Instructors: is no combat better?

[ArtKramr]

Since I started this thread on instructors who have have combat experience
versus those who have not, 100% of the replies were in favor of instructors who
have never been to combat. Many state that they would rather have an instructor
who was skilled at instructing suggesting that once you have been to combat
you were automatically a bad instructor. Hard to buy.

There is another factor. when you have an instructor who has never fought and
probably never will, and you know that you damn well will, he goes down a notch
in respect because he is in a job that "protects": him from combat while you
will soon be sent into the thick of it.. So when we all talk of combat
experiences and one among us says " well I wasn't there, I was an instructor
in the states" he is now out of the loop.. Not that his job wasn't
critically important. It sure was. . At any rate things sure have changed since
WW II. We considered a combat veteran as an instructor a gift from the gods.
Your mileage may vary.


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 Mar 2004 14:46:26 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>Since I started this thread on instructors who have have combat experience
>versus those who have not, 100% of the replies were in favor of instructors who
>have never been to combat. Many state that they would rather have an instructor
>who was skilled at instructing suggesting that once you have been to combat
>you were automatically a bad instructor. Hard to buy.

That isn't what has been said. No one has suggested that having been
to combat made you a bad instructor. Some points that have been made
include:

1. Some course (such as UPT) are taught at a level that doesn't
require operational experience, let alone combat. Take-offs and
landings, basic formation, and instrument flying skills can be taught
by almost any graduate.

2. While combat experience might be good at the operational training
courses it isn't always available--long periods between wars have
often left a shortage of combat experienced folks.

3. Combat survival does not equate with instructional skill. Some
folks make good teachers and some make good warriors. Sometimes both
skills exist in the same person, but not always.

4. A mix of some combat vets and some non-combat experienced
instructors is more than adequate to inculcate the necessary combat
skills.

5. Technology has advanced since WW II. I know that is hard to
believe, but sixty years has resulted in some increased complexity in
war-fighting beyond the Browning .50 and the Norden bombsight. In some
training courses, the instructors are civilian contractors rather than
operational military.
>
>There is another factor. when you have an instructor who has never fought and
>probably never will, and you know that you damn well will, he goes down a notch
>in respect because he is in a job that "protects": him from combat while you
>will soon be sent into the thick of it.. So when we all talk of combat
>experiences and one among us says " well I wasn't there, I was an instructor
>in the states" he is now out of the loop.. Not that his job wasn't
>critically important. It sure was. . At any rate things sure have changed since
> WW II. We considered a combat veteran as an instructor a gift from the gods.
>Your mileage may vary.

Tactics are today. Doctrine is yesterday. Do the same thing more than
twice in combat and you are stereotyped and predictable. Survival
depends upon unpredictability and tactical creativity. Quite often
training by combat experienced instructors from last year or last war
might be counter-productive.

The intangible of demonstrated courage lends credibility, but it
doesn't equate with best training.

My mileage has most definitely varied--and there's been a lot more of
it.


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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 3/9/04 7:00 AM Pac

>The intangible of demonstrated courage lends credibility, but it
>doesn't equate with best training.
>
>My mileage has most definitely varied--and there's been a lot more of
>it.

Yes. You point that out at every opportuniity and I have gotten the point
every time.


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

[Dave Holford]

I think the position of most posters is that instructional skill is what
really matters.

If the instructor also has relevant combat experience so much the
better.

But being able to tell "war stories" has little relevance to
instructional ability.


Dave

[OXMORON1]

Art,
If I had to do it all over again, I would prefer the leavening of experience in
the instructors that I had in the 60's.

Learning it all the ATC way or the SAC way or the MAC way or the TAC way was
not conducive to gaining general knowledge and learning "why" something needed
to be done.
The "how" came in crew training under the specific command that you were going
to after initial training.
It was nice to recall something that an instructor from another command had
given you as a"tip" when you were lost for 14 hours with nothing working and
about to bust an ADIZ or a miss an important item.
The Air Training Command system of the 60's (You WILL do it this way!) wasn't
always the best way, or easiest way or smartest way.
An old B-47 Nav/Bomb taught me things about the radar set that no C-124 flight
lunch inspector ever thought about trying. An old C-47 nav taught me how to
repair a sextant that probably saved my rear at least once over the pond.
A navy CPO nav taught me noon day fix proceedures that worked more than once.
The main thing I got out of Air Teaining Command was accuracy and pacing.
Experienced people from other places taught me how to improvement my
"judgement" and smooth out the rough edges.

Rick Clark
GRID still sucks!

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
>From: (OXMORON1)
>Date: 3/9/04 7:40 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Art,
>If I had to do it all over again, I would prefer the leavening of experience
>in
>the instructors that I had in the 60's.
>
>Learning it all the ATC way or the SAC way or the MAC way or the TAC way was
>not conducive to gaining general knowledge and learning "why" something
>needed
>to be done.
>The "how" came in crew training under the specific command that you were
>going
>to after initial training.
>It was nice to recall something that an instructor from another command had
>given you as a"tip" when you were lost for 14 hours with nothing working and
>about to bust an ADIZ or a miss an important item.
>The Air Training Command system of the 60's (You WILL do it this way!) wasn't
>always the best way, or easiest way or smartest way.
>An old B-47 Nav/Bomb taught me things about the radar set that no C-124
>flight
>lunch inspector ever thought about trying. An old C-47 nav taught me how to
>repair a sextant that probably saved my rear at least once over the pond.
>A navy CPO nav taught me noon day fix proceedures that worked more than once.
>The main thing I got out of Air Teaining Command was accuracy and pacing.
>Experienced people from other places taught me how to improvement my
>"judgement" and smooth out the rough edges.
>
>Rick Clark
>GRID still sucks!


Of course you are correct. We learn from everyone wherever and whenever we can.
I remember one gunner telling me how to tell in advance whether an enemy
fighter coming in at you will pass over or under you. It makes a difference
because if he will pass over he belongs to our top turret gunner and if he will
pass under he is the waist gunners meat. Anyway, he said that if the fighter
starts his fighter approach and has dropped his inside wing and is swinging h s
nose toward you. then rolls over on his back and makes his attack firing
inverted, he will pass under you. But if he comes in straight, he will pass
over you. And you know, that guy was right. Bless those who have walked the
walk and lived to tell us about it before we found it out the hard way..


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

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

> Since I started this thread on instructors who have have combat
> experience
> versus those who have not, 100% of the replies were in favor of
> instructors who
> have never been to combat. Many state that they would rather have an
> instructor
> who was skilled at instructing suggesting that once you have been to
> combat
> you were automatically a bad instructor. Hard to buy.

Being in combat teaches you, as an individual, how to survive in combat.
It doesn't necessarily give you the skills or temperament to teach it to
others.

One of the differences between your experience and present training may
be the amount of technical detail that is constantly changing, and MUST
be understood well enough to teach it. Another factor is that most
combat aircraft are multirole. An F-15E driver may have done nothing but
attack, although lots of it and have been shot at thoroughly in the
process.

What special credentials does that give him to teach air combat
maneuvering, perhaps in contrast to someone who was a FAIP, was assigned
to a combat-ready unit in Korea, and then was assigned to Red Flag and
does NOTHING but practice air combat maneuvering and study doctrine from
EVERY known air force? Does that air-to-mud pilot know every trick of
getting performance out of the air-to-air radar, NCTR mechanisms, etc.?
Does the air-to-air specialist know every trick of lob-toss bombing?

>
> There is another factor. when you have an instructor who has never
> fought and
> probably never will, and you know that you damn well will, he goes down a
> notch
> in respect because he is in a job that "protects": him from combat while
> you
> will soon be sent into the thick of it.. So when we all talk of combat
> experiences and one among us says " well I wasn't there, I was an
> instructor
> in the states" he is now out of the loop.. Not that his job wasn't
> critically important. It sure was. . At any rate things sure have changed
> since
> WW II. We considered a combat veteran as an instructor a gift from the
> gods.
> Your mileage may vary.

Look at it another way. In the "grand old days", SAC had lots of pilots
and aircrew, many of which might have WWII or Korea or Viet Nam combat
experience. Let's say someone survived Linebacker and is now teaching.
How does that qualify them to teach a low-altitude nuclear delivery run
against the fUSSR?

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
>From: Howard Berkowitz
>Date: 3/9/04 8:32 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >

>Look at it another way. In the "grand old days", SAC had lots of pilots
>and aircrew, many of which might have WWII or Korea or Viet Nam combat
>experience. Let's say someone survived Linebacker and is now teaching.
>How does that qualify them to teach a low-altitude nuclear delivery run
>against the fUSSR?


How does anyone who hasn't done it teach it?



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

[Mike Marron]

> (ArtKramr) wrote:

>Since I started this thread on instructors who have have combat experience
>versus those who have not, 100% of the replies were in favor of instructors who
>have never been to combat.

Wrong. Favored instructors who have "never been to combat" are YOUR
words, not of those who replied. Go back and re-read the replies and
try to focus on the black parts (e.g: the words) and ignore the white
parts in between.

>Many state that they would rather have an instructor who was skilled at
>instructing suggesting that once you have been to combat you were
>automatically a bad instructor. Hard to buy.

Wrong again. "Once you've been to combat you were automatically a
bad instructor" are YOUR words, not of those who replied. Go back and
re-read the replies and try to focus on the black parts (the words,
just the words) and ignore the white spaces in between the black
parts.

>There is another factor. when you have an instructor who has never fought
>and probably never will, and you know that you damn well will, he goes down
>a notch in respect because he is in a job that "protects": him from combat while
>you will soon be sent into the thick of it..

And once again, your simplistic, immature thought processes are all
wrong. I understand the urgency of the situation back in your day, but
your lack of a college education coupled with the hurried and
inadequate training you received in OTS is glaringly obvious still
to this day. The Army obviously allowed many marginal,
unteachable, snot-nosed, naive, "save-the-world-for-democracy"
idealistic 19-year old kids like you to slide on through the cracks
because as you're so fond of saying; "there was a war going on."
The unfortunate result of the Army rushing you off to war armed with
nothing but your contrived syllogisms, impaired logic and inability to
think critically is the pitiable and worsening case of Narcissistic
Personality Disorder from which you suffer.

>So when we all talk of combat experiences and one among us
>says " well I wasn't there, I was an instructor in the states" he is now
>out of the loop..

Wrong again. Your consistently screwy logic shows that you're the
one whose "out of the loop," whether you realize it or not.

>Not that his job wasn't critically important. It sure was. .

Congrats. The first CORRECT statement you've managed to say
in months, if not years....

>At any rate things sure have changed since WW II.

Amazing. You're on a roll...the second CORRECT statement you've
managed to say in months if not years!

>We considered a combat veteran as an instructor a gift from the gods.
>Your mileage may vary.

Aren't you the squeeze ballsack who just the other day was sucking
up to Dudley, a NON-combat veteran? One of the many "facts of life"
lectures that you apparently missed during your inadequate and
abbreviated training back in the Dark Ages is that being trained by a
combat veteran is no guarantee of survival, and being trained by the
worst instructor in the squadron is no guarantee of death. It's called
it the "Golden BB" Rule. That's the one that gets you. Just ask the
unlucky ******* in the "high-tech" Apache who takes a stinkin' rocket
propelled grenade right up the snot locker.

As others have tried (in vain, I might add) to explain to you, when
talking about combat the variables are many and you don't specify
turn radius, climb rate, etc. and even if you did, there's always the
background...night or day, sun angle and umpteen other factors and
distractions that make the whole thing a crap shoot.

The bottom line is that simply because you happened to survive
combat that doesn't necessarily mean that you were GOOD in
combat. After all, we've only heard YOUR side of the story -- your
self-aggrandizing, mittyesque war stories constantly bragging about
how "good" you were and how "cowardly" everyone else was. But
until some other credible person steps forward and definitively backs
up all your boasts about how "good" Art Kramer was, taking anything
you say as the truth is at best, a leap of faith. And from where I'm
sitting, it appears that very few people are willing to take that
leap.

[Dudley Henriques]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...

> Of course you are correct. We learn from everyone wherever and whenever we
can.
> I remember one gunner telling me how to tell in advance whether an enemy
> fighter coming in at you will pass over or under you. It makes a
difference
> because if he will pass over he belongs to our top turret gunner and if he
will
> pass under he is the waist gunners meat. Anyway, he said that if the
fighter
> starts his fighter approach and has dropped his inside wing and is
swinging h s
> nose toward you. then rolls over on his back and makes his attack firing
> inverted, he will pass under you. But if he comes in straight, he will
pass
> over you. And you know, that guy was right. Bless those who have walked
the
> walk and lived to tell us about it before we found it out the hard way..
>
>
> 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 conjunction with your comment about the gunner's remarks to you; if
simple aerodynamics wasn't a part of every gunner's training during the war,
it most surely should have been. What this gunner was telling you might have
been from his training knowledge base or simply as the observed result of
his personal experience. The end result would be the same for recognizing
what the fighter was about to do, but the big difference would have been the
advantage to gunners having this knowledge up front going into combat as
opposed to finding it out through operational experience.
Every gunner out there should have had at least some basic knowledge of
positive and negative g as that knowledge relates to a firing pass by a
fighter. Those who didn't had to learn the hard way. Gunners being taught a
few simple facts about g and vectors would have saved many lives........ and
as this knowledge relates to a firing pass, could have been taught in just a
few minutes during training.
The simple truth of it is that if the fighter rolled inverted during the
pass, in order to pass over you he would have to bunt the airplane into
negative g, and the odds of this happening vs going the positive g route
under you would have all but been a sure bet that he would go positive under
you; hence the lead would become predictable based on the odds.
I should add that there were a few German fighter pilots who routinely would
go negative, but never offensively, only defensively.
Erich Hartmann was one of them, and he was not in the theatre.
I've always wanted to ask a gunner from the period if simple aerodynamics
was indeed taught in gunnery training to help with prediction lead solution,
but somehow I've always forgotten to ask
:-) If there are any gunners out there who can answer this, perhaps they
will post.
Dudley

[Jim Baker]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On 09 Mar 2004 14:46:26 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
> >Since I started this thread on instructors who have have combat
experience
> >versus those who have not, 100% of the replies were in favor of
instructors who
> >have never been to combat. Many state that they would rather have an
instructor
> >who was skilled at instructing suggesting that once you have been to
combat
> >you were automatically a bad instructor. Hard to buy.
>
> That isn't what has been said. No one has suggested that having been
> to combat made you a bad instructor. Some points that have been made
> include:
>
> 1. Some course (such as UPT) are taught at a level that doesn't
> require operational experience, let alone combat. Take-offs and
> landings, basic formation, and instrument flying skills can be taught
> by almost any graduate.
>
> 2. While combat experience might be good at the operational training
> courses it isn't always available--long periods between wars have
> often left a shortage of combat experienced folks.
>
> 3. Combat survival does not equate with instructional skill. Some
> folks make good teachers and some make good warriors. Sometimes both
> skills exist in the same person, but not always.
>
> 4. A mix of some combat vets and some non-combat experienced
> instructors is more than adequate to inculcate the necessary combat
> skills.
>
> 5. Technology has advanced since WW II. I know that is hard to
> believe, but sixty years has resulted in some increased complexity in
> war-fighting beyond the Browning .50 and the Norden bombsight. In some
> training courses, the instructors are civilian contractors rather than
> operational military.
> >
> >There is another factor. when you have an instructor who has never
fought and
> >probably never will, and you know that you damn well will, he goes down a
notch
> >in respect because he is in a job that "protects": him from combat while
you
> >will soon be sent into the thick of it.. So when we all talk of combat
> >experiences and one among us says " well I wasn't there, I was an
instructor
> >in the states" he is now out of the loop.. Not that his job wasn't
> >critically important. It sure was. . At any rate things sure have changed
since
> > WW II. We considered a combat veteran as an instructor a gift from the
gods.
> >Your mileage may vary.
>
> Tactics are today. Doctrine is yesterday. Do the same thing more than
> twice in combat and you are stereotyped and predictable. Survival
> depends upon unpredictability and tactical creativity. Quite often
> training by combat experienced instructors from last year or last war
> might be counter-productive.
>
> The intangible of demonstrated courage lends credibility, but it
> doesn't equate with best training.
>
> My mileage has most definitely varied--and there's been a lot more of
> it.
>
>
> Ed Rasimus

Bravo. Spot on point for point.

