CAP's Largest Single Mission Save

[Smithsonia]

Read the Story of the Largest Single Mission Save in CAP History:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/dec/03/chadron-state-wrestlers-way-dia-injured-i-25-crash/

The 30th Anniversary is Today.

[Stonewall]

Interesting story.  I printed it out for my file of cool CAP stories.

[RiverAux]

Wouldn't doubt that it is the largest save for an airplane search, but would probably hesitate to say it was our largest ever. 

In Flying Minute Men we claim to have been responsible for locating 363 survivors of ship sinkings or aircraft crashes at sea and reported 91 vessels in distress.   I've got to suspect that some of those may have invovled more than 20 people in one incident. 

[Smithsonia]

RiverAux
Largest SINGLE MISSION Save. One mission number, one ES Team, one long night, 20 people saved. Katrina had more total saves, for instance. BUT it was numerous missions over many days. Numerous Crews. Various locations. Many updated mission numbers. Different assignments, Etc. If you find different let me know.

[RiverAux]

I don't believe I referred to Katrina.  This was in reference to ships sunk by the Germans in WWII.  I bet more than one of them had 20 people on board. 

[Smithsonia]

RiverAux;
No you didn't mention Katrina. I was attempting to give you the benefit of some doubt. When you get that most saved at sea version of yours worked out, post it. I've read a couple of books (which doesn't mean I've got all the information of course.) But I've got more time on my research than you have so far. Don't just idly speculate. Let us know: time, date, place, awards. You know, specific things. I'd be interested. Good luck.

[RiverAux]

The probability that any one of the ships in distress or survivor rescue incidents during WWII involved more than 20 people seems so high to me that any historian should be extremely cautious in making such a claim.  Anyone who makes any sort of claim about something being the "biggest", "most", or "largest" has a very high burden of proof in my book, especially in situations where there is no official system for tracking the statistic in question.   

[Smithsonia]

RiverAux;
I worked quite hard on this item. Well over 3 months of research. The total package of investigation has taken me just about 12 months.
Regards; "Largest Single Mission Save": I checked every year for total-saves. All totals are broken down by State. So, I'd then look deeper into that number and figure if we are talking multiple missions, crews, or what. I could NOT find 1949-1954 and 1958-1962 numbers that were complete and fully differentiated. But I felt like I got pretty much every possibility. But that is my methodology. What you have proposed is an alternative in which you (RiverAux) have no information. In your proposal you have suggested an alternative. You have suggested my research thin... while not doing any research of your own.

I've read the Neprud book. It covers CAP Service during formation and WW2. I wouldn't call it perfect but it's about all there is. It doesn't mention your proposed scenario. "Finds" at sea and rescues by Coast Guard are covered but those aren't "saves." So, I proposed a test of your theory and that you defend it with your research.
Quite frankly this is a direct challenge --- to you.

So let us be clear about your response. I did the research on this subject. You didn't. I've suggested you defend yourself with some intellectual rigor and defend your honor with better facts. And by the way, we're always looking for better facts.

Sorry it comes to this RiverAux, but it's a step up and take the challenge thing or shut-up and move on thing, now. Also - by calling out others it's a good way to get some real history work done and separate the players from the layers.

Actually there are a couple of years in which the numbers you seek might be hiding. BUT, as none of those missing numbers are from WW2... your scenario is unlikely. I've got some numbers (non-CAP numbers) that allow me to draw some conclusions for those missing years. I've had to build an apples to apples comparison model... as WW2 crews had "mission days" and crew-days. Which is different than the way we work today which is a per-event (often multiple mission numbers), per-mission (often multiple crews), per-crew, model. I'll defend my numbers until better one's are presented. I look forward to seeing more numbers. You have none and undoubtedly will produce none and are debasing the debate into to opinionated unsupported blithering.

[RiverAux]

It doesn't mention your proposed scenario. "Finds" at sea and rescues by Coast Guard are covered but those aren't "saves."

Well, how about page 45 where it relates overall statistics for the CAP coastal patrols and says, "The overwater fliers had also located 363 survivors of ship sinkings or aircraft crashes at sea.  They had reported 91 vessels in distress...."  Those are CAP numbers, not Coast Guard.

