Heinkel He 177 Units of World War 2 (Combat Aircraft Book 123) Kindle Edition

One of the enduring mysteries of the Second World War was the German failure to produce a viable four engine bomber capable of delivering heavy loads over long distances in time for it to make a difference in the war. The Heinkel He 177 might have been that bomber, but its development was delayed and misdirected. Author Robert Forsyth tells its story in this Osprey Combat Aircraft Series book.Development of the He 177 began in the 1930's. At the time, German leadership was more interested in large numbers of tactical aircraft than in a true four engine bomber. The He 177 would ultimately use a complicated and not entirely reliable pair of double engines, but its design would be warped by a flawed targeting philosophy. The He 177 would eventually see combat use over the Soviet Union, the North Atlantic, the Mediterranean, and the United Kingdom.The author has provided loads of details about the design and the operational life of the He177. The narrative is backed by lots of period photographs, plus color plates of aircraft variations. A few maps might have been helpful. Well recommended as a concise and readable look at a might-have-been bomber.

Great volume on this little covered German WW2 bomber. Well researched by Robert Forsyth, and many interesting photos, combat reports, and beautiful color profiles. Recommended.

Great info on germany aircraft he 177 and it's combat career. Great authors and illustrator for the info and color plates.

Have only read a few chapters so far. The five stars are for the profiles. Very well done I have a large collection of books with profiles, the HE-177 are very good

Detailed and complete. Lacking pictures and interior designs. Thanks.

thank you

First of all, it as never easy to squeeze in complex material like the long time breeding He 177 into some 90 A-4 pages and the read and basic informations are quite good. Also the try to produce some (but much too few) new profiles should be normally applauded, but there are numerous setbacks:1.) it should be pointed out that NO A-5 version was lost during "Operation Steinbock" where about 90% of A-3 were nearly flown exclusively by KG 40 & KG 100. Therefore the A-3 (which was the more mediocre version of the 2 main production series) bore the brunt of the main attack operation for the overall type during its operational career. The A-5 was the better and final development, but not available at frontline units before spring 1944 and therefore a mere sideshow, because due to lack of fuel, operations were VERY restricted or even came to a standstill by autumn 1944.2.) Only some 4 pages of information/narration about the service on the eastern front is - a catastrophy.3.) A lot of 2nd- or 3rd hand accounts were used that you can still have in another, better and more complex books.4.) but the worst are the profiles (though some are correct). It seems that there was no working together between author, painter and layouter and that knowlege at Osprey concerning Luftwaffe-colours and markings are at best rudimentary. And what it makes it even worse is, that many of the photos that are existing to prove them wrong are not included in the book, because then it would be a proven total disaster. Also many for modelers unusuable profiles were chosen like too much A-1 versions, planes of training schools, special "Erprobungsstelle"-planes etc. Most of them are not builable and therefore useless. Fewer of them would be better for modelers. A lot of opportunities of frontline planes were/are around if one would have dug deep. Of 21 profiles, only 11 are frontline-unit-planes, so the mixture is not right to show up important planes of different units. I will concentrate (mostly) only about the frontline-panes to show up the mistakes, otherwise it is getting too long.Explanations? Here we go:Profile 6: might be ok, but there is always a big chance that the big unit letters might be grey. And a white "H" was definitely carried on the nose. It is an ommision to not point that out! Also the time frame is nonsense, because A-5's were only availabe at frontline units not before early spring 1944 (and this IS an A-5!). So it MIGHT be Toulouse in March 1944 or even Aalborg in Denmark from April 1944 onwards, but definitely NOT 1943!)Profile 7: The lower front weapon is wrong. This was an A-3/R-3 that used a "Kehl"-Gerat for the HS 293 gliding bomb and except of this it had the same defense armament like an A-3/R1. Well known pictures of this plane shows, that this is NOT an A-3/R2!Profile 10: is not a frontline plane, but a very well known