Cat peeking out of the bag?

"Tony Volk" wrote in message ...
I don't know if this is part of your question (it seems to be), but I've
asked about the accuracy of Tom's book[s] about Iranian F-4s and F-14s
without getting too much of a straight answer. Heck, not so much as a
"wink/nod" to confirm it when talking to Phantom/Tomcat aircrew (current and
former). I'd love to know how accurate it is, and while Tom certainly seems
credible enough, it'd be nice to get confirmation from another insider
source. Certainly, if his claims are true, it'd be hard to see how Tomcat
crews could resist bragging about those kills (especially compared to the
Eagles ~100 kills). That would also suggest that Iran has a cadre of very
skilled and/or experienced pilots in their AF, which would make any action
against Iran very interesting to say the least! But that's drifting a
little far off topic, so I'll cut it here and reiterate my request to hear
more from those in the know. Cheers,

Tony

To date "Iran Iraq War in the AirA" (IIWitA) remains the only book of
his that I've read, so I'll answer based on that. The issue of
accuracy in that book (and others if its representative) will continue
to be a problem even if the facts are roughly accurate. This is
because so much of the factual content is uncorroborated. The book is
flush with footnotes, but many of them don't so much as back-up the
facts stated in the main text as simply add to them. Many interesting
nuggets of information lack any footnote at all. This is a problem
because much of the story in history stems from where particular facts
arose and the circumstances under which that occurred. The short
bio-blurb given for Cooper states that he has traveled the world and
cultivated many sources, which suggests that he has spoken with many
direct participants in the conflict. In a book as thick as IIWitA
(and for a war as long as the 80-88 Gulf War), even a small percentage
of apparently uncorroborated info will account for much history.
While it's hardly impossible to accept that Cooper was quite critical
in deciding what would get into the book, little of that translates in
print. There is ofcourse the famous tall-tale of the Hind gunship
that shot a Phantom down with nary more than an anti-tank missile.
Cooper picks apart the story and utterly destroys its credibility.
However, the Phantom story doesn't implicitly buttress the credibility
of the remaining book - only reminds you how a story accepted
uncritically can prove to be incredible under scrutiny. When Cooper
writes about dissected F-14's being analyzed at some secret American
intel briefing, or how Hussein admitted that he was saving Tuwaitha
for Israel, or that there was an Iraqi warplane near the Airbus in the
July '88 incident, you wonder why they don't get as much attention.
(Caveat: Cooper has previously complained about how Schiffer edits
his work, or fails to, and given how I've not read his Osprey books,
it may not be his fault at all).