Talk:Tuskegee Airmen/Archive 1

Archive 1

Starting Question

Does anyone know where I can get the movie Tuskegg Airmen? 24.215.122.139 (Talk) at 17:23, 10 February 2005

I recommend Utorrent --Gbleem 11:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Names of the more prominent flyers

My library is in a shambles, but it would be nice to add the names of some of the other prominent members of the group, there were several well-known and decorated officers......--Pmeisel 19:33, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One of the more popular books has a list of those who served with the fighter squadrons. In Black Knights, The Story of the Tuskegee Airmen, authors Lynn M. Homan and Thomas Reilly have a list of airmen as an appendix. Their appendix table gives name, rank, class number, date of graduation, serial number, city (nearest big city, it seems) and state. Hope this helps. 212Mike 17:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Britannica highlight

An article entitled Tuskegee Airmen appeared at britannica.com as a Britannica highlight on 30 May 2005. See [1]. Courtland 16:59, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

Does this page need semi-protection?

I am not a wiki admin, just a writer, but ever since this page entered my watchlist, i have seen regular instances of racialist (anti-African American) vandalism. I reverted one such attack today, after several hours during which i reported it, hoped a bot or an admin would fix it, and saw it was still online in candalized form. Is there is some standard delimiting the number of racialist attacks per month/year/whatever that must be endured before admins give thought to the semi-protction of a page? I counted 10 revesions due to racialist vandalism on this page since January 1, 2006. Catherineyronwode 23:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Equipment and Statistics

The previous entry contained some factual errors. The Tuskegee Airmen may have flown P-39s in the US, but I can find no indication that they flew Airacobras overseas. Dr. Frank Olynyk's Mediterranean Theater victory list for USAAF units shows only P-40s, 47s (April-May '44), and 51s.

The figure of 400 German aircraft destroyed is not supported by any source I have found. The four squadrons' cumulative total of aerial victories is 113. Claims for grounded German planes are unknown.

The episode in which a German destroyer was reported sunk by gunfire was apparently an Italian patrol boat run aground. I cannot find the source right now, but it was in a naval journal. I'll see if I can relocate. At any rate, no such German destroyer appears in any compilation of Kriegsmarine losses in Italy, and it has never been identified. The ship's name or number would be welcome information. Meanwhile, the episode seems a simple case of misidentification--common in combat.

Here's an Axis history chronology for June 44, month of the event, with no mention:

http://www.feldgrau.com/june.html

I believe that the TV movie stated that the 332nd shot down "3 of the 8 German jets destroyed by the allies," and the claim has been accepted at face value. In fact, total USAAF fighter claims alone ran about 160, plus bomber gunners and the RAF jet claims. See Wm. Hess, "German Jets Vs. the Army Air Force" (1996).

Problem Solved

Turns out that the "destroyer" was a WW I Italian torpedo boat redesignated TA-22 by the Germans. There were in fact no German destroyers in the Mediterranean--no mission for them.

http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/captured/torpedoboats/ta/ta22/index.html

Please sign your entries. The 332nd initially flew P-39s, except the 99th (P-40s), while with the 12th AF. They were not an escort group at this point and so did not engage in air-to-air combat. But they did fly P-39s in Italy. In June they converted to the P-51 and began their escort role--all of the claims for the 100th, 301st, and 302nd date after 6-9-44. The official kill credits are 108.5 but this figure may have been revised upward, since Buddy Archer was originally credited with only 4 kills. The highest scoring group against German jets was the 357th Fighter Group (Yeager's group) with 18. TV movies are entertainment; an encyclopedia should strive for truthfulness, wherevr that goes.--Buckboard 08:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Previous Pilots All White?

