Re: Death On The North Sea Gunnery Range

[Keith Willshaw]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> The War Was Over: Death On The North Sea Gunnery Range
>
> It was on the 31st of May, 1945. The USAAC had established a gunnery range
in
> the North Sea, It was known as the Blankenburghe gunnery range. We flew
many
> missions there attacking a load of target rafts moored in the North sea.
We
> would come in low and shoot up the rafts. After enough planes had made
their
> passes the rafts were just a bunch of floating sticks and we would head
for
> home while the rafts were replaced for the next strafing mission. This
allowed
> all the gunners to fire their guns including the pilot who would bring his
> package guns to bear. On this mission Harrell Foxx was at the controls.
And as
> far as anyone can figure they made their pass and then continued to dive
right
> into the North Sea. There were no survivors. We will never know what
actually
> caused the crash. Some say it was target fixation. Others claim it was
just the
> low altiiude treachery for which the Marauder is so famous. But one thing
we do
> know and that just because the war ended, it didn't mean those in the Army
Air
> Corps would ever get safely home. On this mission there was Foxx,
Robinson,
> Malchiodi, Dmitri, Doyle, Dunn and Stout. Lest we forget.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
>

What was the weather like Art ?

I once knew an RAF coastal command type and he
reckoned that fine weather and smooth seas were
always dangerous because it was hard to get a
visual cue of how high you really were. He said
they lost aircraft the same way and they did this
for a living.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Death On The North Sea Gunnery Range
>From: "Keith Willshaw"
>Date: 8/9/2004 7:44 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> The War Was Over: Death On The North Sea Gunnery Range
>>
>> It was on the 31st of May, 1945. The USAAC had established a gunnery range
>in
>> the North Sea, It was known as the Blankenburghe gunnery range. We flew
>many
>> missions there attacking a load of target rafts moored in the North sea.
>We
>> would come in low and shoot up the rafts. After enough planes had made
>their
>> passes the rafts were just a bunch of floating sticks and we would head
>for
>> home while the rafts were replaced for the next strafing mission. This
>allowed
>> all the gunners to fire their guns including the pilot who would bring his
>> package guns to bear. On this mission Harrell Foxx was at the controls.
>And as
>> far as anyone can figure they made their pass and then continued to dive
>right
>> into the North Sea. There were no survivors. We will never know what
>actually
>> caused the crash. Some say it was target fixation. Others claim it was
>just the
>> low altiiude treachery for which the Marauder is so famous. But one thing
>we do
>> know and that just because the war ended, it didn't mean those in the Army
>Air
>> Corps would ever get safely home. On this mission there was Foxx,
>Robinson,
>> Malchiodi, Dmitri, Doyle, Dunn and Stout. Lest we forget.
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------
>>
>
>What was the weather like Art ?
>
>I once knew an RAF coastal command type and he
>reckoned that fine weather and smooth seas were
>always dangerous because it was hard to get a
>visual cue of how high you really were. He said
>they lost aircraft the same way and they did this
>for a living.
>
>Keith
>

You are right Keith. It was CAVU all the way. To this day I still keep
wondering what the hell went wrong. Six good men lost in an instant. And the
war was over Could you cry?



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

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
Keith Willshaw > wrote:
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> The War Was Over: Death On The North Sea Gunnery Range
>> far as anyone can figure they made their pass and then continued to dive
>right
>> into the North Sea. There were no survivors. We will never know what
>actually
>> caused the crash. Some say it was target fixation. Others claim it was

>What was the weather like Art ?
>
>I once knew an RAF coastal command type and he
>reckoned that fine weather and smooth seas were
>always dangerous because it was hard to get a
>visual cue of how high you really were. He said
>they lost aircraft the same way and they did this
>for a living.

My father talked about planes flying into the sea while trying to
ditch when the conditions were like that, and Norman Hanson
(in 'Carrier Pilot') talks about at least one case when a Corsair
was lost in exactly the circumstances Art describes - just continued
diving until the pilot flew into the sea. I'm pretty sure that Charles
Lamb gives a similar account of a close friend flying into the sea
while doing intercept/evasion trials in a Skua against Lamb in a
Swordfish (Lamb dived to very low level, the Skua came in for a slashing
attack and simply flew straight into the sea - again, the pilot had
a lot of experience).
ISTR a family friend was lost in a maritime patrol Lancaster or
Shackleton sometime well post-war under similar circumstances
during gunnery training, but I'm not sure how I could confirm that.

Calm sea - especially with mist - seems to have been a killer.

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales....
Nieveler's law: "Any USENET thread, if sufficiently prolonged and not
Godwinated, will eventually turn into a discussion about
alcoholic drinks."

[Chris Mark]

>From: azb@a

>Calm sea - especially with mist - seems to have been a killer.

