"History" and the History Channel

[Leo Etgen]

Hello guys

According to the History Channel website Feldwebel Oskar Bösch (18 victories) of IV.(Sturm)/JG 3 will be appearing on Episode 14 of Dogfights "Death of the Luftwaffe" concerning Operation Bodenplatte. That should be interesting to see. Art, many thanks for the story about the encounter between Lieutenant Joseph Peterburs and Oberleutnant Walter Schuck on 10 April 1945. I did not know that Peterburs did not realize that he in fact shot down the Me 262 and was later shot down that mission. Now if only I could uncover the werknummer of the Me 262 A-1 Schuck was flying that day!

Horrido!

Leo

[Skyraider3D]

No matter what channel I see aviation programs broadcasted on, I find myself saying "not true", "that's wrong", "nonsense" and "get outa here" several times per minute. Usually my wife then asks why I watch that stuff if it's all wrong anyway, after which I nod and switch the telly off I don't pretend to know it all, but the things uttered at some of these shows is just comical.

I seem to enjoy Japanese documentaries these days (YouTube!). I don't understand a word they say, but the footage is mind blowing and not shown before on any History, Discovery and whatnot channels.

That said occasionally these channels get their hands on some utterly rare footage without realising it. Some time ago I watched (part of) a Battle of Britain program, and while talking about Hurricanes they showed air-to-air footage of Morane-Saulnier Ms 406s. Totally wrong, but very interesting! It definitely beat their usual Japanese-painted Dauntlesses bombing Pearl Harbor again...

[Leo Etgen]

Hello all

According to several recent posts on the History Channel Dogfights forum it appears that there may not be a season three. That is odd as it appears to be one of their highest rated series. Even with the program's faults a rather unfortunate turn of events if true. I suppose we will never see an episode that focuses on Luftwaffe aces...

Horrido!

Leo

[Skyraider3D]

Hmm... that's a pity. Despite their faults it does manage to attract the occasional viewer to get interested into air combat, which can't be a bad thing.

[NickM]

Originally Posted by dora9forever

and why no german aces storys too and japs. ????
Gary

It's been posted before: The accounts by the dogfights have to be relayed in GREAT detail to, among other people, the computer programmers who create the movies--either that or if the pilots are deceased, then the accounts have to have been written in great detail--like James McCudden's recollections of his SQUADRON'S dogfight with Werner Voss or Ernst Udet's diary recollection of his dogfight with Georges Guynemer(sp?); Art Fiedler, a Mustang Ace who posts here frequently had one of HIS dogfights on the 'Dogfight' show & he gave his impressions of the process of recreating his particular fight...

NM

[Six Nifty .50s]

Originally Posted by NickM

Leo:
Well, the primary objective of the NVAF fighter force was to engage fighter-bombers & 'disrupt' their missions any way possible-whether shooting them down or forcing them to jettison their payloads before they get to the target, whatever worked...Later in the war: Late 67-68 & during 'Linebacker' the MiG21s used that same tactic to great effect against F4s either acting as 'fixed/close' escort, chaffers or bombers: F4s were HUGE & VERY smoky & could be visually ID-ed for miles, while a MiG21 was quite small & had a smokeless engine. Often, by the time they were seen by US pilots, the Migs had already launched their Atoll missiles & were accelerating for home at supersonic speed or repositioning for another engagement

That might be true, but ignores the most important limitation of MiGs. With few exceptions, North Vietnamese jets could not return the favor. They certainly wished they could bomb-up their MiGs and visit American bases in Thailand, but the MiG jets lacked the range and their pilots lacked the skill to plan and carry out massed, long-range air strikes from the Hanoi area.

For the same reason, the USAF did not develop the F-5 as a fighter escort from Thailand. In design the F-5 was similar to the MiGs: smaller and more nimble than a Phantom or Thunderchief, but also less versatile and not capable of doing all that was asked of it. A small, short-range jet (even if we added a considerably larger air refueling operation) was not a practical choice for the multitude of tasks given to USAF fighter-bombers.

Originally Posted by NickM

Another thing that I remember from the Robin Olds episode: the show mentioned how the Sparrow & Sidewinder (and to some extent the Atoll) had VERY poor reliability & poor performance----THAT little mia culpa was unusual to hear on a US TV show...

