Instructors: is no combat better?

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

I think the position of most posters is that instructional skill is what
really matters.

If the instructor also has relevant combat experience so much the
better.

But being able to tell "war stories" has little relevance to
instructional ability.


Dave

Art,
If I had to do it all over again, I would prefer the leavening of experience in
the instructors that I had in the 60's.

Learning it all the ATC way or the SAC way or the MAC way or the TAC way was
not conducive to gaining general knowledge and learning "why" something needed
to be done.
The "how" came in crew training under the specific command that you were going
to after initial training.
It was nice to recall something that an instructor from another command had
given you as a"tip" when you were lost for 14 hours with nothing working and
about to bust an ADIZ or a miss an important item.
The Air Training Command system of the 60's (You WILL do it this way!) wasn't
always the best way, or easiest way or smartest way.
An old B-47 Nav/Bomb taught me things about the radar set that no C-124 flight
lunch inspector ever thought about trying. An old C-47 nav taught me how to
repair a sextant that probably saved my rear at least once over the pond.
A navy CPO nav taught me noon day fix proceedures that worked more than once.
The main thing I got out of Air Teaining Command was accuracy and pacing.
Experienced people from other places taught me how to improvement my
"judgement" and smooth out the rough edges.

Rick Clark
GRID still sucks!

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: (OXMORON1)
Date: 3/9/04 7:40 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Art,
If I had to do it all over again, I would prefer the leavening of experience
in
the instructors that I had in the 60's.

Learning it all the ATC way or the SAC way or the MAC way or the TAC way was
not conducive to gaining general knowledge and learning "why" something
needed
to be done.
The "how" came in crew training under the specific command that you were
going
to after initial training.
It was nice to recall something that an instructor from another command had
given you as a"tip" when you were lost for 14 hours with nothing working and
about to bust an ADIZ or a miss an important item.
The Air Training Command system of the 60's (You WILL do it this way!) wasn't
always the best way, or easiest way or smartest way.
An old B-47 Nav/Bomb taught me things about the radar set that no C-124
flight
lunch inspector ever thought about trying. An old C-47 nav taught me how to
repair a sextant that probably saved my rear at least once over the pond.
A navy CPO nav taught me noon day fix proceedures that worked more than once.
The main thing I got out of Air Teaining Command was accuracy and pacing.
Experienced people from other places taught me how to improvement my
"judgement" and smooth out the rough edges.

Rick Clark
GRID still sucks!


Of course you are correct. We learn from everyone wherever and whenever we can.
I remember one gunner telling me how to tell in advance whether an enemy
fighter coming in at you will pass over or under you. It makes a difference
because if he will pass over he belongs to our top turret gunner and if he will
pass under he is the waist gunners meat. Anyway, he said that if the fighter
starts his fighter approach and has dropped his inside wing and is swinging h s
nose toward you. then rolls over on his back and makes his attack firing
inverted, he will pass under you. But if he comes in straight, he will pass
over you. And you know, that guy was right. Bless those who have walked the
walk and lived to tell us about it before we found it out the hard way..


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

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...

Of course you are correct. We learn from everyone wherever and whenever we
can.
I remember one gunner telling me how to tell in advance whether an enemy
fighter coming in at you will pass over or under you. It makes a
difference
because if he will pass over he belongs to our top turret gunner and if he
will
pass under he is the waist gunners meat. Anyway, he said that if the
fighter
starts his fighter approach and has dropped his inside wing and is
swinging h s
nose toward you. then rolls over on his back and makes his attack firing
inverted, he will pass under you. But if he comes in straight, he will
pass
over you. And you know, that guy was right. Bless those who have walked
the
walk and lived to tell us about it before we found it out the hard way..


