Customer Reviews

American Fighter-Bombers in World War II: Usaaf Jabos in the Mto and Eto (Schiffer Military History)

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

After producing a comprehensive record of fighter aces in VICTORY ROLL, William Wolf turned his attention to an underappreciated facet of WW2 air combat--the American fighter-bombers or "jabos," as the Germans called them.

As Wolf writes in USAAF JABOS, "Over the Mediterranean and Northwest Europe, the fighter ace and dogfighter received the praise and publicity while the strafer and dive-bomber did unheralded journeyman's work. The interceptor/escort fighter pilot flew many uneventful missions without meeting an enemy aircraft. The fighter-bomber pilot often flew one or more daily sorties against a wide range of targets extending from the frontlines to several hundred miles behind enemy lines. On every mission he flew into the teeth of the heaviest flak and small arms fire encountered in the war, often sustaining heavy losses. The measure of his effort has never been truly appreciated, but the fighter-bomber pilot was a major player in the air war over Europe and Italy."

Wolf reportedly has the largest personal library of WW2 aviation books and microfilm in the world and it shows in the mind-boggling amount of information that he brings to USAAF JABOS. Wolf provides a systematic account of all US fighter-bomber campaigns in the European and Mediterranean theaters of operation. He also provides detailed information on the aircraft, weapons, tactics, targets, enemy defenses, and more. In all, this hefty book is almost 400 pages and packed full of rare photos. It is an unmatched and indispensable resource. With this book, the USAAF fighter-bomber pilots are finally getting their fair due.

Extremely well-research and extremely well-written comprehesive review of US Fighter-Bomber's in WWII Occupied Europe/Italy. Very readable coverage of aircraft, equipment, armament, tactics, anti-air craft and missions. Seems prejudiced toward the P-47, but otherwise even-handed discussion of what worked, why, how and the impacts/limitations of FB use. A definate 'Buy' for any WWII History buff. A most-readable book.

CRIQITUE UPON INITIAL CURSORY REVIEW OF: "USAAF JABOS IN THE MTO AND ETO: AMERICAN FIGHTER-BOMBERS IN WORLD WAR II," William Wolf, c. 2003, Schiffer Publishing

In due course, I will be citing specific and widespread errors encountered in this book, similar to what I am currently focusing on in my critique of the author's books on WW II armament. Although times does not permit a more thorough review at the present, I would note that there are serious deficiencies to be noted, particularly in the discussion of German armor that was the subject of much attention by the P-47 units at the core of the book.

As I have previously stated elsewhere, merely having a large collection of data and source material does not guarantee useful application of the same. In this case, I will post the following findings to illustrate precisely what I mean. The author continually posts derogatory comments alleging that I am somehow wasting hours of time in my effort to provide evidence to both he and the rest of the larger aviation/history/modeling community that shows why I have voiced my objections to his work and asked him to improve upon the works rather than simply belittling and insulting critics.

To demonstrate how quickly and easily I can identify errors in these books, the following was limited to a 20-minute search of just photos, captions and a few paragraphs of text in this book, and here are the results:
USAAF JABOS IN THE MTO AND ETO, author Wolf:

1) Page 42, column 1: Reference to header "A-36 Apache/Invader." Text: "The A-36 was a by-product of P-51 Mustang development. Even before Louis Walt made the first flight in the XP-51 on 29 May 1942, funding for fighter aircraft had been expended for the fiscal year June 1942. But there was money in the budget for a attack aircraft, and to get the P-51 in production, Dutch Kindleburger added bomb racks and dive brakes to the P-51 Apache (the RAF designation "Mustang" was substituted in July) airframe and designated it as an attack bomber, the A-36."

INACCURACIES: Addressed in order of appearance:

1a) Neither Apache, nor Invader, were EVER official names for the P-51/A-36 family. They were common local nicknames and used by pilots and ground crew, leading to the myths surrounding their application, but they were never official. This is similar to today's A-10A Thunderbolt II attack plane, that, coincidentally, was named after the P-47 Thunderbolt at the core of this book. Tha A-10 is popularly known as the `Warthog,' as used by all pilots and maintainers, but it is NOT an official name.

