Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JohnHistory (talk | contribs) at 12:11, 20 March 2007 (→This Article is Historical Garbage and Make Believe!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Military history: Aviation / United States / World War II Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force United States military history task force World War II task force

Does anyone know where I can get the movie Tuskegg Airmen?

Names of the more prominent flyers

My library is in a shambles, but it would be nice to add the names of some of the other prominent members of the group, there were several well-known and decorated officers......--Pmeisel 19:33, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Britannica highlight

An article entitled Tuskegee Airmen appeared at britannica.com as a Britannica highlight on 30 May 2005. See . Courtland 16:59, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

Does this page need semi-protection?

I am not a wiki admin, just a writer, but ever since this page entered my watchlist, i have seen regular instances of racialist (anti-African American) vandalism. I reverted one such attack today, after several hours during which i reported it, hoped a bot or an admin would fix it, and saw it was still online in candalized form. Is there is some standard delimiting the number of racialist attacks per month/year/whatever that must be endured before admins give thought to the semi-protction of a page? I counted 10 revesions due to racialist vandalism on this page since January 1, 2006. Catherineyronwode 23:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Equipment and Statistics

The previous entry contained some factual errors. The Tuskegee Airmen may have flown P-39s in the US, but I can find no indication that they flew Airacobras overseas. Dr. Frank Olynyk's Mediterranean Theater victory list for USAAF units shows only P-40s, 47s (April-May '44), and 51s.

The figure of 400 German aircraft destroyed is not supported by any source I have found. The four squadrons' cumulative total of aerial victories is 113. Claims for grounded German planes are unknown.

The episode in which a German destroyer was reported sunk by gunfire was apparently an Italian patrol boat run aground. I cannot find the source right now, but it was in a naval journal. I'll see if I can relocate. At any rate, no such German destroyer appears in any compilation of Kriegsmarine losses in Italy, and it has never been identified. The ship's name or number would be welcome information. Meanwhile, the episode seems a simple case of misidentification--common in combat.

Here's an Axis history chronology for June 44, month of the event, with no mention:

http://www.feldgrau.com/june.html

I believe that the TV movie stated that the 332nd shot down "3 of the 8 German jets destroyed by the allies," and the claim has been accepted at face value. In fact, total USAAF fighter claims alone ran about 160, plus bomber gunners and the RAF jet claims. See Wm. Hess, "German Jets Vs. the Army Air Force" (1996).

Problem Solved

Turns out that the "destroyer" was a WW I Italian torpedo boat redesignated TA-22 by the Germans. There were in fact no German destroyers in the Mediterranean--no mission for them.

http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/captured/torpedoboats/ta/ta22/index.html

Please sign your entries. The 332nd initially flew P-39s, except the 99th (P-40s), while with the 12th AF. They were not an escort group at this point and so did not engage in air-to-air combat. But they did fly P-39s in Italy. In June they converted to the P-51 and began their escort role--all of the claims for the 100th, 301st, and 302nd date after 6-9-44. The official kill credits are 108.5 but this figure may have been revised upward, since Buddy Archer was originally credited with only 4 kills. The highest scoring group against German jets was the 357th Fighter Group (Yeager's group) with 18. TV movies are entertainment; an encyclopedia should strive for truthfulness, wherevr that goes.--Buckboard 08:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Previous Pilots All White?

That statement requires elaboration. As written, it is false. Hispanics were fairly common in military aviation (the first US airman killed at Pearl Harbor was Ensign Manuel Gonzales) and there were some Indians (Lt. Hiawatha Mohawk flew P-51s.) --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.134.240 (talk • contribs)

• Thanks for the notice. I'll make the changes. --Dystopos 18:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah but were the white hispanics or brown hispanics? Considering the complexities of racial terms it may be safer to just say blacks were not allowed. --Gbleem 12:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Historical Questions

I am not going to edit this page or criticize it given the factual controversy which seems irrelevant to me re the TA reputation, but it deserves careful editing and then locking to prevent racist attacks. The central fact of the Tuskegee Airmenis the wonder that not only did they exist, but they won well-deserved honors against great odds. Historical accuracy is a sometimes elusive, especially when there's a movie around "based on a true story." The TA Airmen experience is not immune from the fog of war. You don't have to be perfect to be good or great.

