![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ... On 09 Mar 2004 14:46:26 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote: Since I started this thread on instructors who have have combat experience versus those who have not, 100% of the replies were in favor of instructors who have never been to combat. Many state that they would rather have an instructor who was skilled at instructing suggesting that once you have been to combat you were automatically a bad instructor. Hard to buy. That isn't what has been said. No one has suggested that having been to combat made you a bad instructor. Some points that have been made include: 1. Some course (such as UPT) are taught at a level that doesn't require operational experience, let alone combat. Take-offs and landings, basic formation, and instrument flying skills can be taught by almost any graduate. 2. While combat experience might be good at the operational training courses it isn't always available--long periods between wars have often left a shortage of combat experienced folks. 3. Combat survival does not equate with instructional skill. Some folks make good teachers and some make good warriors. Sometimes both skills exist in the same person, but not always. 4. A mix of some combat vets and some non-combat experienced instructors is more than adequate to inculcate the necessary combat skills. 5. Technology has advanced since WW II. I know that is hard to believe, but sixty years has resulted in some increased complexity in war-fighting beyond the Browning .50 and the Norden bombsight. In some training courses, the instructors are civilian contractors rather than operational military. There is another factor. when you have an instructor who has never fought and probably never will, and you know that you damn well will, he goes down a notch in respect because he is in a job that "protects": him from combat while you will soon be sent into the thick of it.. So when we all talk of combat experiences and one among us says " well I wasn't there, I was an instructor in the states" he is now out of the loop.. Not that his job wasn't critically important. It sure was. . At any rate things sure have changed since WW II. We considered a combat veteran as an instructor a gift from the gods. Your mileage may vary. Tactics are today. Doctrine is yesterday. Do the same thing more than twice in combat and you are stereotyped and predictable. Survival depends upon unpredictability and tactical creativity. Quite often training by combat experienced instructors from last year or last war might be counter-productive. The intangible of demonstrated courage lends credibility, but it doesn't equate with best training. My mileage has most definitely varied--and there's been a lot more of it. Ed Rasimus Bravo. Spot on point for point. JB |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote: Subject: Instructors: is no combat better? From: "Jim Baker" Date: 3/9/04 9:32 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "Ed Rasimus" wrote in message .. . On 09 Mar 2004 14:46:26 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote: Since I started this thread on instructors who have have combat experience versus those who have not, 100% of the replies were in favor of instructors who have never been to combat. Many state that they would rather have an instructor who was skilled at instructing suggesting that once you have been to combat you were automatically a bad instructor. Hard to buy. That isn't what has been said. No one has suggested that having been to combat made you a bad instructor. Some points that have been made include: 1. Some course (such as UPT) are taught at a level that doesn't require operational experience, let alone combat. Take-offs and landings, basic formation, and instrument flying skills can be taught by almost any graduate. 2. While combat experience might be good at the operational training courses it isn't always available--long periods between wars have often left a shortage of combat experienced folks. 3. Combat survival does not equate with instructional skill. Some folks make good teachers and some make good warriors. Sometimes both skills exist in the same person, but not always. 4. A mix of some combat vets and some non-combat experienced instructors is more than adequate to inculcate the necessary combat skills. 5. Technology has advanced since WW II. I know that is hard to believe, but sixty years has resulted in some increased complexity in war-fighting beyond the Browning .50 and the Norden bombsight. In some training courses, the instructors are civilian contractors rather than operational military. There is another factor. when you have an instructor who has never fought and probably never will, and you know that you damn well will, he goes down a notch in respect because he is in a job that "protects": him from combat while you will soon be sent into the thick of it.. So when we all talk of combat experiences and one among us says " well I wasn't there, I was an instructor in the states" he is now out of the loop.. Not that his job wasn't critically important. It sure was. . At any rate things sure have changed since WW II. We considered a combat veteran as an instructor a gift from the gods. Your mileage may vary. Tactics are today. Doctrine is yesterday. Do the same thing more than twice in combat and you are stereotyped and predictable. Survival depends upon unpredictability and tactical creativity. Quite often training by combat experienced instructors from last year or last war might be counter-productive. The intangible of demonstrated courage lends credibility, but it doesn't equate with best training. My mileage has most definitely varied--and there's been a lot more of it. Ed Rasimus Bravo. Spot on point for point. JB Except that not much of it applies to WW II. I don't disagree with you in that exception. Where I disagree is when you appear to make accusations of cowardice or shirking against people that were not in WWII, and thus operated in different, valid environments. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: Howard Berkowitz Date: 3/9/04 9:47 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: In article , (ArtKramr) wrote: Subject: Instructors: is no combat better? From: "Jim Baker" Date: 3/9/04 9:32 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "Ed Rasimus" wrote in message .. . On 09 Mar 2004 14:46:26 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote: Since I started this thread on instructors who have have combat experience versus those who have not, 100% of the replies were in favor of instructors who have never been to combat. Many state that they would rather have an instructor who was skilled at instructing suggesting that once you have been to combat you were automatically a bad instructor. Hard to buy. That isn't what has been said. No one has suggested that having been to combat made you a bad instructor. Some points that have been made include: 1. Some course (such as UPT) are taught at a level that doesn't require operational experience, let alone combat. Take-offs and landings, basic formation, and instrument flying skills can be taught by almost any graduate. 2. While combat experience might be good at the operational training courses it isn't always available--long periods between wars have often left a shortage of combat experienced folks. 3. Combat survival does not equate with instructional skill. Some folks make good teachers and some make good warriors. Sometimes both skills exist in the same person, but not always. 4. A mix of some combat vets and some non-combat experienced instructors is more than adequate to inculcate the necessary combat skills. 5. Technology has advanced since WW II. I know that is hard to believe, but sixty years has resulted in some increased complexity in war-fighting beyond the Browning .50 and the Norden bombsight. In some training courses, the instructors are civilian contractors rather than operational military. There is another factor. when you have an instructor who has never fought and probably never will, and you know that you damn well will, he goes down a notch in respect because he is in a job that "protects": him from combat while you will soon be sent into the thick of it.. So when we all talk of combat experiences and one among us says " well I wasn't there, I was an instructor in the states" he is now out of the loop.. Not that his job wasn't critically important. It sure was. . At any rate things sure have changed since WW II. We considered a combat veteran as an instructor a gift from the gods. Your mileage may vary. Tactics are today. Doctrine is yesterday. Do the same thing more than twice in combat and you are stereotyped and predictable. Survival depends upon unpredictability and tactical creativity. Quite often training by combat experienced instructors from last year or last war might be counter-productive. The intangible of demonstrated courage lends credibility, but it doesn't equate with best training. I don't disagree with you in that exception. Where I disagree is when you appear to make accusations of cowardice or shirking against people that were not in WWII, and thus operated in different, valid environments. What do you mean "appear" to make them. You mean I don't make them but only "appear" to make them? And who have I ever called a coward? Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "ArtKramr" wrote in message ... Subject: Instructors: is no combat better? From: Howard Berkowitz Date: 3/9/04 9:47 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: In article , (ArtKramr) wrote: Subject: Instructors: is no combat better? From: "Jim Baker" Date: 3/9/04 9:32 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "Ed Rasimus" wrote in message .. . On 09 Mar 2004 14:46:26 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote: Since I started this thread on instructors who have have combat experience versus those who have not, 100% of the replies were in favor of instructors who have never been to combat. Many state that they would rather have an instructor who was skilled at instructing suggesting that once you have been to combat you were automatically a bad instructor. Hard to buy. That isn't what has been said. No one has suggested that having been to combat made you a bad instructor. Some points that have been made include: 1. Some course (such as UPT) are taught at a level that doesn't require operational experience, let alone combat. Take-offs and landings, basic formation, and instrument flying skills can be taught by almost any graduate. 2. While combat experience might be good at the operational training courses it isn't always available--long periods between wars have often left a shortage of combat experienced folks. 3. Combat survival does not equate with instructional skill. Some folks make good teachers and some make good warriors. Sometimes both skills exist in the same person, but not always. 4. A mix of some combat vets and some non-combat experienced instructors is more than adequate to inculcate the necessary combat skills. 5. Technology has advanced since WW II. I know that is hard to believe, but sixty years has resulted in some increased complexity in war-fighting beyond the Browning .50 and the Norden bombsight. In some training courses, the instructors are civilian contractors rather than operational military. There is another factor. when you have an instructor who has never fought and probably never will, and you know that you damn well will, he goes down a notch in respect because he is in a job that "protects": him from combat while you will soon be sent into the thick of it.. So when we all talk of combat experiences and one among us says " well I wasn't there, I was an instructor in the states" he is now out of the loop.. Not that his job wasn't critically important. It sure was. . At any rate things sure have changed since WW II. We considered a combat veteran as an instructor a gift from the gods. Your mileage may vary. Tactics are today. Doctrine is yesterday. Do the same thing more than twice in combat and you are stereotyped and predictable. Survival depends upon unpredictability and tactical creativity. Quite often training by combat experienced instructors from last year or last war might be counter-productive. The intangible of demonstrated courage lends