My experience is the opposite. Can you name a single "US TV Show" in which someone on screen said that 1960s air-to-air missiles were reliable?

And anyway, it has little meaning unless we know the specific failure rate of missiles fired by the Communists. On another forum, one of the members (a technician who serviced and supervised maintenance of F-4 Phantom radars and missiles for over a decade) insisted that the bulk of missed Sparrow shots over Vietnam were due to:

1) A technical limitation of the radar rather than the missile. He said this problem was not obvious until improved diagnostic equipment became available after the Vietnam conflict. Meanwhile the assumptions made earlier about missile hit probability became well-entrenched as accepted wisdom.

2) Debriefings showed that many flyers, due to the usual and expected excitement of battle, simply launched the missile outside of the proper performance envelope and still complained when it missed the target. Fighter pilots are a very competitive and proud bunch, and some are less willing than others to admit that a missed shot occurred because of human error.

[Leo Etgen]

Hi guys

A while ago I was able to view the episode concerning World War I aerial combat, which was very nice and interesting. Inspired by the program and the 90th anniversary of von Richthofen's death I was looking about online for more information as to the engagements presented. Imagine my surprise when on the History Channel Forum I came across the following two posts concerning the 14 September 1917 dogfight that Capt Arthur Brooks of the 22nd Aero Squadron had with Jasta 15. I am indebted to JochenPeiper and JonG for their information:

"JochenPeiper

The last episode of Dogfights presented an air combat where it is claimed that Arthur Raymond Brooks claimed four Fokker D VIIs shot down in flames. This segment relies on the testimony of Brooks' diary. Unfortunately, this is not the complete story. The documented facts are somewhat different from Brooks' recollections.

On 14 September 1918, nine Spads of the 22nd Aero Squadron engaged in an air combat with about a dozen Fokkers. Brooks and Lt. Phil Hassinger claimed a Fokker, both receiving a share, before Hassinger was shot down in flames by Georg von Hantelmann. This is not shown on Dogfights. Brooks went on to fight the Fokkers before his aircraft was shot up and he was forced to crash-land his Spad which was written-off. During the fight, the only loss on the German side was the aircraft of Lt. Paul Wolff, Jasta 13, who landed his Fokker intact at Lake Lachaussee and was captured. He did not crash in flames and Brooks never stated that he saw any of his victims crash. This was more wishful thinking on the part of Brooks. He received credit for two kills plus one shared. There is no evidence that his claims were confirmed by witnesses.

On this date, the Germans claimed a total of 48 Allied aircraft. The real loss was 33. In contrast and comparison the Allies claimed 29 German aircraft destroyed whereas the Germans lost only six. This is an overclaiming of five-fold. The Americans claimed 12 and the French claimed nine for a total of 21 claims. This excludes balloons which are in a separate category.

For further information see Bloody April...Black September by Norman Franks, Russell Guest, and Frank Bailey. It is unfortunate that the authors of First Dogfights did not consult this valuable work.

JonG

Dear Jochen:

I knew Arthur Raymond Brooks, one of the nicest fellows I ever knew, and did quite a bit of research into that "big day" of his. The red-nosed Fokkers he fought on September 14, 1918 were clearly from Jasta 15/JGII, which claimed four Spads in the fight. Piecing things together from other 22nd Aero Squadron accounts, it seems that Ltn George von Hantelmann killed 1/Lt Philip Hassinger (the only fatality and the only plane to actually fall in flames during the fight, witnessed by Brooks himself), while JG.II's commander, Hptm Oskar von Boenigk, and Ltn Johannes Klein claimed two more whose pilots, 1/Lts Robert Little and Arthur Kimber, made it to Allied lines before force-landing. I believe that von Boenigk then joined the fight with Brooks and took credit for him as well, though Brooks too managed to come down in Allied lines.
This gives some idea of what probably happened to the two Germans that were confirmed to Brooks--they, like Little, Kimber and Brooks, may have force-landed in German territory and were perceived by witnesses in Allied lines as having been brought down. The other two Germans either did not really go down or did so without witnesses. In either case, they certainly did not go down in flames--only Hassinger did.
I provided all this information when I was interviewed for the show--along with individual color schemes for every Spad in Brooks' flight and several of the Jasta 15 protagonists--but nothing outside of Brooks' lone action within the overall dogfight was shown and all I had to say on what happened to the rest of his flight was cut out. This may make American viewers fell good, but it certainly does not give a balanced picture, even from Brooks' standpoint. He told me that when he emerged from his shot-up Spad he was extremely upset and "all in," not only because of his own miraculous escape, but because he'd seen his friend, Hassinger die in flames and he was convinced that his entire flight had been wiped out. It also says something about his character that when two of the Fokkers were confirmed to him, Brooks insisted that the victories go on record as being shared with Hassinger.
For those reasons, I'm sure that if he was still alive, Ray Brooks would have been disappointed with his treatment in that episode of Dogfights."