That statement requires elaboration. As written, it is false. Hispanics were fairly common in military aviation (the first US airman killed at Pearl Harbor was Ensign Manuel Gonzales) and there were some Indians (Lt. Hiawatha Mohawk flew P-51s.) --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.134.240 (talk • contribs)

• Thanks for the notice. I'll make the changes. --Dystopos 18:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah but were the white hispanics or brown hispanics? Considering the complexities of racial terms it may be safer to just say blacks were not allowed. --Gbleem 12:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Clarence Tinker, Osage, was a Major General in the Army Air Force. His B-24 bomber disappeared during a raid on Wake Island from Midway Island on the night of June 6, 1942. Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma is named in his honor. Matt Reed, Curator of American Indian Collections, Oklahoma Historical Society —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.87.106.131 (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Historical Questions

I am not going to edit this page or criticize it given the factual controversy which seems irrelevant to me re the TA reputation, but it deserves careful editing and then locking to prevent racist attacks. The central fact of the Tuskegee Airmenis the wonder that not only did they exist, but they won well-deserved honors against great odds. Historical accuracy is a sometimes elusive, especially when there's a movie around "based on a true story." The TA Airmen experience is not immune from the fog of war. You don't have to be perfect to be good or great.

"Never lost a bomber" is almost certainly wrong. A historian for the "Tuskegee Airmen Inc." - William F. Holton -- does not believe that claim is true. There is a story (with an unfortunate numb headline) at the Washington Post for December 11, 2006 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/11/AR2006121100657.html) in which he says Air Force records indicate at least a few bombers were shot down while under escort by the TA. His research meshes with that of Daniel Haulman of the Air Force Historical Research Agency at Maxwell-Gunter Air Force Base in Montgomery, Al.

This is from that story. "The president of the Tuskegee Airmen Inc., retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Russell Davis, said he will no longer claim in speeches that the group never lost a bomber under its escort." Also "One mission report says that on July 26, 1944: "1 B-24 seen spiraling out of formation in T/A (target area) after attack by E/A (enemy aircraft). No chutes seen to open." A second report, dated Aug. 31, 1944, praises group commander Gen. Benjamin O. Davis Jr. by saying he "so skillfully disposed his squadrons that in spite of the large number of enemy fighters, the bomber formation suffered only a few losses." A third report says that on Sept. 12, 1944: "10 Me-109s attacked the rear of the bomber formation from below and left one B-17 burning, with 6 chutes seen to open."

The article concludes: " The only way to determine the group's true record is to scour the post-mission reports of bomber groups that were escorted by the Airmen's P-51 fighters. Alan Gropman, who teaches at the National Defense University in Washington, told the Advertiser that more research is needed, but added: "Even if they lost three or four bombers, it would still be minuscule compared to the losses incurred by white pilots who also escorted bombers."

That last comment is odd, because if there is a message from the Tuskegee Airmen story it is that the color of someone's skin does not indicate the quality of the man or woman. Followup stories from the AP http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/16/AR2006121600849.html in Mongomery cite interview with bomber pilot Warren Ludlum of NJ as confirming his b-24 was shot down while under Red Tail Escort.But Ludlum also says he " liked being escorted by them because of their aggressiveness. He said he knew he was being escorted by the Tuskegee Airmen on the day he was shot down because one of them, Starling B. Penn, was shot down at the same time and ended up in the same German prison camp as Ludlum."

Whatever their individual attitudes, it makes no sense to compare pilots based on race -- except that the pervasive racism have resulted in the TA being better trained and some of its pilots were more experienced than others -- of both races. The nature of the war varied by year, month, day and mission. There is a possible explanation of how the myth started. It is possible that there are several reasons for the myth. But the TA includes roughly a thousand pilots and more support. A fighter group would probably have operated 75 aircraft (can't be sure of the number without records) and the TA groups probably comprised 150 pilots not including rotations. Everyone doesn't know everything and mission stats would have been classified. Even the "good war" required heroes and sometimes a little polish were given to reality.

Bomber pilot Colin P. Kelly Jr, WWII's first American hero, did not win the Medal of Honor and he did not as reported sink the Battleship Haruna which was confused with the heavy cruiser Ashigara and which was not damaged by the attack of Kelly or four other B-17s. Both ships survived until near the end of the war. Although recommended for the Medal of Honor, Kelly won a Distinguished Service Cross. His flying allowed most of his crew to esacape a badly damaged plane. The embellishment of a sunken battleship could have been deliberate as a public moral booster or, just as likely an inaccurate report that was difficult to correct after the fact.

