Customer Reviews

Fast Movers: Jet Pilots and the Vietnam Experience

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

HORRIBLE with some bright spots. I shudder to think that this man is a Naval historian. I flew over 400 combat missions (in A-4s and A-7s) from carriers in SEA. I flew with many of the men mentioned in the book.

The author states as fact opinions of some of his subjects. He uses incorrect terminology. He quotes stories with glaringly incorrect information. (pg 160, Harrison's flameout landing: he says Joe Simon was the "maintenance chief" but goes on to quote Simon telling Harrison that he, Simon, is the commanding officer - impossible!

Pg 183 - he quotes Nichols as saying "You're going to learn to be a yo-yo." No fighter pilot would say that - yo-yo is a term in air to air combat describing "using the vertical" - Nichols was obviously saying he would teach them to yo-yo. He says the Navy made the officer's club at Cubi for the pilots and the one at Subic for the married officers. Absolutely untrue. Cubi point WAS the Naval Air Station and Subic was the Naval base, there was no fence between the two but there was no segregation either. Each base had its own officer's club and the Cubi club was definitely less sedate because it was most frequented by pilots , in part because it was closest to where the carriers docked.

There are countless more errors of fact in the book, too many to make Sherwood a credible writer.

And how does a Naval historian write about the air war in SEA without mentioning either the A-4 or A-7 aircraft?

I hope the author is more careful with his facts when acting in his capacity as Naval Historian!

I hope the author is more careful with his facts when acting in his capacity as Naval Historian!

Sherwood tells the story mostly from the view point of Air Force missions and surprisingly, mostly from navigators. The yarns are mostly good although there are some silly statements. The reader will get almost no idea that Naval Aviation had any real presence in North Vietnam. Where are the stories about the A4 Skyhawk which probably had the most missions of any type of aircraft flown up north? Where are the A7 stories? Most aggravating of all, not a single mention of the Navy's Ace, Randy Cunningham. Where are the stories of the Navy pilots who flew 300 and 400 missions? Every pilot who flew up North has some hilarious stories and some heartbreaking stories. You missed almost all of them, Sherwood. Also, before one puts Official Naval Historian under one's name he really should know something about the US Navy and Naval Aviation. I had over 200 missions over there and would say to the reader, you really will only get half the story in this book. The Air Force half.

As a Reagan-era USAF pilot whose only direct knowledge of the Vietnam War is from the stories of the veteran pilots that I had the fortunate opportunity to learn from, I get a bit troubled when I read "military history" that includes author opinions like the following:

"... Roger Locher and Bob Lodge had clearly become so absorbed in the killing process on 10 May that they lost track of reality: their basic survival instincts were eclipsed by blood lust. Lodge, in particular, had no other life to live, no wife, no child, not even a girlfriend or a hobby. Killing was his only passion."

Or this:

"(Steve Ritchie's) training and preparation prevented him from falling into the same emotional trap that killed Lodge."

It would be one thing if the actual participants were directly quoted making these statements. It is entirely another thing to have a so-called historian some 28 years after the fact make these grand judgements about the mental well-being of a man who made a common combat mistake. What I smell is controversy-motivated psycho-history to sell books.

The reason I purchased this book was to read the "facts" about the "stories" I had heard about an USAF pilot who choice death to avoid capture. What I read was a hatchet job on a man who can't even defend his honor because he made the ultimate sacrifice for his country while I and this author were still playing "cops and robbers" at recess in elementary school.

May Robert Lodge rest in peace. He was a combat pilot who made a mistake and paid for it with his life. Those are the historical facts. Any judgments about his mental state, his motivations, or what he was thinking at the time is historical fiction.

HORRIBLE with some bright spots. I shudder to think that this man is a Naval historian. I flew over 400 combat missions from carriers in SEA. I flew with many of the men mentioned in the book.

The author states as fact opinions of some of his subjects. He uses incorrect terminology. He quotes stories with glaringly incorrect information. (pg 160, Harrison's flameout landing: he says Joe Simon was the "maintenance cheif but goes on to quote Simon telling Harrison that he, Simon, is the commanding officer - impossible!

Pg 183 - he quotes Nichols as saying "You're going to learn to be a yo-yo." No fighter pilot would say that - yo-yo is a term in air to air combat describing "using the vertical" - Nichols was obvioulsly saying he would teach them to yo-yo. He says the Navy made the officer's club at Cubi for the pilots and the one at Subic for the married officers. Absolutely untrue. Cubi point WAS the Naval Air Station and Subic was the Naval base, there was no fence between the two but there was no segregation either. Each base had its own officer's club and the Cubi club was definitely less sedate because it was most frequented by pilots , in part because it was closest to where the carriers docked.

He uses "Iron Hand" to describe an Air Force Wild Weasel mission. ( Iron Hand was strictly a Navy term.) There are countless more errors of fact in the book, too many to make Sherwood a credible writer.

And how does a Naval historian write about the air war in SEA without mentioning either the A-4 or A-7 aircraft?

I hope the author is more careful with his facts when acting in his capacity as Naval Historian!