one and a V-Muster of an A-5. This means, it carries the later tail section of a late A-3 or an A-5, but NOT the shallow blister of an A-1 or an early A-3. This is nonsense.Profile 11: the big unit letters were definitely outlined in white and most possibly not red, but simply left in the basic fuselage side colors (means the black soot paint was just painted around the white outline). A big mistake. And a small white "S" was carried on the nose.Profile 12: Since years historians and Luftwaffe enthusiasts get confused with this plane. There are pictures of 2 different planes (an A-3 and an A-5) of 2 different units existing and reproductions of profiles therefore always get mixed up. This one is no exception and entirely wrong with just too much to mention. Just forget this profile/unit/time/Werknummer/air base on the full.Profile 14: Revell has got it right in their 1/72 kit. The big plane letters on the fuselage were definitly white ("H") and black ("M") without any outlines and the last 3 letters of the werknummer on the sides of the lower forward gun section (043 in black) is missing completely. What a disaster.Profile 18: The big fuselage letters have a white outline, which is correct, but their colours are questionable. Though a 2. Staffel had their red colour and used them often in their individual plane numbers, it seldomly carried it in both of them and in this stage of the war they went smaller (as the main unit numbers) and less colourful. Other realistic possibilities were:a.) Just white outlines for bothb.) or only the "E" was filled in redc.) or both were filled in just with grey like the night fighters.This also should be pointed out and is an omission... ...and 2x red is more unlikely.On the other side, the spinners were definitely red, and not green at all.A small white "E" was carried on the nose.There are some photos of this plane and due to how the sun is shining on the metal and photos from various angles make a real descpription very difficult. So at least the different possibilities should have been shown up!Profile 19: If you check pictures of this plane, it is obvious that the individual plane letter "D" is red and nothing like red. How can such a mistake happen of one of the most photographed and well known He 177?Profile 21. This is a Stab(Staff)-machine of 2. Gupppe. And their colours were GREEN and not red which is also very obvious by the only known photo of the front area of this plane. So spinner tips are light "Stab" green and the individual plane letter "A" also. Red is rubbish. Also the last 3 digits of the Werknummer "133" in black is missing on both sides of the forward lower gun section. And the indivuidual plane code in black beneath the wings? Where does this come from? How can someone release this in earnest?With a bit of cross-reading and checking of available Luftwaffe-photos, nearly all these mistakes would have been reather easily avoided.Well you might call it nut-picking, but I call this a complete disaster when 8 of out 11 frontline plane-profiles are whether really questionable or simply wrong from the start, because a lot of people buy Osprey books because of the profiles (modelers) and then got terribly misleaded or confused when someone might release the correct decal-versions and people think they are wrong then, because "in the book it is shown different, and what is printed in a book must be right".I own the entire list of WW I and WW II plane-books of Osprey and some are really good and useful.But for an important theme like this plane it is sadly a forgettable output.Very recommendable instead for modelers and Luftwaffe-entusiasts are:"Heinkel He 177 Greif" Smith/Creek by Ian Alan and "Operation Steinbock" MacKay/Parry by Red Kite.Also the unit-histories of KG 1 & KG 4 in German language by Motorbuch are very helpful for this theme.And last not least: for ANY english-language release about German war themes (WWI or WWII) get your spellings/writings right! If you use unit, rank or even city names PLEASE get that correct. There are much too much "Duisbergs" or "Staffels" or whatever writing faults that it really hurts. Germans would never come to the absurd idea to write down british city names like "Sauthhempten" or military-wise "squodren" or whatever. If you need help in this (especially singular/plural!) GET help to make your releases look serious. As a German linguist, this always gives me heaps of stomach ache and annoys pretty much!And very least; I am not here to damn Osprey and I hardly ever write any reviews but after reading this book, I decided to waste another hour of my life to write one. So; GET BETTER AGAIN!