B-25 crews conducting sea sweeps off the Italian coast developed the practice
of firing bursts of machinegun fire into the sea. The splashes provided
perspective.


Chris Mark

[OXMORON1]

Art wrote:
>Well I must admit that the Marauder was somewhat less than supersonic. (grin)
>

Kind of depends on the dive angle doesn't it?

Rick

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Death On The North Sea Gunnery Range
>From: (OXMORON1)
>Date: 8/9/2004 11:18 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Art wrote:
>>Well I must admit that the Marauder was somewhat less than supersonic.
>(grin)
>>
>
>Kind of depends on the dive angle doesn't it?
>
>Rick
>


We have often said that the Marauder had a glide angle one degree less steep
than a rock. And as in most things said in jest, there is always a basis of
truth in it. (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

[Kurt R. Todoroff]

>Combat aircraft operation are always very dangerous, especially if
>supersonic.
>

Why are combat aircraft operations very dangerous?

Why does the supersonic environment make them more dangerous?



Kurt Todoroff


Markets, not mandates and mob rule.
Consent, not compulsion.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Kurt R. Todoroff" > wrote in message
...
> >Combat aircraft operation are always very dangerous, especially if
> >supersonic.
> >
>
> Why are combat aircraft operations very dangerous?

Because like all military groups (at least the good ones), they "train as
they fight".

>
> Why does the supersonic environment make them more dangerous?

Take a gander at the accident rates for the early Century Series fighters.

Brooks
>
>
>
> Kurt Todoroff
>
>
> Markets, not mandates and mob rule.
> Consent, not compulsion.

[Pete]

"Kurt R. Todoroff" > wrote

> >Combat aircraft operation are always very dangerous, especially if
> >supersonic.
> >
>
> Why are combat aircraft operations very dangerous?
>
> Why does the supersonic environment make them more dangerous?

Think of it as Formula 1 or NASCAR as compared to a city bus.

Pete

[Kurt R. Todoroff]

>> Why are combat aircraft operations very dangerous?
>
>Because like all military groups (at least the good ones), they "train as
>they fight".
>
>>
>> Why does the supersonic environment make them more dangerous?
>
>Take a gander at the accident rates for the early Century Series fighters.

Kevin,

Surprisingly, your typically insightful and poignant method of addressing an
issue was absent in this response (I mean this genuinely, not sarcastically,
Kevin.). Unfortunately, you didn't address my question. You responded with a
convenient metaphor.

"You train as you fight" is a fine objective, but it never happens in totality.
Until military personnel start shooting real bullets and missiles at each
other, they're not training as they fight. Red Flag and other similar
exercises fall short of their objective, because while an F-15 may take ten
missile shots at its adversary (due to the inflight reload capability that
they're famous for during peacetime training exercises), at the end of the day,
everybody lands and knocks back a cold one. This is not true in combat. To
quote Alan Shepard on combat, "You gotta go out. You don't gotta come back."

I felt no sense of danger carrying twelve thousand pounds of iron at 600 knots
and 100 feet, doing tactical turns, and manuevering in response to Red Air.
While I flew with a sense of urgency, and a serious disposition, there was also
a distinct level of excitement involved. All of this would have changed had I
known that people were firing weapons at me. The danger is in the threat, not
the flying. I haven't flown in combat. Some of the visitors and contributors
to this group have. I contend that any competent pilot will acknowledge that:

a: risk does not necessarily imply or equate to danger,

b: in the absence of a threat, danger is present when incompetence is
present.

Some pilots are dangerous because they're incompetent. Flying fast,
supersonic, low, pulling G, carrying iron, flying very near other aircraft, et.
al. does not suggest or equate to danger. Doing these things when you're not
competent to do so, is dangerous. Driving a car when you're not competent to
do so, is dangerous. I don't consider driving a car to be dangerous. Or using
a hand saw, or lighting a firecracker, or cooking food. These acts may be
dangerous for some people, however, they are not dangerous acts in and of
themselves.

Essentially any action can be considered dangerous. I do not adhere to this
type of thinking. Nor do I patently associate danger to risk. If the author
intended the statement "Combat aircraft operation are always very dangerous,
especially if supersonic." to mean the actual act of flying in combat, then I
couldn't agree more. I interpreted his statement to mean the "operations of
flying combat aircraft", but not necessarily in combat. As such, I disagree
with his statement.




Kurt Todoroff


Markets, not mandates and mob rule.
Consent, not compulsion.

[Chris Mark]

>When Foxx went in his package guns were smoking. So I don't know..He just
>went
>straight in as we watched.

In these cases I guess we can never know what really happened. Military flying
is dangerous, war or peace.


Chris Mark

[Kurt R. Todoroff]

>You have missed my point.

Kevin,

I am reasonably confident that I understood your point. However, your
reasoning is flawed, and therefore your conclusion is wrong

>They (or you) are not out there merely boring
>holes in the sky on a day-to-day basis.

