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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
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 |