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 conjunction with your comment about the gunner's remarks to you; if
simple aerodynamics wasn't a part of every gunner's training during the war,
it most surely should have been. What this gunner was telling you might have
been from his training knowledge base or simply as the observed result of
his personal experience. The end result would be the same for recognizing
what the fighter was about to do, but the big difference would have been the
advantage to gunners having this knowledge up front going into combat as
opposed to finding it out through operational experience.
Every gunner out there should have had at least some basic knowledge of
positive and negative g as that knowledge relates to a firing pass by a
fighter. Those who didn't had to learn the hard way. Gunners being taught a
few simple facts about g and vectors would have saved many lives........ and
as this knowledge relates to a firing pass, could have been taught in just a
few minutes during training.
The simple truth of it is that if the fighter rolled inverted during the
pass, in order to pass over you he would have to bunt the airplane into
negative g, and the odds of this happening vs going the positive g route
under you would have all but been a sure bet that he would go positive under
you; hence the lead would become predictable based on the odds.
I should add that there were a few German fighter pilots who routinely would
go negative, but never offensively, only defensively.
Erich Hartmann was one of them, and he was not in the theatre.
I've always wanted to ask a gunner from the period if simple aerodynamics
was indeed taught in gunnery training to help with prediction lead solution,
but somehow I've always forgotten to ask
:-) If there are any gunners out there who can answer this, perhaps they
will post.
Dudley

In conjunction with your comment about the gunner's remarks to you; if
simple aerodynamics wasn't a part of every gunner's training during the war,
it most surely should have been. What this gunner was telling you might have
been from his training knowledge base or simply as the observed result of
his personal experience. The end result would be the same for recognizing
what the fighter was about to do, but the big difference would have been the
advantage to gunners having this knowledge up front going into combat as
opposed to finding it out through operational experience.
Every gunner out there should have had at least some basic knowledge of
positive and negative g as that knowledge relates to a firing pass by a
fighter. Those who didn't had to learn the hard way. Gunners being taught a
few simple facts about g and vectors would have saved many lives........ and
as this knowledge relates to a firing pass, could have been taught in just a
few minutes during training.
The simple truth of it is that if the fighter rolled inverted during the
pass, in order to pass over you he would have to bunt the airplane into
negative g, and the odds of this happening vs going the positive g route
under you would have all but been a sure bet that he would go positive under
you; hence the lead would become predictable based on the odds.
I should add that there were a few German fighter pilots who routinely would
go negative, but never offensively, only defensively.
Erich Hartmann was one of them, and he was not in the theatre.
I've always wanted to ask a gunner from the period if simple aerodynamics
was indeed taught in gunnery training to help with prediction lead solution,
but somehow I've always forgotten to ask
:-) If there are any gunners out there who can answer this, perhaps they
will post.
Dudley



I think the answer would be no. When I went through gunnery training on the
way to bomb school they didn't even teach us about that. And the first time I
heard it, it is was totally new to me. I had to really see it to believe it.
And when I saw it I thought, "why the hell is he coming in on his back? Crazy
Krauts"


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

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
In conjunction with your comment about the gunner's remarks to you; if
simple aerodynamics wasn't a part of every gunner's training during the
war,
it most surely should have been. What this gunner was telling you might
have
been from his training knowledge base or simply as the observed result of
his personal experience. The end result would be the same for recognizing
what the fighter was about to do, but the big difference would have been
the
advantage to gunners having this knowledge up front going into combat as
opposed to finding it out through operational experience.
Every gunner out there should have had at least some basic knowledge of
positive and negative g as that knowledge relates to a firing pass by a
fighter. Those who didn't had to learn the hard way. Gunners being taught
a
few simple facts about g and vectors would have saved many lives........
and
as this knowledge relates to a firing pass, could have been taught in
just a
few minutes during training.
The simple truth of it is that if the fighter rolled inverted during the
pass, in order to pass over you he would have to bunt the airplane into
negative g, and the odds of this happening vs going the positive g route
under you would have all but been a sure bet that he would go positive
under
you; hence the lead would become predictable based on the odds.
I should add that there were a few German fighter pilots who routinely
would
go negative, but never offensively, only defensively.
Erich Hartmann was one of them, and he was not in the theatre.
I've always wanted to ask a gunner from the period if simple aerodynamics
was indeed taught in gunnery training to help with prediction lead
solution,
but somehow I've always forgotten to ask
:-) If there are any gunners out there who can answer this, perhaps they
will post.
Dudley