Please be aware that it is certainly not my intention to detract from Capt Brooks' achievements, who courageously engaged a numerically superior formation of enemy fighters and lived to tell the tale. My problem is with the producers of Dogfights who, knowing the facts of the engagement, instead chose to present a wholly inaccurate view of the battle. Unfortunately it makes one wonder how accurate the rest of the air battles presented throughout the series are. For more information on Capt Brooks here is an interesting web page that provides a outline of his career. www.theaerodrome.com/aces/usa/brooks.php

Horrido!

Leo

[Ruy Horta]

Old thread, but I only recently acquired History Channel.

Although the CGI work is good and improving with the newer episodes, I find it a pretty shallow experience. The visuals may be good, but many of the effects are repetitive, irritating and not seldom jut unrealistic. That's the visuals.

The history part is IMHO very shallow, more of a "how I made my kill" story than an objective view at an air battle. In some cases the program makers are very selective in what they show and what not. The same team makes other programs, covering naval battles etc, that appear to be even more selective. The CGI creates the illusion of authenticity, while in fact it is nothing more than a visual impression, mostly based on a single source passed through a selective filter.

Unfortunately I find the series one sided, repetitive, shallow, not seldom marred by irritating visual effects* and ultimately disappointing.

History Channel in general is just ok, just like Discovery Channel, it is documentary Muzak (call it Dozak if you wish), just a form of entertainment that helps fill your spare time. It seldom challenges conventional wisdom and always ends on safe ground. Every now and than a program does surprise, but those are often co-productions (with the BBC for instance).

Making docudrama is very popular nowadays, which I find very irritating as it is mostly noise over data. I don't see how all those (bad) reenactments help to explain historical events. Just give me the old school footage, foto and interview format. If you are covering pre-film days, than you still have plenty of creative options other than reenactment.



*camera wobble ad nauseam, is one example

[Skyraider3D]

Ruy, although I partly agree with you, I need to say something in defense of the guys who work on this dogfight series. Their budget is extremely low, meaning they can only hire moderately skilled folks and they have to do the work in days, rather than weeks or months, which would be preferable. I for one spend at least several weeks (full-time) to create a realistic 3D aircraft model. They need to make an entire program in that time. What you end up with is pretty much what you experience. This is a real shame and unless bigger budgets become available for 3D art in aviation documentaries (unlikely), this is an experience which won't improve any time soon. That said, 3D art in aviation documentaries 5 or 10 years ago was nothing short of shocking, so perhaps 5 to 10 years from now we'll finally start seeing something decent!


PS. And yes, that camera shake is horribly done! Not as badly as the engine on their Hellcat model, though!


PPS. Another 3D aviation production which is looking better already:
http://www.secretplanes.com/videos.php
Ignore "Emergency Fighter" though (pretty poor, their first production). Some of the more recent ones are quite nice, actually. Try "Fast & Furious" for instance, it's pretty cool.

[Ruy Horta]

Ronnie,

Actually I think that the CGI models are pretty good, especially the new series.

It is the extra visual effects, depiction of air combat in general and the one sided coverage of events that detracts from the program.

If they take out the steroids and "arcade" effects, put some of these funds into further research of the event in question (dare I say look at the other side of the battle), the program would go to a higher level.

IMHO its main sin is that it is more entertainment than documentary.