SHOULD YOU OPEN FIRE?

[ArtKramr]

SHOULD YOU OPEN FIRE?

Easy question right? Are you sure? Let's take a case in point. You are sitting
in the top turret of a bomber. You spot a formation of fighters coming toward
you. They are clearly the P-51 fighter escort you have been waiting for.
"About time they showed up", you are thinking. They are getting closer pointing
straight at you. Why aren't they fanning out and forming into a top cover
position? They are still coming. Now they are getting near that critical 1,000
yard mark. At 600 yards they will be within their firing range. SHOOT NOW
DAMMIT SHOOT! Shoot at what you identified to be your own P-51's? Damn right,
And shoot to kill. And if you shot down every one of them, no jury would ever
convict you. You were obeying a first rule that all gunners are taught early
on. It goes like this. Any fighter that points its guns at you is to be
considered hostile and be fired upon. On the other hand every fighter pilot is
warned that hanging around a bomber formation can be a dangerous business,. He
must be careful how he moves and where he moves to. For example; If a fighter
is flying parallel to a bomber formation and wants to get closer, he might turn
toward the formation dropping his inside wing and swinging his nose toward the
bombers. This is a classic fighter approach so highly favored by the Luftwaffe
and the USAAC and RAF as well. To approach a bomber in this manner can prove
fatal since gunners are trained to recognize that as a fighter approach and
assume he is under attack.. He will then assume that he misidentified the
attacker as friendly when the every moves proves he is hostile. Should you open
fire? Damn right you should.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Olen Goodwin]

Uhhh....I think "drop the inside wing and swing the nose" is the normal way
to turn an airplane. Maybe I don't understand your point.

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> SHOULD YOU OPEN FIRE?
>
> Easy question right? Are you sure? Let's take a case in point. You are
sitting
> in the top turret of a bomber. You spot a formation of fighters coming
toward
> you. They are clearly the P-51 fighter escort you have been waiting for.
> "About time they showed up", you are thinking. They are getting closer
pointing
> straight at you. Why aren't they fanning out and forming into a top cover
> position? They are still coming. Now they are getting near that critical
1,000
> yard mark. At 600 yards they will be within their firing range. SHOOT NOW
> DAMMIT SHOOT! Shoot at what you identified to be your own P-51's? Damn
right,
> And shoot to kill. And if you shot down every one of them, no jury would
ever
> convict you. You were obeying a first rule that all gunners are taught
early
> on. It goes like this. Any fighter that points its guns at you is to be
> considered hostile and be fired upon. On the other hand every fighter
pilot is
> warned that hanging around a bomber formation can be a dangerous
business,. He
> must be careful how he moves and where he moves to. For example; If a
fighter
> is flying parallel to a bomber formation and wants to get closer, he might
turn
> toward the formation dropping his inside wing and swinging his nose toward
the
> bombers. This is a classic fighter approach so highly favored by the
Luftwaffe
> and the USAAC and RAF as well. To approach a bomber in this manner can
prove
> fatal since gunners are trained to recognize that as a fighter approach
and
> assume he is under attack.. He will then assume that he misidentified the
> attacker as friendly when the every moves proves he is hostile. Should you
open
> fire? Damn right you should.
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: SHOULD YOU OPEN FIRE?
>From: "Olen Goodwin"
>Date: 12/12/03 9:23 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Uhhh....I think "drop the inside wing and swing the nose" is the normal way
>to turn an airplane. Maybe I don't understand your point.
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> SHOULD YOU OPEN FIRE?
>>
>> Easy question right? Are you sure? Let's take a case in point. You are
>sitting
>> in the top turret of a bomber. You spot a formation of fighters coming
>toward
>> you. They are clearly the P-51 fighter escort you have been waiting for.
>> "About time they showed up", you are thinking. They are getting closer
>pointing
>> straight at you. Why aren't they fanning out and forming into a top cover
>> position? They are still coming. Now they are getting near that critical
>1,000
>> yard mark. At 600 yards they will be within their firing range. SHOOT NOW
>> DAMMIT SHOOT! Shoot at what you identified to be your own P-51's? Damn
>right,
>> And shoot to kill. And if you shot down every one of them, no jury would
>ever
>> convict you. You were obeying a first rule that all gunners are taught
>early
>> on. It goes like this. Any fighter that points its guns at you is to be
>> considered hostile and be fired upon. On the other hand every fighter
>pilot is
>> warned that hanging around a bomber formation can be a dangerous
>business,. He
>> must be careful how he moves and where he moves to. For example; If a
>fighter
>> is flying parallel to a bomber formation and wants to get closer, he might
>turn
>> toward the formation dropping his inside wing and swinging his nose toward
>the
>> bombers. This is a classic fighter approach so highly favored by the
>Luftwaffe
>> and the USAAC and RAF as well. To approach a bomber in this manner can
>prove
>> fatal since gunners are trained to recognize that as a fighter approach
>and
>> assume he is under attack.. He will then assume that he misidentified the
>> attacker as friendly when the every moves proves he is hostile. Should you
>open
>> fire? Damn right you should.
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>> 344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany

If he turns toward you it means he will have brought his guns to bear..

Regards,




Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Dudley Henriques]

"Olen Goodwin" > wrote in message
...
> Uhhh....I think "drop the inside wing and swing the nose" is the normal
way
> to turn an airplane. Maybe I don't understand your point.
>
> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message

I'll naturally leave the final comments on this to those who have actually
seen them applied in combat , but these are my thoughts on this issue.
It's a ROE issue, a choice issue.....not aerodynamics. It has to do with
which direction the guns are pointed as that relates to the interface
between the present rules of engagement understood by both the bomber and
fighter crews , and what that all boils down to when you have one man in a
fighter doing something with his airplane that presents a choice to a gunner
in another airplane; and all this done under the pressure and strain of
combat where people are firing at you. It's about firing at the enemy being
bad enough on your brain's reaction time without factoring in choices to
make it harder!!!!
It's a point well made by Art, and deserves more than a cursory glance by
those interested in the real psychology of war.
The point here is that some ROE are fine when you view them in the
operations room, but while engaged, it's a whole different ball game for
those whose lives are on the line!! ROE for gunners present a nice fat and
pat set of "rules" that everybody is supposed to follow .But ROE in actual
combat are just that.....rules! I believe that ROE fall into several
categories actually; those that can be considered before the fact....like
not bombing a specific area (these are the easy rules).....and those like
Art is describing, where there's a "rule" in play that everybody is supposed
to understand and abide by while under combat conditions. At first glance,
the two "rules" appear alike, but if you look closely, the first rule can be
planned ahead of time. The second is applied in real time in an ongoing
combat environment. This inserts a viable additional factor into the ROE
equation, and that factor is individual choice. The time line for reaction
is virtually zero, and this brings up an aspect of the ROE question that in
every instance should be addressed by those who come after the fact and seek
to judge those directly involved.
In this case the ROE dictated that guns pointed at a bomber by ANYONE
friendly or otherwise were to be considered hostile and return fire was a
possibility. Both the bomber crews and the fighter pilots were no doubt
briefed in the form of a "warning".
This is all well and good in the operations room, but once in actual combat,
there is little time for "rules", especially for a turret gunner who has
mere seconds to save both his life and the lives of everyone in his crew.
Although there's a guideline in place, there are real time choices involved
with this kind of a ROE that might very well go beyond the ability of anyone
to be reasonably able to comply in every instance. Viewed in the scenario of
actual combat in real time "Should you open fire" is a valid question before
and after the event. During the event, it could very well involve a judgment
call requiring a thought process/reaction that is unavailable to the human
mind under the pressure/strain factors involved. At best, this kind of ROE
should be considered exactly for what it is in reality; to the fighter
pilot, simply a warning you keep in the back of your mind and try to avoid.
For the gunner it's worse. He has the rule, the act the pilot has committed,
the recognition factor, and the reaction time to consider. After he's done
all this......he has a CHOICE to make. Or, he can forget all this, and
simply fire at anything pointing their guns at his airplane.
In vierwing the roles of both the fighter pilot and the gunner as each
interacts with a ROE like this one, the bottom line should be that it's out
there in both camps as a general warning, but if that "warning" fails to
prevent a friendly fire incident, no action should be forthcoming after the
fact by those who instigated these "rules"
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: SHOULD YOU OPEN FIRE?
>From: "Dudley Henriques"
>Date: 12/13/03 8:23 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Olen Goodwin" > wrote in message
...
>> Uhhh....I think "drop the inside wing and swing the nose" is the normal
>way
>> to turn an airplane. Maybe I don't understand your point.
>>
>> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
>
>I'll naturally leave the final comments on this to those who have actually
>seen them applied in combat , but these are my thoughts on this issue.
>It's a ROE issue, a choice issue.....not aerodynamics. It has to do with
>which direction the guns are pointed as that relates to the interface