I think the answer would be no. When I went through gunnery training on
the
way to bomb school they didn't even teach us about that. And the first
time I
heard it, it is was totally new to me. I had to really see it to believe
it.
And when I saw it I thought, "why the hell is he coming in on his back?
Crazy
Krauts"

Actually, going under is a practical air to air maneuver for a firing pass
on specific targets executed in the scenario given, although the point
through the run where the fighter rolled would be critical for him. Too
early and he would be faced with holding the aircraft in pitch on the target
while he fired entering his max/min range for his weapons. Firing through
the rotation in roll as he entered his range parameters for guns would have
produced a trajectory shift and gravity drop error you would have to see to
believe, for all but the most highly skilled pilots.
The pro of such a pass is the ability to maintain or even produce exit
energy on the back side of the firing envelope through the run, exiting down
and out maintaining maneuvering energy for a possible defensive maneuver if
the run was followed through by a hostile (to him) shooter. Also, this
energy could be expended in a transition to another high side run if
unopposed. The cons are an almost certain off center ball through the run
which would play hell with the projectile trajectories and an almost certain
predictability of the exit direction for a real sharp gunner. These tactics
I'm sure were almost certainly target aircraft specific , at least for the
more able of the German pilots. They would have been familiar with the ideal
angle offs and target aspects for the specific target type and made their
runs if possible to take advantage of that data.
Dudley

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
In conjunction with your comment about the gunner's remarks to you; if
simple aerodynamics wasn't a part of every gunner's training during the
war,
it most surely should have been. What this gunner was telling you might
have
been from his training knowledge base or simply as the observed result of
his personal experience. The end result would be the same for recognizing
what the fighter was about to do, but the big difference would have been
the
advantage to gunners having this knowledge up front going into combat as
opposed to finding it out through operational experience.
Every gunner out there should have had at least some basic knowledge of
positive and negative g as that knowledge relates to a firing pass by a
fighter. Those who didn't had to learn the hard way. Gunners being taught
a
few simple facts about g and vectors would have saved many lives........
and
as this knowledge relates to a firing pass, could have been taught in
just a
few minutes during training.
The simple truth of it is that if the fighter rolled inverted during the
pass, in order to pass over you he would have to bunt the airplane into
negative g, and the odds of this happening vs going the positive g route
under you would have all but been a sure bet that he would go positive
under
you; hence the lead would become predictable based on the odds.
I should add that there were a few German fighter pilots who routinely
would
go negative, but never offensively, only defensively.
Erich Hartmann was one of them, and he was not in the theatre.
I've always wanted to ask a gunner from the period if simple aerodynamics
was indeed taught in gunnery training to help with prediction lead
solution,
but somehow I've always forgotten to ask
:-) If there are any gunners out there who can answer this, perhaps they
will post.
Dudley



I think the answer would be no. When I went through gunnery training on
the
way to bomb school they didn't even teach us about that. And the first
time I
heard it, it is was totally new to me. I had to really see it to believe
it.
And when I saw it I thought, "why the hell is he coming in on his back?
Crazy
Krauts"


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


Art:

Did you guys use the Waller Gunnery Trainer? See:

http://www.cineramaadventure.com/trainer.htm

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/waller01.htm

Waller was an interesting guy. He invented water skies and Cinerama, among
other things.
Simpler WWII gunnery trainers were still be used in arcades in San Diego in
the early 1970s.

Joe




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

In article ,
(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.

Being in combat teaches you, as an individual, how to survive in combat.
It doesn't necessarily give you the skills or temperament to teach it to
others.

One of the differences between your experience and present training may
be the amount of technical detail that is constantly changing, and MUST
be understood well enough to teach it. Another factor is that most
combat aircraft are multirole. An F-15E driver may have done nothing but
attack, although lots of it and have been shot at thoroughly in the
process.

What special credentials does that give him to teach air combat
maneuvering, perhaps in contrast to someone who was a FAIP, was assigned
to a combat-ready unit in Korea, and then was assigned to Red Flag and
does NOTHING but practice air combat maneuvering and study doctrine from
EVERY known air force? Does that air-to-mud pilot know every trick of
getting performance out of the air-to-air radar, NCTR mechanisms, etc.?
Does the air-to-air specialist know every trick of lob-toss bombing?


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.

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?