Been reading this, now over the halfway. A most interesting book, but I wonder if some of the translations could be more precise/correct. For example :
-shouldn't "indifferent stability" be expressed correctly as "neutral stability" (stability is positive, neutral or negative; not 7 indifferent)
-landing gear has doors, not "covers"
-why use the awkward expression of "wing end caps" when referring to wing tips
-nosewheel (or tailwheel) "flutter" is "shimmy" in correct terminology.
And finally, what are "sliding rolling moments"? Never encountered that expression in any native English test report.
Been reading this, now over the halfway. A most interesting book, but I wonder if some of the translations could be more precise/correct. For example :
-shouldn't "indifferent stability" be expressed correctly as "neutral stability" (stability is positive, neutral or negative; not 7 indifferent)
-landing gear has doors, not "covers"
-why use the awkward expression of "wing end caps" when referring to wing tips
-nosewheel (or tailwheel) "flutter" is "shimmy" in correct terminology.
And finally, what are "sliding rolling moments"? Never encountered that expression in any native English test report.
Where do you stop with "translation" ? If "indifferent" was the actual word used, and you "decide" they must have "meant" something else which "fits" with phrases you are used to, and you change it, then someone goes and read the original files, and says "hang on! They didnt say "neutral" they said "indifferent" !" - to whom to you defer ?
Now if you find something which is really obviously wrong, a real error. Please add page number and paragraph so that Dan or myself can locate it, check it and if necessary correct in the next printing.
Now if you find something which is really obviously wrong, a real error. Please add page number and paragraph so that Dan or myself can locate it, check it and if necessary correct in the next printing.
That expression is something not found in period American or British test reports. A proper translation is not simply a literal word by word conversion, it must take into account the practices of the destination language. Or do you translate the German word for "television" as "distance seeing device"?
Where do you stop with "translation" ? If "indifferent" was the actual word used, and you "decide" they must have "meant" something else which "fits" with phrases you are used to, and you change it, then someone goes and read the original files, and says "hang on! They didnt say "neutral" they said "indifferent" !" - to whom to you defer ?
Now if you find something which is really obviously wrong, a real error. Please add page number and paragraph so that Dan or myself can locate it, check it and if necessary correct in the next printing.
I defer to the practice of the destination language. That is the very basic rule of every skilled translator. Or why does the book translate "Gleitlager" as "plain bearing" instead of the literal "gliding bearing"? Because the the only correct English term is plain bearing. And one won't find a single book on tanks talking about crew observing using "angle mirrors" (Winkelspiegel) instead of periscopes. And so on. For anyone with an engineering background it is very odd attitude of accepting imprecision.
If a test pilot really considered stability literally indifferent, he was incompetent.
I defer to the practice of the destination language. That is the very basic rule of every skilled translator. Or why does the book translate "Gleitlager" as "plain bearing" instead of the literal "gliding bearing"? Because the the only correct English term is plain bearing. And one won't find a single book on tanks talking about crew observing using "angle mirrors" (Winkelspiegel) instead of periscopes. And so on. For anyone with an engineering background it is very odd attitude of accepting imprecision.
If a test pilot really considered stability literally indifferent, he was incompetent.
I take it as a translation of Schieberollmoment, which is slip- or skid-induced rolling moment. Not sure I've seen that mentioned as such in English test reports, either, but it comes up in German reports fairly regularly, along with its counterpart of the Rollwendemoment, which is proverse yaw.
No surprise, as the book was first published in 2020. I am looking now at The Spanish Armadas by Winston Graham, Doubleday 1972. I expect to find 2020 idiom in a 2020 book, 1972 idiom in a 1972 book, not late 16th century English, unless it is a verbatim quote.
Because the original German text is not provided - I have looked - I can not judge whether indifferent is an adequate translation of the pilot's comments.
Now if you find something which is really obviously wrong, a real error. Please add page number and paragraph so that Dan or myself can locate it, check it and if necessary correct in the next printing.