JB

[ArtKramr]

>In conjunction with your comment about the gunner's remarks to you; if
>simple aerodynamics wasn't a part of every gunner's training during the war,
>it most surely should have been. What this gunner was telling you might have
>been from his training knowledge base or simply as the observed result of
>his personal experience. The end result would be the same for recognizing
>what the fighter was about to do, but the big difference would have been the
>advantage to gunners having this knowledge up front going into combat as
>opposed to finding it out through operational experience.
>Every gunner out there should have had at least some basic knowledge of
>positive and negative g as that knowledge relates to a firing pass by a
>fighter. Those who didn't had to learn the hard way. Gunners being taught a
>few simple facts about g and vectors would have saved many lives........ and
>as this knowledge relates to a firing pass, could have been taught in just a
>few minutes during training.
>The simple truth of it is that if the fighter rolled inverted during the
>pass, in order to pass over you he would have to bunt the airplane into
>negative g, and the odds of this happening vs going the positive g route
>under you would have all but been a sure bet that he would go positive under
>you; hence the lead would become predictable based on the odds.
>I should add that there were a few German fighter pilots who routinely would
>go negative, but never offensively, only defensively.
>Erich Hartmann was one of them, and he was not in the theatre.
>I've always wanted to ask a gunner from the period if simple aerodynamics
>was indeed taught in gunnery training to help with prediction lead solution,
>but somehow I've always forgotten to ask
>:-) If there are any gunners out there who can answer this, perhaps they
>will post.
>Dudley
>
>

I think the answer would be no. When I went through gunnery training on the
way to bomb school they didn't even teach us about that. And the first time I
heard it, it is was totally new to me. I had to really see it to believe it.
And when I saw it I thought, "why the hell is he coming in on his back? Crazy
Krauts"


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: Instructors: is no combat better?
>From: "Jim Baker"
>Date: 3/9/04 9:32 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>> On 09 Mar 2004 14:46:26 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>>
>> >Since I started this thread on instructors who have have combat
>experience
>> >versus those who have not, 100% of the replies were in favor of
>instructors who
>> >have never been to combat. Many state that they would rather have an
>instructor
>> >who was skilled at instructing suggesting that once you have been to
>combat
>> >you were automatically a bad instructor. Hard to buy.
>>
>> That isn't what has been said. No one has suggested that having been
>> to combat made you a bad instructor. Some points that have been made
>> include:
>>
>> 1. Some course (such as UPT) are taught at a level that doesn't
>> require operational experience, let alone combat. Take-offs and
>> landings, basic formation, and instrument flying skills can be taught
>> by almost any graduate.
>>
>> 2. While combat experience might be good at the operational training
>> courses it isn't always available--long periods between wars have
>> often left a shortage of combat experienced folks.
>>
>> 3. Combat survival does not equate with instructional skill. Some
>> folks make good teachers and some make good warriors. Sometimes both
>> skills exist in the same person, but not always.
>>
>> 4. A mix of some combat vets and some non-combat experienced
>> instructors is more than adequate to inculcate the necessary combat
>> skills.
>>
>> 5. Technology has advanced since WW II. I know that is hard to
>> believe, but sixty years has resulted in some increased complexity in
>> war-fighting beyond the Browning .50 and the Norden bombsight. In some
>> training courses, the instructors are civilian contractors rather than
>> operational military.
>> >
>> >There is another factor. when you have an instructor who has never
>fought and
>> >probably never will, and you know that you damn well will, he goes down a
>notch
>> >in respect because he is in a job that "protects": him from combat while
>you
>> >will soon be sent into the thick of it.. So when we all talk of combat
>> >experiences and one among us says " well I wasn't there, I was an
>instructor
>> >in the states" he is now out of the loop.. Not that his job wasn't
>> >critically important. It sure was. . At any rate things sure have changed
>since
>> > WW II. We considered a combat veteran as an instructor a gift from the
>gods.
>> >Your mileage may vary.
>>
>> Tactics are today. Doctrine is yesterday. Do the same thing more than
>> twice in combat and you are stereotyped and predictable. Survival
>> depends upon unpredictability and tactical creativity. Quite often
>> training by combat experienced instructors from last year or last war
>> might be counter-productive.
>>
>> The intangible of demonstrated courage lends credibility, but it
>> doesn't equate with best training.
>>
>> My mileage has most definitely varied--and there's been a lot more of
>> it.
>>
>>
>> Ed Rasimus
>
>Bravo. Spot on point for point.
>
>JB
>
>

Except that not much of it applies to WW II.



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

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
> >From: "Jim Baker"
> >Date: 3/9/04 9:32 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 09 Mar 2004 14:46:26 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Since I started this thread on instructors who have have combat
> >experience
> >> >versus those who have not, 100% of the replies were in favor of
> >instructors who
> >> >have never been to combat. Many state that they would rather have an
> >instructor
> >> >who was skilled at instructing suggesting that once you have been to
> >combat
> >> >you were automatically a bad instructor. Hard to buy.
> >>
> >> That isn't what has been said. No one has suggested that having been
> >> to combat made you a bad instructor. Some points that have been made
> >> include:
> >>
> >> 1. Some course (such as UPT) are taught at a level that doesn't
> >> require operational experience, let alone combat. Take-offs and
> >> landings, basic formation, and instrument flying skills can be taught
> >> by almost any graduate.
> >>
> >> 2. While combat experience might be good at the operational training
> >> courses it isn't always available--long periods between wars have
> >> often left a shortage of combat experienced folks.
> >>
> >> 3. Combat survival does not equate with instructional skill. Some
> >> folks make good teachers and some make good warriors. Sometimes both
> >> skills exist in the same person, but not always.
> >>
> >> 4. A mix of some combat vets and some non-combat experienced
> >> instructors is more than adequate to inculcate the necessary combat
> >> skills.
> >>
> >> 5. Technology has advanced since WW II. I know that is hard to
> >> believe, but sixty years has resulted in some increased complexity in
> >> war-fighting beyond the Browning .50 and the Norden bombsight. In some
> >> training courses, the instructors are civilian contractors rather than
> >> operational military.
> >> >
> >> >There is another factor. when you have an instructor who has never
> >fought and
> >> >probably never will, and you know that you damn well will, he goes
> >> >down a
> >notch
> >> >in respect because he is in a job that "protects": him from combat
> >> >while
> >you
> >> >will soon be sent into the thick of it.. So when we all talk of
> >> >combat
> >> >experiences and one among us says " well I wasn't there, I was an
> >instructor
> >> >in the states" he is now out of the loop.. Not that his job wasn't
> >> >critically important. It sure was. . At any rate things sure have
> >> >changed
> >since
> >> > WW II. We considered a combat veteran as an instructor a gift from
> >> > the
> >gods.
> >> >Your mileage may vary.
> >>
> >> Tactics are today. Doctrine is yesterday. Do the same thing more than
> >> twice in combat and you are stereotyped and predictable. Survival
> >> depends upon unpredictability and tactical creativity. Quite often
> >> training by combat experienced instructors from last year or last war
> >> might be counter-productive.
> >>
> >> The intangible of demonstrated courage lends credibility, but it
> >> doesn't equate with best training.
> >>
> >> My mileage has most definitely varied--and there's been a lot more of
> >> it.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ed Rasimus
> >
> >Bravo. Spot on point for point.
> >
> >JB
> >
> >
>
> Except that not much of it applies to WW II.

I don't disagree with you in that exception. Where I disagree is when
you appear to make accusations of cowardice or shirking against people
that were not in WWII, and thus operated in different, valid
environments.

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
> >From: "Jim Baker"
> >Date: 3/9/04 9:32 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 09 Mar 2004 14:46:26 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Since I started this thread on instructors who have have combat
> >experience
> >> >versus those who have not, 100% of the replies were in favor of
> >instructors who
> >> >have never been to combat. Many state that they would rather have an
> >instructor
> >> >who was skilled at instructing suggesting that once you have been to
> >combat
> >> >you were automatically a bad instructor. Hard to buy.
> >>
> >> That isn't what has been said. No one has suggested that having been
> >> to combat made you a bad instructor. Some points that have been made
> >> include:
> >>
> >> 1. Some course (such as UPT) are taught at a level that doesn't
> >> require operational experience, let alone combat. Take-offs and
> >> landings, basic formation, and instrument flying skills can be taught
> >> by almost any graduate.
> >>
> >> 2. While combat experience might be good at the operational training
> >> courses it isn't always available--long periods between wars have
> >> often left a shortage of combat experienced folks.
> >>
> >> 3. Combat survival does not equate with instructional skill. Some
> >> folks make good teachers and some make good warriors. Sometimes both
> >> skills exist in the same person, but not always.
> >>
> >> 4. A mix of some combat vets and some non-combat experienced
> >> instructors is more than adequate to inculcate the necessary combat
> >> skills.
> >>
> >> 5. Technology has advanced since WW II. I know that is hard to
> >> believe, but sixty years has resulted in some increased complexity in
> >> war-fighting beyond the Browning .50 and the Norden bombsight. In some
> >> training courses, the instructors are civilian contractors rather than
> >> operational military.
> >> >
> >> >There is another factor. when you have an instructor who has never
> >fought and
> >> >probably never will, and you know that you damn well will, he goes
down a
> >notch
> >> >in respect because he is in a job that "protects": him from combat
while
> >you
> >> >will soon be sent into the thick of it.. So when we all talk of
combat
> >> >experiences and one among us says " well I wasn't there, I was an
> >instructor
> >> >in the states" he is now out of the loop.. Not that his job wasn't
> >> >critically important. It sure was. . At any rate things sure have
changed
> >since
> >> > WW II. We considered a combat veteran as an instructor a gift from
the
> >gods.
> >> >Your mileage may vary.
> >>
> >> Tactics are today. Doctrine is yesterday. Do the same thing more than
> >> twice in combat and you are stereotyped and predictable. Survival
> >> depends upon unpredictability and tactical creativity. Quite often
> >> training by combat experienced instructors from last year or last war
> >> might be counter-productive.
> >>
> >> The intangible of demonstrated courage lends credibility, but it
> >> doesn't equate with best training.
> >>
> >> My mileage has most definitely varied--and there's been a lot more of
> >> it.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ed Rasimus
> >
> >Bravo. Spot on point for point.
> >
> >JB
> >
> >
>
> Except that not much of it applies to WW II.

Geeze, YOU started the thread and it most definitely was NOT restricted to
the case of WWII training, and now you are whining that Ed's response had no
applicability? Get a grip.

Brooks

>
>
>
> Arthur Kramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
>From: Howard Berkowitz
>Date: 3/9/04 9:47 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
>> >From: "Jim Baker"
>> >Date: 3/9/04 9:32 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >
>> >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On 09 Mar 2004 14:46:26 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Since I started this thread on instructors who have have combat
>> >experience
>> >> >versus those who have not, 100% of the replies were in favor of
>> >instructors who
>> >> >have never been to combat. Many state that they would rather have an
>> >instructor
>> >> >who was skilled at instructing suggesting that once you have been to
>> >combat
>> >> >you were automatically a bad instructor. Hard to buy.
>> >>
>> >> That isn't what has been said. No one has suggested that having been
>> >> to combat made you a bad instructor. Some points that have been made
>> >> include:
>> >>
>> >> 1. Some course (such as UPT) are taught at a level that doesn't
>> >> require operational experience, let alone combat. Take-offs and
>> >> landings, basic formation, and instrument flying skills can be taught
>> >> by almost any graduate.
>> >>
>> >> 2. While combat experience might be good at the operational training
>> >> courses it isn't always available--long periods between wars have
>> >> often left a shortage of combat experienced folks.
>> >>
>> >> 3. Combat survival does not equate with instructional skill. Some
>> >> folks make good teachers and some make good warriors. Sometimes both
>> >> skills exist in the same person, but not always.
>> >>
>> >> 4. A mix of some combat vets and some non-combat experienced
>> >> instructors is more than adequate to inculcate the necessary combat
>> >> skills.
>> >>
>> >> 5. Technology has advanced since WW II. I know that is hard to
>> >> believe, but sixty years has resulted in some increased complexity in
>> >> war-fighting beyond the Browning .50 and the Norden bombsight. In some
>> >> training courses, the instructors are civilian contractors rather than
>> >> operational military.
>> >> >
>> >> >There is another factor. when you have an instructor who has never
>> >fought and
>> >> >probably never will, and you know that you damn well will, he goes
>> >> >down a
>> >notch
>> >> >in respect because he is in a job that "protects": him from combat
>> >> >while
>> >you
>> >> >will soon be sent into the thick of it.. So when we all talk of
>> >> >combat
>> >> >experiences and one among us says " well I wasn't there, I was an
>> >instructor
>> >> >in the states" he is now out of the loop.. Not that his job wasn't
>> >> >critically important. It sure was. . At any rate things sure have
>> >> >changed
>> >since
>> >> > WW II. We considered a combat veteran as an instructor a gift from
>> >> > the
>> >gods.
>> >> >Your mileage may vary.
>> >>
>> >> Tactics are today. Doctrine is yesterday. Do the same thing more than
>> >> twice in combat and you are stereotyped and predictable. Survival
>> >> depends upon unpredictability and tactical creativity. Quite often
>> >> training by combat experienced instructors from last year or last war
>> >> might be counter-productive.
>> >>
>> >> The intangible of demonstrated courage lends credibility, but it
>> >> doesn't equate with best training.
>> >>

>I don't disagree with you in that exception. Where I disagree is when
>you appear to make accusations of cowardice or shirking against people
>that were not in WWII, and thus operated in different, valid
>environments.


What do you mean "appear" to make them. You mean I don't make them but only
"appear" to make them? And who have I ever called a coward?


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

[Ron]

>Since I started this thread on instructors who have have combat experience
>versus those who have not, 100% of the replies were in favor of instructors
>who
>have never been to combat. Many state that they would rather have an
>instructor
>who was skilled at instructing suggesting that once you have been to combat
>you were automatically a bad instructor. Hard to buy.

That is not what was said at all. What was being said, was that for flight/nav
instruction, it isnt going to make a difference if you are taught by a combat
vet, because you are still learning the very basics

Now once you get to where you are learning weapons, tactics, that is a
different story.


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

[Ron]

>Except that not much of it applies to WW II.
>
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

And the corrollary of that, would be that not much of how war was fought in WW2
would apply to today either.


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
> >From: Howard Berkowitz
> >Date: 3/9/04 9:47 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >In article >,
> (ArtKramr) wrote:
> >
> >> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
> >> >From: "Jim Baker"
> >> >Date: 3/9/04 9:32 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >> >Message-id: >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On 09 Mar 2004 14:46:26 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Since I started this thread on instructors who have have combat
> >> >experience
> >> >> >versus those who have not, 100% of the replies were in favor of
> >> >instructors who
> >> >> >have never been to combat. Many state that they would rather have
an
> >> >instructor
> >> >> >who was skilled at instructing suggesting that once you have been
to
> >> >combat
> >> >> >you were automatically a bad instructor. Hard to buy.
> >> >>
> >> >> That isn't what has been said. No one has suggested that having been
> >> >> to combat made you a bad instructor. Some points that have been made
> >> >> include:
> >> >>
> >> >> 1. Some course (such as UPT) are taught at a level that doesn't
> >> >> require operational experience, let alone combat. Take-offs and
> >> >> landings, basic formation, and instrument flying skills can be
taught
> >> >> by almost any graduate.
> >> >>
> >> >> 2. While combat experience might be good at the operational training
> >> >> courses it isn't always available--long periods between wars have
> >> >> often left a shortage of combat experienced folks.
> >> >>
> >> >> 3. Combat survival does not equate with instructional skill. Some
> >> >> folks make good teachers and some make good warriors. Sometimes both
> >> >> skills exist in the same person, but not always.
> >> >>
> >> >> 4. A mix of some combat vets and some non-combat experienced
> >> >> instructors is more than adequate to inculcate the necessary combat
> >> >> skills.
> >> >>
> >> >> 5. Technology has advanced since WW II. I know that is hard to
> >> >> believe, but sixty years has resulted in some increased complexity
in
> >> >> war-fighting beyond the Browning .50 and the Norden bombsight. In
some
> >> >> training courses, the instructors are civilian contractors rather
than
> >> >> operational military.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >There is another factor. when you have an instructor who has never
> >> >fought and
> >> >> >probably never will, and you know that you damn well will, he goes
> >> >> >down a
> >> >notch
> >> >> >in respect because he is in a job that "protects": him from combat
> >> >> >while
> >> >you
> >> >> >will soon be sent into the thick of it.. So when we all talk of
> >> >> >combat
> >> >> >experiences and one among us says " well I wasn't there, I was an
> >> >instructor
> >> >> >in the states" he is now out of the loop.. Not that his job
wasn't
> >> >> >critically important. It sure was. . At any rate things sure have
> >> >> >changed
> >> >since
> >> >> > WW II. We considered a combat veteran as an instructor a gift from
> >> >> > the
> >> >gods.
> >> >> >Your mileage may vary.
> >> >>
> >> >> Tactics are today. Doctrine is yesterday. Do the same thing more
than
> >> >> twice in combat and you are stereotyped and predictable. Survival
> >> >> depends upon unpredictability and tactical creativity. Quite often
> >> >> training by combat experienced instructors from last year or last
war
> >> >> might be counter-productive.
> >> >>
> >> >> The intangible of demonstrated courage lends credibility, but it
> >> >> doesn't equate with best training.
> >> >>
>
> >I don't disagree with you in that exception. Where I disagree is when
> >you appear to make accusations of cowardice or shirking against people
> >that were not in WWII, and thus operated in different, valid
> >environments.
>
>
> What do you mean "appear" to make them. You mean I don't make them but
only
> "appear" to make them? And who have I ever called a coward?