Again, I am well aware of the reason that I strapped Air Force fighters to my
posterior. I suspect that you're indulging in hyperbole here.

>They are sometimes going low,
>sometimes carrying and dropping live ordnance, often flying >at night and in
>adverse weather, often conducting ACM (note the number of >air-to-air
>collisions each year in such training), often flying in >formation, etc.

Yes, just as I stated in my post.

>You seem to have a different frame of reference >than I do. >You mentioned a
>firecracker--OK, having spent a fair amount of time >blowing >things up with
>devices considerably more powerful than a >firecracker, I can >tell you that
>part of what you say is correct--all too often, >accidents are >the fault of
>mistakes, or even incompetence. But not 100% of >the time.

Indeed, I do. I include "expectation of outcome" in my definition of danger.
In other words, where do you draw the line. More of my Academy classmates who
became fighter pilots, died from non-flying causes than did from flying causes.
Many died in automobile accidents. Some died from health/diet reasons. Some
died from other reasons. People die in jet fighters every year. The rate of
people getting sick or dying from food borne pathogens every year is greater
than the rate of people dying in jet fighters. The rate of people getting
injured or dying in automobiles every year is higher yet. However, I don't
consider eating food to be dangerous, and I'm not giving up food. I don't
consider driving automobiles to be dangerous, and I'm not giving up cars. I
don't have a reasonable expectation that I'll die when I eat food or drive a
car. I never had a reasonable expectation that I would die when I flew a
fighter sortie. All of the data and statistics in the world don't alter the
fact that we still "expect" to get up from the table after a meal and walk
away, that we still "expect" to arrive safely at our destination in a car, and
that as fighter pilots we "expected" to return alive from every peacetime
sortie.

Blowing things up would be very dangerous for me because I have no formal
training. It was not dangerous for you because you had that training. The
proper training, mixed with experience, reduces the danger considerably to the
point where danger becomes risk (expected outcome). If you tried to do all of
the things in a fighter that I said that I'd done, it would be dangerous for
you given your lack of training. It wasn't dangerous for me. Standard Air
Force fingertip formation is defined as three feet of wingtip clearance. I was
doing that solo in the T-37 in UPT. It was safe, not dangerous. While flying
in thick IMC, rather than go lost wingman (I'd rather die than go lost wingman)
I've closed that three feet of wingtip clearance to zero, and sometimes flew
with wing overlap just to maintain sight of lead. So has Dudley Henriques, so
had Walt Bjorneby, so has Ed Rasimus. It's common. Doing so, was not
dangerous. In and of itself, violating a rule does not constitute danger.
Doing so without the requisite competency does. The Thunderbirds are not
dangerous when they fly inverted five hundered feet above the ground. Yet some
people are dangerous just boiling a pot of water. I'm not. You're probably
not. So, is boiling a pot of water dangerous or isn't it?

I have come close to dying in a fighter twice. One time I was stupid. The
other time, somebody else was stupid. However, our aviation profession was not
dangerous. You should focus on ability, competency, and expected outcome,
rather than of the act itself. I refuse to patently attach danger to risk.
Again, despite all of the opportunities for harm and failure, we do things in
life every day with the expected outcome of success. Otherwise, absolutely
everything in our life is dangerous. I reject that type of flawed reasoning.



Kurt Todoroff


Markets, not mandates and mob rule.
Consent, not compulsion.

[The Enlightenment]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Death On The North Sea Gunnery Range
> >From: "Keith Willshaw"
> >Date: 8/9/2004 7:44 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >
> >I once knew an RAF coastal command type and he
> >reckoned that fine weather and smooth seas were
> >always dangerous because it was hard to get a
> >visual cue of how high you really were. He said
> >they lost aircraft the same way and they did this
> >for a living.
> >
> >Keith
> >
>
> You are right Keith. It was CAVU all the way. To this day I still keep
> wondering what the hell went wrong. Six good men lost in an instant. And
the
> war was over Could you cry?

There was a possibillity that the UK and USA may start trading blows with
the Russians. Patton was apparently raring to go. The dangerous training
was surely as to retain opperation readiness as deterent to the Soviets.

Did the Maruader have a radio altimeter that could have provided a warning
to the pilot? Some USN dive bombers had automatic pullout based on radar
altimeter.

If you were bombing target say 1000 ft or more above sea leavel did you
rely on topographic data from maps or did you have a radar to tell you
altitude above ground level?

[Jack]

Kurt R. Todoroff wrote:


> People die in jet fighters every year.

> The rate of people getting injured or dying in automobiles every year is higher yet.

You are beginning to sound like the "engineers" arguing about runway
construction. Half of them know what they are talking about, but don't
understand the issue, and the other half don't either.

