Circus 61 Hazebrouck,24/07/41
 

Hello

Can someone confirm these losses?
Strange almost name similarity!

308°Sqd=Spit P7838 P/O J.Czachowski

315°Sqd=Spit P7835 P/O J.Czachkowski

source air war 1941 (Foreman/Bock)

michel

Re: Circus 61 Hazebrouck,24/07/41
 

Hello,

One and the same airman - P-0318 P/O Jozef CZACHOWSKI.

P/O Czachowski was from 315 Sqn, but flying (Spitfire IIa P7835:PK-S, "BALLYMENA"), with 308 Sqn on this mission.

See:
Fighter Command's Air War 1941 RAF Circus Operations and Fighter Sweeps Against the Luftwaffe.
Franks,Norman
Barnsley:Pen & Sword Aviation,2016
p.126.

https://listakrzystka.pl/en/czachowski-jozef/

Col.

Re: Circus 61 Hazebrouck,24/07/41
 

On top P7838 had a long life and was SOC 5 June 1945....

Foreman's books are consistantly marred by small discrepancies like this. I don't understand why he cannot let someone he trust proof read his writings.

His part two book is just the same. Some mistakes are so obvious that he would have spotted them himself if he just had read through his text one more time....

Cheers
Stig

Re: Circus 61 Hazebrouck,24/07/41
 

Hello

Thanks guys.I suspected that there was an error,indeed,there are often small errors,it's a little annoying!

ex:always on the 24,he credits K-H.Greisert Stab/JG2 with 2 Spits,but it's Stab II/JG2 with only one!....and the time does not match with circus 61.

Best Regards
michel

Re: Circus 61 Hazebrouck,24/07/41
 

My own experience is that when you read your own words often enough, you just see what should be there, not what is. Another person, looking for the first time will often see right away the things you missed.

Re: Circus 61 Hazebrouck,24/07/41
 

To a certain degree, yes, but when you leave out the complete pilot's name in a sentence I believe one just has to notice....

Cheers
Stig

Re: Circus 61 Hazebrouck,24/07/41
 

For the uninitiated Buy John Foreman's books. I have several. They are ground-breaking for their time and still constitute a sound basis for a lot of research. They are excellent. Mistakes are present, but not anywhere near an argument against their value. Easily cross-referenced in other works or on this forum (is that not part of our enjoyment of the discussion!). As Nick writes, and we know from college, university (and business) we can read and re-read our work and always auto-correct in our own mind... only to find a lecturer's red-pencil underlining an obvious mistake.

regards

Keith

Re: Circus 61 Hazebrouck,24/07/41
 

Indeed Keith

Perhaps that is what's lacking....someone with a red-pencil going over the Opus before publication? :)

Mind you, I have nothing against his books as such.....I have all of them!

Cheers
Stig

Re: Circus 61 Hazebrouck,24/07/41
 

Hi Stig,

As a working book editor (fiction), I have to fact check real-world information all of the time. The big 5 publishers in the US have 4 editors, the company I work for has 3 and a proofreader. The casual reader is not under any deadline pressure, but the average reader is likely to have limited knowledge of what he is reading. So, those who have corrections for any book should contact the author or publisher.

Best,
Ed

Re: Circus 61 Hazebrouck,24/07/41
 

Hear hear Stig. The main problem is usually that the author has not got someone else to read the book before it is published.
I am an author myself, and I learned the hard way very early on. You will often not spot even obvious errors in your own work....