On 21 Apr 2004 23:08:03 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

Sounds like a great show, I can't wait. Although I am concerned that Michel
left over a disagreement. Out of him and Eschmann, I find Michel's book much
better documented and supported. Eschmann's book contains both the myth about
the BUFF-MiG shoot downs and the "hybrid" FAN SONG-LOW BLOW radar. Michel gets
the word right from the horses mouth on both those issues.


I agree. I read Eschmann many years ago and wasn't particularly
impressed with the conclusions he drew. He did his numbers, call-signs
and names well, but the recounting of the story didn't set well.
Seemed to be some hear-say and poor conclusions drawn.

Marshall Michel, OTOH, did a better job on "Eleven Days". He also did
a good job on "Clashes" although I still haven't forgiven him for
taking the easy way out and using only call-signs and not names.
That's unforgiveable for a historian.

I'm surprised to hear that Sullivan and Marsh had a disagreement. I
interviewed with Sullivan a couple of years ago through the auspices
of Michel who brought the whole film crew to the River Rat reunion in
Atlanta. It was just before "Eleven Days" was released and I thought
the whole project was in support of the book, not a separate effort.

Will be eager to see the video when it finally airs, as they have
definitely talked to a lot of the right people from both the big and
little airplane forces.


Ed Rasimus


I loaned my copy of Eschmann's book to Al Falcione when we worked together on
the B-2 but never got it back. It and the ACSC manuscript differsomewhat in
their conclusions as I recall. I remember Karl telling me that there was some
pressure to keep the conclusions PC as SAC/ACC were hard pressed to defend
program funding for their B-1B and B-2 acquisitions . The AF wanted to keep
the heavy bomber critics at arms during that and I have always felt that is why
PC history doesn't quite seem to parallel reality with regards to LBII. I
worked both programs in that period and even under Reagan with the Cold war
winding down, bombers were a tough sell. Both programs were $$ capped and
there was tremendous pressure to keep them under budget.

Sullivan acknowledged that Michael was a key player in getting the project off
the ground and getting him into the fighter "circle". The book and the
documentary apparently were indeed one and the same effort initially, . As I
said earlier. it seems to be more of a difference of opinion over whether the
documentary was to be more of historical effort or an intro to LBII for the
masses so to speak. He indicated that his purpose was to make LBII more known
to the public as a whole as most people are totally unaware that it ever
happened. Somewhat long the lines of the ever increasing popular awareness of
WWII and Korea we have been witnessing. The same seems to be just starting for
the Vietnam era as evidenced by release of a movie like We Were Soldiers that
show VN vets in a more human and positive light as opposed to Platoon,
Apocolypse Now, and Full Metal Jacket.