While no one was recording them as "saves" back then, the rescued survivors certainly would fall in that category today as would probably a lot of the vessels in distress (depending on the specific situation). 

Of course the data from which those statistics were gathered at the time isn't available to my knowledge so teasing apart individual incidents to determine how many were involved in each may not now be possible.  However, "From Maine to Mexico", sites numerous unpublished base histories, that may discuss them in more detail. 

Now, it seems perfectly reasonable that this incident is our largest single mission save in the last 45 years based on the research cited and as such I certainly wouldn't complain about it being advertised as as such or as "one of our largest..." or "the largest known." However, to extend that claim beyond the period for which complete data is available doesn't seem wise to me or should only be done if the article in question admits that the documents examined did not include all of CAP's history. 

[Smithsonia]

RiverAux;
You see the problem. Which is why I limited it to "Largest Single Mission Saves in CAP History." Single has a definition. Mission has a definition. Save has a definition. This fits that. Your example does not. History is arrived at from a best practices from a set of choices. If you have the world's tallest man, for instance... is he from all humans in the universe or is he from all known humans picking from 6 billion people on earth and alive now, or is he the tallest man through all of human history, or he is the tallest known man? The definition and framework must fit the research.

My challenge to you is find me another specific defined example. Confirm this example. Research this example.
And I'll concede your point. Until then you have no point. Just an expression of distrust and personal opinion. This is good for talk radio responses and not good for writing history. 

[smitjud]

This probably isn't my pissing match to get involved in, but I see RiverAux's point very clearly and am not sure why ya'll keep going back and forth on the matter.  Out of 91 ships in distress (we're not talking a ski nautique or anything - we're talking ships), the probability that at least one of them had a crew of 20 plus does seem pretty high.  Why don't you just say "you know what, i can't be certain, but you may have a point" and move on?

[Smithsonia]

Smitjud/RiverAux;
When I see your numbers, I'll concede your point. I've asked for a level of specificity in response. The same specificity as the example that I have offered in the beginning. If there is no corresponding specificity, then there is only possibility. Vacuous possibility is the root of all conspiracy theories too. So let me add that I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. If you find a larger single mission save or you can find the grassy-knoll shooters, I'll change my opinion about both. Until then, I'll rely on research to establish historical fact, which always has a modicum of uncertainty attached. All conclusions in any human activity will exhibit this same uncertainty. As historians we strive to narrow this window of uncertainty. Right now, you are both outside the window uncertainty looking-in, so to speak. Regarding WW2 activities... rescues that would qualify as modern day "saves" are chronicled in the Neprud book. If Neprud would add a bomber crew of 10 saved by a CAP ground team, why would he not add 21 saved from the sea? The answer is most likely that there are no examples.

Crews washing up near mission bases, revived, and retrieved by CAP members are reported. This would certainly qualify as a save by CAP standards of today. I don't think I remember that CAP manned boats to go out and actually retrieve people lost at sea.

We have examples of rescues or saves in sunken ship crews coming ashore in 2s to 5s. So, if you can find me 20 then we have a factual debate. Right now, we've got possibility, and not probability, which is where I think your headed. I believe that 20 washed ashore, or plucked from the sea by CAP swimmers, or retrieved by CAP crews near a mission base would have made the Neprud book, for instance. I didn't find this -- I can only conclude, since Neprud or CAP wouldn't have purposely left it out -- given there are many stories of 1-12 people (at any one time) saved by CAP personnel --  that there are no such reports of 20 or 21 people saved in one single mission -- so I'll stick with the research so far. If either of you know different, I stand by for that new information.

[RiverAux]

I seem to get the feeling that smithsonia is saying that if CAP spotted a vessel in distress or survivors of a sunken ship and didn't personally haul them out of the ocean, then it would not qualify as a save.  That certainly isn't the current standard in use today.  You can get a save based solely on finding a target through aerial observation and then directing others to the site to make the actual rescue. 

