Bombs Away.

The story of a bomber team.

by John Steinbeck.

Introduction.

Ernest Hemingway once said he "would rather have cut three fingers off his throwing hand" than to have written such a book as Bombs Away Bombs Away (Baker 371). Besides the book's obvious propagandistic qualities, what possibly bothered him more than anything else about (Baker 371). Besides the book's obvious propagandistic qualities, what possibly bothered him more than anything else about Bombs Away Bombs Away was the fact that rather than emphasizing the emergence of an individual, as Hemingway would have done, Steinbeck instead focused on the development of a team or group. Steinbeck, who was at the time much more socially oriented than Hemingway, had been throughout his career emphasizing the united effort of Americans to overcome the economic and concomitant social woes of the 1930s' Great Depression. At the same time, Hemingway wrote and published was the fact that rather than emphasizing the emergence of an individual, as Hemingway would have done, Steinbeck instead focused on the development of a team or group. Steinbeck, who was at the time much more socially oriented than Hemingway, had been throughout his career emphasizing the united effort of Americans to overcome the economic and concomitant social woes of the 1930s' Great Depression. At the same time, Hemingway wrote and published To Have and Have Not To Have and Have Not (1937), a novel about how one man attempts not only to overcome the economic downturn but to triumph over the New Deal bureaucratic functionaries as well. Now, with the advent of America's involvement in another ma.s.sive social problem, the global conflict against fascism, Steinbeck was willing to do his part in the war effort by writing a book about how the U.S. Army Air Forces recruited and developed a bomber team, a story that seemingly appealed to his literary sensibility. By the mid-1930s, fascism and military dictatorships had taken control over the governments of Italy, j.a.pan, Germany, and Spain, and by September 1939 they had thrown the world into the most destructive war in history. America, of course, would join the fray after Pearl Harbor in December 1941. Steinbeck began writing this book in 1942. (1937), a novel about how one man attempts not only to overcome the economic downturn but to triumph over the New Deal bureaucratic functionaries as well. Now, with the advent of America's involvement in another ma.s.sive social problem, the global conflict against fascism, Steinbeck was willing to do his part in the war effort by writing a book about how the U.S. Army Air Forces recruited and developed a bomber team, a story that seemingly appealed to his literary sensibility. By the mid-1930s, fascism and military dictatorships had taken control over the governments of Italy, j.a.pan, Germany, and Spain, and by September 1939 they had thrown the world into the most destructive war in history. America, of course, would join the fray after Pearl Harbor in December 1941. Steinbeck began writing this book in 1942.

In general, war was not necessarily Steinbeck's literary terrain, whereas it most a.s.suredly was Hemingway's. Hemingway, in all of his writings about war, whether fiction or nonfiction, always emphasized individualistic heroism and the personal alienation and despair from mechanized modern warfare and the new technological instruments of terror. His was the stuff of modernism. On the other hand, Steinbeck's literary sensibility in such works as Cannery Row, The Grapes of Wrath, Of Mice and Men, Cannery Row, The Grapes of Wrath, Of Mice and Men, and and East of Eden East of Eden seemed to prefer group or composite portraits of diverse characters, which seemed to perfectly coincide with the Army Air Forces' strategy of bringing together men from across a broad cross section of America and training them to work together for a common purpose as a bomber team. seemed to prefer group or composite portraits of diverse characters, which seemed to perfectly coincide with the Army Air Forces' strategy of bringing together men from across a broad cross section of America and training them to work together for a common purpose as a bomber team.

John Steinbeck was a rather complicated man and writer. How else could one reconcile the fact that he would, in the middle of his career, write what can only be described as a propaganda piece for the United States government? Calling it propaganda, however, should not diminish Bombs Away Bombs Away in any way or suggest that the book is not an important work; it most a.s.suredly is, especially as a significant artifact of a pivotal time in U.S. history. This book is successful primarily because it would indeed do, whether or not many Americans ever read the book, what it proposes to do, and that is make some Americans feel at ease about sending their sons to war in a modern flying machine; because it would provide a coherent glimpse at how the U.S. military was training for modern war; and because it put a uniquely American face on what would turn out to be one of the most destructive military strategic campaigns in history. in any way or suggest that the book is not an important work; it most a.s.suredly is, especially as a significant artifact of a pivotal time in U.S. history. This book is successful primarily because it would indeed do, whether or not many Americans ever read the book, what it proposes to do, and that is make some Americans feel at ease about sending their sons to war in a modern flying machine; because it would provide a coherent glimpse at how the U.S. military was training for modern war; and because it put a uniquely American face on what would turn out to be one of the most destructive military strategic campaigns in history.

Purposefully written in the vernacular, to appeal to mothers and fathers throughout the country, Bombs Away, Bombs Away, in the tradition of Walt Whitman during the American Civil War, is a contribution to American literature because it cogently conveys, in almost mythopoeic simplicity, the vital democratic regeneration of the United States in the face of a real and grave danger. Steinbeck writes, "It is the intention of this book to set down in simple terms the nature and mission of a bomber crew and the technique and training of each member of it." This is where Steinbeck truly verges on the propagandistic: "For the bomber crew will have a great part in defending this country and in attacking its enemies. It is the greatest team in the world." Propaganda, as defined by in the tradition of Walt Whitman during the American Civil War, is a contribution to American literature because it cogently conveys, in almost mythopoeic simplicity, the vital democratic regeneration of the United States in the face of a real and grave danger. Steinbeck writes, "It is the intention of this book to set down in simple terms the nature and mission of a bomber crew and the technique and training of each member of it." This is where Steinbeck truly verges on the propagandistic: "For the bomber crew will have a great part in defending this country and in attacking its enemies. It is the greatest team in the world." Propaganda, as defined by The New Oxford American Dictionary, The New Oxford American Dictionary, is "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view." Taking the strictest sense of this definition, one could argue that Steinbeck was not writing propaganda because his information was not intentionally biased or misleading. According to is "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view." Taking the strictest sense of this definition, one could argue that Steinbeck was not writing propaganda because his information was not intentionally biased or misleading. According to A Handbook to Literature, A Handbook to Literature, propaganda is "material propagated for the purpose of advocating a political or ideological position. . . . Earlier in European use, propaganda is "material propagated for the purpose of advocating a political or ideological position. . . . Earlier in European use, propaganda propaganda carried a positive or neutral sense of 'distributing information;' . . . Since about 1930, however, the connotations have become increasingly negative" (417). This definition better demonstrates the politically benign purpose Steinbeck was pursuing, as well as ill.u.s.trates the complexity of the term itself. The fact that he was commissioned by the Army Air Forces, which had a clear ideological or bureaucratic purpose in mind, almost automatically categorizes carried a positive or neutral sense of 'distributing information;' . . . Since about 1930, however, the connotations have become increasingly negative" (417). This definition better demonstrates the politically benign purpose Steinbeck was pursuing, as well as ill.u.s.trates the complexity of the term itself. The fact that he was commissioned by the Army Air Forces, which had a clear ideological or bureaucratic purpose in mind, almost automatically categorizes Bombs Away Bombs Away as a mild propaganda work, though only as a recruitment tool. However, the book's laudatory purpose, that of encouraging Americans to accept this new war machine, the bomber, makes the effort a positive one. America needed the bomber and needed large numbers of its citizens to fight in it to defeat the evil of fascism. Even democracies sometimes need a push by their governments to do the right thing. So to be clear, as a mild propaganda work, though only as a recruitment tool. However, the book's laudatory purpose, that of encouraging Americans to accept this new war machine, the bomber, makes the effort a positive one. America needed the bomber and needed large numbers of its citizens to fight in it to defeat the evil of fascism. Even democracies sometimes need a push by their governments to do the right thing. So to be clear, Bombs Away Bombs Away should under no circ.u.mstances be equated with other propaganda during that period, such as Leni Riefenstahl's should under no circ.u.mstances be equated with other propaganda during that period, such as Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will Triumph of the Will. This type of work by the n.a.z.is is what gave propaganda a negative connotation after the 1930s.

