War-Winning Aircraft?
James M. Caiella
I just received my February issue of Naval History, and briefly flipping through it, a headline stopped me in my tracks: “The Plane that Won the War” (pp. 14–19). My good friend author Barrett Tillman is going to have to jump through a whole lot of hoops to sway me to his belief about the importance of the article’s subject, the Douglas SBD Dauntless. And at that, I’m not crossing over.
Here are just a few of the World War II aircraft that should be weighed against the merits of the SBD:
• Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
• Consolidated B-24 Liberator
• Supermarine Spitfire
• Ilyushin-2 Shturmovik
• North American P-51 Mustang
• AVRO Lancaster
• Boeing B-29 Superfortress
And then consider the de Havilland Mosquito, Petlyakov Pe-2, Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, Grumman F6F Hellcat, and Chance Vought F4U Corsair, among others.
Sure, the SBD was seminal in helping pave the island-hopping, airbase-collecting road to aid the Army Air Forces in gaining strategic bombing bases, but in no way—as is true for all the others listed above—did it “win” the war.
Model Ships’ Benefactor
Vice Admiral Robert F. Dunn, U.S. Navy (Retired)
That Naval History should choose to review a book on the Rogers Collection of Dockyard Model Ships on view at the U.S. Naval Academy Museum is wonderful and much appreciated (December, pp. 66–67). However, the reviewer failed to mention that the Rogers Collection has been and is funded in its totality by donations from the Naval Academy class of 1951.
All one has to do is visit the second deck of the Academy Museum to see the pertinent evidence, including not only restored models but also a ship model workshop and repair facility also funded by the class of 1951. The reviewer could have learned this not only through a visit to the museum but also by reading the foreword to the book he reviewed, which was written by a past class president.
More on the Battleship
Rear Admiral Samuel J. Cox, U.S. Navy (Retired), Director, Naval History and Heritage Command
As usual, I read my latest issue, with the Dauntless cover (February), with great interest. I also saw the note from Tom Hone (“In Contact,” p. 6) regarding the previous, Pearl Harbor edition’s, cover, stating that the battleship depicted, which I presume to be the Nevada (BB-36), is the wrong “configuration.”
This caused me to go back and take a look. He is correct, the three-tier fire-control top on the Nevada at Pearl Harbor has been replaced in the painting by her post-repair/modernization top. But the hull below the Val dive bomber is still in the Pearl Harbor configuration, i.e, no 5-inch/38-caliber dual mounts, so the artist actually created a hybrid configuration. Still a dramatic work of art though.
Latter-Day U.S. Frigates
Norman Polmar
With great trepidation and with apologies, I question two of Tom Cutler’s statements in “Cracking the ‘Hull Number’ Code” (“Bluejacket’s Manual,” February, p. 7). First, the USS Forrestal was designated as a CVB—large aircraft carrier—when laid down on 14 June 1952; she was changed to attack carrier (CVA) on 1 October 1952, as were a score of other carriers (not in 1975).
Second, in the post–World War II era the designation DL never indicated “destroyer leader,” but from its beginning was the designation for “frigate.” Thus, the hunter-killer cruiser Norfolk, laid down in 1949 as CLK-1, was launched as the first “frigate” (DL-1) in 1951. Two score of frigates followed, until the frigate classification was abolished on 30 June 1975 and the designation frigate (FF/FFG) was established to indicate smaller ocean escort vessels (formerly DE/DEG). At that time the existing DL-series frigates were reclassified as destroyers (DDG) or cruisers (CG/CGN).
About a Fuchida Defender
James D. Hornfischer
Alan Zimm’s sharp inquiry into Mitsuo Fuchida’s diverse, dubious claims is most welcome, but it’s too bad Dr. Zimm ended up promoting Martin Bennett as a member of an “historical community” that is said to be “pushing back” on Jonathan Parshall’s professional evaluation of Fuchida (“A Pattern of Behavior,” December, pp. 20–21). I should state for the record I am Mr. Parshall’s literary agent.
Mr. Bennett’s complaints are not those of an historian or an objective commentator. He is a self-published novelist and aspiring screenwriter with an immediate interest in selling a movie to Hollywood based on his sympathetic fictitious portrayal of Fuchida (http://fuchidafilm.blogspot.com). As many of your readers will know, Mr. Parshall’s and Anthony Tully’s book, Shattered Sword (Potomac Books), has emerged as a standard work on the Imperial Japanese Navy at Midway since its release 11 years ago.
A Master of Prose
Captain Howard C. Cohen, Judge Advocate General’s Corps, U.S. Navy Reserve (Retired)
The “On Our Scope” column in the February issue (p. 2), marking the 30th anniversary of the magazine, noted various changes in its format, including the “retirement,” i.e., deletion, of Paul Stillwell’s “Looking Back” column. As far back as I can recall, the very first pages to which I have turned to read have been “Looking Back.”
Naval History has been blessed with many talented authors, but none has had a command of the language as has Mr. Stillwell. One may write a string of chronological facts or come to cold conclusions of history, but true teaching requires inspiring writing and the mastery of prose such as he possesses. While the “On Our Scope” column states that Mr. Stillwell remains part of the magazine’s team, contributing to “As I Recall”—which, however, is an insufficient sounding board to his own, matchless style—or bylines in future articles (how often?), the reader is not well served by the needless omission of Mr. Stillwell’s column.