From: tomcervo@

There are probably some people still working with the Martin Caiden book
Ragged
Rugged Warriors--check the bibliography and adjust your respect accordingly.

On looking closer I see that Bloody Shambles does indeed include the Caiden
book in its bibliography--a bibliography arranged alphabetically not by author
but by book title, curiously including indefinite article--but not definite
article. Thus the first book listed is "A Flying Tiger's Diary" by Bond
followed by "A Mouse in My Pocket" by Everard and only then "Army Air Forces in
WWII, The," by Craven and Cate The penultimate book is "You'll Die in
Singapore" by McCormac.
The last book is "70 Days in Singapore" by Faulk, listed last, I guess because
the title has a numeral in it--?
Then in the text of the book they have things like "Lt. Roland S. Barnick, who
later wrote: 'Blah blah blah...'" without any footnote or other reference, so
you don't know the source. Turning to the biblio, even if he is the author of
a book they cite, you can't just run down the list. You have to look at each
title individually until you find his name--which I couldn't. So you have no
idea at all what credence to lend to this quote. And you have no way, if you
want more info, to go to the source.

As far as the japanese info, assuming it is accurate, it is interesting--as far
as it goes. i was interested to learn how the japs had had to pull air
resources out of southeast Asia to smash bataan, evening bringing in the big
Sally army bombers. I was even more interested to know how badly hurt they had
been by AAA from the Bataan defenders. But when I wondered what unit with what
weaponry were doing this damage, the text was silent. I also wondered what
altitude the Sallys were bombing from, and if the Jap experience with US Army
AAA at Bataan influenced them to fly at 22,000 feet over port moresby, greatly
reducing their effectiveness, that being ironic because there was no AAA at
Moresby. I was also interested to learn that the Japs bombed the dug in troops
on Bataan with 50kg bombs, and I wondered what genius had decided on that. The
text, of course was silent, the authors not apparently being aware that this
was a futile exercise that almost certainly caused little or no casualties or
damage--but at the cost, according to the text, of a number of "badly damaged"
bombers.
On the subject of the B-17/B-25 raid they include the story that 5 of the B-25s
were sent to a satelite field 40 miles away. True, but not the truth. Because
these five bombers, when they got to Valencia Field, were refused fuel. The
people there were expecting fighter reinforcements to come up from Australia
and they were not about to let some transient bombers suck up their precious
stock. So the B-25s had to head to No.3 (the second take off--in a short
period--without rest since completing their 10-hour hop from Australia; these
guys were beat, and ****ed off, being ordered all over the damned island in
what looked like a classic cluster ****), getting in just as darkness fell, a
pretty close call, the field having no lights. Then the ground crews worked
all night hauling gas in drums up from No. 1 to get them fueled up, not to
mention pulling out their long-range tanks and getting them bombed up, doing
engine service, etc.

I suppose i am beating this to death, but I had high hopes for these expensive
volumes and it looks like the usual rehash, at least as far as US operations
go.

Some questions I would still like to know the answers to:
Why were the 19th BG ground crews at No.3 Del Monte? When did they get there?
Did they ever get out of the PI? What happened to these tired, hungry,
hardworking, apprehensive guys who were promised that they would be picked up
before the Japs got to them?
I would also like to know what actual damage the B-25s did on their raids. BS
only reports the optimistic "believed to have been sunk" reports of the
contemporary press releases and has nothing from any Japanese sources. BS also
doesn't mention the first day attacks on Jap air assets, only the attacks on
shipping.


Chris Mark