Despite his sense of duty and patriotism and his faith in the American government at the time, Steinbeck-as his biographer Jackson Benson describes the situation-was nonetheless still conflicted about writing Bombs Away. Bombs Away. Benson writes, "On the one hand his instincts were largely pacifistic and he viewed war as intellectually futile-a biological racial spasm generated out of the subconscious. . . . On the other hand, he had a very strong sense of duty." Besides, "he wanted to know what it felt like to fly in a bomber" (Benson 505). Soon after meeting with President Roosevelt, who Steinbeck claims personally talked him into writing the book (Benson 508), and General "Hap" Arnold in Washington, D.C., Steinbeck and the project photographer, John Swope, began their arduous journey. This trip would take them to bases and airfields of the Army Air Forces from coast to coast, also taking them along the way to such places as Texas, Louisiana, California, Illinois, and Florida, and finally back home to New York (Benson 505), where Steinbeck was currently living with Gwyn Conger, his second wife. As one could easily imagine, the trip was both physically demanding and at the same time mentally tedious. In other words, it was as if Steinbeck had, for a while at least, actually joined the military. His daily regimen consisted of waking up at 5:00 A.M. to begin the training routine of the flight crews, including flying in the c.o.c.kpit with the pilots, and then he would stay up at night drinking with the crews in local honky-tonks and roadhouses. Benson writes, "On the one hand his instincts were largely pacifistic and he viewed war as intellectually futile-a biological racial spasm generated out of the subconscious. . . . On the other hand, he had a very strong sense of duty." Besides, "he wanted to know what it felt like to fly in a bomber" (Benson 505). Soon after meeting with President Roosevelt, who Steinbeck claims personally talked him into writing the book (Benson 508), and General "Hap" Arnold in Washington, D.C., Steinbeck and the project photographer, John Swope, began their arduous journey. This trip would take them to bases and airfields of the Army Air Forces from coast to coast, also taking them along the way to such places as Texas, Louisiana, California, Illinois, and Florida, and finally back home to New York (Benson 505), where Steinbeck was currently living with Gwyn Conger, his second wife. As one could easily imagine, the trip was both physically demanding and at the same time mentally tedious. In other words, it was as if Steinbeck had, for a while at least, actually joined the military. His daily regimen consisted of waking up at 5:00 A.M. to begin the training routine of the flight crews, including flying in the c.o.c.kpit with the pilots, and then he would stay up at night drinking with the crews in local honky-tonks and roadhouses.

Although the path to writing this book was complicated, rigorous, and exhausting, if not at times intoxicating, Steinbeck's depiction of the training of a B-17E bomber team is simple, direct, and, one could say, cla.s.sically elegant in that he is unified in aim, is noticeably restrained in form and diction, and has organized the book proportionally. Each member of the bomber team, for example, has his own chapter. Besides the preface and the introduction, there are nine chapters in the book: "The Bomber," "The Bombardier," "The Aerial Gunner," "The Navigator," "The Pilot," "The Aerial Engineer-Crew Chief," "The Radio Engineer," "The Bomber Team," and "Missions." The "Bomber" chapter describes the basic capabilities of the B-17E "Flying Fortress" and the differences between that airplane and the other long-range bomber in the U.S. Army Air Forces inventory at the time, the Consolidated B-24 "Liberator." The next seven chapters describe the different personality types and the various training methods of the individual members of the bomber team. Finally, the last chapter speculates about how the team will work in future missions.

