Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
There is a tendency to create myths around some weapons especially aircraft. The performance of the Mosquito did not mean its crews were guaranteed immortality or even survival many were in fact lost. Pilots and aircrew have a different view to commanders, they saw much more value in shooting down a night fighter than a bomber simply because the night fighter could shoot them down. Some reporters and even historians transferred this mentality to the actual tally and award system.I added a link to a reporter talking about a documentary who made this statement. so who am i to believe?
There is a tendency to create myths around some weapons especially aircraft. The performance of the Mosquito did not mean its crews were guaranteed immortality or even survival many were in fact lost. Pilots and aircrew have a different view to commanders, they saw much more value in shooting down a night fighter than a bomber simply because the night fighter could shoot them down. Some reporters and even historians transferred this mentality to the actual tally and award system.
Everyone would prefer to say "gabelschwanzteufel" over the radio rather than "P-38" or "lightning" wouldn't they?Just like the P-39 Gabelschwanzteufel myth.
Be easy on the internet gamer historians...
There is a tendency to create myths around some weapons especially aircraft. The performance of the Mosquito did not mean its crews were guaranteed immortality or even survival many were in fact lost. Pilots and aircrew have a different view to commanders, they saw much more value in shooting down a night fighter than a bomber simply because the night fighter could shoot them down. Some reporters and even historians transferred this mentality to the actual tally and award system.
Almost all taken out of context Gallands comment about the Spitfire was valid, not because the Spitfire was a better plane but their relative strengths and weaknesses meant the Spitfire would do the job Goering wanted, it was actually Galland telling Goering the tactics were wrong. Goerings various rants about things are mainly an indication of himself as a man and a leader, he was a bombastic drug addict.and myths become perception that becomes history and perception is reality. i guess with just about every complimentary comment made by Herman or to him, squadron of spitfires, piano maker etc there is nothing about the 2 for one kill, like the other comments you would expect this to be recycled much more than it is.
.
Goerings various rants about things are mainly an indication of himself as a man and a leader, he was a bombastic drug addict.
So how do you tell the difference between a reporter doing a rave job and a dedicated researcher? do they look different? do they have different coloured skin? do they sound different? maybe a squeaky voice, or a low one? what about personality? are they like? a Nikita? lend me your shoe comrade so i can bang it and make a lot of noise until everyone listens to me. or Kermit the frog, always trying to help? so how do you know who to listen to?You mean ones who believe
instead of believing
- a reporter doing a rave job or a beat-up job using doctor google as their sole information source, and
- looking for urban legends and anything else that suits the idiot headline they are trying to "prove" (like the headlines about the Spitfire/Mustang/Mosquitos fatal flaw that was fixed before the end of March 41 and before the Mosquito and Merlin Mustang entered service and never applied to Packard Merlins, etc, etc, etc), and
- working to a deadline that does not allow proper research, and
- starting from a knowledge level best described as minute, etc.
- a dedicated researcher who has been researching and/or physically involved in the industry for several decades or more, and
- a real historic document that a dedicated researcher can find with not much more effort than a Dr Google search, and
- who knows that, when dealing with any archives that hold genuine copies of genuine historic paper documents written at the time of the event, that the costs and time frames can be very very trying (not because of any fault of the archive staff but because most archives are grossly understaffed and over worked - I deal regularly with a couple where there are a significant number of volunteers doing fantastic support work and they still they cannot respond in less than multiple months).
So how do you tell the difference between a reporter doing a rave job and a dedicated researcher? do they look different? do they have different coloured skin? do they sound different? maybe a squeaky voice, or a low one? what about personality? are they like? a Nikita? lend me your shoe comrade so i can bang it and make a lot of noise until everyone listens to me. or Kermit the frog, always trying to help? so how do you know who to listen to?
However i get your point ! having spent 3 years trolling though russian archives in the 90s i can guarantee i know more than you about the Russo Napoleonic wars. and i can virtually guarantee that you believe that the russian winter did napoleon in. well it didn't. But can i convince you. probably not, you cant read pre soviet simplified russian nor could you read colloquial village pesant russian. so i have no evidence. I could state that the Only reason that the russians were able to march directly into paris and not have to retreat and regroup, ( need food) is because of a communique from one russian officer to another. which was captured by the French. was written in an obscure Lativain dialect and in old cyrillic.( 44 letter alphabet) and it would have been a very ODD frenchman who could read that indeed!!! But back to my point. you may think i am simply full of it! but you would happily reference one of my publications rather than reference what i say. that's natural the written word has just so much more weight. personally i get a real kick out of someone refuring to one of my publications in an attempt to prove me wrong! But i digress. I take from you post, referenced above, That you are a learnard, professional and dedicated researcher. could you list your publications and ISBN numbers. with luck and the help of you publications i could rasie my starting point to something a bit higher than "a knowledge level best described as minute". Thank You in advance
It was obviously a generalisation but with a lot of truth in it. Goering may have been a WW1 ace but he was a poor leader, more concerned with grandstanding and stealing art than running the LW. Before the Battle of Britain he asked "where is my Luftwaffe" he was completely unaware of the losses they had incurred since the invasion of Poland. I agree that he was let down by the German system but it was his German system. By ranting like a mad man at bad news he just made sure he didn't get news. He even went so far as to suggest pilots were lying when they reported S/E fighters deep into Germany, no way to run a military force.I kinda agree, but I think it's a simplistic view of Goring, to be honest. He couldn't understand what was going on based on the evidence that he was receiving. He never thought to question the evidence, which, had he been better aware of the strategic situation, then he would have realised that the Germans just didn't have any real intel on how well they were doing. Their reconnaissance aircraft were being shot down, therefore denying them useful post-raid reconnaissance, so inaccurate intel was being fed to him in terms of Fighter Command's strength. Couple that with natural overclaiming from fighter pilots engaged in combat and a very lop sided picture emerges. By not questioning the information he was receiving, he couldn't see why the RAF was still intercepting his bombers in numbers and therefore blamed the fighter pilots. It smacks to me not only of a failure of Goring himself, but the German 'system' and thought process; The Luftwaffe lost the Battle of Britain as much as the RAF won it - if that makes sense.
