. In the
>Caiden
>account he says that "perhaps" only one scorched carbon sheet remains to tell
>what happened to Sells, a paper Caiden found while working in Japan.
>However,
>Sells career and death are fully documented in the usual routine way.
>Caiden says the carbon he found is damaged so that the date of the episode
>and
>Sells' unit are not known, although he suggests a possible fighter group. In
>fact, Sells squadron, the individual plane he was flying, and the date of the
>episode are fully documented.
>The story Caiden then tells is fantasy. He says Sells took off alone on an
>engine check only to discover dozens upon dozens of approaching Japanese
>bombers and fighters bearing down on the field, none of which had been
>detected
>by radar (how this could be is not explained). Sells gallantly attacks them
>single-handedly and shoots down six (the shootdowns witnessed by those on the
>ground) before running out of ammo. His plane riddled with bullets, an
>engine
>on fire, himself bleeding profusing, he dives away and heads for a landing.
>In fact, the Japanese did launch a very large raid that day. It was detected
>by radar and several flights of fighters were sent up to intercept, including
>one led by Sells. One of his four planes aborted, but three continued and
>Sells
>led his wingmen (whose names are known) into an attack on a formation of Vals
>escorted by Zeros. He ordered one of his wingmen to attack the Vals while he
>and his wingman attacked the Zeros. Sells' wingman lost him in the attack on
>the fighters and diverted to attack the Vals, damaging two before being
>chased
>off by Zeros. The wingman who had been orderd to attack the Vals is bounced
>by
>Zeros and has to break off his attack before inflicting any damage. He sees
>Sells alone engaging 12 Zeros, goes to his assistance, attacks the Zeros and
>shoots down one confirmed before having to dive out of the fight. No one
>sees
>Sells shoot down any planes and he is not officially credited with having
>shot
>any down.
>In Caiden's account, Sells heads for the nearest field but P-40s are
>scrambling
>from it and Sells is ordered to go around and his plane crashes while he is
>attempting to do so.
>Unit records say Sells was making an emergency landing on one engine at RAAF
>Gurney when he was cut off on short final (gear down, full flaps) by a
>landing
>P-40. In avoiding a collision Sells' plane ran out of flying speed and
>crashed, killing him.
>The real story of Sells' death is fully interesting enough. But apparently
>Caiden felt the need to "massage" it.
>Apparently, he didn't do this because he was a knucklehead, but because he
>had
>discovered that the largest audience for mass-market paperbacks about WW2
>aviation were junior high school and early high school boys, so he adjusted
>his
>writing to make it as appealing as possible to this target audience.
>

That would be me. :)

That sounds like good information. Thanks.

Walt
>
>
>
>
>
>

Chris Mark

April 18th 04, 07:35 PM

>You just can't
>use Caidin as a reliable source; but modern standards, he is not.

I know of two instances where very good historians have used Caidin as a
source. Both Robert Caro and Geoffrey Perret cite Caidin's account of how
Lyndon Johnson got his Silver Star, an account that is utterly bogus.
I attended a talk given by Caro during his book tour promoting his latest
volume of LBJ biography and during the Q&A brought this up. Unfortunately,
Caro reacted as if his own research was being faulted and defended Caidin. I
asked if he could recommend any Caidin books by name. He could not. So I don't
think he is familiar with Caidin at all. I suspect the Caidin piece on LBJ was
dug up by a research assistant and Caro took it at face value.
This is not to blast Caro, who seems to be a very diligent researcher and an
engaging writer--his Johnson volumes are wonderful. But it is a reminder of
why people should be cautious when a writer relies on secondary sources for
information--the author is at the mercy of these other authors' accuracy and
integrity.
Perret cites Caidin's LBJ account in his biography of Douglas MacArthur.
Now that these two respected historians have cited Caidin, others will, too,
not even bothering to go to the original Caidin source, but picking the story
up from Caro and Perrot, helping make it respectable (in a sense making _them_
the authors of the account, not Caidin, who fades into the background).
And so the fictional account assumes the form of fact.