If you are going to lump auto injuries in there with auto fatalities, it
confirms this reader's suspicions that your stand is more ideological
than knowledgeable, or else you are being lazy and not giving your
readers much respect.

If you have hard data on peace-time fighter death rates over the last
decade and auto death rates over the same period, please provide it. And
don't forget to relate the two in the same way, e.g., hours flown/driven
or miles..., or sorties/trips, or some common denominator.

So far, we know what you believe but we still don't know what's true,
from reading your posts. You may also want to stop differentiating
between danger and risk, at least until you get the more important raw
numbers problem straightened out. Very few people here give a rat's ass
what insurance adjusters and statisticians argue about over a beer at
the end of the day.


Jack

[Kurt R. Todoroff]

Jack,

<Snip the self-agrandizing rhetoric.>

My first post to this subject challenged the previous poster to substantiate
his assertion which contradicted my empirical experiences. The subsequent
responses to my first post have been littered with opinion and emotion, and
have lacked objectivity. Furthermore, none of them have substantiated the OP's
emotional assertion. Nor have you.

I have made the point that danger is not an absolute concept, but a relative
one. None of the posts addressed this point. The responses, including yours,
miss this salient point.

Your post lacks civility, something that frequent visitors to this newsgroup
observe with regularity from certain other posters who have established their
poor reputations. At the least, it is insulting (is this deliberate?), and it
borders on being imflamatory and a personal attack. You would do well to adopt
a more conciliatory tone in your postings. Furthermore, if you wish to offer
your personal military flying experiences as a basis to defend a position that
you care to assert on this subject, then all of us could benefit from them.




Kurt Todoroff


Markets, not mandates and mob rule.
Consent, not compulsion.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Death On The North Sea Gunnery Range
>From: "Dave"
>Date: 8/11/2004 1:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Kurt R. Todoroff" > wrote in message
...
>> Jack,
>>
>> <Snip the self-agrandizing rhetoric.>
>>
>> My first post to this subject challenged the previous poster to
>substantiate
>> his assertion which contradicted my empirical experiences.
>
>Snip
>
>Heck, I was just tying to antagonize Art by mentioning President Bush's Cold
>War service. To his credit he avoided my perfectly cast dry fly.
>
>
>
sorry didn't notice.


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

[Kurt R. Todoroff]

>You pose a very important situatio. But it is one that can be addressed only
>by
>tho e who have flown missions or at least have done some military flying. I
>was always surprised by how well we were trainrd before we even flew a
>mission
>When first flying over Germany we never ran into a situation for which we
>were
>not trained or not prepared.. At first we were placed in the tail- end-
>Charlie
>slot but as we gained experience we moved forward in the formation and
>finally
>before the war ended we were connsytantly flying deputy lead. The experience
>enhanced what the training had begun, But without the good background in
>training we would not have been able to make the best of the experience. But
>the idea that we can go into combat untrained and learn on the job is
>lidicrious And if you expect civility on this NG, that is equally ludicrious.
>Good luck.grin)

Art,

You've confused me. I can't find any relevance in your post to the discussion
at hand. Could you point me to it?

You say that the "important situation" that I pose

"can be addressed only by tho e who have flown missions or at least have done
some military flying".

Isn't this clear from my second post? When you refer to military flying, do
you mean pilots, or do you also include other aircrew members as qualified to
comment?



Kurt Todoroff


Markets, not mandates and mob rule.
Consent, not compulsion.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Death On The North Sea Gunnery Range
>From: (Kurt R. Todoroff)
>Date: 8/11/2004 3:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>You pose a very important situatio. But it is one that can be addressed only
>>by
>>tho e who have flown missions or at least have done some military flying. I
>>was always surprised by how well we were trainrd before we even flew a
>>mission
>>When first flying over Germany we never ran into a situation for which we
>>were
>>not trained or not prepared.. At first we were placed in the tail- end-
>>Charlie
>>slot but as we gained experience we moved forward in the formation and
>>finally
>>before the war ended we were connsytantly flying deputy lead. The
>experience
>>enhanced what the training had begun, But without the good background in
>>training we would not have been able to make the best of the experience. But
>>the idea that we can go into combat untrained and learn on the job is
>>lidicrious And if you expect civility on this NG, that is equally
>ludicrious.
>>Good luck.grin)
>
>Art,
>
>You've confused me. I can't find any relevance in your post to the
>discussion
>at hand. Could you point me to it?
>
>You say that the "important situation" that I pose
>
>"can be addressed only by tho e who have flown missions or at least have done
>some military flying".
>
>Isn't this clear from my second post? When you refer to military flying, do
>you mean pilots, or do you also include other aircrew members as qualified to
>comment?
>
>
>
>Kurt Todoroff

>
> Markets, not mandates and mob rule.
> Consent, not compulsion.
>
As I understand it someone talked about training after entering combat.
Right.? And you took issue with that position, as I do. Training must not be
confused with experience. Therefore everyone on the crew who undergoes training
and later experience is qualified on this matter. Those who were never trained
and flew and never had any experience are not qualified to comment.


