Lost
Mon Dec 18, 2006 12:04 am
I don't think it dishonors these men if they did lose a few bombers. I had assumed if they never did, then it was partly due to circumstances since if there was a strong fighter attack they would lose some no matter how good they were. It doesn't change facts that they overcame prejudice at the time which seems almost silly now, they did their job well, and have aged with dignity. I don't see any O Js or Tysons in their group. Lee Archer seems like a fine gentleman, I shared a dinner table with him. These days they have been honored a lot, perhaps second only to Doolite Raiders in my opinion. So I have to agree with Jack, history can be accurate, and these guys don't have to be perfect. I have always wondered if Black POWs were treated worse by the Germans, but never heard one way or the other.
Mon Dec 18, 2006 12:09 am
I agree wholeheartily with Bill. The record (even the newer/revised record) set these men apart from all others. If you look up role model in the dictionary there pictures should be there.
Mon Dec 18, 2006 8:22 am
As for the black P.O.W.'s, I too would be interested to find that out. I never thought of it.
Mon Dec 18, 2006 8:31 am
As for the truth in history, I can say that you guys are for the most part are right. The truth is better. It just feels like people are taking the wind out of the sails of some 90 year old vets, that's all. You have to admitt that the stories are fun though. 
Re: Just Out of Curiosity...
Mon Dec 18, 2006 12:28 pm
Dennis7423 wrote:All-
I once heard that the Tuskegee Airmen never lost a bomber to enemy aircraft, not necessarily flak, midairs, etc. I wonder if this is true or not...keeping flak off of a bomber isn't really something that a pilot can do, but keeping an enemy fighter off is another thing...perhaps others will know more. From the reports I have seen on this topic challenging history, I don't think I recall anyone stating that they were shot down by enemy fighters.
-Dennis S.
Greeley, CO
This is how I recall it too. And I believe that is how it it stated in the movie...they never lost a bomber to enemy fighters. Nowhere in the article posted here is it mentioned that a bomber was lost to an enemy FIGHTER. It only says enemy FIRE, which includes flak. In fact, the description he gives of being hit sound much more like a flak hit than anything else.
I have never heard anyone content that no bombers were lost whatsoever while the Tuskegee Airmen were on escort duty.
So unless this bomber crew member is stating he was shot down by an enemy fighter, the article changes nothing.
Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:07 pm
Hi all--
Interesting thread. I agree with Tom and others that the 332nd's sterling record doesn't, and certainly shouldn't, rest on the veracity of a single, albeit impressive-sounding, statement about never losing a bomber to Axis fighters.
The description of the Lib shootdown sounded like a flak hit to me, too; I went back to the article at the start of the thread though and twice near the top of the piece it states "enemy planes" downed the bomber. Of course all the main German home defence types carried cannon, so a fighter could have a similar punch to a flak hit...I wonder, how difficult would it be to verify this from the opposite source, namely Luftwaffe records? The 109 or 190 pilot would certainly have claimed the Lib downed.
Thinking about flak hits, it occurs to me that the 332nd's "stay with the bombers" policy may well have resulted in more of their own number being lost to flak, also.
BTW, the 1995 HBO film does, right at the end before the credits roll, state that the group "never lost a bomber to enemy action". That's one of a number of details about that movie that bug me...but all in all it's a pretty decent effort.
To me, the detail in the above article that jumps out at me (and was a point made in the movie, also) is the B-24 pilot's assertion that he liked being escorted by the 332nd because he knew they'd guard their charges tenaciously. Viewed in the social context of the mid-40s, that speaks volumes...and can never be subject to historical re-evaluation, either.
Cheers
S.
Interesting thread. I agree with Tom and others that the 332nd's sterling record doesn't, and certainly shouldn't, rest on the veracity of a single, albeit impressive-sounding, statement about never losing a bomber to Axis fighters.
The description of the Lib shootdown sounded like a flak hit to me, too; I went back to the article at the start of the thread though and twice near the top of the piece it states "enemy planes" downed the bomber. Of course all the main German home defence types carried cannon, so a fighter could have a similar punch to a flak hit...I wonder, how difficult would it be to verify this from the opposite source, namely Luftwaffe records? The 109 or 190 pilot would certainly have claimed the Lib downed.
Thinking about flak hits, it occurs to me that the 332nd's "stay with the bombers" policy may well have resulted in more of their own number being lost to flak, also.
BTW, the 1995 HBO film does, right at the end before the credits roll, state that the group "never lost a bomber to enemy action". That's one of a number of details about that movie that bug me...but all in all it's a pretty decent effort.
To me, the detail in the above article that jumps out at me (and was a point made in the movie, also) is the B-24 pilot's assertion that he liked being escorted by the 332nd because he knew they'd guard their charges tenaciously. Viewed in the social context of the mid-40s, that speaks volumes...and can never be subject to historical re-evaluation, either.
Cheers
S.
Re: Just Out of Curiosity...
Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:15 pm
mjanovec wrote: Nowhere in the article posted here is it mentioned that a bomber was lost to an enemy FIGHTER.
