It occurs to me

[Helldiver]

I was born 11 years after WWI was over. I grew up reading Flying Aces, Wings and G-8 pulp magazines. Phinea Pinkham was a hero of mine. I read about all the airplanes, the Neiuports, SPADS Fokkers and SE5. I knew all the aces from Manfred von Richthoven, Rene Fonck, Billy Bishop and Eddie Rickenbacker. I hung arround the Coast Guard Base in Salem. I knew each airplane and it's characteristics. I was steeped in aviation.
But what I would never have the nerve to ever be an expert on WWI aviation. The was left to those that lived it, smelled the castor oil, got to kick the tires and watched as they flew into battle.
That's why I take exception to anything written by self appointed experts on WWII. For the most part they're inaccurate. They say anything to color a story no matter what the truth is.
I just read an article about the war in the Pacific., "The Planes That Won the War" written by the leading wriiter of the magazine. He mentioned all the Naval Fighter aircraft. There was a side note were he mentioned the SBD, saying it was the leading sinker of Japanese ships. Not true, that was the Helldiver record.
Oh, he mentions the "Beast" in derogitory tones. But not a single, solitary word about the TBF/TBMs.
When you read something about WWII, I would urge you to examine the source. If it was written by someone that was born after the war was over, I'd question his resources. He probably was hanging around in his old mans jock strap when the war was going on.

[PRB]

Like any historical research subject, WW-II was much bigger than is possible to cover in a single “planes that won the war” article. I wouldn't leave out planes like the P-39 and TBD-1 as planes that helped win the War in the Pacific. The sacrifices those men made, those that lived, helped hold the line until the more advanced planes, Like the SB2C, came along. Their contribution should not be overlooked. Besides, everyone knows the P-51D won the war..! (;))

[Daveroo]

i agree with what hell diver is saying ..i had lunch with Bud Anderson back in January,,,he had said at the time he only flew a P51D twice and NEVER was a P51D named old crow..yet you see them as warbirds and in paintings.he flew a P51B,not a C a B according to him and his favorite AC of that time period?....the P39.... yet it gets blasted by those who write about it now because it had a few bad habits..the so called experts can really be shocked if they talked to the vets who were accually there and experianced it.

reminds me of the sportscasters and other sports specialists who have never played the game or drove a race car,,,yet have the gall to sit at a desk and bad mouth those that can and do the sport...

[txnetcop]

Tex Hill was a neighbor of mine. I had visited him since I was a youngster and he always talked about what a great aircraft the P-40 was and yet to many it was a disaster with wings! Heck he not only talked about it, he proved what a great fighter it was!!!
Ted

[huub vink]

I would never believe anyone who tells me an aircraft has won a war.........

Cheers,
Huub ;)

[Bomber_12th]

It reminds me of something the late Jeff Ethell once sated, regarding the P-40. He, having written books discussing the poor capabilities of the P-40, having accepted the written history of the aircraft as being inferior to just about anything in the air at the time of its service, he found to be no longer true once he got into the cockpit and flew it. His changed stance was further backed up by accounts from those who really flew them and fought against them during the war, instead of those who simply wrote about them from the sidelines.

[Lewis-A2A]

i agree with what hell diver is saying ..i had lunch with Bud Anderson back in January,,,he had said at the time he only flew a P51D twice and NEVER was a P51D named old crow..yet you see them as warbirds and in paintings.he flew a P51B,not a C a B according to him and his favorite AC of that time period?....the P39.... yet it gets blasted by those who write about it now because it had a few bad habits..the so called experts can really be shocked if they talked to the vets who were accually there and experianced it.

reminds me of the sportscasters and other sports specialists who have never played the game or drove a race car,,,yet have the gall to sit at a desk and bad mouth those that can and do the sport...

I disagree, you have to question it all, the quote above is case in point. Bud Andersons own book disagrees with the above as do all the photos that are included in the book! He mentions how horrible the P39's were in training compared to the birds he flew into combat

Helldiver is bias towards the Helldiver and this also must be remebered, his stance on the SBD kinda proves this, as much as he doesnt like it, it was the bird that really helped win those all important early victories and what can be considered most important victories when it comes to putting the BB's, Carriers etc out of action.