"Never lost a bomber" is almost certainly wrong. A historian for the "Tuskegee Airmen Inc." - William F. Holton -- does not believe that claim is true. There is a story (with an unfortunate numb headline) at the Washington Post for December 11, 2006 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/11/AR2006121100657.html) in which he says Air Force records indicate at least a few bombers were shot down while under escort by the TA. His research meshes with that of Daniel Haulman of the Air Force Historical Research Agency at Maxwell-Gunter Air Force Base in Montgomery, Al.

This is from that story. "The president of the Tuskegee Airmen Inc., retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Russell Davis, said he will no longer claim in speeches that the group never lost a bomber under its escort." Also "One mission report says that on July 26, 1944: "1 B-24 seen spiraling out of formation in T/A (target area) after attack by E/A (enemy aircraft). No chutes seen to open." A second report, dated Aug. 31, 1944, praises group commander Gen. Benjamin O. Davis Jr. by saying he "so skillfully disposed his squadrons that in spite of the large number of enemy fighters, the bomber formation suffered only a few losses." A third report says that on Sept. 12, 1944: "10 Me-109s attacked the rear of the bomber formation from below and left one B-17 burning, with 6 chutes seen to open."

The article concludes: " The only way to determine the group's true record is to scour the post-mission reports of bomber groups that were escorted by the Airmen's P-51 fighters. Alan Gropman, who teaches at the National Defense University in Washington, told the Advertiser that more research is needed, but added: "Even if they lost three or four bombers, it would still be minuscule compared to the losses incurred by white pilots who also escorted bombers."

That last comment is odd, because if there is a message from the Tuskegee Airmen story it is that the color of someone's skin does not indicate the quality of the man or woman. Followup stories from the AP http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/16/AR2006121600849.html in Mongomery cite interview with bomber pilot Warren Ludlum of NJ as confirming his b-24 was shot down while under Red Tail Escort.But Ludlum also says he " liked being escorted by them because of their aggressiveness. He said he knew he was being escorted by the Tuskegee Airmen on the day he was shot down because one of them, Starling B. Penn, was shot down at the same time and ended up in the same German prison camp as Ludlum."

Whatever their individual attitudes, it makes no sense to compare pilots based on race -- except that the pervasive racism have resulted in the TA being better trained and some of its pilots were more experienced than others -- of both races. The nature of the war varied by year, month, day and mission. There is a possible explanation of how the myth started. It is possible that there are several reasons for the myth. But the TA includes roughly a thousand pilots and more support. A fighter group would probably have operated 75 aircraft (can't be sure of the number without records) and the TA groups probably comprised 150 pilots not including rotations. Everyone doesn't know everything and mission stats would have been classified. Even the "good war" required heroes and sometimes a little polish were given to reality.

Bomber pilot Colin P. Kelly Jr, WWII's first American hero, did not win the Medal of Honor and he did not as reported sink the Battleship Haruna which was confused with the heavy cruiser Ashigara and which was not damaged by the attack of Kelly or four other B-17s. Both ships survived until near the end of the war. Although recommended for the Medal of Honor, Kelly won a Distinguished Service Cross. His flying allowed most of his crew to esacape a badly damaged plane. The embellishment of a sunken battleship could have been deliberate as a public moral booster or, just as likely an inaccurate report that was difficult to correct after the fact.

A fair amount of assumed belief and printed material of WWII has turned out to be wrong in detail. The only way to even approach some reality on the TA would for the historians to comb through the TA mission reports whch is harder than it might seem. And to be thoroughly accurate, there would need to be a day to day matchup of Allied information with that of the Axis. What they will find is people who performed well under fire and who must have had bad days and good. Being "ordianry" pilots under the circumstances was a great feat. A heart surgeon who never loses a patient is taking the hard cases. Is a pilot in a great airplane who holds off an opposiion pilot superior to one in a lesser plane who sometimes fails.

Movies usually get things wrong, i.e "Pearl Harbor" was filled with errors/mistakes as was "Memphis Belle. But Pearl Harbor happened and the Memphis Belle flew its missions. The TA were in the European theater early and stayed late. They didn't win the war. They were part of winning the war despite everything which what makes them important. By being where they were, they did much to start changing thingsl, sometimes one person at a time. An example is at http://www.af.mil/news/airman/0202/crew.html

The claims about jet aircraft are just careless mistakes. Some may have believed that to be the case, but allied pilots learned reasonably well to cope with the German jets (and the v1 Buzz bomb). Despite their speed advantage, there were tradeoffs that could be exploited. One writer . despite their speed and pilot advantage (good, experienced pilots, many aces, were assigned). Alllied pilots learned to ambush them on their landling glide paths, taking out 15 in one day according to one account. Ureliable engines killed some. Lack of fuel kept many aircraft on the ground in the late stages.

