Officially Approved Nonsense

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

M

MIflyer

1st Lieutenant
7,253
15,105
May 30, 2011
Cape Canaveral
While looking for something else the other day, I found I had a copy of the Fall 1997 issue of Airpower Journal, the 50th USAF Anniversary issue. It is described as "the professional flagship publication of the United States Air Force." It appears I retained the issue because it has some photos and an article that gives some information on the development of solid rocket motors and their use to test the JATO concept with an Ercoupe. Looking through the issue I found some gems in an article by L. Col. Karen S. Wilhelm, entitled "Heritage."

"At first we had only P-47's with cardboard drop tanks - quickly replaced by metal tanks -..."

"Innovation became the hallmark of the day, from scientists on the Manhattan project, to developers of the Norden Bombsight; from ground crews who put so many guns on a B-26 that it became an A-26..."

(Insert Heavy Theatrical Sigh Here) Where does this crap come from? It is one thing to see a video on the Discovery Channel with some messed up commentary (e.g., the P-80 was called "P" rather than "F" because the first models were Prototypes"). It is quite another to read such nonsense in an Official Publication of the USAF.

I tried writing for that publication back in 1985. I was one of THE top experts in the USAF on the subject covered by the article I submitted. The comments I got back led me to realize that it was hopeless; those people were so ignorant and hidebound that they could never even comprehend what I was saying. I gave that same article to my boss when I got to the Pentagon. His response was to come to me and say, "I agree with 85% of what you say here!" and then fax it out to Space Command headquarters with a note that said, "Look at this. This guy has been thinking about this stuff since before there was a Space Command."

Ironically, Lt Col Wilhelm's article has a quote at the top: "Officers of the army are apt in general to write like kitchen maids." This, from an officer who probably could not run a fast food restaurant.
 
Last edited:
One reason I submitted no more articles to that publication is that I looked at their suggestions for style changes and said, "Okay, I refuse to learn how to write boring."

Admittedly, even publications designed to make money can be edited by idiots. In one article I sent to Aviation History I pointed out that the first combat action by a Lockheed Lightning in the Pacific was when an F-4 photo recon aircraft got one engine shot out by a Japanese fighter and then outran the enemy aircraft anyway. The editor's comment was that since the F-4 had no guns it was not a combat action.

So I sent that article to Air Classics. They published it right away but never paid me.
 
You have some of these folks putting out inaccurate or flat out wrong information. In the case with Caidin, the truth was more than stretched.

In Caidin's book "Fork Tailed Devil" he tells the myth of the captured P-38 being flown by an Italian pilot who was eventually brought down by a YB-40 gunship. No YB-40s were flown over Italy and no existence of the characters mentioned in this story. Another big whopper is his story about 150 P-38s being chopped up while deployed in South Korea (P174) in 1949 and then saying how these aircraft could have been given to the South Koreans, possibly helping in the defense of S. Korea. He claimed he personally saw this. Researching records, I show 5th AF P-38s being chopped up in the Philippines in 1946 and no P-38 units ever reaching Korea in the post war years.
 
Caidin had a passion for fiction - the "Six Million Dollar Man" is actually based on one of his Cyborg stories.
So I suspect in Martin's case, he knew that tall-tales sell. The downside to this, is that history is history and to embroider on it sows confusion and pollutes later generations, who don't have a direct line to those who were there, that could discount the tall-tales for what they are: bullshit.

The surprising thing about Caidin, is that he was quite an accomplished pilot, but then again, so was Gene Roddenberry.

But Roddenberry made it very clear that his writings stood in the realm of the imagined.
 
FLYBOYJ said:
Researching records, I show 5th AF P-38s being chopped up in the Philippines in 1946 and no P-38 units ever reaching Korea in the post war years.
Click to expand...
I did the same research. While the 49th FG ended the war in the Pacific with P-38's they switched to P-51's soon after and then to F-80's. There was not only no unit equipped with P-51's that had switched from P-38's just before the war, there was not even any USAF unit equipped with P-51's AT ALL! There was a NZAF unit with P-51's in the area, while the USAF managed to scrape up about 20 P-51's that were being used as hacks or target tugs or were just sitting in storage around the Pacific area. Reference: Warren Thompson's book on P-51's in Korea.
 
pbehn said:
I think I have six, maybe seven, which is great going in fifteen words.
Click to expand...
Let's see:

1. P-38's were actually in the ETO before P-47's, although they did leave for Operation Torch before coming back to GB later.
2. P-47's did not start out in the ETO with drop tanks at all.
3. Locally manufactured drop tanks were paper, not cardboard.
4. Metal tanks continued to be used as well as paper tanks on P-47 and P-51, metal tanks for the shorter missions, including public relations photo ops, which is why people think they were the only ones.

She actually did say the P-51 came in after the P-47, although technically we had P-51's in the ETO some time before they started to be used for escort missions
 
It doesn't surprise me that an official journal should contain such errors. In our history indoc in basic training we were given plenty of myths to chew on as if they were facts Moses brought down from the mountain.
 
1 Who is the "we"?
2 Where when and why did anyone only have P-47s
3 Which were these P-47s that started with drop tanks of any type? Cardboard or paper tanks supplemented the metal tanks.
4 Cardboard or paper tanks were an innovation, it avoids sending aluminium bubbles across the Atlantic, used once and then dropped on the enemy.
They take up a huge space, are easily damaged and weigh almost nothing, you need a few convoys to get the thousands of drop tanks used across the atlantic.
From wiki.
 
special ed said:
Perhaps Caiden imbibed while writing and didn't remember accurately.

My friend submitted an article to Air Classics about our flight in Confederate Air Force B-17s complete with photos which they published and never paid.
Click to expand...
You can't remember if you were in Korea or the Philippines?!?!? Sorry, the man was an entertaining writer and colorful character but putting it bluntly a liar at times!!!!
 
Back then, looking at your service records was an adventure in Personnel. The paper you got was not exactly how you would write it up, and all it contained were unit assignments, dates, and likely a job code.

Not saying he couldn't have looked it up ... I am saying that the records from pre-computer days are less than wonderful on general.
 

My own personnel records were largely not digitized, and I separated in 1993. I kept copies most of my records, including my med records, myself, on discharge.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

The 'no-nonsense' twin-engined fighters for 1938-1943
2 3
Replies
42
Views
5K
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register