Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I added a link to a reporter talking about a documentary who made this statement. so who am i to believe?
I can imagine some Luftwaffe pilot being interaged by some RAF officer.
So old chap you say you shot down 2 spitfires and one mosquito.
ja vier punkte
so you say 4 then
Nie drei
2 spitfires and 2 mosquitos? then
nie
zwei spitfires und eine mücke
Ok then, 2 spitfires and 2 mosquitos.
zwei spitfires und eine mücke
ja vier punkte
in his summary it appears that the luftwaffe is credditing 2 kills for one mosquito.
You pretty much answered your own question there.So how do you tell the difference between a reporter doing a rave job and a dedicated researcher?
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.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...
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.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
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.
The confusing story of America and the Mosquito still needs to be told in a book
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.
Yes indeed!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.
So how do you tell the difference between a reporter doing a rave job and a dedicated researcher? so how do you know who to listen to?
so how do you know who to listen to?
typing out of my head and not checking.
easy typo just swap an 8 for a 1, as i demonstrated
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".
so how do you know who to listen to?
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.
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.
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.
so a poster posts something that is incorrect with a link to source which is incorrect.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...
I will try and keep this simple.
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.
indications of extremely sloppy behavior and habits
sloppy writing and failing to proof read
.
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.
Strange, that's not the message I got from MiTasol's post, huh... perception/comprehension are funny things it seems.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.