>between the present rules of engagement understood by both the bomber and
>fighter crews , and what that all boils down to when you have one man in a
>fighter doing something with his airplane that presents a choice to a gunner
>in another airplane; and all this done under the pressure and strain of
>combat where people are firing at you. It's about firing at the enemy being
>bad enough on your brain's reaction time without factoring in choices to
>make it harder!!!!
>It's a point well made by Art, and deserves more than a cursory glance by
>those interested in the real psychology of war.
>The point here is that some ROE are fine when you view them in the
>operations room, but while engaged, it's a whole different ball game for
>those whose lives are on the line!! ROE for gunners present a nice fat and
>pat set of "rules" that everybody is supposed to follow .But ROE in actual
>combat are just that.....rules! I believe that ROE fall into several
>categories actually; those that can be considered before the fact....like
>not bombing a specific area (these are the easy rules).....and those like
>Art is describing, where there's a "rule" in play that everybody is supposed
>to understand and abide by while under combat conditions. At first glance,
>the two "rules" appear alike, but if you look closely, the first rule can be
>planned ahead of time. The second is applied in real time in an ongoing
>combat environment. This inserts a viable additional factor into the ROE
>equation, and that factor is individual choice. The time line for reaction
>is virtually zero, and this brings up an aspect of the ROE question that in
>every instance should be addressed by those who come after the fact and seek
>to judge those directly involved.
>In this case the ROE dictated that guns pointed at a bomber by ANYONE
>friendly or otherwise were to be considered hostile and return fire was a
>possibility. Both the bomber crews and the fighter pilots were no doubt
>briefed in the form of a "warning".
>This is all well and good in the operations room, but once in actual combat,
>there is little time for "rules", especially for a turret gunner who has
>mere seconds to save both his life and the lives of everyone in his crew.
>Although there's a guideline in place, there are real time choices involved
>with this kind of a ROE that might very well go beyond the ability of anyone
>to be reasonably able to comply in every instance. Viewed in the scenario of
>actual combat in real time "Should you open fire" is a valid question before
>and after the event. During the event, it could very well involve a judgment
>call requiring a thought process/reaction that is unavailable to the human
>mind under the pressure/strain factors involved. At best, this kind of ROE
>should be considered exactly for what it is in reality; to the fighter
>pilot, simply a warning you keep in the back of your mind and try to avoid.
>For the gunner it's worse. He has the rule, the act the pilot has committed,
>the recognition factor, and the reaction time to consider. After he's done
>all this......he has a CHOICE to make. Or, he can forget all this, and
>simply fire at anything pointing their guns at his airplane.
>In vierwing the roles of both the fighter pilot and the gunner as each
>interacts with a ROE like this one, the bottom line should be that it's out
>there in both camps as a general warning, but if that "warning" fails to
>prevent a friendly fire incident, no action should be forthcoming after the
>fact by those who instigated these "rules"
>Dudley Henriques
>International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
>For personal email, please replace
>the z's with e's.
>dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>
>


All this is originally derived from basic infantry training. We were taught in
basic training that you are never to point a gun at a man unless you mean to
kill him And if a man points a gun at you, assume he means to kill you. These
rules were simply transferred intact to air-to-air gunnery. And a good thing
too.
Griego never should have allowed that "P-51 flashing his wing lights" get so
close in the 6 O'clock position. He should have opened fire long before that.
He made two errors. He misidentified the EA and he allowed it to get within
that critical 600 yard range where it could do damage. We had a range of about
1.000 yards. The AE had a 600 yard range. So there was a 400 yard zone where we
could hit the AE but the Ae couldn't hit us. Greigo should have started firing
in that 400 yard zone. But it was our first mission and we were young and very
inexperienced. I guess that is why they stuck us back in the tail-end-Charlie
slot until we were dry behind the ears..But we moved up quickly with experience
and ended up flying deputy lead before the war ended.