Indifferent - page 96, left-hand paragraph starting with 'The next day, the aircraft had its compass removed...'.
'So on September 2, the ballast was shifted to create a 28% centre of gravity. The post-test report notes, perhaps with slight incredulity, that "the stability around the transverse axis was perfect even with this these tail-heavy positions". The aircraft was however "statically and dynamically indifferent around the vertical axis with these tail-heavy positions".' Indifferent stability is not mentioned.
That expression is something not found in period American or British test reports. A proper translation is not simply a literal word by word conversion, it must take into account the practices of the destination language. Or do you translate the German word for "television" as "distance seeing device"?
I`ve rarely seen someone on a forum, so relentlessly negative, and generally argumentative, expecting so much in return from others. Add page numbers, and suggestions if you wish to be seen to be helpful or constructive. This is not a blank canvas for generic whinging.
I`ve rarely seen someone on a forum, so relentlessly negative, and generally argumentative, expecting so much in return from others. Add page numbers, and suggestions if you wish to be seen to be helpful or constructive. This is not a blank canvas for generic whinging.
Funny thing is that yesterday I prepared a 5-star review of the book to be published on a blog. I do mention those language issues. But, here is one example. Page 119 (see attachment) there is a reference to "fin" (British English for "vertical stabilizer", according to official pilot manuals of the period) and that is simply wrong and that is easy to see from the context.
I would very much hesitate to condemn the use of fin without seeing the original German text.
If the original text says Seitenleitwerk, like it says in seven drawings, fin is an adequate translation for me. YMMV.
Funny thing is that yesterday I prepared a 5-star review of the book to be published on a blog. I do mention those language issues. But, here is one example. Page 119 (see attachment) there is a reference to "fin" (British English for "vertical stabilizer", according to official pilot manuals of the period) and that is simply wrong and that is easy to see from the context.
I would suggest aircraft responses were 'indifferent' regardless of adjustment to speed etc. Language can be a minefield but frankly arguing over interpretation is a bigger minefield.
Funny thing is that yesterday I prepared a 5-star review of the book to be published on a blog. I do mention those language issues. But, here is one example. Page 119 (see attachment) there is a reference to "fin" (British English for "vertical stabilizer", according to official pilot manuals of the period) and that is simply wrong and that is easy to see from the context.
In this instance, the original text from Beauvais says "Der Verhalten um Querachse zeigt gewisse Unklarheiten. Gleichgewicht ist schwer herstellbar, wohl infolge der zu groben Flossenverstellung (auch mit Ruecksicht auf Verwendung der Flosse beim Abfangen aus hoechsten Geschwindigkeiten ist eine geringere Verstellgeschwindigkeit notwendig)."
I believe 'Flosse' means 'fin' rather than, say, rudder. Presumably Beauvais is referring to the rudder as part of the fin but he could be referring to the shape of the fin used (the Me 309 V1 went through a number of these) or the mechanisms housed within the fin for adjusting the rudder. As Calum has already mentioned, we're not in the business of 'adjusting' original quotes to make them mean what we think they should mean, rather than what they actually say. I'm not sure what official British pilot manuals of the period have to do with this.
Anyone who wants to read the original document for themselves can use the reference printed in the book to get their own copy of it - a luxury that the vast majority of other books on similar subjects do not afford.
I do, however, recall one book on a similar subject (the author shall remain nameless) which did offer a bare handful of archival references. I happened to already have one of the documents referred to and I was able to compare the translation given against the original. In that instance, the author had 'translated' the text in such a way that not only did it no longer have the same meaning as the original - it now mysteriously, and rather conveniently, supported a point they were trying to make. Which the original, untranslated, document did not.
It does. Flosse is the German word for the appendage of a fish with which it steers or propels itself, in English - drum roll - fin!
A happy coincidence, no?