As a novelist who possessed a broad and sympathetic understanding of the United States' character, Steinbeck sensed America's reluctance to wage war, but he also knew that, once provoked, his country would be a formidable foe. Despite all that talk about America's moral ability to wage a just war, one can easily discern Steinbeck's innate pacifistic tendencies as well: "In all history, probably no nation has tried more pa.s.sionately or more thoughtfully to avoid fighting than the United States had tried to avoid the present war against j.a.pan and Germany" (xxix). However, Steinbeck clearly understands that by finally having been provoked into war, the United States was particularly well positioned to win the conflict: "If we ourselves had chosen the kind of war to be fought, we could not have found one more suitable to our national genius. For this is a war of transport, of machines, of ma.s.s production . . . and in each of these fields we have been pioneers if not actual inventors" (x.x.x). "In short, this is the kind of war that Americans are probably more capable of fighting and fighting better than any other people in the world" (x.x.xi). With these observations Steinbeck is clearly trying to link this book with the work he had been doing about America in the previous decade, in such books as The Grapes of Wrath, Of Mice and Men, The Grapes of Wrath, Of Mice and Men, and and In Dubious Battle. In Dubious Battle. In these novels, Steinbeck conveys how a team works best in combating forces that threaten survival, in these cases the survival of common laborers. The same is true for nations as a whole. Therefore, despite the idea that this book would not ever be the centerpiece of a novelist's career, In these novels, Steinbeck conveys how a team works best in combating forces that threaten survival, in these cases the survival of common laborers. The same is true for nations as a whole. Therefore, despite the idea that this book would not ever be the centerpiece of a novelist's career, Bombs Away Bombs Away in retrospect turns out arguably to be a book at the moral center of America's most significant war contribution and the war's most controversial issue. in retrospect turns out arguably to be a book at the moral center of America's most significant war contribution and the war's most controversial issue. Bombs Away Bombs Away depicts the building of a single team that will soon develop enough skill not only to fly the airplane but eventually to deliver a sizable payload to its intended target. Multiply this team by thousands and the bomb payload by hundreds of thousands, and eventually by millions, and one can start to see how the American war effort became not only a major deciding factor in the war effort but the most destructive military force in history. Metaphorically, it began with only one team. This is how a technological democracy builds up the moral steam to divert from the quotidian and become an extraordinary a.r.s.enal of war with almost unlimited destructive power in a relatively short period of time. depicts the building of a single team that will soon develop enough skill not only to fly the airplane but eventually to deliver a sizable payload to its intended target. Multiply this team by thousands and the bomb payload by hundreds of thousands, and eventually by millions, and one can start to see how the American war effort became not only a major deciding factor in the war effort but the most destructive military force in history. Metaphorically, it began with only one team. This is how a technological democracy builds up the moral steam to divert from the quotidian and become an extraordinary a.r.s.enal of war with almost unlimited destructive power in a relatively short period of time.

The United States strategically bombed the major urban centers and the most populated cities of Italy, j.a.pan, and Germany throughout the war, and the B-17 was the major weapon system of that campaign. The long-range bomber and the strategic bombing campaigns turned out to be extremely costly operations during World War II in terms of people and resources, of course, but, more important, in terms of lasting moral capital. The B-17 "Flying Fortress" dropped astronomical amounts of conventional ordnance, primarily on the manufacturing and industrial infrastructure of the Axis countries, and yes, this long-range bomber also directly attacked the basic fabric of civilization of these nations. The B-17 likewise established much of the operational and psychological groundwork for the eventual explosion of nuclear weapons over j.a.pan in 1945. Otherwise peaceful, democratic nations where the government's actions have to be justified to the electorate, such as the United States, do not ordinarily begin the wholesale bombing of civilian populations without justification, precedents, and a moral foundation to build upon. In other words, the buildup to the eventual dropping of the atomic bomb required incremental action. The B-17 "Flying Fortress" helped establish the technological and moral foundation for the eventual destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As a consequence of that action, the United States remains today the only country to have exploded a nuclear weapon in any war. In the beginning, Americans needed to feel at ease about sending their sons to fight in the bomber; then, they had to feel at ease about what those bombers did. It is the way democracy works in time of total war. When we look backward, the course of history seems inevitable, but actually it is not. If the U.S. electorate becomes restless about the way its government is prosecuting a war, it can make a dramatic change. It is rare, but it does happen. So while America might have been reluctant to enter the war in the beginning, in the end the United States proved more than willing to end the conflict at any price, primarily by demonstrating that it was willing and able to demolish the enemy's homeland.

On November 3, 1944, the U.S. secretary of war formed a commission to start compiling extensive reports, which eventually became The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey The U.S. Strategic Bombing Surveys, on the overall extent of the damage and the effectiveness of these bombing campaigns during World War II. The report from the European campaign provides stunning statistics of the destruction: In the attack by Allied air power, almost 2,700,000 tons of bombs were dropped, more than 1,440,000 bomber sorties and 2,680,000 fighter sorties were flown. The number of combat planes reached a peak of some 28,000 and at the maximum, 1,300,000 men were in combat commands. The number of men lost in air action was 79,265 Americans and 79,281 British. . . . More than 18,000 American and 22,000 British planes were lost or damaged beyond repair. (U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey 1) 1) As these figures indicate, the casualty rates for bomber flying missions were exceedingly high. The fact is that a bomber air-man had a better chance of becoming a combat casualty than did the grunt in the foxhole or any other type of World War II combatant. To put it simply, bomber duty was very dangerous-and very destructive: In Germany, 3,600,000 dwelling units, approximately 20% of the total, were destroyed or heavily damaged. Survey estimates show some 300,000 civilians killed and 780,000 wounded. The number made homeless aggregates 7,500,000. The princ.i.p.al German cities have been largely reduced to hollow walls and piles of rubble. German industry is bruised and temporarily paralyzed. These are the scars across the face of the enemy, the preface to the victory that followed. (U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey 1) 1) With these significant numbers of noncombatant casualties and the enormous amount of destruction, the Survey Survey notes, as one would imagine, that "the morale of the German people deteriorated under aerial attack," especially after night raids ( notes, as one would imagine, that "the morale of the German people deteriorated under aerial attack," especially after night raids (U.S. Strategic Bombing Strategic Survey 4). The 4). The Survey Survey goes on to state that the German people "lost faith in the prospect of victory, in their leaders and in the promises and propaganda to which they were subjected. Most of all, they wanted the war to end. . . . If they had been at liberty to vote themselves out of the war, they would have done so well before the final surrender. . . . However dissatisfied they were with the war, the German people lacked either the will or the means to make their dissatisfaction evident" ( goes on to state that the German people "lost faith in the prospect of victory, in their leaders and in the promises and propaganda to which they were subjected. Most of all, they wanted the war to end. . . . If they had been at liberty to vote themselves out of the war, they would have done so well before the final surrender. . . . However dissatisfied they were with the war, the German people lacked either the will or the means to make their dissatisfaction evident" (U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey 4). 4).

