Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?

[ArtKramr]

I haven't thought about John O'Brian in years. But a comment made on this NG
reminded me of him. He was a bit older than the rest of us. He had a civilian
pilots license when the war started in Europe. He went to Canada and ended up
flying Hurricanes in the MTO. When the US entered the war he was, like all
Americans, transferred to the USAAC. But he ended up as a copilot with the
344th Bomb Group flying B-26 Marauders..I always wondered why, with his
experience, he didn't become a left seater. Any ideas?


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

[Ed Majden]

"ArtKramr" ...
> I haven't thought about John O'Brian in years. But a comment made on this
NG
> reminded me of him. He was a bit older than the rest of us. He had a
civilian
> pilots license when the war started in Europe. He went to Canada and
ended up
> flying Hurricanes in the MTO. When the US entered the war he was, like
all
> Americans, transferred to the USAAC. But he ended up as a copilot with
the
> 344th Bomb Group flying B-26 Marauders..I always wondered why, with his
> experience, he didn't become a left seater. Any ideas?
>
Art:
Did all USAAC bombers have a co-pilot? Didn't Lancs and other RAF/RCAF
bombers only fly with one pilot? Seemed kind of risky to me, but I guess it
worked risking one less aircrew member during a mission. My cousins
husband, now deceased, flew as a Nav. He said that nearly on each mission
someone was shot up. He made it through the war without a scratch!
Ed

[Keith Willshaw]

"Ed Majden" > wrote in message
news:k%wVb.441193$ts4.223591@pd7tw3no...
>

> Did all USAAC bombers have a co-pilot? Didn't Lancs and other
RAF/RCAF
> bombers only fly with one pilot? Seemed kind of risky to me, but I guess
it
> worked risking one less aircrew member during a mission. My cousins
> husband, now deceased, flew as a Nav. He said that nearly on each mission
> someone was shot up. He made it through the war without a scratch!
> Ed
>
>

IRC it was only the Lancaster and Halifax that used just one pilot. The RAF
looked at aircraft losses and came to the conclusion that unlike
the USAAF aircraft typically came back with all their crew or didnt
return at all.
..
Indeed most crews never even knew they were under attack until
they were hit. The flight engineer was usually given some flight training
but basically just enough to hold the aircraft level while the crew bailed
out.

Keith

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
>From: "Ed Majden"
>Date: 2/8/04 12:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <k%wVb.441193$ts4.223591@pd7tw3no>
>
>
>"ArtKramr" ...
>> I haven't thought about John O'Brian in years. But a comment made on this
>NG
>> reminded me of him. He was a bit older than the rest of us. He had a
>civilian
>> pilots license when the war started in Europe. He went to Canada and
>ended up
>> flying Hurricanes in the MTO. When the US entered the war he was, like
>all
>> Americans, transferred to the USAAC. But he ended up as a copilot with
>the
>> 344th Bomb Group flying B-26 Marauders..I always wondered why, with his
>> experience, he didn't become a left seater. Any ideas?
>>
>Art:
> Did all USAAC bombers have a co-pilot? Didn't Lancs and other RAF/RCAF
>bombers only fly with one pilot? Seemed kind of risky to me, but I guess it
>worked risking one less aircrew member during a mission. My cousins
>husband, now deceased, flew as a Nav. He said that nearly on each mission
>someone was shot up. He made it through the war without a scratch!
>Ed
>
>
AFAIK all US bombers had co-pilots.



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

[S. Sampson]

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> But he ended up as a copilot with the 344th Bomb Group flying
> B-26 Marauders..I always wondered why, with his experience,
> he didn't become a left seater. Any ideas?

Probably the same as today. Indoctrination. Up to speed on the
crew concept, learn the systems as you go, and get real-world
experience in emergencies/problems.

He would have gone through co-pilot pretty fast, unless they had a
mandatory hour requirement.

[Ed Majden]

"Keith Willshaw"
> IRC it was only the Lancaster and Halifax that used just one pilot. The
RAF
> looked at aircraft losses and came to the conclusion that unlike
> the USAAF aircraft typically came back with all their crew or didnt
> return at all.

Keith:
A lot of responsability for a young kid not that long out of flight
school, eh!
Most of them were young fellows.
Ed

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
>From: "Ed Majden"
>Date: 2/8/04 2:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <5HyVb.440053$X%5.314436@pd7tw2no>
>
>
>"Keith Willshaw"
> > IRC it was only the Lancaster and Halifax that used just one pilot. The
>RAF
>> looked at aircraft losses and came to the conclusion that unlike
>> the USAAF aircraft typically came back with all their crew or didnt
>> return at all.
>
>Keith:
> A lot of responsability for a young kid not that long out of flight
>school, eh!
>Most of them were young fellows.
>Ed
>
>
>

I was 19.


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: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
>From: "S. Sampson"
>Date: 2/8/04 2:24 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <yGyVb.16343$Q_4.1733@okepread03>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote
>>
>> But he ended up as a copilot with the 344th Bomb Group flying
>> B-26 Marauders..I always wondered why, with his experience,
>> he didn't become a left seater. Any ideas?
>
>Probably the same as today. Indoctrination. Up to speed on the
>crew concept, learn the systems as you go, and get real-world
>experience in emergencies/problems.
>
>He would have gone through co-pilot pretty fast, unless they had a
>mandatory hour requirement.
>
>

That is what I thought. But he never made it to the right seat.


