Mustangtmg, thanks for the background on the "Apache" name, have copy of a interview with a number of WWII A-36 pilots and to a man they call the aircraft the "A-36 Apache". I wonder if it is the name the crews at the time used, rather like the F-105 being given the "Thud" appellation, or F-16 "Viper" for example, neither official.
Other air forces/services go with the equivalent of A-36 Apache?
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Emu27
If you then look at what few articles or books were published on the type in the late 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, the absence of the "Apache" name in relation to the A-36 is very evident.
It is in the early to mid-1970s that a fairly prolific US aviation/historic/warbird writer who was published across a range of the popular magazines of the time started to use the "Apache" name in relation to the A-36, and those articles were then picked up and republished, requoted and referenced that the A-36 was called the "Apache". Even way back when, if that author was challenged on the use of the "Apache" name in relation to the A-36, his name and reputation carried weight and in those days "Letters to the Editor" criticising errors in fact by the magazines authors were rarely published. The "Apache" name for the A-36 name was used and reused, it was repeated enough that it became "fact".
Best as those who have looked into this in some detail, he took a number of potential sources. Firstly the NAA advertisements from September-October 1941 that show what are Mustang Mk.Is (no dive brakes) with USAAC markings diving and using the name "Apache" - which was briefly proposed by someone in NAA Marketing as a way to differentiate the Mustang in trying to get the USAAC/USAAF interested in it. Adverts only ran for two months at a time when NAA was trying very hard to get the USAAC/USAAF interested in the new type. Secondly, a short lived proposal to use the "Apache" name for the original P-51 (NAA Model NA-91 or Mustang Mk.IA in RAF service) which preceded the A-36, as the name for the type in USAAC/USAAF service to differentiate it in USAAC/USAAF service compared to the name for the "RAF versions". That died very quickly at both NAA and USAAC/USAAF but did result in use of the "Apache" name in a couple of US and UK press releases from late 1942 in relation to the P-51 - articles were about early RAF operations with the Mustang Mk.I (NA-73 & NA-83) and includes words generally along the lines of "which is known as the Apache in US service" so referring to the P-51 not the A-36!
So then begs the question, when did the interviews with the A-36 pilots that you saw take place, and was the author(s) of the piece(s) giving "leading" questions or "embellishing" the pilot's answers to include the use of the Apache name? Having seen how some writers/researchers will "lead" those they are interviewing with terminology that was not in use at the time or provide "facts" that would not have been known to the interviewees at the time they are being questioned about, always makes me a bit sceptical about how some "first person accounts" come about and the language used.
Jump forward to the mid to late 1990s, and the late Michael Vorassi who was interested in all things Mustang and a member of the P-51SIG, started to research the origins of the 'Apache" name in relation to both the Mustang and the A-36 specifically. He researched through a range of sources and archives and could find no original period documentation, no original period interviews in print or on newsreels, where the A-36 was called an "Apache". He continued his research and eventually narrowed down where the use of the "Apache" name in relation to the A-36 started and how it spread - via a fairly prolific writer, published across a range of magazines in a very short space of time and then reinforced by all his follow up articles on the type - and eventually built a case that he took to the USAF Museum in the early 2000s. He submitted all his research to the curators there at the time and was close to getting them accepting his findings, when there was a major change in staff at the Museum, and he was proverbially "back to square one". Unfortunately ill health and his untimely death prevented him following up with the new management of the USAF Museum.
Jump forward a few years more and Mustangmg joins the P-51SIG and picks up where Michael left off. He pursues additional avenues in finding other new and previously unseen documentation, in particular convincing/pestering the Archivists in Boeing who look after the surviving archive of NAA documentation and material. They found some key original documentation that set out the correspondence between NAA and the USAAF in relation to the official naming of all NAA types in USAAF service at the time, which defined that the A-36, would be named "Mustang" as per the P-51 and its derivatives, as per the original name for the type as selected by the RAF back in 1940. This was then further confirmed with original NAA technical documentation where the A-36 is named "Mustang" on publication covers and other technical orders relating to it and the others of the P-51 family.
Tom went back to the USAF Museum and they considered the evidence he put forward, he persisted in following up with them and they eventually made the changes. The owners/operators of the remaining airworthy A-36s have also been made aware of the research done and the position taken by the USAF Museum, and have also started to change their signage and online information on the type. But there are a lot of older publication books, articles, aviation websites and the like that still connect the "Apache" name to the A-36 incorrectly. As an example, it has taken over 12 months of haggling, hassling, setting out in the most academic ways possible the facts in relation to the A-36's true name to get the Wikipedia entry changed and it was a battle for a number of reasons - not the least editorial control by committee and people who are welded to inaccurate books published many years ago and who would not even take the USAF Museum changing the name details as strong enough evidence. So a compromise has been reached for now where the "Apache" name has been taken off the main article title and only referenced to in the body of the article.
Long answer, but hopefully sets out the current situation regarding the A-36 and its proper name factually and historically. Mustang.
When you look at the original wartime first hand accounts given by pilot's who flew the A-36, you do not find any use of the "Apache" name. You will find in those original wartime pieces them calling the A-36's "Mustangs" or "A-36", similarly the original wartime press releases are notable in their absence in the use of the "Apache" name. You do find some references to the A-36 being nicknamed "Invader" and that is usually based off the quotes from the pilots who were flying them in the MTO in late 1942 into 1943 that generally went along the line "We think they should rename our A-36s as Invaders because we are always invading the enemy's airspace and bombing him", which fits with the proposal that went up the USAAF chain of command from the A-36 units in the MTO. The use of the "Invader" name in relation to the A-36 did make it into print in a couple of editions of Flight magazine in the UK in 1943, but they later printed a correction in late 1943/early 1944 saying the A-36 was a "Mustang". Use of the "Invader" name also made it into one edition of a US War Office produced aircraft recognition manual produced in late 1943 - around the same time the proposal to use the "Invader" name for the A-36 was being staffed around USAAF HQ and eventually being rejected as the name had already been allocated to the Douglas B-26 Invader.
