Death On The North Sea Gunnery Range

"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 =---

Subject: 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

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."

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

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

Subject: 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

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.

"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.

"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

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.