P-38 and Mark Hubbard: An open apology
C.C. Jordan
Group has been discussed on this newsgroup and has received some
stinging criticism for his leadership abilities.
In general, I have been his biggest detractor. Indeed, much has been
written about Hubbard in several recent books and magazine articles.
Very little of that has been positive in its treatment of Hubbard. Certainly,
the impression created was that Hubbard was not well liked within the
Fighter Group.
Yet, Author John Stanaway, who I believe to be an objective writer,
disagrees with much of criticism and portrays Hubbard as an aggressive,
hard working leader and skilled pilot.
During the P-38 debate I have been a strong, and sometimes overbearing
critic of Hubbard. Because I do not wish to be unfair (and I may have been
exactly that) and because fellow participant DBSDESIGN has cited Stanaway's
work, who's opinion I respect, I decided to contact those pilots from the 20th
Fighter Group whom I know and ask them for their candid opinion. I received
three responses by email.
One pilot arrived after Hubbard became a POW and had no opinion.
Another pilot personally disliked Hubbard and did not much care for Hubbard's
style of leadership. However, he did not think Hubbard in any way undermined
the confidence of the pilots in the P-38 and in themselves and states plainly
that such conclusions are simply wrong.
The third pilot is well known to those who have read about the P-38 in the ETO.
Arthur Heiden, a very vocal advocate for the P-38 in the ETO, is nothing if not
totally objective in his opinion of Hubbard. Rather than summarize his views, I
will post his reponse in full.
________________________________________________________________
"Well, Corey, I can say that there were at least two of us with a different
opinion. Afraid that Warren Bodie is the main antagonist, in his book and
otherwise. Hubbard came in to replace the popular and hard fighting Col.
Barney Russell after the Feb 11th disaster. Old hands were very unhappy, and
rightfully as this was one of those 8th AF things. Hubbard got every ones Ass
in an airplane and we practiced daily till the stand-down was over and we were
back on Ops on Feb 20th. Disliked an open snarling about that."
"He was working up new tactics (aggressive) and airplane problems at the same
time. Older guys hated that. I was very impressed with the guy, strait forward
and told it like he saw it. No BS, very much a realist. He got in 15-missions
before flak got him. He had just shot down two 109s and shared another. With
his canopy all iced over, couldn't see, he blundered over a city and got
clobbered."
"I have a letter from him telling all about that day and what happened. It is a
very honest letter telling about his mistakes and all. Especially for a Col.
that is unusual. I have the greatest respect for him. Royal Frey was in POW
camp with him and they became fast friends. He was a loud critic of the P-38
but feel it was impatience with getting the mods that were needed for to long
a period. He was being critical of using the combat theater to test the
airplane and wasn't afraid to sound off. He had flown P-40s in N. Africa so he
had a right. Speaking your mind in the military is bad form and it scares
people. I have always thought he was a hell of a guy and would have been just
what we needed. I absolutely do not feel he made anyone feel less confident.
All BS."
"More on the situation, read my tribute to James D. Bradshaw on Syds 20th FG
site. I'm trying to find that letter, and hope to write a tribute to Hubbard
also." Art
______________________________________________________________
Having great respect for Art's opinion, and because I have a strong sense of
fairness instilled in me from childhood, I will post Art's letter here as soon
as I can get a copy. I will also post his tribute to Hubbard when it is written.
Pehaps I can "undo' any unfair damage that has been done to Hubbard's
reputation by vindictive or misinformed authors, and foolishly echoed here by
me. I feel that is the fair and proper thing to do.
My regards to all,
C.C. Jordan
Now online - The P-38: Was its size and shape a disadvantage?
http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/9485/index.html
The "Planes and Pilots of WWII" website.
An online WWII aviation history magazine.
A member of the WWII Web-ring.
Honor and remember the WWII vets.
"In reality, there exists only fact and fiction. Opinions result from
a lack of the former and a reliance on the latter."
ArtKramr
>From: C.C.J...@Worldnet.att.net (C.C. Jordan)
>Recently, Lt.Col. Mark Hubbard, former commander of the 20th Fighter
>Group has been discussed on this newsgroup and has received some
>stinging criticism for his leadership abilities.