The Survey Survey here has pointed out one of the great moral dilemmas of this strategic bomber campaign, and that is the Allies attacked large numbers of noncombatants who actually could not do much about the war's outcome. The Allies continued to drop incendiary bomb after bomb on the citizens of a government that did not even seem to try to defend them against bombing attacks. The German n.a.z.i government, a well-doc.u.mented police state, was much more concerned about protecting strategic military resources than it was ever concerned about its own citizenry. Of course, John Steinbeck knew nothing about any of these issues back in 1942 when he started writing here has pointed out one of the great moral dilemmas of this strategic bomber campaign, and that is the Allies attacked large numbers of noncombatants who actually could not do much about the war's outcome. The Allies continued to drop incendiary bomb after bomb on the citizens of a government that did not even seem to try to defend them against bombing attacks. The German n.a.z.i government, a well-doc.u.mented police state, was much more concerned about protecting strategic military resources than it was ever concerned about its own citizenry. Of course, John Steinbeck knew nothing about any of these issues back in 1942 when he started writing Bombs Away. Bombs Away. While the point is not in any way to blame Steinbeck for strategic bombing and all this subsequent destruction of civilization, it is rather to show that Steinbeck was a part of the strategic bombing While the point is not in any way to blame Steinbeck for strategic bombing and all this subsequent destruction of civilization, it is rather to show that Steinbeck was a part of the strategic bombing team. team. He used his immense talents to induce many other Americans to become a part of that team as well, without any firm grasp of the overall consequences, of which there obviously have turned out to be many. Another famous but altogether different writer, Joseph h.e.l.ler, in He used his immense talents to induce many other Americans to become a part of that team as well, without any firm grasp of the overall consequences, of which there obviously have turned out to be many. Another famous but altogether different writer, Joseph h.e.l.ler, in Catch-22 Catch-22 (1961), would later satirize the experiences of flying in a U.S. Air Army Air Forces bomber, but that was in hindsight after the war was over and in a much difference political climate than 1942. During his time, Steinbeck is not alone, because it is arguable that the rest of America has never fully comprehended how much destructive force this nation has ravaged upon the rest of the world in the twentieth century and, frankly, on into the twenty-first. (1961), would later satirize the experiences of flying in a U.S. Air Army Air Forces bomber, but that was in hindsight after the war was over and in a much difference political climate than 1942. During his time, Steinbeck is not alone, because it is arguable that the rest of America has never fully comprehended how much destructive force this nation has ravaged upon the rest of the world in the twentieth century and, frankly, on into the twenty-first.

In defense of Steinbeck, unlike many other writers at that time and since, he took a hard stand in support of American democracy as a model for the rest of the world to emulate. Steinbeck, if anything, was staunchly patriotic. And this would not be the last time he would be considered prowar, as Steinbeck would later be branded a "hawk" for his support of Lyndon Johnson's failed Vietnam War policy in the late 1960s.

As one would imagine about a book that has been tagged as propagandistic, the academic scholarship concerning Bombs Away Bombs Away is not all that extensive: Warren French, in is not all that extensive: Warren French, in John Steinbeck, John Steinbeck, writes that the book was "not the success" of his "recent novels" (26), but he does go on to note that it was "worth $250,000 to Hollywood and to the Air Force Aid Society, to which Steinbeck turned over all his royalties" (26). A few other important scholars have written about writes that the book was "not the success" of his "recent novels" (26), but he does go on to note that it was "worth $250,000 to Hollywood and to the Air Force Aid Society, to which Steinbeck turned over all his royalties" (26). A few other important scholars have written about Bombs Away Bombs Away as well: Roy S. Simmons, in as well: Roy S. Simmons, in John Steinbeck: The War Years, 1939- 1945; John Steinbeck: The War Years, 1939- 1945; John Ditsky, in "Steinbeck's John Ditsky, in "Steinbeck's Bombs Away: Bombs Away: The Group-man in the Wild Blue Yonder"; and Robert Morsberger, in "Steinbeck's War," are three of the most prominent. Jay Parini, in The Group-man in the Wild Blue Yonder"; and Robert Morsberger, in "Steinbeck's War," are three of the most prominent. Jay Parini, in John Steinbeck: A Biography, John Steinbeck: A Biography, writes that " writes that "Bombs Away: The Story of a Bomber Team was a solid piece of journalism" (268-269). Instead of merely dismissing the book as simply a propaganda piece, Rodney Rice, in "Group Man Goes to War: Elements of Propaganda in John Steinbeck's was a solid piece of journalism" (268-269). Instead of merely dismissing the book as simply a propaganda piece, Rodney Rice, in "Group Man Goes to War: Elements of Propaganda in John Steinbeck's Bombs Away, Bombs Away," clarifies how propaganda quite possibly works in it. Rice observes that by "using simplified characters, careful arrangement of materials, and photographs, Steinbeck was thus able to manipulate forms and organizations so as to sharply outline the rhetorical focus of his training scenario" (187). Rice argues that Steinbeck uses these techniques in such a way as to bait or seduce the audience, to induce them to see what he wants them to see. Rice comments that "the second chapter is obviously devised in order to introduce the central symbol, the bomber, which embodies not only group effort, but also a host of other democratic values including vitality, integrity, hard work, faith, and practicality" (187). More often than not, critics have construed propaganda in a negative way, and possibly for good reasons in some cases, yet these "democratic values" are paradoxically the same ones Steinbeck conveys in The Grapes of Wrath, The Grapes of Wrath, which was widely praised as a book of deep humanity. These values, which ultimately coalesce around a sense of community, helped the Joads and other Okies at least survive the devastations of the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression and migrate to California as a team, despite their individual differences. Steinbeck thought that propaganda can also be a positive, if it is done for the right cause-and he steadfastly believed in the rightness of America in this war-but it also had to be done in the right way. Steinbeck clearly thought that he was doing his patriotic duty with this book. which was widely praised as a book of deep humanity. These values, which ultimately coalesce around a sense of community, helped the Joads and other Okies at least survive the devastations of the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression and migrate to California as a team, despite their individual differences. Steinbeck thought that propaganda can also be a positive, if it is done for the right cause-and he steadfastly believed in the rightness of America in this war-but it also had to be done in the right way. Steinbeck clearly thought that he was doing his patriotic duty with this book.

Interestingly enough, the story of the Boeing B-17 "Flying Fortress" is as complex as the story of Steinbeck's writing of Bombs Away. Bombs Away. According to According to Jane's Vintage Aircraft Recognition Guide Jane's Vintage Aircraft Recognition Guide, the prototype B-17 was designed and developed by the Boeing Corporation based on the specifications developed in the 1930s by the United States Army Air Corps (1926), which later became the Army Air Forces (1941). The first B-17 flew on July 28, 1935. The B-17E, the particular model that Steinbeck describes in Bombs Away, Bombs Away, was the product of prior operations with the British Royal Air Forces and became the first ma.s.s-production model for the USAAF (Holmes 127). Improvements found in the B-17E over previous models included more armor, extra machine guns, and self-sealing fuel tanks. But the most significant upgrade was the more powerful radial engines (Holmes 127). In the end, 512 B-17E airplanes were built by Boeing before being upgraded to the B-17Fs and finally to the G models, the very last of the B-17s produced (Holmes 127). was the product of prior operations with the British Royal Air Forces and became the first ma.s.s-production model for the USAAF (Holmes 127). Improvements found in the B-17E over previous models included more armor, extra machine guns, and self-sealing fuel tanks. But the most significant upgrade was the more powerful radial engines (Holmes 127). In the end, 512 B-17E airplanes were built by Boeing before being upgraded to the B-17Fs and finally to the G models, the very last of the B-17s produced (Holmes 127).