It does. Flosse is the German word for the appendage of a fish with which it steers or propels itself, in English - drum roll - fin!
A happy coincidence, no?
On an etymological level, one might consider Beauvais' original text slightly inaccurate though, as a horizontal fin would properly be called a fluke. Which is etymologically connected to the German "Flügel" = "wing", so perhaps one shouldn't take this too far! :-D
It's always tempting to just rewrite quotes from original primary source documents to make them say what you think they mean - or even what you think they should have said. I'm sure that's what a lot of authors do, since it smooths out any rough edges and erases any inconvenient inexplicable phraseology.
But as I've said, that's a slippery slope towards bending and warping the author's original meaning into something other than what they intended. WW2 German pilots did not always use the same modes of language and description as British pilots of the same era and attempting to force British linguistic style onto them in the text creates its own problems. It's necessary, as a reader, to accept that you're reading the words of a German pilot, as he wrote them, not the words of a British pilot. Or the words of a British author masquerading as those of a German pilot.
I prefer to present the text as close as possible to what the original says - even if it does lead to some ambiguity for readers to puzzle over. Beauvais wrote what he wrote.
Now the issue is clarified. In German vertical stabilizer is "Seitenflosse", horizontal stabilizer is "Höhenflosse". Thus plain "Flosse" can refer to both with the context deciding. Now, who did Beauvais write the report to? To other Germans used to German practices, to whom the reference to "Flosse" in relation to pitch control would instantly mean "horizontal stabilizer". In aeronautical English, the expression "horizontal fin" is not used. Therefore given the context of Beauvais's text, the correct translation would have used either "horizontal stabilizer" (AmE) or "tailplane" (BrE). And that would have not meant any "forcing" of anything down Beauvais's throat.
I'm not quibbling about the translation of "Flosse" as fin, but given the quote is describing the transverse (pitching) axis, climb performance and elevator effectiveness it sounds more like the tailplane rather than the vertical tail fin.
Now the issue is clarified. In German vertical stabilizer is "Seitenflosse", horizontal stabilizer is "Höhenflosse". Thus plain "Flosse" can refer to both with the context deciding. Now, who did Beauvais write the report to? To other Germans used to German practices, to whom the reference to "Flosse" in relation to pitch control would instantly mean "horizontal stabilizer". In aeronautical English, the expression "horizontal fin" is not used. Therefore given the context of Beauvais's text, the correct translation would have used either "horizontal stabilizer" (AmE) or "tailplane" (BrE). And that would have not meant any "forcing" of anything down Beauvais's throat.
And indeed the Dive limitations section of Bf 109 G-2, G-4, G-6 Bedienungsvorschrift, June 1943 edition (here) says:
Sturzflug: Trimming so einstellen daß das Flugzeug durch Drücken im Sturzflug gehalten werden kann. Die Höhenruderkräfte und Flossenbelastungen werden bei hoher Fahrt sehr groß. Hemmung der Flossen verstellung muß einwandfrei arbeiten; sonst ist Selbst verstellung der Flosse möglich.
Dive: Adjust trim in such a way that the airplane can be held in a dive. The elevator forces and tailplane loads become great at high speeds. The tailplane adjustment must work perfectly; otherwise shifting of the tailplane is possible.
I am sure that other authors tempted to weigh in on this subject would not appreciate me going through their work and attempting to pull it apart online. Because I can do that if they want.
I'm not quite sure why, exactly, this particular book is attracting this sort of attention and criticism over such minutiae. How many posts does it take to argue over the translation of one particular word on one particular page?
This book is based on a lot of fully cited sources. See below. The total word count is about 75,000w-80,000w but Calum and I must have translated four or five times that much German before whittling the text down to the most relevant bits. It took literally years of work. And now you want to haul us over the coals over the debatable translation of one word? What's actually going on here?
