Instructors: is no combat better?

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

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).

Subject: 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

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)

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: 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.

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

(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.