• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.

    Post 16 Update

    Post 17 Warning

It occurs to me

H

Helldiver

Charter Member 09
I was born 11 years after WWI was over. I grew up reading Flying Aces, Wings and G-8 pulp magazines. Phinea Pinkham was a hero of mine. I read about all the airplanes, the Neiuports, SPADS Fokkers and SE5. I knew all the aces from Manfred von Richthoven, Rene Fonck, Billy Bishop and Eddie Rickenbacker. I hung arround the Coast Guard Base in Salem. I knew each airplane and it's characteristics. I was steeped in aviation.
But what I would never have the nerve to ever be an expert on WWI aviation. The was left to those that lived it, smelled the castor oil, got to kick the tires and watched as they flew into battle.
That's why I take exception to anything written by self appointed experts on WWII. For the most part they're inaccurate. They say anything to color a story no matter what the truth is.
I just read an article about the war in the Pacific., "The Planes That Won the War" written by the leading wriiter of the magazine. He mentioned all the Naval Fighter aircraft. There was a side note were he mentioned the SBD, saying it was the leading sinker of Japanese ships. Not true, that was the Helldiver record.
Oh, he mentions the "Beast" in derogitory tones. But not a single, solitary word about the TBF/TBMs.
When you read something about WWII, I would urge you to examine the source. If it was written by someone that was born after the war was over, I'd question his resources. He probably was hanging around in his old mans jock strap when the war was going on.
 
Like any historical research subject, WW-II was much bigger than is possible to cover in a single “planes that won the war” article. I wouldn't leave out planes like the P-39 and TBD-1 as planes that helped win the War in the Pacific. The sacrifices those men made, those that lived, helped hold the line until the more advanced planes, Like the SB2C, came along. Their contribution should not be overlooked. Besides, everyone knows the P-51D won the war..! (;))
 
i agree with what hell diver is saying ..i had lunch with Bud Anderson back in January,,,he had said at the time he only flew a P51D twice and NEVER was a P51D named old crow..yet you see them as warbirds and in paintings.he flew a P51B,not a C a B according to him and his favorite AC of that time period?....the P39.... yet it gets blasted by those who write about it now because it had a few bad habits..the so called experts can really be shocked if they talked to the vets who were accually there and experianced it.

reminds me of the sportscasters and other sports specialists who have never played the game or drove a race car,,,yet have the gall to sit at a desk and bad mouth those that can and do the sport...
 
Tex Hill was a neighbor of mine. I had visited him since I was a youngster and he always talked about what a great aircraft the P-40 was and yet to many it was a disaster with wings! Heck he not only talked about it, he proved what a great fighter it was!!!
Ted
 
I would never believe anyone who tells me an aircraft has won a war.........

Cheers,
Huub ;)
 
It reminds me of something the late Jeff Ethell once sated, regarding the P-40. He, having written books discussing the poor capabilities of the P-40, having accepted the written history of the aircraft as being inferior to just about anything in the air at the time of its service, he found to be no longer true once he got into the cockpit and flew it. His changed stance was further backed up by accounts from those who really flew them and fought against them during the war, instead of those who simply wrote about them from the sidelines.
 
Daveroo said:
i agree with what hell diver is saying ..i had lunch with Bud Anderson back in January,,,he had said at the time he only flew a P51D twice and NEVER was a P51D named old crow..yet you see them as warbirds and in paintings.he flew a P51B,not a C a B according to him and his favorite AC of that time period?....the P39.... yet it gets blasted by those who write about it now because it had a few bad habits..the so called experts can really be shocked if they talked to the vets who were accually there and experianced it.

reminds me of the sportscasters and other sports specialists who have never played the game or drove a race car,,,yet have the gall to sit at a desk and bad mouth those that can and do the sport...
Click to expand...

