G
gajit
Guest
I would say that Chris H gave a very measured and carefully POV
-
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.
It occurs to me
- Thread starter Helldiver
- Start date
txnetcop
Charter Member
You and those above you are entitled to your opinion but this is an attack against a member. We have a ways of dealing with you if you persist. I've been nice and patient. Do you honestly think it is worth being banned?
Ted
forgeknight
Banned
Well now I appreciate your point there txnetcop. But you know what I'm a vet also. I lost part of my hearing and suffered frost bite on my feet. And you know why? So people could have the freedom to express themselves. I wasn't making a personel attack against helldiver, just the methods he uses to express his point of view. Bud, I'm an archaeologist, I deal in making history come alive, in proving fact from fiction. So you can threaten me if you wish, but I feel my points are as valid as anyone elses. That being said this is the last I will comment on this subject or this thread.
txnetcop
Charter Member
G
gajit
Guest
If there are any devs out there - please can they model a Helldiver - please
txnetcop
Charter Member
That was kind of you...thank you. He does show a certain bias to the Helldiver. I hope someone is kind to me in my old age and respects what I did in Vietnam and the things I cared about.
Ted
I just finished a book called “Black Shoe Carrier Admiral, Frank Jack Fletcher at Coral Sea, Midway, and Guadalcanal”, by John Lundstrom. Anyone who has read books on the Pacific War “knows” that Admiral Fletcher was timid, over cautious, not very smart, and abandoned the Marines at Guadalcanal. Where did we get this impression of Fletcher? Well, mostly, it turns out, from Samuel Elliot Morison, who was there... And where did Morison get his data? Well, from people who served with Fletcher, and happened to hate him. Some of these were aviators, many of who, in the early years of the Pacific War, were jealous and contemptuous of “black shoes” being placed in charge of carrier battle groups. Some of them were less than objective when writing of their experiences in WW-II for S.E. Morrison. What Lundstrom did was go to the source, in this case, declassified message traffic between Pearl Harbor and Fletcher's command in 1942. In addition, he got “the other side of the story” from others who were there and wrote about what they thought of Fletcher at the time. He has managed to portray Fletcher in a completely different light from what we are used to reading. Very interesting book.
NOTE: If this starts turning into a “bash Helldiver” thread, I will close it. Helldiver's essential point in this thread is a valid one. As “responsible readers of history”, it's obvious to most of us here that it's important to “consider the source”, as others have already said in this thread. There is much interesting discussion going on here. Lets not spoil it, please.
NOTE: If this starts turning into a “bash Helldiver” thread, I will close it. Helldiver's essential point in this thread is a valid one. As “responsible readers of history”, it's obvious to most of us here that it's important to “consider the source”, as others have already said in this thread. There is much interesting discussion going on here. Lets not spoil it, please.
Indeed PRB,
One of the most fascinating to me re: sources is the almost Anal discussions of colours. I know Luftwaffe RLM colours often come under fire in some rather large flame wars by historians on just what colour what part of the aircraft was. I believe though I havent looked into it for quite some time that the same is with the Japanese aircraft, esp the early was zero's.
Were the zero's White or Cream? Its most fascinating to hear each side argue the point with each side having people who were there on it. I feel in such cases you have to just read what you can and make up you own mind.
Re: books that are supposedly written by the pilots etc, I always think it best to read them as guides to the bigger picture rather than accounts of what happened at every detail.
There are of course a few exceptions. I brought '303rd hells angels, half a wing three engines and a prayer' a good few years back. It was in its god knows what version edition but it was seemingly updated regualry and re-published. This book details the missions and is great as it uses the accounts from numerous crews on the same mission. Its a great read and I recommend it to anyone. Even in this book the accounts sometimes contradict but the great thing is with so many accoutns of the same event the picture of what happen comes through. ts brilliant for example to read how one crew saw an aircraft going down and then reading the next paragraph as an account from various crew members who were inside the bomber going down and what went on after the aircrat left formation. Some truly fascinating stuff.
One of the most fascinating to me re: sources is the almost Anal discussions of colours. I know Luftwaffe RLM colours often come under fire in some rather large flame wars by historians on just what colour what part of the aircraft was. I believe though I havent looked into it for quite some time that the same is with the Japanese aircraft, esp the early was zero's.
Were the zero's White or Cream? Its most fascinating to hear each side argue the point with each side having people who were there on it. I feel in such cases you have to just read what you can and make up you own mind.
Re: books that are supposedly written by the pilots etc, I always think it best to read them as guides to the bigger picture rather than accounts of what happened at every detail.
There are of course a few exceptions. I brought '303rd hells angels, half a wing three engines and a prayer' a good few years back. It was in its god knows what version edition but it was seemingly updated regualry and re-published. This book details the missions and is great as it uses the accounts from numerous crews on the same mission. Its a great read and I recommend it to anyone. Even in this book the accounts sometimes contradict but the great thing is with so many accoutns of the same event the picture of what happen comes through. ts brilliant for example to read how one crew saw an aircraft going down and then reading the next paragraph as an account from various crew members who were inside the bomber going down and what went on after the aircrat left formation. Some truly fascinating stuff.