For its time the B-17 was a formidable war machine. It flew at a maximum speed of 287 miles per hour, powered by four Wright Cyclone R-1820-97 engines, which generated 4,800 horsepower (Holmes 127). The airplane had a range of two thousand miles, fully loaded with a payload of 12,800 pounds (Holmes 127). To defend itself, the B-17 had four twin-barreled .50-caliber Browning machine guns (in the chin, dorsal, ball, and tail turrets) and two single-barreled .50-caliber Browning machine guns (in the nose radio compartment and waist position). The first E model of the B-17s was flown on September 5, 1941. The E model was not only the first B-17 to be ma.s.s-produced; it was also the first bomber of any type to be manufactured in large numbers. In order to get significant quant.i.ties of these bombers manufactured quickly, Boeing had to develop a complicated production scheme that involved several other airplane-manufacturing companies, with somewhat humorous consequences: The demands of American rearmament were such that far many more B-17s were required than [those] which Boeing alone could supply, and the Army Air Forces encouraged the organization of a manufacturing pool in which Boeing, the Vega division of Lockheed, and Douglas would all partic.i.p.ate in the building of the B-17E. The pool became rather irreverently known as "B.V.D.," after the trade name for a popular line of underwear which had become a household name in America. ("Boeing B-17E Fortress") The rest, as they say, is history.

In June 1943, a year after publishing Bombs Away, Bombs Away, John Steinbeck left his home in New York and sailed to England to begin his work as a war correspondent for the New York John Steinbeck left his home in New York and sailed to England to begin his work as a war correspondent for the New York Herald Tribune. Herald Tribune. In July 1943, Steinbeck wrote a dispatch called "Waiting," in which he describes a formation of B-17 "Flying Fortress" bombers returning from a combat sortie: In July 1943, Steinbeck wrote a dispatch called "Waiting," in which he describes a formation of B-17 "Flying Fortress" bombers returning from a combat sortie: The main formation comes over the field and each ship peels to circle for a landing, but the lone ship drops and the wheels strike the ground and the Fortress lands like a great bug on the runway. But the moment her wheels are on the ground there is a sharp, crying bark and a streak of gray. The quaint little dog seems hardly to touch the ground. He streaks across the field toward the landed ship. He knows his own ship. One by one they land. Mary Ruth Mary Ruth is there. Only one ship is missing and she landed farther south, with short fuel tanks. There is a great sigh of relief on the mound. The mission is over. (Steinbeck "Waiting" 287) is there. Only one ship is missing and she landed farther south, with short fuel tanks. There is a great sigh of relief on the mound. The mission is over. (Steinbeck "Waiting" 287) Steinbeck describes this apprehensive scene with the tools of his novelist's trade. In particular he uses a human-interest perspective, which especially includes the quaint little dog that belongs to one of the bomber crews. And he, by carefully revealing only one fact at a time, uses narrative detail to build up the tension. For example, we find out that the bomber Mary Ruth, Mary Ruth, which-to give it a stamp of "humanity"-probably has the caricature of a beautiful woman painted on the front fuselage, has successfully landed. It is not complicated stuff, but nonetheless the writing is performed with great skill. One should not forget, then, that Steinbeck's writing, as it had done in which-to give it a stamp of "humanity"-probably has the caricature of a beautiful woman painted on the front fuselage, has successfully landed. It is not complicated stuff, but nonetheless the writing is performed with great skill. One should not forget, then, that Steinbeck's writing, as it had done in Bombs Away, Bombs Away, is here to likewise stamp a distinctly human face on the great machinery of contemporary war. is here to likewise stamp a distinctly human face on the great machinery of contemporary war.

Since the beginning of the real modern technological age of warfare, particularly in the later years of the American Civil War, the United States has often been put into the difficult position of having to defend its vastly destructive way of waging war. From the spring of 1864 until Lee's surrender at Appo mattox in April 1865, Northern technological advances and industrial superiority actually started transforming the battlefield and the battlefield began to resemble what it would once again look like during World War I-an enormous wasteland. During the U.S. Civil War, the Union leadership-primarily Ulysses S. Grant and William T. Sherman, but Abraham Lincoln as well-began to recognize that the right strategy supported by the right technology, when also applied with persistent and sustained action, would in the end trump Lee's superior battlefield tactics, which had utterly baffled them for several years. The Union leadership soon also learned that the outcome of this modern marriage of strategy and technology quite often produced brutal and destructive results that betrayed long-cherished and often romantic concepts of civilized behavior. The horrendous battlefield casualties of 1864, in such battles as the Wilderness, Cold Harbor, and Spotsylvania, which almost cost Lincoln his reelection, and Sherman's "March to the Sea," which has made him a reviled villain in the American South ever since, are two such examples. As a consequence this Union leadership, especially Lincoln, understood that democratic governments needed to make the case that in certain untenable situations the ends do justify the means.