Lots of us. Also the men who worked in the States to make sure you and the
other serving troops had the tools they needed to conduct the fight. Anybody
who did not/is not serving in either the airborne or USMC units. Folks like
me (actually, including me specifically) who volunteered and performed our
service when there was no draft forcing us to do so. You have a real short
memory, don't you?

Brooks

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

[Ron]

>How does anyone who hasn't done it teach it?
>
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

You train in a way that can best emulate the methods and threats. Thats why
SAC crews training in low level penetration and weapons delivery. Places like
Top Gun, and when the USAF had dedicated aggressor squadrons, conducted
training that would probably be harder than the actual opponents one would have
flown against.

SAC crews would have certainly had the training to have been competent at
nuclear weapons delivery, without having to have actually bombed the USSR
beforehand.


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
>From: (Ron)
>Date: 3/9/04 9:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id:

>Except that not much of it applies to WW II.
>>
>>
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>And the corrollary of that, would be that not much of how war was fought in
>WW2
>would apply to today either.
>
>
>Ron
>Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
>
>
Agreed. I am talking about what I know, those who fought later later are
talking about what they knolw. Those who never fought are talking about what?


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

[Seagram]

Ok tribe members, its time to cast your vote. Who wants Art off the island
?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Seagram" > wrote in message
...
> Ok tribe members, its time to cast your vote. Who wants Art off the
island

Nice thread Art, don't let the bottom feeders troll you.

Excellent signal, to all that participated.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
>From: "Tarver Engineering"
>Date: 3/9/04 10:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Seagram" > wrote in message
...
>> Ok tribe members, its time to cast your vote. Who wants Art off the
>island
>
>Nice thread Art, don't let the bottom feeders troll you.
>
>Excellent signal, to all that participated.
>
>
I made it through WW II . There is no way the bottom feeders stand a chance,
especially the wannabee bottom feeders. But then again all the wannabees are
bottom feeders.


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
...
> >In conjunction with your comment about the gunner's remarks to you; if
> >simple aerodynamics wasn't a part of every gunner's training during the
war,
> >it most surely should have been. What this gunner was telling you might
have
> >been from his training knowledge base or simply as the observed result of
> >his personal experience. The end result would be the same for recognizing
> >what the fighter was about to do, but the big difference would have been
the
> >advantage to gunners having this knowledge up front going into combat as
> >opposed to finding it out through operational experience.
> >Every gunner out there should have had at least some basic knowledge of
> >positive and negative g as that knowledge relates to a firing pass by a
> >fighter. Those who didn't had to learn the hard way. Gunners being taught
a
> >few simple facts about g and vectors would have saved many lives........
and
> >as this knowledge relates to a firing pass, could have been taught in
just a
> >few minutes during training.
> >The simple truth of it is that if the fighter rolled inverted during the
> >pass, in order to pass over you he would have to bunt the airplane into
> >negative g, and the odds of this happening vs going the positive g route
> >under you would have all but been a sure bet that he would go positive
under
> >you; hence the lead would become predictable based on the odds.
> >I should add that there were a few German fighter pilots who routinely
would
> >go negative, but never offensively, only defensively.
> >Erich Hartmann was one of them, and he was not in the theatre.
> >I've always wanted to ask a gunner from the period if simple aerodynamics
> >was indeed taught in gunnery training to help with prediction lead
solution,
> >but somehow I've always forgotten to ask
> >:-) If there are any gunners out there who can answer this, perhaps they
> >will post.
> >Dudley
> >
> >
>
> I think the answer would be no. When I went through gunnery training on
the
> way to bomb school they didn't even teach us about that. And the first
time I
> heard it, it is was totally new to me. I had to really see it to believe
it.
> And when I saw it I thought, "why the hell is he coming in on his back?
Crazy
> Krauts"

Actually, going under is a practical air to air maneuver for a firing pass
on specific targets executed in the scenario given, although the point
through the run where the fighter rolled would be critical for him. Too
early and he would be faced with holding the aircraft in pitch on the target
while he fired entering his max/min range for his weapons. Firing through
the rotation in roll as he entered his range parameters for guns would have
produced a trajectory shift and gravity drop error you would have to see to
believe, for all but the most highly skilled pilots.
The pro of such a pass is the ability to maintain or even produce exit
energy on the back side of the firing envelope through the run, exiting down
and out maintaining maneuvering energy for a possible defensive maneuver if
the run was followed through by a hostile (to him) shooter. Also, this
energy could be expended in a transition to another high side run if
unopposed. The cons are an almost certain off center ball through the run
which would play hell with the projectile trajectories and an almost certain
predictability of the exit direction for a real sharp gunner. These tactics
I'm sure were almost certainly target aircraft specific , at least for the
more able of the German pilots. They would have been familiar with the ideal
angle offs and target aspects for the specific target type and made their
runs if possible to take advantage of that data.
Dudley

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
>From: "Dudley Henriques"
>Date: 3/9/04 10:44 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: . net>
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >In conjunction with your comment about the gunner's remarks to you; if
>> >simple aerodynamics wasn't a part of every gunner's training during the
>war,
>> >it most surely should have been. What this gunner was telling you might
>have
>> >been from his training knowledge base or simply as the observed result of
>> >his personal experience. The end result would be the same for recognizing
>> >what the fighter was about to do, but the big difference would have been
>the
>> >advantage to gunners having this knowledge up front going into combat as
>> >opposed to finding it out through operational experience.
>> >Every gunner out there should have had at least some basic knowledge of
>> >positive and negative g as that knowledge relates to a firing pass by a
>> >fighter. Those who didn't had to learn the hard way. Gunners being taught
>a
>> >few simple facts about g and vectors would have saved many lives........
>and
>> >as this knowledge relates to a firing pass, could have been taught in
>just a
>> >few minutes during training.
>> >The simple truth of it is that if the fighter rolled inverted during the
>> >pass, in order to pass over you he would have to bunt the airplane into
>> >negative g, and the odds of this happening vs going the positive g route
>> >under you would have all but been a sure bet that he would go positive
>under
>> >you; hence the lead would become predictable based on the odds.
>> >I should add that there were a few German fighter pilots who routinely
>would
>> >go negative, but never offensively, only defensively.
>> >Erich Hartmann was one of them, and he was not in the theatre.
>> >I've always wanted to ask a gunner from the period if simple aerodynamics
>> >was indeed taught in gunnery training to help with prediction lead
>solution,
>> >but somehow I've always forgotten to ask
>> >:-) If there are any gunners out there who can answer this, perhaps they
>> >will post.
>> >Dudley
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I think the answer would be no. When I went through gunnery training on
>the
>> way to bomb school they didn't even teach us about that. And the first
>time I
>> heard it, it is was totally new to me. I had to really see it to believe
>it.
>> And when I saw it I thought, "why the hell is he coming in on his back?
>Crazy
>> Krauts"
>
>Actually, going under is a practical air to air maneuver for a firing pass
>on specific targets executed in the scenario given, although the point
>through the run where the fighter rolled would be critical for him. Too
>early and he would be faced with holding the aircraft in pitch on the target
>while he fired entering his max/min range for his weapons. Firing through
>the rotation in roll as he entered his range parameters for guns would have
>produced a trajectory shift and gravity drop error you would have to see to
>believe, for all but the most highly skilled pilots.
>The pro of such a pass is the ability to maintain or even produce exit
>energy on the back side of the firing envelope through the run, exiting down
>and out maintaining maneuvering energy for a possible defensive maneuver if
>the run was followed through by a hostile (to him) shooter. Also, this
>energy could be expended in a transition to another high side run if
>unopposed. The cons are an almost certain off center ball through the run
>which would play hell with the projectile trajectories and an almost certain
>predictability of the exit direction for a real sharp gunner. These tactics
>I'm sure were almost certainly target aircraft specific , at least for the
>more able of the German pilots. They would have been familiar with the ideal
>angle offs and target aspects for the specific target type and made their
>runs if possible to take advantage of that data.
>Dudley
>
>

Great stuff as usual Dudley. But even though I was forewarned I was still
surprised to see them come in on their backs. BTW, we could tell an
experienced pilot from a novice just by how aggressive and fast he got set and
swept in on us. The timorous would never come in inverted and always pass over
us as he completed his run while Bill Henderson (Pittsburgh) in the top turret
would track him coming an going.
Of course passing under us was the better way to go since the top turret had a
far greater field of action than the hand held waist guns fired by Bo Taylor
(Texas). while on his knees. Lousy position. Clumsy way to shoot. worst gun on
the Marauder.


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: Instructors: is no combat better?
> >From: "Dudley Henriques"
> >Date: 3/9/04 10:44 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: . net>
> >
> >
> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >In conjunction with your comment about the gunner's remarks to you; if
> >> >simple aerodynamics wasn't a part of every gunner's training during
the
> >war,
> >> >it most surely should have been. What this gunner was telling you
might
> >have
> >> >been from his training knowledge base or simply as the observed result
of
> >> >his personal experience. The end result would be the same for
recognizing
> >> >what the fighter was about to do, but the big difference would have
been
> >the
> >> >advantage to gunners having this knowledge up front going into combat
as
> >> >opposed to finding it out through operational experience.
> >> >Every gunner out there should have had at least some basic knowledge
of
> >> >positive and negative g as that knowledge relates to a firing pass by
a
> >> >fighter. Those who didn't had to learn the hard way. Gunners being
taught
> >a
> >> >few simple facts about g and vectors would have saved many
lives........
> >and
> >> >as this knowledge relates to a firing pass, could have been taught in
> >just a
> >> >few minutes during training.
> >> >The simple truth of it is that if the fighter rolled inverted during
the
> >> >pass, in order to pass over you he would have to bunt the airplane
into
> >> >negative g, and the odds of this happening vs going the positive g
route
> >> >under you would have all but been a sure bet that he would go positive
> >under
> >> >you; hence the lead would become predictable based on the odds.
> >> >I should add that there were a few German fighter pilots who routinely
> >would
> >> >go negative, but never offensively, only defensively.
> >> >Erich Hartmann was one of them, and he was not in the theatre.
> >> >I've always wanted to ask a gunner from the period if simple
aerodynamics
> >> >was indeed taught in gunnery training to help with prediction lead
> >solution,
> >> >but somehow I've always forgotten to ask
> >> >:-) If there are any gunners out there who can answer this, perhaps
they
> >> >will post.
> >> >Dudley
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> I think the answer would be no. When I went through gunnery training
on
> >the
> >> way to bomb school they didn't even teach us about that. And the first
> >time I
> >> heard it, it is was totally new to me. I had to really see it to
believe
> >it.
> >> And when I saw it I thought, "why the hell is he coming in on his
back?
> >Crazy
> >> Krauts"
> >
> >Actually, going under is a practical air to air maneuver for a firing
pass
> >on specific targets executed in the scenario given, although the point
> >through the run where the fighter rolled would be critical for him. Too
> >early and he would be faced with holding the aircraft in pitch on the
target
> >while he fired entering his max/min range for his weapons. Firing through
> >the rotation in roll as he entered his range parameters for guns would
have
> >produced a trajectory shift and gravity drop error you would have to see
to
> >believe, for all but the most highly skilled pilots.
> >The pro of such a pass is the ability to maintain or even produce exit
> >energy on the back side of the firing envelope through the run, exiting
down
> >and out maintaining maneuvering energy for a possible defensive maneuver
if
> >the run was followed through by a hostile (to him) shooter. Also, this
> >energy could be expended in a transition to another high side run if
> >unopposed. The cons are an almost certain off center ball through the run
> >which would play hell with the projectile trajectories and an almost
certain
> >predictability of the exit direction for a real sharp gunner. These
tactics
> >I'm sure were almost certainly target aircraft specific , at least for
the
> >more able of the German pilots. They would have been familiar with the
ideal
> >angle offs and target aspects for the specific target type and made their
> >runs if possible to take advantage of that data.
> >Dudley
> >
> >
>
> Great stuff as usual Dudley. But even though I was forewarned I was still
> surprised to see them come in on their backs. BTW, we could tell an
> experienced pilot from a novice just by how aggressive and fast he got
set and
> swept in on us. The timorous would never come in inverted and always pass
over
> us as he completed his run while Bill Henderson (Pittsburgh) in the top
turret
> would track him coming an going.
> Of course passing under us was the better way to go since the top turret
had a
> far greater field of action than the hand held waist guns fired by Bo
Taylor
> (Texas). while on his knees. Lousy position. Clumsy way to shoot. worst
gun on
> the Marauder.

One thing's for sure. Everybody learned fast or they didn't learn at all.
D

[Tony Volk]

> Except that not much of it applies to WW II.

I've been biting my tongue for a long, long time now, but I feel that
this is perhaps the right time to finally post a reply to Art Kramer. My
grandfather was a pilot in the RCAF since the 1920's. He flew everything
from Camels to Spitfires to even co-piloting a BUFF (yup, it's in his log
book!). He was a good enough pilot to gain recognition from Billy Bishop
with regards to his flying (have a great photo of the two of them together).
He ended up being a wing commander before he retired, shortly after which he
had a fatal heart-attack. I never had the chance to meet him.
During W.W.II, he didn't see a lick of action because he was in such
demand as a flight instructor. You might think he was a coward for doing
so, but from his bush-piloting days, I am quite certain that he did not
suffer from a lack of courage (probably the opposite!). To get to the point
of this thread, training pilots (for W.W.II), one of our more treasured
family possessions are the *stacks* of letters he has from the RCAF and RAF
pilots that he trained, and their crediting their survival in the skies over
Europe to his training. My uncle was briefly in the RCAF and has verified
some of these stories personally (my grandfather never bragged or even spoke
much about his work). I can also tell you that he had the complete respect
of every single person who wrote him a letter, as well as numerous other
veterans who simply knew him as an excellent pilot and serviceman.
So while I can't give you much proof about whether combat instructors
are better than non-combat instructor, I can offer you proof that many
pilots thought at least one non-combat instructor was (to quote one letter)
"worth [his] weight in gold". Regards,

Tony Volk

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
> >From: Howard Berkowitz
> >Date: 3/9/04 9:47 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >

> >I don't disagree with you in that exception. Where I disagree is when
> >you appear to make accusations of cowardice or shirking against people
> >that were not in WWII, and thus operated in different, valid
> >environments.
>
>
> What do you mean "appear" to make them. You mean I don't make them but
> only
> "appear" to make them? And who have I ever called a coward?

Believe me, I am no raving Bush supporter, but you seem to have
suggested he avoided combat by qualifying in an aircraft with no mission
in Viet Nam -- but with a mission in continental defense.

You've criticized Rumsfeld for somehow not getting into combat. Again,
he was qualified in a platform that could have been critical if the Cold
War turned hot.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(Ron) wrote:

> >Since I started this thread on instructors who have have combat
> >experience
> >versus those who have not, 100% of the replies were in favor of
> >instructors
> >who
> >have never been to combat. Many state that they would rather have an
> >instructor
> >who was skilled at instructing suggesting that once you have been to
> >combat
> >you were automatically a bad instructor. Hard to buy.
>
> That is not what was said at all. What was being said, was that for
> flight/nav
> instruction, it isnt going to make a difference if you are taught by a
> combat
> vet, because you are still learning the very basics
>
> Now once you get to where you are learning weapons, tactics, that is a
> different story.

I certainly didn't say combat experience would make you a bad
instructor. I said that it wouldn't make you a good instructor, even in
WWII, if you also didn't have decent instructional skills.

Today, combat doesn't necessarily mean that someone is up to speed on
the latest systems. The need for systems improvement may very well mean
that the people who used them most effectively are assigned to doctrinal
development, battle laboratories, etc., where they can both make that
knowledge available to more people, and also to use it to improve
systems.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
> >From: (Ron)
> >Date: 3/9/04 9:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id:
>
> >Except that not much of it applies to WW II.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Arthur Kramer
> >
> >And the corrollary of that, would be that not much of how war was fought
> >in
> >WW2
> >would apply to today either.
> >
> >
> >Ron
> >Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
> >
> >
> Agreed. I am talking about what I know, those who fought later later
> are
> talking about what they knolw. Those who never fought are talking about
> what?
>

Define "fought". Does that mean combat only? Does combat mean that you
are shooting, or have a post-strike recon pilot, an AWACS combat
controller in Desert Storm, a satellite watch officer in Colorado
Springs who gave real-time Scud warnings, a targeting specialist in the
US, etc. somehow don't know what they are talking about?

I literally don't know if Giulio Douhet or Alfred Thayer Mahan were ever
shot at or shot anyone other than, perhaps, a duck.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
> >From: Howard Berkowitz
> >Date: 3/9/04 8:32 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
>
> >Look at it another way. In the "grand old days", SAC had lots of pilots
> >and aircrew, many of which might have WWII or Korea or Viet Nam combat
> >experience. Let's say someone survived Linebacker and is now teaching.
> >How does that qualify them to teach a low-altitude nuclear delivery run
> >against the fUSSR?
>
>
> How does anyone who hasn't done it teach it?
>
So no one who wasn't on Enola Gay or Bock's Car -- heck, I'll give you
the crews of the bomber-delivered nuclear test shots -- could possibly
be qualified to instruct in SAC?

