Second TAF Volume 2

[Wim de Meester]

Received yesterday this book and as usual one is looking first in the sections which are most interesting for the reader.
Having done so I have to admit that this publication is disappointing. I will mention a few examples for that statement!
11 October 1944 S/Ch. Dubois (P) but in reality he was killed in his plane and recoverd from wreckage 22 October (and buried 30 October in Kortrijk).

And look into 11 September 1944 when No.2 Group bombed the village of Breskens with desastrous results for population and German troops but not even a single word about that operation which was carried out by 72 medium bombers! On the other hand recce missions with little or no results receive credits.
Just one mission not mentioned but many more important operations are omitted as well.

Third one: the naming of cities and villages. In two sentences next to each other Nijmegan and Nijmegen and that is repeated with many other places and examples can be found on every page.
Crash-locations ditto in many cases!
In my opinion it is not worth the money and equals FCL in error.

[Francis Howell]

I have spoken to Chris Shores about your comments. Obviously, he is upset that you should have found errors. He advises that the publishers have agreed to an errata page in Vol 3, and he will seek to take account of your points.

However, he does make a few comments. There are people who he refers to - not very politely, perhaps ! - as "one-squadron wonders". i.e. people who spend many years researching a single unit or a single subject, so that they end up knowing virtually what the squadron commander had for breakfast every day of the war. When researching a whole campaign or subject involving many, many units, weeks, etc, it is simply not possible to have the same level of information and knowledge as that particular enthusiast, and to do so would require a book to need perhaps 100 years to complete ! He also notices that such people very rarely seem to actually get around to producing for publication anything on their special interest - perhaps you have Wim, I don't know.

But here, he tells me, are some of the problems of research. For instance, S/Ch Dubois was a French serviceman, and hence does not appear in the records of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which he and Chris Thomas normally uses to check whether such losses were KIA or POW.

Similarly, the official British history of the war states regarding Breskens " In four days 84 Group and 2 Group flew over 1,300 sorties against all types of target in the pocket and on the 11th and 12th Bomber Command dropped 1,150 tons of bombs on the batteries around Breskens and Flushing. The strain proved too great for the enemy...." The 2 Group history simply states "on 11 September a heavy attack was mounted on the Breskens ferry pier and a vehicle park nearby." Neither mention civilian casualties, and such raids are therefore covered in the general statements about the Beveland fighting. Indeed, the most recent book "The Great Mistake" which deals exclusively with the fighting on the Scheldt Estuary and at Breskens makes no mention of this - so how was he supposed to know ? "Many more important operations are omitted"? Ever tried to write within a specified word total ?

As to the typos on place names - the book had an editor at the publishers who missed these - so did the authors. Hands up to guilt on that - but it surely happens. How many manuscripts and page proofs have you edited (always "against the clock") ? Other reviewers do not seem to share your view.

One other point Chris makes for the notice of not just you, but all enthusiasts. Never, but NEVER, make the mistake of thinking that aviation authors write to make money ! The publishers may make some, but returns to authors are just terrible - way below what they were 20 or 30 years ago in real terms. Chris tells me that he can make more money in a week as an experienced real estate consultant than he can in a year from a book. The minimum wage in the UK is about £5 per hour. If writing brings in 20% of this figure, then it has been a good year. "Why do it then ?" I ask him. "For the ego, dear boy, - and to share what we have discovered with that lot out there !" Q.E.D.

Francis Howell

[Jukka Juutinen]

While I have no comments on this book (haven´t seen it), may I ask have you ever criticised e.g. bad milk quality? I doubt that personally (literally) produce much milk for the market...

[Wim de Meester]

First of all Chris Shores should not consider himself offended due to the fact that his latest publication showed a considerable number of errors and omissions but having said that I want to reply to several statements of Francis Howell in order to clear the air and explain a little more detail.

Checking the CWGC for kia or pow is a time consuming job which however can be done by everyone having a computer and the website of the CWGC but in the case of especially No.84 Group - where almost all foreign squadrons of 2 TAF were concentrated - matters can become a little more complicated (that perhaps may also be an explanation for the fact that in my opinion the operations carried out by that Group are under illuminated).
More complicated yes but impossible the answer is no and with all the means available now the research should have been done f.i. with the help of lots of readers of this website and/or French forums of which I have had invaluable help to sort things out.

Referring to the history of No.2 Group and simple statements about the number of sorties carried out by No.84 Group isn't enough. In that case Chris just followed the crowd instead of making his own independent choices which should not be considered too difficult since we may assume that he had acces to the 3.227 pages of the ORB of 2 TAF (especially as the operations to clear the Scheldt estuary proved to be more costly in human live than f.i. the Market Garden operations apart from the enormous strategic value to open that entrance to Antwerp harbour).

Finally the arguments of Francis can't be considered more than a kind of apology. It is not of any importance to the reader how much (or how less) money Chris can make nor any specified word total nor a time schedule or whatever more there can be. For the amount of money we have to pay in the shop for this publication the reader is simply entitled to a thoroughly researched and documented book full of fact and figures which can stand most critics. No more but certainly not less!
That's the point.

[Francis Howell]

Chris did not make the comment about return on writing as an EXCUSE ! He wanted to make sure that no-one thought he was merely writing for money. He was making the point that that was certainly not the case - he does it for love of the subject. So, yes, he was apologising that he had not put in everything that you would have liked to have seen.

He and Chris Thomas have been researching 2nd TAF for years, and any research at some time has to be brought to an end. Here the publisher wanted manuscripts by set dates, and the two of them THOUGHT that they had put in everything relevant to give a balanced coverage. Most reviewers seem to think so too, including the RAF Historical Society. Sorry you are disappointed Wim, they did their best and if thats not good enough for you - well, thats the way the cookie crumbles.

Enough of this subject anyway - please don't bother to respond further.

[Jim Oxley]

Originally Posted by Francis Howell

I have spoken to Chris Shores about your comments. Obviously, he is upset that you should have found errors. He advises that the publishers have agreed to an errata page in Vol 3, and he will seek to take account of your points.

Excluding the blandishments offered by Francis on behalf of Chris Shores (which were not necessary) the above comment by Francis is the most important from his post.

Mistakes were made in the book, they have been uncovered, and will be so noted in the following volume. A reader cannot ask for more than that.

Wim you had every right to comment on the oversights. And they have borne fruit. Well done.