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

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
> >From: "Ed Majden"
> >Date: 2/8/04 12:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <k%wVb.441193$ts4.223591@pd7tw3no>
> >
> >
> >"ArtKramr" ...
> >> I haven't thought about John O'Brian in years. But a comment made on
this
> >NG
> >> reminded me of him. He was a bit older than the rest of us. He had a
> >civilian
> >> pilots license when the war started in Europe. He went to Canada and
> >ended up
> >> flying Hurricanes in the MTO. When the US entered the war he was,
like
> >all
> >> Americans, transferred to the USAAC. But he ended up as a copilot
with
> >the
> >> 344th Bomb Group flying B-26 Marauders..I always wondered why, with his
> >> experience, he didn't become a left seater. Any ideas?
> >>
> >Art:
> > Did all USAAC bombers have a co-pilot? Didn't Lancs and other
RAF/RCAF
> >bombers only fly with one pilot? Seemed kind of risky to me, but I guess
it
> >worked risking one less aircrew member during a mission. My cousins
> >husband, now deceased, flew as a Nav. He said that nearly on each
mission
> >someone was shot up. He made it through the war without a scratch!
> >Ed
> >
> >
> AFAIK all US bombers had co-pilots.

Not quite. The A-20 Havoc (or Boston to the UK types) family had only one
pilot (despite the "A" terminology, they did their US service in Bomb
Squadrons).

Brooks

>
>
>
> Arthur Kramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
>From: (ArtKramr)
>Date: 2/8/04 2:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>Subject: Re: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
>>From: "S. Sampson"
>>Date: 2/8/04 2:24 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <yGyVb.16343$Q_4.1733@okepread03>
>>
>>"ArtKramr" > wrote
>>>
>>> But he ended up as a copilot with the 344th Bomb Group flying
>>> B-26 Marauders..I always wondered why, with his experience,
>>> he didn't become a left seater. Any ideas?
>>
>>Probably the same as today. Indoctrination. Up to speed on the
>>crew concept, learn the systems as you go, and get real-world
>>experience in emergencies/problems.
>>
>>He would have gone through co-pilot pretty fast, unless they had a
>>mandatory hour requirement.
>>
>>
>
>That is what I thought. But he never made it to the right seat.
>
>
>Arthur Kramer
>344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

sorry. Left seat.



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

[S. Sampson]

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> That is what I thought. But he never made it to the left seat.

Maybe something else, probably something the squadron or wing
commander knew that no one else did (whole person concept).

Since the 80's they wouldn't waste time on anyone who wasn't
going to be an Aircraft Commander one day. They don't have
professional co-pilots :-)

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
>From: "S. Sampson"
>Date: 2/8/04 5:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <MhBVb.16366$Q_4.12788@okepread03>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote
>>
>> That is what I thought. But he never made it to the left seat.
>
>Maybe something else, probably something the squadron or wing
>commander knew that no one else did (whole person concept).
>
>Since the 80's they wouldn't waste time on anyone who wasn't
>going to be an Aircraft Commander one day. They don't have
>professional co-pilots :-)
>
>

This was in WW II. Everything that could fly had to fly. Pilots and crews were
needed. Every seat had to be filled with aircrew.The future had to take care
if itself.



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

[Ed Rasimus]

On 09 Feb 2004 01:44:22 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
>>From: "S. Sampson"

>>Since the 80's they wouldn't waste time on anyone who wasn't
>>going to be an Aircraft Commander one day. They don't have
>>professional co-pilots :-)
>
>This was in WW II. Everything that could fly had to fly. Pilots and crews were
>needed. Every seat had to be filled with aircrew.The future had to take care
>if itself.
>
>Arthur Kramer

Been thinking about this situation since the question was first
posted. Here's what I think might be a reason. Art can fill the blanks
if he has additional info.

The original stated the guy was a private pilot who went to Canada and
then wound up in the RAF flying Hurricanes. It didn't indicate if he
had gone through a formal military pilot training course in Canada or
England. Certainly the needs of the service in those hectic Battle of
Britain days might have gotten the guy a seat in a military airplane,
but when the American ex-pats got transferred into the USAAC, the
records might have shown no military aviation rating, merely a FAA
certificate.

Since the guy had some experience, he could fill a space on the
schedule, but without a rating he couldn't be advanced to
pilot-in-command duties. Plausible explanation??



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 2/9/04 7:12 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 09 Feb 2004 01:44:22 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
>>>From: "S. Sampson"
>
>>>Since the 80's they wouldn't waste time on anyone who wasn't
>>>going to be an Aircraft Commander one day. They don't have
>>>professional co-pilots :-)
>>
>>This was in WW II. Everything that could fly had to fly. Pilots and crews
>were
>>needed. Every seat had to be filled with aircrew.The future had to take
>care
>>if itself.
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>Been thinking about this situation since the question was first
>posted. Here's what I think might be a reason. Art can fill the blanks
>if he has additional info.
>
>The original stated the guy was a private pilot who went to Canada and
>then wound up in the RAF flying Hurricanes. It didn't indicate if he
>had gone through a formal military pilot training course in Canada or
>England. Certainly the needs of the service in those hectic Battle of
>Britain days might have gotten the guy a seat in a military airplane,
>but when the American ex-pats got transferred into the USAAC, the
>records might have shown no military aviation rating, merely a FAA
>certificate.
>
>Since the guy had some experience, he could fill a space on the
>schedule, but without a rating he couldn't be advanced to
>pilot-in-command duties. Plausible explanation??
>
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8


Yes. I think that is very plausable. I even know of one case where an American
flew with the RAF and when transferred to the USAAC was refused flying status
other than a gunner spot. But he must have failed a test check flight. Can't
think of any other reason. He didn't survive the war and went down on one of
our many raids to the Cologne marshalling yards hit by ground fire,



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

[Presidente Alcazar]

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 08:12:03 -0700, Ed Rasimus >
wrote:

>Been thinking about this situation since the question was first
>posted. Here's what I think might be a reason. Art can fill the blanks
>if he has additional info.
>
>The original stated the guy was a private pilot who went to Canada and
>then wound up in the RAF flying Hurricanes. It didn't indicate if he
>had gone through a formal military pilot training course in Canada or
>England.

