Fw 200 C-5, the invisible sub-type? A review of published and documentary sources.

[INM@RLM]

Denniss, thank you for digging out those archived pages from Olve Dybvig's Special Interest Group Luftwaffe in Norway web site, now sadly defunct. This material was extracted for Olve by Seaplanes from the US NARA T-177 microfilm and I thought it had been lost completely from the web. Taken as a whole it contains a few slips (but not on anything relating to the Fw 200), however, it's still very useful and it's good to know that it can still be found by anyone with a mouse.
It was this same material that I documented in Post #3 of this thread (third set of evidence), except that I used copies taken directly from T-177. Those were extracted for me many years ago by a professional US researcher.

Dénes, you put the William Green situation very well. ("almost every piece of information contained in this book was erroneous") However, as my absolutely favourite History teacher used to say: "Gentlemen, it's not what happened that's important, it's what people think happened that really matters."
For any new explanation to be understandable, the starting point has to be the recognisable one of "what people think happened". In this area what is in Green is a near-perfect picture of "what people think happened", so - for me - Green is both the obligatory launch point, and because he is often so off-beam, he is also the perfect foil. Some interesting and innocent fun can then be had by starting with what Green states to be the case and comparing that to what can be found in primary sources documenting what actually happened. When somebody claimed to be a historian, making these comparisons was once expected to be a normal part of their job description.
In sum, I fully agree that using Green does not constitute serious research (and never has). However, I cannot agree that William Green is "just not relevant anymore for serious researchers." Often there is no other well-recognized source in English that can be used as the baseline for a comparison with the real findings of serious research. (If you are going to take someone on a journey best you start from somewhere that is already familiar to them.) My opinion.

In a separate category, we also have the authors whose books continue to roll off the presses, and yet who still seem to rely implicitly on every single silly thing that Green ever hoovered up and regurgitated. The trouble with (and the joy of) books is that they can be around for a very long time. [Think Gutenberg Bible, except that one was actually proof-read.] In the sub-world of publishing from which the books on our interests come, editors as effective quality-control backstops have generally been conspicuous only by their (almost?) total absence. So the constant question is this, when something silly is published, will the world be better served and better informed if the individuals that have actually delved into the subject simply say nothing? Or is saying nothing actually complicity? You will be able to work out where I stand on this.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by INM@RLM

You will be able to work out where I stand on this.

The humility to realise that one's own work may one day be improved upon (if not actively derided) by others would seem to me an excellent starting point. The pioneering writers of the 1950s and 60s, working with what they then had, were the reason that so many people became interested in the subject at all and for that they deserve credit.

[Chris Goss]

Couldn't agree more, Nick. I remember Peter Cornwell saying how many times people had stated how he had got things wrong for him to remind them that he had written BofB T&N 35+ years before and at that time, the information he was using was the best available....then. As a published author myself, I would be a fool to say what I have written is the definitive; I am always open to constructive criticism and correction

[INM@RLM]

Forgive me then if I add a little more context.

Green's WotTR is a magnificent read, a hugely popular and influential book and a great personal achievement. None of that is at issue.

William Green was an outstanding journalist, but his search of what history was to hand simply didn't go either very far or particularly deep. (A year after the publication of WotTR, it took only part of a day with the Focke-Wulf documents in the Imperial War Museum to discover that the Fw 190 F-1 and F-2 were the exact same aircraft sub-types as the Fw 190 A-4/U3 and A-5/U3. That statement is also in the aircraft handbook.)
Green also wasn't very discriminating or critical in his use of sources. Some were clearly poisoned and contained what were almost certainly deliberately manufactured falsehoods, but, since journalists would rather go to prison that reveal their sources, we now don't know where these came from.
The result is WotTR is riddled with errors and a lot of what we grew up with was actually fibs.
Some of those errors were howlers so egregious they should never have been allowed to appear in print even at the time. (If, in the same book, MW50 technology only appeared in service with Bf 109s and Fw 190s in 1944 how could this credibly have been used with Condors in the summer of 1941?) This was not a case of using the best information available because the best information available doesn't contain wild and obvious contradictions. It didn't take a genius to check the Luftwaffe handbooks - there were enough of them in British hands. Green simply didn't use them.
So, it's a complex picture, and these points need to be set alongside the credit and the nostalgia.

I continue to enjoy reading Green's WotTR for his superb writing style, making a pretty technical subject readily accessible and above all immensely interesting to non-technical readers, and because digging out what we can now show to actually be errors is endlessly fascinating of itself. The facility of Green's style is the enduring part of his achievements.

The disappointment at where we are now is that not infrequently use of the best information available simply isn't happening. This is not a blanket criticism: there are honourable and remarkable exceptions. But not infrequently, rather than the bar being raised it remains at the same low height with a bunch of the same old fairy tales being trotted out. Newer and better information, leave alone the best available sometimes doesn't even get a look-in. The right result is we see the bar raised with each new book that appears.

Humility is exactly the right launch point. Undertaking basic research in the obvious sources should not be beneath anybody working in this field.
If a book is to cover the development of a German aircraft design start with the obvious fundamentals. At the very least, check over the aircraft and aeroengine manuals, check through the German monographs on the type - some of the research may be invaluable even if some the text is well off-course, consult carefully the relevant historical studies published in German - some of the more recent ones are first rate and bang on target, dig into at least some of the original documents, reach out more widely, even email me at INM.at.RLM@gmail.com. If I've done some digging on your subject, you are welcome to share gratis whatever I have. I'm not looking for credit or even acknowledgement. It'll be enough to see the information used fittingly - or superseded by something even fuller and more soundly based.