If you then look at what few articles or books were published on the type in the late 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, the absence of the "Apache" name in relation to the A-36 is very evident.
It is in the early to mid-1970s that a fairly prolific US aviation/historic/warbird writer who was published across a range of the popular magazines of the time started to use the "Apache" name in relation to the A-36, and those articles were then picked up and republished, requoted and referenced that the A-36 was called the "Apache". Even way back when, if that author was challenged on the use of the "Apache" name in relation to the A-36, his name and reputation carried weight and in those days "Letters to the Editor" criticising errors in fact by the magazines authors were rarely published. The "Apache" name for the A-36 name was used and reused, it was repeated enough that it became "fact".
Best as those who have looked into this in some detail, he took a number of potential sources. Firstly the NAA advertisements from September-October 1941 that show what are Mustang Mk.Is (no dive brakes) with USAAC markings diving and using the name "Apache" - which was briefly proposed by someone in NAA Marketing as a way to differentiate the Mustang in trying to get the USAAC/USAAF interested in it. Adverts only ran for two months at a time when NAA was trying very hard to get the USAAC/USAAF interested in the new type. Secondly, a short lived proposal to use the "Apache" name for the original P-51 (NAA Model NA-91 or Mustang Mk.IA in RAF service) which preceded the A-36, as the name for the type in USAAC/USAAF service to differentiate it in USAAC/USAAF service compared to the name for the "RAF versions". That died very quickly at both NAA and USAAC/USAAF but did result in use of the "Apache" name in a couple of US and UK press releases from late 1942 in relation to the P-51 - articles were about early RAF operations with the Mustang Mk.I (NA-73 & NA-83) and includes words generally along the lines of "which is known as the Apache in US service" so referring to the P-51 not the A-36!
So then begs the question, when did the interviews with the A-36 pilots that you saw take place, and was the author(s) of the piece(s) giving "leading" questions or "embellishing" the pilot's answers to include the use of the Apache name? Having seen how some writers/researchers will "lead" those they are interviewing with terminology that was not in use at the time or provide "facts" that would not have been known to the interviewees at the time they are being questioned about, always makes me a bit sceptical about how some "first person accounts" come about and the language used.
Jump forward to the mid to late 1990s, and the late Michael Vorassi who was interested in all things Mustang and a member of the P-51SIG, started to research the origins of the 'Apache" name in relation to both the Mustang and the A-36 specifically. He researched through a range of sources and archives and could find no original period documentation, no original period interviews in print or on newsreels, where the A-36 was called an "Apache". He continued his research and eventually narrowed down where the use of the "Apache" name in relation to the A-36 started and how it spread - via a fairly prolific writer, published across a range of magazines in a very short space of time and then reinforced by all his follow up articles on the type - and eventually built a case that he took to the USAF Museum in the early 2000s. He submitted all his research to the curators there at the time and was close to getting them accepting his findings, when there was a major change in staff at the Museum, and he was proverbially "back to square one". Unfortunately ill health and his untimely death prevented him following up with the new management of the USAF Museum.
Jump forward a few years more and Mustangmg joins the P-51SIG and picks up where Michael left off. He pursues additional avenues in finding other new and previously unseen documentation, in particular convincing/pestering the Archivists in Boeing who look after the surviving archive of NAA documentation and material. They found some key original documentation that set out the correspondence between NAA and the USAAF in relation to the official naming of all NAA types in USAAF service at the time, which defined that the A-36, would be named "Mustang" as per the P-51 and its derivatives, as per the original name for the type as selected by the RAF back in 1940. This was then further confirmed with original NAA technical documentation where the A-36 is named "Mustang" on publication covers and other technical orders relating to it and the others of the P-51 family.
Tom went back to the USAF Museum and they considered the evidence he put forward, he persisted in following up with them and they eventually made the changes. The owners/operators of the remaining airworthy A-36s have also been made aware of the research done and the position taken by the USAF Museum, and have also started to change their signage and online information on the type. But there are a lot of older publication books, articles, aviation websites and the like that still connect the "Apache" name to the A-36 incorrectly. As an example, it has taken over 12 months of haggling, hassling, setting out in the most academic ways possible the facts in relation to the A-36's true name to get the Wikipedia entry changed and it was a battle for a number of reasons - not the least editorial control by committee and people who are welded to inaccurate books published many years ago and who would not even take the USAF Museum changing the name details as strong enough evidence. So a compromise has been reached for now where the "Apache" name has been taken off the main article title and only referenced to in the body of the article.
Long answer, but hopefully sets out the current situation regarding the A-36 and its proper name factually and historically. Mustang.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The "Apache" legend is along the same lines as other post war authors who tended to embellish or fabricate their writings in order to sensationalize their publications and it ended up corrupting the historical timeline.
In the age of the internet, where cut and paste facilitates instant recognition, it's become more prevalent, unfortunately.
In the age of the internet, where cut and paste facilitates instant recognition, it's become more prevalent, unfortunately.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,954
- Jun 25, 2013
Memory is flexible and affected by what people around one say and what one reads, including in explicitly fictional works, and what one hears. The unreliability of memory is why eyewitness testimony, especially decades after events, is often less than trustworthy.