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

[The Enlightenment]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Death On The North Sea Gunnery Range
> >From: "The Enlightenment"
> >Date: 8/11/2004 6:14 A
>
> >You are right Keith. It was CAVU all the way. To this day I still keep
> >> wondering what the hell went wrong. Six good men lost in an instant.
And
> >the
> >> war was over Could you cry?
> >
> >There was a possibillity that the UK and USA may start trading blows with
> >the Russians. Patton was apparently raring to go. The dangerous
training
> >was surely as to retain opperation readiness as deterent to the Soviets.
> >
> >Did the Maruader have a radio altimeter that could have provided a
warning
> >to the pilot?
>
> Nope. No radio altimeter.

I meant the Invader of course but I guess the answer is the same.

One of the tragedies of war is the economics of it. Young men simply can't
be equiped with the best equipment or every gadget that is available: you
make do with what could be used and the boffins optimised the abillity to
produce weapons against 'attrition'


>
> >If you were bombing target say 1000 ft or more above sea leavel did you
> >rely on topographic data from maps or did you have a radar to tell you
> altitude above ground level?
> >
>
> We had neither.

Do tell? You're not still keeping the secret of the Norden are you?

So you took and intelligent guess or you were told during briefing?


>
>
>
> 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: Death On The North Sea Gunnery Range
>From: "The Enlightenment"
>Date: 8/11/2004 4:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: Death On The North Sea Gunnery Range
>> >From: "The Enlightenment"
>> >Date: 8/11/2004 6:14 A
>>
>> >You are right Keith. It was CAVU all the way. To this day I still keep
>> >> wondering what the hell went wrong. Six good men lost in an instant.
>And
>> >the
>> >> war was over Could you cry?
>> >
>> >There was a possibillity that the UK and USA may start trading blows with
>> >the Russians. Patton was apparently raring to go. The dangerous
>training
>> >was surely as to retain opperation readiness as deterent to the Soviets.
>> >
>> >Did the Maruader have a radio altimeter that could have provided a
>warning
>> >to the pilot?
>>
>> Nope. No radio altimeter.
>
>I meant the Invader of course but I guess the answer is the same.
>
>One of the tragedies of war is the economics of it. Young men simply can't
>be equiped with the best equipment or every gadget that is available: you
>make do with what could be used and the boffins optimised the abillity to
>produce weapons against 'attrition'
>
>

As far as we were concerned everything we had was the best and the latest and
state of the art.. Y'mean it wasn't ?

>> >If you were bombing target say 1000 ft or more above sea leavel did you
>> >rely on topographic data from maps or did you have a radar to tell you
>> altitude above ground level?
>> >
>>
>> We had neither.
>
>Do tell? You're not still keeping the secret of the Norden are you?
>
>So you took and intelligent guess or you were told during briefing?
>

We depended on our training, experience and judgement. And it was in most
cases, but not all cases, quite adequate. We did the best with what we had.



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


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

[Kurt R. Todoroff]

>As I understand it someone talked about training after entering combat.
>Right.? And you took issue with that position,
Wrong. I made no such post.

as I do. Training must not be
>confused with experience. Therefore everyone on the crew who undergoes
>training
>and later experience is qualified on this matter. Those who were never
>trained
>and flew and never had any experience are not qualified to comment.

Agreed. You weren't trained as a pilot, and therefore, should refrain from
commenting on pilot issues.

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



Kurt Todoroff


Markets, not mandates and mob rule.
Consent, not compulsion.

[OXMORON1]

sharkone wrote:
>Agreed. You weren't trained as a pilot, and therefore, should refrain from
>commenting on pilot issues.
>

Kurt,
That wasn't nice!
Art was trained as a bomb aimer/navigator and part of an aircrew. Safety of
flight is part of everyone's responsibility in a multiplace a/c. Monitoring the
progress of the a/c is the nav's responsibility as well as the pilots. That
includes postion relative to the water or ground.

OH Jeezus, I agreed with Art on something!
Rick

[OXMORON1]

Art wrote:
>Just give me an E6--B, a Wheems plotter and a Norden
>to be used as a dirftmeter and I'll navigate you around the world.

Art,
A compass would be nice, a sextant would be cool to have also.
An ADF would be nice to listen to the music while I wandered aimlessly around
the world.

Rick

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Death On The North Sea Gunnery Range
>From: (OXMORON1)
>Date: 8/12/2004 7:40 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>sharkone wrote:
>>Agreed. You weren't trained as a pilot, and therefore, should refrain from
>>commenting on pilot issues.
>>
>
>Kurt,
>That wasn't nice!
>Art was trained as a bomb aimer/navigator and part of an aircrew. Safety of
>flight is part of everyone's responsibility in a multiplace a/c. Monitoring
>the
>progress of the a/c is the nav's responsibility as well as the pilots. That
>includes postion relative to the water or ground.
>
>OH Jeezus, I agreed with Art on something!
>Rick
>

Well he's right except that he never mentioned pilot in any of the previous
posts. Had he done so I never would have responded as I did.