Was it a cruiser, a destroyer or a gunboat. The action report may say one thing and the reality be another. Misjudgments happen and can be easier than eathbound tpes thing. A lot of mistakes were made and till are. The real mistake is to hang the TA's reputation on some myth while the reality is extraordinary as it is.

Some truly represensible whie racists were heroic pilots during the same war.Their success or lack of success in other cases did not change who they were. Getting the TA right is not embellishing a classic struggle. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.120.63.94 (talk) 07:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

This Article is Historical Garbage and Make Believe!

There are so many unsourced claims for the Tuskegee Myth's presented here. This whole article is just a word for word copy of the not factual History Show on the TA. They got into the war late, 1942 was the time of major air combat losses for USA/UK not 1944-45 they did lose bombers, (losing planes is a sign of being in combat, FLAK, etc) This late in the war there were less trained pilots, less pilots period, and less AA/AAA. Less air combat/ surface to air attack by then period! They wer enever requested directly by Army Air Coprs pilots. they were not better then other aviators despite being cherry picked from Ivey League Colleges. The Germans did not have a nickname for them Like "Black birdmen". This article is histrocial garbage! My earlier critiques were deleted on the Talk Page by some person pretending to their duty. First my posts were changed to make them sound racist, then deleted. Go figure! Get some sources (maybe even some good ones?) or get out of here with this nonsense masqerading as history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.192.101.77 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 13 March 2007.

Please stop. If you continue to delete or blank page contents or templates from Misplaced Pages, as you did to Talk:Tuskegee Airmen, you will be blocked from editing. . --Ezeu 20:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I see you have considerable interest in this article. If you continue along your present path, you'll simply find your IP address blocked. On the other hand, if you change tactics, research the subject a bit, and make some constructive, sourced (verifiable and reliable) recommendations for changes, you'll find most editors here willing to listen. Rklawton 20:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

1) I checked today, and all my comments were deleted, by who..you probably! So I said if that's the way you do it, then fine. BTW, I have been contributing here for over 5 years in a somewhat vain attempt to make these articles accurate and historically true. Often the problem is no sources or horrible ones, with rampant assertions running lose as in this article. I don't have just one ISP address BTW. Instead of being bull-headed work with me to make this article accurate, and not some sort "feel good"garbage that does not hold water!!!!1

2) -It is you people, who are writing and locking this subject who are tasked with the duty of finding good verifiable sources for your claims and unfounded written assertions, which are LOCKED INTO THE ARTICLE, not me, sir!!!!!!!!!!!

Please take a good taste, it's your own medicine! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.101.77 (talk • contribs)

1. If you will review the edit history, you will see that I am not deleting your edits.
2. Why not pick a sentence you find objectionable, copy it below, provide alternative wording, provide one or more verifiable, reliable sources for your change, and see what people think about it? Rklawton 04:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If you review the edit history, not only will you see that Rklawton was not deleting your edits, but that no one edited this Talk page between the time you first started accusing this of being "garbage" and when you flew off the handle at some imaginary "race-baiting edit pirate". Only when you started displaying signs of being less than rational -- extremely less than rational -- did any editors remove your incoherent ramblings from this page. And deservedly so, in my opinion; if you want to lay out a well-reasoned case for changes in the article, we're more than happy to listen to you but if you're going to throw about ridiculous accusations of race-baiting, left-wing conspiracy, etc. and simply rant and rave, please find another outlet for your frustrations.--chris.lawson 01:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this your ploy, commenting here all of the sudden? BTW, My original discussion posts were edited by someone else and then they were deleted. That was before the "garbage" one, which explains why I was a little upset/intense in the above post but nothing to be ashamed of. Nice try Chris. "#" Here you go agian demonstrating with your language why you shouldn't be an administrator. I was not "incoherent" or "extremely less then rational" "rambling". I think I made my points well. Not to mention my major problem was all of the "citation needed" for claims in this article. But my problems with this aricle don't even come close to my problems, and other people's problems too, with you and the Red Baron article. This is a total sideshow distraction and beside the point. JohnHistory 11:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class military aviation articles
• Military aviation task force articles
• Start-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles
• Start-Class World War II articles
• World War II task force articles