credibility, but it doesn't equate with best training. I don't disagree with you in that exception. Where I disagree is when you appear to make accusations of cowardice or shirking against people that were not in WWII, and thus operated in different, valid environments. What do you mean "appear" to make them. You mean I don't make them but only "appear" to make them? And who have I ever called a coward? Lots of us. Also the men who worked in the States to make sure you and the other serving troops had the tools they needed to conduct the fight. Anybody who did not/is not serving in either the airborne or USMC units. Folks like me (actually, including me specifically) who volunteered and performed our service when there was no draft forcing us to do so. You have a real short memory, don't you? Brooks Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote: Subject: Instructors: is no combat better? From: Howard Berkowitz Date: 3/9/04 9:47 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: I don't disagree with you in that exception. Where I disagree is when you appear to make accusations of cowardice or shirking against people that were not in WWII, and thus operated in different, valid environments. What do you mean "appear" to make them. You mean I don't make them but only "appear" to make them? And who have I ever called a coward? Believe me, I am no raving Bush supporter, but you seem to have suggested he avoided combat by qualifying in an aircraft with no mission in Viet Nam -- but with a mission in continental defense. You've criticized Rumsfeld for somehow not getting into combat. Again, he was qualified in a platform that could have been critical if the Cold War turned hot. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: Howard Berkowitz Date: 3/9/04 1:04 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: In article , (ArtKramr) wrote: Subject: Instructors: is no combat better? From: Howard Berkowitz Date: 3/9/04 9:47 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: I don't disagree with you in that exception. Where I disagree is when you appear to make accusations of cowardice or shirking against people that were not in WWII, and thus operated in different, valid environments. What do you mean "appear" to make them. You mean I don't make them but only "appear" to make them? And who have I ever called a coward? Believe me, I am no raving Bush supporter, but you seem to have suggested he avoided combat by qualifying in an aircraft with no mission in Viet Nam -- but with a mission in continental defense. You've criticized Rumsfeld for somehow not getting into combat. Again, he was qualified in a platform that could have been critical if the Cold War turned hot. I think if you re-read the post you will find out that I made no criticism of Rumsfeld. I was simply pointing out that he was an instructor with no combat experience Then I asked if that was usual these days. I said nothing negative about him at all. The subject was qualifications to instruct, not Rumsfeld per se. You can understand that being trained in WW II the idea of an instructor who had never been to combat was just a but strange, Very strange. Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote: Subject: Instructors: is no combat better? From: Howard Berkowitz Date: 3/9/04 1:04 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: In article , (ArtKramr) wrote: Subject: Instructors: is no combat better? From: Howard Berkowitz Date: 3/9/04 9:47 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: I don't disagree with you in that exception. Where I disagree is when you appear to make accusations of cowardice or shirking against people that were not in WWII, and thus operated in different, valid environments. What do you mean "appear" to make them. You mean I don't make them but only "appear" to make them? And who have I ever called a coward? Believe me, I am no raving Bush supporter, but you seem to have suggested he avoided combat by qualifying in an aircraft with no mission in Viet Nam -- but with a mission in continental defense. You've criticized Rumsfeld for somehow not getting into combat. Again, he was qualified in a platform that could have been critical if the Cold War turned hot. I think if you re-read the post you will find out that I made no criticism of Rumsfeld. I was simply pointing out that he was an instructor with no combat experience Then I asked if that was usual these days. I said nothing negative about him at all. The subject was qualifications to instruct, not Rumsfeld per se. You can understand that being trained in WW II the idea of an instructor who had never been to combat was just a but strange, Very strange. It makes sense in WWII. What doesn't make sense is that your posts often characterize people by WWII standards. Things change. As far as saying anything negative, I really don't want to go back into the archives, but I'm fairly certain you sounded at least dubious about how someone could rise to O-6 without combat, and suggested that he should have sought it out. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
And who have I ever called a coward?
To summerize: everyone who never participated in the European Theater from 1943-1945. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: (BUFDRVR) Date: 3/9/04 2:48 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: And who have I ever called a coward? To summerize: everyone who never participated in the European Theater from 1943-1945. You couldn't be more vague, non- commital and evasive even if your life depended on it. I hope you fly better than you attack.. Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Female combat pilot is one strong woman | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | January 22nd 04 02:19 AM |
Air Force combat search and rescue joins AFSOC team | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | September 30th 03 09:49 PM |
Combat Related Special Compensation update for Sept. 8-12 | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | September 17th 03 03:38 AM |
Team evaluates combat identification | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | August 18th 03 08:52 PM |