In this instance, the original text from Beauvais says "Der Verhalten um Querachse zeigt gewisse Unklarheiten. Gleichgewicht ist schwer herstellbar, wohl infolge der zu groben Flossenverstellung (auch mit Ruecksicht auf Verwendung der Flosse beim Abfangen aus hoechsten Geschwindigkeiten ist eine geringere Verstellgeschwindigkeit notwendig)."
That is confusing. I myself assumed 'fin' to refer to the vertical tail surface until a minute ago.
The translation replicates original German prone-to-misunderstanding (to me anyway) terminology in English. In that sense it is, to me, a perfect translation. Close reading English translation and German original for a second time was needed for me.
I am feeling slightly ashamed now. I plead not being a native speaker in either language @Pasoleati Apologies.
I am sure that other authors tempted to weigh in on this subject would not appreciate me going through their work and attempting to pull it apart online. Because I can do that if they want.
(Oh don't worry I've been accused of cultural appropriation online based on a cover image alone!)
My point was in support of yours - i.e. that I was able to make out that Beauvais was talking about the elevator trim tab (at first I wondered if he meant a moving tailplane but the Me 309 didn't have one). Yes, fin is probably a vague term for a native English speaker but that does not make the passage indecipherable and "flosse" = "fin" and "Flossenverstellung" = "fin adjustment" so there is no mistake.
I respect your decision not to put words into Beauvais' mouth, the fact Beauvais is talking in shorthand is always going to make a direct translation difficult.
As a reader I'd always assume that a translation is imperfect in some way so I wouldn't personally be hung up on it.
(Oh don't worry I've been accused of cultural appropriation online based on a cover image alone!)
My point was in support of yours - i.e. that I was able to make out that Beauvais was talking about the elevator trim tab (at first I wondered if he meant a moving tailplane but the Me 309 didn't have one). Yes, fin is probably a vague term for a native English speaker but that does not make the passage indecipherable and "flosse" = "fin" and "Flossenverstellung" = "fin adjustment" so there is no mistake.
I respect your decision not to put words into Beauvais' mouth, the fact Beauvais is talking in shorthand is always going to make a direct translation difficult.
As a reader I'd always assume that a translation is imperfect in some way so I wouldn't personally be hung up on it.
Messerschmitt Me 309 Development & Politics took a LOT of effort just in terms of finding the relevant sources and getting them all together, let alone translating them and forming a coherent narrative based on them.
Criticisms of the book have ranged from the puzzling to the downright weird.
I saw a 'review' on a different forum from someone who apparently 'rage quit' the book, which went as follows:
"Yes, I ordered this book from my dealer. I returned it yesterday. Absolutely disappointing, just a few new, interesting photos. Cost of the book: €50, thin art paper, see-through, many graphics/documents too small, nothing recognizable, shadowed.
Luftwaffe 46 What if G color graphics and the source information from his own "office". What a shame about the financial expense!
It's annoying what awaits you there, lengthy texts, poor typography, questionable sources... what a pity!"
The source information from... "his own 'office'"? Lengthy texts is a criticism? Questionable sources? I mean, the sources are all right there; BA-MA is the Bundesarchiv-Militaerarchiv, ADRC/T-2, ADRC/MAP and ADIK are microfilm from NASM and the IWM is the Imperial War Museum. Are those questionable? If any reader wants to view any of those sources for themselves, all they have to do is approach the archive in question and ask to see that particular document. They don't have to do the 'finding' bit - Calum and I have done the hard part already.
Something about this book that just seems to set people off.
Messerschmitt Me 309 Development & Politics took a LOT of effort just in terms of finding the relevant sources and getting them all together, let alone translating them and forming a coherent narrative based on them.
Criticisms of the book have ranged from the puzzling to the downright weird.
I saw a 'review' on a different forum from someone who apparently 'rage quit' the book, which went as follows:
"Yes, I ordered this book from my dealer. I returned it yesterday. Absolutely disappointing, just a few new, interesting photos. Cost of the book: €50, thin art paper, see-through, many graphics/documents too small, nothing recognizable, shadowed.