>
>Having great respect for Art's opinion, and because I have a strong sense of
>fairness instilled in me from childhood, I will post Art's letter here as
>soon
>as I can get a copy. I will also post his tribute to Hubbard when it is
>written.
>
>Pehaps I can "undo' any unfair damage that has been done to Hubbard's
>reputation by vindictive or misinformed authors, and foolishly echoed here by
>me. I feel that is the fair and proper thing to do.
>
>My regards to all,
>C.C. Jordan
>
Corey, you are a gentleman.
Arthur Kramer
344th Bomb Group,9th Air Force
England France Belgium Holland Germany
Carlo Kopp
> Recently, Lt.Col. Mark Hubbard, former commander of the 20th Fighter
> Group has been discussed on this newsgroup and has received some
> stinging criticism for his leadership abilities.
>
> Having great respect for Art's opinion, and because I have a strong sense of
> fairness instilled in me from childhood, I will post Art's letter here as soon
> as I can get a copy. I will also post his tribute to Hubbard when it is written.
>
> Pehaps I can "undo' any unfair damage that has been done to Hubbard's
> reputation by vindictive or misinformed authors, and foolishly echoed here by
> me. I feel that is the fair and proper thing to do.
>
An excellent post. The truth should always prevail. Whether it is what we wish to
hear or not. Corey has displayed a degree of honesty here which ought to be an
example to many posters on this NG. I'll add my apology to Hubbard here as well,
since I doubted the guy on the basis of published accounts. I should not have
trusted published accounts that much.
However I will stand by my comments on leadership issues in general, and the missed
opportunities with the P-38 in mid 1943.
To the point though, isn't it interesting what you can find when you dig deep
enough into an issue ? Art Kramer's constant reminders of the pitfalls of taking
what is written in books as gospel alone is proven here _yet_ _again_.
This would have to be yet another case study of how people put things into print
and thereby create an impression of what somebody's perspective or opinion may be
on an issue, regardless of what the individual's reasoning, attitudes or motives
may actually be. A citation out of context can always be presented to carry a
different meaning to what was intended.
AH: "He was a loud critic of the P-38 but feel it was impatience with getting the
mods that were needed for too long a period. He was being critical of using the
combat theater to test the airplane and wasn't afraid to sound off."
If Hubbard indeed knew that the P-38H was the lashup it was, with J model engines
mated to lower capacity leading edge intercoolers from a P-38G because of delays in
pushing out the P-38J, and also knew of the loss of the 200 dive flap kits being
shipped to the UK, then he had every right to complain that his FG was not being
looked after. If things had been done properly he would have been flying dive flap
fitted P-38Js in very early 1944.
Clearly if he flew the P-40 in the Med, the P-38 would have had a huge performance
gain over what he had flown previously. It would therefore be rather odd that he
would be blindly critical of an aircraft which was so much hotter than the P-40.
Very odd indeed.
But putting this into the context of an FG commander with a relatively
inexperienced bunch of pilots, being thrown into the hottest air combat arena in
existence then, with a temperamental high performance fighter, where he knows that
modifications which they have asked for have not been delivered on time, his
complaints are entirely understandable.
What is curious is that he has become in print and via citations the would be
arch-critic of the aircraft. Even in "credible" publications.
It would be most interesting to hear what he would have to say today on this
subject matter, if asked to discuss the matter in its full context and weigh the
pros and cons of the types they flew.
I would suspect that we would hear a commentary very similar to George's fair and
balanced discussion comparing the P-38 and P-51.
However, controversial and contrary citations always make for more interesting
publications.
This debate has yet again illustrated the illusory nature of much of the mythology
we find in commodity consumer oriented literature. I would pretty much bet that
this is yet another example of cumulative multiple / mutual citations run wild.
Thanks Corey for a very enlightening and honest posting.
And to all posters who place an almost religious faith in their bookshelves, think
again ! Not all which finds itself in print is either accurate, or sometimes even
true. Primary sources and rigourous analysis are the only path to the truth. Art
Kramer is right on this issue and proven so yet again. Digging deep always pays
off when it comes to history.
Cheers,
Carlo