[MW Giles]

Regarding the difference between aircraft and ships, I think it comes down to numbers

An example, there were 27 Tribal Class Destroyers built. You can know the spec of every one, their captains and crew and what engagements they took part in. Fleet engagements are relatively rare and there are often enough survivors from both sides to compare notes with. Crews were large enough for someone to prepare logs and reports that were highly contemporaneous.

There were 6000 odd Bf110s produced in 30 odd main marks and a number of subvariants. They were used sometimes multiple times a day and their engagements are only sparsely recorded, a fact made worse by later document destruction. Their crews were often completely lost.

The difference in mindset between naval history and aviation history readers is an interesting one, that would probably be worth a PhD if you did it right. Is it that there is a much longer history of naval writing, I have on my shelf a copy of James' Naval History of the Napoleonic Wars at sea which gives a lot of detail about some very small engagements. It was written in the 19th century, not long after the events it describes Perhaps books like that set the precedent.

Avaition comes along and we get lots of pictures of pretty planes and a few whizz bang stories of daring do and everyone aged 5-16 is happy. They then grow up knowing no better and the book trade continues to churn out what they know will sell, rather than take a chance on the more esoteric

Martin