Flight Instruction: Then and Now

ubject: Flight Instruction: Then and Now
From: (BUFDRVR)
Date: 3/6/04 7:52 PM P

but it raises the
question as to whether the idea of using combat veterans as intructors was
abondoned and combat inexperienced instructors were used as a matter of
course.

.when I began B-52 Formal Training in the summer of
'95, there were but a handful of Desert Storm vets in the FTU. These guys did
have some good insight, but to be quite honest, I could not grasp or apply
any
of their suggestions. It was all I could do to learn how to fly a 300K+ lb.
aircraft at 500' AGL through the mountains, I was not able (nor was any new
crewmember) to perform defensive maneuvering tasks besides the very basic.
Once
I got to my unit and went through *mission qualification training* there were
many more DS vets and I had become comfortable enough in the jet to begin
taking advantage of their experience, particularly in the low altitude
environment.




BUFDRVR

Too bad that the commbat veteran's advice was not useful to you. I found that
it was very useful to me. There were itmes on a a mission when something
happened and I would f remember that it was just what he was talking about and
I would relive those training moments with that instructor, His description of
just how fighters attacked bomber formations was dead accurate. In fact I have
thought of him many times over all these years. I guess you never forget the
man who taught you how to go to war.


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:

ubject: Flight Instruction: Then and Now
From: (BUFDRVR)
Date: 3/6/04 7:52 PM P

but it raises the
question as to whether the idea of using combat veterans as intructors
was
abondoned and combat inexperienced instructors were used as a matter of
course.

.when I began B-52 Formal Training in the summer of
'95, there were but a handful of Desert Storm vets in the FTU. These
guys did
have some good insight, but to be quite honest, I could not grasp or
apply
any
of their suggestions. It was all I could do to learn how to fly a 300K+
lb.
aircraft at 500' AGL through the mountains, I was not able (nor was any
new
crewmember) to perform defensive maneuvering tasks besides the very
basic.
Once
I got to my unit and went through *mission qualification training* there
were
many more DS vets and I had become comfortable enough in the jet to
begin
taking advantage of their experience, particularly in the low altitude
environment.




BUFDRVR

Too bad that the commbat veteran's advice was not useful to you. I
found that
it was very useful to me. There were itmes on a a mission when something
happened and I would f remember that it was just what he was talking
about and
I would relive those training moments with that instructor, His
description of
just how fighters attacked bomber formations was dead accurate. In fact
I have
thought of him many times over all these years. I guess you never forget
the
man who taught you how to go to war.


Art, there are also some people never to be forgotten. They are the
conspiracy that keeps 50% of the people inferior to the other. They are
called statisticians.

OF COURSE you had combat-qualified instructors available during WWII. In
later years, combat was not as frequent, the force size had dropped, and
many aircraft had smaller crews. People age. Eventually, it is a
practical reality, in a more modern training environment, that there
wouldn't be combat experienced people that were of an appropriate rank
to be instructors, and also qualified in type.

Was it even possible there would have been a type-qualified S2F,
combat-experienced instructor? Yes, some were shot down on surveillance
missions, but they essentially were never in combat. As far as I know,
a P-3 never fired a live round at anyone, although they've certainly
located targets for shooters recently.

B-58. F-102. A5 Vigilante (non-recon). F-106. B-36. B-47. Combat
aircraft all, but I suspect none of them ever fired a round or dropped a
bomb in combat. Who would make the better instructor, someone that had
flown a different platform that did have a backlog of combat pilots, or
someone with much more experience in type?

Subject: Flight Instruction: Then and Now
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 3/7/04 3:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: hcb-145BCF.1833340703200

Who would make the better instructor, someone that had
flown a different platform that did have a backlog of combat pilots, or
someone with much more experience in type?


We never had to make that choice. Our instructors had exactly the experience
we needed, And in spades. But they were tough and made us toe the line. It
didn't take too much to get washed 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

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Flight Instruction: Then and Now
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 3/7/04 3:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: hcb-145BCF.1833340703200

Who would make the better instructor, someone that had
flown a different platform that did have a backlog of combat pilots, or
someone with much more experience in type?


We never had to make that choice. Our instructors had exactly the
experience
we needed, And in spades. But they were tough and made us toe the line.
It
didn't take too much to get washed out.


Fine. Those were the conditions in which you existed and served your
country. But you have certainly suggested, as far as I can tell, that
people that served in other periods, when the choice was necessary,
somehow were less than honorable by being instructors without combat
experience. If the choice was as I have described, you insult them.

Perhaps someone knows what the expected survival was of SAC crews flying
a SIOP Major Attack Option strike. They probably did...but many of them
never "flew combat" or were taught by someone with combat experience in
their particular aircraft -- because NOBODY had combat experience in
certain of those aircraft.

Subject: Flight Instruction: Then and Now
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 3/7/04 6:49 PM Pacific Standard Time

ine. Those were the conditions in which you existed and served your
country. But you have certainly suggested, as far as I can tell, that
people that served in other periods, when the choice was necessary,
somehow were less than honorable by being instructors without combat
experience. If the choice was as

have described, you insult them.


Absolutely not. I just suggested (or asked) if the students were getting less
by not getting a combat experienced instructor. We would have gotten less if
our instructors had no combat experience. What is your feeling for an
instructor? Combat experience or none?