Chris Mark

ArtKramr

April 18th 04, 08:47 PM

>Subject: Re: B-17's and Strategic Bombing (Was:Was D VII a good plane)
>From: (Chris Mark)
>Date: 4/18/04 11:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>You just can't
>>use Caidin as a reliable source; but modern standards, he is not.
>
> I know of two instances where very good historians have used Caidin as a
>source. Both Robert Caro and Geoffrey Perret cite Caidin's account of how
>Lyndon Johnson got his Silver Star, an account that is utterly bogus.
> I attended a talk given by Caro during his book tour promoting his latest
>volume of LBJ biography and during the Q&A brought this up. Unfortunately,
>Caro reacted as if his own research was being faulted and defended Caidin. I
>asked if he could recommend any Caidin books by name. He could not. So I
>don't
>think he is familiar with Caidin at all. I suspect the Caidin piece on LBJ
>was
>dug up by a research assistant and Caro took it at face value.
>This is not to blast Caro, who seems to be a very diligent researcher and an
>engaging writer--his Johnson volumes are wonderful. But it is a reminder of
>why people should be cautious when a writer relies on secondary sources for
>information--the author is at the mercy of these other authors' accuracy and
>integrity.
>Perret cites Caidin's LBJ account in his biography of Douglas MacArthur.
>Now that these two respected historians have cited Caidin, others will, too,
>not even bothering to go to the original Caidin source, but picking the story
>up from Caro and Perrot, helping make it respectable (in a sense making
>_them_
>the authors of the account, not Caidin, who fades into the background).
>And so the fictional account assumes the form of fact.
>
>
>Chris Mark

Guess you can't believe anything you didn't see for yourself.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

ArtKramr

April 18th 04, 11:13 PM

>Subject: Re: B-17's and Strategic Bombing (Was:Was D VII a good plane)
>From: "Emmanuel Gustin"
>Date: 4/18/04 2:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:

>
>> Those who talk of the innacuracy of our bombing have never seen Germany in
>> 1945. We left damn little standing.
>
>Art, "leaving damn little standing" seems to me to be an
>indication of inaccuracy, not accuracy...
>
>--
>Emmanuel Gustin
>Emmanuel dot Gustin @t skynet dot be
>Flying Guns Books and Site: http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/
>
>

Not when the goal is to leave nothing standing.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[email protected]

April 18th 04, 11:23 PM

(ArtKramr) wrote:

>
>Guess you can't believe anything you didn't see for yourself.
>

<sigh>
--

-Gord.

ArtKramr

April 19th 04, 12:51 AM

>Subject: Re: B-17's and Strategic Bombing (Was:Was D VII a good plane)
>From: "Emmanuel Gustin"
>Date: 4/18/04 4:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Not when the goal is to leave nothing standing.
>
>In that case, why bother to be accurate?
>

When it comes to bombing accuracy photographs mean everything, words mean very
little. Visit my website and see the direct hits that wiped out the petro
facilities at "Wurzburgh" with secondary and tertiary explosions to 10,000
feet. Then go to"The Bridge at Verberie" to see pinpoint bombing like a bomb in
a pickle barrel. Then see "Death of a Bridge" for more pinpoint bombing
accuracy. I provide photographic evidence. What do you provide? Anything other
than talk and opinion?

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

WalterM140

April 19th 04, 10:58 AM

>>Art, "leaving damn little standing" seems to me to be an
>>indication of inaccuracy, not accuracy...
>>
>>--

>Not when the goal is to leave nothing standing.
>

An important point, Art! :)

Walt

Cub Driver

April 19th 04, 11:07 AM

On 18 Apr 2004 18:35:30 GMT, (Chris Mark) wrote:

> I know of two instances where very good historians have used Caidin as a
>source. Both Robert Caro and Geoffrey Perret cite Caidin's account of how
>Lyndon Johnson got his Silver Star

I always read a history or biography with my right thumb (or if I'm
really interested, a moving Post-it Note) in the citations. My
amazement was total when I discovered that Caro used Caidin's book as
his sole source. It shook me for a while, but I finally got back to
enjoying the book. But I still think of it whenever I read Caro or see
him on TV as an expert: the man who cited Martin Caidin!