IntroductionThis is a nicely produced volume in the current, well-laid-out, standard 96-page Osprey house style. It contains some useful accounts from research into actions in which the He 177 was involved.Unfortunately the book also contains a host of errors. Many are basic failures of observation: side view paintings that ignore what is plainly visible, whilst errors in captioning and the text often seem to betray a deep ignorance rather than just carelessness. In fairness to the author and the Osprey production team, most of these mistakes are not purely of their own making; they are simply parroting those made in earlier works. For the repeat errors, their failure was in not making a critical assessment of the material they selected.The root of the problem is that, with the honourable part-exception of Manfred Griehl (who made his own share of mistakes) authors have simply failed to actually engage with, read and understand the foundation sources for the He 177: the Fz.Handbücher, the Ersatzteilliste, the Baureihen-Blatt, the RLM/OKW Monatsmeldungen for deliveries and the unit Bewegungsmedungen kindly made easily available on Michael Holm’s website. It is as though these primary sources have all been put to one side in a too-difficult bucket. As a result readers continue to be treated to a host of what the evidence in these sources show to be pretty obvious untruths and half-truths. In this soup of confusion no clear distinctions are even formulated regarding what defining characteristics distinguished a He 177 A-1 from a He 177 A-3 or a He 177 A-5. The result, unfortunately, is this book just serves up more of the same obfuscations and nonsense.Although we will never understand absolutely everything about the He 177, most of the published errors are avoidable. This extended review sets out to demonstrate this by refuting the most egregious mistakes in this book, with separate sections for text, colour profiles and photo captions. Only most of the colour profiles section is included here.It would not be beyond the wit of man to correct and publish a revised edition, and to make a start on turning the flood tide of fictions unleashed in earlier publications.Colour Profiles illustrated across pages 33 to 39Pr1. The Profiles are not presented to a common scale. Following the build of the first six prototypes with a 20.58 m fuselage, there were just two He 177 fuselage designs: a short fuselage of 20.406 m. [per He 177 A-1 Fz.Handbuch] and a long fuselage of c.22.0 m [per He 177 A-3 Fz.Handbuch]. Profile #5 shows a short-fuselage He 177 A-1. If the long-fuselage aircraft depicted in all the other profiles on pages 34 to 39 were illustrated to the same scale they would all be more than half a centimetre broader across the page. However, if the short-fuselage versions profiled on page 33 were presented to the same scale as short-fuselage example in Profile 5 on page 34 they would each need to be a centimetre narrower on this page. As it is the relative sizes of these different versions, for no good reason, is left bizarrely distorted in these representations.Pr2. The short-fuselage versions shown in Profiles #1 to #3 and #5 were all powered by the DB 606. With the DB 606 there were three air intakes either side of each engine (coupled engines so symmetrical intakes on both sides of the engine installation): one is a flattened oval, one is rhomboidal and between and below is a third, circular intake. The photo on the title page is the perfect reference shot for how these should look. All of the short-fuselage profiles here, however, are drawn with just the two differently shaped intakes used for the DB 610 installation.Pr3. The long-fuselage versions in all the other profiles show the intakes immediately beside the engine in the outer wing leading edge smoothly curved into the engine nacelle. This is completely incorrect. All of the long-fuselage He 177s that saw operational service or indeed any extended use were either built with, or rebuilt with DB 610 engines repositioned 20 cm further forward than originally designed. When the engines were moved forward of the wing, unsurprisingly the intakes came with them. As a consequence the air intakes either side of a repositioned DB 610 were now located in a smoothed knuckle or shoulder that noticeably protrudes ahead of the outer wing leading edge. The intakes also face forward. The photos on pages 57 & 59 are useful reference photos and this revised panel