Right now, we've got possibility, and not probability

Thats what I've been saying.  Since you cannot prove that this is in fact the largest single mission save, then you shouldn't be making that claim.  All you can say is that it is the largest single mission save for which you can find evidence of.  That is an important difference for anyone to consider when asserting something as a fact.

By the way, I do think you've done a good job in making sure that this significant mission is remembered.  It would be great if more CAP members took such an interest in our history. 

[Smithsonia]

RiverAux;
If you can not disprove my original affirmation. You are providing personal opinion. Your provision is without documentation. Your personal belief is then simply an expression of distrust. There is a most easy way to sway this argument your direction. That of course is not forthcoming. I stand by, in case if that changes. And in this I do not mean your opinion but your actual real historic verifiable proof.

[RiverAux]

All I have been saying the entire time is that your claim is too sweeping based on the research you say you've done. 

There is every possibility that you're right -- you just don't have the facts to back it up.  How is it my responsibility to try to fill in the massive hole in the statistics upon which you've made this claim?  You've said that you do not have complete information for at least 11 years of CAP's history (not counting WWII). 

If I came on here and claimed that the largest mission in CAP's history based on total CAP flight hours was "Mission X", but had no information on mission flight hours for over 15% of our history -- would you accept that claim?  Would you say, go ahead and publish that River even though for all you know there COULD have been a mission in those years you have no records for where we flew more. 

Would you accept a claim that "Indiana Wing has earned more Medals of Valor than any other Wing", if I only had records for 42 wings? 

Would you accept a claim that "Col. Smith was the longest serving commander of Wing X" if I didn't know the the years of service of ALL Wing X commanders through its entire history?

Its up to the author to be able to prove that sort of thing, not the reader.  But, if someone wants to stake their reputation for historical accuracy on incomplete data, I suppose its up to them.  I guess I've said my piece. 

[Climbnsink]

Claiming absolutes is almost always a bad idea.
Certainly seems plausible that in WWII there was a larger single rescue by CAP.  We may never know.   Along with the submarine theme Shipwreck is a great book that has a lot of WWI WWII sub attack stories.

[Smithsonia]

RiverAux;
I have stated an affirmation. It is a positive affirmation. I have stated my sourcing. I have stated my methodology. I have included my analysis of the WW2 information.

You have stated a negative opinion. I have asked for your proof and I received a succession of opinions. You have restated the same sources as I. However, you've not analyzed those sources... just said because if they DIDN'T Write X IT MUST BE SO.
In this case... they didn't say 20 saved SO it must be that 20 were saved and they didn't report or write about it...

Likely, you are unaware that CAP was constantly trying to justify its initial existence. This was so to be more than a flying club of rich draft dodgers. (one printed opinion of the day, not mine) So they reported a staggering number of accomplishments. They also hired and paid for Mr. Neprud to write his book for a PR purpose.

Now lets analyze: Look at the title page. It states: Prepared for The Director of Public Relations of the Dept. of the Air Force Washington DC. Meaning, if there were that many individuals saved in one good mission with a story that was verifiable... it would have more than likely been included in the book than left out of the book. Since it is NOT in the book... one may logically assume that there is no record of such an event. Since this would have been big news, even at the time, and there are no associated press reports of the same... this is a reasonable assumption.  Otherwise we have to argue about an OSS/CIA cover up, I suppose.

So we are left with your opinion. Let me ask you -- Is this an opinion which is likely? More likely? Less likely? Certain? Or rather uncertain and not very likely? It is tough to tell how much you believe in what you are writing.

By the way these are questions historians ponder all day, everyday. On this one I'm still doing research.

Yesterday I met with 8 survivors of Flight 217, the first officer ( only surviving crewman), and 9 ES team members. AND, this is just a small part of my work on this project.

So for my opinion now. I very likely will never distract you from your opinion. As such, I will offer you nothing further. Winning arguments by restating your opinion until the other guy doesn't care what you think... is not an intellectually fulfilling discourse. You are now free to argue alone.

[RiverAux]

So we are left with your opinion. Let me ask you -- Is this an opinion which is likely? More likely? Less likely? Certain? Or rather uncertain and not very likely?