A fair amount of assumed belief and printed material of WWII has turned out to be wrong in detail. The only way to even approach some reality on the TA would for the historians to comb through the TA mission reports whch is harder than it might seem. And to be thoroughly accurate, there would need to be a day to day matchup of Allied information with that of the Axis. What they will find is people who performed well under fire and who must have had bad days and good. Being "ordianry" pilots under the circumstances was a great feat. A heart surgeon who never loses a patient is taking the hard cases. Is a pilot in a great airplane who holds off an opposiion pilot superior to one in a lesser plane who sometimes fails.

Movies usually get things wrong, i.e "Pearl Harbor" was filled with errors/mistakes as was "Memphis Belle. But Pearl Harbor happened and the Memphis Belle flew its missions. The TA were in the European theater early and stayed late. They didn't win the war. They were part of winning the war despite everything which what makes them important. By being where they were, they did much to start changing thingsl, sometimes one person at a time. An example is at http://www.af.mil/news/airman/0202/crew.html

The claims about jet aircraft are just careless mistakes. Some may have believed that to be the case, but allied pilots learned reasonably well to cope with the German jets (and the v1 Buzz bomb). Despite their speed advantage, there were tradeoffs that could be exploited. One writer . despite their speed and pilot advantage (good, experienced pilots, many aces, were assigned). Alllied pilots learned to ambush them on their landling glide paths, taking out 15 in one day according to one account. Ureliable engines killed some. Lack of fuel kept many aircraft on the ground in the late stages.

Was it a cruiser, a destroyer or a gunboat. The action report may say one thing and the reality be another. Misjudgments happen and can be easier than eathbound tpes thing. A lot of mistakes were made and till are. The real mistake is to hang the TA's reputation on some myth while the reality is extraordinary as it is.

Some truly represensible whie racists were heroic pilots during the same war.Their success or lack of success in other cases did not change who they were. Getting the TA right is not embellishing a classic struggle. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.120.63.94 (talk) 07:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

This Article is Historical Garbage and Make Believe!

There are so many unsourced claims for the Tuskegee Myth's presented here. This whole article is just a word for word copy of the not factual History Show on the TA. They got into the war late, 1942 was the time of major air combat losses for USA/UK not 1944-45 they did lose bombers, (losing planes is a sign of being in combat, FLAK, etc) This late in the war there were less trained pilots, less pilots period, and less AA/AAA. Less air combat/ surface to air attack by then period! They wer enever requested directly by Army Air Coprs pilots. they were not better then other aviators despite being cherry picked from Ivey League Colleges. The Germans did not have a nickname for them Like "Black birdmen". This article is histrocial garbage! My earlier critiques were deleted on the Talk Page by some person pretending to their duty. First my posts were changed to make them sound racist, then deleted. Go figure! Get some sources (maybe even some good ones?) or get out of here with this nonsense masqerading as history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.192.101.77 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 13 March 2007.

Please stop. If you continue to delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Tuskegee Airmen, you will be blocked from editing. . --Ezeu 20:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I see you have considerable interest in this article. If you continue along your present path, you'll simply find your IP address blocked. On the other hand, if you change tactics, research the subject a bit, and make some constructive, sourced (verifiable and reliable) recommendations for changes, you'll find most editors here willing to listen. Rklawton 20:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

1) I checked today, and all my comments were deleted, by who..you probably! So I said if that's the way you do it, then fine. BTW, I have been contributing here for over 5 years in a somewhat vain attempt to make these articles accurate and historically true. Often the problem is no sources or horrible ones, with rampant assertions running lose as in this article. I don't have just one ISP address BTW. Instead of being bull-headed work with me to make this article accurate, and not some sort "feel good"garbage that does not hold water!!!!1

2) -It is you people, who are writing and locking this subject who are tasked with the duty of finding good verifiable sources for your claims and unfounded written assertions, which are LOCKED INTO THE ARTICLE, not me, sir!!!!!!!!!!!

