Instructors: is no combat better?

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)

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: 362436 (Ron)
Date: 3/9/04 3:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

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


Sure they have, it was just simulated

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




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



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


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

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.

"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message
...
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.

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

Brooks

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.