1b) The A-36 was an outgrowth of the P-51 Mustang but not in quite the way that the author seems to see it in his faulty interpretation. The North American NA-73X design had been sold to the British, who were actually the ones to officially assign the name "Mustang" to the design with a formal notice from the Export Office of the British Purchasing Commission dated 09 DEC 1940 and accepted 12 DEC 1940. (See "Building The Mustang," O'Leary, c. 2010, Specialty Press, page 24, column two).

The United States Army Air Corps had little* interest in the P-51 as a fighter and Dutch Kindleburger had an uphill battle to convince them of its value. When he was told that the Army preferred Curtiss fighters but was interested in a new dive bomber/attack plane, North American focused on selling the Mustang as an attack plane, thus creating and then selling 500 of them to the US Army before the first American P-51 fighter was ever even considered. (*Though the Army was not a fan of the Mustang, before it released authorization for it to be sold to Brtiain, it stipulated that the 4th and 10th production Mk I Mustangs would be handed over to the Air Corps for evaluation).

The author suggests that the decision against the fighter version was based merely on funding. That is incorrect and flies in the face of multiple first-hand accounts from those intimately involved in the story. It is yet another example of substandard research so commonly noted with this author, and a major reason why I have objected so strenuously to his refusals to accept responsibility for such errors.

1c) First flight of the XP-51 was not by Louis Wait on 29 May 1942 but by Robert Chilton, in s/n 41-038, on 20 MAY 1941. According to Ray Wagner's book, "MUSTANG DESIGNER: EDGAR SCHMUED AND THE P-51, " c. 1990, Smithsonian Institution Press, pages 70-73, NA-73X prototype NX 19998 was first flown by Robert Chilton on 4 APR 1941. Louis Wait flew the first production NA-73, "bearing the RAF serial G345 and the company construction number (c/n) 73-3098," on 23 APR 1941.

There is no reference to 29 May anywhere in either the Wagner or the O'Leary book. However, the first flight of the XFU4-1 Corsair was on 29 May 1940, so it is possible that the author confused the date with another aircraft, strictly from memory.

1d) Photo caption for the bottom left photo on page 42 states the following: "A=Attack designation couldn't make it more than a mediocre dive-bomber." ??
NONSENSICAL STATEMENT: How does a designation for an aircraft impact performance in ANY role for that aircraft? The caption makes absolutely no sense.

1e) Photo caption for the bottom right photo on page 42 states: "North American Aviation transformed the P-51 into a dive-bomber by modifying it to a Navy dive-bomber specification with dive brakes and bomb racks (see photo) and designated it the A-36. (USAF)."

1f) ERROR: North American did NOT transform the P-51 into an A-36. The NA-73X became the Mustang Mk I, which was then labeled as an XP-51. The A-36 was developed in order to "get in the door" with the Army, with the Mustang design. Once a contract had been secured and, more importantly, the US entered WW II, the Army decided to procure P-51As. The author gets the timeline and development history completely backwards due to poor research and understanding of the subject matter. Rather than present solid information of use to serious scholars, this simply perpetuates longstanding and completely inaccurate mythology.
As to the Navy specifications mentioned, this is the result of another apparent misreading of history. The Navy provided specifications for their dive bombers. The Army had then considered buying Navy aircraft, such as the Douglas SBD-3 Dauntless, then re-designated as the A-24 in Army service in limited numbers. The A-36 was NOT designed to a Navy specification. The dive brakes on the top and bottoms of the A-36 wings were completely different from the perforated flap type dive brakes on the SBD/A-24 series.

2) ERROR: Page 77, bottom right photo caption describes aircraft depicted as a P-38 with a 20mm cannon. In fact, the aircraft is a P-39, equipped with a nose-mounted 37mm cannon. The two aircraft are absolutely nothing alike.

3) ERROR: Page 93, bottom right corner photo caption describes destroyed German Jagdpanzer MK IV tank DESTROYER as a "photo of the first of the German Mk V tanks that was [sic] stopped by the rocket attack and finished off by .50 cal machine gun strafing (USAF)." No date or location provided for the subject. Note that other photos of the same type of vehicle within the book describe it differently.

4) ERROR: Page 125, bottom right corner photo caption describes a German "armored camouflaged hangar. There is absolutely no evidence of any "armor" around the revetted and covered hardstand. The author is not an imagery interpreter and has no experience with revetments. No location or date is given and the quality of the obvious gun camera imagery is so substandard that the author couldn't even identify what kind of plane on the ground was being targeted for strafing.