Please take a good taste, it's your own medicine! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.101.77 (talk • contribs)

1. If you will review the edit history, you will see that I am not deleting your edits.
2. Why not pick a sentence you find objectionable, copy it below, provide alternative wording, provide one or more verifiable, reliable sources for your change, and see what people think about it? Rklawton 04:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If you review the edit history, not only will you see that Rklawton was not deleting your edits, but that no one edited this Talk page between the time you first started accusing this of being "garbage" and when you flew off the handle at some imaginary "race-baiting edit pirate". Only when you started displaying signs of being less than rational -- extremely less than rational -- did any editors remove your incoherent ramblings from this page. And deservedly so, in my opinion; if you want to lay out a well-reasoned case for changes in the article, we're more than happy to listen to you but if you're going to throw about ridiculous accusations of race-baiting, left-wing conspiracy, etc. and simply rant and rave, please find another outlet for your frustrations.--chris.lawson 01:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"they were not better then other aviators despite being cherry picked from Ivey League Colleges" This claim is absolutely wrong. My grandfather was an airman, and he joined up after graduating from highschool in Harlem NY. I recently interviewed him about his time in Italy, and he explained that two of his five tentmates were teachers in the midwest, and another was a small-time boxer from New York. These men came from all walks of life, which can be easily seen in any book written on the group. (unsigned)

This is WAY too hostile. If you have a problem with a claim, then add a {{fact}} tag to point it out. Mention your specific objections on the Talk page. If no one can back up the assertion(s) (I usually give it a week), then it can be deleted. Wholesale deletion of factual information along with disputed points does no one any good and is rightly considered vandalism. BQZip01 18:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Concur. I studied their exploits in college. Given the era, the prejudice and barriers, the Tuskee Airmen overcame all this and were successful pilots. I would gladly have them fly as my wingman. Ronbo76 18:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Being someone who is actually in pilot training (see my user page), I can attest to the fact that what they did is NOT easy to do under perfect conditions. It is even more so under racist/bigoted conditions.BQZip01 23:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

RACIST B*******S ARE NOT WELCOME IN THE WIKIPEDIA COMMUNITY! GET LOST AND STAY DOWN! IF YOU ARE RACIST YOU MAY AS WELL FIND YOURSELF FRAGGED, THIS IS A PAGE ABOUT THE PILOTS OF THE FIRST BLACK UNITS OF THE USAAF. NOT A RANTHOUSE FOR YOUR RACIAL TAUNTS! I AM BLACK, and A KEEN SUPPORTER OF THE TUSKEGEE AIRMEN. DONT INSULT THEM, THEY DID MORE FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA THAN YOU EVER DID! KEEP YOU MOUTH SHUT AND APPRECIATE THEIR SACRIFICE YOU RACIST A*****e! YOU MADE A PERSONAL ATTACK ON THE BLACK PILOTS! YOU SHOULD HANG YOUR HEAD IN SHAME! Lawnmowers Rock! 15:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This may be a well-meaning response to a racially-charged argument but it is not acceptable to insult others even in a "talk page" and contravenes the intentions and tenets of Wikipedia use. You may not have realized that your comment indicates that you are acting inappropriately. Treat my comment as a well-meaning yet illustrative request to adhere to the tenets of this forum. Calling people names is unconscionable and will result in administrative consequences to limit or deny you rights to edit Wikipedia. Bzuk 15:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Not just Fighter Pilots

I don't see this in the main article, and I think it is important to pass along.

Tuskegee airmen included Afro-American pilots and crewmen who served in non-fighter roles as well as the much more well-known fighter-pilot role. My son discovered this by accident as he researched the Tuskegee airmen for a school project. He met with a retired Tuskegee Airmen at the local nursing home. Arriving with the plan of interviewing a retired fighter pilot, he prepared questions about fighter pilot experiences, and printed out some material about the fighter squadrons. Shortly after beginning the interview, he discovered that Mr. Charles G. Dunn had served as an artillery liason pilot, not a fighter pilot.

In researching further, he also found that some Tuskegee airmen had served as bomber crew as well. There's an interesting piece of history that isn't particularly well-known, and might be worthy of scholarly research. When Sean has completed the school piece and the interview, I'll submit them for possible inclusion. 212Mike 17:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

African American or black?

