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.