Having waded through the author's previous work on Korean fighter pilots, it was with some hesitation that I read this book. In effect, it is a continuation of his explication of the "flight suit culture" of military aviators and how they fly and fight. It is also a semi-psychological profile of jet aviators. Having been through Navy flight training, I can attest first hand to the status of jet aviators in the services. I was particularly dismayed by the almost complete lack of acknowledgement of the Navy light attack community, the A4s and A7s. I say "almost" because the story of Mike Estocin, an A4 pilot of VA-192 who won the Medal of Honor posthumously, is told as an adjunct to the story of F8 driver and Mig killer John Nichols. That this is a sort of history is undeniable. It tells of the US involvement in the Vietnam war and the horrid mismanagement of it. The trouble is that it is so anecdotal that it appears that only those oral accounts that support the author's point of view are included. Some aviators of the era come off very badly in the stories told and others seem almost fictionally perfect. Some of the prose is melodramatic in the extreme as if writing the facts alone wouldn't be exciting enough. This is, too, almost exclusively an Air Force book and because of that, balance is lacking. Of course, the book is short, but to leave out the fact that the Navy had an ace too is incomprehensible. I was interested to find the background of thriller novelist Tom Wilson in the book; he was a Wild Weasel backseater, which accounts for the accuracy in his early books. The section on the POWs was, again, a reinforcement of the author's perception of flight suit culture. While interesting, that section was nothing new and has been better done in other works.

All in all, less pretension and simply telling the aviators' stories with minimal explication would have made a better history book. What this means is that the definitive history of flight ops in Vietnam has yet to be written. Hopefully this book will stir someone to do it right.

I see that Mr. Smallwood likes S.L.A. Marshall; no wonder. Marshall made up much of his work, especially the infamous "only one man in ten in combat fires his weapon," and it seems Smallwood follows his example by making up episodes to keep the book interesting. Much of what he says, especially the Ritchie/Lodge episodes, is simply wrong, except perhaps from Ritchie's eyes. One shudders to think this person will be writing serious history for the Navy. Skip it -- try Thud Ridge for real combat action and Clashes for real history, or wait a few months for Rebound.

I got it; I read it; I liked it; it was true; I know, I was there. I was familiar with a lot of the content because I lived it. The stories are factual and give the reader a good "feel" for flying fighters and for being a POW in Vietnam. Only one thing would have made it better; if I had been able to read a LOT more about my favorite.....that brave, bold, charming, courageous, daring, dashing, calculatingly defiant and all around wonderful character, J. B. Souder.

Sherwood's gripping account of fighter pilots in the Vietnam War is one of the most insightful and well-written accounts of that bloody conflict I have ever read. Growing up listening to my father's tales of life as a ground crewman at Da Nang in '68, I could well imagine plight of the brave men featured in "Fast Movers." Sherwood does honor to those men who fought in that unappreciated war, while capturing the spirit of their comradery and the pain of their suffering.

No account of warfare can be without controversy, and to be sure, "Fast Movers" will raise some. Memories fade and personal accounts are shaped by the passage of time-- especially those of combat veterans. The author can only do his best to cross-check facts with others who were there. If minor discrepancies in the oral history arise, we can only accept that such is the nature of the media. From this reader's perspective, I can only say that this account rang as true to me as the memories of my father's experiences were to him.

The air war over Southeast Asia showcased the proud, dedicated Americans who unselfishly did what was asked of them. This group, highly motivated though they were, was unfortunately misused and mismanaged by the very government that sent them there. True or not, many still feel that if they had been allowed to do what they had been trained for, most of their friends would still be alive, and Vietnam would not be seen as a "loss." Indeed, the common retort was "We were winning when I left."

The new book Fast Movers: Jet Pilots and the Vietnam Experience takes a hard look at some of those men and what ultimately inspires them. Author John Sherwood, official historian of the U.S. Naval Historical Center, is well suited to bring this long-overdue book to the public. He realized that most books dealt only with air war tactics. Few examined the warriors themselves. With over 300 interviews and extensive research, Sherwood attempts to reveal the personal side of these pilots. Contrary to most opinions, these men wanted to be there, to test themselves against the most hostile environment ever designed. They were the "fast movers", those who flew jet fighters and attack aircraft. In all, 14 pilots are examined here: some Air Force and some Navy, some famous and some not. Whether battling the North Vietnamese defenses or trying to survive in such places as the Hanoi Hilton, these military professionals proved they had "the right stuff." John Sherwood tells their story well.

Robert S. DeGroat, Flight Journal

PLEASE DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME, MONEY OR AN OUNCE OF EFFORT READING THIS RIDICULOUS TRASH!!! I was so upset while reading this clown's book that I had to convince myself to finish it, solely for purposes of writing an accurate critique. This so-called "naval historian" knows less about naval aerial combat techniques and terminology than Martha Stewart!!! But what I found MOST disturbing was the way this coward defamed and slandered a navy pilot who was killed in Vietnam. To make such an egregious statement as "Roger Locher and Bob Lodge had clearly become so absorbed in the killing process on 10 May that they lost track of reality: their basic survival instincts were eclipsed by blood lust. Lodge, in particular, had no other life to live, no wife, no child, not even a girlfriend or a hobby. Killing was his only passion." ARE YOU KIDDING ME????? To make the comment regarding Bob Lodge that "KILLING WAS HIS ONLY PASSION" because he wasn't married or had children is the MOST INCREDULOUS, IRRESPONSIBLE statement I have ever heard!!! For this IDIOT to use terms like "BLOOD LUST" to describe what, at that time, were irrefutably THE WORLD'S MOST WELL-TRAINED, WELL-DISCIPLINED PILOTS IN THE WORLD is both unprofessional, childish and completely irresponsible. Mr. Sherwood you are not worthy to wipe the boots of one of these men let alone write such vitriolic, childish dribble. I will never understand why such small people feel they have a right to criticize and pass judgment on men the caliber of Bob Lodge - let alone a deceased man who is unable to defend himself. You are quite the man of courage Mr. Sherwood!