I don't know Perret. Is it possible that he was simply parotting Caro?
(Or vice versa, I suppose.) This is how the story perpetuates itself
about "the Flying Tigers, who were fighting the Japanese in China
before Pearl Harbor." You see that line in serious histories to this
day, by reputable historians. The actual source of the myth is a John
Wayne, Republic studios, wartime B flick

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

Cub Driver

April 19th 04, 11:21 AM

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 00:53:57 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
> wrote:

>French author Bernard Baeza:
>
> "It was, incidentally, Henry Sakaida, a close friend of Saburo
> Sakai, who told me the real story of "Samurai",

Pity Henry didn't include that in his "Pacific Air Combat WWII"!

Thanks for the information.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

WalterM140

April 19th 04, 11:46 AM

I've seen some errors in Perret's book, although I enjoy his work.

>>Both Robert Caro and Geoffrey Perret cite Caidin's account of how
>>Lyndon Johnson got his Silver Star

Speaking of LBJ, I have one of the Squadron/SIgnal books called: "Flying
Fortress, the Boeing B-17".

On page 21, there's a photo caption that says it's LBJ standing next to the
Swoose, but it's a picture of Thomas E. Dewey!

Walt

ArtKramr

April 19th 04, 03:02 PM

>Subject: Re: B-17's and Strategic Bombing (Was:Was D VII a good plane)
>From: (Emmanuel Gustin)
>Date: 4/19/04 5:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
(ArtKramr) wrote in message
>...
>
>I have no doubt that the B-26 accuracy was, under good
>circumstances, very good for the period. Which of course
>still meant a 'shotgun' approach, not what is regarded as
>'precision' bombing today, but that was simply impossible
>with WWII technology. The medium bombers were more accurate
>than the heavy bombers and the fighter-bombers were more
>accurate than the medium bombers.
>
>My point is that when it came to strategic targets in Germany
>itself, the actual practice amounted to, as you say, "leaving
>damn little standing". Which simply does not involve much
>accuracy, except being able to hit a city-sized target.
>Bombing through clouds using radar or on flares floating above
>the clouds was about that accurate, and it was frequently done.
>Precision bombing may have been the officially stated goal; but
>the effect on the ground was usually indistinguishable from
>area bombing.
>
>Emmanuel Gustin

I don't think you looked at my bomb strike photographs.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Chris Mark

April 19th 04, 06:08 PM

>I don't know Perret. Is it possible that he was simply parotting Caro?

Perret's "Old Soldiers Never Die" was published in 1996. He cites Caidin's
"The Mission" specifically.
Of course, there is always the possibility he is lifting the info and citation
from another work. That's a fairly common way for authors (or students!) to
pad out their list of references. But Perret's speciality is writing from
original sources wherever possible, and he seems to do a good job of digging
out previously unaccessed documents so that he can present fresh insight about
oft written about subjects (Eisenhower, JFK, MacArthur, Lincoln, Grant).
Still, the Caidin cite leaps from the notes.
Caidin may be cited as freely as he is by more serious writers simply because
they can't imagine someone writing about serious subjects (such as
then-president Johnson) would simply present flights of imagination as fact,
that he would freely "adjust" a story to make it a better read.
Since Caidin embellished to make his subjects look better, not worse, he tended
to get away with it. Few feel the need to defend themselves against praise,
even when undeserved.

Chris Mark

Chris Mark

April 19th 04, 06:35 PM

>I've seen some errors in Perret's book, although I enjoy his work.

I doubt there is an error-free history published, and some of them seem
inexplicable. I remember reading David Halberstam's "The Reckoning," and
coming upon his explanation of why Perry's armada was described as "black
ships." Halberstam said it was because his ships were ironclads. Halberstam
was obviously unaware that ironclads were largely a product of the ACW, some
years in the future at the time of Perry's mission. He was also obviously
unaware of Perry's role in introducing steam power into the US Navy and that
three (iirc) of his Japanese armada ships were steamships belching black
smoke---and thus the Japanese name for them (supposedly).
Even though this was a minor error in a book on a different topic (the auto
industry), I still thereafter viewed what Halberstam said with skepticism I
otherwise wouldn't have had.
Justified skepticism, as it turned out, since Ford was about to embark on a
huge comeback and Nissan was soon to take a header towards bankruptcy (H. wrote
about how Ford had messed up and Nissan had got everything right.)