5) IMPROPER PHOTO ORIENTATION: Page 147, bottom right. Photo should be rotated 90-degrees to right.

6) ERROR: Page 153, photo at top of page. Caption describes the following incorrectly: "A 37mm flak gun mounted on a Sd Kfz 251 halftrack." Vehicle is an 8-ton SdKfz 7/2 armed with a 37mm FlaK [sic] 37 L/98. This vehicle is MUCH larger than the SdKfz 251 series listed. On a more minor point, when the abbreviation of SdKfz (Sonderkraftfahrzeug, or `special purpose vehicle' ) is used, it should have s period between Sd and Kfz, or no space. Either use is common. However, since is the abbreviation for a phrase, a space implies abbreviations for two things and an empty space is improper. Admittedly, many may not appreciate the fine distinction, but it does matter to people who know the subject. And, after all, these books are supposed to be designed for the more knowledgeable or interested customer; are they not?

7) SUPERFLUOUS: Page 153, photo at bottom right. Photo caption reads "Quad-mount 20mm AA gun mounted on a medium tank chassis (US ARMY). Includes no details, tells nothing about the obvious combat damage to the knocked-out vehicle. Yet, on the very next page, the photo at bottom right corner features the same kind of vehicle and has a caption fully identifying it as follows: "Flakpanzer IV `Wirbelwind' (Whirlwind) mounted the 20mm Flakvierling 38 quadmount."

8) ERROR: Page 155, photo caption bottom right. Weapon is described as a "Light Flak Rail Car II mounting a Quad 20mm Flakvierling 38."

The weapon depicted clearly has only two 20mm barrels, so it is absolutely not a "quad" of anything. Further, the author seems unaware that the "vierling" in Flakvierling stands for precisely that: quadrupled. It is only applicable when there is a four-barreled FlaK weapon. This author clearly does not understand his subject.

9) QUESTIONABLE VALUE: Photo caption, page 162: Caption: "This well-camouflaged German tank needed to pull off to the side of the road and stop to make its camouflage effective (US ARMY).

COMMENT: The photo shows a heavily camouflaged vehicle whose identity and nationality is unknown due to the extremely heavy foliage covering it. In fact, it appears like a large shrub in the middle of a dirt lane. No date or location is given. Does the reader really need to be told what seems blatantly obvious? What is the point here? What value is added? The photo appears in the context of a discussion on the value of camouflage and how they could be found. Fine. But, to say that this vehicle needs to pull off to the side of the road, an obvious observation, is pointless. On the same token, the text describes how easily tracks of armored vehicles can be found from the air, no matter what the camouflage. So, why is it so noteworthy to mention that a camouflaged vehicle is traveling on a road where its track footprint will NOT be as obvious? Left out of the caption is the fact that, immediately to the right of the vehicle is evidence of heavy soil disruption, probably be an armored vehicle.

Another point that is completely overlooked here is that when a vehicle is so heavily camouflaged that you cannot identify ANYTHING, there are two advantages, even if it is obvious that it is a military vehicle. For one, if airpower cannot identify the target, it runs the risk of hitting friendly vehicles. Two, it prevents the attacking pilot from knowing just what he is aiming at--and expending ordnance on. Three, if the vehicle is not moving and not issuing exhaust, it may well be nothing more than a worthless decoy designed to draw fire away from serviceable vehicles. The photo WOULD have been useful for illustrating points like these but it contributes virtually nothing as it stands. I would also point out that this is precisely the kind of thing I have tried to get across to the author. He does not know things like this, due to lack of experience, yet he refuses to listen to or even respect the knowledge and expertise of others who do know this type of thing. When I cited my own background as an Air Force imagery interpreter, somebody specifically trained for this kind of work, it was denigrated and twisted into accusations of boasting. The point was to illustrate that he might wish to consider that others, beside himself, know a great deal, and he might learn from engaging in productive discussions rather than dismissing and belittling people.

10) QUESTIONABLE VALUE, PHOTO CAPTION: On page 163, at lower left, there is an aerial photo of a group of German armored vehicles in what I would agree is very likely France, but could be virtually anywhere. The caption states the following and is copied precisely as written: "Renown [sic] German camouflage discipline is certainly lacking in this photo of Panzers in full retreat in France (USAF)."