Plus of course there what to do when these combat vets disagree, Helldiver himself mentions how useless the G model was with forward firing guns, and that the Luftwaffe rarely attacked from headon, this disagrees with other vets of both the B-17's and the Luftwaffe pilots who in the case of the B-17G tend to say that the 'pig to fly G model was worth it for the extras you got included overall'

[spotlope]

I see your point, Bob, and I don't disagree. There's definitely something about direct experience that book-learning can't match. At the same time, I've had conversations w/ my brothers about things that happened when we were kids, and our memories are radically different at times. I'm not putting down experience, but memories are tricky things, and often not as reliable as we think.

[dswo]

When you read something about WWII, I would urge you to examine the source. If it was written by someone that was born after the war was over, I'd question his resources. He probably was hanging around in his old mans jock strap when the war was going on.

"Examine the source" is always good advice. But primary sources can disagree too and no one, including the first-hand observer, sees the whole picture. One of the books I'm reading now is Richard Overy's The Air War, 1939-1945 (1980). Overy was born in 1947, so he didn't fly in the war that he's writing about. That's a real disadvantage. On the other hand, he's studied the records of several different air forces: how they were structured, trained, supplied, and what they achieved. No one, while the war was going on, had access to that level of information for ALL of the air forces concerned. At most, the men at the top had access to comparable information about their own air force, and the vast majority of airmen had only a small fraction of that. For example: it wasn't possible until the war was over to compare one side's kill claims with the other side's loss reports. No one had that kind of knowledge, including the participants. Now, thanks to researchers like Overy, we do.

To be clear: I'm not defending the article in question, which I haven't read. I agree with Huub that an article titled "The Planes that Won the War" is already suspicious (unless it's written by someone who has spent a lifetime studying the whole subject, and is writing this article to summarize a career's worth of research). And I am most certainly not setting myself up as an authority on anything to do with this forum. That is to say, I'm not a historian or a pilot. For me, this is a hobby; I pursue it eagerly, at a sustainable pace. There are lots of people on this forum who know more than I do, either from research or experience, and I'm eager to learn from them.

So what is my point? Research and experience are complementary. For precision, you want experience (where that's available); for the big picture, you need research.

[gajit]

It must be frustrating for Helldiver and others who believe that history is being rewritten whilst still in living memory.

:salute:

[CheckSix]

Dons his flak vest, helmet and hunkers down under his rock...

[spotlope]

It must be frustrating for Helldiver and others who believe that history is being rewritten whilst still in living memory.

:salute:

That must go even more for you as a 99-year-old. ;)

[IanHenry]

Helldiver,
With your interest in WW1 aviation, maybe you will be interested in this TV program which was shown here in the U.K last week.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/fighting-the-red-baron/4od#3075340 (http://www.channel4.com/programmes/fighting-the-red-baron/4od#3075340)
Regards,
Ian.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p>

[Daveroo]

disagree, you have to question it all, the quote above is case in point. Bud Andersons own book disagrees with the above as do all the photos that are included in the book! He mentions how horrible the P39's were in training compared to the birds he flew into combat

from a2a scott?.. i think is his name..all i said is what Col Anderson told me at lunch...he also told me the writer of the book was an ass and that he took alot of the things he told the writer out of context and changed things...so i had a hard time reading the book after having talked to the col myself

[Lewis-A2A]

disagree, you have to question it all, the quote above is case in point. Bud Andersons own book disagrees with the above as do all the photos that are included in the book! He mentions how horrible the P39's were in training compared to the birds he flew into combat

from a2a scott?.. i think is his name..all i said is what Col Anderson told me at lunch...he also told me the writer of the book was an ass and that he took alot of the things he told the writer out of context and changed things...so i had a hard time reading the book after having talked to the col myself

Yes this happens alot re: the books however it shouldnt de-value my point. The photos in the book itself were not changed from what Bud may have told the author. You quite simply have to question it all, the P-51D for example is in most US eyes (surprise surpise) the best fighter of WW2. However if you look at combat reports etc, you quickly find out that in all honesty, fighter wise, the Russian Yak and La series of fighters are seemingly superior, and one must not dis-count the numbers game, in how the Luftwaffe was so out-numbered in many engagements.

