![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|