Subject: SHOULD YOU OPEN FIRE?
From: "Dudley Henriques"
Date: 12/13/03 8:23 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


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

"ArtKramr" wrote in message

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




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

Regards,


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