Did a brief look at writing. Saw no reason comment. Comparision of Fronts is quite skewed: Not same Geology, not same opponents, not same tech backup, not same support or effort etc. etc. Brute attrition on ALL fronts combined is what really happened. No, sorry, this paper seems have no practical use.
And you source Ju 188 references from Medcalf books. Which can be written hundred of pages of, of how bad it is.
On this forum was a flaming war, where most knowlegeful writers expressed their opinion: Bad. And then some of this backed away, outraged on hov some not-neutral persion attacked THE main expert. The books still are bad after three years. Having studied this subject since the 1990s, and have plowed thrugh the the same Washington Archive-fields, even worse.
http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showth...hlight=Medcalf
http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showth...hlight=Medcalf
Both threads have valuable points, but the author never ever tried defend his writing. Its a flop. But you may notice had had another less visible author with him. But they just exposed how bad the "Luftwaffe as an
Gold Goose market" publishing scene has become.
Thinner text (no new research, endless recycling). Darker drawings. Larger photos (done over and over to death). And dosens of new experts every year pop up, but when asked on Spanish Bf 109 G-6, none exists (two knew about it but had not details, two had details). But world record in bad books still is held by Kagero. They print seemingly high quality drawings of Ju 88 A-17, and the famous "A-0", that just not were that.
24th March 2018, 21:37
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode