Stand-ins for HMS Hood?

[savantu]

Well , looks like this thread is going the same way Bismarck did after its rudder was damaged...

Edited July 9, 2007 by savantu

[Guest pfcem]

3: No, you tried to claim that carrier aircraft became as good as land-based ones and was shown to be wrong and then tried to change the argument - again why ?

Let us know when you wake up from your wet dreams.

[KingSargent]

1: You've already seen and referred to the Carrier Handbook reference - see your post number 52 ! Ignore.

 

2: Again, your own reference shows you wrong, but you ignore it - why ? ignore.

 

3: No, you tried to claim that carrier aircraft became as good as land-based ones and was shown to be wrong and then tried to change the argument - again why ? No, I said that IJN and USN a/c were as good as landbased contemporaries in the 1930s and through WW2. This was because the USN and IJN were their own procurement agencies, while the RN had to go through the Air Ministry - which if not precisely the same thing as the RAF certainly had an incestuous relationship with it.

 

4: Strangely enough barriers were already there pre-war Barriers were in place on some CVs, but use was left up to the Captain. Some used them, some didn't. The barrier is only useful for operations with other planes on deck - which pre-war doctrine abrogated since launches or landings were prohibited unless there were no other planes on deck.

 

, and so was warming up planes on deck. The British warmed up planes on deck - ONE AT A TIME. After launching one plane, the next was brought up 'cold' from the hangar and warmed up. If there were problems (failure to start etc) it was struck below and another brought up to be warmed and then launched. Meanwhile the planes already launched orbited the carrier waiting for their fellows to join them. The USN and IJN warmed up whole deckloads all at once, launched rapidly, and were able to mass strikes while the RN dithered around to get six planes into the air before the first ran out of gas.

 

There were no RN "open" hangar Fleet carrier designs - the Gibraltars were closed hangars Perhaps we have a misunderstanding here. What I mean is that the RN abandoned the "armored box buried in the hull" concept in favor of larger air groups and faster operations. Perhaps I should have said "non-buried" rather than open - they were 'open' from the standpoint of being unprotected even if the wind didn't exactly whistle through the hangar.

 

5: What possible relevance is your blustering about the Glorious book (which from your description I both have andhave read) If you have, why don't you know that 'book' doctrine is often superceded by instructions to put an absolute priority on safety (as an example).

 

6: Again you started out with the myth that the RAF starved the FAA of funds/aircraft - it was actually the Admiralty (if anyone) acting on government priorities due to funding limitations. Try to understand this, OK? There were "funding limitations" because the RAF convinced politicians that they were the war-winning service and got the lion's share of what funds were available. The RAF or their concubines in the Air Ministry made sure that the FAA was restricted to low-powered fixed gear biplanes when the RAF, IJN, and USN had mostly moved on (the IJN stuck with fixed gear for a while, the USN was slow to abandon biplanes) to powerful monoplanes. The first FAA a/c to have metal construction, enclosed cockpit, and retractable landing gear was the Walrus. On 3/9/39 the RN had a few Skuas on Ark Royal - the only monoplanes with the Fleet.

 

7: Again, meaningless bluster ignore

[philgollin]

1: You've already seen and referred to the Carrier Handbook reference - see your post number 52 ! Ignore.

 

2: Again, your own reference shows you wrong, but you ignore it - why ? ignore.

 

3: No, you tried to claim that carrier aircraft became as good as land-based ones and was shown to be wrong and then tried to change the argument - again why ? No, I said that IJN and USN a/c were as good as landbased contemporaries in the 1930s and through WW2. This was because the USN and IJN were their own procurement agencies, while the RN had to go through the Air Ministry - which if not precisely the same thing as the RAF certainly had an incestuous relationship with it.

 

4: Strangely enough barriers were already there pre-war Barriers were in place on some CVs, but use was left up to the Captain. Some used them, some didn't. The barrier is only useful for operations with other planes on deck - which pre-war doctrine abrogated since launches or landings were prohibited unless there were no other planes on deck.

 

, and so was warming up planes on deck. The British warmed up planes on deck - ONE AT A TIME. After launching one plane, the next was brought up 'cold' from the hangar and warmed up. If there were problems (failure to start etc) it was struck below and another brought up to be warmed and then launched. Meanwhile the planes already launched orbited the carrier waiting for their fellows to join them. The USN and IJN warmed up whole deckloads all at once, launched rapidly, and were able to mass strikes while the RN dithered around to get six planes into the air before the first ran out of gas.

 

There were no RN "open" hangar Fleet carrier designs - the Gibraltars were closed hangars Perhaps we have a misunderstanding here. What I mean is that the RN abandoned the "armored box buried in the hull" concept in favor of larger air groups and faster operations. Perhaps I should have said "non-buried" rather than open - they were 'open' from the standpoint of being unprotected even if the wind didn't exactly whistle through the hangar.

 

5: What possible relevance is your blustering about the Glorious book (which from your description I both have andhave read) If you have, why don't you know that 'book' doctrine is often superceded by instructions to put an absolute priority on safety (as an example).

 

6: Again you started out with the myth that the RAF starved the FAA of funds/aircraft - it was actually the Admiralty (if anyone) acting on government priorities due to funding limitations. Try to understand this, OK? There were "funding limitations" because the RAF convinced politicians that they were the war-winning service and got the lion's share of what funds were available. The RAF or their concubines in the Air Ministry made sure that the FAA was restricted to low-powered fixed gear biplanes when the RAF, IJN, and USN had mostly moved on (the IJN stuck with fixed gear for a while, the USN was slow to abandon biplanes) to powerful monoplanes. The first FAA a/c to have metal construction, enclosed cockpit, and retractable landing gear was the Walrus. On 3/9/39 the RN had a few Skuas on Ark Royal - the only monoplanes with the Fleet.

 

7: Again, meaningless bluster ignore

 

 

Again, another pointless set of posts.

 

You ignore the points where you are shown to be wrong, and haven't got an answer, as for the rest :-

 

3:- It is obvious that the USN and IJN carrier aircraft were NOT as good as their land based contemporaries - why do you continue to insist they were ?

 

4:- Having claimed no barriers and being challenged - suddenly lo-and-behold they are suddenly there ! No the RN did warm up more than one at a time. Dead planes could be struck below or pushed to the side of the deck.

You were wrong about "closed" hangars and now seek to re-define the term as used by generations of naval architects to try to get around it (are you related to "humpty-dumpty evans" ?). Open/closed is NOT related to "armoured", but structure.

 

5:- I don't understand this at all. If you believe an author rather than official handbooks and operational practice then good luck to you.

 

6:- You have a basic mis-understanding of the inter-war RN/RAF split regarding the FAA. The Admiralty still specified most of the work. Yes, the FAA pilots lost influence, etc... but the Admiralty was still lead. Government priority over-ruled the services - this is the UK, not the USA - different ways of working. The immediate pre-war period was one where the Admiralty was in full control - but other projects (by the Admiralty, RAF and aircraft manufacturers had higher priorities. Another couple of years and I'm sure that the FAA would have "caught up" - but the 1938/39 designs don't inspire. You still buy into the "it was the RAf's fault" myth.

[Mk 1]

3:- It is obvious that the USN and IJN carrier aircraft were NOT as good as their land based contemporaries - why do you continue to insist they were ?

Why do you keep saying that?

 

What is obvious in this thread, if one reads the posts made by numerous participants other than Sargent, is that you are about the only one who somehow concludes that "USN and IJN carrier aircraft were NOT as good as their land based contemporaries".

 

Do you have trouble with reading comprehension? Or do you have some alternative meaning for "it is obvious" (like, "I'm the only one who believes...")?

 

You ignore the points where you are shown to be wrong ...

Is there an echo in here?

 

-Mark 1

[irregularmedic]

5:- I don't understand this at all. If you believe an author rather than official handbooks and operational practice then good luck to you.

 

 

Sure seems to me that practises are often at variance with written instructions, couldn't that be the case here?

[philgollin]

Why do you keep saying that?

 

What is obvious in this thread, if one reads the posts made by numerous participants other than Sargent, is that you are about the only one who somehow concludes that "USN and IJN carrier aircraft were NOT as good as their land based contemporaries".

 

Do you have trouble with reading comprehension? Or do you have some alternative meaning for "it is obvious" (like, "I'm the only one who believes...")?

Is there an echo in here?

 

-Mark 1

 

As pointed out above (and now on another thread) apart from the obvious contenders where there would be pointless arguments - try the Me-262 and Meteor III

[philgollin]

Sure seems to me that practises are often at variance with written instructions, couldn't that be the case here?

 

No. If you look at the photos avaailable you will see the practice.

[Guest pfcem]

As pointed out above (and now on another thread) apart from the obvious contenders where there would be pointless arguments - try the Me-262 and Meteor III

 

What "obvious contenders"?

 

And both the Me-262 & Meteor where hugely expensive interceptors (one of bombers & the other of V-2s), they did not have much success as fighters - while they were significantly faster than contemporary piston fighters they were out classed by them in virtually every other measure.

[philgollin]

 

What "obvious contenders"?

 

And both the Me-262 & Meteor where hugely expensive interceptors (one of bombers & the other of V-2s), they did not have much success as fighters - while they were significantly faster than contemporary piston fighters they were out classed by them in virtually every other measure.

 

More pointlessness (and wrong)

[Mk 1]

As pointed out above (and now on another thread) apart from the obvious contenders where there would be pointless arguments - try the Me-262 and Meteor III

So you've gone silly on another thread too. Something to brag about?

 

You were the one who said it was "obvious" that no naval fighter compared with contemporary land-based fighters.

 

And now how do you defend that?

 

1) There are two jet fighters in all of history that had no immediately contemporary naval fighters.

 

According to you the P-51, the Fw-190, the Me-109, the Corsair, the Hellcat, the Zero ... no fighters in 1941, or 42, or 43 matter, because there was a jet fighter in 1944. Available in piddling numbers, and so unreliable that it killed more of its own pilots than the enemy did, but there you have it, no reason to discuss any other planes, because "it is obvious" that you have your proof.

 

That's pretty weak. I'd say you were clutching at straws.

 

Or we still have ...

 

2) Your meaning when you say "it is obvious ... " is in fact "I'm the only one who believes...", which seems to be the case, as what you label as obvious does not seem to be obvious to any other poster on either of TWO threads now.

 

When you decide to make some sense, please do come back into this thread. I'll be interested to see what you have to say.

 

-Mark 1

[Ken Estes]

....

 

When you decide to make some sense, please do come back into this thread. I'll be interested to see what you have to say.

 

-Mark 1

Must you encourage thus, Mark??

[Guest pfcem]

More pointlessness (and wrong)

Yes you are, as you mave been on most everything in this thread.

[philgollin]

So you've gone silly on another thread too. Something to brag about?

 

You were the one who said it was "obvious" that no naval fighter compared with contemporary land-based fighters.

 

And now how do you defend that?

 

1) There are two jet fighters in all of history that had no immediately contemporary naval fighters.

 

According to you the P-51, the Fw-190, the Me-109, the Corsair, the Hellcat, the Zero ... no fighters in 1941, or 42, or 43 matter, because there was a jet fighter in 1944. Available in piddling numbers, and so unreliable that it killed more of its own pilots than the enemy did, but there you have it, no reason to discuss any other planes, because "it is obvious" that you have your proof.

 

That's pretty weak. I'd say you were clutching at straws.

 

Or we still have ...

 

2) Your meaning when you say "it is obvious ... " is in fact "I'm the only one who believes...", which seems to be the case, as what you label as obvious does not seem to be obvious to any other poster on either of TWO threads now.

 

When you decide to make some sense, please do come back into this thread. I'll be interested to see what you have to say.

 

-Mark 1

 

So you believe that facts shouldn't get in the way of silly statements ?

 

And it wasn't me who spread this to another thread - so why not have a go at that person ?

 

Please tell me which naval fighters were as good as the Me-262 and Meteor III in WW2

[Guest pfcem]

That's the problem of working with incorrect secondary sources (and then misreading them)

No, that is the problem with you having no facts to back up your fantasies & claiming that the facts presented (& backed up by reliable sources) by others debunks your false premis.

 

 

 

First, the paper was not a serious design paper, merely outlines to indicate to the board the general characteristics of possible ships. Secondly - remind me again how long it was before this paper was overtaken by another ?

 

 

 

Second, D & G are wrong re. the 16-inch designs :- "..... For this reason, work on designs with 15 and 16 inch (38.1 and 40.6 cm) guns was discontinued ...." unless of course the ships cover has been falsified !