design (Schulterblech) shaped with a knuckle or shoulder, is illustrated in the He 177 A-5 Ersatzteilliste, Teil 6 dated Apr-44, Baugruppe 631, Bild 1 & Bild 2. No knuckles are shown in any of these profiles and the mouth of the outer intake is depicted very incorrectly with a wide sideways gape. A basic failure in observation, even if these drawings mimic what has appeared previously elsewhere.Pr4. All profiles show aircraft equipped with the original, very complicated aileron design. In this each aileron was split in two horizontally. When used as an aileron both upper and lower portions functioned together, deflecting upwards and downwards in the normal manner. When used as a Fowler flap, the upper portion of the aileron remained in place as part of the wing upper surface, whilst the lower portion became an additional Fowler flap, sliding out backwards and downwards on seven streamlined guide rails to expand the wing area and increase the camber of the wing. On the inner rear of each lower aileron portion there were also two trim tabs that protruded well behind the profile of the trailing edge. The trim tabs are positioned so that two of the seven guide rails are obscured in photos, hence it is only five of the pointed guide track protrusions and the trim tabs sections that break the trailing edge profile in most photos. This is all described clearly in outline in Teil 4 of the Flugzeug-Handbuch for the He 177 A-3 (Einstellung der Quersteurung), and in detail in Teil 3 Leitwerk (Stand Februar 1943) across pages 38 to 46. This complex arrangement all seems to have worked very well. However, whether the marginal benefits of the extra Fowler flappery on the outer wing justified all the extra complexity was probably always questionable. So the He 177 A-5 did away with these complications changing to conventional ailerons with two horn balances having teardrop-shaped weights on short curved arms protruding below each aileron, conventional, partly inset trim tabs, and four prominent hinge angle-brackets that also protrude beneath the wing and aileron under surfaces. These are illustrated in the He 177 A-5 Ersatzteilliste: the wings in Teil 5 dated Feb-44, at Baugruppen 533 & 534, both Bild 1 & Bild 2, and the ailerons at Teil 4 Steuerung, Baugruppen 445 & 446, both Bild 1.When visible, these very different characteristics make it exceptionally easy to distinguish definitively between the He 177A-0/A-1/A-3 grouping of sub-types and the He 177 A-5 version. Good reference photos appear here on pages 71 (A-3) and 46 (A-5). In the colour profiles unfortunately, all side views that are accurately identified as A-5 versions (#12, #14, #16 & #19 through #21) are depicted as being fitted with the He 177 A-3-type of compound aileron/Fowler flap.Pr5. The lower cockpit glazing in the A-5 colour profiles at #12, #14, #16 & #19 through #21 is also portrayed incorrectly. All of the He 177 A-5s were built as dedicated stand-off weapons carriers, the He 177 A-5/K.IV sub-variant. All were fitted with lower cockpit glazing that extended across the full width of the lower nose. (See the detail comments on Profile #12 below.)Pr6. All profiles of long-fuselage aircraft excepting Profile #9 show underwing ETC 2000 XII D racks fitted beneath the outer wings. Underwing racks were de rigeur on He 177s equipped to use stand-off weapons, but on the photographic evidence their use on bomber versions seems to have been minimal. By 1944 there was probably less than a handful of crews in any He 177 bomber Gruppe skilled enough to safely handle a He 177 weighed down with both heavy bombs under the wings as well as bombs in the fuselage bays. The proportion of He 177 bombers fitted with outer wing racks was likely to have been equally small. For He 177 bombers then the rule should be to exclude underwing racks unless there is photographic evidence they were actually fitted to the particular example.Pr7. The photographic evidence shows that all long-fuselage He 177s were fitted with an oval window in the port side of the rear fuselage. (Reference photos are at pages 63, 85 & 92.) Not infrequently this was painted over. (Pages 28 & 70.) Nevertheless the panel lines of the port-side window are present in all long-fuselage examples. There was no such window in the starboard side of the fuselage.In the profiles these window panel lines are missing from the port sides of Profiles #13, #17 & #18, and only partially present in Profile #14. As