Its the same for me of course, I'm English so naturally Ive been brought up to believe the Spit is the fighter that won the war.

You must examaine sources and more importantly contexualise it all. Taking soruces out of context is just as bad as making them up.

At the end of the day its what the propaganda machine in most cases thought news worthy is what survives after the fact. Following this sort of thing on its most interesting to look at Korea, a war that is almost forgotten by the mainstream, and if not then it was fought by Migs and sabres and not much more. Of course the truth is quite different, the air war over Korea was a wild, varied affair with a mix of props and jets from all eras.

[forgeknight]

I for one would question anything someone says with the attitude that Helldiver approaches things with. It is that kind of bias that skews the history books. People who like to say "I was there I know it all" fail to realize that they were nothing more then a small piece in a big puzzle, and the fact is, it took all the pieces to complete that picture. And many times a soldiers view point and memory isn't always fact, even though we may want them to be.

[txnetcop]

I for one would question anything someone says with the attitude that Helldiver approaches things with. It is that kind of bias that skews the history books. People who like to say "I was there I know it all" fail to realize that they were nothing more then a small piece in a big puzzle, and the fact is, it took all the pieces to complete that picture. And many times a soldiers view point and memory isn't always fact, even though we may want them to be.

While what you say has merit I don't appreciate the way it was said...don't it ever repeat it this way again...fair warning!
Ted

[Quixoticish]

I for one would question anything someone says with the attitude that Helldiver approaches things with. It is that kind of bias that skews the history books. People who like to say "I was there I know it all" fail to realize that they were nothing more then a small piece in a big puzzle, and the fact is, it took all the pieces to complete that picture. And many times a soldiers view point and memory isn't always fact, even though we may want them to be.

I'd agree with this. Bias creeps in for many reasons irregardless of personal experience, you can find a dozen people who lived through the events they are recalling and a dozen completely different takes of how something happened in many instances, and likewise a dozen texts written by well meaning authors that tell very different tales.

All the person with a genuine interest can do is make themselves as learned as possible by learning from information from a large variety of sources; hopefully patterns will emerge amongst both the rose-tinted (or the opposite) recollections and ill-informed notes jotted down by people who weren't present as events unfolded. Not that there is anything wrong with this or anyone is to blame, we're only human and this is just in our nature. Eventually one hopes you can piece together something that at least bears a passing resemblance to real historical events to draw your own hypothesis.

The study of history from ancient to modern is a self perpetuating minefield full of hidden dangers for the unwary scholar.

[txnetcop]

I'd agree with this. Bias creeps in for many reasons irregardless of personal experience, you can find a dozen people who lived through the events they are recalling and a dozen completely different takes of how something happened in many instances.

All the person with a genuine interest can do is make themselves as learned as possible by learning from information from a large variety of sources; hopefully patterns will emerge amongst both the rose-tinted (or the opposite) recollections and ill-informed notes jotted down by people who weren't present as events unfolded. Eventually one hopes you can piece together something that at least bears a passing resemblance to real historical events to draw your own hypothesis.

The study of history from ancient to modern is a self perpetuating minefield full of hidden dangers for the unwary scholar.

Helldiver is an older respected member of this community who lived through and fought in WWII. He deserves more respect than this. I agree he saw through a lens of his known world. But this could have been said more graciously and could even be considered an attack. You know how we handle attacks...care to take this any further?
Ted

[Rezabrya]

I completely agree with these past few comments. I have tons of respect for HD and express as much gratitude as I possibly can towards him for what he did for his country. Most of his posts are completely biased though and generally have the hidden meaning behind them of "I was there so don't question me because you're wrong." He seems to have the mindset that anyone else that says anything on the subject is wrong. I agree that he has the most personal experience on this site, but he may not be the most knowledgable.

