Instructors: is no combat better?

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 3/9/04 8:32 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Look at it another way. In the "grand old days", SAC had lots of pilots
and aircrew, many of which might have WWII or Korea or Viet Nam combat
experience. Let's say someone survived Linebacker and is now teaching.
How does that qualify them to teach a low-altitude nuclear delivery run
against the fUSSR?


How does anyone who hasn't done it teach it?



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

How does anyone who hasn't done it teach it?



Arthur Kramer

You train in a way that can best emulate the methods and threats. Thats why
SAC crews training in low level penetration and weapons delivery. Places like
Top Gun, and when the USAF had dedicated aggressor squadrons, conducted
training that would probably be harder than the actual opponents one would have
flown against.

SAC crews would have certainly had the training to have been competent at
nuclear weapons delivery, without having to have actually bombed the USSR
beforehand.


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

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 3/9/04 8:32 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Look at it another way. In the "grand old days", SAC had lots of pilots
and aircrew, many of which might have WWII or Korea or Viet Nam combat
experience. Let's say someone survived Linebacker and is now teaching.
How does that qualify them to teach a low-altitude nuclear delivery run
against the fUSSR?


How does anyone who hasn't done it teach it?

So no one who wasn't on Enola Gay or Bock's Car -- heck, I'll give you
the crews of the bomber-delivered nuclear test shots -- could possibly
be qualified to instruct in SAC?