to whether so many of these were actually painted over there is probably no clear evidence. Worse though, the same panel lines of a non-existent window are shown on the starboard side views in Profiles #10, #16, #19 & #20.Pr8. For the obvious reasons the rear view mirror above the pilot’s position was removed from aircraft adapted for the night bomber role. Yet here the night bombers in Profiles #6 & #11 are depicted with the rear-view mirror still in place, although it has been correctly excluded from Profiles #13 & #18. Two caveats here: the photo of VD+XT in Profile #17 is unclear but as an aircraft assigned to KG 1 it may have also have been fitted with a rear-view mirror. If Profile #6 is actually V4+SK of KG 1 and not a KG 100 aircraft then the presence of a rear view mirror in this side view will be correct.Profiles #2 & 3 – The RLM Fz.-Baureihen-Blatt of 1-Jan-42 as well as the Flugzeug-Baureihen-Blatt He 177 of 1-Aug-44 both document the He 177 A-1 as having no B2-Stand turret on top of the fuselage behind the wing. There is no evidence that any He 177 A-1 was fitted with even a prototype DL-131 turret for trials. All early armament trials were instead performed using the He 177 V6 & V7. [Griehl thought he had found a couple of He 177 A-1s fitted with a B2-Stand in use at FFS (C) 5, Neubrandenburg, however, these would have actually been early short-fuselage He 177 A-3/R1s.]Profile #4 – Large white 32 is claimed here as an aircraft of IV.(Erg)/KG 40 at Brandis and by Griehl as photographed in use with FFS (B) 16 at Burg. IV.(Erg)/KG 40 never used Brandis or Burg, but II./KG 1 converted to the He 177 A-3 at Burg. Large white 30 carried the F8+ code for KG 40. Large white 31 was assigned to I./KG 1 converting to the He 177 at Brandis, as well as in part at Burg, and in due course this particular aircraft became V4+BL. [AirDoc 008 p.24] Possibly the explanation is that a single long-fuselage He 177 A-3 was loaned from a school on a one-per-Gruppe basis to help get He 177 conversion training started. There seems to be a hint of some such arrangement at Classic p.142 with four aircraft from a Blindflugschule on loan to I./KG 1 at Brandis in Mar-44 to assist their conversion to the He 177. Loan machines would have likely either retained the markings of the unit making the loan, or perhaps been anonymized in the manner of the aircraft shown here simply bearing the individual letter A.Profile #6 – Supposedly a He 177 A-5 configured as a night bomber photographed in service with 5./KG 100 during summer 1943. There are a few problems with this identification. First, as the RLM aircraft delivery reports show, no A-5s existed prior to Dec-43. Further, this final, formalised night bomber scheme was not introduced until Mar-44 at earliest, and as the aileron configuration and the rear gunner position demonstrate this is actually a He 177 A-3/R2. The other problem here is that the Bewegungsmeldungen for II./KG 100 record no A-3s ever being issue to any part of this Gruppe. That said one or more He 177 A-3s actually seem to have been briefly loaned to part of I./KG 100: W.Nr. 332 143 is reported damaged in an accident when in use with 4./KG 100 on 31-Dec-43. (See onto photo captions at pp.84/5 below.)So there are two possible explanations for the identity of the aircraft profiled here. Most likely this is actually V4+HN of II./KG 1 photographed at Burg (the background buildings may provide some clues here). Another photo of what seems to be the same aircraft and apparently taken at the same time appears on p.86(btm) of Griehl (Eng edn) & p27(btm) of AirDoc 008. In the latter reproduction it is just about apparent that a rear-view mirror is fitted above the cockpit. If that is what the original print shows then this feature clinches a KG 1 identity since that unit was reequipping with the He 177 for the daylight bombing role. Alternatively this is a I./KG 100 machine with the code in this photo having been ‘doctored’ to turn a H into a N. This would not be the only He 177 photo to have undergone airbrushing.Certainly, however, no He 177 configured as a night bomber was ever loaded up with underwing Hs 293s as is depicted in this specific profile.Lastly, W.Nr. 550 136 was indeed assigned to He 177 A-5/K.IV bearing unit code 6N+HN, but as documented in the W.Nr. appendices in Griehl, this is recorded in the 09-Oct-44 inventory of II./KG 100, not in the summer of 1943.Profiles #6 & 14 – To be clear, no He 177s