Regards,


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Dudley Henriques]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: SHOULD YOU OPEN FIRE?

I guess that is why they stuck us back in the tail-end-Charlie
> slot until we were dry behind the ears..But we moved up quickly with
experience
> and ended up flying deputy lead before the war ended.

One thing's for certain. Nobody learns about aerial gunnery faster than the
guy flying that TEC position!! In the fighter groups, early in the war,
before viable and realistic tactical formations became the rule of the day ,
that position was tantamount to a death sentence for many.

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: SHOULD YOU OPEN FIRE?
>From: "Dudley Henriques"
>Date: 12/13/03 10:02 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: SHOULD YOU OPEN FIRE?
>
>I guess that is why they stuck us back in the tail-end-Charlie
>> slot until we were dry behind the ears..But we moved up quickly with
>experience
>> and ended up flying deputy lead before the war ended.
>
>One thing's for certain. Nobody learns about aerial gunnery faster than the
>guy flying that TEC position!! In the fighter groups, early in the war,
>before viable and realistic tactical formations became the rule of the day ,
>that position was tantamount to a death sentence for many.
>
>Dudley Henriques
>International Fighter Pilots Fellowship


Well for us Flak was more of a dangere than fighters. And in most cases where
flak strikes is more of a statistical happenstance than the slot you were in.
But you are right, TEC wasn't my favorite slot and we were glad to move up and
out of it..

Regards,


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Tony Volk]

Couldn't he fire a short warning burst sufficiently off target at 900
yards, in essence telling any fighter to back off or else? That should
scare off a friendly, still preserve some range advantage, and it might also
disrupt an enemy's gun run. If the guy was friendly and kept flying into
that, well, the gunner would be doing a Jack Kavorkian (sp?) on the fighter
pilot.

Tony

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> SHOULD YOU OPEN FIRE?
>
> Easy question right? Are you sure? Let's take a case in point. You are
sitting
> in the top turret of a bomber. You spot a formation of fighters coming
toward
> you. They are clearly the P-51 fighter escort you have been waiting for.
> "About time they showed up", you are thinking. They are getting closer
pointing
> straight at you. Why aren't they fanning out and forming into a top cover
> position? They are still coming. Now they are getting near that critical
1,000
> yard mark. At 600 yards they will be within their firing range. SHOOT NOW
> DAMMIT SHOOT! Shoot at what you identified to be your own P-51's? Damn
right,
> And shoot to kill. And if you shot down every one of them, no jury would
ever
> convict you. You were obeying a first rule that all gunners are taught
early
> on. It goes like this. Any fighter that points its guns at you is to be
> considered hostile and be fired upon. On the other hand every fighter
pilot is
> warned that hanging around a bomber formation can be a dangerous
business,. He
> must be careful how he moves and where he moves to. For example; If a
fighter
> is flying parallel to a bomber formation and wants to get closer, he might
turn
> toward the formation dropping his inside wing and swinging his nose toward
the
> bombers. This is a classic fighter approach so highly favored by the
Luftwaffe
> and the USAAC and RAF as well. To approach a bomber in this manner can
prove
> fatal since gunners are trained to recognize that as a fighter approach
and
> assume he is under attack.. He will then assume that he misidentified the
> attacker as friendly when the every moves proves he is hostile. Should you
open
> fire? Damn right you should.
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: SHOULD YOU OPEN FIRE?
>From: "Tony Volk"
>Date: 12/13/03 12:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
> Couldn't he fire a short warning burst sufficiently off target at 900
>yards, in essence telling any fighter to back off or else? That should
>scare off a friendly, still preserve some range advantage, and it might also
>disrupt an enemy's gun run. If the guy was friendly and kept flying into
>that, well, the gunner would be doing a Jack Kavorkian (sp?) on the fighter
>pilot.
>
>Tony
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> SHOULD YOU OPEN FIRE?
>>
>> Easy question right? Are you sure? Let's take a case in point. You are
>sitting
>> in the top turret of a bomber. You spot a formation of fighters coming
>toward
>> you. They are clearly the P-51 fighter escort you have been waiting for.
>> "About time they showed up", you are thinking. They are getting closer
>pointing
>> straight at you. Why aren't they fanning out and forming into a top cover
>> position? They are still coming. Now they are getting near that critical
>1,000
>> yard mark. At 600 yards they will be within their firing range. SHOOT NOW
>> DAMMIT SHOOT! Shoot at what you identified to be your own P-51's? Damn
>right,
>> And shoot to kill. And if you shot down every one of them, no jury would
>ever
>> convict you. You were obeying a first rule that all gunners are taught
>early
>> on. It goes like this. Any fighter that points its guns at you is to be
>> considered hostile and be fired upon. On the other hand every fighter
>pilot is
>> warned that hanging around a bomber formation can be a dangerous
>business,. He
>> must be careful how he moves and where he moves to. For example; If a
>fighter
>> is flying parallel to a bomber formation and wants to get closer, he might
>turn
>> toward the formation dropping his inside wing and swinging his nose toward
>the
>> bombers. This is a classic fighter approach so highly favored by the
>Luftwaffe
>> and the USAAC and RAF as well. To approach a bomber in this manner can
>prove
>> fatal since gunners are trained to recognize that as a fighter approach
>and
>> assume he is under attack.. He will then assume that he misidentified the
>> attacker as friendly when the every moves proves he is hostile. Should you
>open
>> fire? Damn right you should.
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>> 344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>
>
>

