Instructors: is no combat better?

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..


Uhh, that wasn't an attack...it was a slight exaggeration of my perception of
your attitude. You have called *many* people cowards on this group, both by
generalization and personally.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

(BUFDRVR) wrote:
Art Kramer wrote:

And who have I ever called a coward?

To summerize: everyone who never participated in the European Theater from
1943-1945.

Even those who flew missions in the ETO with him such as the
"replacement armament gunner" weren't immune from being labeled
a coward (see: "After 58 years, this still burns my ass" on his
website.)

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
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.

Geeze, YOU started the thread and it most definitely was NOT restricted to
the case of WWII training, and now you are whining that Ed's response had no
applicability? Get a grip.

Brooks




Arthur Kramer

Except that not much of it applies to WW II.



Arthur Kramer

And the corrollary of that, would be that not much of how war was fought in WW2
would apply to today either.


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

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: 362436 (Ron)
Date: 3/9/04 9:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Except that not much of it applies to WW II.



Arthur Kramer

And the corrollary of that, would be that not much of how war was fought in
WW2
would apply to today either.


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


Agreed. I am talking about what I know, those who fought later later are
talking about what they knolw. Those who never fought are talking about what?


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: 362436 (Ron)
Date: 3/9/04 9:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Except that not much of it applies to WW II.



Arthur Kramer

And the corrollary of that, would be that not much of how war was fought
in
WW2
would apply to today either.


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


Agreed. I am talking about what I know, those who fought later later
are
talking about what they knolw. Those who never fought are talking about
what?


Define "fought". Does that mean combat only? Does combat mean that you
are shooting, or have a post-strike recon pilot, an AWACS combat
controller in Desert Storm, a satellite watch officer in Colorado
Springs who gave real-time Scud warnings, a targeting specialist in the
US, etc. somehow don't know what they are talking about?

I literally don't know if Giulio Douhet or Alfred Thayer Mahan were ever
shot at or shot anyone other than, perhaps, a duck.

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 3/9/04 1:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: 362436 (Ron)
Date: 3/9/04 9:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Except that not much of it applies to WW II.



Arthur Kramer

And the corrollary of that, would be that not much of how war was fought
in
WW2
would apply to today either.


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


Agreed. I am talking about what I know, those who fought later later
are
talking about what they knolw. Those who never fought are talking about
what?


Define "fought". Does that mean combat only? Does combat mean that you
are shooting, or have a post-strike recon pilot, an AWACS combat
controller in Desert Storm, a satellite watch officer in Colorado
Springs who gave real-time Scud warnings, a targeting specialist in the
US, etc. somehow don't know what they are talking about?


I don't know about that fancy stuff. I just know that combat means you go
where the bad guys are and burn out their black hearts and leave their entire
nation a burning, smoldering ruin,.See the strike photographs on my website
for more specific information.,


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 1:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: 362436 (Ron)
Date: 3/9/04 9:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Except that not much of it applies to WW II.



Arthur Kramer

And the corrollary of that, would be that not much of how war was
fought
in
WW2
would apply to today either.


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


Agreed. I am talking about what I know, those who fought later later
are
talking about what they knolw. Those who never fought are talking
about
what?


Define "fought". Does that mean combat only? Does combat mean that you
are shooting, or have a post-strike recon pilot, an AWACS combat
controller in Desert Storm, a satellite watch officer in Colorado
Springs who gave real-time Scud warnings, a targeting specialist in the
US, etc. somehow don't know what they are talking about?


I don't know about that fancy stuff. I just know that combat means you
go
where the bad guys are and burn out their black hearts and leave their
entire
nation a burning, smoldering ruin,.See the strike photographs on my
website
for more specific information.,

Then a Minuteman squadron in South Dakota could leave the bad guys in a
state where a burning, smoldering ruin would be an upscale resort.
Perhaps even more significantly, a combination of missiles and standoff
weapons can leave the bad guys' headquarters a burning ruin -- but
mostly break windows in the apartment house next door.

I would suggest that there are some people today that have the right to
be very proud of that, whether they dropped the bombs or designed the
guidance systems.

Except that not much of it applies to WW II.

I've been biting my tongue for a long, long time now, but I feel that
this is perhaps the right time to finally post a reply to Art Kramer. My
grandfather was a pilot in the RCAF since the 1920's. He flew everything
from Camels to Spitfires to even co-piloting a BUFF (yup, it's in his log
book!). He was a good enough pilot to gain recognition from Billy Bishop
with regards to his flying (have a great photo of the two of them together).
He ended up being a wing commander before he retired, shortly after which he
had a fatal heart-attack. I never had the chance to meet him.
During W.W.II, he didn't see a lick of action because he was in such
demand as a flight instructor. You might think he was a coward for doing
so, but from his bush-piloting days, I am quite certain that he did not
suffer from a lack of courage (probably the opposite!). To get to the point
of this thread, training pilots (for W.W.II), one of our more treasured
family possessions are the *stacks* of letters he has from the RCAF and RAF
pilots that he trained, and their crediting their survival in the skies over
Europe to his training. My uncle was briefly in the RCAF and has verified
some of these stories personally (my grandfather never bragged or even spoke
much about his work). I can also tell you that he had the complete respect
of every single person who wrote him a letter, as well as numerous other
veterans who simply knew him as an excellent pilot and serviceman.
So while I can't give you much proof about whether combat instructors
are better than non-combat instructor, I can offer you proof that many
pilots thought at least one non-combat instructor was (to quote one letter)
"worth [his] weight in gold". Regards,

Tony Volk

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: "Tony Volk"
Date: 3/9/04 12:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Except that not much of it applies to WW II.

I've been biting my tongue for a long, long time now, but I feel that
this is perhaps the right time to finally post a reply to Art Kramer. My
grandfather was a pilot in the RCAF since the 1920's. He flew everything
from Camels to Spitfires to even co-piloting a BUFF (yup, it's in his log
book!). He was a good enough pilot to gain recognition from Billy Bishop
with regards to his flying (have a great photo of the two of them together).
He ended up being a wing commander before he retired, shortly after which he
had a fatal heart-attack. I never had the chance to meet him.
During W.W.II, he didn't see a lick of action because he was in such
demand as a flight instructor. You might think he was a coward for doing
so, but from his bush-piloting days, I am quite certain that he did not
suffer from a lack of courage (probably the opposite!). To get to the point
of this thread, training pilots (for W.W.II), one of our more treasured
family possessions are the *stacks* of letters he has from the RCAF and RAF
pilots that he trained, and their crediting their survival in the skies over
Europe to his training. My uncle was briefly in the RCAF and has verified
some of these stories personally (my grandfather never bragged or even spoke
much about his work). I can also tell you that he had the complete respect
of every single person who wrote him a letter, as well as numerous other
veterans who simply knew him as an excellent pilot and serviceman.
So while I can't give you much proof about whether combat instructors
are better than non-combat instructor, I can offer you proof that many
pilots thought at least one non-combat instructor was (to quote one letter)
"worth [his] weight in gold". Regards,

Tony Volk


Thank you for your interesting post. And thank you for telling your story
without flames, insults or sarcasm. I appreciate that.




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