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article .net>,
"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
> > >From: "Dudley Henriques"
> > >Date: 3/9/04 10:44 AM Pacific Standard Time
> > >Message-id: . net>

> > Great stuff as usual Dudley. But even though I was forewarned I was
> > still
> > surprised to see them come in on their backs. BTW, we could tell an
> > experienced pilot from a novice just by how aggressive and fast he got
> set and
> > swept in on us. The timorous would never come in inverted and always
> > pass
> over
> > us as he completed his run while Bill Henderson (Pittsburgh) in the
> > top
> turret
> > would track him coming an going.
> > Of course passing under us was the better way to go since the top
> > turret
> had a
> > far greater field of action than the hand held waist guns fired by Bo
> Taylor
> > (Texas). while on his knees. Lousy position. Clumsy way to shoot. worst
> gun on
> > the Marauder.
>
> One thing's for sure. Everybody learned fast or they didn't learn at all.

Seriously, would anyone care to speculate that if aircraft gunner was
still a tactically useful skill, how much virtual reality simulator time
(e.g., in at least a 3-axis-of-motion device) would a gunner get before
going to a combat unit? Aggressor simulators only, or perhaps a few
pilots that have flown the aggressor ship manipulating the target?

I suspect temperature, noise, fumes, etc. would all be part of the
simulator.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> >Date: 3/9/04 10:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"Seagram" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Ok tribe members, its time to cast your vote. Who wants Art off the
> >island
> >
> >Nice thread Art, don't let the bottom feeders troll you.
> >
> >Excellent signal, to all that participated.
> >
> >
> I made it through WW II . There is no way the bottom feeders stand a
> chance,
> especially the wannabee bottom feeders. But then again all the wannabees
> are
> bottom feeders.
>

Catfish have a biologically useful role. Did you mean lawyers?

[Kevin Brooks]

"Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
...
> In article .net>,
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
> > "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
> > > >From: "Dudley Henriques"
> > > >Date: 3/9/04 10:44 AM Pacific Standard Time
> > > >Message-id: . net>
>
> > > Great stuff as usual Dudley. But even though I was forewarned I was
> > > still
> > > surprised to see them come in on their backs. BTW, we could tell an
> > > experienced pilot from a novice just by how aggressive and fast he
got
> > set and
> > > swept in on us. The timorous would never come in inverted and always
> > > pass
> > over
> > > us as he completed his run while Bill Henderson (Pittsburgh) in the
> > > top
> > turret
> > > would track him coming an going.
> > > Of course passing under us was the better way to go since the top
> > > turret
> > had a
> > > far greater field of action than the hand held waist guns fired by Bo
> > Taylor
> > > (Texas). while on his knees. Lousy position. Clumsy way to shoot.
worst
> > gun on
> > > the Marauder.
> >
> > One thing's for sure. Everybody learned fast or they didn't learn at
all.
>
> Seriously, would anyone care to speculate that if aircraft gunner was
> still a tactically useful skill, how much virtual reality simulator time
> (e.g., in at least a 3-axis-of-motion device) would a gunner get before
> going to a combat unit? Aggressor simulators only, or perhaps a few
> pilots that have flown the aggressor ship manipulating the target?
>
> I suspect temperature, noise, fumes, etc. would all be part of the
> simulator.

Heck, they used "simulators" of a sort like that during WWII. My dad, who
was a gunner on a B-29, remembers standing in the back of a truck that drove
along while the trainee took shots at model aircraft.

Brooks

[BUFDRVR]

>And who have I ever called a coward?

To summerize: everyone who never participated in the European Theater from
1943-1945.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

> "Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
> ...


> > Seriously, would anyone care to speculate that if aircraft gunner was
> > still a tactically useful skill, how much virtual reality simulator
> > time
> > (e.g., in at least a 3-axis-of-motion device) would a gunner get before
> > going to a combat unit? Aggressor simulators only, or perhaps a few
> > pilots that have flown the aggressor ship manipulating the target?
> >
> > I suspect temperature, noise, fumes, etc. would all be part of the
> > simulator.
>
> Heck, they used "simulators" of a sort like that during WWII. My dad, who
> was a gunner on a B-29, remembers standing in the back of a truck that
> drove
> along while the trainee took shots at model aircraft.
>

Right. But let's assume full modern simulator capability. What would
that have done for combat effectiveness? A truck, for example, is going
to be "flying" much more straight and level, there won't be the noise of
multiple defensive guns or the sound of your plane being hit, assorted
fumes, cold, etc. The model plane is probably not being controlled by
one of the best of pilots (or their doppelganger in an intelligent
simulator).

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
>From: (BUFDRVR)
>Date: 3/9/04 2:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >

>>And who have I ever called a coward?
>
>To summerize: everyone who never participated in the European Theater from
>1943-1945.

You couldn't be more vague, non- commital and evasive even if your life
depended on it. I hope you fly better than you attack..


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: Instructors: is no combat better?
>From: "Dudley Henriques"
>Date: 3/9/04 11:22 AM Pacific

> Great stuff as usual Dudley. But even though I was forewarned I was still
>> surprised to see them come in on their backs. BTW, we could tell an
>> experienced pilot from a novice just by how aggressive and fast he got
>set and
>> swept in on us. The timorous would never come in inverted and always pass
>over
>> us as he completed his run while Bill Henderson (Pittsburgh) in the top
>turret
>> would track him coming an going.
>> Of course passing under us was the better way to go since the top turret
>had a
>> far greater field of action than the hand held waist guns fired by Bo
>Taylor
>> (Texas). while on his knees. Lousy position. Clumsy way to shoot. worst
>gun on
>> the Marauder.
>
>One thing's for sure. Everybody learned fast or they didn't learn at all.
>D
>
>

Yup. It was the shaky world of one strike is out.


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: Instructors: is no combat better?
>From: Howard Berkowitz
>Date: 3/9/04 2:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:
>
>> "Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>
>> > Seriously, would anyone care to speculate that if aircraft gunner was
>> > still a tactically useful skill, how much virtual reality simulator
>> > time
>> > (e.g., in at least a 3-axis-of-motion device) would a gunner get before
>> > going to a combat unit? Aggressor simulators only, or perhaps a few
>> > pilots that have flown the aggressor ship manipulating the target?
>> >
>> > I suspect temperature, noise, fumes, etc. would all be part of the
>> > simulator.
>>
>> Heck, they used "simulators" of a sort like that during WWII. My dad, who
>> was a gunner on a B-29, remembers standing in the back of a truck that
>> drove
>> along while the trainee took shots at model aircraft.
>>
>
>Right. But let's assume full modern simulator capability. What would
>that have done for combat effectiveness? A truck, for example, is going
>to be "flying" much more straight and level, there won't be the noise of
>multiple defensive guns or the sound of your plane being hit, assorted
>fumes, cold, etc. The model plane is probably not being controlled by
>one of the best of pilots (or their doppelganger in an intelligent
>simulator).
>

The problem with simulators is that no one ever died in one.




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

[BUFDRVR]

>>>And who have I ever called a coward?
>>
>>To summerize: everyone who never participated in the European Theater from
>>1943-1945.
>
>You couldn't be more vague, non- commital and evasive even if your life
>depended on it. I hope you fly better than you attack..
>

Uhh, that wasn't an attack...it was a slight exaggeration of my perception of
your attitude. You have called *many* people cowards on this group, both by
generalization and personally.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
>From: "Tony Volk"
>Date: 3/9/04 12:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>> Except that not much of it applies to WW II.
>
> I've been biting my tongue for a long, long time now, but I feel that
>this is perhaps the right time to finally post a reply to Art Kramer. My
>grandfather was a pilot in the RCAF since the 1920's. He flew everything
>from Camels to Spitfires to even co-piloting a BUFF (yup, it's in his log
>book!). He was a good enough pilot to gain recognition from Billy Bishop
>with regards to his flying (have a great photo of the two of them together).
>He ended up being a wing commander before he retired, shortly after which he
>had a fatal heart-attack. I never had the chance to meet him.
> During W.W.II, he didn't see a lick of action because he was in such
>demand as a flight instructor. You might think he was a coward for doing
>so, but from his bush-piloting days, I am quite certain that he did not
>suffer from a lack of courage (probably the opposite!). To get to the point
>of this thread, training pilots (for W.W.II), one of our more treasured
>family possessions are the *stacks* of letters he has from the RCAF and RAF
>pilots that he trained, and their crediting their survival in the skies over
>Europe to his training. My uncle was briefly in the RCAF and has verified
>some of these stories personally (my grandfather never bragged or even spoke
>much about his work). I can also tell you that he had the complete respect
>of every single person who wrote him a letter, as well as numerous other
>veterans who simply knew him as an excellent pilot and serviceman.
> So while I can't give you much proof about whether combat instructors
>are better than non-combat instructor, I can offer you proof that many
>pilots thought at least one non-combat instructor was (to quote one letter)
>"worth [his] weight in gold". Regards,
>
>Tony Volk
>
>
Thank you for your interesting post. And thank you for telling your story
without flames, insults or sarcasm. I appreciate that.




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

[Mike Marron]

> (BUFDRVR) wrote:
>>Art Kramer wrote:

>>And who have I ever called a coward?

>To summerize: everyone who never participated in the European Theater from
>1943-1945.

Even those who flew missions in the ETO with him such as the
"replacement armament gunner" weren't immune from being labeled
a coward (see: "After 58 years, this still burns my ass" on his
website.)

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
>From: Howard Berkowitz
>Date: 3/9/04 1:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
>> >From: Howard Berkowitz
>> >Date: 3/9/04 9:47 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>
>> >I don't disagree with you in that exception. Where I disagree is when
>> >you appear to make accusations of cowardice or shirking against people
>> >that were not in WWII, and thus operated in different, valid
>> >environments.
>>
>>
>> What do you mean "appear" to make them. You mean I don't make them but
>> only
>> "appear" to make them? And who have I ever called a coward?
>
>Believe me, I am no raving Bush supporter, but you seem to have
>suggested he avoided combat by qualifying in an aircraft with no mission
>in Viet Nam -- but with a mission in continental defense.
>
>You've criticized Rumsfeld for somehow not getting into combat. Again,
>he was qualified in a platform that could have been critical if the Cold
>War turned hot.

I think if you re-read the post you will find out that I made no criticism of
Rumsfeld. I was simply pointing out that he was an instructor with no combat
experience Then I asked if that was usual these days. I said nothing negative
about him at all. The subject was qualifications to instruct, not Rumsfeld per
se. You can understand that being trained in WW II the idea of an instructor
who had never been to combat was just a but strange, Very strange.



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: Instructors: is no combat better?
>From: Howard Berkowitz
>Date: 3/9/04 1:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
(Ron) wrote:
>
>> >Since I started this thread on instructors who have have combat
>> >experience
>> >versus those who have not, 100% of the replies were in favor of
>> >instructors
>> >who
>> >have never been to combat. Many state that they would rather have an
>> >instructor
>> >who was skilled at instructing suggesting that once you have been to
>> >combat
>> >you were automatically a bad instructor. Hard to buy.
>>
>> That is not what was said at all. What was being said, was that for
>> flight/nav
>> instruction, it isnt going to make a difference if you are taught by a
>> combat
>> vet, because you are still learning the very basics
>>
>> Now once you get to where you are learning weapons, tactics, that is a
>> different story.
>
>I certainly didn't say combat experience would make you a bad
>instructor. I said that it wouldn't make you a good instructor, even in
>WWII, if you also didn't have decent instructional skills.
>
>Today, combat doesn't necessarily mean that someone is up to speed on
>the latest systems. The need for systems improvement may very well mean
>that the people who used them most effectively are assigned to doctrinal
>development, battle laboratories, etc., where they can both make that
>knowledge available to more people, and also to use it to improve
>systems.

I understand Point well taken.



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: Instructors: is no combat better?
>From: Howard Berkowitz
>Date: 3/9/04 1:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
>> >From: (Ron)
>> >Date: 3/9/04 9:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id:
>>
>> >Except that not much of it applies to WW II.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Arthur Kramer
>> >
>> >And the corrollary of that, would be that not much of how war was fought
>> >in
>> >WW2
>> >would apply to today either.
>> >
>> >
>> >Ron
>> >Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
>> >
>> >
>> Agreed. I am talking about what I know, those who fought later later
>> are
>> talking about what they knolw. Those who never fought are talking about
>> what?
>>
>
>Define "fought". Does that mean combat only? Does combat mean that you
>are shooting, or have a post-strike recon pilot, an AWACS combat
>controller in Desert Storm, a satellite watch officer in Colorado
>Springs who gave real-time Scud warnings, a targeting specialist in the
>US, etc. somehow don't know what they are talking about?
>

I don't know about that fancy stuff. I just know that combat means you go
where the bad guys are and burn out their black hearts and leave their entire
nation a burning, smoldering ruin,.See the strike photographs on my website
for more specific information.,


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

[Ron]

>The problem with simulators is that no one ever died in one.
>

Sure they have, it was just simulated :)

But seriously, why would you want someone dying in a simulator? Seems rather
hard to apply the lessons learned, if you arent alive afterwards, which is
the whole point of a simulator in the first place.




Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
>From: Howard Berkowitz
>Date: 3/9/04 1:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
>> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>> >Date: 3/9/04 10:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >
>> >"Seagram" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> Ok tribe members, its time to cast your vote. Who wants Art off the
>> >island
>> >
>> >Nice thread Art, don't let the bottom feeders troll you.
>> >
>> >Excellent signal, to all that participated.
>> >
>> >
>> I made it through WW II . There is no way the bottom feeders stand a
>> chance,
>> especially the wannabee bottom feeders. But then again all the wannabees
>> are
>> bottom feeders.
>>
>
>Catfish have a biologically useful role. Did you mean lawyers?


Without lawyers there would be no rule of law. There would be no equal;
protection under the law. There would be no courts and no constitution.

Be careful what you wish for lest you get it, And what you seem to be wishing
for can be the end of freedom as we know it. Those who undermine the lawyers
are undermining the law. And they have agendas that are well worth examining.
No I am not a lawyer. Be watchful. Justice Thomas has been making noises that
may well lead to overturning the 14th amendment. A disaster. Yup. You hit a
nerve.


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: Instructors: is no combat better?
>From: (Ron)
>Date: 3/9/04 3:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>The problem with simulators is that no one ever died in one.
>>
>
>Sure they have, it was just simulated :)
>
>But seriously, why would you want someone dying in a simulator? Seems rather
>hard to apply the lessons learned, if you arent alive afterwards, which is
>the whole point of a simulator in the first place.
>
>
>
>
>Ron
>Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
>
>

Well a simulator is supposed to simulate reality. We had a B-26 simulator at
Lake Charles and before we got in we used to say, "not to worry, you can't be
shot down in it". Just a little black humor.


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

[Tarver Engineering]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
> >From: Howard Berkowitz
> >Date: 3/9/04 1:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >In article >,
> (ArtKramr) wrote:
> >
> >> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
> >> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> >> >Date: 3/9/04 10:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >> >Message-id: >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"Seagram" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> Ok tribe members, its time to cast your vote. Who wants Art off the
> >> >island
> >> >
> >> >Nice thread Art, don't let the bottom feeders troll you.
> >> >
> >> >Excellent signal, to all that participated.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> I made it through WW II . There is no way the bottom feeders stand a
> >> chance,
> >> especially the wannabee bottom feeders. But then again all the
wannabees
> >> are
> >> bottom feeders.
> >>
> >
> >Catfish have a biologically useful role. Did you mean lawyers?

> Without lawyers there would be no rule of law. There would be no equal;
> protection under the law. There would be no courts and no constitution.
>
> Be careful what you wish for lest you get it, And what you seem to be
wishing
> for can be the end of freedom as we know it. Those who undermine the
lawyers
> are undermining the law. And they have agendas that are well worth
examining.
> No I am not a lawyer. Be watchful. Justice Thomas has been making noises
that
> may well lead to overturning the 14th amendment. A disaster. Yup. You hit
a
> nerve.

It is rediculess to think that the 14th Amendment would be overturned by the
SCotUS. The 14th Amendment might be interpreted in light of the fact that
it was passed to enable the enforcement of the 13th Amendment, to mean less
than it has in the past, but that is a good thing. After all, the 10th
Amendment is a good thing too.

[Mike Marron]

(ArtKramr) wrote:
>>"Tony Volk" wrote:

>>I've been biting my tongue for a long, long time now, but I feel that
>>this is perhaps the right time to finally post a reply to Art Kramer. My
>>grandfather was a pilot in the RCAF since the 1920's. He flew everything
>>from Camels to Spitfires to even co-piloting a BUFF (yup, it's in his log
>>book!). He was a good enough pilot to gain recognition from Billy Bishop
>>with regards to his flying (have a great photo of the two of them together).
>>He ended up being a wing commander before he retired, shortly after which he
>>had a fatal heart-attack. I never had the chance to meet him.
>> During W.W.II, he didn't see a lick of action because he was in such
>>demand as a flight instructor. You might think he was a coward for doing
>>so, but from his bush-piloting days, I am quite certain that he did not
>>suffer from a lack of courage (probably the opposite!). To get to the point
>>of this thread, training pilots (for W.W.II), one of our more treasured
>>family possessions are the *stacks* of letters he has from the RCAF and RAF
>>pilots that he trained, and their crediting their survival in the skies over
>>Europe to his training. My uncle was briefly in the RCAF and has verified
>>some of these stories personally (my grandfather never bragged or even spoke
>>much about his work). I can also tell you that he had the complete respect
>>of every single person who wrote him a letter, as well as numerous other
>>veterans who simply knew him as an excellent pilot and serviceman.
>> So while I can't give you much proof about whether combat instructors
>>are better than non-combat instructor, I can offer you proof that many
>>pilots thought at least one non-combat instructor was (to quote one letter)
>>"worth [his] weight in gold". Regards,

>Thank you for your interesting post. And thank you for telling your story
>without flames, insults or sarcasm. I appreciate that.