ever saw service at Toulouse-Blagnac with any part of II./KG 100. To think they might have is just a very careless reading of the sources.Profiles #9 & 10 – The design of rear gunner’s position shown as fitted to GP+WP and TM+IF is incorrect. The Fz. Handbuch for the He 177 A-3 confirms that the type of Heckstand illustrated in these profiles was only fitted to the first one hundred He 177 A-3s built. These were designated as the He 177 A-3/R1 and assigned Werk-Nummer sequences: 177.01332016 to 177.01332045 for the 30 from Heinkel Oranienburg, and 177.0135006 to 177.0135075 for the 70 built by Arado Brandenburg. (The closing W.Nrn. of both sequences are also documented in this Fz.Handbuch.) Thereafter all He 177 were fitted with the revised vertical tail plane and enlarged, domed Heckstand which allowed the installation of heavier calibre automatic weapons. [See He 177 A-3 Fz.Handbuch Teil 0]So, contrary to these two profile views, both GP+WP from Arado and TM+IF from Heinkel were built as He 177 A-3/R2s and were from the start of their existences fitted with the larger, domed design of Heckstand.Profile #9 – Unless there is photographic evidence to the contrary for this individual aircraft, the fin and rudder should be finished in the standard delivery scheme mandated in the He 177 A-3 Handbuch and should appear as shown in Profile #10 below.Profile #10 – The photographic evidence shows this aircraft to be a He 177 A-3 (see Classic p.70). There is no way it would have been assigned the W.Nr. of a He 177 A-5 to be delivered a year later. If the DFS report that TM+IU was W.Nr. 332 236 is accurate, then TM+IF was W.Nr. 332 221 and also built by Heinkel at Oranienburg. The Stammkz. sequence ending at TI+FZ with W.Nr. 332 215 dovetails neatly into the sequence TM+IA to Z containing both these allocations and running in an unbroken sequence from W.Nr. 332 216 to W.Nr. 332 241. Note: it was also a Heinkel characteristic to paint Stammkz. in white on dark backgrounds (and black only on pale backgrounds), in accordance with an early regulation, whilst Arado always used black letters.Profile #12 – W.Nr. 332 206 was the Werk-Nummer of a very early DB 610-powered He 177 A-3/R2 built by Heinkel at Oranienburg. Here, however, we have a photograph of what we know from the lower cockpit glazing to be either one of the last few He 177 A-3/K.IV or a He 177 A-5/K.IV because the glazing extends across the full width of the lower nose. All He 177s of earlier series were built as bombers so had armoured panels across the whole lower nose area excepting two narrow vertical strips of glazing left on either side. Because this was a matter of structural integrity even the significant number of A-3 bombers converted to carry stand-off weapons retained this armour fitment across the lower cockpit. Most of the last 30 He 177 A-3 built by Arado as dedicated K.IV stand-off weapons carriers in the W.Nr. 535 84x/5x/6x sequences even retained this armoured section across all or part of the lower cockpit. (This can be seen in the photo at p.53 where W.Nr. 535 870 has a fully glazed lower cockpit but W.Nr. 535 865 completed only shortly before retained the armouring across the port side of the lower cockpit whilst the starboard side was fully glazed. Photo of the latter at Classic p.116.)An example of lower cockpit armouring retained on an aircraft converted to carry stand-off weapons is illustrated very clearly in the photo at p.55 of an A-3 in use with KG 40. Here the welds fixing the armour to the cockpit framing are clearly visible although the starboard vertical strip of vision panels immediately to the side of the Lotfe fairing has also been painted over in the underside colour. The photos at p.76 & p.91(top) are other good references for what the lower cockpit panelling of a He 177 actually looked like prior to the deletion of this armouring. [Also at Classic p.151(btm).]Since the profiled aircraft was also fitted with the final design of cockpit side windows, having much larger panes at the top (presumably to provide additional escape routes) and only narrow panes below, it can actually be identified definitively as a He 177 A-5/K.IV. Further this was a later production He 177 A-5 that incorporated several minor modifications introduced during series production. No way was this aircraft the 6N+KK shot down over England on the night of 1/2-Mar-44; that was at least three months before this particular example would have even