So unless this bomber crew member is stating he was shot down by an enemy fighter, the article changes nothing.
That's what I thought too, but I re-read it. Check the second paragraph.
Having said that...to me, the Tuskegee Airmen are heroes more for everything they went through BEFORE they even got to the ETO. The exemplary combat record as escort fighters is icing on the cake.
Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:31 pm
Just as others have said...
Regardless of if they lost bombers or not, their contributions to the war effort, to the legacy of the US Air Force, and their significant contribution to black history in the United States stands.
Those guys are all heroes....have been, and still will.
Regardless of if they lost bombers or not, their contributions to the war effort, to the legacy of the US Air Force, and their significant contribution to black history in the United States stands.
Those guys are all heroes....have been, and still will.
Mon Dec 18, 2006 8:54 pm
well put mustangdriver!!
Mon Dec 18, 2006 8:56 pm
mustangdriver wrote:As for the black P.O.W.'s, I too would be interested to find that out. I never thought of it.
I talked to Woody Spears, and he said he was treated well by the germans. He said that the russians treated him like crap though, but he thought they treated everyone like crap. He has a great story. Great guy, very glad to have met him.
Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:31 pm
It has always been pretty straight forward and contained in the daily mission summaries.
First, bombers they were escorting did get shot down (by fighters), not because the 332nd wasn't any good - simply they lost local superiority at point of attack and/or the bombers they escorted were all over the place making it impossible to cover.
Some units were better than others at the prime mission of protecting bombers, ALL would detail fighters to cover cripples to best of their ability
Second they had a well deserved reputation of sticking with bombers - because they did.
Third, I believe General Benjamin Davis was the first to comment in a presentation that the 332nd never lost a bomber to enemy fighters. It went unchallenged because nobody cared to research the claim and publically rebutt the claim.
The squadron and Group Histories are publically available and the source of the current 'contoversy' which obviously isn't 'politically correct'.
Last Lee Archer never claimed to be an ace. I believe the first claim to that effect was in the book Tuskegee Airmen - which was written and published after USAF 85 came out. It was and is the 'official' basis for air to air awards - although Frank Olynyk's work is as respected. Both have Archer at 4 and there is evidence to fact that Archer didn't fly the mission (July 20, 1944?) that he was 'credited' for a 109 in Muskegee Airmen.
USAF 85 is publically available and a matter of record since 1985. It is the foundation for American Fighter Ace recognition - and more than a few aces were sadly stripped of this recognition (all white) when USAF 85 came out - and a sad fight within the Fighter Aces Association between those that went for 'strict' interpretation of uSAF and those who said 'let the WWII official totals stand as is'. One of the early Presidents, Wayne Jorda, was asked to resign because his fifth kill which was awarded without confirmation was changed to a probable in 85. It was pretty sad and friendships were lost as a result of this.
Regards,
Bill Marshall
I honor them for their courage and devotion - period.
First, bombers they were escorting did get shot down (by fighters), not because the 332nd wasn't any good - simply they lost local superiority at point of attack and/or the bombers they escorted were all over the place making it impossible to cover.
Some units were better than others at the prime mission of protecting bombers, ALL would detail fighters to cover cripples to best of their ability
Second they had a well deserved reputation of sticking with bombers - because they did.
Third, I believe General Benjamin Davis was the first to comment in a presentation that the 332nd never lost a bomber to enemy fighters. It went unchallenged because nobody cared to research the claim and publically rebutt the claim.
The squadron and Group Histories are publically available and the source of the current 'contoversy' which obviously isn't 'politically correct'.
Last Lee Archer never claimed to be an ace. I believe the first claim to that effect was in the book Tuskegee Airmen - which was written and published after USAF 85 came out. It was and is the 'official' basis for air to air awards - although Frank Olynyk's work is as respected. Both have Archer at 4 and there is evidence to fact that Archer didn't fly the mission (July 20, 1944?) that he was 'credited' for a 109 in Muskegee Airmen.
USAF 85 is publically available and a matter of record since 1985. It is the foundation for American Fighter Ace recognition - and more than a few aces were sadly stripped of this recognition (all white) when USAF 85 came out - and a sad fight within the Fighter Aces Association between those that went for 'strict' interpretation of uSAF and those who said 'let the WWII official totals stand as is'. One of the early Presidents, Wayne Jorda, was asked to resign because his fifth kill which was awarded without confirmation was changed to a probable in 85. It was pretty sad and friendships were lost as a result of this.
Regards,
Bill Marshall
I honor them for their courage and devotion - period.
Wed Dec 20, 2006 7:42 pm
Lindbergh wrote he took off without being qualified to start (ie not meeting the sixty day waiting period between entering and takeoff) for Paris and winning the Ortieg Prize. He was. For what ever reason he did not check his notes or his Ortieg entry dates and remembered it wrong. One of many, MANY things he got wrong in his story. The truth is actually more compelling than the mere legend. History is in the details. The rest is made up. Is that what we would rather have???