Instructors: is no combat better?

"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

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

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.



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: "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.

"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

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

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 is not what was said at all. What was being said, was that for flight/nav
instruction, it isnt going to make a difference if you are taught by a combat
vet, because you are still learning the very basics

Now once you get to where you are learning weapons, tactics, that is a
different story.


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

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)

"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

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)