While all of this history may seem esoteric, it most certainly is not: the point is that in many ways Steinbeck and Bombs Away Bombs Away are also a part of that n.o.ble and pragmatic American wartime tradition of justifying, if not tempering, the means to the ends. And it is vital for American democracy to continually look back at how we have fought our wars. The crux of the problem has been how to know exactly which means and which ends are correct policies to follow. In some cases only history and the victorious are able tell in the end. No matter what exact purpose it ended up serving, Steinbeck's are also a part of that n.o.ble and pragmatic American wartime tradition of justifying, if not tempering, the means to the ends. And it is vital for American democracy to continually look back at how we have fought our wars. The crux of the problem has been how to know exactly which means and which ends are correct policies to follow. In some cases only history and the victorious are able tell in the end. No matter what exact purpose it ended up serving, Steinbeck's Bombs Away: The Making of a Bomber Team Bombs Away: The Making of a Bomber Team is not alone in support of American wartime means. Although Steinbeck did not know the future consequences of the United States' strategic bombing campaign during World War II, and the crucial role the B-17 would play in it, his writing this book for the United States Army Air Forces not only aided the war effort by rea.s.suring the public of the airplane's acceptability, it also demonstrated the willingness of America's best literary talent to justify the use of military power to defeat the enemies of democracy. In the end, while Steinbeck was not what might be called a typical war writer in the Stephen Crane tradition, he was an American patriot who used his one great talent to help his country fight a war that threatened democracy all over the world. Steinbeck's is not alone in support of American wartime means. Although Steinbeck did not know the future consequences of the United States' strategic bombing campaign during World War II, and the crucial role the B-17 would play in it, his writing this book for the United States Army Air Forces not only aided the war effort by rea.s.suring the public of the airplane's acceptability, it also demonstrated the willingness of America's best literary talent to justify the use of military power to defeat the enemies of democracy. In the end, while Steinbeck was not what might be called a typical war writer in the Stephen Crane tradition, he was an American patriot who used his one great talent to help his country fight a war that threatened democracy all over the world. Steinbeck's Bombs Away Bombs Away reflects the same American values that he saw had helped distressed families throughout the Great Depression-hard work, faith, and the ability to work as a team-and that would also see them through yet another threat to their survival as a people. reflects the same American values that he saw had helped distressed families throughout the Great Depression-hard work, faith, and the ability to work as a team-and that would also see them through yet another threat to their survival as a people.

-JAMES H. MEREDITH.

Preface.

A book should have a dedication, I suppose, but this book is a dedication. It is a dedication to the men who have gone through the hard and rigid training of members of a bomber crew and who have gone away to defend the nation. This book is dedicated to those men, although it is not intended for their reading, for it would be primer work to them. This book is intended for the men of the future bomber teams and for their parents, for the people at home. Nowhere in this book is it indicated that it is easy to be a member of the crew. It is very difficult. But it may be an advantage to the prospective cadet or gunner, to the radio man or crew chief, to know what is in store for him when he makes application for the Air Force; and this book is intended to be read by the mothers and fathers of the prospective Air Force men, to the end that they will have some idea of the training their sons have undertaken. Their sons will not have time to tell about it once the training starts.

And mostly this book intends to tell the whole people of the kind and quality of our Air Force, of the caliber of its men and of the excellence of its equipment. There is one great difficulty in writing such a book as this. So rapid is the growth of the Air Force and so free is it from the strictures of tradition that changes are made every day. Thus by the time the book is finished and printed some of it is bound to be obsolete. That cannot be helped. The world is changing just as rapidly. One thing only does not change. The young men of now are the equals of any young men of our history. The scouts and fighters of our past have their counterparts in the present. The Air Force proves it. The Air Force proves the stupidity of the bewildered Europeans, who, seeing this nation at peace, imagined that it was degenerate, who, seeing that we fought and quarreled in our politics, took this indication of our energy as a sign of our decadence. The fortresses and the B-24's, the Airacobras, and the P-47's have by now disillusioned them.

The author wishes to thank the officers and men who helped him and taught him. They will not be thanked by name because that would be breaking an Air Force tradition. Lastly the t.i.tle "Bombs Away" is taken from the call of the bombardier when the great bombs fall free of the racks and curve down toward the enemy. The bombardier in the transparent nose of the ship lifts his microphone and his voice goes into the ears of every member of the crew and he calls "Bombs Away." That means that the mission is completed, that means it is time to go home. Someday the call will ring above a broken enemy and then it will be time to go home for good.

A flight of AT-9's

Introduction.

In all history, probably no nation has tried more pa.s.sionately or more thoughtfully to avoid fighting than the United States had tried to avoid the present war against j.a.pan and Germany. During the years 1930 to 1940, the nation was preoccupied with internal difficulties, with problems of distribution and production not impossible of solution, but requiring thought and trial and error and some conflict. It is not possible to know whether a solution could have been reached nor how soon it could have been reached. But during that period when a direction had not been set, nor an end established, a generation of young men and young women were kept marking time, not knowing where they were going. In fact, concerned only with keeping alive until some direction was established toward which they could go. Young men coming out of the schools, finding no jobs, no goals, became first despondent and then cynical; a curious and muscling state of mind which was considered intellectual despair, but which was actually the product of mental and physical idleness, descended upon the youth of the country.

The young people were not unlike those clots of boys who hang around the fronts of poolrooms waiting for something to happen. An anarchy of thought and action had in fact settled over the young people of the country. An antidote for the poisons of this idleness and indirection might eventually have been found, some great building program for the betterment of the country (some economic direction or trend to tear away the lethargy). But meanwhile, with one set of certainties gone and no new set established, the country floundered about. Floundered about in fact so convincingly that our enemies considered us to be in a dying condition. Because we were uncertain, we tried to avoid the thought of war and the means of war and the preparation for war. Some of our leaders wished to cut the world in half-to defend this hemisphere against the other-while others thought it would be good business and good thinking to give England the weapon to fight the war for us.

Perhaps the future will show that we were very fortunate in that we were not being permitted to use either of these methods for the war. Our arguments and disunity might have kept us ineffective or only partly effective until it was too late. But Germany and j.a.pan were bound to blunder sooner or later, and blunder they did. In attacking us they destroyed their greatest ally, our sluggishness, our selfishness, and our disunity.

The attack on us set in motion the most powerful species drive we know-that of survival. It created direction toward which we could aim all of our vitalities-and we have great vitality. What the Axis could not understand was that the measure of our unrest was the measure of our vitality. The war was dumped into our laps; we could not avoid it, but fortunately for us, we have been given a kind of war we are peculiarly capable of fighting-a war without established technique or method, a kind of war rooted in production in which we surpa.s.s. If we ourselves had chosen the kind of war to be fought, we could not have found one more suitable to our national genius. For this is a war of transport, of machines, of ma.s.s production, of flexibility, and of inventiveness, and in each of these fields we have been pioneers if not actual inventors.

With the very techniques required for this war, our people explored a continent and peopled it and developed it, threw rails across it, drove highways north and south, burrowed for metals, and dammed rivers for power. And the energy and versatility and initiative which developed this continent have not died. Perhaps some of our difficulty before the beginning of this war was caused by the aliveness and the versatility and initiative without the goal.

