P-38 or Mosquito?
- Thread starter cheddar cheese
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
wuzak
Captain
If that actually happened it would, most likely, be in a report in the National Archives of the UK.
You can get them to copy documents, or get a researcher to do it for you.
Off you go!
It's interesting to note, Dana, that the Mosquito was favoured by the USAAF and US Navy as a night fighter at one point, as well as a PR aircraft. In their book simply called Mosquito, C Martin Sharp and Michael J F Bowyer dedicate an entire chapter to the machinations that went on to getting Mosquitoes into service with the USAAF as PR machines, night fighters and fighter bombers. The USAAF did use Bristol Beaufighter night fighters in the Mediterranean Theatre before the arrival of P-61s, but not Mosquitoes, although they were requested.
Hi Nuuumannn,
You're bringing back some memories there! That chapter wasn't in the original edition of Mosquito, but it did turn up in the 1995 edition after I supplied much of my original research to MJF Bowyer. (That is NOT to say that everything in that chapter came from me, but a good bit did.)
The AAF valued the Mosquito for a great many roles, particularly long-range recon-type missions. Perhaps its greatest advantage over the F-4/F-5 Lightning was the observer's seat - the Lightning pilot was seriously task-saturated trying to navigate, flying a straight line for the photo run, and watching out for enemy fighters -- that second pair of eyes really helped!
One American MTO squadron did get Mosquitos - the 416th received its first Mozzy (as the Americans would misspell the nickname) in November 1944. Based in Italy at a time when there were few opportunities to fire their guns in anger, the unit scored only one victory - but what a victory! Losing the right engine soon after takeoff, the pilot and R/O still chased a recce Ju 188 from Naples across the Alps, finally downing the target as it attempted to land at its own Austrian base. (Earlier that evening, a P-61 tried to catch the Junkers, but lacked the speed and endurance to close for an attack.)
The confusing story of America and the Mosquito still needs to be told in a book - it parallels all of the US' efforts to develop night fighters and long-range reconnaissance aircraft. In the end, the Mosquito still beat every operational aircraft we had in the field.
Cheers,
Dana
Hi Nuuumannn,
You're bringing back some memories there! That chapter wasn't in the original edition of Mosquito, but it did turn up in the 1995 edition after I supplied much of my original research to MJF Bowyer. (That is NOT to say that everything in that chapter came from me, but a good bit did.)
The AAF valued the Mosquito for a great many roles, particularly long-range recon-type missions. Perhaps its greatest advantage over the F-4/F-5 Lightning was the observer's seat - the Lightning pilot was seriously task-saturated trying to navigate, flying a straight line for the photo run, and watching out for enemy fighters -- that second pair of eyes really helped!
One American MTO squadron did get Mosquitos - the 416th received its first Mozzy (as the Americans would misspell the nickname) in November 1944. Based in Italy at a time when there were few opportunities to fire their guns in anger, the unit scored only one victory - but what a victory! Losing the right engine soon after takeoff, the pilot and R/O still chased a recce Ju 188 from Naples across the Alps, finally downing the target as it attempted to land at its own Austrian base. (Earlier that evening, a P-61 tried to catch the Junkers, but lacked the speed and endurance to close for an attack.)
The confusing story of America and the Mosquito still needs to be told in a book - it parallels all of the US' efforts to develop night fighters and long-range reconnaissance aircraft. In the end, the Mosquito still beat every operational aircraft we had in the field.
Cheers,
Dana
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
You pretty much answered your own question there.
A researcher will take the time to check and cross check facts and come to an educated conclusion.
A reporter will grab a bit of info and run with it, especially if the info fits a narrative.
There are also some authors who have done this in the past, like Green and Caidin...the latter getting his start by writing fiction and then became an editor for an aviation magazine. Some of his "claims" in his articles were very questionable and have long since been debunked, like the German pilots calling the P-38 the "Forktail Devil" (that name actually came from the USAAF pilots).
Green was also good for this, creating the legend in the 50's that the Ju390 flew to the New York coastline not once, but twice!
Keep in mind that these myths were created when these men were new editors writing articles for magazines and sensation sells - just as it does today.
Many members here have studied military history for decades - while I'm certainly not a leading authority, I have been a student of military history of the ancient to mid-20th century time period...for over 40 years. I have learned a thing or two along the way.