Er um, you must've missed it while reading the white spaces:

"You might think he was a coward for doing so, but from his
bush-piloting days, I am quite certain that he did not suffer from
a lack of courage (probably the opposite!)."

In other words, Kramer, allow me to spell it out for ya. What the
poster is alluding to above is that bush pilots are among the
thousands of brave aviators whom you have categorically insulted
as "cowards."

[ArtKramr]

>ubject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
>From: "Tarver Engineering"
>Date: 3/9/04 3:35 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
>> >From: Howard Berkowitz
>> >Date: 3/9/04 1:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >In article >,
>> (ArtKramr) wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
>> >> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>> >> >Date: 3/9/04 10:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> >> >Message-id: >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >"Seagram" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >> Ok tribe members, its time to cast your vote. Who wants Art off the
>> >> >island
>> >> >
>> >> >Nice thread Art, don't let the bottom feeders troll you.
>> >> >
>> >> >Excellent signal, to all that participated.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> I made it through WW II . There is no way the bottom feeders stand a
>> >> chance,
>> >> especially the wannabee bottom feeders. But then again all the
>wannabees
>> >> are
>> >> bottom feeders.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Catfish have a biologically useful role. Did you mean lawyers?
>
>> Without lawyers there would be no rule of law. There would be no equal;
>> protection under the law. There would be no courts and no constitution.
>>
>> Be careful what you wish for lest you get it, And what you seem to be
>wishing
>> for can be the end of freedom as we know it. Those who undermine the
>lawyers
>> are undermining the law. And they have agendas that are well worth
>examining.
>> No I am not a lawyer. Be watchful. Justice Thomas has been making noises
>that
>> may well lead to overturning the 14th amendment. A disaster. Yup. You hit
>a
>> nerve.
>
>It is rediculess to think that the 14th Amendment would be overturned by the
>SCotUS. The 14th Amendment might be interpreted in light of the fact that
>it was passed to enable the enforcement of the 13th Amendment, to mean less
>than it has in the past, but that is a good thing. After all, the 10th
>Amendment is a good thing too.
>
>

We have a Supreme Court and an administraiton that wants to limit the size of
the federal government and return power to the states. The14th amendment blocks
that.


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

[Tarver Engineering]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >ubject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> >Date: 3/9/04 3:35 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
> >> >From: Howard Berkowitz
> >> >Date: 3/9/04 1:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >> >Message-id: >
> >> >
> >> >In article >,
> >> (ArtKramr) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
> >> >> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> >> >> >Date: 3/9/04 10:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >> >> >Message-id: >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Seagram" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> Ok tribe members, its time to cast your vote. Who wants Art off
the
> >> >> >island
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Nice thread Art, don't let the bottom feeders troll you.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Excellent signal, to all that participated.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> I made it through WW II . There is no way the bottom feeders
stand a chance,
> >> >> especially the wannabee bottom feeders. But then again all the
wannabees are
> >> >> bottom feeders.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Catfish have a biologically useful role. Did you mean lawyers?
> >
> >> Without lawyers there would be no rule of law. There would be no equal;
> >> protection under the law. There would be no courts and no constitution.
> >>
> >> Be careful what you wish for lest you get it, And what you seem to be
wishing
> >> for can be the end of freedom as we know it. Those who undermine the
lawyers
> >> are undermining the law. And they have agendas that are well worth
examining.
> >> No I am not a lawyer. Be watchful. Justice Thomas has been making
noises that
> >> may well lead to overturning the 14th amendment. A disaster. Yup. You
hit a
> >> nerve.
> >
> >It is rediculess to think that the 14th Amendment would be overturned by
the
> >SCotUS. The 14th Amendment might be interpreted in light of the fact
that
> >it was passed to enable the enforcement of the 13th Amendment, to mean
less
> >than it has in the past, but that is a good thing. After all, the 10th
> >Amendment is a good thing too.

> We have a Supreme Court and an administraiton that wants to limit the size
of
> the federal government and return power to the states. The14th amendment
blocks
> that.

The 14th Amendment does no such thing and should never have been interpreted
to cancel the 10th Amendment. A constructionist view of the Constitution is
best for freedom.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
> >From: Howard Berkowitz
> >Date: 3/9/04 2:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >In article >, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >
> >
> >> > Seriously, would anyone care to speculate that if aircraft gunner
> >> > was
> >> > still a tactically useful skill, how much virtual reality simulator
> >> > time
> >> > (e.g., in at least a 3-axis-of-motion device) would a gunner get
> >> > before
> >> > going to a combat unit? Aggressor simulators only, or perhaps a
> >> > few
> >> > pilots that have flown the aggressor ship manipulating the target?
> >> >
> >> > I suspect temperature, noise, fumes, etc. would all be part of the
> >> > simulator.
> >>
> >> Heck, they used "simulators" of a sort like that during WWII. My dad,
> >> who
> >> was a gunner on a B-29, remembers standing in the back of a truck that
> >> drove
> >> along while the trainee took shots at model aircraft.
> >>
> >
> >Right. But let's assume full modern simulator capability. What would
> >that have done for combat effectiveness? A truck, for example, is going
> >to be "flying" much more straight and level, there won't be the noise of
> >multiple defensive guns or the sound of your plane being hit, assorted
> >fumes, cold, etc. The model plane is probably not being controlled by
> >one of the best of pilots (or their doppelganger in an intelligent
> >simulator).
> >
>
> The problem with simulators is that no one ever died in one.
>

How is a dead gunner that can't fly a mission an advantage? Not getting
killed strikes me more as an advantage than a problem. For example, the
motivation for Top Gun was that a fighter pilot would be far more likely
to survive and win if he could get through his first five engagements --
so the training goal was to give him the equivalent five in expensive,
realistic training -- but not as expensive as pilots.

It's also a little marginal to say no one ever died. I agree not
literally, but physiological measurements show that crashing in a
realistic flight simulator is extremely stressful -- and really drives
home the lesson of what one did wrong. In the Army's field training with
the MILES "laser-tag-on-steroids-system", it's sufficiently realistic
that there have had to be medical intervention to deal with the stress
-- and counseling that brought a far better soldier to a duty unit.

Personally, I have substantial experience with advanced medical
simulators. Believe me, when a medical student, resident, or practicing
physician sees how their actions would just have killed someone, it's an
incredibly strong learning reinforcement.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
> >From: Howard Berkowitz
> >Date: 3/9/04 1:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >In article >,
> (ArtKramr) wrote:
> >
> >> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
> >> >From: Howard Berkowitz
> >> >Date: 3/9/04 9:47 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >> >Message-id: >
> >
> >> >I don't disagree with you in that exception. Where I disagree is
> >> >when
> >> >you appear to make accusations of cowardice or shirking against
> >> >people
> >> >that were not in WWII, and thus operated in different, valid
> >> >environments.
> >>
> >>
> >> What do you mean "appear" to make them. You mean I don't make them but
> >> only
> >> "appear" to make them? And who have I ever called a coward?
> >
> >Believe me, I am no raving Bush supporter, but you seem to have
> >suggested he avoided combat by qualifying in an aircraft with no mission
> >in Viet Nam -- but with a mission in continental defense.
> >
> >You've criticized Rumsfeld for somehow not getting into combat. Again,
> >he was qualified in a platform that could have been critical if the Cold
> >War turned hot.
>
> I think if you re-read the post you will find out that I made no
> criticism of
> Rumsfeld. I was simply pointing out that he was an instructor with no
> combat
> experience Then I asked if that was usual these days. I said nothing
> negative
> about him at all. The subject was qualifications to instruct, not
> Rumsfeld per
> se. You can understand that being trained in WW II the idea of an
> instructor
> who had never been to combat was just a but strange, Very strange.

It makes sense in WWII. What doesn't make sense is that your posts often
characterize people by WWII standards. Things change.

As far as saying anything negative, I really don't want to go back into
the archives, but I'm fairly certain you sounded at least dubious about
how someone could rise to O-6 without combat, and suggested that he
should have sought it out.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
> >From: Howard Berkowitz
> >Date: 3/9/04 1:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >In article >,
> (Ron) wrote:
> >
> >> >Since I started this thread on instructors who have have combat
> >> >experience
> >> >versus those who have not, 100% of the replies were in favor of
> >> >instructors
> >> >who
> >> >have never been to combat. Many state that they would rather have an
> >> >instructor
> >> >who was skilled at instructing suggesting that once you have been to
> >> >combat
> >> >you were automatically a bad instructor. Hard to buy.
> >>
> >> That is not what was said at all. What was being said, was that for
> >> flight/nav
> >> instruction, it isnt going to make a difference if you are taught by a
> >> combat
> >> vet, because you are still learning the very basics
> >>
> >> Now once you get to where you are learning weapons, tactics, that is a
> >> different story.
> >
> >I certainly didn't say combat experience would make you a bad
> >instructor. I said that it wouldn't make you a good instructor, even in
> >WWII, if you also didn't have decent instructional skills.
> >
> >Today, combat doesn't necessarily mean that someone is up to speed on
> >the latest systems. The need for systems improvement may very well mean
> >that the people who used them most effectively are assigned to doctrinal
> >development, battle laboratories, etc., where they can both make that
> >knowledge available to more people, and also to use it to improve
> >systems.
>
> I understand Point well taken.

Thank you. Believe it or not, Art, I do listen and learn from many of
the things you write. I'd like to see this whole dialogue turn into one
from which everyone can learn.

WWII involved a huge number of techniques being tried for the first
time. The minuscule budgets of 1940 or so didn't allow more than the
most minimal training, and the press of combat didn't allow for much
experimentation. Things have changed. The Germans were a very credible
threat to what you had, but the 1991 Iraqis could at least have annoyed
them significantly. A lot of WWII lessons still were valid in Viet Nam,
until obsoleted.

I'd ask some of the people that went downtown during Viet Nam if they
can see some similarities to Art's bridge attacks and the attacks on the
Dragon's Jaw and Paul Doumer bridge BEFORE precision-guided weapons. But
once those early intelligent weapons were used, things started changing.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
> >From: Howard Berkowitz
> >Date: 3/9/04 1:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >In article >,
> (ArtKramr) wrote:
> >
> >> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
> >> >From: (Ron)
> >> >Date: 3/9/04 9:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >> >Message-id:
> >>
> >> >Except that not much of it applies to WW II.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>Arthur Kramer
> >> >
> >> >And the corrollary of that, would be that not much of how war was
> >> >fought
> >> >in
> >> >WW2
> >> >would apply to today either.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Ron
> >> >Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Agreed. I am talking about what I know, those who fought later later
> >> are
> >> talking about what they knolw. Those who never fought are talking
> >> about
> >> what?
> >>
> >
> >Define "fought". Does that mean combat only? Does combat mean that you
> >are shooting, or have a post-strike recon pilot, an AWACS combat
> >controller in Desert Storm, a satellite watch officer in Colorado
> >Springs who gave real-time Scud warnings, a targeting specialist in the
> >US, etc. somehow don't know what they are talking about?
> >
>
> I don't know about that fancy stuff. I just know that combat means you
> go
> where the bad guys are and burn out their black hearts and leave their
> entire
> nation a burning, smoldering ruin,.See the strike photographs on my
> website
> for more specific information.,
>
Then a Minuteman squadron in South Dakota could leave the bad guys in a
state where a burning, smoldering ruin would be an upscale resort.
Perhaps even more significantly, a combination of missiles and standoff
weapons can leave the bad guys' headquarters a burning ruin -- but
mostly break windows in the apartment house next door.

I would suggest that there are some people today that have the right to
be very proud of that, whether they dropped the bombs or designed the
guidance systems.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
> >From: Howard Berkowitz
> >Date: 3/9/04 1:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >In article >,
> (ArtKramr) wrote:
> >
> >> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
> >> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> >> >Date: 3/9/04 10:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >> >Message-id: >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"Seagram" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> Ok tribe members, its time to cast your vote. Who wants Art off
> >> >> the
> >> >island
> >> >
> >> >Nice thread Art, don't let the bottom feeders troll you.
> >> >
> >> >Excellent signal, to all that participated.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> I made it through WW II . There is no way the bottom feeders stand
> >> a
> >> chance,
> >> especially the wannabee bottom feeders. But then again all the
> >> wannabees
> >> are
> >> bottom feeders.
> >>
> >
> >Catfish have a biologically useful role. Did you mean lawyers?
>
>
> Without lawyers there would be no rule of law. There would be no equal;
> protection under the law. There would be no courts and no constitution.
>
> Be careful what you wish for lest you get it, And what you seem to be
> wishing
> for can be the end of freedom as we know it. Those who undermine the
> lawyers
> are undermining the law. And they have agendas that are well worth
> examining.
> No I am not a lawyer. Be watchful. Justice Thomas has been making noises
> that
> may well lead to overturning the 14th amendment. A disaster. Yup. You hit
> a
> nerve.
>
>
I admit to being a bit facetious. But I will state, in good conscience,
that there are lawyers that use technical knowledge to undermine the
rule of law.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

> >ubject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> >Date: 3/9/04 3:35 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
> >> >From: Howard Berkowitz
> >> >Date: 3/9/04 1:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >> >Message-id: >
> >> >
> >> >In article >,
> >> (ArtKramr) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
> >> >> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> >> >> >Date: 3/9/04 10:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >> >> >Message-id: >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Seagram" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> Ok tribe members, its time to cast your vote. Who wants Art off
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >island
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Nice thread Art, don't let the bottom feeders troll you.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Excellent signal, to all that participated.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> I made it through WW II . There is no way the bottom feeders
> >> >> stand a
> >> >> chance,
> >> >> especially the wannabee bottom feeders. But then again all the
> >wannabees
> >> >> are
> >> >> bottom feeders.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Catfish have a biologically useful role. Did you mean lawyers?
> >
> >> Without lawyers there would be no rule of law. There would be no
> >> equal;
> >> protection under the law. There would be no courts and no
> >> constitution.
> >>
> >> Be careful what you wish for lest you get it, And what you seem to be
> >wishing
> >> for can be the end of freedom as we know it. Those who undermine the
> >lawyers
> >> are undermining the law. And they have agendas that are well worth
> >examining.
> >> No I am not a lawyer. Be watchful. Justice Thomas has been making
> >> noises
> >that
> >> may well lead to overturning the 14th amendment. A disaster. Yup. You
> >> hit
> >a
> >> nerve.
> >
> >It is rediculess to think that the 14th Amendment would be overturned by
> >the
> >SCotUS. The 14th Amendment might be interpreted in light of the fact
> >that
> >it was passed to enable the enforcement of the 13th Amendment, to mean
> >less
> >than it has in the past, but that is a good thing. After all, the 10th
> >Amendment is a good thing too.
> >
> >
>
> We have a Supreme Court and an administraiton that wants to limit the
> size of
> the federal government and return power to the states. The14th amendment
> blocks
> that.

Ummm...trying to remember...didn't the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments
have a few other effects? And wasn't at least certain aspects of
returning power to the states evaluated, oh, between 1861 and 1865?

Justice Thomas has not exactly been the spiritual or intellectual leader
of the Court.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
>From: Howard Berkowitz
>Date: 3/9/04 4:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
>> >From: Howard Berkowitz
>> >Date: 3/9/04 1:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >In article >,
>> (Ron) wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Since I started this thread on instructors who have have combat
>> >> >experience
>> >> >versus those who have not, 100% of the replies were in favor of
>> >> >instructors
>> >> >who
>> >> >have never been to combat. Many state that they would rather have an
>> >> >instructor
>> >> >who was skilled at instructing suggesting that once you have been to
>> >> >combat
>> >> >you were automatically a bad instructor. Hard to buy.
>> >>
>> >> That is not what was said at all. What was being said, was that for
>> >> flight/nav
>> >> instruction, it isnt going to make a difference if you are taught by a
>> >> combat
>> >> vet, because you are still learning the very basics
>> >>
>> >> Now once you get to where you are learning weapons, tactics, that is a
>> >> different story.
>> >
>> >I certainly didn't say combat experience would make you a bad
>> >instructor. I said that it wouldn't make you a good instructor, even in
>> >WWII, if you also didn't have decent instructional skills.
>> >
>> >Today, combat doesn't necessarily mean that someone is up to speed on
>> >the latest systems. The need for systems improvement may very well mean
>> >that the people who used them most effectively are assigned to doctrinal
>> >development, battle laboratories, etc., where they can both make that
>> >knowledge available to more people, and also to use it to improve
>> >systems.
>>
>> I understand Point well taken.
>
>Thank you. Believe it or not, Art, I do listen and learn from many of
>the things you write. I'd like to see this whole dialogue turn into one
>from which everyone can learn.
>
>WWII involved a huge number of techniques being tried for the first
>time. The minuscule budgets of 1940 or so didn't allow more than the
>most minimal training, and the press of combat didn't allow for much
>experimentation. Things have changed. The Germans were a very credible
>threat to what you had, but the 1991 Iraqis could at least have annoyed
>them significantly. A lot of WWII lessons still were valid in Viet Nam,
>until obsoleted.
>
>I'd ask some of the people that went downtown during Viet Nam if they
>can see some similarities to Art's bridge attacks and the attacks on the
>Dragon's Jaw and Paul Doumer bridge BEFORE precision-guided weapons. But
>once those early intelligent weapons were used, things started changing.