My opinion is that based on the methodology and sources that you've said that you have examined is that this is the largest single mission save since at least 1963, probably is one of the largest single mission saves in CAP history, and is possibly the largest ever.  The facts as you have researched and stated them here don't go beyond that. 

[Smithsonia]

RiverAux;
I take it back. I do need to offer my (11 years without CAP summaries) alternate methodology.
For the years that I didn't have CAP summaries I went to the Air Force Academy Library and looked up SAR numbers. You'll find totals in the US Air Force Almanac (back to 1955). (also once known as AF Yearly Congressional Reports (1947-54.) Sometimes there are totals for both CAP and USAF. But if I had a question I'd look up the monthly report in Air Force News. There you'd find an article like this:

Memorable Rescue: A four-man crew from the 36th Rescue Flight at Fairchild AFB, Wash., saved a 77-year-old man injured in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness in Idaho last week, and they say it was the most difficult rescues of more than 600 made by the flight. SSgt. Connie Bias reports that they faced several problems: heavy cloud cover, steep and jagged rock surrounding the rescue area, the man's extensive injuries, lack of fuel, and a failed hoist. The steep terrain made the hoist necessary. TSgt. Patrick Hunt, an independent-duty medical technician, worked on stabilizing the man so he could be hoisted, and TSgt. William Wren, flight engineer, worked on the hoist to get it operating at a low speed. The crew and the injured man, Lloyd Johnson, flew at maximum speed to Lewistown, Idaho, where Johnson could be hospitalized.

That way I could quickly go through the stories and check CAP, or no CAP... and move on. So for the missing years, unless the AF has something against us... and I didn't detect this... I felt like I covered that base too. I just looked for a month with high totals (CAP is enclosed in the total) and there were 12-15 examples that showed 20 or more total rescues... and therefore I only had to check that many months of rescue stories. On microfiche it took less than a couple of hours. Check it out, many years are online now. Some years the Almanac breaks out Reserve/Guard/and Auxiliary -- in some years these numbers are combined. Which is why you'll need a 2 step research method.

You can find the last 20 years of the Almanac's online. Although the format online is not complete. I think its more of an excerpted version of the actual Almanac... the copies I have have lots of graphs and charts but online... its mostly narrative. Sometimes the title is under "rescue', "civilian rescues" or "search and rescue." Which is why you have to cross-reference the contemporary story. The AF doesn't typically use the terms find or save in the years that I checked. That said, It has been the same basic publishing format for years with just upgrading color and graphics. Once you get the format... cross referencing goes fast. I'll bet you it wouldn't take you more than a few hours to double check it.

[RiverAux]

I appreciate the explanation and it seems like an entirely appropriate method for the purpose of this particular line of research.  Obviously its not going to tell you how many CAP saves were in that period, but can tell you that there were NOT more than 20 in any given incident. 

It does still leave us with 1942-1946 and I don't see any easy way to be able to come to the same level of certainity for that period.  It is possible that some of the materials in the Hopper Collection, such as the unofficial base histories, may include information on the specific incidents upon which the number of total persons rescued figure mentioned previously was based (wouldn't a big list of dates, places, and # of persons rescued be nice?).  Or one might venture into the records of the military commands that supervised the coastal patrol bases (something I have considered doing) looking for such information. 

While it might be possible to gain some resolution on the coastal patrol rescue numbers, I'm not at all confident that the same could be said of CAP's other activities that were going on in the rest of the states throughout the war since no one, to my knowledge, was actually officially recording saves or anything like that.   For example, if a newspaper credits CAP with rescuing "hundreds" during a flood, would that count absent any other data?  And because a 20+ save hasn't been mentioned in previously written histories, doesn't prove that one didn't happen.  If the guy who wrote the history(ies) knew about it, he probably would have mentioned it -- but maybe he never saw the report on that mission -- we just don't know. 

I'm now a lot more confident in saying that this is probably the largest single-sortie save in CAP's history based on your additional info, but still can't quite go beyond that without finding some definitive records to work from for the period in question. 

I really am rooting for you on this and think you've done a fine job in making sure this important mission is remembered.