I disagree, you have to question it all, the quote above is case in point. Bud Andersons own book disagrees with the above as do all the photos that are included in the book! He mentions how horrible the P39's were in training compared to the birds he flew into combat

Helldiver is bias towards the Helldiver and this also must be remebered, his stance on the SBD kinda proves this, as much as he doesnt like it, it was the bird that really helped win those all important early victories and what can be considered most important victories when it comes to putting the BB's, Carriers etc out of action.

Plus of course there what to do when these combat vets disagree, Helldiver himself mentions how useless the G model was with forward firing guns, and that the Luftwaffe rarely attacked from headon, this disagrees with other vets of both the B-17's and the Luftwaffe pilots who in the case of the B-17G tend to say that the 'pig to fly G model was worth it for the extras you got included overall'
 
I see your point, Bob, and I don't disagree. There's definitely something about direct experience that book-learning can't match. At the same time, I've had conversations w/ my brothers about things that happened when we were kids, and our memories are radically different at times. I'm not putting down experience, but memories are tricky things, and often not as reliable as we think.
 
Helldiver said:
When you read something about WWII, I would urge you to examine the source. If it was written by someone that was born after the war was over, I'd question his resources. He probably was hanging around in his old mans jock strap when the war was going on.
Click to expand...

"Examine the source" is always good advice. But primary sources can disagree too and no one, including the first-hand observer, sees the whole picture. One of the books I'm reading now is Richard Overy's The Air War, 1939-1945 (1980). Overy was born in 1947, so he didn't fly in the war that he's writing about. That's a real disadvantage. On the other hand, he's studied the records of several different air forces: how they were structured, trained, supplied, and what they achieved. No one, while the war was going on, had access to that level of information for ALL of the air forces concerned. At most, the men at the top had access to comparable information about their own air force, and the vast majority of airmen had only a small fraction of that. For example: it wasn't possible until the war was over to compare one side's kill claims with the other side's loss reports. No one had that kind of knowledge, including the participants. Now, thanks to researchers like Overy, we do.

To be clear: I'm not defending the article in question, which I haven't read. I agree with Huub that an article titled "The Planes that Won the War" is already suspicious (unless it's written by someone who has spent a lifetime studying the whole subject, and is writing this article to summarize a career's worth of research). And I am most certainly not setting myself up as an authority on anything to do with this forum. That is to say, I'm not a historian or a pilot. For me, this is a hobby; I pursue it eagerly, at a sustainable pace. There are lots of people on this forum who know more than I do, either from research or experience, and I'm eager to learn from them.

So what is my point? Research and experience are complementary. For precision, you want experience (where that's available); for the big picture, you need research.
 
It must be frustrating for Helldiver and others who believe that history is being rewritten whilst still in living memory.

:salute:
 
disagree, you have to question it all, the quote above is case in point. Bud Andersons own book disagrees with the above as do all the photos that are included in the book! He mentions how horrible the P39's were in training compared to the birds he flew into combat

from a2a scott?.. i think is his name..all i said is what Col Anderson told me at lunch...he also told me the writer of the book was an ass and that he took alot of the things he told the writer out of context and changed things...so i had a hard time reading the book after having talked to the col myself
 
Daveroo said:
disagree, you have to question it all, the quote above is case in point. Bud Andersons own book disagrees with the above as do all the photos that are included in the book! He mentions how horrible the P39's were in training compared to the birds he flew into combat

from a2a scott?.. i think is his name..all i said is what Col Anderson told me at lunch...he also told me the writer of the book was an ass and that he took alot of the things he told the writer out of context and changed things...so i had a hard time reading the book after having talked to the col myself
Click to expand...

Yes this happens alot re: the books however it shouldnt de-value my point. The photos in the book itself were not changed from what Bud may have told the author. You quite simply have to question it all, the P-51D for example is in most US eyes (surprise surpise) the best fighter of WW2. However if you look at combat reports etc, you quickly find out that in all honesty, fighter wise, the Russian Yak and La series of fighters are seemingly superior, and one must not dis-count the numbers game, in how the Luftwaffe was so out-numbered in many engagements.