[gajit]

I would say that Chris H gave a very measured and carefully POV

[txnetcop]

I completely agree with these past few comments. I have tons of respect for HD and express as much gratitude as I possibly can towards him for what he did for his country. Most of his posts are completely biased though and generally have the hidden meaning behind them of "I was there so don't question me because you're wrong." I can honestly say sometimes it is very annoying to me when he posts in WWII thread because he always seems to think he is the only one with a valid opinion.

You and those above you are entitled to your opinion but this is an attack against a member. We have a ways of dealing with you if you persist. I've been nice and patient. Do you honestly think it is worth being banned?
Ted

[forgeknight]

Well now I appreciate your point there txnetcop. But you know what I'm a vet also. I lost part of my hearing and suffered frost bite on my feet. And you know why? So people could have the freedom to express themselves. I wasn't making a personel attack against helldiver, just the methods he uses to express his point of view. Bud, I'm an archaeologist, I deal in making history come alive, in proving fact from fiction. So you can threaten me if you wish, but I feel my points are as valid as anyone elses. That being said this is the last I will comment on this subject or this thread.

[txnetcop]

I am not doubting your take on this..what I don't appreciate is how it is being said at Helldiver's expense. Yes he does tend to have a myopic view at times but to say that he is annoying serves no good purpose

[txnetcop]

Well now I appreciate your point there txnetcop. But you know what I'm a vet also. I lost part of my hearing and suffered frost bite on my feet. And you know why? So people could have the freedom to express themselves. I wasn't making a personel attack against helldiver, just the methods he uses to express his point of view. Bud, I'm an archaeologist, I deal in making history come alive, in proving fact from fiction. So you can threaten me if you wish, but I feel my points are as valid as anyone elses. That being said this is the last I will comment on this subject or this thread.


All I am asking you to do is show proper respect for a much older gentleman

[gajit]

If there are any devs out there - please can they model a Helldiver - please

[txnetcop]

If there are any devs out there - please can they model a Helldiver - please


That was kind of you...thank you. He does show a certain bias to the Helldiver. I hope someone is kind to me in my old age and respects what I did in Vietnam and the things I cared about.
Ted

[PRB]

I just finished a book called “Black Shoe Carrier Admiral, Frank Jack Fletcher at Coral Sea, Midway, and Guadalcanal”, by John Lundstrom. Anyone who has read books on the Pacific War “knows” that Admiral Fletcher was timid, over cautious, not very smart, and abandoned the Marines at Guadalcanal. Where did we get this impression of Fletcher? Well, mostly, it turns out, from Samuel Elliot Morison, who was there... And where did Morison get his data? Well, from people who served with Fletcher, and happened to hate him. Some of these were aviators, many of who, in the early years of the Pacific War, were jealous and contemptuous of “black shoes” being placed in charge of carrier battle groups. Some of them were less than objective when writing of their experiences in WW-II for S.E. Morrison. What Lundstrom did was go to the source, in this case, declassified message traffic between Pearl Harbor and Fletcher's command in 1942. In addition, he got “the other side of the story” from others who were there and wrote about what they thought of Fletcher at the time. He has managed to portray Fletcher in a completely different light from what we are used to reading. Very interesting book.

NOTE: If this starts turning into a “bash Helldiver” thread, I will close it. Helldiver's essential point in this thread is a valid one. As “responsible readers of history”, it's obvious to most of us here that it's important to “consider the source”, as others have already said in this thread. There is much interesting discussion going on here. Lets not spoil it, please.

[CheckSix]

This is better than CNN's coverage of the first Gulf War!

**Sits back with a brew and the popcorn**

Bet the Mod's will win, they got those new fangled "Ban Hammer" JDAMs and "LockThread" GBUs!