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

[Yeff]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 23:53:01 -0400, Howard Berkowitz wrote:

> Still, one has to chuckle at the recent comment of one Air Force LTG
> "Wars are not won by making PowerPoint presentations. Wars are won by
> making the other side make PowerPoint presentations"

Specifically,

"You don't win a war by making PowerPoint slides. You win a war
by making the other poor son-of-a-bitch make PowerPoint slides."

~ Lt.Gen. Ronald E. Keys, USAF, commander
Allied Air Forces Southern Europe and
16th Air Force

As quoted by Air Force Magazine.

--

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

[OXMORON1]

Kurt wrote in response to:
>>>That wasn't nice!
the following:
>No, it wasn't. However, I was paraphrasing Art's long standing act of
>condescension, against himself.

Under those conditions keep shooting!
It won't make any difference to Art, he's oblivious to anything military after
the Big One.

Every other old time Warrant Officer that I ever met or served with was a whole
lot more tolerant and reasonable than Art. I guess Art didn't serve long enough
to acquire those characteristics.

MISTER (all caps intended) Taylor kept me out of a lot of trouble and taught me
a lot of the ropes when I was a brown bar!

Rick Clark
MFE

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Death On The North Sea Gunnery Range
>From: (Kurt R. Todoroff)
>Date: 8/12/2004 1:12 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>>>Agreed. You weren't trained as a pilot, and therefore, should refrain
>from
>>>>commenting on pilot issues.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Kurt,
>>>That wasn't nice!
>
>No, it wasn't. However, I was paraphrasing Art's long standing act of
>condescension, against himself. He'll probably deny having ever done this,
>and
>then reply to this post by inquiring if I've ever been in combat. (I made
>this
>clear, without being asked, many posts ago.) He might even claim that a
>person
>may only post to this newsgroup and even discuss any topic on this planet
>ONLY
>if his name is Art Kramer, and who was a B-26 bombadier in World War II only
>in
>his unit.
>
>>>Art was trained as a bomb aimer/navigator and part of an aircrew. Safety of
>>>flight is part of everyone's responsibility in a multiplace a/c. Monitoring
>>>the
>>>progress of the a/c is the nav's responsibility as well as the pilots. That
>>>includes postion relative to the water or ground.
>
>Nobody supports the integrated crew concept more than me. Every WSO that
>I've
>flown with knew my position that crew coordination and individual
>responsibility were essential to safe mission completion. None of my WSOs
>had
>any doubt in their mind about my position.
>
>>>
>>>OH Jeezus, I agreed with Art on something!
>>>Rick
>>>
>>
>>Well he's right except that he never mentioned pilot in any of the previous
>>posts. Had he done so I never would have responded as I did.
>>
>
>Art, that's twice that you've misrepresented my posts in this newsgroup
>subject. Either you're lazy or you're not telling the truth. I suggest that
>you reread these postings. As many others have said, you have previously
>made
>valuable contributions to this newsgroup by sharing your World War II
>aviation
>experiences. However, your arrogant and condescending manner to visitors,
>your
>sloppy review of, and responses to postings, your denial of your actions that
>have clearly been documented in this newsgroup, have diminished your
>credibility, perhaps irreparably. Your disposition to antagonize others, and
>then avoid their important questions is legend here. Your often flip,
>smart-alecky retorts are the stuff of children, not adults who command
>respect.
> I admire accomplishment. I pity people who's insecure personalities are
>based
>on conceit and arrogance. Please leave your obnoxious conceit and your
>personality shortcomings at the door before joining us. There's no need to
>rip
>your shirt open and flash the big S to us, because it just doesn't exist.
>
>If you can manage some humility, and act down to earth, please feel free to
>join us.
>
>
>
>Kurt Todoroff

>

I recently bought a new computer and faoiled to transfer all the PLONKS from
the old to the new. I shall now begin to correct that oversight.

PLONK.




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

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
>Reminds me of an old WW II navigators joke. I'll pose it as a riddle. Two
>navigators are talking One asks the other, "What is the most important thing we
>use for navigation?" The other answers, " A penknife".. Can anyone on the NG
>guess why he chose to say a penkife? (:->)

When you're navigating with paper and pencil, you really need a working
point on the pencil?