Its the same for me of course, I'm English so naturally Ive been brought up to believe the Spit is the fighter that won the war.

You must examaine sources and more importantly contexualise it all. Taking soruces out of context is just as bad as making them up.

At the end of the day its what the propaganda machine in most cases thought news worthy is what survives after the fact. Following this sort of thing on its most interesting to look at Korea, a war that is almost forgotten by the mainstream, and if not then it was fought by Migs and sabres and not much more. Of course the truth is quite different, the air war over Korea was a wild, varied affair with a mix of props and jets from all eras.
 
I for one would question anything someone says with the attitude that Helldiver approaches things with. It is that kind of bias that skews the history books. People who like to say "I was there I know it all" fail to realize that they were nothing more then a small piece in a big puzzle, and the fact is, it took all the pieces to complete that picture. And many times a soldiers view point and memory isn't always fact, even though we may want them to be.
 
forgeknight said:
I for one would question anything someone says with the attitude that Helldiver approaches things with. It is that kind of bias that skews the history books. People who like to say "I was there I know it all" fail to realize that they were nothing more then a small piece in a big puzzle, and the fact is, it took all the pieces to complete that picture. And many times a soldiers view point and memory isn't always fact, even though we may want them to be.
Click to expand...

While what you say has merit I don't appreciate the way it was said...don't it ever repeat it this way again...fair warning!
Ted
 
forgeknight said:
I for one would question anything someone says with the attitude that Helldiver approaches things with. It is that kind of bias that skews the history books. People who like to say "I was there I know it all" fail to realize that they were nothing more then a small piece in a big puzzle, and the fact is, it took all the pieces to complete that picture. And many times a soldiers view point and memory isn't always fact, even though we may want them to be.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with this. Bias creeps in for many reasons irregardless of personal experience, you can find a dozen people who lived through the events they are recalling and a dozen completely different takes of how something happened in many instances, and likewise a dozen texts written by well meaning authors that tell very different tales.

All the person with a genuine interest can do is make themselves as learned as possible by learning from information from a large variety of sources; hopefully patterns will emerge amongst both the rose-tinted (or the opposite) recollections and ill-informed notes jotted down by people who weren't present as events unfolded. Not that there is anything wrong with this or anyone is to blame, we're only human and this is just in our nature. Eventually one hopes you can piece together something that at least bears a passing resemblance to real historical events to draw your own hypothesis.

The study of history from ancient to modern is a self perpetuating minefield full of hidden dangers for the unwary scholar.
 
Chris H said:
I'd agree with this. Bias creeps in for many reasons irregardless of personal experience, you can find a dozen people who lived through the events they are recalling and a dozen completely different takes of how something happened in many instances.

All the person with a genuine interest can do is make themselves as learned as possible by learning from information from a large variety of sources; hopefully patterns will emerge amongst both the rose-tinted (or the opposite) recollections and ill-informed notes jotted down by people who weren't present as events unfolded. Eventually one hopes you can piece together something that at least bears a passing resemblance to real historical events to draw your own hypothesis.

The study of history from ancient to modern is a self perpetuating minefield full of hidden dangers for the unwary scholar.
Click to expand...

Helldiver is an older respected member of this community who lived through and fought in WWII. He deserves more respect than this. I agree he saw through a lens of his known world. But this could have been said more graciously and could even be considered an attack. You know how we handle attacks...care to take this any further?
Ted
 
I completely agree with these past few comments. I have tons of respect for HD and express as much gratitude as I possibly can towards him for what he did for his country. Most of his posts are completely biased though and generally have the hidden meaning behind them of "I was there so don't question me because you're wrong." He seems to have the mindset that anyone else that says anything on the subject is wrong. I agree that he has the most personal experience on this site, but he may not be the most knowledgable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top