Luftwaffe 46 What if G color graphics and the source information from his own "office". What a shame about the financial expense!
It's annoying what awaits you there, lengthy texts, poor typography, questionable sources... what a pity!"
The source information from... "his own 'office'"? Lengthy texts is a criticism? Questionable sources? I mean, the sources are all right there; BA-MA is the Bundesarchiv-Militaerarchiv, ADRC/T-2, ADRC/MAP and ADIK are microfilm from NASM and the IWM is the Imperial War Museum. Are those questionable? If any reader wants to view any of those sources for themselves, all they have to do is approach the archive in question and ask to see that particular document. They don't have to do the 'finding' bit - Calum and I have done the hard part already.
Something about this book that just seems to set people off.
There is a good reason why books which tell the reader roughly what they expect to learn, do well, in my opinion.
Spitfire books which say it was the best aircraft which was ever built
Battle of Britain books which say how a tiny band of under-prepared pilots saved humanity with no preparation at the very last minuite
Luftwaffe books which explain how German engineering and science were far superior to everyone else`s
(I exaggerate slightly for effect, but you get the idea).
Introducing a book which does not pass through "the agreed set of narrative paths" but criticizes
famous names in German aviation published by "British people" claiming to have read the
German sources....
I think the only reason I got away with it in The Secret Horsepower Race was due to the fact it was multinational, and
so absolutely everyone got a good dressing down for their errors. Perhaps the 309 book rubs "fans"
up the wrong way, who didnt come for a dose of reality, but just wanted a nice summation of
facts on the elusive and enigmatic "nearly-plane" from the professor. They probably dislike that nearly
as much as Brits do when people start discussing how much of their favourite plane was even
really designed by Mitchell and what it might have ended up as without a certain Canadian...
You can never alter the minds of the fanboys but hopefully the discerning enthusiast/historian will gain the insight from it that you both intended.
Reviews are ten are ten a penny these days, you can't buy a pack of bog roll without being asked to complete one. It devalues the traditional well thought out review. Anyone can bash out "it sucks" or "it's pukka", but it doesn't add anything to constructive criticism.
In this instance, the original text from Beauvais says "Der Verhalten um Querachse zeigt gewisse Unklarheiten. Gleichgewicht ist schwer herstellbar, wohl infolge der zu groben Flossenverstellung (auch mit Ruecksicht auf Verwendung der Flosse beim Abfangen aus hoechsten Geschwindigkeiten ist eine geringere Verstellgeschwindigkeit notwendig)."
I believe 'Flosse' means 'fin' rather than, say, rudder. Presumably Beauvais is referring to the rudder as part of the fin but he could be referring to the shape of the fin used (the Me 309 V1 went through a number of these) or the mechanisms housed within the fin for adjusting the rudder. As Calum has already mentioned, we're not in the business of 'adjusting' original quotes to make them mean what we think they should mean, rather than what they actually say. I'm not sure what official British pilot manuals of the period have to do with this.
Anyone who wants to read the original document for themselves can use the reference printed in the book to get their own copy of it - a luxury that the vast majority of other books on similar subjects do not afford.
I do, however, recall one book on a similar subject (the author shall remain nameless) which did offer a bare handful of archival references. I happened to already have one of the documents referred to and I was able to compare the translation given against the original. In that instance, the author had 'translated' the text in such a way that not only did it no longer have the same meaning as the original - it now mysteriously, and rather conveniently, supported a point they were trying to make. Which the original, untranslated, document did not.
From what I understand Me 309 uses a similar system of horizontal stab like the Bf 109 - in German also well-known as "fliegendes Leitwerk". When Beauvais says "Flosse" (in relation to "Querachse"), he means the whole horizontal stab, which is fully adjustable.
There is a good reason why books which tell the reader roughly what they expect to learn, do well, in my opinion.