Anybody who flew RAF aircraft underwent an RAF training course. Even
the first Eagle squadron volunteers did so in the winter of 1940.
Transfer into the USAAF from the RAF was voluntary for American
pilots, and some didn't want to do it, for various reasons (in one
case a sense of obligation to the RAF who had paid for his training
and posted him to a combat unit where the pre-war USAAC had rejected
him as a pilot, another because he throught he'd fail a more stringent
USAAF medical examination). However, most did, for various reasons -
the most common given being for the higher pay.

>Since the guy had some experience, he could fill a space on the
>schedule, but without a rating he couldn't be advanced to
>pilot-in-command duties. Plausible explanation??

I suspect the explanation lies somewhere along those lines of
differing USAAF institutional training and type-command requirements.
It was rare but not unheard of for a single-engined pilot to convert
to multi-engined aircraft.

Gavin Bailey

[Ed Majden]

"Presidente Alcazar" <
> Anybody who flew RAF aircraft underwent an RAF training course. Even
> the first Eagle squadron volunteers did so in the winter of 1940.
> Transfer into the USAAF from the RAF was voluntary for American
> pilots, and some didn't want to do it, for various reasons (in one
> case a sense of obligation to the RAF who had paid for his training
> and posted him to a combat unit where the pre-war USAAC had rejected
> him as a pilot, another because he throught he'd fail a more stringent
> USAAF medical examination). However, most did, for various reasons -
> the most common given being for the higher pay.

I expect all newly recruited pilots/aircrew would take training whether
they enlisted by coming up to Canada or going directly to Britain regardless
if they were trained. They would need some sort of conversion training.
In Canada this was done by the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan.
Canada was considered the training airdrome for the British Commonwealth.
They trained aircrews at many stations spread across Canada. Most wanted to
be pilots but the greater majority ended up as Navs, Air Gunners, Wireless
Operators and Bomb aimers eventually assigned to No. 6 Bomber Group
(R.C.A.F.).
Ed

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
>From: "Ed Majden"
>Date: 2/9/04 10:58 AM Pacifi

>Most wanted to
>be pilots but the greater majority ended up as Navs, Air Gunners, Wireless
>Operators and Bomb aimers eventually assigned to No. 6 Bomber Group
>(R.C.A.F.).
>Ed
>
>

Makes no difference what you wanted to be. You were assigned where you were
needed.


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

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
> >From: "Ed Majden"
> >Date: 2/9/04 10:58 AM Pacifi
>
> >Most wanted to
> >be pilots but the greater majority ended up as Navs, Air Gunners,
Wireless
> >Operators and Bomb aimers eventually assigned to No. 6 Bomber Group
> >(R.C.A.F.).
> >Ed
> >
> >
>
> Makes no difference what you wanted to be. You were assigned where you
were
> needed.

Yep, for the most part (though I do know one WWII vet who, upon finding out
his entire aviation cadet class was being cancelled and the newly enlisted
members being reassigned to other duties, flatly refused to train as a radio
operator--and got his assignment to gunnery school that he was willing to
take). Kind of strange to hear you admit that, though--wasn't that long ago
you were claiming that all of those who wanted to engage in direct combat
operations could do so, regardless of what the "needs of the service" were.

Brooks

>
>
> Arthur Kramer

[* * Chas]

It may be attributable to the AC brass. He didn't come up
through the ranks.

At the beginning of WWII the senior officer corps in the US
military were filed with spit and polish desk generals and
admirals who were more interested in protocol and procedure
than results!

Look at what happened to the Flying Tigers after Pearl
Harbor.

--
Chas. (Drop spamski to E-mail
me)

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> I haven't thought about John O'Brian in years. But a
comment made on this NG
> reminded me of him. He was a bit older than the rest of
us. He had a civilian
> pilots license when the war started in Europe. He went to
Canada and ended up
> flying Hurricanes in the MTO. When the US entered the war
he was, like all
> Americans, transferred to the USAAC. But he ended up as
a copilot with the
> 344th Bomb Group flying B-26 Marauders..I always wondered
why, with his
> experience, he didn't become a left seater. Any ideas?
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

[Eunometic]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Ed Majden" > wrote in message
> news:k%wVb.441193$ts4.223591@pd7tw3no...
> >
>
> > Did all USAAC bombers have a co-pilot? Didn't Lancs and other
> RAF/RCAF
> > bombers only fly with one pilot? Seemed kind of risky to me, but I guess
> it
> > worked risking one less aircrew member during a mission. My cousins
> > husband, now deceased, flew as a Nav. He said that nearly on each mission
> > someone was shot up. He made it through the war without a scratch!
> > Ed
> >
> >
>
> IRC it was only the Lancaster and Halifax that used just one pilot. The RAF
> looked at aircraft losses and came to the conclusion that unlike
> the USAAF aircraft typically came back with all their crew or didnt
> return at all.

The US daylight bombers required a co-pilot for the physically and
mentally fatiquing task of close formation flying upon which their
defensive boxes were based. Lancasters just bumbelled along in bomber
streams at night presumably on auto-pilot much of the way.



> .
> Indeed most crews never even knew they were under attack until
> they were hit.

Makes me wonder why they bothered with the fitting of guns at all. An
unarmed Lanc might be able to outpace a radar equiped Me 110.


