"History" and the History Channel

[BillG+4]

No Stig, fighter pilots are trained to survive!
Bill

[Kutscha]

oops, wrong thread

[NickM]

Originally Posted by Dan O'Connell

I have the History Channel on almost all the time. If you think Dogfights is bad, I have to suffer through the archaeology shows also.
I think previous posters are right, it's just "exciteing" TV, but the accuracy is awful.
Wait until they have a show (finally) about the Me 262! I will probably have a heart attack. LOL

Now Dan...we're all either experts here or at least well informed non-professionals...I can just shrug off the factual faux pas...because we KNOW better! In any case, imagine how long the show would take if they tried to unravel all the details....

Although...I WOULD like a good show on the practical reasons there is overclaiming during a confused furball....

NM

[Franek Grabowski]

Originally Posted by Stig Jarlevik

I can imagine that anyone who is committed by the leadership in any channel to make ANY programme, do get a certain time to prepare such a show. We cannot expect people to spend years doing research for any such kind of programmes. If we wanted that, there would be nothing to watch in the first place. Neither can we expect these individuals to be experts in every field they are put to research. To get the right film sequences is also hard (I guess) since there is a wide difference in quality.
Some shows doesn't even come close, BUT in many cases the shown sequences (showing something totally different) can be just as exciting!!

Stig
It is obvious that no producer would have such an expert's knowledge but it is not his job. His job is to find those experts, and there are plenty on TOCH for example. Not a problem finding them, is not it? The problem lies elsewhere - it would be an extra cost for them and they do not like to spend money. Least to say Polish translations had been done by accidental people, and even the best translator needs some time as he cannot be expert in every area. That says a lot about an approach to us, viewers.
That is why I would prefer to get access to an original uncut and most importantly, mute stuff!

[mayfair35]

To the Experts on This Thread:

With the exception of Stig, most of you appear to misunderstand what the Dog Fights program is attempting to do. It certainly is NOT an attempt to rewrite history. By using a computer simulation, it tries to show exactly what our aces and pilots did during their encounters with the enemy. I believe I can speak with some authority, as I am one of the aces interviewed for this program. My “story” will air on 30 August at 10:00 P.M. Should you think there are some errors in the depiction of my 4th and 5th victories, DO NOT BLAME DOG FIGHTS, BLAME ME! They have developed a computer simulation based on MY description of these encounters!

I was present while they interviewed a Navy pilot for approximately 3 hours. He answered a multitude of questions until both the interviewer and the simulation supervisor were certain they could virtually relive the event and know how to portray it in their computer simulations. The identical thing happened to me. For over 3 hours, we discussed my victories with continual questions: how did you do this, what was your dive angle, how did you get from here to there, what maneuvers did you use, etc. Other requests for clarification followed via E-mail.

In the past, I have often been asked to describe some of my combats. Perhaps I do not have an adequate command of the English language, but I find it very difficult to explain in words exactly what I did. How do you explain a mixture of a chandelle and Cuban Eight combined with a vertical roll? I use my hands, like all good fighter pilots, but that has its limitations. Two hands do not make a very understandable display when eight or eighty planes are involved. However, the Dog Fight simulations do an excellent job of graphically demonstrating the interactions during a combat especially if several aircraft are involved. My children, friends, and military acquaintances have been highly impressed with the programs to date. Yours is the first instance in which I have heard it criticized. Most seem to hold the program in high esteem.

In each of these aviation programs, be sure you understand that it is the pilot’s story that is transformed into what you see on your TV. If an individual is deceased, an expert/s is located who can provide the vital information. Unfortunately, as all you experts clearly know, not all “experts” agree.

Digital Ranch is a fine, dedicated organization of young well-qualified computer specialists who make every effort to ensure the finished product is as realistic as possible. If there is a problem, it is probably traceable to some misunderstanding during the interview. Do they make mistakes? I am sure it happens, as they are human. In John’s comments above, he mentions the incorrect display of F-4E and the F-4D aircraft. Based on my interview, I wonder if Steve failed to advise them which model he had flown at the time or did he assume they were aware of that fact?

Hopefully, if you understand what the program is attempting to do, you will appreciate it even if you detect some “warts.” I am sure any corrective inputs you might have would be appreciated, but please keep your comments civil and do not get into the fruitless arguments such as I see in some of these threads; e.g. “Placing the P-39 Aircobra.”

Art Fiedler,
317th FS; 325th FG, 15th AF

[Erich]

Art let me say thanks for giving your first person imput. Will look for you on the 30th of the month. am also looking forward to the 352nd blue-noser friends on dogfights when it airs. obviously due to time restrictions the pilot(s) whole story cannot be written and shown some "hurried" placement of graphics comes in from time to time. At least we all can say thank for something............. which would otherwise would never be covered on screen.

secondly Art you did receive my mailer for the July 44 date - mission ?

cheers friend Erich ~

[mayfair35]

Hello Erich,

You probably know better than I that there are two Erichs on the board: an Eric and you, Erich. I do not know if I goofed badly and mixed up my correspondence between the two of you. If you sent something, and I should have replied, my apologies. I certainly would not have done that knowingly. Your inputs have been much appreciated.

Please resend the info if I messed it up, and I will try to respond immediately.

Most cordially,
Art

[edwest]

As a researcher where I work, I'm expected to get some expertise in a rather short period of time on a wide range of subjects. The internet is not perfect but it is an invaluable starting point. It takes me about a week to get enough source material to present to authors who will then take about two weeks to absorb it and ferret out the relevant information.

I've been hearing complaints about the History Channel lately as well. Too bad. Has anyone sent them an e-mail?




Regards,
Ed

[Kutscha]

Well some corrections could be included where history differs from the account of the pilot.

Two that come to mind:

1. There was no Col Tomb/Toom in the NVAF.

2. Johnson's P-47 was not attacked by Egon Meyer. The LW pilot was either Lt. Waldemar Radener or Fw. Wilhelm Mayer. It could also have been mentioned that 5 P-47s were lost during this combat.

There needs to be some balance, so why not do a show on Col. Yevgeni Pepelyaev (23), the commander of the 196th IAP, and Nikolai Sutyagin (21) for Korea or a show about Nguyen Van Coc (9) and Nguyen Hong Nhi (8) (2 of the 16 NVAF aces) for Nam.

Link to the HC BB, http://boards.historychannel.com/cat...ryID=800000014

[Franek Grabowski]

Art
I cannot comment on Dog Fight as I have never seen any, but numerous programmes aired here in Europe on history channels like Discovery or Planete, are just below any critique: pieces of wartime chronicles put together with a hopeless commentary based on aviation books from 1960s.
As you have noted already, we are a group of enthusiasts digging in great depth in a very specialised areas, so we have a different perspective. Nonetheless it is most painful for us, when we try to publish or otherwise popularise our knowledge, sometimes with astonishing new finds, but we are just ignored.
You have found us on this forum, so it is equally possible for those guys from TV. Try to find here any their request for help!
So, please do not consider this criticism being aimed at you, but a rather general critique of what is being done by TV guys.