B-17's and Strategic Bombing (Was:Was D VII a good plane)

I've seen some errors in Perret's book, although I enjoy his work.

Both Robert Caro and Geoffrey Perret cite Caidin's account of how
Lyndon Johnson got his Silver Star

Speaking of LBJ, I have one of the Squadron/SIgnal books called: "Flying
Fortress, the Boeing B-17".

On page 21, there's a photo caption that says it's LBJ standing next to the
Swoose, but it's a picture of Thomas E. Dewey!

Walt

Subject: B-17's and Strategic Bombing (Was:Was D VII a good plane)
From: (Emmanuel Gustin)
Date: 4/19/04 5:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

(ArtKramr) wrote in message
...

I have no doubt that the B-26 accuracy was, under good
circumstances, very good for the period. Which of course
still meant a 'shotgun' approach, not what is regarded as
'precision' bombing today, but that was simply impossible
with WWII technology. The medium bombers were more accurate
than the heavy bombers and the fighter-bombers were more
accurate than the medium bombers.

My point is that when it came to strategic targets in Germany
itself, the actual practice amounted to, as you say, "leaving
damn little standing". Which simply does not involve much
accuracy, except being able to hit a city-sized target.
Bombing through clouds using radar or on flares floating above
the clouds was about that accurate, and it was frequently done.
Precision bombing may have been the officially stated goal; but
the effect on the ground was usually indistinguishable from
area bombing.

Emmanuel Gustin


I don't think you looked at my bomb strike photographs.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

I don't know Perret. Is it possible that he was simply parotting Caro?

Perret's "Old Soldiers Never Die" was published in 1996. He cites Caidin's
"The Mission" specifically.
Of course, there is always the possibility he is lifting the info and citation
from another work. That's a fairly common way for authors (or students!) to
pad out their list of references. But Perret's speciality is writing from
original sources wherever possible, and he seems to do a good job of digging
out previously unaccessed documents so that he can present fresh insight about
oft written about subjects (Eisenhower, JFK, MacArthur, Lincoln, Grant).
Still, the Caidin cite leaps from the notes.
Caidin may be cited as freely as he is by more serious writers simply because
they can't imagine someone writing about serious subjects (such as
then-president Johnson) would simply present flights of imagination as fact,
that he would freely "adjust" a story to make it a better read.
Since Caidin embellished to make his subjects look better, not worse, he tended
to get away with it. Few feel the need to defend themselves against praise,
even when undeserved.



Chris Mark

I've seen some errors in Perret's book, although I enjoy his work.

I doubt there is an error-free history published, and some of them seem
inexplicable. I remember reading David Halberstam's "The Reckoning," and
coming upon his explanation of why Perry's armada was described as "black
ships." Halberstam said it was because his ships were ironclads. Halberstam
was obviously unaware that ironclads were largely a product of the ACW, some
years in the future at the time of Perry's mission. He was also obviously
unaware of Perry's role in introducing steam power into the US Navy and that
three (iirc) of his Japanese armada ships were steamships belching black
smoke---and thus the Japanese name for them (supposedly).
Even though this was a minor error in a book on a different topic (the auto
industry), I still thereafter viewed what Halberstam said with skepticism I
otherwise wouldn't have had.
Justified skepticism, as it turned out, since Ford was about to embark on a
huge comeback and Nissan was soon to take a header towards bankruptcy (H. wrote
about how Ford had messed up and Nissan had got everything right.)



Chris Mark

On 19 Apr 2004 17:35:16 GMT, ost (Chris Mark) wrote:

I doubt there is an error-free history published, and some of them seem
inexplicable. I remember reading David Halberstam's "The Reckoning,"

In "A Bright and Shining Lie," there's a photograph of a B-26 Marauder
of the type used in Vietnam

That of course probably wasn't the author's fault, though he ought to
have checked the photos as well as his text.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

Should I post the serial number of that B-17?


If you do, make sure you post the entire serial number, not just what is
painted on the tail.

v/r
Gordon

I'd like to know more about the Caidin-Sakai wrangle!


Dan, I know Sakai autographed copies of the book later in life, but in the
years shortly after it was released in America, Saburo Sakai *hated* it and
would always make comments about "the things other people had inserted" into
it. With both men gone, its all moot now, but I would imagine the inaccuracies
came from other people, not Sakai - he was all about honor and duty and would
not have padded his own remarkable story. There was simply no need for him to
do so.

v/r
Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR

Its always better to lose AN engine, than THE engine.

... Before I believe a tall story like that, I would like to see a
... better source for it than that amiable distributor of myth,
... legend, fiction and error, M. Caidin.

Which, in my opinion and that of plenty of other people,
is a quite reasonable attitude to take,

Emmannuel's opinion of Martin Caidin as a historian does indeed pretty
much agree with mine, though perhaps expressed more elegantly

****in' A. Errrr, I mean, I agree.

v/r
Gordon

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.

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".

Fine.

I think there's an anti-American coterie on the moderated WWII newgroup.

Your mileage may vary.

Mr. Gustin said he'd need a better source than Martin Caidin for the
B-17/FW-190 story. In this case, although it's been amply shown that Caidin
shouldn't be trusted on much, he was pretty much correct about this story.


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.

You are probably right.

snip agreed stuff

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.

Based on the two accounts, Caidin inflated 2 FW's to 3. It would be hard to
gainsay the other account, as he was sitting about six feet from where the FW
struck. Nothing else in the co-pilot's account contradicts what Caidin said,
although the co-pilot has the FW strike inboard of the #3 engine and Caidin
indicates a strike on the engine itself. That's a difference of a few feet.

I appreciate your comments.

Walt