No it is not false. When the decision was finally made to go with 14" guns all work on 16" gun King George V designs STOPPED just as it did with 15" guns. Prior to THAT decision it was clear to that the three triple 15" guns designs were the best overall & most likley to have been adopted. They even started preliminary work on the 15" guns (still waiting for you to provide any proof of an 16" gun designed for the King George Vs). Work on 16" did not start again until work started on the Lion class - it was THEN that a designation was given for new 16" guns & prototypes built.

 

 

 

Yes, it was extremely unlikely that the Admiralty would accept a "slow" 16-inch battleship (after all the nominal name for the ship was a "battlecruiser" or "armoured battlecruiser") but there was some work done on the 16-inch versions.

So why the hell do you keep insisting that the King George Vs would have EVER more likely had 16" guns than 15" guns? You are arguaing AGAINST your own (unsubstantiated) premis.

 

And again where is your evidence that ANY work was done on ANY 16" gun that could/would have been for the King George Vs.

 

 

 

Your idea that it was "more likely" that the British would, if abandoning the 14-inch, go to a 15-inch is pure suposition with nothing to back it up. Only the 14-inch and 16-inch guns were developed into working versions, the 15-inch stayed only as a stagnating paper design.

 

What thread are you reading?

 

 

 

The 15-inch (and 16-inch) both had designations, however the 16-inch was made and tested - and then two more versions designed.

So what was the 16" gun designation that could have possibly been for the King George Vs then...

[Mk 1]

Please tell me which naval fighters were as good as the Me-262 and Meteor III in WW2

Please tell me which of the two, Me-262 or Meteor III, began combat operations in 1940? Oops, hard to call either a contemporary of the Zero then, isn't it?

 

And which of the two was entering squadron service in 1942, and combat operations in 1943? Gosh, hard to see them as contemporaries of the F4U then, isn't it?

 

Yet somehow those two planes prove that the Zero and the Corsair were obviously inferior to their land-based contemporaries?

 

Or do you believe that facts shouldn't get in the way of silly statements ?

 

The world wonders.

Edited July 11, 2007 by Mk 1

[Guest pfcem]

So you believe that facts shouldn't get in the way of silly statements ?

Perhaps you could TRY providing some facts...

 

 

 

And it wasn't me who spread this to another thread - so why not have a go at that person ?

And thank god that person did.

 

 

 

Please tell me which naval fighters were as good as the Me-262 and Meteor III in WW2

Already been answered. Pehaps you cout TRY & provide SOMETHING to back up your statement that there wasn't any...

[philgollin]

Please tell me which of the two, Me-262 or Meteor III, began combat operations in 1940? Oops, hard to call either a contemporary of the Zero then, isn't it?

 

And which of the two was entering squadron service in 1942, and combat operations in 1943? Gosh, hard to see them as contemporaries of the F4U then, isn't it?

 

Yet somehow those two planes prove that the Zero and the Corsair were obviously inferior to their land-based contemporaries?

 

Or do you believe that facts shouldn't get in the way of silly statements ?

 

The world wonders.

 

Again, you are trying to change the argument - the posit was that by the war's end that Naval aircraft were as good as their land-based contemporaries (obviously wrong)

 

For 1940 - the Spitfire and Me-109

 

For 1943 - the Spitfire and Fw-190

[Guest pfcem]

Again, you are trying to change the argument - the posit was that by the war's end that Naval aircraft were as good as their land-based contemporaries (obviously wrong)

 

For 1940 - the Spitfire and Me-109

 

For 1943 - the Spitfire and Fw-190

First that is NOT the argument (YOU are the one trying to change it), go back & read the original statement.

 

Second, not only is it not obviously wrong it is in fact very much correct.

[JOE BRENNAN]

For 1940 - the Spitfire and Me-109

 

For 1943 - the Spitfire and Fw-190

Again you dodge the context of your original statement, "USN and IJN carrier aircraft were inferior to land based aircraft it wasn't only the FAA's problem". That implies an equivalence, combat operational inferiority comparable to that of FAA indigenous concept fighters like say Fulmar against their landbased contemporaries (they weren't designed to cope with). Go to 'warbird' type sites and people argue for weeks 'which was best'. The implication here was inferior as in carrier fighters could not be expected to stand against landbased ones, as *was* the case of pre and early war built-for-purpose RN carrier fighters, not the case for USN and IJN ones in general.