--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Death On The North Sea Gunnery Range
>From: "Paul J. Adam"
>Date: 8/12/2004 4:24 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
>>Reminds me of an old WW II navigators joke. I'll pose it as a riddle. Two
>>navigators are talking One asks the other, "What is the most important thing
>we
>>use for navigation?" The other answers, " A penknife".. Can anyone on the
>NG
>>guess why he chose to say a penkife? (:->)
>
>When you're navigating with paper and pencil, you really need a working
>point on the pencil?


Well done Paul. Eactly right.


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

[OXMORON1]

Paul answered Art's riddle with:
>>When you're navigating with paper and pencil, you really need a working
>>point on the pencil?

Art replied:
>Well done Paul. Eactly right.
>

Not good enough Art, really old time, mechanical pencils prevent all those
pesky shavings from floating around and.....really good navigators use ink
(well ballpoint).
Only Russian Cosmonauts use pencils. any more.
Pilot brand "Razor Points", blue or black, work really well under the red
light.

Rick
Now give me back my eraser

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(OXMORON1) writes:
> Paul answered Art's riddle with:
>>>When you're navigating with paper and pencil, you really need a working
>>>point on the pencil?
>
> Art replied:
>>Well done Paul. Eactly right.
>>
>
> Not good enough Art, really old time, mechanical pencils prevent all those
> pesky shavings from floating around and.....really good navigators use ink
> (well ballpoint).
> Only Russian Cosmonauts use pencils. any more.
> Pilot brand "Razor Points", blue or black, work really well under the red
> light.

The red ones don't.

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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Death On The North Sea Gunnery Range
>From: (Peter Stickney)
>Date: 8/12/2004 7:12 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
> (OXMORON1) writes:
>> Paul answered Art's riddle with:
>>>>When you're navigating with paper and pencil, you really need a working
>>>>point on the pencil?
>>
>> Art replied:
>>>Well done Paul. Eactly right.
>>>
>>
>> Not good enough Art, really old time, mechanical pencils prevent all those
>> pesky shavings from floating around and.....really good navigators use ink
>> (well ballpoint).
>> Only Russian Cosmonauts use pencils. any more.
>> Pilot brand "Razor Points", blue or black, work really well under the red
>> light.
>
>The red ones don't.
>
>--
>Pete Stickney
> A strong conviction that something must

Ah the luxuries of the modern air force. (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

[QDurham]

Sharkone, take a hike or decide to make sense.

Quent

[Jack]

Kurt R. Todoroff wrote:

> My first post to this subject challenged the previous poster to substantiate
> his assertion which contradicted my empirical experiences. The subsequent
> responses to my first post have been littered with opinion and emotion, and
> have lacked objectivity.

I see now. Your assertions are from empirical evidence, but others' are
"opinion and emotion".

'My' empirical evidence trumps 'yours' every time, so naturally it would
be pointless to continue this merry-go-round. Unless you have something
to offer which truly is objective.


Jack

[Kurt R. Todoroff]

>> My first post to this subject challenged the previous poster to
>substantiate
>> his assertion which contradicted my empirical experiences. The subsequent
>> responses to my first post have been littered with opinion and emotion, and
>> have lacked objectivity.
>
>I see now. Your assertions are from empirical evidence, but others' are
>"opinion and emotion".
>
>'My' empirical evidence trumps 'yours' every time, so naturally it would
>be pointless to continue this merry-go-round. Unless you have something
>to offer which truly is objective.
>
>
>Jack
>

Reread my post. You'll see that I said experiences, not evidence. The
distinction is not subtle.

Kevin, and the poster with whom I differed, don't have military flying
experience. They were each offering an observer's opinion, which I respect,
even though I disagree with them. Kevin's posting did indeed contain an
emotional argument, but not because I said so.

You too, are proceeding from an emotional position. Your postings clearly
indicate that, at the least you are antagonistic, at most you are looking for a
fight. I encourage you to be a positive contributor to this newsgroup, instead
of the instigator that you have revealed yourself to be.

If you disagree with my original posting, feel free to make your best case, and
point out the flaws in my reasoning. Feel free to share your personal military
flying experiences as well. As I previously said to you, your posting lacks
civility. You would do well to adopt a more conciliatory tone in your
postings.



Kurt Todoroff


Markets, not mandates and mob rule.
Consent, not compulsion.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Kurt R. Todoroff" > wrote in message
...
> >> My first post to this subject challenged the previous poster to
> >substantiate
> >> his assertion which contradicted my empirical experiences. The
subsequent
> >> responses to my first post have been littered with opinion and emotion,
and
> >> have lacked objectivity.
> >
> >I see now. Your assertions are from empirical evidence, but others' are
> >"opinion and emotion".
> >
> >'My' empirical evidence trumps 'yours' every time, so naturally it would
> >be pointless to continue this merry-go-round. Unless you have something
> >to offer which truly is objective.
> >
> >
> >Jack
> >
>
> Reread my post. You'll see that I said experiences, not evidence. The
> distinction is not subtle.
>
> Kevin, and the poster with whom I differed, don't have military flying
> experience. They were each offering an observer's opinion, which I
respect,
> even though I disagree with them. Kevin's posting did indeed contain an
> emotional argument, but not because I said so.