[icycle]

I just finished a book called “Black Shoe Carrier Admiral, Frank Jack Fletcher at Coral Sea, Midway, and Guadalcanal”, by John Lundstrom. Anyone who has read books on the Pacific War “knows” that Admiral Fletcher was timid, over cautious, not very smart, and abandoned the Marines at Guadalcanal. Where did we get this impression of Fletcher? Well, mostly, it turns out, from Samuel Elliot Morison, who was there... And where did Morison get his data? Well, from people who served with Fletcher, and happened to hate him. Some of these were aviators, many of who, in the early years of the Pacific War, were jealous and contemptuous of “black shoes” being placed in charge of carrier battle groups. Some of them were less than objective when writing of their experiences in WW-II for S.E. Morrison. What Lundstrom did was go to the source, in this case, declassified message traffic between Pearl Harbor and Fletcher's command in 1942. In addition, he got “the other side of the story” from others who were there and wrote about what they thought of Fletcher at the time. He has managed to portray Fletcher in a completely different light from what we are used to reading. Very interesting book.

On the lighter side of the news, you just gave me the choice of my next book to read on WWII.

Thanks!:jump:

Bill

[Lewis-A2A]

Indeed PRB,

One of the most fascinating to me re: sources is the almost Anal discussions of colours. I know Luftwaffe RLM colours often come under fire in some rather large flame wars by historians on just what colour what part of the aircraft was. I believe though I havent looked into it for quite some time that the same is with the Japanese aircraft, esp the early was zero's.

Were the zero's White or Cream? Its most fascinating to hear each side argue the point with each side having people who were there on it. I feel in such cases you have to just read what you can and make up you own mind.

Re: books that are supposedly written by the pilots etc, I always think it best to read them as guides to the bigger picture rather than accounts of what happened at every detail.

There are of course a few exceptions. I brought '303rd hells angels, half a wing three engines and a prayer' a good few years back. It was in its god knows what version edition but it was seemingly updated regualry and re-published. This book details the missions and is great as it uses the accounts from numerous crews on the same mission. Its a great read and I recommend it to anyone. Even in this book the accounts sometimes contradict but the great thing is with so many accoutns of the same event the picture of what happen comes through. ts brilliant for example to read how one crew saw an aircraft going down and then reading the next paragraph as an account from various crew members who were inside the bomber going down and what went on after the aircrat left formation. Some truly fascinating stuff.

[Quixoticish]

I'm rather annoyed by certain comments here accusing me of attacking Helldiver and rather irked that I now have to post to defend myself.

I offered an opinion, nothing more, nothing less, and no personal attack is contained anywhere in my post, if you think there is one then I suggest you re-read it. If anyone has taken umbridge to what I have said then I suggest getting in touch with me via PM so I can clarify precisely what I've said.

[bazzar]

i agree with what hell diver is saying ..i had lunch with Bud Anderson back in January,,,he had said at the time he only flew a P51D twice and NEVER was a P51D named old crow..yet you see them as warbirds and in paintings.he flew a P51B,not a C a B according to him and his favorite AC of that time period?....the P39.... yet it gets blasted by those who write about it now because it had a few bad habits..the so called experts can really be shocked if they talked to the vets who were accually there and experianced it.

reminds me of the sportscasters and other sports specialists who have never played the game or drove a race car,,,yet have the gall to sit at a desk and bad mouth those that can and do the sport...

I'm sorry but if Bud Anderson never had a P51D as "old Crow" then what the hell is this on his own website? Yes indeed, let's get it right.:engel016:

[Daveroo]

I'm sorry but if Bud Anderson never had a P51D as "old Crow" then what the hell is this on his own website? Yes indeed, let's get it right.:engel016:

ask him yourself...ill get you his email addy if you want..he told me he flew a P51D twice in all of WWII....call me a liar if you will but im just telling you what the man told me..i dont give a **** whats on his website or anywhere else...he sat two feet from me with onion breath and told me this fact

you people allways seem to know everything...this is excatly what helldiver is talking about..you dont know..im telling you what the man told me...face to face..leave it alone or ask him yourself

cea1060@sbcglobal.net.....that IS buds email...ASK HIM

[bazzar]

ummm then who is this?....