I would caution against using African American in the article. I have few friends who are from Africa and are American, but they are white. In this case, we are emphasizing ethnicity other than white. I think it is important to point out that they are black, or instead say other than Caucasian. etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.5.174.20 (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Given the context of the article, I think it's quite clear that in this instance African American is referring to black Americans. nmw 07:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarify paragraph

The new information about the bomber losses to enemy fighters needs to be clarified. The paragraph says "...at least a few bombers were lost to enemy fire.." That should be clarified to state "enemy fighters" or something to make it clear that the 25 value was due to fighters, and that there were others lost to ground fire (this has always been known). As the paragraph stands now, it sounds as if these 25 bombers were the first known losses. --71.55.37.221 15:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point of clarificaiton. I would encourage you to go ahead and make clarifying additions like that yourself, directly. Not sure you need a discussion, as you had a clean idea of what you thought was useful. For now, I went ahead and inserted "...fighter aircraft.." in there, as you suggested. - Thaimoss 19:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Thaimoss for adding the information in reference to the Facts and Trivia section of the article but please cite the source of your information or it will have to be removed. --Signaleer 21:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. - Thaimoss 22:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Skimming through the 27 Jan 2006 AFHRA report by Dr. Haulman[2], it looks like the estimate of 25 includes a mix of enemy fighter and flak losses. There is also the complicating factor that squadrons from other fighter groups were apparently escorting the same bomber groups as squadrons from the 332FG, so blame and credit are spread over more than one FG. All the refferences supporting the 25 lost seem to come from news articles. It might be more reliable to do a count of losses to flak and enemy fighters and reference the original AFHRA report. Also, I can't find any evidence of a fall 2006 reassessment. Everything seems actually to relate to the Jan 2006 report. Kennethk2 17:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Racial identity unknown to bomber crews?

I just came across a passage in the middle of the "Combat" section which I am tagging as "dubious".

"Although bomber groups would request Redtail escort when possible, few bomber crew members knew at the time that the Redtails were black."

Perhaps, but anybody familiar with military "scuttlebutt" would have to be skeptical of this assertion. Moreover, it's contradicted by statements in the first paragraph of the "Postwar" section. Anybody care to sort this out?

Cgingold 23:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The movie "The Tuskegee Airmen" specifically quotes that most aircrews didn't specifically know the race of these pilots, but specifically requested the redtails anyway. WHile this is not historically infalible, it does indicate the potential for these facts to be true and casts doubt on those who would claim otherwise. BQZip01 23:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing a movie, any movie, is neither encyclopedic nor reliable. If anything, the assertion about fallibility goes the other way, and "casts doubt on those etc." is an unnecessarily provocative retort. My father was a 19-year-old staff sergeant gunner on a B-24 at Stornara Italy from July 44 to March 45 and he knew that the 332nd FG was a segregated black outfit.--Buckboard 08:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Additional known publications

I'm just trying to submit some additional items I found on this subject, to fill out your "publications" section. (These were all found over on [http://www.amazon.com/ Amazon.com] Note that I included Amazon links, because they often sell used, "out of print" books.)

• 332nd Fighter Group - Tuskegee Airmen (Aviation Elite Units) by Chris Bucholtz; Osprey publishing; paperback; 128 pages. ISBN 1846030447 or ISBN 978-1846030444. [http://www.amazon.com/332nd-Fighter-Group-Tuskegee-Aviation/dp/1846030447/ref=pd_bbs_3/102-4037962-6473710?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175481230&sr=8-3 Find it at Amazon.com]

• Black Knights: The Story of the Tuskegee Airmen by Lynn M. Homan and Thomas Reilly; Pelican Publishing Company; hardcover; 336 pages. ISBN 1565548280 or ISBN 978-1565548282. [http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/1565548280/ref=s9_asin_title_3-hf_favarpcbss_2238_g1/102-4037962-6473710?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-1&pf_rd_r=12KY3B4X3JE39QQWJ68V&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=278240701&pf_rd_i=507846 Find it at Amazon.com]