Even the tactics now used in Europe and in China are not new to us; guerrilla fighting, commando fighting, our fathers learned from the Indians 200 years ago and practiced for 200 years.

Even the children playing in the vacant lots in America practice the tactics of the guerrilla and the commandos in their games, while speed, mechanics, and motors are almost born with them. In short, this is the kind of war that Americans are probably more capable of fighting and fighting better than any other people in the world.

The goal has been set now and we have an aim and a direction, and a kind of fierce joy runs through the country. The President set an end in production that was almost beyond reason and that end is being reached. The General Staff designed an army like none in the world and that army is being a.s.sembled and trained.

Ever since the end of the last war our more intelligent gener als have foreseen what power would lie in the hands of the nation with a great and well-trained Air Force. These leaders have advocated the building of a huge Air Force and the training of thousands of pilots. But as always, opposition to change arose against them. They were denied facilities and money and, in one case at least, actual persecution was used.

It was only when Germany demonstrated so violently in Belgium, in Holland, in Norway, in Crete, how devastating air power could be, that this nation awakened to the fact that we must have a great Air Force. And we find now that what Germany accomplished in eight years, we must surpa.s.s in less than two. In many ways this challenge is good for us. We are building the greatest Air Force in the world and we are training, developing, and grouping the most highly selected body of young men in the country to operate it.

The Air Force Training Commands are not making the mistake of trying to create a great Air Force with inferior products. Indeed, the physical and mental testing of applicants is so rigid that acceptance by the Air Force of a young man is proof that he is far above the normal in intelligence, in health, and in strength.

The planes are rolling off the a.s.sembly line by the thousand now and the men to fly them are being trained by the thousand. Hundreds of new airfields are being marked out all over the country. Into the induction centers every day, come truckloads of young men to begin their training and testing. And because the training has been so rapid and so without precedent, because the Air Force is making its tradition as it goes, a number of myths and stories and misconceptions have gotten loosed in the country.

"A single-stack steamer was sighted . . ."

A good example of this kind of myth is the often-repeated statement that the life of an air gunner is twenty minutes. How such a figure could have been arrived at and on what basis and by what comparison is impossible to find out. One might as accurately say that the life of a pedestrian is fifteen minutes or that the life of a man crossing a street is a half hour. It is amazing how these irresponsible statements persist. If a pedestrian gets. .h.i.t by a car or a gunner gets. .h.i.t by a bullet his life is over, and if he doesn't, he is still alive.

The development of our Air Force has been so rapid and the men who have designed it have been so busy that so far there has not been time to issue in a book the process whereby a young American boy becomes a pilot, a bombardier, a navigator, or a gunner. Young men may be a trifle apprehensive entering on a training the process and technique of which they do not understand. It is the intention of this book to set down in simple terms the nature and mission of a bomber crew and the technique and training of each member of it. For the bomber crew will have a great part in defending this country and in attacking its enemies. It is the greatest team in the world.

THE BOMBER.

Of all branches of the Service, the Air Force must act with the least precedent, the least tradition. Nearly all tactics and formations of infantry have been tested over ten thousand years. Even tanks, although they operate at a high rate of speed, make use of tactics which were developed first by chariot and then by cavalry.

But the Air Force has no centuries of trial and error to study; it must feel its way, making its errors and correcting them. The whole technique of aerial fighting has a history of less than twenty years. While to some extent this lack of experience is limiting, in another sense, it allows the Air Force a freedom of action not quite possible in other branches of the Service; for armies, like other organizations, have a tendency to rely on tradition and to hold to traditional techniques after their efficacy has pa.s.sed. The Air Force must make its way in a new field where there are no precedents, where there are few rules to fall back on. During the last war, military airplanes were used largely for observation. The heroic dog fights which took place over the lines in Europe were usually the result of one plane trying to keep another from seeing what was going on behind the line.

It was only toward the very end of the war that bombers began to be built and bombing tactics developed. During the period between the two wars, most of the nations of the world experimented expensively with airplanes. The world at large was so tired of war, so sick with war that it hoped it might never have to use these experiments. Of all the nations of the world, only Germany knew what it was going to do and where it was going with its aircraft. Germany, and the dark Aryans of Italy and the yellow Aryans of j.a.pan developed air forces. The purpose was to blast and maim and kill. They knew exactly what they were going to do. They developed plane types for specific purposes and they watched the rest of the world for the uncorrelated experiments which they might devote to their purposes. Thus when the United States Navy developed the principle of dive-bombing, Germany took the principle and welded it into its air tactics and later used it overwhelmingly on the nations it attacked.

j.a.pan studied the intricacies of the American supercharger and incorporated it in its Zero fighter. The Axis developed and took and bought and stole the unrelated air inventions of the whole world and gathered them together into a destructive design, and when the Axis struck at Europe with this carefully designed unit of destruction it found Europe unprepared to meet it. The Axis had been practicing with its new weapon in Ethiopia, in Spain, and in China, and the rest of the world took little notice. Wild Ethiopian hors.e.m.e.n had been bombed and machine gunned on the ground to teach young Mussolinis how to use their weapons. The people of Guernica were cut down, Madrid was bombed, Barcelona destroyed, to train the Axis how to use its weapons. China defended itself with a wall of men against a wall of metal. And only after Europe was attacked and half beaten did the people of the world awake to the fact that air power can only be beaten with air power. If the German plan had worked we would have been lost, for the Axis planned to destroy us before our factories could begin turning out planes, before our young men could be trained to operate them. Holland, Belgium, and France were gone-surprised and blasted before they could resist-and then the German bombers struck at England; for the intention was to destroy England as quickly and as completely as France had been destroyed, to wreck the small English Air Force on the ground and to destroy the cities and bring the people to their knees.

But from England a few Spitfires went up to meet the German bombers which for the first time were challenged. And probably the history of the world for all time to come was changed by those few Spitfires and the young men who flew them. For the first time the Axis had air power against it no matter how inadequate. Those few Spitfires gave us time and gave England time to build the weapon to destroy the Axis-the weapon of air power, faster, bigger, and more numerous than the Axis can provide. At last the world is awake. It knows now that it could not escape the war and that the only way to terminate the war is to destroy the men and the weapons that caused it.