Chris Mark

Cub Driver

April 19th 04, 08:40 PM

On 19 Apr 2004 17:35:16 GMT, (Chris Mark) wrote:

>I doubt there is an error-free history published, and some of them seem
>inexplicable. I remember reading David Halberstam's "The Reckoning,"

In "A Bright and Shining Lie," there's a photograph of a B-26 Marauder
of the type used in Vietnam :)

That of course probably wasn't the author's fault, though he ought to
have checked the photos as well as his text.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

Krztalizer

April 20th 04, 12:15 AM

>
>Should I post the serial number of that B-17?
>

If you do, make sure you post the entire serial number, not just what is
painted on the tail. ;)

v/r
Gordon

Krztalizer

April 20th 04, 12:18 AM

>
>I'd like to know more about the Caidin-Sakai wrangle!
>

Dan, I know Sakai autographed copies of the book later in life, but in the
years shortly after it was released in America, Saburo Sakai *hated* it and
would always make comments about "the things other people had inserted" into
it. With both men gone, its all moot now, but I would imagine the inaccuracies
came from other people, not Sakai - he was all about honor and duty and would
not have padded his own remarkable story. There was simply no need for him to
do so.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Its always better to lose AN engine, than THE engine.

Krztalizer

April 20th 04, 12:27 AM

>
>>... Before I believe a tall story like that, I would like to see a
>>... better source for it than that amiable distributor of myth,
>>... legend, fiction and error, M. Caidin.
>>
>>Which, in my opinion and that of plenty of other people,
>>is a quite reasonable attitude to take,
>
>Emmannuel's opinion of Martin Caidin as a historian does indeed pretty
>much agree with mine, though perhaps expressed more elegantly :)

****in' A. Errrr, I mean, I agree.

v/r
Gordon

Krztalizer

April 20th 04, 12:39 AM

>
> But of course that was part and parcel of the attacks on everything American
>over on the moderated WWII newsgroup.
>
>Walt

I don't know him personally but I have read his info for years - Mr. Gustin has
written thousands of pages of aviation history and none that I've seen can be
considered "anti-American".

I believe the same thing as he does about Caidin - he filled his books with bar
stories and genuine historians are going to be cleaning up his mess for the
next 100 years. This is an American talking about another American. Not
character assassination, simply an observation by someone that likes a good
story, but prefers an accurate one. He presented the Italian P-38 story as fact
- it just plain wasn't. It wasn't a simple mistake, it was a whole-cloth
fantasy, based, as many of this stories were, on a few actual facts. It
doesn't take away from the enjoyment of his books, but it takes them out of the
realm of "historic fact" and places them in the grayness of "accepted history".
If you want to believe everything he said, feel free - no one says you can't.
Mr. Gustin's opinion, and mine, and Dan's and thousands of other people agree -
people who use original sources can't take the risk of using Caidin as *any*
source.

Getting back to the original FW 190 / B-17 story, which is more accurate,
Caidin, or the other...? Marty wrote to thrill; the other guy wrote his
account to tell the story accurately.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Its always better to lose AN engine, than THE engine.

WalterM140

April 20th 04, 02:08 AM

>> But of course that was part and parcel of the attacks on everything
>American
>>over on the moderated WWII newsgroup.
>>
>>Walt

>I don't know him personally but I have read his info for years - Mr. Gustin
>has
>written thousands of pages of aviation history and none that I've seen can be
>considered "anti-American".

Fine.

I think there's an anti-American coterie on the moderated WWII newgroup.

Your mileage may vary.

Mr. Gustin said he'd need a better source than Martin Caidin for the
B-17/FW-190 story. In this case, although it's been amply shown that Caidin
shouldn't be trusted on much, he was pretty much correct about this story.

>I believe the same thing as he does about Caidin - he filled his books with
>bar
>stories and genuine historians are going to be cleaning up his mess for the
>next 100 years.

You are probably right.

<snip agreed stuff>

>Getting back to the original FW 190 / B-17 story, which is more accurate,
>Caidin, or the other...? Marty wrote to thrill; the other guy wrote his
>account to tell the story accurately.