Emotional argument? I don't think so. What I saw come of that exchange was
that we were looking at it from different viewpoints, and even have a
different view of the meaning of "danger". You seem to have lumped all "bad
things" that can happen into the "its your own fault" category, while I see
that there are many "bad things" that can happen that occur despite the
individuals best and correct actions. And you will note that I characterized
military training under a broad umbrella when it cam to the "train as you
fight" description--not just pilot-stuff. The fact is that the average
military person is exposed to about the same overall "threat" as any of us
are in terms of your example of highway fatalities, etc.; but he may
typically *add* to that overall recipe by also performing military training
that incurs additional risks, often from sources he has no personal control
over.

Now, you may find all of that "emotional"--I tend to think it is just common
sense.

>
> You too, are proceeding from an emotional position. Your postings clearly
> indicate that, at the least you are antagonistic, at most you are looking
for a
> fight. I encourage you to be a positive contributor to this newsgroup,
instead
> of the instigator that you have revealed yourself to be.
>
> If you disagree with my original posting, feel free to make your best
case, and
> point out the flaws in my reasoning. Feel free to share your personal
military
> flying experiences as well. As I previously said to you, your posting
lacks
> civility. You would do well to adopt a more conciliatory tone in your
> postings.

Oh, Gawd...not another "you don't/haven't flown for a living, so you can't
have an opinion" type? You apparently have more in common with Kramer than
you might like to admit...

Brooks

>
>
>
> Kurt Todoroff

[Kurt R. Todoroff]

<< Oh, Gawd...not another "you don't/haven't flown for a living, so you can't
have an opinion" type? You apparently have more in common with Kramer than
you might like to admit...
>><BR><BR>

Kevin,

You've developed a gross propensity for deducing false inferences from my
postings. You're quoting a line that I haven't provided. And now personal
attacks and insults. And personality comparisons between people whom you
haven't met. Your jugular is exposed.



Kurt Todoroff


Markets, not mandates and mob rule.
Consent, not compulsion.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Kurt R. Todoroff" > wrote in message
...
> << Oh, Gawd...not another "you don't/haven't flown for a living, so you
can't
> have an opinion" type? You apparently have more in common with Kramer than
> you might like to admit...
> >><BR><BR>
>
> Kevin,
>
> You've developed a gross propensity for deducing false inferences from my
> postings. You're quoting a line that I haven't provided. And now
personal
> attacks and insults. And personality comparisons between people whom you
> haven't met. Your jugular is exposed.

What is truly amazing is how you snipped away the rest of the discourse in
order to respond only to this tongue-in-cheek observation. I guess it was
easier to make that accusation about positing an "emotional argument" (IIRC
that was the wording you used, but you have snipped all of that away...) in
a third-person exchange than it is to defend the assertion?

Here it is again, if you missed it:

"Emotional argument? I don't think so. What I saw come of that exchange was
that we were looking at it from different viewpoints, and even have a
different view of the meaning of "danger". You seem to have lumped all "bad
things" that can happen into the "its your own fault" category, while I see
that there are many "bad things" that can happen that occur despite the
individuals best and correct actions. And you will note that I characterized
military training under a broad umbrella when it cam to the "train as you
fight" description--not just pilot-stuff. The fact is that the average
military person is exposed to about the same overall "threat" as any of us
are in terms of your example of highway fatalities, etc.; but he may
typically *add* to that overall recipe by also performing military training
that incurs additional risks, often from sources he has no personal control
over. Now, you may find all of that "emotional"--I tend to think it is just
common
sense."

My apologies for having drawn a comparison between you and Art; but as I
noted in my last message, and as was clear from the text of my initial
response you you, I answered your questions both from the basis of the
military-in-general (for which I do qualify for more than just "observer"
status) and in terms of the specific field of military aviation, and neither
was couched in "emotional" terms--that would be your construct.

Anywho...enough is enough; better to quit this exchange before it gets nasty
than to go for anyone's "jugular".

Brooks

>
>
>
> Kurt Todoroff

[Jack]

Kurt R. Todoroff wrote:

> I encourage you to be a positive contributor to this newsgroup, instead
> of the instigator that you have revealed yourself to be.

Thanks for the encouragement, I do enjoy drawing out some of our more
pompous and arrogant posters so that we can all take their measure.


> Feel free to share your personal military
> flying experiences as well.

Well gee, thanks, I'll continue to do so.


> You would do well to adopt a more conciliatory tone in your
> postings.

Or what? Don't you really mean, "appeasing" or "yielding"?

Your manner suggests a strong need to dominate simply by the use of
language rather than by the application of logic and the provision of
useful information.


Jack