• A-train; memoirs of a Tuskegee Airman by Lt. Col. Charles W. Dryden, USAF retired (with a foreword by Lt. Gen. Benjamin O. Davis, Jr., USAF, retired); University of Alabama Press; 440 pages. ISBN 0817312668 or ISBN 978-0817312664. [http://www.amazon.com/Train-Memoirs-Tuskegee-Airman/dp/0817312668/ref=sr_1_8/102-4037962-6473710?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175482605&sr=8-8 Find it at Amazon.com]

• Tuskegee Airman: The Biography of Charles E. McGee, Air Force Fighter Combat Record Holder by Charlene E. McGee, Phd.; Branden Books; 204 pages. ISBN 0828320462 or ISBN 978-0828320467. [http://www.amazon.com/Tuskegee-Airman-Biography-Charles-Fighter/dp/0828320462/ref=sr_1_10/102-4037962-6473710?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175484986&sr=8-10 Find it at Amazon.com]

• Red Tail Captured, Red Tail Free: The Memoirs of a Tuskegee Airman and POW by Alexander Jefferson, Lt. Col., USAF, ret. (with Lewis H. Carlson); Fordham University Press; 133 pages. ISBN 0823223663 or ISBN 978-0823223664. [http://www.amazon.com/Red-Tail-Captured-Free-Dimension/dp/0823223663/ref=sr_1_11/102-4037962-6473710?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175482605&sr=8-11 Find it at Amazon.com]

• Tuskegee Airmen: The Men Who Changed a Nation by Charles E. Francis, 1st Lieutenant, Army Air Force and US Air Force Reserve. (Fourth edition: edited, revised, up-dated and expanded by Adolph Caso, Col. USAR); Branden Books; 500 pages. ISBN 0828320772 or ISBN 978-0828320771. [http://www.amazon.com/Tuskegee-Airmen-Men-Changed-Nation/dp/0828320772/ref=sr_1_17/102-4037962-6473710?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175483306&sr=8-17 Find it at Amazon.com]

• Tuskegee's Heroes by Charlie and Ann Cooper; (featuring the aviation art of Roy La Grone); Zenith Press; 156 pages. ISBN 076031084X or ISBN 978-0760310847. [http://www.amazon.com/Tuskegees-Heroes-Motorbooks-Classic-Charlie/dp/076031084X/ref=sr_1_25/102-4037962-6473710?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175483651&sr=8-25 Find it at Amazon.com]

• The Tuskegee Airmen: Black heroes of World War II by Jacqueline Harris; Dillon Pr (press?); 144 pages. ISBN 0382392159 or ISBN 978-0382392153. [http://www.amazon.com/Tuskegee-Airmen-Black-Heroes-World/dp/0382392159/ref=sr_1_28/102-4037962-6473710?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175483651&sr=8-28 Find it at Amazon.com]

• The Freeman Field Mutiny: A Tuskegee Airman Story by James C. Warren; Conyers Publishing Company; paperback; page length unknown. ISBN 0964106728 or ISBN 978-0964106727. [http://www.amazon.com/Freeman-Field-Mutiny-Tuskegee-Airman/dp/0964106728/ref=sr_1_34/102-4037962-6473710?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175483991&sr=8-34 Find it at Amazon.com]

• Survival! A Purple Heart Tuskegee Airman by John Stewart Sloan, Sr.; Rutledge books; page length unknown. ISBN 1582440824 or ISBN 978-1582440828. [http://www.amazon.com/Survival-Purple-Heart-Tuskegee-Airman/dp/1582440824/ref=sr_1_40/102-4037962-6473710?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175483991&sr=8-40 Find it at Amazon.com]

• The Tuskegee Airmen (We the People) by Philip Brooks; Compass Point Books; 48 pages; ages 9-12. ISBN 0756506832 or ISBN 978-0756506834. [http://www.amazon.com/Tuskegee-Airmen-We-People/dp/0756506832/ref=sr_1_44/102-4037962-6473710?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175484258&sr=8-44 Find it at Amazon.com]