Based on the two accounts, Caidin inflated 2 FW's to 3. It would be hard to
gainsay the other account, as he was sitting about six feet from where the FW
struck. Nothing else in the co-pilot's account contradicts what Caidin said,
although the co-pilot has the FW strike inboard of the #3 engine and Caidin
indicates a strike on the engine itself. That's a difference of a few feet.

I appreciate your comments.

Walt

WalterM140

April 20th 04, 02:20 AM

>>Should I post the serial number of that B-17?
>>
>
>If you do, make sure you post the entire serial number, not just what is
>painted on the tail. ;)

That was the S/N as it appeared on the tail, and also how it is reported in the
381st BG unit history.

I could have -assumed- there was more to it; I knew it was short, but I didn't
want to report something I didn't know for sure.

Walt

Krztalizer

April 20th 04, 03:17 AM

>
>Mr. Gustin said he'd need a better source than Martin Caidin for the
>B-17/FW-190 story. In this case, although it's been amply shown that Caidin
>shouldn't be trusted on much, he was pretty much correct about this story.

Agreed - Marty didn't fiddle with this one, but, can you see why Mr. Gustin
didn't want to jump right up and take MC's word for it, before the other source
came up?

I think I would have worded it similarly if I were to have been the responder
ahead of him - MC was a GREAT writer and I would never take that away from him.
I am a struggling writer myself and I know there are times when I see a great
story in someone's book, the first inclination I have is that I want to use it;
the second inclination is to realize that simply by being in someone else's
book, the details have already been through at least one filter, perhaps more.
So I tend to reject published books as sources, unless I can read a long list
of original historic sources listed in the credits - even then, I typically go
off to find those original sources.

>>I believe the same thing as he does about Caidin - he filled his books with
>>bar
>>stories and genuine historians are going to be cleaning up his mess for the
>>next 100 years.
>
>You are probably right.
>
><snip agreed stuff>
>
>>Getting back to the original FW 190 / B-17 story, which is more accurate,
>>Caidin, or the other...? Marty wrote to thrill; the other guy wrote his
>>account to tell the story accurately.
>
>Based on the two accounts, Caidin inflated 2 FW's to 3. It would be hard to
>gainsay the other account, as he was sitting about six feet from where the FW
>struck. Nothing else in the co-pilot's account contradicts what Caidin said,
>although the co-pilot has the FW strike inboard of the #3 engine and Caidin
>indicates a strike on the engine itself. That's a difference of a few feet.

True - what I was pointing out was the main difference between the two
accounts. One was the nuts and bolts blow by blow description by the CP - in
contrast, MC's account was more like the "Two Fisted Tales"-type of writing,
where Marty talks about the 'Fort blasting enemy fighters and only just barely
refrains from using the "there I was, waist deep in spent shells.." line. :)
But that is why I loved to read him as a kid!

>I appreciate your comments.

Cool - glad we can disagree without slinging monkeydoo.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Its always better to lose AN engine, than THE engine.

WalterM140

April 20th 04, 03:22 AM

Mr. Gustin shows his anti-American bias:

>My point is that when it came to strategic targets in Germany
>itself, the actual practice amounted to, as you say, "leaving
>damn little standing". Which simply does not involve much
>accuracy, except being able to hit a city-sized target.

The Americans always eschewed that approach. They always sought accuracy, and
for the day, and under the conditions, they often obtained outstanding accurary
and results.

.....

>Precision bombing may have been the officially stated goal; but
>the effect on the ground was usually indistinguishable from
>area bombing.
>

That's just false.

The Germans began redeploying their day fighters back to Germany at a time when
the USAAF was sending only a few dozen -uescorted- bombers at a time and only
striking in clear weather.

I just don't see how you can discount this. The Germans began deployment of
their day fighters from about May, 1943. That was directly because of the
effect of --daylight precison bombing--.

The USAAF flew its first radar assisted mission in November, 1943.

A very large percentage of bombs were dropped in the campaign by radar and
other non-visual means, but when the weather was clear the USAAF had the
equipment and techniques to achieve very high accuracy for the day.

