Unfortunate Book on Keith Park
With Keith Park being a New Zealander who lived near me, and my fascination with anything WW2, I wanted to like this book, I tried to like this book. Unfortunately, it's just so scrambled and disorganised that I hated it.
As an example, it wasn't until the author mentioned that Park was 46 sometime before 1938 in chapter three that I had any idea when he was born. Since the preceding paragraphs kept jumping around between 1933 and 1939, and the last date mentioned before the statement was 1938, that suggested that he was born in 1892. However, since his mother left his father and New Zealand in 1891, clearly he must have been born in 1891, so the date of him being 46 must be referring to 1937. Confused yet?
The rest of the book is worse. Things like Park's conflict with Leigh-Mallory are mentioned and discussed in passing throughout the main part of the book, but almost at random, scattered between battle reports that aren't in sequential order (for no apparent reason) and that seem to be repeated later with different numbers of aircraft and such.
It reads as if Rowlands wrote it in a series of 1000-word bursts without looking back at what he wrote last, and then published it without editing it. As long as you don't break the stream of consciousness, it makes sense. If you are trying to understand the big picture, it's hopeless.
To make matters worse, Rowland's grasp of the technicalities seems weak. At one point he states that the two 7.9mm machine-guns of the Bf 109 were superior to .303 Browning guns in British fighters (which he'd previously said couldn't penetrate the skin of a bomber) because they gave a greater weight of fire. Given that the British fighters had eight machine-guns to the German two, and that the main weapons of the Bf 109 were its 20mm cannon which he doesn't mention, it's nonsensical. His statement that the Bf 109 out-turned the Spitfire is also dubious to say the least.
So, sadly, I'm giving this book a 2. An interesting topic, but largely unreadable.
Air Marshal Sir Keith Park: Victor of the Battle of Britain, Defender of Malta
As an example, it wasn't until the author mentioned that Park was 46 sometime before 1938 in chapter three that I had any idea when he was born. Since the preceding paragraphs kept jumping around between 1933 and 1939, and the last date mentioned before the statement was 1938, that suggested that he was born in 1892. However, since his mother left his father and New Zealand in 1891, clearly he must have been born in 1891, so the date of him being 46 must be referring to 1937. Confused yet?
The rest of the book is worse. Things like Park's conflict with Leigh-Mallory are mentioned and discussed in passing throughout the main part of the book, but almost at random, scattered between battle reports that aren't in sequential order (for no apparent reason) and that seem to be repeated later with different numbers of aircraft and such.
It reads as if Rowlands wrote it in a series of 1000-word bursts without looking back at what he wrote last, and then published it without editing it. As long as you don't break the stream of consciousness, it makes sense. If you are trying to understand the big picture, it's hopeless.
To make matters worse, Rowland's grasp of the technicalities seems weak. At one point he states that the two 7.9mm machine-guns of the Bf 109 were superior to .303 Browning guns in British fighters (which he'd previously said couldn't penetrate the skin of a bomber) because they gave a greater weight of fire. Given that the British fighters had eight machine-guns to the German two, and that the main weapons of the Bf 109 were its 20mm cannon which he doesn't mention, it's nonsensical. His statement that the Bf 109 out-turned the Spitfire is also dubious to say the least.
So, sadly, I'm giving this book a 2. An interesting topic, but largely unreadable.
Air Marshal Sir Keith Park: Victor of the Battle of Britain, Defender of Malta
No comments have been added yet.