Excellant points all. But the marshalling yards were also fiercely defended.
And anything in the Ruhr Valley was defended to the death. But we really
didn't know very much. We just did what we were trained to do. And we just kept
doing it until the war ended. But I can honesrtly say that for us there were
very few surprises. It seemd as though we were trained to meet whatever
problems cropped up. And that is the way it was. And our instructors were all
combat vets which Iis why I brought the subject up in the first place.



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: Instructors: is no combat better?
>From: Howard Berkowitz
>Date: 3/9/04 3:54 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
>> >From: Howard Berkowitz
>> >Date: 3/9/04 1:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >In article >,
>> (ArtKramr) wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
>> >> >From: Howard Berkowitz
>> >> >Date: 3/9/04 9:47 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> >> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >> >I don't disagree with you in that exception. Where I disagree is
>> >> >when
>> >> >you appear to make accusations of cowardice or shirking against
>> >> >people
>> >> >that were not in WWII, and thus operated in different, valid
>> >> >environments.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> What do you mean "appear" to make them. You mean I don't make them but
>> >> only
>> >> "appear" to make them? And who have I ever called a coward?
>> >
>> >Believe me, I am no raving Bush supporter, but you seem to have
>> >suggested he avoided combat by qualifying in an aircraft with no mission
>> >in Viet Nam -- but with a mission in continental defense.
>> >
>> >You've criticized Rumsfeld for somehow not getting into combat. Again,
>> >he was qualified in a platform that could have been critical if the Cold
>> >War turned hot.
>>
>> I think if you re-read the post you will find out that I made no
>> criticism of
>> Rumsfeld. I was simply pointing out that he was an instructor with no
>> combat
>> experience Then I asked if that was usual these days. I said nothing
>> negative
>> about him at all. The subject was qualifications to instruct, not
>> Rumsfeld per
>> se. You can understand that being trained in WW II the idea of an
>> instructor
>> who had never been to combat was just a but strange, Very strange.
>
>It makes sense in WWII. What doesn't make sense is that your posts often
>characterize people by WWII standards. Things change.
>
>As far as saying anything negative, I really don't want to go back into
>the archives, but I'm fairly certain you sounded at least dubious about
>how someone could rise to O-6 without combat, and suggested that he
>should have sought it out.


I would have sought it out. wouldn't you have as well?


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: Instructors: is no combat better?
>From: Howard Berkowitz
>Date: 3/9/04 4:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
>> >From: Howard Berkowitz
>> >Date: 3/9/04 1:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >In article >,
>> (ArtKramr) wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
>> >> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>> >> >Date: 3/9/04 10:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> >> >Message-id: >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >"Seagram" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >> Ok tribe members, its time to cast your vote. Who wants Art off
>> >> >> the
>> >> >island
>> >> >
>> >> >Nice thread Art, don't let the bottom feeders troll you.
>> >> >
>> >> >Excellent signal, to all that participated.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> I made it through WW II . There is no way the bottom feeders stand
>> >> a
>> >> chance,
>> >> especially the wannabee bottom feeders. But then again all the
>> >> wannabees
>> >> are
>> >> bottom feeders.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Catfish have a biologically useful role. Did you mean lawyers?
>>
>>
>> Without lawyers there would be no rule of law. There would be no equal;
>> protection under the law. There would be no courts and no constitution.
>>
>> Be careful what you wish for lest you get it, And what you seem to be
>> wishing
>> for can be the end of freedom as we know it. Those who undermine the
>> lawyers
>> are undermining the law. And they have agendas that are well worth
>> examining.
>> No I am not a lawyer. Be watchful. Justice Thomas has been making noises
>> that
>> may well lead to overturning the 14th amendment. A disaster. Yup. You hit
>> a
>> nerve.
>>
>>
>I admit to being a bit facetious. But I will state, in good conscience,
>that there are lawyers that use technical knowledge to undermine the
>rule of law.


Then we must strengthen the rule of law. And I know you were kidding.( :->)


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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
...

<snip>
> Ummm...trying to remember...didn't the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments
> have a few other effects? And wasn't at least certain aspects of
> returning power to the states evaluated, oh, between 1861 and 1865?

The 15th amendment may as well have not existed for the first 100 years it
was law.

> Justice Thomas has not exactly been the spiritual or intellectual leader
> of the Court.

If you take the 14th Amendment as a literal application of the Bill of
Rights imposed on the States, then you have to take the 2nd Amendment that
way as well.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
>From: Howard Berkowitz
>Date: 3/9/04 4:06 PM Pacific Standard Time

>Justice Thomas has not exactly been the spiritual or intellectual leader
>of the Court.

Ah Howard your understatement is poetic.(grin)


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: Instructors: is no combat better?
>From: "Tarver Engineering"
>Date: 3/9/04 3:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id:

>The 14th Amendment does no such thing and should never have been interpreted
>to cancel the 10th Amendment. A constructionist view of the Constitution is
>best for freedom.
>
>

FROM THE 14TH AMENDMENT

"...no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of the United States nor shall any state deprive any citizen of
life liberty or property without due process of law...."

This is the constitution limiting state power. Take this away and state power
is dramatically increased..


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: Instructors: is no combat better?
>From: "Tarver Engineering"
>Date: 3/9/04 4:23 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
...
>
><snip>
>> Ummm...trying to remember...didn't the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments
>> have a few other effects? And wasn't at least certain aspects of
>> returning power to the states evaluated, oh, between 1861 and 1865?
>
>The 15th amendment may as well have not existed for the first 100 years it
>was law.
>
>> Justice Thomas has not exactly been the spiritual or intellectual leader
>> of the Court.
>
>If you take the 14th Amendment as a literal application of the Bill of
>Rights imposed on the States, then you have to take the 2nd Amendment that
>way as well.
>
>
The general legal wisdom has been that the Buill of Rights does not apply to
the states which is why the 14th amendment was written. "The Bill of Rights: by
Amar is a brilliant work that will give you new insights into the true nature
of the Bill of Rights.


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

[Tarver Engineering]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> >Date: 3/9/04 3:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id:
>
> >The 14th Amendment does no such thing and should never have been
interpreted
> >to cancel the 10th Amendment. A constructionist view of the Constitution
is
> >best for freedom.
> >
> >
>
> FROM THE 14TH AMENDMENT
>
> "...no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges
> or immunities of the United States nor shall any state deprive any citizen
of
> life liberty or property without due process of law...."
>
> This is the constitution limiting state power. Take this away and state
power
> is dramatically increased..

The 14th Amendment was an attmept to enforce the 13th amendment. It was
four years from the ratification of the 13th Amendment until the Andrew
Johnson was stopped from blocking enforcement of the 13th Amendment. all
for the sake of a rew wealthy men.

Note that the 15th Amendment was ratified in 1870, but Congress did not pass
enabling law until 1965.

[Tarver Engineering]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> >Date: 3/9/04 4:23 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> ><snip>
> >> Ummm...trying to remember...didn't the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments
> >> have a few other effects? And wasn't at least certain aspects of
> >> returning power to the states evaluated, oh, between 1861 and 1865?
> >
> >The 15th amendment may as well have not existed for the first 100 years
it
> >was law.
> >
> >> Justice Thomas has not exactly been the spiritual or intellectual
leader
> >> of the Court.
> >
> >If you take the 14th Amendment as a literal application of the Bill of
> >Rights imposed on the States, then you have to take the 2nd Amendment
that
> >way as well.
> >
> >
> The general legal wisdom has been that the Buill of Rights does not
apply to
> the states which is why the 14th amendment was written. "The Bill of
Rights: by
> Amar is a brilliant work that will give you new insights into the true
nature
> of the Bill of Rights.

The Black woman Texas Supreme Court Justice that Bush nominated to the
Federal bench was called a "Neanderthal" by Ted Kennedy for agreeing with
what you wrote, Art.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
> >From: Howard Berkowitz
> >Date: 3/9/04 3:54 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >

e.
> >
> >As far as saying anything negative, I really don't want to go back into
> >the archives, but I'm fairly certain you sounded at least dubious about
> >how someone could rise to O-6 without combat, and suggested that he
> >should have sought it out.
>
>
> I would have sought it out. wouldn't you have as well?
>

Let's say I had been in service.. My answer is probably not, and
thoughtfully, for the good of my country. My strongest skills are in
C3I -- I'm trained as both a network architect and as a strategic
intelligence analyst. Being able to combine the two helped, for example,
when I consulted on design of command posts at the joint command level.

As I've said before, some of my work involved personnel sensors for Viet
Nam. If some of the devices I worked on variously could tell a strike
pilot where troops were located under jungle canopy, I might save quite
a few pilots from flak traps. We worked on a system that was just in
prototype, but potentially could let you line up "peaceful" villagers
and find out which ones had recently handled Soviet-bloc weapons -- and
perhaps get them out of circulation before they ambushed you.

So am I going to do more good for my country in a cockpit or in a
laboratory? Quite probably the latter.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
> >From: Howard Berkowitz
> >Date: 3/9/04 4:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
>
> >Justice Thomas has not exactly been the spiritual or intellectual leader
> >of the Court.
>
> Ah Howard your understatement is poetic.(grin)
>
Let us count our blessings. You may remember the failed nomination of
Harold Carswell. In general, there were less ideological objections to
him than a general realization he wasn't too bright.

Sen. Roman Hruska (R-Neb) complained in one speech "There are a lot of
mediocre people in this country. Don't they deserve representation too?"

Nebraska didn't have a monopoly on that sort of insight. The
then-senator from my own state, the great Commonwealth of Virginia, Bill
Scott (R), called a press conference to deny allegations he was the
dumbest man in the Senate.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
> > >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
> > >From: Howard Berkowitz
> > >Date: 3/9/04 2:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
> > >Message-id: >
> > >
> > >In article >, "Kevin Brooks"
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> "Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
> > >> ...
> > >
> > >
> > >> > Seriously, would anyone care to speculate that if aircraft gunner
> > >> > was
> > >> > still a tactically useful skill, how much virtual reality simulator
> > >> > time
> > >> > (e.g., in at least a 3-axis-of-motion device) would a gunner get
> > >> > before
> > >> > going to a combat unit? Aggressor simulators only, or perhaps a
> > >> > few
> > >> > pilots that have flown the aggressor ship manipulating the target?
> > >> >
> > >> > I suspect temperature, noise, fumes, etc. would all be part of the
> > >> > simulator.
> > >>
> > >> Heck, they used "simulators" of a sort like that during WWII. My dad,
> > >> who
> > >> was a gunner on a B-29, remembers standing in the back of a truck
that
> > >> drove
> > >> along while the trainee took shots at model aircraft.
> > >>
> > >
> > >Right. But let's assume full modern simulator capability. What would
> > >that have done for combat effectiveness? A truck, for example, is
going
> > >to be "flying" much more straight and level, there won't be the noise
of
> > >multiple defensive guns or the sound of your plane being hit, assorted
> > >fumes, cold, etc. The model plane is probably not being controlled by
> > >one of the best of pilots (or their doppelganger in an intelligent
> > >simulator).
> > >
> >
> > The problem with simulators is that no one ever died in one.
> >
>
> How is a dead gunner that can't fly a mission an advantage? Not getting
> killed strikes me more as an advantage than a problem. For example, the
> motivation for Top Gun was that a fighter pilot would be far more likely
> to survive and win if he could get through his first five engagements --
> so the training goal was to give him the equivalent five in expensive,
> realistic training -- but not as expensive as pilots.
>
> It's also a little marginal to say no one ever died. I agree not
> literally, but physiological measurements show that crashing in a
> realistic flight simulator is extremely stressful -- and really drives
> home the lesson of what one did wrong. In the Army's field training with
> the MILES "laser-tag-on-steroids-system", it's sufficiently realistic
> that there have had to be medical intervention to deal with the stress
> -- and counseling that brought a far better soldier to a duty unit.
>
> Personally, I have substantial experience with advanced medical
> simulators. Believe me, when a medical student, resident, or practicing
> physician sees how their actions would just have killed someone, it's an
> incredibly strong learning reinforcement.

Saw a similar situation during a division Warfighter exercise, embedded into
a V Corps WFX. Our division tactical CP engineer rep had to make a quick
recommendation regarding an artillery shoot/don't shoot query that concerned
a report of mechanized units crossing a float bridge. He checked our digital
engineer SITREP and gave a thumbs-up for the shoot. Unfortunately, the unit
that was crossing was a blue unit ( a separate armored brigade that had been
chopped to us the evening before, and was not too good at keeping us abreast
of their activities). They put a multi-battalion fire-for-effect on the
bridge and killed a lot of blues. Even though it was only electrons that
ended up "dying", the officer in question took it rather hard, being a
conscientious sort of guy. And yeah, the adrenaline can get to pumping
during a high paced sim.

Brooks

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
> >From: Howard Berkowitz
> >Date: 3/9/04 1:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >In article >,
> (ArtKramr) wrote:
> >
> >> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
> >> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> >> >Date: 3/9/04 10:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >> >Message-id: >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"Seagram" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> Ok tribe members, its time to cast your vote. Who wants Art off the
> >> >island
> >> >
> >> >Nice thread Art, don't let the bottom feeders troll you.
> >> >
> >> >Excellent signal, to all that participated.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> I made it through WW II . There is no way the bottom feeders stand a
> >> chance,
> >> especially the wannabee bottom feeders. But then again all the
wannabees
> >> are
> >> bottom feeders.
> >>
> >
> >Catfish have a biologically useful role. Did you mean lawyers?
>
>
> Without lawyers there would be no rule of law. There would be no equal;
> protection under the law. There would be no courts and no constitution.
>
> Be careful what you wish for lest you get it, And what you seem to be
wishing
> for can be the end of freedom as we know it. Those who undermine the
lawyers
> are undermining the law. And they have agendas that are well worth
examining.
> No I am not a lawyer. Be watchful. Justice Thomas has been making noises
that
> may well lead to overturning the 14th amendment. A disaster. Yup. You hit
a
> nerve.

Err..how the heck does the Supreme Court overturn a *constitutional
amendment*?! The SC rules on matters *using* the constitution, including its
amendments--it has no authority to "overturn" or toss out any amendment of
the constitution. Sounds like someone is letting his political leanings
prejudice his comments.

Brooks

>
>
> Arthur Kramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
>From: Howard Berkowitz
>Date: 3/9/04 5:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
>> >From: Howard Berkowitz
>> >Date: 3/9/04 4:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>
>> >Justice Thomas has not exactly been the spiritual or intellectual leader
>> >of the Court.
>>
>> Ah Howard your understatement is poetic.(grin)
>>
>Let us count our blessings. You may remember the failed nomination of
>Harold Carswell. In general, there were less ideological objections to
>him than a general realization he wasn't too bright.
>
>Sen. Roman Hruska (R-Neb) complained in one speech "There are a lot of
>mediocre people in this country. Don't they deserve representation too?"
>
>Nebraska didn't have a monopoly on that sort of insight. The
>then-senator from my own state, the great Commonwealth of Virginia, Bill
>Scott (R), called a press conference to deny allegations he was the
>dumbest man in the Senate.


The mind boggles. (sigh)



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: Instructors: is no combat better?
>From: Howard Berkowitz
>Date: 3/9/04 5:15 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
>> >From: Howard Berkowitz
>> >Date: 3/9/04 3:54 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>
>e.
>> >
>> >As far as saying anything negative, I really don't want to go back into
>> >the archives, but I'm fairly certain you sounded at least dubious about
>> >how someone could rise to O-6 without combat, and suggested that he
>> >should have sought it out.
>>
>>
>> I would have sought it out. wouldn't you have as well?
>>
>
>Let's say I had been in service.. My answer is probably not, and
>thoughtfully, for the good of my country. My strongest skills are in
>C3I -- I'm trained as both a network architect and as a strategic
>intelligence analyst. Being able to combine the two helped, for example,
>when I consulted on design of command posts at the joint command level.
>
>As I've said before, some of my work involved personnel sensors for Viet
>Nam. If some of the devices I worked on variously could tell a strike
>pilot where troops were located under jungle canopy, I might save quite
>a few pilots from flak traps. We worked on a system that was just in
>prototype, but potentially could let you line up "peaceful" villagers
>and find out which ones had recently handled Soviet-bloc weapons -- and
>perhaps get them out of circulation before they ambushed you.
>
>So am I going to do more good for my country in a cockpit or in a
>laboratory? Quite probably the latter.