NEVER guarantee what others (whom you do not know) believe or know, that is a fatal mistake, especially here. You might very well be the number one authority on that subject, hard to say, but some here may surprise you with their knowledge of that subject. I for one would be fascinated to learn more if you're willing to share.However i get your point ! having spent 3 years trolling though russian archives in the 90s i can guarantee i know more than you about the Russo Napoleonic wars. and i can virtually guarantee that you believe that the russian winter did napoleon in. well it didn't.
Why not? You've landed among one of the best historical communities on the internet, so don't assume you cannot make a convincing argument, just be prepared to back up your statements with source documentation etc.But can i convince you. probably not,
You're right.you cant read pre soviet simplified russian nor could you read colloquial village pesant russian.
Link or reference to fully researched and vetted material would help.so i have no evidence. I could state that the Only reason that the russians were able to march directly into paris and not have to retreat and regroup, ( need food) is because of a communique from one russian officer to another. which was captured by the French. was written in an obscure Lativain dialect and in old cyrillic.( 44 letter alphabet) and it would have been a very ODD frenchman who could read that indeed!!!
Not yet...But back to my point. you may think i am simply full of it!
I'd be happy to read your published material, links or titles?but you would happily reference one of my publications rather than reference what i say. that's natural the written word has just so much more weight. personally i get a real kick out of someone refuring to one of my publications in an attempt to prove me wrong! But i digress.
You've landed on one of the best forums in the world for aviation history, humility goes further than snark, unless you're me, I'm not the knowledgeable one around here but I am the snarky one.I take from you post, referenced above, That you are a learnard, professional and dedicated researcher. could you list your publications and ISBN numbers. with luck and the help of you publications i could rasie my starting point to something a bit higher than "a knowledge level best described as minute". Thank You in advance
I've followed this thread with interest from afar and really have nothing to add to the discussion, but let me parse out your second paragraph with some thoughts.
NEVER guarantee what others (whom you do not know) believe or know, that is a fatal mistake, especially here. You might very well be the number one authority on that subject, hard to say, but some here may surprise you with their knowledge of that subject. I for one would be fascinated to learn more if you're willing to share.
Why not? You've landed among one of the best historical communities on the internet, so don't assume you cannot make a convincing argument, just be prepared to back up your statements with source documentation etc.
You're right.
Link or reference to fully researched and vetted material would help.
Not yet...
I'd be happy to read your published material, links or titles?
You've landed on one of the best forums in the world for aviation history, humility goes further than snark, unless you're me, I'm not the knowledgeable one around here but I am the snarky one.
In closing, please take this in the spirit of friendship that it is intended.
Cheers.
Pete
no way to run a military force.
It was not just a question of biting off more than he could chew, he didn't know what he had bitten off at all. It was a mirror of the German Blitzkrieg communicating with radios while the French were waiting for a despatch rider. While Goering relied on reports in the old way, Dowding and Park could see the battle presented in real time. Even at the end of it he didn't know the battle he had just taken part in and how it ran. He was similarly clueless at Stalingrad when he lost his transports and most of his bombers in an action that could only end in disaster.That is true. It is of course arguable that he would not have gotten to where he was if it weren't for the Nazis being the Nazis. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't attempting to exonerate him or his actions, but it is too easy to write him off for being a buffoon and an addict, when he was very much a product of his Nazi environment, albeit one susceptible to the luxuries that one in his position expects. I do believe he bit off more than he could chew in stating the LW attacks against Britain would succeed in their objective in paving the way for invasion, mind you, he too was following orders from Herr Hitler, who was probably more delusional in his belief that he could successfully invade Britain.
It was not just a question of biting off more than he could chew, he didn't know what he had bitten off at all.
Read histories about the Luftwaffe written by credible sources. They're out there - Google is your friend!I added a link to a reporter talking about a documentary who made this statement. so who am i to believe?