been delivered.Other errors in the profile of this so-called W.Nr. 332 206 is depiction with the earlier fitment of upper cockpit side windows rather than the later design actually fitted to the photographed aircraft. Also it did not carry a large white number 13 on its rudder. The confusion comes from the assumption that only a single aircraft ever carried this multi-segmented spinner scheme. In fact, at least four different examples are known and the one with a large white 13 painted on the rudder was definitely fitted with DB 606 engines when photographed, not the DB 610 engines of most He 177 A-3 builds and all examples of the He 177 A-5.Profile #16 – W.Nr. 550 244 was finished in the same He 177 A-5 late-production delivery scheme optimised for maritime operations, as depicted in Profile #20 and the photo on p.87. So the fin and rudder of W.Nr. 550 244 should be wholly in the underside colour of RLM 65. The supporting photographic evidence for this particular aircraft is on page 155(lower mid) in the English edition of Griehl’s He 177/227/274.I purchased the hard copy edition not the Kindle edition.

These books are seriously good whilst showing lots of pictures not so rare there are always new and interesting images always attached to good quality and informative text.

Superb!

First of all, it as never easy to squeeze in complex material like the long time breeding He 177 into some 90 A-4 pages and the read and basic informations are quite good. Also the try to produce some (but much too few) new profiles should be normally applauded, but there are numerous setbacks:1.) it should be pointed out that NO A-5 version was lost during "Operation Steinbock" where about 90% of A-3 were nearly flown exclusively by KG 40 & KG 100. Therefore the A-3 (which was the more mediocre version of the 2 main production series) bore the brunt of the main attack operation for the overall type during its operational career. The A-5 was the better and final development, but not available at frontline units before spring 1944 and therefore a mere sideshow, because due to lack of fuel, operations were VERY restricted or even came to a standstill by autumn 1944.2.) Only some 4 pages of information/narration about the service on the eastern front is - a catastrophy.3.) A lot of 2nd- or 3rd hand accounts were used that you can still have in another, better and more complex books.4.) but the worst are the profiles (though some are correct). It seems that there was no working together between author, painter and layouter and that knowlege at Osprey concerning Luftwaffe-colours and markings are at best rudimentary. And what it makes it even worse is, that many of the photos that are existing to prove them wrong are not included in the book, because then it would be a proven total disaster. Also many for modelers unusuable profiles were chosen like too much A-1 versions, planes of training schools, special "Erprobungsstelle"-planes etc. Most of them are not builable and therefore useless. Fewer of them would be better for modelers. A lot of opportunities of frontline planes were/are around if one would have dug deep. Of 21 profiles, only 11 are frontline-unit-planes, so the mixture is not right to show up important planes of different units. I will concentrate (mostly) only about the frontline-panes to show up the mistakes, otherwise it is getting too long.Explanations? Here we go:Profile 6: might be ok, but there is always a big chance that the big unit letters might be grey. And a white "H" was definitely carried on the nose. It is an ommision to not point that out! Also the time frame is nonsense, because A-5's were only availabe at frontline units not before early spring 1944 (and this IS an A-5!). So it MIGHT be Toulouse in March 1944 or even Aalborg in Denmark from April 1944 onwards, but definitely NOT 1943!)Profile 7: The lower front weapon is wrong. This was an A-3/R-3 that used a "Kehl"-Gerat for the HS 293 gliding bomb and except of this it had the same defense armament like an A-3/R1. Well known pictures of this plane shows, that this is NOT an A-3/R2!Profile 10: is not a frontline plane, but a very well known one and a V-Muster of an A-5. This means, it carries the later tail section of a late A-3 or an A-5, but NOT the shallow blister of an A-1 or an early A-3. This is nonsense.Profile 11: the big unit letters were definitely outlined in white and most possibly not red, but simply left in the basic fuselage