In regards to the Cyrillic alphabet, the archiac 44 character alphabet in Russian use was modernized by Peter the Great in the early 1700's.
The "peasant" Russian was spoken, not written, as the vast majority of peasants were illiterate.
By the time of the Napoleonic Wars, Peter the Great's changes to the alphabet would have had about a century to mature and become mainstream.
There were and are quite a few differences between the Cyrillic speaking nations, Bulgaria, the cradle of all Cyrillic languages, still retains a bit of the old tongue.
Glider
Captain
I did read an official USAAF review of the Mosquito and the summary was that it was unsuitable for flying at night. The RAF firmly believed that there was a massive case of NIH involved.
wuzak
Captain
Initially the Mosquito was rejected as a pathfinder on the basis that it was unsuitable for flying at night.
Awesome, thanks for the info in the Mosquito book, then Dana, it has enhanced my knowledge of the Mossie enormously. The US connection hasn't really been explored and is often simply ignored. I agree, get writing!
Nailed it. To add to that, a good, thorough researcher always acknowledges any new information he/she receives and any errors he/she might have made in the past, too.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Yes indeed!
It can be easy to fall for a "Caidinism" (I've REALLY been wanting to use that!) if it's been well presented, but often, cross-checking sources will show it for what it is.
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
I will try and keep this simple. Other forum members have, and will in future, provided more material that you need to consider.
Firstly a dedicated researcher quotes and uses prime documents and details them in the book/paper/article. A prime document is one written at the time by experts or by persons who were there and who should have known what they were talking about. Think Diaries, official reports, official communiques and official manuals. Articles by reporters of the day are treated with great caution though because they were censored and approved by the censorship board to reflect what the government wanted the public to know.
A dedicated researcher will identify their prime source material, accept secondary source material only when it fits the prime material. A dedicated researcher will read but generally ignore anything written that has a headline grabbing title and which never identifies the sources.
Many of the people on this forum are well known authors who do have multiple publications which are fully and properly researched and do not need to do this on this site because they are known and respected experts. Where a dedicated researcher is not sure of something they say so and explain the rational for their decision to trust source x over source y or why they came to their conclusion. They will often summarize all the optional theories.
Because I do not have that level of recognition on this forum you will note that I regularly cut and paste graphics from my actual sources. This proves the source exists and anyone is welcome to ask for the full reference source. With manuals I try and include the manual number so anyone else can check for themselves without that inconvenience to both of us.
Dana just retypes from the source but he is so well known, well respected and well published and has been on this forum for so long that he does not need to provide the source in a simple online post. My way provides instant proof but his is far easier to read. His reputation means no one needs to see the source document but he will provide the details of the source where appropriate.
FlyboyJ, GruaGeist and many many others here are also acknowledged experts in their respective fields who also have access to original documents and accurate translations (and never use Giggle translate) yet you repeatedly ignore their information on Luftwaffe scoring, etc.
- Do they quote their sources in such a way that you can cross check them, and their context, yourself? and or
- Are their references to prime sources? and or
- Are they an acknowledged expert in the field? and or
- Look at the quality of their writing.
Behavioral science shows that people who do certain things one way do related things the same way.
History shows that drivers who drink and drive will drink and fly, that pilots who refuse to obey road rules will refuse to obey aviation rules, etc.
From this it is possible to conclude that a writer who is too lazy to follow proper writing forms such as spelling, grammar, case, correct wording and designations, etc is also most likely to be too lazy to do the research required to write an accurate post and also far too lazy or incompetent to proofread and correct what they have written before posting.
See last paragraph above.
This is not an easy typo. A typo means that you pushed the 7, 9, u or i instead of the 8 or transposed two letters or numbers like saying F-68 instead of F-86.
Pushing a letter with your left pinky instead of pushing a letter with your right middle finger and being too lazy to proof read what you have written (and leaving out the - in F-86 etc, etc, etc.) are all indications of extremely sloppy behavior and habits - see again the last paragraph referenced above.
I am not a professional writer but there are eight examples of sloppy writing and failing to proof read in just that one short paragraph above.