 

1940: the Spitfire V and A6M2, ca. 1940-41 planes, met on a number of occasions in 1943. The outcome was heavily in favor of the Zero, as much as 7:1 (28 Spit losses apparently in air combat, many more known operational losses, 4 known Japanese losses apparently in air combat). Numbers did not favor the Zeros. The tactical situation was intercepting escorted bombers with radar warning, a situation in which earlier Spitfires were only narrowly bested by Bf109E's in 1940. Different pilots, climate, technical support etc. might have changed the outcome significantly, but it's not common sense to reach a conclusion of absolute superiority of the Spitfire V over the A6M2 based on theoretical corrective factors when the only real outcome was the other way around. Zeroes savaged Hurricanes in their meetings in 1942 also; a type at least marginally competitive with the Bf109 at the time of the Zero's introduction. In designing their carriers, doctrine and tactics the IJN would not have needed to assume Zero's unable to stand against Spitfires, nor provably v 109's either. Very different situation to RN at the same time.

 

1943: As already mentioned on the thread, comparative trials found the F4U-1 comparable to contemporary Allied and captured Axis landbased fighters as of 1943. Again you can do the warbird forum debate 'the best' please do *go* do it but if Allied carriers with F4U/F6F's had had to meet 109's or 190's on numerically equal terms, planners would not have to assume their inferiority as of 1943. As of 1944 when Axis pilot quality declined they could assume superiority. The USN committed CVE based F6F's to combat over Southern France in 1944 with no need of assurance German fighters wouldn' t appear, an assurance the FAA indigenous a/c of early war *did* need for any rational operation (as Kirkenes showed). As it was German fighters were only sighted by the F6F's in the distance once and declined combat; the Hellcats shot down several bombers and transports. As mentioned the 2 known combats of USN fighter types v German fighters (both in FAA hands) were both defeats of Bf109G's (Hellcats and Wildcats).

 

"What's your favorite fighter?" is one thing, but the Spitfire, Bf109 and Fw190 were not the only a/c capable of meeting on equal terms in either 1940 or especially 1943.

 

Joe

Edited July 11, 2007 by JOE BRENNAN

[philgollin]

Again you dodge the context of your original statement, "USN and IJN carrier aircraft were inferior to land based aircraft it wasn't only the FAA's problem". That implies an equivalence, combat operational inferiority comparable to that of FAA indigenous concept fighters like say Fulmar against their landbased contemporaries (they weren't designed to cope with). Go to 'warbird' type sites and people argue for weeks 'which was best'. The implication here was inferior as in carrier fighters could not be expected to stand against landbased ones, as *was* the case of pre and early war built-for-purpose RN carrier fighters, not the case for USN and IJN ones in general.

 

1940: the Spitfire V and A6M2, ca. 1940-41 planes, met on a number of occasions in 1943. The outcome was heavily in favor of the Zero, as much as 7:1 (28 Spit losses apparently in air combat, many more known operational losses, 4 known Japanese losses apparently in air combat). Numbers did not favor the Zeros. The tactical situation was intercepting escorted bombers with radar warning, a situation in which earlier Spitfires were only narrowly bested by Bf109E's in 1940. Different pilots, climate, technical support etc. might have changed the outcome significantly, but it's not common sense to reach a conclusion of absolute superiority of the Spitfire V over the A6M2 based on theoretical corrective factors when the only real outcome was the other way around. Zeroes savaged Hurricanes in their meetings in 1942 also; a type at least marginally competitive with the Bf109 at the time of the Zero's introduction. In designing their carriers, doctrine and tactics the IJN would not have needed to assume Zero's unable to stand against Spitfires, nor provably v 109's either. Very different situation to RN at the same time.

 

1943: As already mentioned on the thread, comparative trials found the F4U-1 comparable to contemporary Allied and captured Axis landbased fighters as of 1943. Again you can do the warbird forum debate 'the best' please do *go* do it but if Allied carriers with F4U/F6F's had had to meet 109's or 190's on numerically equal terms, planners would not have to assume their inferiority as of 1943. As of 1944 when Axis pilot quality declined they could assume superiority. The USN committed CVE based F6F's to combat over Southern France in 1944 with no need of assurance German fighters wouldn' t appear, an assurance the FAA indigenous a/c of early war *did* need for any rational operation (as Kirkenes showed). As it was German fighters were only sighted by the F6F's in the distance once and declined combat; the Hellcats shot down several bombers and transports. As mentioned the 2 known combats of USN fighter types v German fighters (both in FAA hands) were both defeats of Bf109G's (Hellcats and Wildcats).

