Instructors: is no combat better?

"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

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" 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

Subject: 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

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: 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

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

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: 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" wrote in message
...
In article k.net,
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: 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

Subject: 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" 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! =-----

Subject: 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