"The Battle of the Bulge: The photographic history..." Topic
3 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the WWII Discussion Message Board
|
historygamer  | 03 Jan 2013 1:04 p.m. PST |
"The Battle of the Bulge: The photographic history of an American Triumph" by John R Bruning. I find it riddled with photographic misIDs, which is especially annoying since this is a picture book. There are some great photos in here, but given the nature of the book, and Preface by the author, they are kind of inexcusable. Heck, if I can ID this stuff as wrong, the author should be able to. The first photo booboo is on page 48, and IDs a side photo of a Mark III and a Mark IV. That is elementary stuff. The next one is page 82m which mis-IDs a line up of M-18 Hellcats as Chaffees. The next one is page 153 which mis-IDs an M4A3 as am M36 Jackson TD. Then on page 154 he mis-IDs an M10 as a Sherman. Then on page 171 a 105mm Howitzer is mis-IDed as a 3 inch anti-tank gun (which he comments was developed from the British 17 lber, which is just plain wrong). He then IDs a Sherman M4A3 as a Sherman M4 on page 173. The kicker as IDing a Tiger II as belonging to the Fuhrer Begleit Brigade, which had no Tigers. Oh, he goes on that Tiger Is were part of the Fuhrer Beleit Brigade – which they were not. This unit have been covered in depth in many books, as have Tiger Is. I'm gonna stop there. Great photos, lousy authorship. For goodness sakes man, ask someone who knows. :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Kaoschallenged  | 03 Jan 2013 6:23 p.m. PST |
You did get some responses here,
TMP link
Robert |
| historygamer | 03 Jan 2013 7:51 p.m. PST |
This Discussion thread seems to be more focused on such topics than the Media one, and reach a wider audience. I'm not saying don't buy the book, but just beware. As I said, there are some really good photos in the book, but apparently the standards of who publishes a book are slipping, or so it seems. |
|