Spitfire books which say it was the best aircraft which was ever built
Battle of Britain books which say how a tiny band of under-prepared pilots saved humanity with no preparation at the very last minuite
Luftwaffe books which explain how German engineering and science were far superior to everyone else`s
(I exaggerate slightly for effect, but you get the idea).
Introducing a book which does not pass through "the agreed set of narrative paths" but criticizes
famous names in German aviation published by "British people" claiming to have read the
German sources....
I think the only reason I got away with it in The Secret Horsepower Race was due to the fact it was multinational, and
so absolutely everyone got a good dressing down for their errors. Perhaps the 309 book rubs "fans"
up the wrong way, who didnt come for a dose of reality, but just wanted a nice summation of
facts on the elusive and enigmatic "nearly-plane" from the professor. They probably dislike that nearly
as much as Brits do when people start discussing how much of their favourite plane was even
really designed by Mitchell and what it might have ended up as without a certain Canadian...
You can never alter the minds of the fanboys but hopefully the discerning enthusiast/historian will gain the insight from it that you both intended.
Reviews are ten are ten a penny these days, you can't buy a pack of bog roll without being asked to complete one. It devalues the traditional well thought out review. Anyone can bash out "it sucks" or "it's pukka", but it doesn't add anything to constructive criticism.
If Messerschmitt Me 309 Development & Politics inadvertently ruffled some feathers, I can scarcely imagine the impact a Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Development & Politics would have.
While we touch upon the Fw 190 and its woes during the course of the Me 309 book, what you're reading is the aftermath of a disaster which happened (and is still happening) offstage. By the time we get to the Me 309, the Fw 190 A is in serious trouble - thanks to its seemingly insurmountable engine overheating issues - and the process of winding it down as a precursor to cancellation has begun.
Evidently (according to Irving, who I would always take with a pinch of salt), at one point, the Fw 190 was supposed to supplant the Bf 109 on production lines to become the Luftwaffe's main fighter by a ratio of 3:1, but all those plans have to be torn up.
Not only that, the DB 603/Jumo 213-powered Fw 190 C has been rejected in favour of the Me 309. And Focke-Wulf's iterations on the design continue to play second fiddle to Messerschmitt's designs all the way up to August 1943, when the tide finally turns against the Bf 109/DB 603, aka Me 209, with the eureka moment that is the Focke-Wulf cylindrical tail insert.
The later success of the Fw 190 has served to erase its devastating early-war failure and it's not something you read about much in existing Fw 190 books. We could have included more of this in the Me 309 book, but it's really a whole story of twists and turns in its own right and would've taken too much of the focus away from the Me 309 as the main subject.
Evidently (according to Irving, who I would always take with a pinch of salt), at one point, the Fw 190 was supposed to supplant the Bf 109 on production lines to become the Luftwaffe's main fighter by a ratio of 3:1, but all those plans have to be torn up.
I totally agree that one has to be extremely cautious with Irving, but from other statements by Milch that are documented in various protocols, I find it absolutely plausible that he might have suggested that.
In "The Secret Horsepower Race", Calum has pointed out (if I remember correctly) that the limited availability of C3 fuel meant that in practice, there was actually sort of a hard limit for the number of Focke-Wulfs that the Luftwaffe could provide with fuel, which I considered a really interesting insight.
I totally agree that one has to be extremely cautious with Irving, but from other statements by Milch that are documented in various protocols, I find it absolutely plausible that he might have suggested that.
In "The Secret Horsepower Race", Calum has pointed out (if I remember correctly) that the limited availability of C3 fuel meant that in practice, there was actually sort of a hard limit for the number of Focke-Wulfs that the Luftwaffe could provide with fuel, which I considered a really interesting insight.