> The flight engineer was usually given some flight training
> but basically just enough to hold the aircraft level while the crew bailed
> out.
>
> Keith

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
>From: "Kevin Brooks"
>Date: 2/9/04 5:26 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
>> >From: "Ed Majden"
>> >Date: 2/9/04 10:58 AM Pacifi
>>
>> >Most wanted to
>> >be pilots but the greater majority ended up as Navs, Air Gunners,
>Wireless
>> >Operators and Bomb aimers eventually assigned to No. 6 Bomber Group
>> >(R.C.A.F.).
>> >Ed
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Makes no difference what you wanted to be. You were assigned where you
>were
>> needed.
>
>Yep, for the most part (though I do know one WWII vet who, upon finding out
>his entire aviation cadet class was being cancelled and the newly enlisted
>members being reassigned to other duties, flatly refused to train as a radio
>operator--and got his assignment to gunnery school that he was willing to
>take). Kind of strange to hear you admit that, though--wasn't that long ago
>you were claiming that all of those who wanted to engage in direct combat
>operations could do so, regardless of what the "needs of the service" were.
>
>Brooks
>
>>
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>
>
Nobody got out of combat duty. Maybe you were on a track for fighters but
suddenky you were transferred to mullti engine transitional because the 100th
bomb group was taking heavy losses and B-17 pilots were needed. Or in my
classification group at San Antonio aviation cadet center all 400 in my class
were all classified as Bombardiers because of the heavy death toll among
bombardiers over europe. But no one that I ever heard of was re-assigned to
non combat duty once they had volunteered for AAC. If you want to fight, the
AAC would be glad to accomodate you. If you don't want to fight, you don't
volunteer for the AAC.


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: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
>From: (Eunometic)
>Date: 2/9/04 5:55 PM Pacific

>The US daylight bombers required a co-pilot for the physically and
>mentally fatiquing task of close formation flying upon which their
>defensive boxes were based.

Exactly 100% correct.


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

[Dana Miller]

In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
>>From: (Eunometic)
>>Date: 2/9/04 5:55 PM Pacific
>
>>The US daylight bombers required a co-pilot for the physically and
>>mentally fatiquing task of close formation flying upon which their
>>defensive boxes were based.
>
>Exactly 100% correct.
>
>
>Arthur Kramer
>344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

In Ambrose Bearse's book "Wild Blue" about Sen. McGovern's B-24 piloting
experience in the Med in WWII, McGovern seemed to me to be rather clear
on the point that his Co-pilot was an adaquate co-pilot but was never in
his mind aircraft commander material. Don't know if he considered him
to be fighter pilot material or was more of the opinion that the guy was
too immature. I vaguely remember that there might have been some latent
desire to fly fighters and some carried resentment for not being allowed
to.

In a situation like that, someone who carries that kind of resentment
could quickly become a sore spot in an aircrew. Wannabes make poor team
members. Aircrew positions in that ware were NOT career paths. A
successful career in the AAC at that point was any which did not end in
a telegram to one's parents. Art, did you ever consider staying in for
20 or 30 years? Is suspect that the crews you knew were almost entirely
focussed on killing the freak in Berlin as a terminal career objective.

--
Dana Miller

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
>From: Dana Miller
>Date: 2/9/04 7:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
> (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
>>>From: (Eunometic)
>>>Date: 2/9/04 5:55 PM Pacific
>>
>>>The US daylight bombers required a co-pilot for the physically and
>>>mentally fatiquing task of close formation flying upon which their
>>>defensive boxes were based.
>>
>>Exactly 100% correct.
>>
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>>344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>
>
>In Ambrose Bearse's book "Wild Blue" about Sen. McGovern's B-24 piloting
>experience in the Med in WWII, McGovern seemed to me to be rather clear
>on the point that his Co-pilot was an adaquate co-pilot but was never in
>his mind aircraft commander material. Don't know if he considered him
>to be fighter pilot material or was more of the opinion that the guy was
>too immature. I vaguely remember that there might have been some latent
>desire to fly fighters and some carried resentment for not being allowed
>to.
>
>In a situation like that, someone who carries that kind of resentment
>could quickly become a sore spot in an aircrew. Wannabes make poor team
>members. Aircrew positions in that ware were NOT career paths. A
>successful career in the AAC at that point was any which did not end in
>a telegram to one's parents. Art, did you ever consider staying in for
>20 or 30 years? Is suspect that the crews you knew were almost entirely
>focussed on killing the freak in Berlin as a terminal career objective.
>
>--
>Dana Miller


When our co-pilot Bob Monson (Boston) joind us he had never flown a B-26
Marauder before. He was literally trained to the job by Paul (Lake Charles
LA) But he sure was a wiz on the radio compass. They were both on the controls
while in formation. I would hear Paul endlessly saying, " C'mon Bob. help me on
the rudders" When we were on final, Paul's legs were shaking with tension and
exhaustion and it would take both Paul and Bob on the brakes to bring "Willie"
to a stop. But after the war when they gave us A-26 Douglas Invaders Bob moved
into the left seat and he and I put in a lot of hours in A-26's in Army of
Occupation duties in Germany. You might be interested in reading "Bob's Story"
on my website for an intimate view of how members of the same crew shared and
bonded. Bob passed away some years ago but I think of him often.



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

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
> >Date: 2/9/04 5:26 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >Subject: Re: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
> >> >From: "Ed Majden"
> >> >Date: 2/9/04 10:58 AM Pacifi
> >>
> >> >Most wanted to
> >> >be pilots but the greater majority ended up as Navs, Air Gunners,
> >Wireless
> >> >Operators and Bomb aimers eventually assigned to No. 6 Bomber Group
> >> >(R.C.A.F.).
> >> >Ed
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Makes no difference what you wanted to be. You were assigned where you
> >were
> >> needed.
> >
> >Yep, for the most part (though I do know one WWII vet who, upon finding
out
> >his entire aviation cadet class was being cancelled and the newly
enlisted
> >members being reassigned to other duties, flatly refused to train as a
radio
> >operator--and got his assignment to gunnery school that he was willing to
> >take). Kind of strange to hear you admit that, though--wasn't that long
ago
> >you were claiming that all of those who wanted to engage in direct combat
> >operations could do so, regardless of what the "needs of the service"
were.
> >
> >Brooks
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Arthur Kramer
> >
> >
> Nobody got out of combat duty. Maybe you were on a track for fighters but
> suddenky you were transferred to mullti engine transitional because the
100th
> bomb group was taking heavy losses and B-17 pilots were needed. Or in my
> classification group at San Antonio aviation cadet center all 400 in my
class
> were all classified as Bombardiers because of the heavy death toll among
> bombardiers over europe. But no one that I ever heard of was re-assigned
to
> non combat duty once they had volunteered for AAC. If you want to fight,
the
> AAC would be glad to accomodate you. If you don't want to fight, you don't
> volunteer for the AAC.