I am a semi retired 75 year old and been in the industry since 1962 in 5 countries. I am a private pilot with warbird time, an Aircraft Maintenance Technician qualified in multiple countries, an Aircraft Engineer, a qualified Aerospace Auditor, and a trained air accident and incident investigator meeting the requirements for ICAO Annex 13 among other qualifications. My last two full time positions were as Quality and Safety Manager for my employers International Air Operators Certificate and Maintenance Organization Certificate for a small international airline performing B737 passenger operations in three countries and the same position for a mixed rotary and fixed wing operator operating helicopters ranging from Bell 407 to Mil 8, 17 & 26 in two countries. Both those positions require extensive and repetitive examination by the National Aviation Regulators to ensure that you are, and continue to be, a Fit and Proper Person to hold each position.
I have researched all my life to keep my mind active and expand my knowledge.
Before I married I was well known in the warbird community (well before it was fashionable) and I was written about in multiple magazines and a few books. I am still occasionally consulted by current warbird restoration persons and businesses.
I do not consider myself an expert but, because of my experience and research, I am more learned than many people.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
One of our forum members coined that phrase some time back and I truly regret that I have forgotten who it was, but they deserve all the accolades (and a lifetime supply of bacon). 
on your first, my point is. But how do you know the difference. if an editor of a publication gets it wrong. a BBC presenter gets it wrong a newspaper gets it wrong. then? you have answered what IS the difference. I asked how do you tell the difference? not the same.
second point, and you are basically correct. But the cyrillic alphabet is Phonetic and as such can record all languages. the illiterate peasantry still had the church who would write letters for them, not many but they are there. uumm ok if we look at china. a pictorial writing, a writing that can be read in any language ( they say 200 languages in china?) but all schooling is/was done in mandarin. Thailand, 5 main languages, all schooling in Thai Yai. Laos 4 main languages but again all schooling was done in Lao ( close to Issarn) Russia pre soviet had many languages, depending on who you talk to, up to 300 throughout the russian empire at its hight. yet the country ran on french. Ok so look at war and peace. the Landerd spent the summer months in the country over seeing there pesent farmworkers and there vast estates. sold their crops or what ever then buggered of to the city for winter and blowing what they had made. they probably would have spoken French to there friends, russian to there taylour and horseman and communicated in writing to the head pessant back on the estate in whatever was the local language/ dialect. by head pessant i meen Kuracks, the ones stalin killed off deported. my point is that there is vast piles of documents/ letters etc that can be read but not under stood.
another point and this is important. English you can survive with about 1200 words, ESOL i think is about 6000 words. 38000 words common language and about 120000 english words in use. again this varies depending on who you talk to. Russian well you need 1000 words to get your permanent residence visa ( they were talking about it when i did mine so i assume its in now) and 44000 words in total, again depending on who you talk to. my point is that russian and most russian languages are simply lacking in words IE machina is all machines. machinKA Ka being child like would mean a toy machine, a toy car etc if its a big machine then its bolshoy machine big. the bolshoi ballet. just means the big ballet. but machine means every machina just means every machine and that russian word has it roots in english anyway. in short russian is short of descriptive words so they use frases based of commonly known stories, like in english " cry wolf" or an old one " tilting at windmills" ( he is) or after the fact " blessed be the should i rid the world of such foul demons" in russian you can have complete conversations using cry wolf and other frases, infact to a point you can only have such conversations that way because russian is lacking in descriptive words. uumm i could go on but should do some thing about food!
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The answer is clear enough - the reporter for the rag gave a half-assed piece without citations.
Also, in your extensive google search, that was all that came up, wasn't it?
That should speak volumes...
Also, in your extensive google search, that was all that came up, wasn't it?
That should speak volumes...
so a poster posts something that is incorrect with a link to source which is incorrect.
do you
A toss that poster down the well.
B tell that poster they are wrong.
C misrepresent what that poster has written to further entangle the issue.
D make representations about that posters education lineage and or activities?
E correct the post
F Correct the post with supporting link/documents etc.
G Correct the post with supporting Link/ documents AND then follow the link and contact the original informant to correct them with your supporting documentation?
In short do you play the ball or the man?
Ok i get it, you dot the eyes and cross your tees, and you do not like anyone who is not the same as you.
Here, we attempt to correct him/her, but it's kind of hard to do when the person came in with a high horse to begin with, and had no desire to learn.
Last edited:
See post above.
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
Strange, that's not the message I got from MiTasol's post, huh... perception/comprehension are funny things it seems.