Edgar Petersen (of Rechlin) in interrogation suggested that the C3 fuel was the bottleneck for Fw190 replacement of older aircraft (there were obviously other factors too). This is pretty convincing, as to do anything very useful, being air cooled, the 801 definitely needed the C3 fuel. Of course the 109 would have benefited from C3 too, but the 801 had lots of serious thermal management issues (both installation and intrinsically) which meant that to have any reasonable hope it really HAD to have the most knock resistance fuel possible.
I dont think German academics much like British who read their own files before they do, as an example I was lambasted by a German academic (Bochum University) on Twitter recently for stating that German EM warfare was held back by early Nazi restrictions on amateur radio clubs (which obviously then turned away many young tinkerer`s from getting into radio work in the 30`s). He stated this was all a total myth and that I had no idea what I was talking about.
So I presented the stenographic record. (Which he had never even bothered to read, probably being an important and serious
historian he doesn't need to actually look at sources anymore as he knows everything about Germany, being German and
"a professional")
===================
MARTINI: Ich babe die volle Verantwortung weir einem Jahr, und seitdem setze ich mich mit ganzer kraft durch:
Göring: Die Flugzeuge haben es doch nicht, das werden Sie mir doch zugeben. Ich Ubertreibe doch hiermit nicht. Es wird mir schlecht, wenn ich daran denke. lch kann nur immer wieder das eine feststellen: der drüben hat, und wir haben nichts. Vir haben nichts nichts, nichts mal, dass wir ihn an seiner Sache hindern können , nein, er hindert noch uns. Das sind doch Tatsachen, die Sie gefl. nicht uebersehen wollen. Ich kann nur meine innere Hochachtung vor der Gegner beseugen. Der Mann, der dieselben Schwierigkeiten drüben hat, wie wir, hat sich eisern durchgesetzt, mit allem möglichen. Gewiß, ich gebe zu, dass er sehr viel mehr Menschen hat, die auf diesem Gebiet das durchdenken. Wir hatten sie auch bei uns, noch viel mehr als der Engländer, denn derDeutsche ist mehr Bastler und Grubler als der Englander. Wir haben eine wahnwitzig unverständliche Art. der nichts aus der Hand geben wollte. Wir haben diese Bastlergemeinschaften zerstört und zerschmettert und die vialen tausend kleinen Erfinder nicht gefördert. Die feheln uns Jetst. Das sind Tausende und aber Tausende von Leuten. Und dazu kommt der ganze Hochmut unserer gelehrten Herren. Wenn wirklich mal ein kleiner Fips ankommt mit einem Vorschlag, wird er von vornherein herausgeschmissen. Wenn im alten Grischenland etwas neues gefunden wurde dann wurden Opfer gebracht, und wenn etwas Grösses war wurden Hekatomben geopfert. Seit der Zeit brüllen alle Ochsen.
==================
"We have destroyed and crushed these hobbyist communities and not supported the thousands of small inventors."
(Martini was in charge of German radio/EM war developments)
If Messerschmitt Me 309 Development & Politics inadvertently ruffled some feathers, I can scarcely imagine the impact a Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Development & Politics would have.
That's quite an interesting admission! Would these "tinkerer communities" be the clubs etc. that had their origin in the Weimar republic, and Göring is implying they were all broken up as a result of the "Gleichschaltung"?
The Wikipedia article confirms that they had nowhere enough members to provide the personnel the Wehrmacht needed, despite membership in the HJ being mandatory, with all other youth organisations being banned.
Introducing a book which does not pass through "the agreed set of narrative paths" but criticizes
famous names in German aviation published by "British people" claiming to have read the
German sources....
When I read 309, I was definitely NOT expecting what I got. Trials, tribulations and travails, yes, or the plane would have been built in numbers, entered service and had a combat record. But continuous failure with a side order of scheming, lying, skulduggery and ultimately self-sabotage? No.
Some of it was no surprise because I'd already seen you cover the Luftwaffe's fuel and engine woes in lurid detail in SHR, but the level of mismanagement on the airframe side (and across the entire industry!!!) was one hell of an eye-opener.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