But you have repeatedly told us how all of those maintenance guys, mess
personnel, armorers, etc., don't meet your criteria for having served in
combat. They were all also in the USAAF (I believe the AAC designation was
dropped while you were still in training, if not beforehand).

Brooks
>
>
> Arthur Kramer

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
> >From: (Eunometic)
> >Date: 2/9/04 5:55 PM Pacific
>
> >The US daylight bombers required a co-pilot for the physically and
> >mentally fatiquing task of close formation flying upon which their
> >defensive boxes were based.
>
> Exactly 100% correct.

Gee, how did those A-20's in the Bomb Squadrons ever manage then, being as
they all had only one pilot?

Brooks

>
>
> Arthur Kramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
>From: "Kevin Brooks"
>Date: 2/9/04 8:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
>> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
>> >Date: 2/9/04 5:26 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >
>> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> >Subject: Re: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
>> >> >From: "Ed Majden"
>> >> >Date: 2/9/04 10:58 AM Pacifi
>> >>
>> >> >Most wanted to
>> >> >be pilots but the greater majority ended up as Navs, Air Gunners,
>> >Wireless
>> >> >Operators and Bomb aimers eventually assigned to No. 6 Bomber Group
>> >> >(R.C.A.F.).
>> >> >Ed
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Makes no difference what you wanted to be. You were assigned where you
>> >were
>> >> needed.
>> >
>> >Yep, for the most part (though I do know one WWII vet who, upon finding
>out
>> >his entire aviation cadet class was being cancelled and the newly
>enlisted
>> >members being reassigned to other duties, flatly refused to train as a
>radio
>> >operator--and got his assignment to gunnery school that he was willing to
>> >take). Kind of strange to hear you admit that, though--wasn't that long
>ago
>> >you were claiming that all of those who wanted to engage in direct combat
>> >operations could do so, regardless of what the "needs of the service"
>were.
>> >
>> >Brooks
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Arthur Kramer
>> >
>> >
>> Nobody got out of combat duty. Maybe you were on a track for fighters but
>> suddenky you were transferred to mullti engine transitional because the
>100th
>> bomb group was taking heavy losses and B-17 pilots were needed. Or in my
>> classification group at San Antonio aviation cadet center all 400 in my
>class
>> were all classified as Bombardiers because of the heavy death toll among
>> bombardiers over europe. But no one that I ever heard of was re-assigned
>to
>> non combat duty once they had volunteered for AAC. If you want to fight,
>the
>> AAC would be glad to accomodate you. If you don't want to fight, you don't
>> volunteer for the AAC.
>
>But you have repeatedly told us how all of those maintenance guys, mess
>personnel, armorers, etc., don't meet your criteria for having served in
>combat. They were all also in the USAAF (I believe the AAC designation was
>dropped while you were still in training, if not beforehand).
>
>Brooks
>>
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>
>


Those of us who flew together were one group Those that stayed on the ground
were another group. And that is the way it was.


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

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
> >Date: 2/9/04 8:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >Subject: Re: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
> >> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
> >> >Date: 2/9/04 5:26 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >> >Message-id: >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> >Subject: Re: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
> >> >> >From: "Ed Majden"
> >> >> >Date: 2/9/04 10:58 AM Pacifi
> >> >>
> >> >> >Most wanted to
> >> >> >be pilots but the greater majority ended up as Navs, Air Gunners,
> >> >Wireless
> >> >> >Operators and Bomb aimers eventually assigned to No. 6 Bomber Group
> >> >> >(R.C.A.F.).
> >> >> >Ed
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Makes no difference what you wanted to be. You were assigned where
you
> >> >were
> >> >> needed.
> >> >
> >> >Yep, for the most part (though I do know one WWII vet who, upon
finding
> >out
> >> >his entire aviation cadet class was being cancelled and the newly
> >enlisted
> >> >members being reassigned to other duties, flatly refused to train as a
> >radio
> >> >operator--and got his assignment to gunnery school that he was willing
to
> >> >take). Kind of strange to hear you admit that, though--wasn't that
long
> >ago
> >> >you were claiming that all of those who wanted to engage in direct
combat
> >> >operations could do so, regardless of what the "needs of the service"
> >were.
> >> >
> >> >Brooks
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Arthur Kramer
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Nobody got out of combat duty. Maybe you were on a track for fighters
but
> >> suddenky you were transferred to mullti engine transitional because
the
> >100th
> >> bomb group was taking heavy losses and B-17 pilots were needed. Or in
my
> >> classification group at San Antonio aviation cadet center all 400 in my
> >class
> >> were all classified as Bombardiers because of the heavy death toll
among
> >> bombardiers over europe. But no one that I ever heard of was
re-assigned
> >to
> >> non combat duty once they had volunteered for AAC. If you want to
fight,
> >the
> >> AAC would be glad to accomodate you. If you don't want to fight, you
don't
> >> volunteer for the AAC.
> >
> >But you have repeatedly told us how all of those maintenance guys, mess
> >personnel, armorers, etc., don't meet your criteria for having served in
> >combat. They were all also in the USAAF (I believe the AAC designation
was
> >dropped while you were still in training, if not beforehand).
> >
> >Brooks
> >>
> >>
> >> Arthur Kramer
> >
> >
>
>
> Those of us who flew together were one group Those that stayed on the
ground
> were another group. And that is the way it was.

So now you are backing off your assertion that "But no one that I ever heard
of was re-assigned to
non combat duty once they had volunteered for AAC... If you don't want to
fight, you don't volunteer for the AAC"? Or are you saying that those vital
armorers (without whom you would never have dropped your first bomb), etc.,
were not members of the USAAF (which you mislabled as "AAC")? And *none* of
those ground crew guys had hoped/tried to get into gunnery school, or radio
school, etc., but were told, "Sorry, we need armorers, so that is what you
will be"?