The Germans are -clear- that this hurt them very badly. They are also very
clear that the USAAF hurt them worse than the RAF did, despite the fact that
the front line strength power curve of the RAF was about two years ahead of the
Americans.

See this link for an example of USAAF accuracy:

http//members.aol.com/walterm140/strike1.jpg

Walt

Keith Willshaw

April 20th 04, 08:06 AM

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
> Mr. Gustin shows his anti-American bias:
>
> >My point is that when it came to strategic targets in Germany
> >itself, the actual practice amounted to, as you say, "leaving
> >damn little standing". Which simply does not involve much
> >accuracy, except being able to hit a city-sized target.
>
> The Americans always eschewed that approach. They always sought accuracy,
and
> for the day, and under the conditions, they often obtained outstanding
accurary
> and results.

This will come as a great surprise to those who have studied the
USAAF campaign over Japan which utilised area bombing
at night to great effect.

Keith

Chris Mark

April 21st 04, 02:59 AM

> There is nothing magical about 'original
>sources' that makes them inherently correct.

What are you defining as an "original" source?
I would define such as things such as minutes of meetings, letters, orders,
weather reports, diaries, logbooks. By their nature they are as "correct" as
we are likely ever going to get and are very useful at determining the truth.
For example, S.L.A. Marshall claimed to have participated in the 1918 campaigns
at St. Mihiel, Soissons, and the Meuse-Argonne and won a battlefield
commission. However, military records state that he was a sergeant in the
315th Engineers constructing roads behind the lines. Anyone relying on his
autobiography, "Bringing Up the Rear," to write about him would be using a
secondary source, and would succumb to the errors and distortions it contains.
Had he, however, going directly to the "original source," unit records and
Marshall's military records, he would have avoided that and what he wrote would
be as close to accurate as you can get.

> (I hope Art has his
>tranquillizers at hand.)

Oral history is not the same as "original source" history. Although it can be
useful, memories can be faulty and individual selection and emphasis of detail
(even if unconscious) can distort. Of course, the first-person account
provides an immediacy to the past that documents rarely can.

>Often they were written by people who
>had some policy or interest to defend;

What type of document do you have in mind? It may well be that the researcher
is looking for just such proofs of policy interest and is quite pleased to
discover them. (Here I am thinking of things like position papers, memos,
letters, transcripts.)

>official, contemporary
>reports can still be biased and unreliable.

Well, they are reliable in that they _are_ the contemporary reports and as such
they are valuable for revealing what was conveyed, whether it was, after the
fact, accurate and truthful or not, and may explain why otherwise puzzling
decisions were made.

>And 'being there'
>doesn't always protect people from being misinformed or poor
>observers.

True in general but not necessarily in particular. Having original sources at
hand helps you sort out the accurate memories from the inaccurate ones.

>A good researcher with plentiful background knowledge
>and a diverse range of sources at hand can provide a very useful
>analysis.

Provided he is unbiased or is honest (especially with himself) about his own
biases.

>Whether a source is original should IMHO only be one
>element in evaluating its credibility, although an important one.

If it is an original source, it _is_ credible, within the confines of what it
is.
But what do you mean by "credible" and "original source"? Could you provide an
example of an "original source" that is not "credible"?

>But given a single secondary source and a single
>primary source that contradict each other, it would be overhasty
>to reject the secondary as wrong
>maybe the secondary is based
>on five primaries that all contradict your single primary.

What do you mean by "primary" source?
In any case "maybe" shouldn't be part of the equation.
Original historical sources are not fungible, like scientific tests repeated by
various laboratories, with the anomalous one rejected and condemned to a
footnote in report of results.
That doesn't mean every original source carries the same weight. History is
more like criminal prosecution than research science. You interview
eyewitnesses, you examine physical evidence at the "crime" scene, you examine
documents, letters, diaries, computer disks, you take statements from
interested parties or those who know the parties involved, you talk to experts
to understand the significance various pieces of evidence. You try to fit it
all together to detect patterns, motives. In doing this, some things you have
collected will prove invaluable, others inconsequential. But you collect them
all, study them all until you do understand their degree of significance. And
you are always skeptical, assuming nothing without corroboration.
Secondary sources, in this comparison, are like hearsay. It can be useful
during the investigation (although it can also be misleading, so always treat
it with caution). It is never allowed "in court" and if you base your case on
it, you will lose.