[PRB]

On the lighter side of the news, you just gave me the choice of my next book to read on WWII.

Thanks!:jump:

Bill

It's a great read. I've always had a nagging suspicion that Frank Jack Fletcher was delt a bum rap by history, but could never quite put my finger on it. I think this may have been from Lundstrom himself, in his two previous books, “The First Team”, and “The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign”. For me the most eye opening chapters in this book on Fletcher are those on the Battle of Midway. Most accounts of the BOM, until this one, portray Spruance as the victor of Midway, and the “de facto” officer in charge of the Midway cruise. Fletcher is depicted as merely “technically” in charge of the combined TF-16 and TF-17 fleet, but in reality, a confused and behind the power curve figure-head, playing second fiddle to Spruance's brilliance. If Lundstrom is even half right, the opposite was true. And it makes sense. Fletcher had just come from the first carrier vs. carrier battle in history, Coral Sea, less than a month prior. He and his staff had invaluable experience, but due to the limited time between Coral Sea and Midway, and the fact that Yorktown, the center of TF-17, was damaged and in desperate need of quick repair, the transfer of knowledge and “lessons learned” between TF-17 and 16 could not be effectively accomplished in the time available. And if you look at the results at BOM, the Yorktown and TF-17 turned in the best performance. Good stuff. A great book. All of this is to the point that we, as readers of history, have also a responsibility as evaluators of history.

[robert41]

Hello. I understand and agree with what Helldiver is saying. After reading or hearing about something historic that happened, to later read or talk to someone that was there and find out that things where a little different than history says. Or what is become popular, is not always the full story. I enjoy hearing what Helldiver has to say, same as my uncles, they where there, I was not.

[bazzar]

ask him yourself...ill get you his email addy if you want..he told me he flew a P51D twice in all of WWII....call me a liar if you will but im just telling you what the man told me..i dont give a **** whats on his website or anywhere else...he sat two feet from me with onion breath and told me this fact

you people allways seem to know everything...this is excatly what helldiver is talking about..you dont know..im telling you what the man told me...face to face..leave it alone or ask him yourself

cea1060@sbcglobal.net.....that IS buds email...ASK HIM

No I will not email him.

I have a famous WW2 vet in my family. Much decorated and author of books. He told me once that the problem with age is that you spend the period immediately after the war, trying to forget. Then, 20 years later you spend all of your time trying to remember.

I take extreme exception to being included in "you people", nobody knows everything, including the vets themselves. I was not trying to intimate that I knew anything. But I can read and I can make, like all of us, assumptions.

My take? I think he might, just might, at your lunch, have got his suffixes mixed up. Simple and understandable, we all do it whatever the age.

If somebody can supply a valid explanation for a picture of Bud sitting on a P51D with Old Crow and a pilot panel with his name on it, please enlighten us all.

[Helldiver]

It was never my intent in knocking down the efforts of the SBDs and their crews. They put up a valiant effort.
I just want equal time for the Helldiver. It was not the "Beast" that everybody believes. It was bigger, faster, had greater range and could fold it's wings, an important capability aboard a carrier.
But for the author to completely ignore the TBF Avenger is unforgivable.
I don't pretend to know alll that went on. I can only judge from my own experience which differs a lot with some of these so called historians.

[PRB]

It was never my intent in knocking down the efforts of the SBDs and their crews. They put up a valiant effort.
I just want equal time for the Helldiver. It was not the "Beast" that everybody believes. It was bigger, faster, had greater range and could fold it's wings, an important capability aboard a carrier.
But for the author to completely ignore the TBF Avenger is unforgivable.
I don't pretend to know alll that went on. I can only judge from my own experience which differs a lot with some of these so called historians.