Yes, that was often the case. Warning rounds were both common and usually quite
effective. I should have mentioned that. Thanks.

Regards,

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[vincent p. norris]

>Uhhh....I think "drop the inside wing and swing the nose" is the normal way
>to turn an airplane. Maybe I don't understand your point.

The point is, you don't want to look like an attacker.

Anyway, you don't need to point your nose at a bomber, or other
aircraft, to get close to it. It isn't even the "right" way to do
it." You do a formation join-up.

If the bomber is flying, say, due north, and is on your left side, you
fly a heading of around 300 - 320. You keep adjusting your heading so
that the bomber's position remains constant relative to your own.
I.e., it appears to stay at the same place on your canopy.

You will soon be on the bomber's wing, but will not get shot at
because you have never pointed your guns toward it. You appear to be
flying "almost parallel," which, in fact, you are. And you give the
bomber's crew a good look at your side profile, which they are most
likely to recognize as a friendly.

vince norris







>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> SHOULD YOU OPEN FIRE?
>>
>> Easy question right? Are you sure? Let's take a case in point. You are
>sitting
>> in the top turret of a bomber. You spot a formation of fighters coming
>toward
>> you. They are clearly the P-51 fighter escort you have been waiting for.
>> "About time they showed up", you are thinking. They are getting closer
>pointing
>> straight at you. Why aren't they fanning out and forming into a top cover
>> position? They are still coming. Now they are getting near that critical
>1,000
>> yard mark. At 600 yards they will be within their firing range. SHOOT NOW
>> DAMMIT SHOOT! Shoot at what you identified to be your own P-51's? Damn
>right,
>> And shoot to kill. And if you shot down every one of them, no jury would
>ever
>> convict you. You were obeying a first rule that all gunners are taught
>early
>> on. It goes like this. Any fighter that points its guns at you is to be
>> considered hostile and be fired upon. On the other hand every fighter
>pilot is
>> warned that hanging around a bomber formation can be a dangerous
>business,. He
>> must be careful how he moves and where he moves to. For example; If a
>fighter
>> is flying parallel to a bomber formation and wants to get closer, he might
>turn
>> toward the formation dropping his inside wing and swinging his nose toward
>the
>> bombers. This is a classic fighter approach so highly favored by the
>Luftwaffe
>> and the USAAC and RAF as well. To approach a bomber in this manner can
>prove
>> fatal since gunners are trained to recognize that as a fighter approach
>and
>> assume he is under attack.. He will then assume that he misidentified the
>> attacker as friendly when the every moves proves he is hostile. Should you
>open
>> fire? Damn right you should.
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>> 344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>
>