Most obviously this "expert" used this source but excelled in misinterpreting it entirely I feel negative waves!!!
Mark Zuehlke is a Canadian historian who has written some well-regarded books about the Canadian Army in WWII. I was glancing at his book about Ortona the other day. In the course of praising the Bren, he compared it to the BAR to the latter's disadvantage. That's another debate, but he also referred to the wartime BAR as the "M1919A6." The WWII version of the BAR was actually the M1918A2. The M1919A6 was really a Browning machine gun, essentially the air-cooled M1919A4 with buttstock and bipod added for the LMG role. Nitpicking perhaps, but it's a little like confusing a P14 with an SMLE.
I just read the first chapter of Bill Munro's book on the Centurion, which is talking about previous tanks and the Merlin engine. In the course of the chapter, I have learned that the Churchill tank was obsolete before it went into battle, the suspension unit on the A10 was the "Carden suspension" (I guess technically true but who calls it that?), the Crusader was the "first Cruiser to enter regular service", and I am unclear (personal ignorance) on whether it is true that in January 1941 Rolls-Royce were given a "Cavalier" with which they developed the Meteor. Is this a typo for the Crusader or did a Cavalier prototype exist at that stage? Also the Panzer III had a 76mm gun. I guess I was warned...
Don't know if the prototype existed then but the Cavalier used a Liberty based Nuffield which had nothing in common with the Merlin based Meteor.
When I first joined RR the Historical Department still had the original draft agreement swapping Power Jets for the Meteor. It was written on the back of a dinner menu for some function that Wilks and Hicks had been attending!
How many noticeable/grating errors before a book becomes worthless.... I think maybe about three (that can't be explained by time moving on & new stuff being discovered) before the whole thing becomes tainted lazy journalistic bollocks. Obviously only works when it's about something you have prior knowledge of, though. God knows what we pick up while reading on subjects we don't have much depth on. Easy to understand how myths can perpetuate.
Spurred on by a different thread about Hitler's role in the Holocaust, I decided to brush up on the intentionalist/functionalist debate. Came across this comment in an article which references my old history professor at Sheffield University who was born in Lancashire: "Functionalist - or structuralist - interpretations have gained increasing notice in recent years and are espoused mainly by German historians, for example Uwe Adam, Martin Broszat, Hans Mommsen and Karl Schleunes. Ian Kershaw is an American example." Full article here. It's actually not bad otherwise: https://www.holocaustcentre.org.nz/uploads/1/1/5/2/115245341/interpretations-of-the-holocaust.pdf
Via @SimonHarley on twatter. https://www.amazon.in/World-War-II-...vv_at_pdctrvw_dp#immersive-view_1592565848357
Wow... not only is the cover laughable, if you look at the reviews, e.g. "For example it is written that President Theodore Roosevelt initiated lend lease act in 1941. How could he do that as he was dead by 1919. Actually it was President Franklin D. Roosevelt who did it. Moreover it is written that Hitler was Imperial Chancellor of Germany and Kaiser Wilhem II was the emperor... The author messed up the first and second world wars. Similarly there are a lot of wrong facts and wrong information."
From The Rolls-Royce Meteor (pps 33-5): On Sunday 30 March 1941, just three months after the formation of the Leyland-Rolls-Royce partnership, the first engine was delivered to Leyland for installation into a Crusader hull... The first preliminary trial of the Meteor-engine Crusader tank, T15646, took place during the second week of April 1941 on Southport sands... In April the Directorate of Tank Design announced that the Meteor was to enter production ten months hence, and in May, following a high-level meeting attended by Ministry and industry hierarchy, Leyland received an order for 1200 engines with productions to achieve 500 per month by Autumn of 1942... It was also decided at this meeting that the Meteor would be installed in the Mark VII Cavalier tank as an alternative to the Liberty...
They do say that it was “run side by side with a Liberty-engined version at the Foden testing ground at Sandbach” and “beat the Liberty quite comfortably.”
I bought this book on Amazon a while ago. A decent read, but the cover has drawn a few critical comments due to the DD tank, which were not used at Walcheren. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Walcheren-...ren+operation+infatuate&qid=1592601998&sr=8-1
This is my clanger to contribute. A book from a large publisher from a fairly successful popular historian about Americans in the RAF during the Battle of Britain has a.....Fw 190 on the cover. Sigh.