First of all, there is no evidence of any "retreat." Vehicles are dispersed and have their turrets facing forward. To demonstrate evidence of "retreat," we would need to see a line of vehicles making an orderly column movement in a single direction. None of the tank barrels are rotated into what is referred as travel mode, with the main gun pointed backwards and locked in position for high-speed movement while preventing the main gun barrel from bobbing about. The vehicle in the center actually appears to be destroyed. Two others, on the left, appear to be Tiger I tanks.

Most important of all, there is no such breakdown in discipline. The extremely heavy evidence of tank tracks is unavoidable when tanks are undergoing high rates of maneuver. In fact, since even one set of tracks would be noticeable from the air, the huge number of tracks here actually HELPS the Germans because it masks just how many vehicles are present and any attacking plane would have difficulty following the tracks to any particular tank. It is a confusing mass of lines that provides no intel value. Again, the author is not an imagery interpreter, has no experience with armored vehicles and imagery analysis, and yet he pointlessly makes unfounded judgments with unqualified opinions. Consult experts, get a definitive answer and use the photo to illustrate something useful.

11) INCOMPLETE/MISSING INFORMATION: Photo and caption on bottom of page 172. Caption: "The flag was placed under the wings and on the fuselage of American aircraft in North Africa to emphasize to the vacillating French of the US presence. This P-40 belonged to the 33rd Fighter Group that had low-serviceability and sustained high losses and was replaced by the 325th Group (USAF).

US flags were applied to US aircraft for Operation Torch, the allied invasion of North Africa, but even British aircraft received US national insignia! Read the details in the attached Naval Aviation News article from 1992 [...]. The British had bombed French ships in 1940, to keep them from falling into German hands, and the French in North Africa had long, bitter memories. To avoid resentful French fire, British planes wore US markings.

More important in this photo is something completely neglected. The national insignia on the rare fuselage bears a ring around it that appears white in the black-and-white photo but is actually a yellow band that was ordered applied around the roundel markings of all Allied aircraft. The order stipulated that the yellow would be placed around all round insignia on both sides of the fuselage and any markings on the bottoms of the wings. The Navy did this with its aircraft and it is why you will find star markings on the top of planes like F4F Wildcats with a yellow surround on the fuselage markings but NOT on those of the upper wings (see the article mentioned above for a photo). The Army Air Corps, however, seems to have misread the memo or decided to ignore it and they had a yellow surround on EVERY national insignia marking, top, bottom, sides, and anywhere else you could imagine. I would also note that two color plate views of these aircraft on pages 370 and 372 also bear the yellow surround and yet nothing in the captions of those color plates mentions the circles, either. Apparently, the author is unaware of the significance or simply doesn't care to make note of it. Those interested in history, aircraft markings--or both-- are thus shortchanged.

12) SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCY: The index in a book that is almost 400 pages long includes absolutely no information in it but a list of names. If you want to look up a name of somebody whom you have heard about, or you know of somebody who flew these missions, it may be great. However, for historians and researchers, and even casual users, the index is an absolute waste and inexcusably deficient for a book of this size and cost. This author has admitted to me, in past correspondence, that he hates doing indexes for his books. Unfortunately, that is part of the job and failure to do it leaves the work sorely lacking. Who really wants to read or scan through 369 pages of text, in order to find a particular passage. Once again, as with so many other errors and common failings of Wolf books, this laziness and sloppiness greatly reduces the value of the overall product. You don't know this until you see the book and since this publisher does not allow online sites to show sample pages, you would be unaware of this gross failure until you bought the book and had it in hand, as I did. This is precisely why I have engaged in revealing my detailed critiques of these books. It is not part of a vendetta, as the author libelously charges, but an effort to disclose facts that he will not admit to and will not accept responsibility for, much less pledge to fix. Potential customers need to know about these shortcomings and current owners need to be aware of how deficient and unreliable this particular book is if you are going to use it as a reference.

CLOSING STATEMENT FOR INITIAL REVIEW: There is almost certainly more to look at in this book and find fault with but I made a decision to stop after 20 minutes of looking. All that is covered above was done in JUST CASUAL PERUSAL OF THE PHOTOS! After I have completed my review of the two Volumes on Aerial Armament, I will return to complete an in-depth review of this book. This is only the beginning of this particular analysis and should not be construed as the full extent of problems to be found with the book.

Ronald Lewis