The aim is better books; not the same old, same old from Green, but works that demonstrate genuine effort to use the best information available.
The explicit messages for writers then are these:
Don't even open WotTR. There are no good excuses for repeating Green's myths of half a century ago. To do so is a declaration of incapacity.
Please raise the game, look a bit further, dig a bit deeper, truly try to use the best information available and move your subject forward a meaningful step.
In sum, please try make your book really count, not just as another notch on the bedhead.

[edwest2]

Originally Posted by INM@RLM

Denniss, thank you for digging out those archived pages from Olve Dybvig's Special Interest Group Luftwaffe in Norway web site, now sadly defunct. This material was extracted for Olve by Seaplanes from the US NARA T-177 microfilm and I thought it had been lost completely from the web. Taken as a whole it contains a few slips (but not on anything relating to the Fw 200), however, it's still very useful and it's good to know that it can still be found by anyone with a mouse.
It was this same material that I documented in Post #3 of this thread (third set of evidence), except that I used copies taken directly from T-177. Those were extracted for me many years ago by a professional US researcher.

Dénes, you put the William Green situation very well. ("almost every piece of information contained in this book was erroneous") However, as my absolutely favourite History teacher used to say: "Gentlemen, it's not what happened that's important, it's what people think happened that really matters."
For any new explanation to be understandable, the starting point has to be the recognisable one of "what people think happened". In this area what is in Green is a near-perfect picture of "what people think happened", so - for me - Green is both the obligatory launch point, and because he is often so off-beam, he is also the perfect foil. Some interesting and innocent fun can then be had by starting with what Green states to be the case and comparing that to what can be found in primary sources documenting what actually happened. When somebody claimed to be a historian, making these comparisons was once expected to be a normal part of their job description.
In sum, I fully agree that using Green does not constitute serious research (and never has). However, I cannot agree that William Green is "just not relevant anymore for serious researchers." Often there is no other well-recognized source in English that can be used as the baseline for a comparison with the real findings of serious research. (If you are going to take someone on a journey best you start from somewhere that is already familiar to them.) My opinion.

In a separate category, we also have the authors whose books continue to roll off the presses, and yet who still seem to rely implicitly on every single silly thing that Green ever hoovered up and regurgitated. The trouble with (and the joy of) books is that they can be around for a very long time. [Think Gutenberg Bible, except that one was actually proof-read.] In the sub-world of publishing from which the books on our interests come, editors as effective quality-control backstops have generally been conspicuous only by their (almost?) total absence. So the constant question is this, when something silly is published, will the world be better served and better informed if the individuals that have actually delved into the subject simply say nothing? Or is saying nothing actually complicity? You will be able to work out where I stand on this.

Well said. In my youth, my mother noticed my interest in aircraft, especially German aircraft. One day, a neighbor had given her a small hardcover book with the back cover missing. It was for me. I was amazed. The Germans had a rocket plane? And it went on from there.

This interest of ours will only keep going as long as something like this happens. Everyone starts as an amateur. The serious researcher part begins after we'ved lived life a little longer and found ways to help the interest grow.

[INM@RLM]

A PS to my 5th August

At the risk of overstating the obvious, to check today the basic facts by obtaining copies of the aircraft and aeroengine manuals & handbooks for most main Luftwaffe types is child's play.

For most it is not even necessary to arrange a pilgrimage to the IWM at Duxford or the Bundesrachiv. For the more difficult cases though, there is a very useful Bundesarchiv online finding aid which lists 632 hits searching 'BArch Flugzeug Handbuch':
https://www.archivportal-d.de/objekt...81939772199699
Not all of these are in the BArch RL 3 Generalluftzeugmeister series, so search also for the individual aircraft type. (For example, L.Dv. 371 Fw 44 J.- Entwurf eines Flugzeug-Handbuches is actually in the RL 1 series.)

For us today, these Luftwaffe manuals can be purchased on DVD (and often in print also) for reasonable amounts and with a fast turnround from Luftfahrt-Archiv Hafner https://www.luftfahrt-archiv-hafner.de/. Usually there is a Hafner-arranged multi-manual compendium for the aircraft type, which frequently also includes the relevant aeroengine manuals. Also available from Archiv-Hafner is extensive material on weapons, other equipments and aircraft painting. (The DVD with catalogue number LAH-388 'Flugzeugmaler / Flugzeuglacke Kompendium' (286 pages) is a particular gem since it includes all of: Der Flugzeug-Maler, Verlag Dr. M. Matthiessen ,1939; Flugzeug-Lacke, LDv 521/1, 1938 & Flugzeug-Lacke, LDv 521/1, 1941. The LDv 521/1 copy of 1938 clearly evidences the location and precise content of each amendment issued in Sep-1939. The necessary pages are reproduced in colour.)

Many of these manuals and related materials are also generously available gratis for download from: http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.com/arc.../Dokumente.htm. (Look under F for Flugzeug Handbücher and M for Motoren, and again there is extensive material here on weapons and other equipments).

In Green's day getting at these documents was inevitably harder, but he had had all of the 1950s and '60's to do this, and his professional background in popularising aircraft recognition through the second world war had also provided him with a plethora of useful contacts in the services and government departments holding the captured documents. Accepted that apart from the work on identifying the corrections and Green's enduring legacy as a brilliant populariser and stylist, all that is water under the bridge now.

However, for us today a good guide is: "The information's out there. All you have to do is let it in." Letting it in though also involves searching it out.