Roger that, Helldiver. There's a lot of numbnuts out there publishing "history". On the other hand, there are a lot of serious people trying to get it right, by digging up original sources, like decalssified messages and other documentaion, as well as other first hand accounts from those who were there. The challange for us youngsters is to sift through all the published accounts and try to learn which is true and makes sensse. Having somebody like you around here to keep us "on course", as it were, is priceless!! :salute:

[Daveroo]

apparently bud anderson has lost his memery...shame huh?

[c87]

In my opinion everyone's reality is jaded by their own beliefs and prejudices resulting in completely different interpretations of the same event. One of my other hobbies is reading WWII history. I personally think that someone who does their homework relative to research can present an accurate accounting of the facts. In many cases, that research includes the testimony of those who were there and experienced the events first-hand.

My now deceased father who was a crew chief and engine change mechanic on C-87s flying The Hump probably thought that that aircraft was one that 'won the war'. My Forum handle bears my own prejudice toward this airplane. But was it truly the airplane that won the war? Probably not. In reality, I don't think many people even know what a C-87 is, and that's ok too. I believe more in the collective efforts of many; men, women and machines, for the victories and subsequent benefits we enjoy today, rather than the individual contribution of one person, group or airplane.

Having a bit of marketing experience, I'm aware of the techniques and strategies used to sell magazines and get email marketing messages "opened". To me a title like "The Planes That Won The War" should be taken with a grain of salt. It might not be historically accurate, but I'm sure the author (or probably the publisher) wanted a title that would sell the article. It's no different than movies that are really entertainment products that are discounted for not being historically accurate. They're not intended to be the final account of history.

I agree with Helldiver's position that when reading an accounting on WWII we should be cognizant of the resources used. I disagree with his position that if it was written by someone born after the conflict, those sources are questionable.

[Lewis-A2A]

apparently bud anderson has lost his memery...shame huh?

Dave, just out of interest and a laugh to be honest, what would you be saying if Chuck Yeager came along and told us all of his fun days back in the later war years flying P-51D's with his old wingman, Anderson. :kilroy:

PS, I ADMIT IT, I AND OTHERS WHO LIKE TO USE LOGIC, EVIDENCE OUR BRAINS, CLEARLY KNOW IT ALL, EVERYTHING EVER. ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US, HAZXOR L33T ETC ETC... If your going to treat us like children we might as well act like them!

[JoeW]

My 2 cents ............... :jump:

When someone says they did so-N-so, I believe them. Years later if that same person says they didn't do it, I believe them. People say they did things and later change their minds. They also say they didn't do things and later say different.
Back in the 70's I smoked my share of Mojo all the while saying I didn't. I had a job and child support and bills to pay and that was my decision. I don't smoke any more at all and don't work and don't have any bills so I can go the other way. Hell yes I smoked ........ enough to fill a semi. I'm making that statement because I want to and can now. Doesn't matter.
On WW2, I was in diapers about that time and was really upset because my cap gun was broke and couldn't get another. It didn't matter because I couldn't get caps either.
What I'm saying is that people say things and later change for all kinds of reasons. Why not just smile and remember what they say because it just may be the truth. How are you going to prove otherwise. It happened that way to them or they wouldn't say it.

[safn1949]

And any WW 2 combat vet is twice the man I'll ever be,and that's a fact.:d

[Bjoern]

If you want something unbiased have a human write an AI who in turn writes an AI who in turn writes an AI who in turn writes an AI who in turn writes an AI (to wash out any trace of bias the human brought into the code) who writes a book about WWII.

As long as you've got humans writing books you will have more or less bias in them, even if they're trying very, very hard to eliminate it.

Edward Sims did a fairly good job at an objective account of all three major western airpowers during WW2, but he was a fighter pilot for the USAAF himself so yeah, there's a bias.

I say the more detached you are from an occurred event, the better you can take everything into account objectively.

If someone who never served knocked down the combat value of the Leopard 2 compared to other current MBTs I'd violently disagree. Because I'm biased. Even though that guy may be right because he never had anything to do with tanks personally and could tackle the whole thing objectively.