side colors (means the black soot paint was just painted around the white outline). A big mistake. And a small white "S" was carried on the nose.Profile 12: Since years historians and Luftwaffe enthusiasts get confused with this plane. There are pictures of 2 different planes (an A-3 and an A-5) of 2 different units existing and reproductions of profiles therefore always get mixed up. This one is no exception and entirely wrong with just too much to mention. Just forget this profile/unit/time/Werknummer/air base on the full.Profile 14: Revell has got it right in their 1/72 kit. The big plane letters on the fuselage were definitly white ("H") and black ("M") without any outlines and the last 3 letters of the werknummer on the sides of the lower forward gun section (043 in black) is missing completely. What a disaster.Profile 18: The big fuselage letters have a white outline, which is correct, but their colours are questionable. Though a 2. Staffel had their red colour and used them often in their individual plane numbers, it seldomly carried it in both of them and in this stage of the war they went smaller (as the main unit numbers) and less colourful. Other realistic possibilities were:a.) Just white outlines for bothb.) or only the "E" was filled in redc.) or both were filled in just with grey like the night fighters.This also should be pointed out and is an omission... ...and 2x red is more unlikely.On the other side, the spinners were definitely red, and not green at all.A small white "E" was carried on the nose.There are some photos of this plane and due to how the sun is shining on the metal and photos from various angles make a real descpription very difficult. So at least the different possibilities should have been shown up!Profile 19: If you check pictures of this plane, it is obvious that the individual plane letter "D" is red and nothing like red. How can such a mistake happen of one of the most photographed and well known He 177?Profile 21. This is a Stab(Staff)-machine of 2. Gupppe. And their colours were GREEN and not red which is also very obvious by the only known photo of the front area of this plane. So spinner tips are light "Stab" green and the individual plane letter "A" also. Red is rubbish. Also the last 3 digits of the Werknummer "133" in black is missing on both sides of the forward lower gun section. And the indivuidual plane code in black beneath the wings? Where does this come from? How can someone release this in earnest?With a bit of cross-reading and checking of available Luftwaffe-photos, nearly all these mistakes would have been reather easily avoided.Well you might call it nut-picking, but I call this a complete disaster when 8 of out 11 frontline plane-profiles are whether really questionable or simply wrong from the start, because a lot of people buy Osprey books because of the profiles (modelers) and then got terribly misleaded or confused when someone might release the correct decal-versions and people think they are wrong then, because "in the book it is shown different, and what is printed in a book must be right".I own the entire list of WW I and WW II plane-books of Osprey and some are really good and useful.But for an important theme like this plane it is sadly a forgettable output.Very recommendable instead for modelers and Luftwaffe-entusiasts are:"Heinkel He 177 Greif" Smith/Creek by Ian Alan and "Operation Steinbock" MacKay/Parry by Red Kite.Also the unit-histories of KG 1 & KG 4 in German language by Motorbuch are very helpful for this theme.And last not least: for ANY english-language release about German war themes (WWI or WWII) get your spellings/writings right! If you use unit, rank or even city names PLEASE get that correct. There are much too much "Duisbergs" or "Staffels" or whatever writing faults that it really hurts. Germans would never come to the absurd idea to write down british city names like "Sauthhempten" or military-wise "squodren" or whatever. If you need help in this (especially singular/plural!) GET help to make your releases look serious. As a German linguist, this always gives me heaps of stomach ache and annoys pretty much!And very least; I am not here to damn Osprey and I hardly ever write any reviews but after reading this book, I decided to waste another hour of my life to write one. So; GET BETTER AGAIN!

Sachliche, für das Format umfangreiche Schilderung mit Farbprofilen der Fehlentwicklung des Heinkel-Flugzeugs.

Good Product