Guess you are right. But I was an 18 year old kid and there was a war on and
there way no way in hell I was going to miss it no matter what my
qualifications were, You are obviously far more thoughtful and analytical than
I was. I wanted to go to war and nothing in hell was going to stop me. But I
guess that is theway we all were when we were 18. (sigh)


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]

> >Thank you for your interesting post. And thank you for telling your
story
> >without flames, insults or sarcasm. I appreciate that.
> In other words, Kramer, allow me to spell it out for ya. What the
> poster is alluding to above is that bush pilots are among the
> thousands of brave aviators whom you have categorically insulted
> as "cowards."

I'll put it in my own words. Art, I sincerely respect and appreciate
the sacrifice you made for freedom. I literally get Goosebumps thinking
about the sacrifice of W.W.II veterans. But I feel the same way about some
other vets from other wars, and for people who've stood up to injustice, and
for children who've blossomed despite mistreatment, to parents who
sacrificed everything for their children's welfare, and to people who are
devoted to helping others. Indeed, the most heroic people I've ever heard
about were NOT combat vets (just about every religious figure comes to mind
as examples, and I think children and mothers have shown me the greatest
courage). Combat is only one test of men, and an imperfect one at that.
I'll stop preaching about now, as I don't have all the answers, and I'm
not a combat veteran myself (although I have put my life in harm's way for
others). The point of my post was: a) to mention that in WWII, non-combat
instructors were highly valued in some instances (talking to my father
tonight, he said my granddad Lancasters later in the war, fighters earlier-
my granddad could really fly 'em all!!), b) through his years of service my
grandfather made a courageous and valuable contribution to the freedom of
the world, and c) Art, if you truly believe that heroism isn't limited to
combat, you might want to examine the kind of language you use (e.g., the
respect for a non-combat instructor). There was no flame, sarcasm or insult
designed into my post, only a desire to illustrate that you don't have to
serve in combat to show courage deserving of, and receiving, respect. In my
limited opinion, courage is neither necessarily required for or equated with
combat service (the type-writer guy in Saving Private Ryan serves as a
fictitious example). Sincerely,

Tony

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Kevin Brooks" > writes:
>
> "Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Seriously, would anyone care to speculate that if aircraft gunner was
>> still a tactically useful skill, how much virtual reality simulator time
>> (e.g., in at least a 3-axis-of-motion device) would a gunner get before
>> going to a combat unit? Aggressor simulators only, or perhaps a few
>> pilots that have flown the aggressor ship manipulating the target?
>>
>> I suspect temperature, noise, fumes, etc. would all be part of the
>> simulator.
>
> Heck, they used "simulators" of a sort like that during WWII. My dad, who
> was a gunner on a B-29, remembers standing in the back of a truck that drove
> along while the trainee took shots at model aircraft.

Somebody from the Film Industry (Might have been Disney) developed a
prejection system using a hemispherical dome with a turret inside.
They had some sort of system to measure tracking errors.

And then, there was Operation Pinball, the ultimate simulator. Real
bombers with real turrets, but the .50 cals have been replaced with
..30 cals firing frangible (break up on impact) bullets. The targets
are specially armored P-63s that make passes on the student gunner's
airplane. There are acoustic sensors in the P-63s that can hear the
impact of the bullets on the skin for measuring the number of hits.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[[email protected]]

(ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?

--cut--

>>From: "Tony Volk" I can offer you proof that many
>>pilots thought at least one non-combat instructor was (to quote one letter)
>>"worth [his] weight in gold". Regards,
>>
>>Tony Volk
>>
>>
> Thank you for your interesting post. And thank you for telling your story
>without flames, insults or sarcasm. I appreciate that.
>
>Arthur Kramer


Art, have you noticed the large number of credible posters who
seem to be opposing you here?...doesn't it give you pause?...I
think that it should. It's quite likely that they're not all
wrong and that you're right. You probably should rethink your
position.
--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

(Peter Stickney) wrote:

>And then, there was Operation Pinball, the ultimate simulator. Real
>bombers with real turrets, but the .50 cals have been replaced with
>.30 cals firing frangible (break up on impact) bullets. The targets
>are specially armored P-63s that make passes on the student gunner's
>airplane. There are acoustic sensors in the P-63s that can hear the
>impact of the bullets on the skin for measuring the number of hits.

The "Real Man's Paintball?" :)
--

-Gord.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, (Peter
Stickney) wrote:

> In article >,
> "Kevin Brooks" > writes:
> >
> > "Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Seriously, would anyone care to speculate that if aircraft gunner was
> >> still a tactically useful skill, how much virtual reality simulator
> >> time
> >> (e.g., in at least a 3-axis-of-motion device) would a gunner get
> >> before
> >> going to a combat unit? Aggressor simulators only, or perhaps a few
> >> pilots that have flown the aggressor ship manipulating the target?
> >>
> >> I suspect temperature, noise, fumes, etc. would all be part of the
> >> simulator.
> >
> > Heck, they used "simulators" of a sort like that during WWII. My dad,
> > who
> > was a gunner on a B-29, remembers standing in the back of a truck that
> > drove
> > along while the trainee took shots at model aircraft.
>
> Somebody from the Film Industry (Might have been Disney) developed a
> prejection system using a hemispherical dome with a turret inside.
> They had some sort of system to measure tracking errors.
>
> And then, there was Operation Pinball, the ultimate simulator. Real
> bombers with real turrets, but the .50 cals have been replaced with
> .30 cals firing frangible (break up on impact) bullets. The targets
> are specially armored P-63s that make passes on the student gunner's
> airplane. There are acoustic sensors in the P-63s that can hear the
> impact of the bullets on the skin for measuring the number of hits.


That is _very_ realistic. I think, all in all, we could do it more
cheaply with virtual reality. Operation Pinball could do G-forces
better, although a simulation platform with multiple degree of freedom
movement can get awfully close.

[Leslie Swartz]

BUFDRVR:

You are being too conservative with your reply. I think your
characterization is shared by many- Art has 2 main worldviews:

1) "I was there when the U.S. Made Europe Safe For Socialism therefore I Am
An Expert In Everything"

and

2) "If You Weren't There You Have No Right To An Opinion On Anything"

The sad thing is, many of his generation are not as greedy, foolish, nor
self centered as he is. He doesn't realize just how irrational and self
absorbed he is. Johari Window strikes again. Guess that comes with a
draft. You certainly pick up the Good, Bad, adn Ugly in a draft . . .

Steve Swartz



"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >>>And who have I ever called a coward?
> >>
> >>To summerize: everyone who never participated in the European Theater
from
> >>1943-1945.
> >
> >You couldn't be more vague, non- commital and evasive even if your life
> >depended on it. I hope you fly better than you attack..
> >
>
> Uhh, that wasn't an attack...it was a slight exaggeration of my perception
of
> your attitude. You have called *many* people cowards on this group, both
by
> generalization and personally.
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[Leslie Swartz]

Fascinating psychosis at work here . . .

Steve Swartz

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
> >From: "Tony Volk"
> >Date: 3/9/04 12:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >> Except that not much of it applies to WW II.
> >
> > I've been biting my tongue for a long, long time now, but I feel that
> >this is perhaps the right time to finally post a reply to Art Kramer. My
> >grandfather was a pilot in the RCAF since the 1920's. He flew everything
> >from Camels to Spitfires to even co-piloting a BUFF (yup, it's in his log
> >book!). He was a good enough pilot to gain recognition from Billy Bishop
> >with regards to his flying (have a great photo of the two of them
together).
> >He ended up being a wing commander before he retired, shortly after which
he
> >had a fatal heart-attack. I never had the chance to meet him.
> > During W.W.II, he didn't see a lick of action because he was in such
> >demand as a flight instructor. You might think he was a coward for doing
> >so, but from his bush-piloting days, I am quite certain that he did not
> >suffer from a lack of courage (probably the opposite!). To get to the
point
> >of this thread, training pilots (for W.W.II), one of our more treasured
> >family possessions are the *stacks* of letters he has from the RCAF and
RAF
> >pilots that he trained, and their crediting their survival in the skies
over
> >Europe to his training. My uncle was briefly in the RCAF and has
verified
> >some of these stories personally (my grandfather never bragged or even
spoke
> >much about his work). I can also tell you that he had the complete
respect
> >of every single person who wrote him a letter, as well as numerous other
> >veterans who simply knew him as an excellent pilot and serviceman.
> > So while I can't give you much proof about whether combat instructors
> >are better than non-combat instructor, I can offer you proof that many
> >pilots thought at least one non-combat instructor was (to quote one
letter)
> >"worth [his] weight in gold". Regards,
> >
> >Tony Volk
> >
> >
> Thank you for your interesting post. And thank you for telling your
story
> without flames, insults or sarcasm. I appreciate that.
>
>
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Leslie Swartz" > wrote in message
...
> BUFDRVR:
>
> You are being too conservative with your reply. I think your
> characterization is shared by many- Art has 2 main worldviews:
>
> 1) "I was there when the U.S. Made Europe Safe For Socialism therefore I
Am
> An Expert In Everything"
>
> and
>
> 2) "If You Weren't There You Have No Right To An Opinion On Anything"
>
> The sad thing is, many of his generation are not as greedy, foolish, nor
> self centered as he is. He doesn't realize just how irrational and self
> absorbed he is. Johari Window strikes again. Guess that comes with a
> draft. You certainly pick up the Good, Bad, adn Ugly in a draft . . .

The malady is common amoung those who have trouble forgiving the people they
killed. First the victim of the malady must let them be human. My father
got over WWII when Reagan walked through that SS graveyard. Those men he
had killed were "good soldiers" and they had no more choice in doing or
dieing than he did. My brother has pictures of the families of the people
he killed. (NVA) He got over Vietnam rapidly.

[Jeff Crowell]

Peter Stickney wrote:
> And then, there was Operation Pinball, the ultimate simulator. Real
> bombers with real turrets, but the .50 cals have been replaced with
> .30 cals firing frangible (break up on impact) bullets. The targets
> are specially armored P-63s that make passes on the student gunner's
> airplane. There are acoustic sensors in the P-63s that can hear the
> impact of the bullets on the skin for measuring the number of hits.

Wooden bullets, if I recall correctly. An old family friend,
now passed on, experienced some of this.

He said the ballistics of the frangible bullets were so far off
from Real Life (tm) that the usefulness was limited.


Jeff

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
>From: "Jeff Crowell"
>Date: 3/10/04 12:01 PM Pacific Standard Time

>He said the ballistics of the frangible bullets were so far off
>from Real Life (tm) that the usefulness was limited.
>
>
>Jeff

Actually there was an error between regular rounds and tracer rounds as well.
On a strafing mission you could aim the tracers and see the ground kick up well
behind the tracers. Big difference in ballistic coefficient between the two Aim
the tracers and you would shoot over the target unil you corrected..


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

[Sunny]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
<snip>
> Actually there was an error between regular rounds and tracer rounds as
well.
> On a strafing mission you could aim the tracers and see the ground kick up
well
> behind the tracers. Big difference in ballistic coefficient between the
two Aim
> the tracers and you would shoot over the target unil you corrected..

Art, that's because of the make up of the tracer round :
Each "tracer round" has a firefly, with 5 years food, packed into the rear
of the round.
The firefly goes into a deep sleep and slowly absorbs the food.
When the round is fired, the shock wakes the fly and his/her arse lights up.
After 5 years, if the round is not fired, the fly dies and the round is
re-classified as Ball.
(it's all in the latest manuals) :-)

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
>From: "Sunny"
>Date: 3/10/04 3:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
><snip>
>> Actually there was an error between regular rounds and tracer rounds as
>well.
>> On a strafing mission you could aim the tracers and see the ground kick up
>well
>> behind the tracers. Big difference in ballistic coefficient between the
>two Aim
>> the tracers and you would shoot over the target unil you corrected..
>
>Art, that's because of the make up of the tracer round :
>Each "tracer round" has a firefly, with 5 years food, packed into the rear
>of the round.
>The firefly goes into a deep sleep and slowly absorbs the food.
>When the round is fired, the shock wakes the fly and his/her arse lights up.
>After 5 years, if the round is not fired, the fly dies and the round is
>re-classified as Ball.
>(it's all in the latest manuals) :-)
>
>
>

ROFL ! Love it.


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

[Dave Kearton]

"Sunny" > wrote in message
...
|
| "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
| ...
| <snip>
| > Actually there was an error between regular rounds and tracer rounds as
| well.
| > On a strafing mission you could aim the tracers and see the ground kick
up
| well
| > behind the tracers. Big difference in ballistic coefficient between the
| two Aim
| > the tracers and you would shoot over the target unil you corrected..
|
| Art, that's because of the make up of the tracer round :
| Each "tracer round" has a firefly, with 5 years food, packed into the rear
| of the round.
| The firefly goes into a deep sleep and slowly absorbs the food.
| When the round is fired, the shock wakes the fly and his/her arse lights
up.
| After 5 years, if the round is not fired, the fly dies and the round is
| re-classified as Ball.
| (it's all in the latest manuals) :-)
|





Sounds like ball to me ;-)






Cheers


Dave Kearton

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Gord Beaman" ) writes:
> (Peter Stickney) wrote:
>
>>And then, there was Operation Pinball, the ultimate simulator. Real
>>bombers with real turrets, but the .50 cals have been replaced with
>>.30 cals firing frangible (break up on impact) bullets. The targets
>>are specially armored P-63s that make passes on the student gunner's
>>airplane. There are acoustic sensors in the P-63s that can hear the
>>impact of the bullets on the skin for measuring the number of hits.
>
> The "Real Man's Paintball?" :)

Something like that. It wasn't necessarily safe, though. Several of
teh RP-63s ('R' back then meant Restricted from combat duty) were
forced down, generally becasue of bullet fragments damaging the
radiator cores.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, "Sunny"
> wrote:

> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> <snip>
> > Actually there was an error between regular rounds and tracer rounds as
> well.
> > On a strafing mission you could aim the tracers and see the ground kick
> > up
> well
> > behind the tracers. Big difference in ballistic coefficient between the
> two Aim
> > the tracers and you would shoot over the target unil you corrected..
>
> Art, that's because of the make up of the tracer round :
> Each "tracer round" has a firefly, with 5 years food, packed into the
> rear
> of the round.
> The firefly goes into a deep sleep and slowly absorbs the food.
> When the round is fired, the shock wakes the fly and his/her arse lights
> up.
> After 5 years, if the round is not fired, the fly dies and the round is
> re-classified as Ball.
> (it's all in the latest manuals) :-)
>
>
>

Recently declassified is the equivalent for artillery, which was a
spinoff of Santa's technology. We've long prepared for attacks from the
North Pole, but we never suspected the technology testbed.

Oh, everyone talks about Rudolph, and how his bright nose serves as
Santa's active navigational imaging system illuminator. Rudolph had it
rough...guzzle away at reindeer-sized beer kegs every night, and your
nose might be red too.

But what recently came out is the preparation that the yet-unidentified
Tracking and IFF Tail Reindeer had to do. Gentle readers, I draw a
merciful curtain of security of what he had to do to have his posterior
glow, much as the tracking flare on a wire-guided antitank missile.
*wince* Let us merely say that available soft toilet tissue technology
doesn't begin to meet operational requirements.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Sunny"
> > wrote:
>
> > "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > <snip>
> > > Actually there was an error between regular rounds and tracer rounds
as
> > well.
> > > On a strafing mission you could aim the tracers and see the ground
kick
> > > up
> > well
> > > behind the tracers. Big difference in ballistic coefficient between
the
> > two Aim
> > > the tracers and you would shoot over the target unil you corrected..
> >
> > Art, that's because of the make up of the tracer round :
> > Each "tracer round" has a firefly, with 5 years food, packed into the
> > rear
> > of the round.
> > The firefly goes into a deep sleep and slowly absorbs the food.
> > When the round is fired, the shock wakes the fly and his/her arse lights
> > up.
> > After 5 years, if the round is not fired, the fly dies and the round is
> > re-classified as Ball.
> > (it's all in the latest manuals) :-)
> >
> >
> >
>
> Recently declassified is the equivalent for artillery, which was a
> spinoff of Santa's technology. We've long prepared for attacks from the
> North Pole, but we never suspected the technology testbed.
>
> Oh, everyone talks about Rudolph, and how his bright nose serves as
> Santa's active navigational imaging system illuminator. Rudolph had it
> rough...guzzle away at reindeer-sized beer kegs every night, and your
> nose might be red too.
>
> But what recently came out is the preparation that the yet-unidentified
> Tracking and IFF Tail Reindeer had to do. Gentle readers, I draw a
> merciful curtain of security of what he had to do to have his posterior
> glow, much as the tracking flare on a wire-guided antitank missile.
> *wince* Let us merely say that available soft toilet tissue technology
> doesn't begin to meet operational requirements.

Santa needs a girl like Monica.

