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.