Brooks

>
>
> Arthur Kramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
>From: "Kevin Brooks"
>Date: 2/9/04 9:11 PM Pacific

>re not members of the USAAF (which you mislabled as "AAC")? And *none* of
>those ground crew guys had hoped/tried to get into gunnery school, or radio
>school, etc., but were told, "Sorry, we need armorers, so that is what you
>will be"?

There are armorer gunners, radio gunners and engineer gunners. We had all three
on Marauders.


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

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
> >Date: 2/9/04 9:11 PM Pacific
>
> >re not members of the USAAF (which you mislabled as "AAC")? And *none* of
> >those ground crew guys had hoped/tried to get into gunnery school, or
radio
> >school, etc., but were told, "Sorry, we need armorers, so that is what
you
> >will be"?
>
> There are armorer gunners, radio gunners and engineer gunners. We had all
three
> on Marauders.
>

Nice sidestep. Your refusal to answer the questions posed is noted.

Brooks

>
> Arthur Kramer

[Keith Willshaw]

"Eunometic" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Ed Majden" > wrote in message
> > news:k%wVb.441193$ts4.223591@pd7tw3no...
> > >

>
> The US daylight bombers required a co-pilot for the physically and
> mentally fatiquing task of close formation flying upon which their
> defensive boxes were based. Lancasters just bumbelled along in bomber
> streams at night presumably on auto-pilot much of the way.
>

Incorrect. That would have been an excellent way of committing
suicide. One of the reasons that Lancasters flew in such loose formations
was that they were constantly weaving to uncover blind spots and spoil
the aim of any fighter.

Moreover the standard tactic on spotting an enemy fighter was NOT
to return fire but to enter a series of violent evasive manoeveurs
called a corkscrew.

Keith

[Presidente Alcazar]

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:58:08 GMT, "Ed Majden" >
wrote:

> I expect all newly recruited pilots/aircrew would take training whether
>they enlisted by coming up to Canada or going directly to Britain regardless
>if they were trained.

American recruits, who normally always joined the RCAF after crossing
into Canadian territory, would receive their Elementary Flying
Training in Canada. In general the final stage of training at an
Operational Training Unit was the only one reserved for in-theatre
provision, e.g. RCAF aircrew posted to the UK would receive their
final operational training at an RAF OTU or HCU.

The only exceptions to this were a minute number of Americans who
volunteered for RAF service in the UK and were accepted for RAF
training in the UK, almost all of whom did so in 1939-40. After that
point, the majority of (but not all) aircrew were shipped abroad
(typically to Canada, South Africa or Rhodesia) to begin their
training in the EATS.

Gavin Bailey

[Michael]

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
> >Subject: Re: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
> >Date: 2/9/04 5:26 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >Subject: Re: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
> >> >From: "Ed Majden"
> >> >Date: 2/9/04 10:58 AM Pacifi
>
> >> >Most wanted to
> >> >be pilots but the greater majority ended up as Navs, Air Gunners,
> Wireless
> >> >Operators and Bomb aimers eventually assigned to No. 6 Bomber Group
> >> >(R.C.A.F.).
> >> >Ed
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Makes no difference what you wanted to be. You were assigned where you
> were
> >> needed.
> >
> >Yep, for the most part (though I do know one WWII vet who, upon finding out
> >his entire aviation cadet class was being cancelled and the newly enlisted
> >members being reassigned to other duties, flatly refused to train as a radio
> >operator--and got his assignment to gunnery school that he was willing to
> >take). Kind of strange to hear you admit that, though--wasn't that long ago
> >you were claiming that all of those who wanted to engage in direct combat
> >operations could do so, regardless of what the "needs of the service" were.
> >
> >Brooks
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Arthur Kramer
> >
> >
> Nobody got out of combat duty.

Yeah, but a while back you made the comment that all anyone who really
wanted to get *into* the fight had to do was ask to be transferred to
the fighting, and they would. And that anyone who said they missed
out on fighting due to where they were assigned at the time was
basically hiding behind an excuse. But then in this thread you turn
around and say "Makes no difference what you wanted to be. You were
assigned where you were needed." So which is it? Can everybody who
wants to fight ask for a transfer and be sent there, or do people
sometimes get stuck in capacities and places that aren't in the thick
of the action?

~Michael

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
>From: (Michael)
>Date: 2/10/04 1:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
(ArtKramr) wrote in message
>...
>> >Subject: Re: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
>> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
>> >Date: 2/9/04 5:26 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >
>> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> >Subject: Re: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
>> >> >From: "Ed Majden"
>> >> >Date: 2/9/04 10:58 AM Pacifi
>>
>> >> >Most wanted to
>> >> >be pilots but the greater majority ended up as Navs, Air Gunners,
>> Wireless
>> >> >Operators and Bomb aimers eventually assigned to No. 6 Bomber Group
>> >> >(R.C.A.F.).
>> >> >Ed
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Makes no difference what you wanted to be. You were assigned where you
>> were
>> >> needed.
>> >
>> >Yep, for the most part (though I do know one WWII vet who, upon finding
>out
>> >his entire aviation cadet class was being cancelled and the newly enlisted
>> >members being reassigned to other duties, flatly refused to train as a
>radio
>> >operator--and got his assignment to gunnery school that he was willing to
>> >take). Kind of strange to hear you admit that, though--wasn't that long
>ago
>> >you were claiming that all of those who wanted to engage in direct combat
>> >operations could do so, regardless of what the "needs of the service"
>were.
>> >
>> >Brooks
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Arthur Kramer
>> >
>> >
>> Nobody got out of combat duty.
>
>Yeah, but a while back you made the comment that all anyone who really
>wanted to get *into* the fight had to do was ask to be transferred to
>the fighting, and they would. And that anyone who said they missed
>out on fighting due to where they were assigned at the time was
>basically hiding behind an excuse. But then in this thread you turn
>around and say "Makes no difference what you wanted to be. You were
>assigned where you were needed." So which is it? Can everybody who
>wants to fight ask for a transfer and be sent there, or do people
>sometimes get stuck in capacities and places that aren't in the thick
>of the action?
>
>~Michael


I should have said that you were assigned to the COMBAT unit where you were
needed.