[[email protected]]

(ArtKramr) wrote:

>
>Actually there was an error between regular rounds and tracer rounds as well.
>On a strafing mission you could aim the tracers and see the ground kick up well
>behind the tracers. Big difference in ballistic coefficient between the two Aim
>the tracers and you would shoot over the target unil you corrected..
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

Ok...what calibre rounds was that Art?. Your observations
certainly wasn't true for the .303 calibre Browning machine gun.

I've fired likely 20,000 rounds from them in ASW B&G flights and
I cannot see any difference between the trajectory of FMJ ball
ammo and FMJ tracer rounds. Our belts were set up with every
fifth round being a tracer and shooting at a smoke marker on the
sea surface it's very easy to see where the rounds are hitting,
likely much more visible than on land but I haven't done that
mind you.

I found it more effective to use the results of the water hits
rather than to use the gunsight actually. Get them shooting close
to where you needed to with the sight then watch were they were
hitting and correct slightly before firing the next burst and so
on.
--

-Gord.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
>From: "Gord Beaman" )

>Ok...what calibre rounds was that Art?. Your observations
>certainly wasn't true for the .303 calibre Browning machine gun

We had no .303's. Only .50 caliber heavy mg's.


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

[rnf2]

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 05:13:36 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

(ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>
>>Actually there was an error between regular rounds and tracer rounds as well.
>>On a strafing mission you could aim the tracers and see the ground kick up well
>>behind the tracers. Big difference in ballistic coefficient between the two Aim
>>the tracers and you would shoot over the target unil you corrected..
>>
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>Ok...what calibre rounds was that Art?. Your observations
>certainly wasn't true for the .303 calibre Browning machine gun.
>
>I've fired likely 20,000 rounds from them in ASW B&G flights and
>I cannot see any difference between the trajectory of FMJ ball
>ammo and FMJ tracer rounds. Our belts were set up with every
>fifth round being a tracer and shooting at a smoke marker on the
>sea surface it's very easy to see where the rounds are hitting,
>likely much more visible than on land but I haven't done that
>mind you.
>
>I found it more effective to use the results of the water hits
>rather than to use the gunsight actually. Get them shooting close
>to where you needed to with the sight then watch were they were
>hitting and correct slightly before firing the next burst and so
>on.


Now I admit to being only 23... far too young to have been spraying
bullets around in WW2...

But I hunt wild goats and deer with a '40 Ishapore armoury .303 SMLE
Mk1 III* with the stock cut down... a damn fine hunting rifle that
with a 4x scope will down a beer can at 200 metres..

Here in NZ there is occasionally WW2 army surplus tracer rounds for
the .303 available, and firing those and normal army surplus ball
theres no noticable difference in point of impact...

[Presidente Alcazar]

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 19:37:20 +1300, rnf2 >
wrote:

>Here in NZ there is occasionally WW2 army surplus tracer rounds for
>the .303 available, and firing those and normal army surplus ball
>theres no noticable difference in point of impact...

It would be more than a bit stupid to introduce a tracer round
designed to assist spotting and accuracy with the ball ammunition,
which actually had divergent ballistics.

Gavin Bailey

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Howard Berkowitz > writes:
> In article >, (Peter
> Stickney) wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> "Kevin Brooks" > writes:
>> >
>> > "Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> Seriously, would anyone care to speculate that if aircraft gunner was
>> >> still a tactically useful skill, how much virtual reality simulator
>> >> time
>> >> (e.g., in at least a 3-axis-of-motion device) would a gunner get
>> >> before
>> >> going to a combat unit? Aggressor simulators only, or perhaps a few
>> >> pilots that have flown the aggressor ship manipulating the target?
>> >>
>> >> I suspect temperature, noise, fumes, etc. would all be part of the
>> >> simulator.
>> >
>> > Heck, they used "simulators" of a sort like that during WWII. My dad,
>> > who
>> > was a gunner on a B-29, remembers standing in the back of a truck that
>> > drove
>> > along while the trainee took shots at model aircraft.
>>
>> Somebody from the Film Industry (Might have been Disney) developed a
>> prejection system using a hemispherical dome with a turret inside.
>> They had some sort of system to measure tracking errors.
>>
>> And then, there was Operation Pinball, the ultimate simulator. Real
>> bombers with real turrets, but the .50 cals have been replaced with
>> .30 cals firing frangible (break up on impact) bullets. The targets
>> are specially armored P-63s that make passes on the student gunner's
>> airplane. There are acoustic sensors in the P-63s that can hear the
>> impact of the bullets on the skin for measuring the number of hits.
>
>
> That is _very_ realistic. I think, all in all, we could do it more
> cheaply with virtual reality. Operation Pinball could do G-forces
> better, although a simulation platform with multiple degree of freedom
> movement can get awfully close.

For a bomber-type platform, G forces probably weren't all that
relavant. Not only were the G limits fairly low, but G onset was low
as well. What would be more important would be simulating the
environment of the guys firing manually operated guns, such as the
Waist and Radio Compartment guns on a B-17. There you've got a bunch
of factors that change - the force of teh windblast on the gun barrel,
the narrow field of view, the wind blast, and the intense cold of
standing at an open window in -50 degree air while a 140 mph wind
(EAS) blows past. (What they ended up doing was designing enclosed
gun positions, with power boosted gun mounts. Of course, the
computerized Fire COntrol Systems of the B-29 and later airplanes took
all of that away, with the gunner's skills changing more to mastering
the switchology of the system, and learning how to track smoothly in
Az?El and range. (Which is a lot like patting your head while rubbing
your stomach). When the radar systems came out, in the B-36 and later
bombers, gunnery was even more detached. The gunner detected teh
target on radar, locked the radar on, and followed up the automatic
tracking. That became something that could be done easily on the
ground, or practiced while in the air (Injecting synthetic targets
into the radar system using a signal generator) on regular flights.

Pinball actually stuck around for quite a while. The last SAC gunnery
class to use the RP-63s and frangible bullets was in 1948.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Jeff Crowell" > writes:
> Peter Stickney wrote:
>> And then, there was Operation Pinball, the ultimate simulator. Real
>> bombers with real turrets, but the .50 cals have been replaced with
>> .30 cals firing frangible (break up on impact) bullets. The targets
>> are specially armored P-63s that make passes on the student gunner's
>> airplane. There are acoustic sensors in the P-63s that can hear the
>> impact of the bullets on the skin for measuring the number of hits.
>
> Wooden bullets, if I recall correctly. An old family friend,
> now passed on, experienced some of this.

Lead dust in a Bakelite matrix, actually. There were .30 caliber
rounds with wooden bullets, though. They were used with some models
of Rifle Grenade Dischargers. Later models of Grenade Dischargers
used blank cartridges to propel teh grenade. (That's one of the
reasons that the M1903 Springfield was retained in the Infantry Squad
until late 1944/early 1945. It was real easy to fire grenade from
it. Garands required a whole lot of fiddling (You had to add & remove
parts from the gas system - not something you want to do in combat)
and you didn't get any better rate of fire, since the blank rounds had
to be manually loaded into the rifle.

> He said the ballistics of the frangible bullets were so far off
> from Real Life (tm) that the usefulness was limited.

Yes, the ballistics were different. But if you're not mixing
ammunition types in the same belt, that's really not all that
important. (And I'm sure that the RP-63 pilots would be a lot happier
if that didn't happen) The sights, and the cams & springs in the
lead-computing sights used at the time Late 1944 on) would be
recalibrated to provide the same sight picture that you'd get with
service ammunition in a .50 cal.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[[email protected]]

Presidente Alcazar >
wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 19:37:20 +1300, rnf2 >
>wrote:
>
>>Here in NZ there is occasionally WW2 army surplus tracer rounds for
>>the .303 available, and firing those and normal army surplus ball
>>theres no noticable difference in point of impact...
>
>It would be more than a bit stupid to introduce a tracer round
>designed to assist spotting and accuracy with the ball ammunition,
>which actually had divergent ballistics.
>
>Gavin Bailey

Of course...that's why I questioned him. It sounds odd certainly
why the 50 cal round would do that when the .303 doesn't.
Certainly does sound strange what the purpose could be.

Is it possible that you 'mis-remembered' Art?.

I'd appreciate a calm answer here Art rather than a 'blast for
doubting your word'. You have three people (at least) who find
your story strange.
--

-Gord.

[Joe Osman]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >In conjunction with your comment about the gunner's remarks to you; if
> >simple aerodynamics wasn't a part of every gunner's training during the
war,
> >it most surely should have been. What this gunner was telling you might
have
> >been from his training knowledge base or simply as the observed result of
> >his personal experience. The end result would be the same for recognizing
> >what the fighter was about to do, but the big difference would have been
the
> >advantage to gunners having this knowledge up front going into combat as
> >opposed to finding it out through operational experience.
> >Every gunner out there should have had at least some basic knowledge of
> >positive and negative g as that knowledge relates to a firing pass by a
> >fighter. Those who didn't had to learn the hard way. Gunners being taught
a
> >few simple facts about g and vectors would have saved many lives........
and
> >as this knowledge relates to a firing pass, could have been taught in
just a
> >few minutes during training.
> >The simple truth of it is that if the fighter rolled inverted during the
> >pass, in order to pass over you he would have to bunt the airplane into
> >negative g, and the odds of this happening vs going the positive g route
> >under you would have all but been a sure bet that he would go positive
under
> >you; hence the lead would become predictable based on the odds.
> >I should add that there were a few German fighter pilots who routinely
would
> >go negative, but never offensively, only defensively.
> >Erich Hartmann was one of them, and he was not in the theatre.
> >I've always wanted to ask a gunner from the period if simple aerodynamics
> >was indeed taught in gunnery training to help with prediction lead
solution,
> >but somehow I've always forgotten to ask
> >:-) If there are any gunners out there who can answer this, perhaps they
> >will post.
> >Dudley
> >
> >
>
> I think the answer would be no. When I went through gunnery training on
the
> way to bomb school they didn't even teach us about that. And the first
time I
> heard it, it is was totally new to me. I had to really see it to believe
it.
> And when I saw it I thought, "why the hell is he coming in on his back?
Crazy
> Krauts"
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

Art:

Did you guys use the Waller Gunnery Trainer? See:

http://www.cineramaadventure.com/trainer.htm

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/waller01.htm

Waller was an interesting guy. He invented water skies and Cinerama, among
other things.
Simpler WWII gunnery trainers were still be used in arcades in San Diego in
the early 1970s.

Joe




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
>From: "Gord Beaman" )
>Date: 3/11/04 9:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Presidente Alcazar >
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 19:37:20 +1300, rnf2 >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Here in NZ there is occasionally WW2 army surplus tracer rounds for
>>>the .303 available, and firing those and normal army surplus ball
>>>theres no noticable difference in point of impact...
>>
>>It would be more than a bit stupid to introduce a tracer round
>>designed to assist spotting and accuracy with the ball ammunition,
>>which actually had divergent ballistics.
>>
>>Gavin Bailey
>
>Of course...that's why I questioned him. It sounds odd certainly
>why the 50 cal round would do that when the .303 doesn't.
>Certainly does sound strange what the purpose could be.
>
>Is it possible that you 'mis-remembered' Art?.
>
>I'd appreciate a calm answer here Art rather than a 'blast for
>doubting your word'. You have three people (at least) who find
>your story strange.
>--
>
>-Gord.


No blast. Doubt my word all you like. But tnone of these three people ever
fired a 50 caliber did they? Different guns of different calibers shoot
differently. I own 10 shotguns of different gauges and no two shoot exactly in
the same place in the same way.. To assume because you shot a 303 every gun in
the world shoots exactly in same way is not a reasonable conclusion. And note
that this reply is far more well mannered than the flames you have been
throwing at me in every post the last few months.


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: Instructors: is no combat better?
> >From: "Gord Beaman" )
> >Date: 3/11/04 9:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >Presidente Alcazar >
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 19:37:20 +1300, rnf2 >
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>Here in NZ there is occasionally WW2 army surplus tracer rounds for
> >>>the .303 available, and firing those and normal army surplus ball
> >>>theres no noticable difference in point of impact...
> >>
> >>It would be more than a bit stupid to introduce a tracer round
> >>designed to assist spotting and accuracy with the ball ammunition,
> >>which actually had divergent ballistics.
> >>
> >>Gavin Bailey
> >
> >Of course...that's why I questioned him. It sounds odd certainly
> >why the 50 cal round would do that when the .303 doesn't.
> >Certainly does sound strange what the purpose could be.
> >
> >Is it possible that you 'mis-remembered' Art?.
> >
> >I'd appreciate a calm answer here Art rather than a 'blast for
> >doubting your word'. You have three people (at least) who find
> >your story strange.
> >--
> >
> >-Gord.
>
>
> No blast. Doubt my word all you like. But tnone of these three people ever
> fired a 50 caliber did they? Different guns of different calibers shoot
> differently.

But you are not talking about different guns of different calibers. You are
talking about a single gun of a single caliber firing what reportedly was
ammunition with matching trajectories.

As to your word, who in his right mind is NOT doubting it given your
performance over the last couple of weeks?

Brooks

I own 10 shotguns of different gauges and no two shoot exactly in
> the same place in the same way.. To assume because you shot a 303 every
gun in
> the world shoots exactly in same way is not a reasonable conclusion. And
note
> that this reply is far more well mannered than the flames you have been
> throwing at me in every post the last few months.
>
>
> 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: Instructors: is no combat better?
>From: "Joe Osman"
>Date: 3/11/04 10:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >In conjunction with your comment about the gunner's remarks to you; if
>> >simple aerodynamics wasn't a part of every gunner's training during the
>war,
>> >it most surely should have been. What this gunner was telling you might
>have
>> >been from his training knowledge base or simply as the observed result of
>> >his personal experience. The end result would be the same for recognizing
>> >what the fighter was about to do, but the big difference would have been
>the
>> >advantage to gunners having this knowledge up front going into combat as
>> >opposed to finding it out through operational experience.
>> >Every gunner out there should have had at least some basic knowledge of
>> >positive and negative g as that knowledge relates to a firing pass by a
>> >fighter. Those who didn't had to learn the hard way. Gunners being taught
>a
>> >few simple facts about g and vectors would have saved many lives........
>and
>> >as this knowledge relates to a firing pass, could have been taught in
>just a
>> >few minutes during training.
>> >The simple truth of it is that if the fighter rolled inverted during the
>> >pass, in order to pass over you he would have to bunt the airplane into
>> >negative g, and the odds of this happening vs going the positive g route
>> >under you would have all but been a sure bet that he would go positive
>under
>> >you; hence the lead would become predictable based on the odds.
>> >I should add that there were a few German fighter pilots who routinely
>would
>> >go negative, but never offensively, only defensively.
>> >Erich Hartmann was one of them, and he was not in the theatre.
>> >I've always wanted to ask a gunner from the period if simple aerodynamics
>> >was indeed taught in gunnery training to help with prediction lead
>solution,
>> >but somehow I've always forgotten to ask
>> >:-) If there are any gunners out there who can answer this, perhaps they
>> >will post.
>> >Dudley
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I think the answer would be no. When I went through gunnery training on
>the
>> way to bomb school they didn't even teach us about that. And the first
>time I
>> heard it, it is was totally new to me. I had to really see it to believe
>it.
>> And when I saw it I thought, "why the hell is he coming in on his back?
>Crazy
>> Krauts"
>>
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>> 344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>
>
>Art:
>
> Did you guys use the Waller Gunnery Trainer? See:
>
>http://www.cineramaadventure.com/trainer.htm
>
>http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/waller01.htm
>
>Waller was an interesting guy. He invented water skies and Cinerama, among
>other things.
>Simpler WWII gunnery trainers were still be used in arcades in San Diego in
>the early 1970s.
>
>Joe
>
>
>
Nope. Nothing that fancy But plenty of shoooting at targets towed by another
B-26.


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 11 Mar 2004 19:30:34 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>No blast. Doubt my word all you like. But tnone of these three people ever
>fired a 50 caliber did they?

Wrong.

I have in fact fired a .5in Browning M2, and I have been part of a
group on the receiving end of similar rounds coming the other way from
a Barett Light Fifty sniping rifle.

You really need to get a hold on your prejudicial assumptions.

Gavin Bailey

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Instructors: is no combat better?
>From: Presidente Alcazar
>Date: 3/13/04 8:16 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 11 Mar 2004 19:30:34 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>No blast. Doubt my word all you like. But tnone of these three people ever
>>fired a 50 caliber did they?
>
>Wrong.
>
>I have in fact fired a .5in Browning M2, and I have been part of a
>group on the receiving end of similar rounds coming the other way from
>a Barett Light Fifty sniping rifle.
>
>You really need to get a hold on your prejudicial assumptions.
>
>Gavin Bailey
>


You were not one of the three. You really must pull yourself together.


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]]

(ArtKramr) wrote:

>>You really need to get a hold on your prejudicial assumptions.
>>
>>Gavin Bailey
>>
>
>
>You were not one of the three. You really must pull yourself together.
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

Yes indeed he was Art. I can copy and paste his post if you
insist...
--

-Gord.