The weapons of the Air Force and their use are changing and developing very rapidly, but already certain facts that were known to a few of the leaders of our Air Force are becoming generally known. We know now that the champion, that the backbone of air power is the heavy bomber. Pursuit plane, torpedo plane, observation plane have specialized services very necessary and very vital as part of the Air Force, but the puncher is the heavy bomber.

For a long time we hated the idea of the heavy bomber. It was considered only an offensive weapon designed to carry bomb loads to enemy cities to destroy them. But very recently a new factor has emerged. The Coral Sea and the Battle of Midway have demonstrated that our heavy bomber is our greatest weapon for the defense of our coast against invasion.

In the short time of its use the heavy bomber has made a tremendous record. It may, in fact, have changed the nature of warfare in the world. In the Coral Sea long-range heavy bombers, land-based, went out to meet the j.a.panese invasion fleet and broke its back, dispersed its ships. And again at Midway, the long-range bombers found a j.a.panese fleet and dispersed it before it could near land. These terrible weapons may have changed the nature of navies, may have made capital ships obsolete. From offensive weapons, the long-range bombers have taken their place as our greatest defensive weapon, and we know now that our coast cannot be attacked by invasion fleets as long as we have great numbers of long-range bombers to find the enemy at sea and destroy him before he can make contact with our sh.o.r.es.

The enormous cruising range of our bombers, together with their capacity for carrying enormous quant.i.ties and weights of bombs, have put new emphasis, new responsibility, and new honor on the land-based, long-range bomber. It can patrol and strike thousands of miles at sea and no ship, no matter how protected, can survive the weight of its attack. On the newly formed and trained bomber crews is being placed the first responsibility to the nation, to defend the coasts and to carry the war to the enemy. There can be little question why the Army Air Force is placing such emphasis on the heavy bomber.

In the earlier days of the Service, young men entering the Air Force wished first to be pilots and second to be pilots of pursuit ships. The speed of the ships and the dramatic gallantry of the action drew the best of our young men to that Service. But the pursuit ship is a short-range, supplementary weapon compared to the bomber. In the Air Force, a new, compact, and exciting organization is growing up-the bomber crew. It's really a bomber team and it can truly be called a team for it must have those qualities which make a good football team, a good basketball team. It must function as a unit. It must have complete discipline and yet it must delegate its responsibilities. Each member of a bomber crew has a function to perform which must come out of himself. Each member of a bomber crew has two functions-that of command as well as that of obedience. The pilot and the copilot must fly the ship, that is true, but they must take their directions from the navigator, for he knows where they are and where they are going and how to get there. Arriving at the target, the bombardier must take command, for it is he who must drop the bombs on their target, who must destroy the ship or break up the power line or riddle the factory. And all during flight, the engineer commands the engines and sees that they function. The radio man is the voice and ears of the plane, keeping it in contact with its squadron and with its base, and all the time the aerial gunners are charged with the defense of the ship. On the sharpness of their eyes and the accuracy of their aim the safety of the whole crew depends.

This is truly a team, each member responsible to the whole and the whole responsible to the members. And only with its teamlike quality can the bomber successfully function. Here is no commander with subordinates, but a group of responsible individuals functioning as a unit while each member exercises individual judgment and foresight and care.

This is the kind of an organization that Americans above all others are best capable of maintaining. The bomber team is truly a democratic organization. No single man can give all the orders to make a bomber effective. The effectiveness of its mission rests on the initiative and judgment of each one of its members. Not everyone on a football team insists on being quarterback. He plays the position he is best fitted to play. The best football team is one where every member plays his own particular game as a part of the team. The best bomber team is the one where each man plays for the success of the mission.

Thus, because of the foresight of the leaders of our Air Force, a change is coming over the att.i.tude of the young men who are joining. There was a time when a navigator was a pilot who had failed and had taken second choice, when a bombardier was a navigator who had failed and had taken second choice. That is no longer true. A pilot is one kind of man, having one kind of qualities. He might not make a good navigator. A navigator might not make a good pilot nor a good bombardier, while a bombardier requires certain physical and mental traits which are different from those required by either navigator or pilot.

So that each man will do the work he is best fitted to do, the Air Force has devised a series of tests, mental, manual, and physical, which strongly indicate the position in the bomber each applicant should take.

America is building two kinds of long-range bombers for its rapidly developing bomber crews, while other kinds of ships are being built and tested. It is probable that the B-17, popularly known as the Flying Fortress, and the B-24, which the British call the Liberator and for which we have no name yet, will be the nucleus and the backbone of the Air Force striking power. Both are four-engined ships capable of great cruising range and of large bomb-carrying capacity, and although they do not look alike at all they seem to be about equal in effective-ness. But such are the loyalties of Americans toward their tools and their weapons that a Flying Fortress crew will spend a night arguing for the Flying Fortress, while a B-24 crew defends its ship with some heat. The B-17, or Flying Fortress, is the best known and better publicized of the two ships. Its name has struck a responsive chord in the public mind, in spite of the fact that its name does not describe it at all. It is in no sense a fortress, it is an attack ship. Its purpose is to carry the war to an enemy, not to sit still and repel attack. Such has been the appeal of its name that all large bombers are known in the press and in the public mind as Flying Fortresses.

Boeing B-17 E, commonly known as the Flying Fortress The B-17 has long wings and a graceful and serene flight. It is so large that it does not seem to fly very fast. It is a graceful and beautiful ship, capable of great alt.i.tude.

Consolidated B-24, commonly known as the Liberator The B-24, on the other hand, is an earnest, deadly-looking ship-pugnacious, stubby. Its wings having a different air foil from that of the B-17 seem short and stubby by comparison. On the ground, sitting on its tricycle landing gear, its tail in the air, it looks like an Anopheles Anopheles mosquito. Looked at from the side, it seems thick and clumsy, but head on it is lean and streamlined. Its bomb bays slide up its side like the top of a rolled-top desk and it takes the air with a roar of menace. The crews of the B-24 defend it valiantly against the aspersion that the B-17 is better. mosquito. Looked at from the side, it seems thick and clumsy, but head on it is lean and streamlined. Its bomb bays slide up its side like the top of a rolled-top desk and it takes the air with a roar of menace. The crews of the B-24 defend it valiantly against the aspersion that the B-17 is better.

Actually, these two ships seem to be about equal in performance, although they are so different in appearance. The tradition originated by truck drivers is carried out in these ships. They are given names by their crews and the names painted on the sides, Little Eva, Elsie, Alice, are in line with the American trait of establishing a kind of affectiona