Chris Mark

Krztalizer

April 21st 04, 07:20 AM

I didn't intend to suggest that I find original records error free - what I
said was that I prefer to use such records over something I find in a book.
That same suspicion is cast on everything that goes in to the text because I
can't afford my first book to have obvious errors in it, if I have it in my
power to catch them. I can't go back and get it right later.

Here's an example - I found a document in a German archive that I thought was
good info for my topic. Specifically, it was a "lessons learned" written in
Autumn, 1944, concerning the 5th and 6th Squadrons of JG 300 and Ekdo 262, the
first units to recieve the precursor to the EZ42 gyroscopic gunsight. My book
is about men that served in the nightfighter squadrons of JG 300 that shared
equipment and the airbase at Jueterbog, defending Berlin (ineffectively) from
Mosquito attack. Some of 10./JG 300 had EZ42s installed in their specially
prepared high altitude Bf 109 G-10s, so I felt that the document could provide
insight and direct input from men in the same unit as the Mosquito hunters.

It was brilliant; in fact, it was "Caidin-esque". Then, I caught a detail
among several questionable statements - it turned out the author was a tech rep
and intel specialist, assigned to the EZ42 program. That meant he had good
reason to want to justify his pet project and continue his rear echelon duties
at a time in the war when a lot of engineer technicians such as he were getting
quick refresher courses in the Karabiner 98K. Not surprisingly, he was
enthusiastic in his writing duties. The author interviewed the pilots within
hours or days of the missions described in the report - their comments were
paired with victory confirmation data from the Luftwaffe, 'proving' the EZ42
was both revolutionary and highly effective.

Only thing is, if you go through German and Allied records, the combats
described by the tech rep do not match the dates on claims or losses, although
its clear that the distortion is not intended to give pilots credit for things
that did not happen. Instead, it seems the writer was trying to interject that
the men involved went from nachwuchs to dead-eyed killers overnight, with the
addition of this gadget. The report included reports of B-24s going down with
remarkably few shots - this, by kids that normally would not be scoring any
hits at all as they jostled and tumbled through the bomber formation's
slipstream.. The report paints a picture of jubulation among squadron pilots,
as if they had been granted instant superiority over the thorny Boeings and
Liberators they faced.

The bottom line is that it was flawed in the details, to the point that it
makes it useless. Its not the only time I've seen 'original documents' that
miss the mark, but what it suggested to me is that if another writer saw and
used that single report, it would look completely legitimate in a book. Still
would be "filtered" - where the original document fell apart under scrutiny, a
respected writer might legitimize the errors by using the flawed data in an
otherwise accurate book, or hopefully, he'd catch the problems and not rely on
it.

Not easy...

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Its always better to lose AN engine, than THE engine.

Chris Mark

April 21st 04, 04:37 PM

>Here's an example - I found a document in a German archive that I thought was
>good info for my topic.

A good example of a primary source that is not reliable--but nonetheless is
useful and interesting; the story you relate is worth reading and maybe you can
include it in an appendix to your book. It humanizes the subject and helps the
reader grasp that people involved in prosecuting a world war still had their
own personal agendas, that they all weren't cartoon heroes.
Your story also illustrates why all historians are not fungible. Among many
reasons is that some are more skilled at assessing the value of the research
materials they examine. Some are too credulous, some too ignorant, some too
sympathetic, some too biased. Often, one author can be all four.
Thus, authors gain reputations: Which books should I read about the Pacific
air war in WW2? Anything by Lundstrom or Sakaida, be careful with Bergerud and
Hoyt, stay away from Caidin and Edmonds.
Unfortunately, it seems that the authors who are the least reliable factually,
seem to have the most engaging writing style and become most widely read. The
best researchers often write boring books that have little impact on the
popular imagination.
The person who is an excellent researcher and also can tell a gripping story is
rare; unfortunately for US WW2 aviation buffs, most of these write about the
ACW or the opening of the West--your McPhersons, Footes, de Votos, van Everys.

Chris Mark