• Flight: the story of Virgil Richardson, a Tuskegee Airman in Mexico by Ben Vinson III; Palgrave Macmillan; 224 pages. ISBN 1403966184 or ISBN 978-1403966186. [http://www.amazon.com/Flight-Virgil-Richardson-Tuskegee-Airman/dp/1403966184/ref=sr_1_47/102-4037962-6473710?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175484485&sr=8-47 Find it at Amazon.com]

• The Tuskegee Airmen (Cornerstones of Freedom) by Linda and Charles George; Children's Press; 32 pages; ages 9-12. ISBN 0516272802 or ISBN 978-0516272801. [http://www.amazon.com/Tuskegee-Airmen-Cornerstones-Freedom/dp/0516272802/ref=sr_1_48/102-4037962-6473710?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175484485&sr=8-48 Find it at Amazon.com]

Wardster321 03:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Also see this (PDF) book list, from the multimedia page over at the official Tuskegee Airmen, Inc. web site.

Wardster321 04:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Additional known movies, DVD's, etc.

• Home page of: Red Tail Reborn -- this is a PBS documentary about efforts to restore a P-51C aircraft. See also the IMDb link.

Wardster321 05:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC) [3] Silver wings and Silver Wings is also an excellent documentray about the struggles of the Airmen

Mister Rogers's foster brother George

Can anyone find any information about Mister Rogers's foster brother George? Was he really an instructor at the flight school? What was his last name? --Gbleem 11:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

free images

some free images that might be useful for this article are located here at the LOC. 140.247.240.181 23:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Question of No Bombers Lost

The addition of this section is unnecessarily dismissive of the accomplishments of the unit especially when the reader has nothing to gauge these numbers against. So the unit had 25 bombers lost during its escorts: how does that compare with the rest of the Pursuit units? Mfryc 15:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a matter of perspective, the two paragraphs that note the controversy are not subjective nor out of proportion to the main article. It appears that the original submissions have dealt with a popular myth that the "Red Tails" were able to protect their charges with no losses to the bomber fleets. No Tuskegee Airmen ever made this claim and the fact that a journalist posted an inaccurate account as the basis of this myth was presented. I agree that the Airmen were the "best" escorts in the European Theater and the remainder of the main article does "set the record straight." No one wants to re-write history but it is useful to explore controversial issues. IMHO Bzuk 16:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC).

What comes across to me from the passage in question is, "They were good, but..." Without any information presented comparing the Airmen to their peers showing how they were "the best," I stand by my statement of "dismissive." I appreciate and concur with your feeling that these Airmen were the best in the European Theater, but I feel it is necessary to have verifiable numbers in order to compare them to their peers in order to validate that claim. Yes, the boast of no bombers lost is the work of a Chicago newspaperman; yet that accolade, albeit fallacious, is firm in the legendarium of WWII (perhaps the tearing out of that page is what upset me). Mfryc 10:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

As the numbers I'd cited above (25 bombers, 1500 missions) are disconnected and their product (unwittingly) specious, I have removed them (along with my quasi-expletive). Apologies. Mfryc 10:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Bzuk. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Bzuk also (the May 21st post above). I first heard about the TA's "perfect record" years ago; and it seems to be accepted as fact by a lot of people, who perhaps learned of it on History Channel type documentaries over the years and took it at face value. It is important to at least mention the issue. It doesn't take anything away from the value of that fine unit.
Engr105th 02:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Point of information: Has the outcome of the Air Force's reassessment in 2006 of the unit (as cited in the 7th paragraph under the Combat heading) been made available? Mfryc 10:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Very good question...in my experience, the tendency in the military would be to NOT advertise a reassessment if it was "negative". Especially for a unit like this from "the greatest generation" (WW2) in the winter of their lives. They'd probably just refrain from quoting a "perfect record" anymore, and let the serious historians make the "corrections" in their future works, i.e. books, historical novels, etc. The reassessment would be written up, but not offered up as news...By the way, I'm not certain the USAF ever claimed - officially - the TA had a perfect record (?).
(Sorry about all the quotation marks; the exact words I'd like to use don't quite come to me at the moment)...Engr105th 23:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)