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

[[email protected]]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:

>
>"Eunometic" > wrote in message
om...
>> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
>> > "Ed Majden" > wrote in message
>> > news:k%wVb.441193$ts4.223591@pd7tw3no...
>> > >
>
>>
>> The US daylight bombers required a co-pilot for the physically and
>> mentally fatiquing task of close formation flying upon which their
>> defensive boxes were based. Lancasters just bumbelled along in bomber
>> streams at night presumably on auto-pilot much of the way.
>>
>
>Incorrect. That would have been an excellent way of committing
>suicide. One of the reasons that Lancasters flew in such loose formations
>was that they were constantly weaving to uncover blind spots and spoil
>the aim of any fighter.
>
>Moreover the standard tactic on spotting an enemy fighter was NOT
>to return fire but to enter a series of violent evasive manoeveurs
>called a corkscrew.
>
>Keith
>
I thought it was called 'Jink' or 'jinking' wasn't it?...I know
that there was that selection on the Lanc autopilot. We never
tried it, we had been scared because there was a rumour that it
produced violent random maneuvers.
--

-Gord.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
>

> >
> >Moreover the standard tactic on spotting an enemy fighter was NOT
> >to return fire but to enter a series of violent evasive manoeveurs
> >called a corkscrew.
> >
> >Keith
> >
> I thought it was called 'Jink' or 'jinking' wasn't it?...I know
> that there was that selection on the Lanc autopilot. We never
> tried it, we had been scared because there was a rumour that it
> produced violent random maneuvers.
> --
>

Possibly a difference in terminology between the RCAF and RAF
but I think jinking was a less violent manoeveur used
to confuse flak prdictors by making short random changes of
heading and speed

The RAF aircrew I talked to definitely called it a corkscrew
because thats what the flightpath of the aircraft would have
looked like, it involved some really radical flying for such a big
aircraft.

One gunner I talked to said that anyone who saw a fighter would
literally scream over the intercom something like
'Corkscrew port now' and the pilot would do it without question.

http://www.valourandhorror.com/BC/Tactics/Corkscrew.htm

Keith

[[email protected]]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:

>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
>>
>
>> >
>> >Moreover the standard tactic on spotting an enemy fighter was NOT
>> >to return fire but to enter a series of violent evasive manoeveurs
>> >called a corkscrew.
>> >
>> >Keith
>> >
>> I thought it was called 'Jink' or 'jinking' wasn't it?...I know
>> that there was that selection on the Lanc autopilot. We never
>> tried it, we had been scared because there was a rumour that it
>> produced violent random maneuvers.
>> --
>>
>
>Possibly a difference in terminology between the RCAF and RAF
>but I think jinking was a less violent manoeveur used
>to confuse flak prdictors by making short random changes of
>heading and speed
>
>The RAF aircrew I talked to definitely called it a corkscrew
>because thats what the flightpath of the aircraft would have
>looked like, it involved some really radical flying for such a big
>aircraft.
>
>One gunner I talked to said that anyone who saw a fighter would
>literally scream over the intercom something like
>'Corkscrew port now' and the pilot would do it without question.
>
>http://www.valourandhorror.com/BC/Tactics/Corkscrew.htm
>
>Keith
>
Ok...thanks Keith, sounds right.
--

-Gord.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 06:17:35 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

>I thought it was called 'Jink' or 'jinking' wasn't it?...I know
>that there was that selection on the Lanc autopilot. We never
>tried it, we had been scared because there was a rumour that it
>produced violent random maneuvers.

Not sure I'd like the concept of WW II era technology autopilot
jinking!

Jinking, however, is still the terminology for random, sometimes
violent maneuvering to spoil a guns solution, either ground-based or
aircraft.

Since ground based guns have a finite time-of-flight, the lead
solution can be quite a distance. Continual random changes of heading
and altitude can very easily spoil the solution. Shorter time of
flight requires more aggressive maneuver. Be sure to understand
whether you are dealing with aimed or barrage fire from the flak guns.
If aimed fire, then jink. If barrage fire, continue straight through
the barrage sector in the shortest period of time.

In A/A engagements, jinking is used to destroy the guns solution of
the close-in attacker. Again, it is violent and random. If below
corner velocity for the aircraft, it should involve full stick
displacement at max rate (below corner you can't over-G the bird).
Negative G is often a component.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Why would an RAF pilot become a USAAC co-pilot?
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 2/11/04 7:19 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 06:17:35 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
>wrote:
>
>>I thought it was called 'Jink' or 'jinking' wasn't it?...I know
>>that there was that selection on the Lanc autopilot. We never
>>tried it, we had been scared because there was a rumour that it
>>produced violent random maneuvers.
>
>Not sure I'd like the concept of WW II era technology autopilot
>jinking!
>
>Jinking, however, is still the terminology for random, sometimes
>violent maneuvering to spoil a guns solution, either ground-based or
>aircraft.
>
>Since ground based guns have a finite time-of-flight, the lead
>solution can be quite a distance. Continual random changes of heading
>and altitude can very easily spoil the solution. Shorter time of
>flight requires more aggressive maneuver. Be sure to understand
>whether you are dealing with aimed or barrage fire from the flak guns.
>If aimed fire, then jink. If barrage fire, continue straight through
>the barrage sector in the shortest period of time.
>
>In A/A engagements, jinking is used to destroy the guns solution of
>the close-in attacker. Again, it is violent and random. If below
>corner velocity for the aircraft, it should involve full stick
>displacement at max rate (below corner you can't over-G the bird).
>Negative G is often a component.
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8
>


You might be interested in going to my website and reading," FLAK, EVASIVE
ACTION AND THE DEADLY GAMES WE PLAYED".