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: Flight Instruction: Then and Now
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 3/7/04 6:49 PM Pacific Standard Time

ine. Those were the conditions in which you existed and served your
country. But you have certainly suggested, as far as I can tell, that
people that served in other periods, when the choice was necessary,
somehow were less than honorable by being instructors without combat
experience. If the choice was as

have described, you insult them.


Absolutely not. I just suggested (or asked) if the students were getting
less
by not getting a combat experienced instructor. We would have gotten less
if
our instructors had no combat experience. What is your feeling for an
instructor? Combat experience or none?


First, instructional skill. People with instructional skill can pass the
information out from a limited number of people with combat experience.
It's not unreasonable that some combat-pilots, especially from
single-seat aircraft, may have survived due to aggressiveness and superb
reflexes -- which aren't necessarily the best tools to teach.

Let's try some analogies. There are very good male obstetricians. AFAIK,
no Hall of Fame NFL coach was Hall of Fame player material.

Second, subject matter knowledge in a technological world that changed
much faster than WWII. I'd want my electronic warfare training to come
from someone who has kept up on as many threats as possible, including
those we haven't directly encountered in combat, but knows about their
characteristics as understood by the intelligence people, and has run
simulations against them.

Third, one has to consider today's training methodology. I'm most
familiar with Army experience, but the comment was made again and again
that the National Traininc Center OPFOR was tougher than anything the
Iraqis had.

One doesn't have to have now COL HR Masterman available to get the sense
of the Battle of 73 Easting. One can go through it seeing what he saw
through the same displays, in a very good simulator. The simulator
people can throw in random variations.

All other things being equal, it helps to have someone with direct
experience. But with smaller, shorter wars, and rapid technological
change, you cannot any longer assume that an instructor will be
available with relevant combat experience in the same aircraft.
Remember also that there's going to be demand for the same limited
number of people in the doctrine development centers and the battlespace
laboratories.

"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Absolutely not. I just suggested (or asked) if the students were getting
less
by not getting a combat experienced instructor. We would have gotten
less
if our instructors had no combat experience. What is your feeling for an
instructor? Combat experience or none?


First, instructional skill. People with instructional skill can pass the
information out from a limited number of people with combat experience.
It's not unreasonable that some combat-pilots, especially from
single-seat aircraft, may have survived due to aggressiveness and superb
reflexes -- which aren't necessarily the best tools to teach.

We have vets back from Iraq involved in training. Nothing against them,
just some of them haven't a clue about how to be an instructor.

[snip]
Second, subject matter knowledge in a technological world that changed
much faster than WWII. I'd want my electronic warfare training to come
from someone who has kept up on as many threats as possible, including
those we haven't directly encountered in combat, but knows about their
characteristics as understood by the intelligence people, and has run
simulations against them.

Wars run too fast today to bring combat vets back and have them get up
to speed training and turn out troops before their war is over. Sure there
are a lot of lessons learned that apply to the next war but they have to
be generalized so the military isn't "fighting the last war".

Third, one has to consider today's training methodology. I'm most
familiar with Army experience, but the comment was made again and again
that the National Traininc Center OPFOR was tougher than anything the
Iraqis had.

While not the NTC, just a small urban site, we got a nice message
back from an NCO in the field. Seems as they were loading back
aboard the Blackhawks he heard one of the squad comment "That
was easier than [the MOUT site]".

All other things being equal, it helps to have someone with direct
experience. But with smaller, shorter wars, and rapid technological
change, you cannot any longer assume that an instructor will be
available with relevant combat experience in the same aircraft.
Remember also that there's going to be demand for the same limited
number of people in the doctrine development centers and the battlespace
laboratories.

The truth is that the United States military doesn't train like it did
in WWII, the US does it much better today. From Red Flag down
to our little town, the US trains with much more realism. At some
of the larger, better funded MOUT facilities -such as Fort Polk- they
have even hired large numbers of Iraqi expatriates to "live" in their
urban terrain to make it as real as possible. It's approaching the point
that by the time people deploy they have the experience equivalent of
a WWII GI who had been in a combat unit for a while.

Could we do better?
Of course, not every unit gets to work up at Polk. There are only
so many days on the calendar to use any facility and money to
support training and the facilities. But heck, I'm *trying* to learn
enough Arabic to make the right noises.

"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message
...
missions, but they essentially were never in combat. As far as I know,
a P-3 never fired a live round at anyone, although they've certainly
located targets for shooters recently.

Well, not a torpedo or depth charge anyway.

But P-3s fired at least 14 Standoff Land Attack Missiles (SLAMs)
at Serb targets during Operation Allied Force. At least one old freighter
was destroyed with Maverick missiles around the same time & place.
I also recall that P-3s fired SLAMERs at Taliban & Al Qaeda targets
in the early phases of that campaign.

In article , "John Keeney"
wrote:

"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message
...
missions, but they essentially were never in combat. As far as I know,
a P-3 never fired a live round at anyone, although they've certainly
located targets for shooters recently.

Well, not a torpedo or depth charge anyway.

But P-3s fired at least 14 Standoff Land Attack Missiles (SLAMs)
at Serb targets during Operation Allied Force. At least one old freighter
was destroyed with Maverick missiles around the same time & place.
I also recall that P-3s fired SLAMERs at Taliban & Al Qaeda targets
in the early phases of that campaign.



Good to know. A relevant example to the training thread as well -- an
older instructor, perhaps much better on ASW and aircraft handling,
wouldn't have this firing experience.