 

"What's your favorite fighter?" is one thing, but the Spitfire, Bf109 and Fw190 were not the only a/c capable of meeting on equal terms in either 1940 or especially 1943.

 

Joe

 

I don't see where any "dodge" was - simple question - simple answer.

 

Whereas (!) your answer is full of dodges - limited examples, pulling in other factors, etc...... Instead of just comparing the aircraft - now there are "dodges".

 

No, British tests and assessments did NOT comparable - and they would be the most likely "planners" to have to match them up.

[JOE BRENNAN]

1. I don't see where any "dodge" was - simple question - simple answer.

 

2. Whereas (!) your answer is full of dodges - limited examples, pulling in other factors, etc...... Instead of just comparing the aircraft - now there are "dodges".

 

3. No, British tests and assessments did NOT comparable - and they would be the most likely "planners" to have to match them up.

1. Simple answer, as in comment attributed to Mencken: for every complex question (problem) there's a simple answer, and it's wrong.

 

2. Example of where inferior Japanese carrier fighter ran roughshod over clearly superior British landbased fighters= 'dodge' Actual combat results are all that ultimately matter, and can never be totally separated into 'plane' and 'other' as 'fact'. The only pure facts are what happened in combat, the explanations are always debateable. In the IJN case the fact was their best carrier fighter dealt with, and them some, Hurricanes and Spitfires in marks representative of ca. 1941. This fact alone calls into question any statement about consistent inferiority of carrier fighters. As would the combat career of the Type 96. In 1936 the I-16 was still among the leading fighters in the world, and didn't fare well against the Type 96 1937-40.

 

3. Oh, so you meant it's a simple fact the RN (or RAF?) was of that *opinion*? It was clearly not a universal opinion or assessment of the time, but if it's so please name the specific source (not archive where it supposedly resides) you're referring to otherwise, oh deeyah, I fear your statement might lack credibility. But even such an assessment would not make the consistent inferiority of carrier fighters itself a fact. Plenty of WWII militaries misassessed all kinds of things, sometimes based on the same kind of blindspot you very obviously have in a comically massive way, on topic after topic, 'NIH' attitude about anything not from the home country and from some other countries (which shall remain nameless ) in particular.

 

Joe

Edited July 12, 2007 by JOE BRENNAN

[philgollin]

1. Simple answer, as in comment attributed to Mencken: for every complex question (problem) there's a simple answer, and it's wrong.

 

2. Example of where inferior Japanese carrier fighter ran roughshod over clearly superior British landbased fighters= 'dodge' Actual combat results are all that ultimately matter, and can never be totally separated into 'plane' and 'other' as 'fact'. The only pure facts are what happened in combat, the explanations are always debateable. In the IJN case the fact was their best carrier fighter dealt with, and them some, Hurricanes and Spitfires in marks representative of ca. 1941. This fact alone calls into question any statement about consistent inferiority of carrier fighters. As would the combat career of the Type 96. In 1936 the I-16 was still among the leading fighters in the world, and didn't fare well against the Type 96 1937-40.

 

3. Oh, so you meant it's a simple fact the RN (or RAF?) was of that *opinion*? It was clearly not a universal opinion or assessment of the time, but if it's so please name the specific source (not archive where it supposedly resides) you're referring to otherwise, oh deeyah, I fear your statement might lack credibility. But even such an assessment would not make the consistent inferiority of carrier fighters itself a fact. Plenty of WWII militaries misassessed all kinds of things, sometimes based on the same kind of blindspot you very obviously have in a comically massive way, on topic after topic, 'NIH' attitude about anything not from the home country and from some other countries (which shall remain nameless ) in particular.

 

Joe

 

So now my "dodge of an answer" has turned into a "simple answer" - you demolish your own posts, which makes my job so much easier.

 

You are trying to change best/better aircraft into more successful in a certain circumstance. A completely acceptable thing to discuss - BUT not the item under discussion here. Trying to change the argument is just another way of admitting your posts were wrong.

 

If you don't accept archive sources, you don't accept any history. The fact that someone has actually gone to the archives, looked and found means thay have much more credibility than those who read secondary (or worse) sources and believe them without checking.