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

[Eunometic]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 06:17:35 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
> wrote:
>
> >I thought it was called 'Jink' or 'jinking' wasn't it?...I know
> >that there was that selection on the Lanc autopilot. We never
> >tried it, we had been scared because there was a rumour that it
> >produced violent random maneuvers.
>
> Not sure I'd like the concept of WW II era technology autopilot
> jinking!
>
> Jinking, however, is still the terminology for random, sometimes
> violent maneuvering to spoil a guns solution, either ground-based or
> aircraft.
>
> Since ground based guns have a finite time-of-flight, the lead
> solution can be quite a distance. Continual random changes of heading
> and altitude can very easily spoil the solution. Shorter time of
> flight requires more aggressive maneuver. Be sure to understand
> whether you are dealing with aimed or barrage fire from the flak guns.
> If aimed fire, then jink. If barrage fire, continue straight through
> the barrage sector in the shortest period of time.

How do you tell the difference?

This is an extract from the oral History the IEEE is accumulating. In
this case an inteview with John Bryant who developed the SCR-584 radar
gun director of WW2.

http://www.ieee.org/organizations/history_center/oral_histories/transcripts/davenport.html

We learned two very surprising things: One was that we could see the
echo from the shells as they left the gun and watch as they climbed
toward the target. The most startling thing was the slow upward
progress of a shell on our scopes. It took what seemed to be an
infinitely long time and gave plenty of opportunity for the airplane
to move out of the way. There was much surprise that we could see a
shell at all. But of course the rear diameter of these 90-millimeter
shells wasn't so different from the 10 centimeter S-band that we were
aiming at the back end of the shell on its way up to the airplane. The
other thing that surprised us a great deal was the presence of
spurious low altitude signals over water which we later tracked down
to being seagulls. So the sensitivity of the unit was really quite
remarkable with our home made crystal detectors.

Before continuing I'd like to point out that seeing the 90 mm.
projectiles in flight toward the target turned out to have much more
significance than we realized at the time. Somewhat later the shells
were purposely tracked when we became suspicious that the fuze timing
seemed to be consistently in error by an amount that changed with
range. I recall that XT-1 was used to measure gun muzzle velocities
and to recheck the master ballistic tables that had been used to set
fuze timing and gun aiming. Those tables turned out to be in error for
the 90 mm,. gun. They were recomputed and all gun directors readjusted
by the time the SCR-584 went into service

>
> In A/A engagements, jinking is used to destroy the guns solution of
> the close-in attacker. Again, it is violent and random. If below
> corner velocity for the aircraft, it should involve full stick
> displacement at max rate (below corner you can't over-G the bird).
> Negative G is often a component.

The environment is of course getting more aggresive. I recall the
Bofors's Trinity System 40mm AAA gun can fire of a series of
individualy fired shots designed to bracket the target out to 5500
meters. The shells either have electronically timed fuses or
proximity fuses. The barrel of this weapon is very precise and there
has been a return to single barrel weapons from duel barrel of late
to reduce vibration.


Oto Melera tested a few 76.2mm guided cannon shells in the early 80s.
I believe 50 yards of steering was available for each mile of range.

US work in the field (for the AC130 howitizer) uses a nose twist
steared shell instead of a fin steared shell. I suspect the
development of actuators based on electrically deformin materials such
as PZT laminates will make guided cannon shells more common.






>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> Smithsonian Institution Press
> ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Ed Rasimus]

On 11 Feb 2004 16:25:07 -0800, (Eunometic)
wrote:

>Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...

>> Since ground based guns have a finite time-of-flight, the lead
>> solution can be quite a distance. Continual random changes of heading
>> and altitude can very easily spoil the solution. Shorter time of
>> flight requires more aggressive maneuver. Be sure to understand
>> whether you are dealing with aimed or barrage fire from the flak guns.
>> If aimed fire, then jink. If barrage fire, continue straight through
>> the barrage sector in the shortest period of time.
>
>How do you tell the difference?

Unfortunately, the only method I ever developed was observation. If
the puff balls are filling a block of sky, you're probably dealing
with barrage. If the puffies are walking up your tail or converging on
your nose, it's probably aimed fire.

Black, big puffs equal 85mm or larger. White or gray equals 37/57mm.
Yellow-orange tracer streams, looking like a fire hose means 23mm ZPU
or ZU. All mean increased heartrates.
>
>
>We learned two very surprising things: One was that we could see the
>echo from the shells as they left the gun and watch as they climbed
>toward the target. The most startling thing was the slow upward
>progress of a shell on our scopes. It took what seemed to be an
>infinitely long time and gave plenty of opportunity for the airplane
>to move out of the way. There was much surprise that we could see a
>shell at all. But of course the rear diameter of these 90-millimeter
>shells wasn't so different from the 10 centimeter S-band that we were
>aiming at the back end of the shell on its way up to the airplane.

I recall one day cruising in a four-ship spread of F-105s near Vinh at
20,000 feet. No SAM threat at the time. Spotted a battery of 85mm on
the ground firing. Eased into a 30 degree left bank for about fifteen
seconds. Almost 20 seconds later the dozen or so black puff balls
erupted right along our previous route of flight. Nothing violent in
jinking, just an easy turn to change the end-game.

I recount a tale of seeing 85mm in flight over Cam Pha in "When
Thunder Rolled." Impressive!



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Tosser]

"S. Sampson" > wrote in message
news:MhBVb.16366$Q_4.12788@okepread03...
> "ArtKramr" > wrote
> >
> > That is what I thought. But he never made it to the left seat.
>
> Maybe something else, probably something the squadron or wing
> commander knew that no one else did (whole person concept).
>


Might have been medical -- but they didn't want to lose him altogether because
of his experience ...