Quixoticish
Charter Member
I'm rather annoyed by certain comments here accusing me of attacking Helldiver and rather irked that I now have to post to defend myself.
I offered an opinion, nothing more, nothing less, and no personal attack is contained anywhere in my post, if you think there is one then I suggest you re-read it. If anyone has taken umbridge to what I have said then I suggest getting in touch with me via PM so I can clarify precisely what I've said.
I offered an opinion, nothing more, nothing less, and no personal attack is contained anywhere in my post, if you think there is one then I suggest you re-read it. If anyone has taken umbridge to what I have said then I suggest getting in touch with me via PM so I can clarify precisely what I've said.
bazzar
Charter Member 2018
I'm sorry but if Bud Anderson never had a P51D as "old Crow" then what the hell is this on his own website? Yes indeed, let's get it right.
Daveroo
Members +
I'm sorry but if Bud Anderson never had a P51D as "old Crow" then what the hell is this on his own website? Yes indeed, let's get it right.
ask him yourself...ill get you his email addy if you want..he told me he flew a P51D twice in all of WWII....call me a liar if you will but im just telling you what the man told me..i dont give a **** whats on his website or anywhere else...he sat two feet from me with onion breath and told me this fact
you people allways seem to know everything...this is excatly what helldiver is talking about..you dont know..im telling you what the man told me...face to face..leave it alone or ask him yourself
cea1060@sbcglobal.net.....that IS buds email...ASK HIM
On the lighter side of the news, you just gave me the choice of my next book to read on WWII.
Thanks!
Bill
It's a great read. I've always had a nagging suspicion that Frank Jack Fletcher was delt a bum rap by history, but could never quite put my finger on it. I think this may have been from Lundstrom himself, in his two previous books, “The First Team”, and “The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign”. For me the most eye opening chapters in this book on Fletcher are those on the Battle of Midway. Most accounts of the BOM, until this one, portray Spruance as the victor of Midway, and the “de facto” officer in charge of the Midway cruise. Fletcher is depicted as merely “technically” in charge of the combined TF-16 and TF-17 fleet, but in reality, a confused and behind the power curve figure-head, playing second fiddle to Spruance's brilliance. If Lundstrom is even half right, the opposite was true. And it makes sense. Fletcher had just come from the first carrier vs. carrier battle in history, Coral Sea, less than a month prior. He and his staff had invaluable experience, but due to the limited time between Coral Sea and Midway, and the fact that Yorktown, the center of TF-17, was damaged and in desperate need of quick repair, the transfer of knowledge and “lessons learned” between TF-17 and 16 could not be effectively accomplished in the time available. And if you look at the results at BOM, the Yorktown and TF-17 turned in the best performance. Good stuff. A great book. All of this is to the point that we, as readers of history, have also a responsibility as evaluators of history.
Hello. I understand and agree with what Helldiver is saying. After reading or hearing about something historic that happened, to later read or talk to someone that was there and find out that things where a little different than history says. Or what is become popular, is not always the full story. I enjoy hearing what Helldiver has to say, same as my uncles, they where there, I was not.
bazzar
Charter Member 2018
No I will not email him.
I have a famous WW2 vet in my family. Much decorated and author of books. He told me once that the problem with age is that you spend the period immediately after the war, trying to forget. Then, 20 years later you spend all of your time trying to remember.
I take extreme exception to being included in "you people", nobody knows everything, including the vets themselves. I was not trying to intimate that I knew anything. But I can read and I can make, like all of us, assumptions.
My take? I think he might, just might, at your lunch, have got his suffixes mixed up. Simple and understandable, we all do it whatever the age.
If somebody can supply a valid explanation for a picture of Bud sitting on a P51D with Old Crow and a pilot panel with his name on it, please enlighten us all.
It was never my intent in knocking down the efforts of the SBDs and their crews. They put up a valiant effort.
I just want equal time for the Helldiver. It was not the "Beast" that everybody believes. It was bigger, faster, had greater range and could fold it's wings, an important capability aboard a carrier.
But for the author to completely ignore the TBF Avenger is unforgivable.
I don't pretend to know alll that went on. I can only judge from my own experience which differs a lot with some of these so called historians.
I just want equal time for the Helldiver. It was not the "Beast" that everybody believes. It was bigger, faster, had greater range and could fold it's wings, an important capability aboard a carrier.
But for the author to completely ignore the TBF Avenger is unforgivable.
I don't pretend to know alll that went on. I can only judge from my own experience which differs a lot with some of these so called historians.
Roger that, Helldiver. There's a lot of numbnuts out there publishing "history". On the other hand, there are a lot of serious people trying to get it right, by digging up original sources, like decalssified messages and other documentaion, as well as other first hand accounts from those who were there. The challange for us youngsters is to sift through all the published accounts and try to learn which is true and makes sensse. Having somebody like you around here to keep us "on course", as it were, is priceless!! :salute: